Why Atheism instead of agnosticism of some sort

[Ervin]

I have come to believe that maybe there is a creator. I have come to disbelieve in revealed religion altogether. So right now I am a deist agnostic.

My question to the atheists is why atheism instead of agnosticism of some sort? Doesn't have to be general atheism were you believe in the possibility that the Bible or the Quran are true, it can be something like deist agnosticism or what ever you believe possible!

So wouldn't it be more corect to call your self agnostic than an atheist if you believe that there is any possibility that some sort of supernatural inteligent being has started everything, or that there might be something like karma?

Thanks

[Tiberius]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in god, and I don't make any claim to "know" this to be the case.

[solja247]

I have come to believe that maybe there is a creator. I have come to disbelieve in revealed religion altogether. So right now I am a deist agnostic.

It is the most rational approach.

[LastPoet]

It is the most rational approach.

---

---

@OP: I am an agnostic atheist: I'm 99.9% sure god doen't exist, and like Adrian said I don't claim to know that no gods exist. There is just no evidence for it, and as far as the mainstream religions concern, their god is even quite impossible.

[Loki_999]

I'm pretty much a die hard atheist. I simply can't see any need or use for a creator and not one jot of evidence for one. It may have been Dawkins who said something like, if you are a pure atheist you need as much faith as a pure theist. Maybe so, but its my position.

No God, gods, supernatural entities, or whatever.

I do not believe that what we can observe of the universe is all there is to it. There probably is a lot more out there than we suspect. The origin of the universe, what is really going on at quantum levels, what are the other dimensions (brane theory)... its all crazy stuff, i just don't see a divine presence.

[Ervin]

Also I find it interesting that a member of the forum such as this doesn't have religious views.

I would understand if someone never thought about it but someone who actively thinks about it in my opinion canot say that he/she has no religious view.

The only name I could give to some view as such would be undecided.

Thanks

[solja247]

@OP: I am an agnostic atheist: I'm 99.9% sure god doen't exist, and like Adrian said I don't claim to know that no gods exist. There is just no evidence for it, and as far as the mainstream religions concern, their god is even quite impossible.

Philosophically speaking, there had to be an uncaused cause. That cause is what people call 'God'. That, in my opinion, is a strong argument, not atheist has refuted.

[LastPoet]

Philosophically speaking, there had to be an uncaused cause. That cause is what people call 'God'. That, in my opinion, is a strong argument, not atheist has refuted.

Yeah, everything needs a cause except god, are you enumerating fallacies as you post? On this small phrase you conveyed two: a special pleading (everything needs a cause, that cause is god, but god didn't need a cause) and yet again an argument from ignorance (since you don't know the cause, therefore its god, avoiding other possible explanations).

@Ervin: Look at this this way, Theists make the claim that god exists, I refuse that, because theists have failed to meet the burden of proof. By the same logic you are using we are undecided regarding the tooth fairy. I don't believe there's a tooth fairy, but I can't prove with 100% sure it doesn't exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and 'god exists' is one such claim.

[solja247]

Yeah, everything needs a cause except god, are you enumerating fallacies as you post? On this small phrase you conveyed two: a special pleading (everything needs a cause, that cause is god, but god didn't need a cause) and yet again an argument from ignorance (since you don't know the cause, therefore its god, avoiding other possible explanations).

Whether you like it or not. PHILOSOPHICALLY, there had to be an uncaused cause, it would go like this, the universe had a cause, that cause had a cause, that cause had a cause x infinity. To make sense we have to say there was an uncaused cause.

[Loki_999]

Whether you like it or not. PHILOSOPHICALLY, there had to be an uncaused cause, it would go like this, the universe had a cause, that cause had a cause, that cause had a cause x infinity. To make sense we have to say there was an uncaused cause.

I think this is a case of middle world logic. This is not an attack against your comments by the way, its a problem we all suffer from. We expect things to behave and work in certain ways because we live in middle world. If you move to little world (ie: quantum level) then things start to act very strange. If you move to big world (ie: universe or beyond sized) then you probably also cannot apply middle world logic either.

Until we have a real idea how big world logic works then everything is pure speculation.

Maybe it is circular. The universe is because the universe is because the ..... etc. This was nicely done in one Issac Asimov story (i think) where the last living entity at the end of the universe starts a new universe with the phrase "let there be light".