I really just don't understand this. I'm not religious at all and I don't believe in any organized religion. However, I don't see the appeal of atheism either. I get the whole point that you don't believe because there is a huge lack of evidence to support such a claim. But why not just acknowledge both sides? You might think that not taking a firm position is weak. But, if you can't prove or disprove something, then why is it absolutely necessary to take a stance? In my opinion, it seems much healthier for a person to take an objective view of this situation. I don't believe that there is a God, yet I hope there is one. There's a huge difference. Belief suggests that nothing can sway your opinion. On the other hand, for me, I hold out hope that there is at least some superior plane of reality but I'm satisfied with my life if I'm wrong. You might say that hope is not strong enough, that you cannot "reap the rewards" unless you put full belief in God. But this is the rules established by organized religion. For atheism, how does it benefit your lifestyle? You could say that it allows a person to live their life fully but the same can be said for being agonistic. After all, would it be so terrible if a god did exist? Why do you adamantly reject any notion of existence after death?
Agnostic: Doesn't claim to know whether or not god exists. Gnostic: Claims to know whether or not god exists. Atheist: Doesn't believe a god exists. Theist: Believes a god exists. I'm agnostic atheist. As is the vast majority of atheists.
Exactly. I'm an agnostic atheist too. You can't claim to know everything. I only know that I know nothing. People shouldn't be so arrogant.
People can hold beliefs either way or they can hold beliefs neither way, but either way, you have yours and I have mine.
Maybe it's the school I go to but the vast majority of atheists I know shut down any idea that questions whether or not a god could exist. They're Gnostic Atheists...
Meh...I have a feeling that if you asked them if they could verify with absolute certainty that god doesn't exist they would say no. It's just that their beliefs are rooted in empirical evidence, and since there is no evidence to suggest a god exists they basically dismiss the notion altogether. Not to say that they claim to know god doesn't exist, just that it's not reasonable to think that a god exists in any sense of the word. But I could be wrong. Maybe they really are gnostic atheist.
I'm an atheist. I'm also an agnostic. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is an answer to the question, "Do you believe in god(s)?" Agnosticism deals with certainty, which is something that is related to, but separate from belief. Now, I find the label of 'agnostic' to be unsatisfactory. Why? Let's suppose that there's a fella who is a very firm believer in some god, but acknowledges that he can't prove that god exists, which means that he can't claim to know that god exists. By definition, he is agnostic. Compare that to me, who is also an agnostic. If you asked both of us whether or not we think god exists, you'd get two very different answers. Thus, the term agnostic doesn't make a good descriptive, thus the terms atheist and theist are more preferable. Just because the other side exists doesn't necessarily mean that their position has any basis in reality. Obviously, I cold be wrong and there is a god, but I see no evidence that the existence of a god(s) is even a possibility. Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. For everything else, there's evidence. Proof and evidence are different things. You are an atheist and you hoping that there is a god doesn't make you any less of an atheist, and there's nothing wrong with hoping that a god exists. I don't, but to each their own. I don't think belief suggests that nothing can sway one's opinion. Maybe for a faith-based belief, but not all beliefs in general. In terms of the definition of atheism, how much you hope there for to be a god is irrelevant, regardless of whether or not you believe that a god exists. It benefits my lifestyle because I'm able to be honest with myself and with others about what I do and don't believe. Honestly, I don't really give a crap about how atheism benefits my life. What I care about is being able to accurately categorize the positions that I hold. To answer whether or not it would be so terrible if a god did exist, well, that depends on what type of god we are talking about. If we are talking about a god that's a brutal tyrant, then yes, it would be that terrible if there was one of those, but if there were a deistic god, it wouldn't be so bad. However, I see no evidence to suggest that either of those exist. I don't think you should assume that atheists necessarily don't believe in an afterlife. The utter lack of evidence for an afterlife, as well as some evidence suggesting that there isn't one is why most atheists, including me, don't believe in an afterlife, but belief in an afterlife is compatible with the definition of atheism.
What would we call a person who is truly on the fence? One that either lacks the knowledge of the subject to even formulate an opinion, or one that just feels that the possibility of a god existing is just as likely as a god not existing?
To say that someone who is on the fence lacks the knowledge of the subject to even formulate an opinion is just flat out wrong. There's plenty of philosophical texts that use logical reasoning to prove the existence of a superior plane of reality and god. On the other hand, there's texts that state a god cannot exist. So, why can't someone simply take the points of both sides? Do you see it as too absurd that someone wants to take in every bit of information before making a firm decision? Are you trying to attack me?
I'm athiest. My friends 'agnostic'. We both don't believe in any religion or God. What's the difference? A nicer word so people don't judge?
Whoa there. I wasn't saying that someone who is on the fence lacks knowledge of the subject, and I wasn't even thinking about you when I was writing this. Sorry if you thought so. I wrote it with the thought of someone who goes about life without ever even entertaining the idea of a god. This is the kind of person I meant when speaking of someone who lacks knowledge of the subject. Kind of like how I know absolutely nothing about football, so how could I even formulate an opinion as to which teams are good? And with regards to my second question, well it's kind of obvious how they're on the fence. Kind of like how one may believe two teams are equally as good and therefore they can't say that one is any better than the other. So my question was, what do we call these people if they're not really theist or atheist?
why not be athiest? why care? if god does exist, do you think it wants us to bow to it? seriously! if god exists, it wants you to just chill and enjoy the gift it gave you
Oh and I know there's people out there who don't really ever entertain the idea of god yet have a belief as to whether one exists or not. I'm not talking about them either. I'm talking about the one's who are like ..."eh...I haven't really thought about it...like I don't even know what to think man..."
Okay, I totally misinterpreted that post then. I thought you were implying that I had no knowledge on the subject. Sorry bout that.