Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

This shouldn't even be a question of logic. It is simply a conclusion drawn by examination of the evidence.
The evidence we have available is, simply put, the Universe.
The atheist views the evidence and concludes there is insufficient indication of creation.
The theist views the evidence and concludes, creation.

Religious beliefs are extraneous to philosophical examination of god belief.

It is not at all illogical to draw conclusions based on interpretation of the evidence.
The agnostic simply chooses not to draw a conclusion, that's no great feat of logic.

It's teapots, not elephants, and they're in orbit, not flying.

Thank you, I knew someone was going to bring it up. I didn't think it would be me.

Some would say it was illogical to believe in something that can't be proved or disproved.

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

Quote:

Some would say it was illogical to believe in something that can't be proved or disproved.

I already pointed out that belief is philosophically extraneous to whether or not the original conclusion is logical.
The theistic belief system is based upon the conclusion that the universe is a creation.
If you are saying it's illogical to conclude the universe as a creation, I'd like to know why.

Hey, asshole, you really are as bad as igm. I provided several definitions of atheist from reliable external sources. This is not MY definition of atheist, it is a consensus defintion by a great many people, most of whom i suspect are a lot brighter than you are. You have willfully ignored the evidence i provided just as igm did. Is that some kind of entrée to the so-called philosophers club? That you ignore the evidence provided by your interlocutor in order to continue to argue your unsubstantiated point?

Once again, the definition of atheist is not just mine--and i've provided the evidence of that. Try reading the post in which i provided it, and then try something new and different--intellectual honesty.

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

We really didn't need this witless discussion to be resurrected.
I don't give a rat's ass about the question of whether or not there is a god, therefore i am without god.
No, one is not obliged to refute theism in order to be an atheist,
I lead off with a definition of atheist, and you rejected it
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
A person who lacks belief in a god or gods
A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ...
atheists and theists both can be agnostics, to the extent that they claim to be able or unable to demonstrate the proposition of the existence of god.
You're wrong, i demonstrated it, and i have nothing further to do here.

Ok thanks! So are you saying not all atheist believe there definitely isn't a God?

If they do believe there isn't a God are you saying that some do that for illogical reasons?

I agree with Setanta: The term "atheism" means "without god". People can be without god for all kinds of reason. One of them is that the existence of any gods is too low too improbable to bother with---just as the existence of flying pigs, or of unicorns, or of Russell's teapot is too improbable to bother with. That doesn't mean the estimated probability has to be zero.

If they do believe there isn't a God are you saying that some do that for illogical reasons?

I have no positive evidence that they do. But there are millions of atheists out there. At least some of them are likely to be dumb and illogical. In this sense, I think it quite likely that some atheists came to disbelieve in gods through illogical thinking.

Logic is a means by which we arrive at a conclusion. We wouldn't get anywhere if we did not draw conclusions from logic.
Electrical theory is still a theory after all.

Atheists are not any more illogical than agnostics.
As in the case of pure logic, we simply conclude that you can always add one more, and get on with our business.

The atheist concludes that a creator is not necessary to the existence of the universe, and gets on with the business of life.
There is nothing, whatsoever, illogical about that.

Was it about whether it was more logical to hold the atheist view though?

“No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.”

But does that reflect the real state of affairs better than the agnostic position.

But why waist energy holding on to an opinion that can't be proved or disproved? Isn't it a waist of precious time and energy? Why not just say it's unknowable and move on? The defence of it on sites like this seems to me to be difficult to understand.

Krumple wrote:

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

It's teapots, not elephants, and they're in orbit, not flying.

One thing atheists say

Ok thanks! So are you saying not all atheist believe there definitely isn't a God? If they do believe there isn't a God are you saying that some do that for illogical reasons?