Do you agree with the statement that Atheism and Theism are equally absurd?

Question

I am neither an Atheist or a Theist. Here is why.

Just because you can't prove the existance of God(or Gods, or supreme beings, what have you), does not mean that he/they do not exist.

Just the same, the simple fact that you can't prove God doesn't exist, does not mean that he does.

There is no way we can currently determine whether or not there is a supreme being/beings, so whether or not you believe or disbelieve is completely based on faith, or a lack there-of. Believing in God simply because you can't prove he doesn't exist is just as absurd as NOT believing in God because you can't prove he exists.

This is why I believe both Atheism and Theism are equally absurd. Do you agree or disagree?

Answer 1

I'm only atheist when it comes to specific gods of religions. I think they have been thoroughly refuted to the point where it is unreasonable to believe they exist. As for some god that man doesn't know anything about, I would consider myself agnostic.

Answer 2

I've never thought of it that way.

I say that's an intelligent statement, but I'll have to pass.

This is why i think it's dumb that the Atheists and the Theists fight so much. There is NO WAY to "PROVE" that God (or Allah, etc), are living, or not.

I can't say that I disagree with you, because that is an intelligent statement, but I can not say that I think worshiping Christ is absurd. I just can't.

But i do agree that you make a marvelous point. Maybe the Atheists and the Theists will get along now.

Just curious, are you an Atheist or a Theist?? I'm just wondering, lol.

Answer 3

I have no belief in a deity. This is a form of Atheism. Agnosticism also fits this definition, so Agnosticism is a form of Atheism.
See, I don't see a reason to posit a deity. It adds nothing to my understanding, but in fact, confuses my understanding. If the supernatural is introduced as a possible cause of an event, then I see problems. Why do we need look for another reason for something? Any event could be supernatural, and we could never know, because we don't have a separate self in a separate universe to compare with.

Answer 4

I disagree.

I can use the teapot argument and say that there is one orbiting the sun at the moment. Because it's so small, it cannot be seen by our telescopes. But it's out there. I can't prove it.

So, by your argument, because I cannot prove it and it cannot be disproven, it is absurd to be into either teapotism or ateapotism. It's best to be agnostic to teapotism.

We can also make the argument for invisible green dragons and pink unicorns. Take your pick.

The claim of an existing deity is so great, with proof so little (nill to be exact), the only conclusion is that there isn't one. Your argument for agnosticism is just lazy.

Answer 5

I disagree. To not believe in something that is unprovable, unlikely and self contradictory is not absurd. I do not believe in God, nor do I believe that there are aliens on the other side of the moon.
However, it IS absurd to not allow for the possibility, and to change one's mind if proof presents itself. If God showed up at my house tonight and said "Mate. I'm real...deal with it." I'm a believer. And if Zaprax12 from Moonbase Alpha showed up and said "Hop aboard my groovy spaceship" I would also believe.

Answer 6

I don't think they are equally absurd. One of the two statements is closer to the reality of the universe than the other. Since each statement is the negation of the other, they cover all possibilities and hence one of them fits. This means one of them is not absurd.

The question is, which one? The difficulty of evidencing one or the other does not make both absurd, just difficult to evidence.

Answer 7

Worshiping, praying to and trying to communicate with a being you can't prove exists is absurd.

Answer 8

First, you assume the reasons you stated are the reasons some are theist or atheist. Second, how can you claim to be neither? There either is a God, or there isn't. There's no inbetween.

Answer 9

almost. I can see your point. but the difference is that generally we believe things when we have proof. so they may not be equally absurd, but they're close enough.

you do need faith in that god does or doesnt exist. however it takes more faith in one than in the other. but you do need faith in both.

Answer 10

Absolutely not. All one must do is say "I doubt it" and one has planted oneself on very sturdy philosophical ground. The stance of the skeptic is also happily the default stance in science and philosophy. I'm justified entirely in my lack of belief until someone demonstrates that I ought to abandon my skepticism.