Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

There is no logical contradiction in being an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

No. It merely means that the propositions "I don't know if there's a god" and "I blelieve there is no god" are logically consistent with one another.

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently. The question of the title was as good as any to achieve this. I suspect many atheists have negative emotions towards theists and they believe there is no god and defend that position as an expression of their negative emotions. Most agnostics don't because they aren't driven in that way. I may be wrong.

I wouldn’t say I was theist, atheist or agnostic as language and logic are limited and only produce limited results which is fine for day to day living.

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently.

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently.

igm wrote:

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.

It is nothing different than someone asking me if I think gremlins exist or the Easter bunny or if I think unicorns exist. God is in the same box as every mythological creature or being. Why? Because there is no supporting basis for their existence so they are mythological. The only energy I waste is in reminding god believers that they have absolutely no basis for their belief, but there is a reason why they need to be reminded of that. Beliefs effect behavior and often times that behavior is misguided and creates problems in society. So it needs to be corrected or the problems just keep ensuing.

igm wrote:

One thing atheists say

did you forget to put a 'some' in there, or do you think all atheists have the same viewpoint?

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently.

I may be wrong.

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently

The question of the title was as good as any to achieve this.

igm wrote:

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?

There are different types of atheists. There are agnostic-atheists but they tend to be called weak atheists. Their position is that there could potentially be gods that exist however; there is no evidence so far so they do not believe gods exist.

Then there are the strong atheists whom hold the position that there are no gods. They are not talking from a position of knowing there are no gods but instead they hold onto the probability that no gods exist. It is so unlikely that gods exist they hold a strong position that there are no gods.

Are they certain? No! But you can't be certain about anything 100%. There is nothing at all you can be 100% certain of. So talking about certainty is silly.

Why not just be an agnostic then?

igm wrote:

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently.

In that case, I'm trying to find out if you're still beating your wife.

In other words, I reject your premise that atheists are especially vehement about pushing their beliefs. How many atheists have knocked at your door to share the good news that god doesn't exist? How many atheists do you see standing on soap boxes preaching the end of the world? How many atheists do you see telling people that after the end of the world, they're going to a place that's worse than Stalin's Gulag, unless they repent and stop with this religion nonsense?

Looking around in the reality I live in, the truly aggressive sales pitches are coming from believers, not nonbelievers.

Quote:

I'm trying to find out why many atheists seem to defend their belief so vehemently

Krumple has given an answer to that in terms of the sociopathology of theism.
( as per Richard Harris)

Quote:

The question of the title was as good as any to achieve this.

Maybe not, because the "logicality" angle is inferior to the "rationality"angle, in social terms. And from this position it may be argued all "reality" is social reality.

igm wrote:

Why not just be an agnostic then?

Because agnosticism is about knowledge. The key word here is knowledge. But atheism isn't about knowledge, it is about belief. Let me try to break it down a little different for you.

Every theist has no knowledge of god, they have belief. They don't know that a god exists at all. But the word theist means belief in god. So in that sense everyone, without exception is agnostic! But it is silly then to use the term agnostic since everyone already is agnostic.

The problem is then addressed in belief. Which the term agnostic does not include. If you believe in god or gods, you are a theist, and if you do not believe in a god or gods then you are atheist. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

Bullshit...I could be considered in a very loose definition of God, say as a unified mathematical concept, a believer or at least an agnostic...but if the standard religious common definition is up in the table then I am definitely an atheist...

...more, in that sense if to take you on your word I suppose that you are an "agnostic" concerning the existence of Donald Duck or the Flying Spaghetti Monster...well are you ?