Atheists (asserting that there is no God), wouldn't it be more sensible if you identified as agnostics?

Question

Many people refer to atheists as 'non-believers', but of course atheists are strong believers in the sense that they completely denied the existence of any form of deity. Is there really any rational basis for asserting that there is no God when there is absolutely no way you could present empirical evidence to support such a claim? Maybe it would be more intellectually sound to just say that you have seen no evidence (partly because you feel you have had no personal experience with the supernatural....which is a shame, I shall pray for you), so therefore highly doubt that God or a number of Gods exist at all. So rather than arrogantly asserting that there isn't any possibility that God could exist, you could just say that you highly doubt it because these things are unknowable? Then you could edit your religious views (on facebook) from 'atheist' to 'agnostic'?

Answer 1

lol. Are you agnostic about leprechauns and unicorns and Zeus? Somehow I doubt it. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Answer 2

I consider my self to be a non-believer with a science background it is highly improbable that a super natural being exists. If something good happens, you thank god, I thank luck.



So when you say "So rather than arrogantly asserting that there isn't any possibility that God could exist..." I disagree because not all atheists think that. There just isn't any proof to me, thus I cannot be forced to believe that any sort of god or supernatural being exists.



Most things that happen can be explained by theory and if not then why say it was God's doing. Just because something happens that we can't explain why is it always God that did it?



In my opinion there is no evidence supporting that there is a God, and even if there was he wouldn't want us to be warshiping him he would want us to live our lives for the same reason he put us here.

Answer 3

There is a perfectly thought question in there, although I doubt that it is quite one you intended.



A lot of people describing themselves as atheist, when questioned further, admit that they simply do not believe in a God or Higher Being but also accept that there may be - in this case they would be far more accurate to describe themselves as agnostic. As this isn't the case, it has become quite difficult for someone who absolutely KNOWS for themselves as a fact that there is no such thing as a God/Higher/Supreme Being, and sees the beauty in science and nature as a simple scientific fact, knowing that all they are is a bundle of atoms with a series of electrical impulses, not created by anyone to be able to describe themselves as "atheist" as the term has become diluted..



To solve this, the term "Radical Atheist" has become common, Douglas Adams seems to have increased this popularity much more, making people think about what they really do believe or not... google the term for some very absolute answers to your question..



On the other part of your question, I am not sure anyone can really question someone who states that there is no such thing as a God when they are stating that there is such a thing as a God since neither side could ever prove to the other their statement, surely acceptance of each others views is far more beneficial?

Answer 4

Let's re-word your question, shall we?



Adragonists (asserting that there is no Dragon), wouldn't it be more sensible if you identified as agdragonics?

Many people refer to adragonists as 'non-believers' in dragons, but of course adragonists are strong believers in the sense that they completely denied the existence of any form of dragon. Is there really any rational basis for asserting that there is no Dragon when there is absolutely no way you could present empirical evidence to support such a claim? Maybe it would be more intellectually sound to just say that you have seen no evidence (partly because you feel you have had no personal experience with the mythological....which is a shame, I shall pray to Zeus for you), so therefore highly doubt that Dragon or a number of Dragons exist at all. So rather than arrogantly asserting that there isn't any possibility that Dragon could exist, you could just say that you highly doubt it because these things are unknowable? Then you could edit your religious views (on facebook) from 'adragonist' to 'agdragonist'?



Kinda silly, huh? I mean, everyone knows that dragons don't exist, right? Especially the 50-foot-tall fire-breathing ones told about in stories of old. Right? Naturally if a Godzilla went rampaging through New York tomorrow or Tiamat rained fire down upon Istanbul, we'd have to change our beliefs in the light of clear evidence of their existence. And yet...do you seriously think that there is ANY possibility of that happening? Really? Do you think it worthwhile that we construct elaborate temples to the worship of Tiamat, just in case he turns out to be real? Would it be productive to discuss the possible existence of Godzilla's nemesis Mothra, on the assumption that Godzilla is real? Really?



You see, there are quite literally an infinite number of things, imaginable and unimaginable, which potentially _could_ exist, except for the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support their existence, no reason to suspect that they exist, and in some cases it would be logically impossible for them to exist. Any god you can conceive of is no different, and no more worthy of consideration than 50-foot-tall fire-breathing dragons or, for that matter, 50-foot-tall fire-breathing leprechauns.



So until the day comes when someone can present clear, irrefutable, verifiable proof of the existence of a god or gods or Dragon or dragons, I see nothing wrong with living as if such entities do not exist. If such a day were to come then of course I would change my beliefs, but I see no reason or indication that any such evidence ever will be produced. Ever.



Have you read about Russell's Celestial Teapot? Bertrand Russell also answered your question, perhaps more elegantly than I, over half a century ago: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot



Oh, and there have been those who have made compelling arguments that there IS proof for the non-existence of at least some gods, such as the Abrahamic one: http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=sr_1_1

Answer 5

So here's the definition of a scientific fact:



"fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." -Gould



So sure, there could possibly be a god somewhere, just like the sun might just disappear tomorrow. but I'm going to live my life and speak about the sun as if it will be here for a few billion years. And I will speak of god(s) as if they are all myths until I see evidence otherwise.



By your logic every single christian everywhere is agnostic about Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Ameratsu, etc...

Answer 6

My short answer is: No. It is no more sensible for me to identify as an agnostic than it would be for you to do the same.



