Atheists: if God can't be falsified, shouldn't you be agnostic?

Question

Presuming you believe in the scientific method.

hmmm...a lot of you seem to think I am attempting to prove there is a God. That isn't my intent. Obviously the only way to prove God exists is for God to appear to you. I can't tell God to do that (although I pray that He will, as He has done to me).

What I am wondering when I ask this question is why do people call themselves "atheist" and argue it is a logical outcome of a belief in the scientific method. The argument being that God is not in the realm of science, since there is no way to falsify the existence of God. I want to know why such people would not call themselves agnostic. I want to test my suspicion that atheists operate on faith (or prejudice) rather than reason.

Answer 1

Please allowe me to put it this way: in matters pertaining to beliefs in the existence of supernatural powers, either we have a belief in their existence (presence of belief — the theist position), either there is no beliefs in their existence (absence of beliefs — the atheist position). There is no middle way.

If for epistemological reasons you believe that humanity can not know about the existence of supernatural beings, then you are indeed an agnostic. But then, by default, agnostics are adopting an atheist stance - beliefs in supernatural entities being unwarranted per their epistemological position.

It can be convenient to muddle the water by creating multiple "socially acceptable" labels (weak / strong atheism, (a)gnostic (a)theism, etc) but in the end, regarding beliefs, you either have (theists) or not (atheists) a belief in surnatural beings.

At that point of such a discussion, my "agnostic" friends and I are usually having a very interesting debate, accompanied by good wines or beers :)

> Atheists: if God can't be falsified, shouldn't you be agnostic?
.

Answer 2

I am agnostic.

Maybe the obvious lack of god is proof enough for some people. If there is a god he shows nothing but apathy and obviously does not intervene in our affairs. In the end god is unknowable so shouldn't we all be agnostic?

Edit: I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are going around in circles. First, faith is not needed in order to be atheist. The definition of faith is to believe something without proof. That alone states that there is no proof god exists therefore it cannot be "falsified." You are simply projecting your personal beliefs into the ideas of atheism. Maybe if you were to try and detach yourself from your beliefs and try to be objective you would be able to better understand the holes in your argument. Very thoughtful though.

Answer 3

Atheism is a perception, no longer a perception device. An atheist believes there is not any longer a god of any form, and something of their ideals are individualistic. And no there is not any longer "data" that a god does not exist considering the fact which you cant fairly practice a unfavourable (or technically speaking something for that rely) however the reality that there is not any data of a supposedly limitless effective being, afterlife, etc is assorted data in direction of atheism in itself. It has additionally been shown that the sensation non secular zealots have experienced of a "divine presence" with them is led to via area of their very own ideas and could be intentionally simulated. Google "god helmet." Agnosticism is an self sufficient perception that the fundamental nature of issues and how it began out is unknowable. Any perception device no longer requiring absolute reality interior the perception could have agnostic individuals.. you are able to say "i've got confidence [insert here], yet comprehend we finally can in no way comprehend for specific because of the fact [insert here]."

Answer 4

Technically you are corrrect. Skeptical atheists should probably reconsider and go agnostic.

My reasoning, however, is this -

I can't disprove Big Foot or Unicorns or UFO's or Blue Fairies. So technically I should be an agnostic about them. But that is rather difficult and draining. So instead I say that I am an atheist about Big Foot but I am more than willing to consider evidence and change my opinion accordingly.

In the case of god I have been considering the evidence for the last 40 or so years and have not yet seen anything to motivate me.

Answer 5

No. God should not be presumed to exist. There is no scientific question that calls for God as a significant alternative hypothesis.

Answer 6

If God can't be proven, shouldn't you?

I do not believe in deities. Atheism is not believing in deities. It's true that no one really knows, but that's why it's called 'belief.' By your logic, everyone must be agnostic.

Answer 7

I am atheist because I do not believe in a God. I am agnostic because I do not know whether a god exists or not. The two are compatible.

Answer 8

Give me at leat a modicum of evidence that god exists and I'll become agnostic!

An atheist

Answer 9

God isn't a scientific theory. It is a fairy tale. Are YOU agnostic about the existence of Mother Goose?

Answer 10

Sure. Technically, we're all agnostic, because none of us "know" anything.

But of course, you can "believe" in the scientific method and still admit that there are other modes of conceiving of the universe...lol. My atheism is a moral position, as against theism.