Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

I dare you to say that to my face.

How do you know I am talking b*llocks Izzy…….you don’t have an opinion…..you just have *tassels”

You are someone who can dish it out but can’t take it izzy…

Because you're too spineless to do anything about it. Too much of a coward, it's pathetic.

Why would I want to spend hours on end learning your pathetic binary language just so I can talk to the most boring man on the planet?

I mean why the **** would anyone want to do that?

You can't do anything, you can't submit you childish theory because you know it's a joke.

As for dishing it out, this is the whining of a baby too scared to say anything in person.

I have explained real philosophy to you izzy….nature allows for all belief systems.

The foundation of nature is -/-….-/+….+/-….+/+ electromechanical forces…..if you notice there are 4 off interaction combinations…..and NOT just 2…..-/+…+/-.

So why does modern day science and philosophy base all its theories on just the 2?……….we know it does…..it admits that it does……..

My philosophical and scientific theories are based upon all 4 off interactions and as I say is known science (electromagnetism) and not unknown science.

……..they don’t know what gravity is !!!!!! Ask them….don’t just take my word for it.

Basing all your philosophy and science on an unknown goes against all the principles that modern day science claims to stand by………That is so hypocritical.

Yeah, it kinda does.

Almost as if someone created things this way.

You see in a universe proposed by atheists, we do not have the freedom to question if God exists, because nothing exists.

I respect your views bulma but I do not understand why you think nothing exists.

Getting back to my original post:

Definitions (for the purposes of this post these are the definitions and are widely agreed upon academically):

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or gods.

Logical: have better reasoning of better arguments than someone holding a different set of beliefs. In this case, the belief holders are Atheists and Agnostics.

Question:
Is it more logical for a person to assert that Atheists who have disbelief or lack belief in the existence of God or gods are less logical than Agnostics who believe that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or gods?

Discuss...

Nice to see you back.

I think it depends on your own view of logic, you can either say no proof of a divinity would mean atheists are more logical unless you give credence to Pascal's wager in which case it would make agnostics more logical.

As long as people aren't preaching hate they can believe whatever they want.

In my opinion, your definition of agnostic, while many may buy into it, is faulty. I know many agnostics...and most do not express their agnosticism in a way that comports with that definition.

I try not to use a descriptor, but my take on the issue of gods is mostly interpreted as an agnostic one. Here it is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

As you see, there is no mention of any thing I supposedly "believe."

I believe that's the case.

Belief or non Belief in a God is not the issue igm and never has been.

Belief is irrelevant because you can believe that God exists and yet still reject that God.

Thanks izzy, I like to check in and sometimes post.

Pascal's wager is the assumption that it’s logical to sacrifice real, tangible, verified benefits (I think we can all think of some positive benefits in having an absence of a belief that God or gods exist) based on the never to be verified possibility of benefit or harm after death. Is that really more logical? I think agnostics would need to come up with a better argument.

Although, I believe the wager was put forward by the 'theologian' Pascal, nevertheless I can see the point you are making.

Okay, what is the issue as you see it?

Do you see no reason that God or gods could not have created the Universe and that is equal to all other current possible explanations of how the universe was created?

Please understand that there is a difference between "the Universe" and "what we humans call 'the universe.'"

My guess is that what we humans call "the universe" was created in an event that scientists currently refer to as "the big bang." They may be wrong...and that thesis may have lots of revisions in future years. Whether it needs lots of revision...or if they have hit the nail on the head, however, we still do not know if what we humans call "the universe" (whether caused by the Big Bang or not) is all that exists. This thing we humans call "the universe" may be nothing but a single atom in a much, much larger existence.

For the purposes of my discussion so far, I have defined what I mean by a GOD:

When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.

You understand that I am discussing my position within that context, right?

Taking what you've said in your last reply to be this case, do you have a direct reply to my question based on what you've previously said?

Do you see no reason that God or gods could not have created the Universe (as you define it "what we humans call 'the physical universe'") and that is equal to all other current possible explanations of how the universe was created? If not then you should have (to quote you) a 'reason to suspect that gods cannot exist'. The word 'suspect' is important as you assert that you have no reason to 'suspect that gods cannot exist...'

Well if it doesn’t come down to belief then as you say what else can it come down to?

If it comes down to anything then I believe it has to come down to either hope or rules or both.

If there is a God then there is the possibility that good is good and bad is bad as well as the possibility that good is bad and bad is good.

If there is a difference between good and bad then rules must be in place.

The output possibly combinations are therefore established because non of us can provide definitive proof about good and bad one way or the other.

What else can we do to solve the good and bad issue?….not a lot it would appear.

Nature is intriguing though because there are + and - magnetic charges at play in its make up and they are definitely not the same because if these charges were the same then the 4 off possible -/+ charge interactions would be the same and they are not.2 off combination attract and 2 off combinations repel.

My personal opinion is that the answers lie in a common united principle across all the sciences.The issue with that is that secular science is adamant that good is bad and bad is good and pursues this principle with it’s scientific reasonings.It cannot bring itself to accept the possibility that good is good and bad is bad and that there may be a difference between good and bad even though this is a possibility and even though nature adopts a principle of a definite difference between 2 off of its fundamental forces.

In my opinion secular science needs to chill a bit because my personal view is that science and philosophy is not interested in belief systems one way or the other and adopts all 4 off possible interaction combinations.

My personal opinion is that it also comes down to HOPE in something one way or the other and that this has always been the case simply because neither side of the debate can provide definitive proof about good and bad one way or the other.