Why I'm Atheist and not Agnostic

Well environmental stresses abound all around. We are filling the world with electromagnetic frequencies that are many times stronger than the ambient fields and this creates profound static. A clamoring of voices competing to be heard.

 

also, someone or something may work fine for you, but clash with me.....it is an energy that sometimes just does not work with some people and some things...no one's fault...and no blame to be had...just acceptance.

 

by whom?

 

cell phone companies, radar instalations and the like

 

The phrenetic pace of our lives corresponds with our energy infrastructure.

 

So, you've made a choice regarding the nature of observed existence. Can't see how that changes much of anything. Anywhere. Perhaps excluding the content of your posts. You know very well that the answer/s are not available. But ,IMO, you are now a person of faith, inasmuch as you now have atheism in which to believe. Wanna' buy a duck?

 

Agnostic = A person who believes in God, but not religion (or everyone else's understanding of God and what he/she/it expects from us)
Athiest = A person who does not believe in God, or an creator/supreme being/whatever. Note religion(s) exist without the idea of a God

You are right, the possibility of God is hard to quantify. Larry King interviewed Judge Judy some years ago and I remember one of the best parts of the interview was Larry telling Judge, "Common sense to me is not the same as common sense to you, a criminal, or an average American". That might help you realize "the range of reasonable probability" is not common sense, but rather it is a very subjective topic what all in this universe makes sense, what is reasonable. Like take my definitions of Agnostic & Athiest above as an example. You guys seem to have a much deeper definition, stating things like "Agnosticism is the position that you cannot know". My definition/understanding of the terms, is slightly different.... So maybe God exists outside your range of reasonable probabilities

 

Your definition for agnostic is more of a definition for deism, perhaps agnostic theism as well.

 

This is a misconception. There is nothing in relaxxx's op which suggests he has faith in the same way as a believer, unless you want to suggest that having faith in empirical evidence requires the same degree as faith in Supernatural deities.

For instance, do you rely on the same amount of faith that when you wake up tomorrow you'll be sure rabbits won't be shooting laser beams from their mouths and suddenly have an insatiable desire to kill humans as you do in your belief (I'm assuming) in God?

 

Certitude is required to believe one way or the other, is it not? That is what I remark on. Empiricism does not require faith, just observation. And no, I don't and CAN'T believe that bible stories (or any other religious stories) are any other than man-made power attempts to control the behavior of fellow humans.

When one states a belief that one knows that there is a god or that there isn't a god---well now--I'd just say--simmer down and enjoy what you DO KNOW about life and don't worry so much about it, as after death--we will know --or not. Of course it's well within anyones' rights to proclaim whatever they feel is correct. Again--proclamation is only a distant cousin to empiricism.

 

"God does not exist within the range of reasonable probability" is not certitude, it's likelihood.


Ideally, I agree with your second paragraph but considering this topic influences many individual's understanding and outlook of life, it's not really practical to say wait until your dead in many instances.

 

i don't know what you mean by making more fantastical. i have to agree with the rest of it though. if reality has any limiter, it isn't us.

 

Fantastical meaning things that reside in the realm of fantasy, which don't necessarily have any basis in reality such as supernatural or non-physical things.

 

lol,
I believe there is no such thing as nothing, and I worship exactly nothing.

 

I think you are confused. you state there is no god which is the conception of nothing and believe there is no such thing as nothing which means you worship or are guarding an empty house.

 

What has worshipping to do anyway with stating why someone would identify rather with the label atheist than being an agnostic? There seems not much difference between them where it comes to this. An atheist merely considers the case closed/definite. This is the main if not only difference where it comes to these labels/affiliation with a term. Speaking in general. In reality an atheist or agnostic can technically still worship many things of course

 

This is actually not totally correct.

Let's really break this down because there can be no movement forward if we do not agree on the terms we use.

Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism: The view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.





Notice that having a lack of belief in the existence of any proposition does not then mean that the door has been closed for evidence for that proposition. In fact, that is more akin to agnosticism, wherein even compelling scientific evidence for the existence of God would be met with indifference on principle, for those who think that this knowledge is unknowable.

Agnosticism is actually a much harder position to hold, due to its dogmatic claim about the knowability of certain classes of propositions.

Atheism is literally just the lack of a belief in a personal, intervening deity. That's it.

There is a subclass of atheism called "Hard Atheism" or "Positive Atheism", which posits, dogmatically, that there are no gods. For sure. End of discussion. I feel this position should actually have its own name, in order to limit confusion; it is more akin to Anti-Theism.

 

I like to say that an Atheist is just an agnostic + a spine.

 

I was talking about the label/definition, in practice people will have all kinds of gradations and individual motivations and reasons for why and how they feel they're atheist or not. The conviction/belief that there isn't a God at all is more definite than the conviction that we are not sure. Not that your specifications are wrong But it would be nice if your view on religious people was as nuanced and detailed as your view on atheists, or when pointing out the differences between these labels

I actually find the claim that the agnostic positiion is harder to hold because of their 'dogmatic claim' a bit misleading and false. The same can be said about atheists. They are often obviously equally as dogmatic about their convictions. The reason that in a challenging debate the agnostic position might be harder to hold is because the lack of proof is favouring the atheistic position. In a philosophical and open convo/exchanging of thoughts and ideas this does not have to be the case at all. It's all on what kind of people one is focussing if to them agnostics seem more dogmatic than atheists or religious theists. Clearly either one can rival the other in this. To me, at first instance I find it even hard to take serious to hear it proclaimed that agnostics are dogmatic but I guess that may all depend on our personal experiences...

edit: spelling

 

But do you understand why they are dogmatic?

If someone says "I'm Agnostic. I believe that we will never know enough to take a stand on this issue. I believe that knowledge of these metaphysical propositions is forever outside the domain of human understanding", then they are holding a position, without evidence, on the nature of knowledge. That is to say, there is no evidence that we will never have knowledge of these issues, they are just choosing to believe this to be the case. Does this not strike you as oddly similar to faith?

And I clarified about the "strong atheist" position in my post, saying we should call that "anti-theism", and you should feel free to correct people in the real world who say they are atheist and explain that they "know" that there is definitely no god(s).

Atheism: Someone who is unconvinced as to the existence of god(s)