For atheists, the absense of evidence is the evidence of absense.
The atheists I know are atheists because they have no proof.
However, no one has yet proven that any deity is true or false.
Proofs are indisputable evidence.
So, shouldn't there be more agnostics (the ones that wonder if there is such a thing as a supernatural force) than atheists?
2007-11-20 18:07:59 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Agnosticism is the most logical... what people REALLY want to know, is what is the CORRECT religion.
2007-11-20 18:10:58 · answer #1 · answered by Atomic New Theory 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Your understanding of atheism is a bit skewed (I am saying this gently). Atheism does not require proof, but demands that without ANY evidence, a position must be considered untenable.
Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim something as wild as resurrection, then be prepared to have a formerly dead person give a lecture and be examined by doctors.
Rigorous atheism does not demand that "absence of evidence equates with evidence of absence." Instead, the atheist challenges: IF you cannot produce evidence, then at least propose a TESTABLE hypothesis, such that evidence can be accumulated in favor or in opposition. Without that willingness, the atheist is right to show that all such claims (for deities, for example) are without any rational basis. You can believe something without evidence if you like, but that constitutes an irrational belief. And that is what religious faith is: irrational belief.
2007-11-21 02:15:54 · answer #2 · answered by kwxilvr 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Let's think about this for a second, I don't believe in Any Gods or Goddesses. Why? Because I know they are all creations of Ancient Cultures. I know they aren't real because we can see where they came from and what they represented. Does that mean there isn't something out there beyond our comprehension? It's possible but I don't think it is a god or a goddess as we have defined them on earth, Therefore I am an Atheist. I mean there is no evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist but common sense tells me it was made up.
2007-11-21 02:12:12 · answer #3 · answered by Pathofreason.com 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is arrogant on the part of an atheist to make such a claim. I think the difference is - at least from my standpoint, that I could not and would not except the g_d of the bible. If anything I would respect whatever created the big bang, that would at least be feasible. In that sense I would consider myself an agnostic - but in the biblical sense I would claim atheism with no doubt.
2007-11-21 02:16:15 · answer #4 · answered by Tricia R 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not just absence of evidence, it's probability. Sure, a deity could exist. It's about as likely as Russel's teapot. I don't live my life like there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter, even though there is a slight possibility that it could be real. I can't ever prove it's false, but acting like it was anything but would be a waste of time.
2007-11-21 02:16:32 · answer #5 · answered by Eiliat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not believing in a deity does not mean you believe they do not exist. I'm not denying the possibility.
You may see agnosticism logical, but for me it is no more logical than waiting for evidence to disprove unicorns.
Not trying to insult, just explaining why I'm atheist and not agnostic.
2007-11-21 02:13:23 · answer #6 · answered by khard 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.. Agnosticism is mistaken in this context. Agnosticism means that you firmly believe that "Whether or not God exists cannot ever be answered from subjective experience." It doesn't mean "I don't know." Atheism is the rational paradigm for a host of reasons I don't have the time to get into. Suffice it to say that we can prove the world can exist without God, but we can't prove the world can exist with God.
2007-11-21 02:12:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I guess you could say that, however some of us are just done wondering and believe for ourselves that there is nothing.
Are we interested? Sure, but we aren't spending any more time searching.
Agnostics are pretty much searching their whole lives without really coming to terms with it.
I would rather be at peace with myself knowing that I have tried rather than be at odds with myself trying to find that elusive element that some say must be out there somewhere.
Does that make sense?
*No offense intended to anyone in my answer
2007-11-21 02:13:54 · answer #8 · answered by Star 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are confused about the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
A+theism = without + belief in god(s)
A+ gnosticism = without + knowledge of god(s)
One does not need to believe in no god(s) to have no beliefs in god(s).
Ask any agonistic if they currently have any beliefs in any god(s). If the answer is no, then they are atheists.
Ask any atheist if they currently have any knowledge of any god(s). If the answer is no, they are also agnostics.
2007-11-21 02:15:22 · answer #9 · answered by CC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never thought of agnosticism as "logical", just open minded. And I don't "wonder" about the supernatural at all. I don't think we can reasonably say anything about it.
2007-11-21 02:20:30 · answer #10 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a enough evidence for me. Aside from scientific facts, what bothers me is all the rape, torture, child abuse and murder that is in the bible. Even if god were real I want no part of it.
2007-11-21 02:18:10 · answer #11 · answered by Verbal Ninja 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