Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

igm wrote:
I'm not. Nor am I an atheist. Nor am I a theist. Concepts only go so far but not far enough to really settle anything.

Well let me make this easier for you. Do you believe that gods or a god exists? It doesn't matter what you are claiming that god to be or consist of.

If you say yes, then you are a theist.

If you say no, then you are an atheist.

There is no in between. Agnosticism is not in between theist and atheist.

From what it seems, you are a deist. But deists are theists.

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
That was quite a vehement reply (in my opinion).

That was a matter-of-fact comparison of observable and reproducible behavior. I notice you're not saying that my comparison is mistaken. So if a sober and truthful comparison sounds vehement to you, perhaps you want to question your perceptions more.

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
That was quite a vehement reply (in my opinion).

That was a matter-of-fact comparison of observable and reproducible behavior. I notice you're not saying that my comparison is mistaken. So if a sober and truthful comparison sounds vehement to you, perhaps you want to question your perceptions more.

Firstly, I’d like to thanks everyone for their contributions to this topic.

My position now after examining the posts is that because on the balance of probabilities there is no creator god and the evidence points overwhelming to that conclusion to say that I am an atheist is the more reasonable position to take.

To say I’m an agnostic because it can never be proved there isn’t a creator god is not a good enough reason as the evidence points too strongly in favour of there not being a creator god.

To say I’m a theist because I can’t find any evidence that there is a creator god but I want to believe it anyway is untenable.

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics? The answer to me is that they are not, if it is possible to talk in terms of logic. I’d say on reflection it’s probably not. Rather it’s coming to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. I am now clearer about why I’d say I was an atheist due to your posts. Once again thank you for posts they helped to clarify what position I should take.

Well first of all, you could be an agnostic atheist which is what it sounds like to me. You are not certain that there is no god and maybe hold out for the possibility that there could be but so far are not convinced. There are many agnostic atheists and in fact I am one but I also lean heavily towards strong atheism and reserve the possibility that I could be wrong.

1 Reply

igm has stated his summary position, but I suggest that this so-called "debate" has no resolution because participants are unwilling to critically examine their usage of "exist", "know" and "self". The term "God" is merely a focus for the (Wittgensteinian) language game. The ball is not the game, nor is "logic" any more applicable to this game, than the football rules are applicable to tennis.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

igm has stated his summary position, but I suggest that this so-called "debate" has no resolution because participants are unwilling to critically examine their usage of "exist", "know" and "self". The term "God" is merely a focus for the (Wittgensteinian) language game. The ball is not the game.

Yeah a philosophers always ruin the game because they can't get past the definition of "game".

0 Replies

@Krumple,

I like your thought process about agnostic atheist because I think that it is this type of thinking that may help you to realize other things that you may be wrong about that you now hold to be correct!
So I see this as very logical compared to absolutist thinking!

Do not get me wrong because I think that atheist have it right but it may bite them in the ass on other issues of certainty!

0 Replies

Good thread, but I'm glad I was not aware of it until now. I've been wasting too much time on other things recently. BTW, I said many years ago on another thread that agnostics have the problem of implying that there is a fifty-fifty chance of there being a God. That's why I'm an atheist. At least I let others call me an atheist. But I'm not a believer in a No-God that I worship. I just find the notion of the Abrahamic God meaningless and so I turn away from it.

1 Reply

@igm,

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.

I honestly do not think that 'logical' is the right word to use here; perhaps 'sound' or 'reasonable'. So we would have to ask: "Is it reasonable to accept that God does not exist?" or "Are the arguments which support atheism sound?". One could very well say that the logic behind atheism is, well, logical, that is, a valid argument. But it is another thing to challenge the premises on the basis of whether they are true or false (perhaps undetermined).

The question of the existence of God ultimately comes down to inductive argumentation. Deductive arguments are particularly weak, aside from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I think you are also begging the question, as some other individuals have pointed out. Why is it the case that it is more 'logical' to say that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists? This I will leave to you good sir.

Edit: Well my post is worthless. Goddamnit!

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

My beliefs come to a rather nihlistic, atheistic conclusion. My hope, on the other hand, is another matter. I'm convinced there is sufficient room in my mind for all these ideas.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Ding an Sich wrote:

The question of the existence of God ultimately comes down to inductive argumentation. Deductive arguments are particularly weak, aside from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I personally feel that the Kalam cosmological argument is rather weak. All it really does is say that something had to be the cause behind the universe, but those who try to use the argument posit that that cause is a god. Not only are they disingenuous with that, they take it a step further and posit claims about the properties of that god which the kca can not do.

Not only that but I have personally disproved the kca using a less than common approach.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

(This) "debate" has no resolution because participants are unwilling to critically examine their usage of "exist", "know" and "self".

Can you say why no resolution is possible if the paricipants do not examine these three terms?

1 Reply

@igm,

It is quite vague to assert that we need to examine such and such concept without pointing nor to a direction as neither establishing on which account do these concepts need any further development...mind that I am not defending that is not the case that a point cannot be made but only that no good reason was offered in so far to make such claim...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I see plenty of annoying atheists who are going out of their way to proselytize. Here is the last one I ran into:

I find them embarrassing and annoying.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Although i would only modify Thomas' thesis to say that atheists are not as bad as the god squad, i agree with you that there are aggressive and therefore annoying atheists out there who push their agenda onto others. They don't embarrass me, though, becuase i'm not responsible for their nonsense. I believe it is accurate to say that i've always deplored the militant, pushy atheists, and have commented many times about them here.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

It is statistically speaking an unavoidable sad conclusion that the distribution of stupidity or intelligence when analysing big numbers does n´t particularly falls upon any group or social sector that we generally might think of independently on the degree of education or enlightenment being provided...

0 Replies

Atheists who form groups are going to be as other groups, making up rules and pushing agendas. I have yet to see an atheist only group with a positive demeanor. Which is at least partially why atheists cannot get any clout in society. Atheists who proselytize, like M. O'Hare used to do, are extremely unattractive. On the other hand, an atheist who speaks out in defense of his beliefs can be falsely accused of proselytizing, because his reasoning, spoken aloud is usually taken in offense by others listening.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I wish I could use the disassociation of responsibility to achieve the same distance from the embarrassment but it's kinda like an embarrassing family member to me in that knowing I'm not responsible doesn't rid myself of the cringe.

When people talk about militant atheists I know exactly what they mean, and I wish I didn't.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I see plenty of annoying atheists

So do I. But that doesn't mean that the problem is symmetrical. I bet you that if you ran statistics about preachers on soap boxes, missionaries going door to door to convert people, threats of hellfire, and so forth, you would find that the vast majority of such annoyances is committed by believers, not nonbelievers. Even after controlling for the number of adherents.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Many years ago (about 20 years ago), i met a woman working in a gas station beside a restaurant i moonlighted in. One day, a christian prosylitizer was in there, and the subject came up, and she eventually allowed as how she was an atheist, and i told her the same. A couple of weeks later, she brought me a manila envelope bulging with documents, and it was from the local militant atheist "leader," who appeared regularly on community access teevee battling the god squad. I found it all distasteful, and made no move to get in touch with the joker.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It is not necessarily the case that Atheists as a group are more prone to disbelief and scepticism in general then most of theist groups although it might seem the case...we simply as a species are not sufficiently differentiated amongst ourselves for that...rather I think it is mostly the case that theists have a specific kind of cultural belief systems that happen to be on the spot light at the moment for the worst reasons...after all the annoyance and invasiveness of personnel values on which they preach their beliefs does n´t differ much from a football team debate anywhere in the world...Religion it is not a special case.We are debating tribalism.

0 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know