Is it better to be Agnostic or Atheist?

Question

Remember this is just a question designed to promote a debate and is dedicated to my newest yahoo friend

Answer 1

You're trying to create a system of valuation for something as personal as a person's subjective view of God?
Neither is better, but they both have their own merits. Atheists have a clear stance. It is easier to unite under a banner of Atheists in order to affect a political change. (Separation of Church and State, getting the Bible out of schools and government, etc.) Agnosticism is more probably correct. The odds of ever being able to prove God exists are remote. Slim to none, really. They're also probably more correct in assuming "What exactly does God's existence have to do with us?"
Neither is better. One is more correct for correcting present problems, and one is more correct logically (though not absolutely.) Besides. You'll never pit an Atheist against an Agnostic in a debate against God. We agree on too many things.

Answer 2

I'm both, apparently, and neither.

It depends on what definition you accept.

I don't know the answer to abiogensis/creation questions. I have seen no evidence for deities or *a* deity.

I don't know whether the universe we see is one of a billion billion others, or if it comes from another time and place that has different principles of time and physics, or things we cannot even understand.

I do not believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. (hence not agnostic)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

I am not someone who denies the existence of god (hence not atheist)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

But those are just 'free dictionary' definitions.

Couldn't one 'deny the existence of God' but believe in the existence of a pantheon of goddesses? That would still fit the Free Dictionary defintion of 'atheist'.

So you see, it all depends on whose definition you accept.

I simply possess no belief in gods/deities/unicorns/fairies/santa etc

So what am I to be called? And how would I know if I was better to be agnostic or atheist with these complex definitions?

I just think it's better to be *honest*. Labels are a chore.

Answer 3

Not sure what you're talking about with the Yahoo friend...

...but I think it's a sign of higher intelligence to be agnostic. Atheism is a rigid interpretation just like theism. To reject the descriptive and concrete notions of God is fine, but to reject the possibility of any god is closed-minded.

Even self-proclaimed atheists, who believe they are very smart, don't understand what agnosticism is. It is NOT a simple confusion or indecision about God. It's the stance that God cannot be known or described with confidence. Such a thing is mysterious and beyond our perceptive abilities.

Answer 4

I'm an agnostic and, different from what many people think, I'm not not over the wall and i'm not going to become an atheist in the future.
i really think there is no way we can know about what will happen after our death.
anyway, its better for me, It could not be better for someone else...
peace!

Answer 5

I think agnostics and atheists are on equal footing. I have great respect for the point-of-view of agnostics.

Answer 6

It's better to be true to whatever you believe.

If you are an atheist, be an atheist. If you're agnostic, be agnostic. If you're Christian, be Christian. Etc Etc Etc

Answer 7

It's not /better/ to be either. Just like it's not better to be Christian or Jewish than Athiest. It's a matter of personal preference and which is right for you.

Answer 8

An Agnostic just can't make up their mind.

Answer 9

Beliefs are irrelevant to the truth. The truth beats all.

Answer 10

Whichever works for you personally.