Long answer: Agnosticism is, strictly defined in the sense to which you're referring, being non-committal about the existence of god. I am not non-committal; I believe certainly that the rationale behind god's existence is flawed and incomplete. Therefore, I do not subscribe to belief in god's existence but rather am tethered quite comfortably to the notion that god does not exist. Furthermore, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to identify as an agnostic because, simply put, I do have a belief to which I am very much committed.



You are trying to assert that your belief in god is empirical, while my non-belief in god is not empirical, and that somehow agnosticism is the correct belief path to take in the absence of empiricism. Agnosticism does not just hold in the absence of empirical evidence, but in any situation where there is a middle ground or a fence on which to sit (and, anyway, some beliefs do not always require empirical evidence... yours certainly don't. Where is your empirical evidence for god's existence? Why does it always fall to the atheist to provide proof of their non-belief?) Based on your false alignment of agnosticism and non-empiricism, your statement above could easily be flipped to ask **believers** to identify as agnostics.



You're presenting two ideas that are logically at odds with each other and trying to make them fit. Believers have a strong belief that god exists; atheists have a strong disbelief in the existence of god. Agnostics are non-committal either way. You are not non-committal; I am not non-committal. Therefore neither one of us are agnostic about the existence of god. There is no way to make them merge and mean the same thing.

Answer 7

by your own argument we can deduce that it would be more sensible to identify every one as agnostic.



>> Is there really any rational basis for asserting that there is no God when there is absolutely no way you could present empirical evidence to support such a claim?





>> Is there really any rational basis for asserting that there is God when there is absolutely no way you could present empirical evidence to support such a claim?



-- once you have considered the validity of any such 'empirical evidence'

Answer 8

Agnosticism is a cop-out. If there's a possibility that God exists, then finding out more on the subject should be an important part of your life. However, most people who describe themselves as atheist, don't actually know what the word means and have never thought through the consequences of such a position.



Fundamentalist American Christianity asserts that there is a sentient God who communicates with us through a literal interpretation of an English translation of the Bible. Rejecting this notion is understandable although it isn't atheism.

Answer 9

there is more rational basis for asserting there is no god

than assertin there is

given that there is no evidence to support it

yet evidence, or lack of, does support no god, at this time, so no reason exists to beleive in one



that being said, your right, if we were all to be fair, logicdal and rational, we shoudl all be agnostic

every beleiver, every atheist, but, we are not



its just as arrogant to assert that there is a god, especialyl giventhat there is less reason, ie non e, to assert that, and yet still assume your right



we ar ean arrogant species

Answer 10

Are you an agnostic when it comes to the existence of unicorns? After all you cannot produce empirical evidence to show conclusively that unicorns do not exist. You just believe they do not exist.



Are you an agnostic when it comes to the existence of Zeus? After all you cannot produce empirical evidence to show conclusively that Zeus does not exist. You just believe he does not exist.



So, if you are agnostic about Zeus - you need to change your religious views (on facebook) from what ever it is now to 'agnostic'? Not to accept the possibility of the existence of Zeus is to arrogantly assert that there isn't any possibility that Zeus could exist, you could just say that you highly doubt it because these things are unknowable?

Answer 11

"...I relate greater with the agnostic and atheist perception." I comprehend what you meant, yet you will possibly desire to understand: there are not any ideals in atheism. this is a *lack* of perception in different individuals's claims that gods exist, no longer a sequence of ideals. "Are your families supportive?" some are, some are not. those that are actually not are regularly human beings i would not pick to spend time around besides, they're regularly judgmental and hypocritical idiots. So i actually do no longer care. "What suggestion might you supply...?" Be elementary, be your self, and don't supply in to kinfolk or peer rigidity to "conform." the human beings interior the international who've executed the terrific issues are people who did no longer care what society needed them to do to "pass alongside with the team," they're people who boldly went their very own way. good success.

Answer 12

I'm not so sure. Outspoken atheists usually point out that they do have rational basis to assert there is no God. I certainly agree with them when it comes to the existence of God in classical theism. Yes, you can never prove God's existence but I think when it comes to thinking rationally we can safely assume there is no God.

Answer 13

God doesn't exist. Existence consists of either matter or energy. If God is not composed of either matter or energy, then by definition, he does not exist. If God is made up of matter or energy, then it is subject to physical laws.... therefore, miracles would be impossible.



Agnostic - Refers to the knowledge of a God

Atheist/theist - Refers to the belief of a God.



If I change my status from atheist to agnostic, then I haven't really changed anything because all I did was switch from telling you I don't believe to I don't know.

Answer 14

Yes agnostic is the only logical outcome as nobody actually knows.

I met a blind man and he asked what the colour blue was like I told him it was like silk

Another blind man asked me the same question and I told him the colour blue was like the wind in his face.

The next day I found them fighting over what the colour blue was!

Answer 15

In the evidentialist's view the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts the existence of a thing. Until they do the evidentialist - in this case, the atheist - "wins" the debate by default.

Answer 16

Why would you call people "arrogant" for not believing in a deity when it is very arrogant to force your own opinions that there "is"on other people?

Religion in all its forms is probably the biggest cause of war and death on the world's population.

Answer 17

I feel sad for those who do not believe in God, it makes no difference what name they go by. Personally I think the world makes no sense at all if there is no God. I don't know why people go to such lengths to try to prove that God doesn't exist yet when they are in serious trouble most people will pray in case he does.

Answer 18

Why sit on the fence over a deeply held belief. Theists don't and neither do atheists.

Answer 19

absolutely...



no-one can be absolutely certain there is no God...



just as no-one can be absolutely certain David Cameron is a Philistine...

Answer 20

No, science makes perfect sense.

There is no way a god could exist.

It would be better to treat religious people as mentally ill.