Why I'm Atheist and not Agnostic

I do not think that the possibility of God exists in the range of reasonable probability.

 

i don't think atheism excludes agnosticism. i do think agnosticism focusses too much on a small. i think it really depends on how one defines non-existence. in everyday life some say something doesn't exist when it hasn't been seen. others would argue you can't prove non-existence but assume it anyway.

but what i also feel is that atheism and agnosticism are somehow "accepting" of religious "ideas". it's as if these think that religious "ideas" can even be considered ideas. they are full of contradictions. these contradictions are really what i consider to be prove of non-existence (law of non-contradiction)

 

is that probability of Existence having a being within recent time or Not?

 

By saying that 'I do not think'; are you not admitting that you do not know?

At least as possible as say, us being born from aliens; or all of our lives just being a virtual reality test.

Your wording seems to imply that you know these things are unknowable, no matter how certain you are. Which, would make you agnostic.

 

So Agnosticism is the position that you can not know. This is not my position because I think there is a preponderance of evidence that God is a product of mans imagination, desires and superego.

I do not think in absolutes but degrees of probability. Much of our knowledge base exists in probabilities. There is a very high probability with reason and logic to think that God is imaginary. The idea that God is an actual being is so illogical and unlikely to me that it is far beyond any REASONABLE probability. I might not say 100%, but 99.99999% certainty. I feel this means I am not agnostic because probabilities beyond the range of reason are really pointless to consider. To give any credit to absurdity is just foolish. To say you can't "know" when one position is beyond reason is just foolish.

 

Relaxx, I can't relax my helpless self-consicousness because I already was laughing. But is laughter good for the soul for time passed or against time passing?

 

What are you talking about?
Why are you going on about time?

 

I like this answer.

I consider myself agnostic and atheist; and I consider them to be two shades of the same color. Neither one believes in a god.
I don't see the need for there to be two separate camps except for the believers to divide us into more or less wicked.

 

Agnosticism commits scandal for the shaking of being in the midst distortion, and atheism commits adultery to avoid responsible decisions of their personal goal in Life. So the mythological Gods are bothering you that a solution must be realized for the waste in wealth in the world. I like the god Hermes.

 

^Complete nonsense.

 

i agree. i think there is also some unfalsifiability here. if you take the concept of "knowing" from agnosticism, it seems reasonable that nothing can be known (not just god's existence). and then you have to ask yourself: if nothing can be "known" then what does "knowing" mean? it looks like it loses its meaning.

 

It's not nonsense; in the beginning was the word and then the symbols came which constructed the Word. Booo..oh!!

 

Before I realized he was off his meds, I thought he was leading up to an argument about infinite time and probability.

Just because space and time may be infinite, that does not mean something with 0.000001% probability will eventually occur. Or at least not what I mean. Only the things that are actually possible can actually occur. Admittedly, we don't know everything that can occur. That doesn't stop us from being able to rule out with great confidence, some things that outright contradict the things we do know.

 

you know, my first concern is not what someone else calls me, or what label would be most appropriate to call myself. there appears to be something far less then universal consensus as to the meanings of these terms.

god is a word we've invented. things we don't know have an almost infinite probability of existing. what anyone thinks they know about them, does not.

friendly invisible powerful things that give great hugs and wish us well, do not seem so unlikely to exist. to be all powerful or infallible, that is entirely a different matter.

 

I call myself agnostic rather than atheistic, as I cannot be against something which I do not feel exists, between the two, but I prefer just free thinker as a label, if I have to be labeled.

 

What is the probability that the laws of physics are exactly the way they are, when if any of the values were just a slight bit different the universe would be unsuitable to support life. I mean if you look at all the other numbers that could have been picked for the laws of nature, it would seem we must have gotten pretty lucky to have things the way they are. I guess it has to be this way tho, since if things were different we wouldn't be around to know about it. Is it beyond the range of reason to suggest that a universe capable of intelligent life is possible, and that we happened to end up in a suitable universe when the probability is 1 in billions?

 

String theorists would argue that there are other dimensions, and we do not see them, and this universe is just a creation of those other dimensions.

 

Agnostics are just atheists that have yet to grow some balls.

 

I am a girl and don't want balls, thanks.
Maybe you need to grow some class. LOL!

 

Reality is a statistical improbability that we just happen to be experiencing.The one thing we can't deny is that it's here,so lets get on with it...