Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

igm wrote:

One thing atheists say is that it’s not logical to believe in God. Since it’s more logical to say that it’s impossible to know whether there is a God or not should atheists be agnostics (logically speaking)?

It’s more logical to be an agnostic because it takes into account that it’s impossible to know for certain that there isn’t a God and that is the definition of what it is to be an agnostic when it comes to believing in God? Does that make atheists less logical than agnostics?

Also I don't think it's more logical to say 'I'm 99% atheist and 1% agnostic than saying 'I'm an agnostic.

The problem here is your definitions. Atheism is about belief, NOT knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge. They are completely two different things. In fact you can be an agnostic-atheist because they mean two different things.

I go about the problem in a different way. I am pretty sure there are no flying pink elephants existing anywhere except in my imagination. I am also pretty certain that no gods exist. Not Zeus, not any gods. I find it funny how people want to pick and choose which gods exist. Christians will claim their god exists but deny the existence of other gods. How is it they are so certain?

I am as certain that no gods exist as I am certain that no flying pink elephants exist. Could I be wrong? Sure but it is still a safer bet from my point of view.

Hey, i've done this more than once. Are your reading skills impaired? Is this some tactic of your elementay school debate team, to take no notice of the evidence others provide, and then deny that they have any? I've quoted your post in which you defined atheist. I've provided external, reliable sources which contradict you. Go back and read them, and stop this nonsense about my having no evidence.

Setanta wrote:

Listen, clown, ...you are being so thick, so willfully blind.

but you haven't provided a scrap of evidence for that claim.

In my post #4671861, i provided several external definitions from reliable souces which contradict your definition of atheist.

...i'm just going to chalk you up as an idiot, and ignore you from that point forward.

Yes, that's definitely one way of looking at it. As I said the topic was in the form of a question not my position. But I don't believe that one should defend the non-existence or existence of something if logically it can never be determined.

... You have babbled about normal philosophical definitions, but you've provided no evidence that that is true.

Your entire behavior in this thread is an insult to the intelligence of a child, never mind a grown man.

You're wrong about atheists. For some atheists, it is a belief. For many others, it is simply the refusal of a belief. You're as bad as igm.

Do you have a question? Thanks for your definitions.

igm wrote:

Yes, that's definitely one way of looking at it. As I said the topic was in the form of a question not my position. But I don't believe that one should defend the non-existence or existence of something if logically it can never be determined.

But it can be determined using probability. The likelihood that gods exist is equal to the likelihood that flying pink elephants exist. Since we can not find any evidence or basis for flying pink elephants we can safely assume that none actually exist. Perhaps one day there might be evidence for a flying pink elephant but until then it is more than okay to say that they don't exist. It does not effect anything to say that they don't exist. The same is true for gods. Since there is no supporting evidence then it is safe to say that they don't exist. Until there is evidence to provide a basis for them then it is okay to say they don't exist.

Quote:

Do you have a question? Thanks for your definitions.

I am illustrating your confusion of "logicality" with "rationality". You appear to be besotted by a demand for "evidence" but that also indicates your confusion, since what constitutes evidence is entirely dependent on the rationality being adopted. Thus for the theist "evidence for God" is all around them, yet for the atheist it is entirely absent.

OK, that settles it. You're an idiot, and not worth my time. You're wrong, i demonstrated it, and i have nothing further to do here.

Oh I forgot that YOU personally get to decide what the definition of atheism is. Yes atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Refusal? So what if they refuse to believe? That implies that there is knowledge on the part of the atheist that something DOES exist yet they don't want to accept it. That is NOT the case. You can keep trying Setanta calling people wrong but the only person who is wrong about their definition of atheism is YOU.

Regarding "wasting energy" we debated that in 2003.
http://able2know.org/topic/12905-1

One thing atheists say is that it’s not logical to believe in God.

igm wrote:

One thing atheists say is that it’s not logical to believe in God.

I guess there may be atheists who say that. But not all of them do; saying it is not required for qualifing as an atheist. Therefore I see how your premise tells us anything about atheists in general.

The likelihood that gods exist is equal to the likelihood that flying pink elephants exist.