Is atheism more logically valid than agnosticism?

Question

Atheism makes sense from typical logic. However the link between to the conscious, which is essential for most models of the afterlife, and the body is fuzzy scientifically.

Is it really appropriate to use the logic of day-to-day life for the afterlife?
Atheists believe that science, which is based only on waking life, is a sufficient rule-set to answer such questions as life after death. Is this just for convenience or a valid way to approach such questions?

Answer 1

It isn't just convenient AND valid, It's the only way we have in which to evaluate our surroundings. As to being logically valid neither belief is more or less valid as neither can be proven beyond a doubt.

Answer 2

Athiests tend to use religious ideas in their movies and stick to them and so invalidate both Agnosticism and Athiesim.Movies involving Hell as an Undemocratic place and election did not extend into The Afterlife. Suppose God were in place with an election is only assumed God was in place without an election. It is also assumed elections do not take place among Souls, Angels, and in Hell in The After Life. Suppose they did and suppose The Civil Rights of people were extended into The Afterlife.In life torture is illegal and wrong. If it is here while alive why when say people should be tortured when dea this may seem illogiaca but this is mentioned in The Bible Souls Burning in Hell and bein Tortured Souls Of Damned speaking of.With Good and Evil same thing . Should it be assumed either is such. In wars on Earth War Crimes occur so there should be the same protection in Heavenly wars which Earth has. On Earth armies are neither Good Nor Evil. So another perspective on The Devil and God could be introduced. Not to exclude the previous. If these protection are written in they could augment legal Earth ones.

Answer 3

No, agnosticism is more logical because it admits that not all things can be explained and therefor there may be an unexplainable cause. Even if an agnostic believes all things are explainable.. they choose to leave the option in that that doesn't mean there CAN'T be a driving force behind it.. rather they admit they just don't know.

Atheism doesn't allow for that possibility and as such cuts out a series of possible explanations.


Edit: to explain a little better... Agnosticism includes all possibilities.. including Atheism.. whereas Atheism only allows for Atheism. To me, that means that Agnosticism has at least one right answer.. whereas Atheism is not guaranteed to have a right answer.. but if it does.. it is the same answer that was included in with Agnosticism.

Answer 4

I have to admit, I called myself an agnostic until I read Richard Dawkin's definition of an atheist about a year ago. Up until then I'd entertained some of the same misconceptions about atheism that many people here do.

I don't have Dawkin's book with me at the moment or I would use his words (superior to mine by far). The best way I can think to explain it is to compare belief in a deity to belief in fairies: How many people would claim to be agnostic about the existence of fairies? That is, how many people would claim that there is as good a possibility of fairies existing as not existing? Hopefully, not many. We don't claim to be UFO agnostics or "Elvis lives!" agnostics, so why is it any different when referring to deities?

An atheist doesn't claim that there absolutely is no god, since atheism does not deal in certainties. But since there's a big difference between *possible* and *probable,* an atheist makes certain distinctions that an agnostic does not. An atheist is willing to say that the likelihood of a god existing is far less than the likelihood of a god not existing, based on the complete lack of evidence of one existing.

So, while an atheist is technically agnostic, in practice she is atheist -- willing to change her mind if necessary, but not really expecting to need to. It's the most rational thing to do. (Put another way: I may be technically agnostic about Hindu, Greek and Roman gods because reason requires that I must be, but that does not mean that I tentatively behave as if all of them exist.)

We approach the question of the existence of an afterlife the same way we would approach everything else in our world: by asking what evidence there is for it. If the answer is the same big zilch, then we have our tentative, but practical answer: all signs point to no. It's the best we can do, given what we know at the moment.

Answer 5

Huh? Religion and logic?

*cannot compute*