Unless you know all there is to know, shouldn't you call yourself AGNOSTIC if you don't believe in God?

Question

No, I don't have proof that there is an invisible pink uniform. I don't claim that. So how can you claim that there is no God without proof?

Answer 1

If you only believe things that you can prove, you have a REALLY small set of beliefs.

I am an atheist. That means that I do not believe that there are any gods. Should I say "I don't know that there is no God"? Only if I also say "I don't know if the sun shines in the sky, I don't know if trees are green, I don't know whether or not the wind blows, and I don't know whether or not there's a polka dotted chimpanzee dancing on my head".

In my book, that's silly. There's no god.
I don't have to know everything to make a statement like that.
--------------------
Mystine writes (below):

"That's the problem with many atheists.
Like many religious people, they do think they know all there is to know."

Bull. Show me one atheist who claims that he or she knows all there is to know.

You just made that up.

Answer 2

I consider myself an agnostic only because I'm open to the possibility -- however remote -- that there may be some kind of creatve force out there in the universe that we have so far failed to comprehend.

On the other hand, I most certainly *don't* believe in an anthropomorphic god as presented in the Bible. By that definition, I'm an atheist, regardless of whether that god really does exist.

How can I claim there is no god? Well, first, the evidence suggests that there isn't. And second, I'm not the one making the claim. It's up to the believer to provide the proof. Just consider your own question again ... if I tell you that invisible purple fairies exist, it's not your job to disprove it; it's MY job to PROVE it. Because it's impossible for you to disprove something that isn't there in the first place.

Answer 3

Yo amigo...like what everyone is tellin' ya...the definition of Atheism is not believing in any deity, and for your definition, that would make you Agnostic as well, since YOU don't know everything either, no? I guess I can be considered an Agnostic Atheist because I always put an "I don't know if there is a god" when I talk about it...but it could just be that I am paraphrasing for my own needs, what Socrates said in "The Apology" "I am smart enough to realize I know nothing" (Once again a paraphrase) So, if you wanna think us Atheists are really Agnostics because we don't know everything, which we don't, then by default you should also consider YOURSELF Agnostic, no? Anyway I hope I helped. ^_^

Answer 4

Most atheists refer to themselves as atheists because 1. few religious people comprehend the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism (poor terms anyway, I prefer gnostic and agnostic), and 2. Most are atheistic in reference to particular gods, which by their self-contradictory nature, can be logically demonstrated as impossible.

For example, a god cannot be omniscient and claim free will exists. If this god does not know what choice you will make, it is not omniscient, and if it does, you are not really making a choice. Thus anyone who claims both qualities for their god is obviously referring to a nonexistent being, no agnosticism involved.

Answer 5

Thats just stupid. Plain stupid.

Just because some idiots a few thousand years ago said, without any proof at all, that there is a god, it doesn't mean that we should accept it as a possibility.

There is no such thing as the supernatural.

Why would we accept the possibility of something supernatural even though there is not a single shred of evidence to indicate that it exists in the first place.

Answer 6

On that basis you would make no progress at all with any aspect of human intellectual endeavour. We make progress because we accept things to be true, and where there is not certainty we do this on a balance of probability.

The balance depends on the field of endeavour. So in biology - a very variable science - anything above 15% likelihood is usually considered significant. In physics - a very exact science - it is not uncommon for probabilities to be 1 in 10 followed by 33 zeros (1 in 10^34).

With the existence of god you should really settle on where your understandng places the balance of probabilities. I am a physicist. I can see no possibilitiy for the existence of god except within the uncertainties of fundamental laws. That means I would place the chance that he exists at about 1 in 10^34 or less. Thats not even worth bothering about.

You can glimpse the unreality of god by the viciousness of those who spring to his defence promising you death and damnation if you do not agree with them. The truth does not need threats to bolster it.

Answer 7

If you don't believe in any gods then you're an atheist, by definition. If you also believe that it's wrong to assert the truth of a proposition without logically satisfactory evidence, then you're also agnostic - i.e. an agnostic atheist.

We've never seen anyone turn a tennis ball inside out without cutting it, but then we haven't been every place in the universe at every moment in the history of the universe, so how do we know that it's never happened?

Logic, that's how. We don't *have* to look everywhere, because we *know* that it's impossible.

Similarly for a god - We don't *have* to look for gods everywhere in the universe in order to prove they don't exist. We just need logic.

Answer 8

Atheists don't make the claim that god(s) exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

It's a semantic argument, and more or less means that you are a 'soft' Athiest.

Answer 9

I would...but to be honest I feel that the term agnostic is a term that was coined after atheism in order to disassociate from that already reviled title. I feel that both are functionally synonymous, but that atheism was first, and better expresses their sentiments, than agnositcism, which is really just a half-hearted attempt at moderation.

Answer 10

I own that uniform. I was born in it.

How can you claim there IS a god? Shouldn't you be agnostic too since it can't be shown true?