Why Atheism instead of agnosticism of some sort

[Anomalocaris]

For everything there is always a possibility that what we think is very likely to be true is in fact not true. This recognition may appear to argue one should claim to be agnostic about everything. But this application of the term agnostic is worthless because it could not be used to distinguish one's view on a particular topic, like existence of god, from his views on literally everything else.

So to use the term agnostic more meaningfully, I think one should offer some specification on just how agonostic. For example, if I jump out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute, I may be technically agnostic to a non-zero degree about whether I will plummet to my death. There is a non-zero possibility that someone else will happen to be skydiving below me at the correct moment, and I would happen to crash into his open parachute canope right as he was about to land, and the his parachute canbopy cushioned me sufficiently as it collapsed under my weight to allow me to roll out onto the ground without a scratch. But I am not agnostic about my imminent demise to a significant degree. In fact so little agnostic am I that I will do absolutely nothing to guard against the possibility that I might be asked to do an interview for the National Inquirer about how I suvived jumping out of airplane without a parachute. One might say in this case, to say "I believe I will plummet to my death if I jump without a parachute" would be much more informative of my views of the outcome then the technically correct, but unhelpful "I am agnostic about whether I will survive jumping without a parachute".

The same applies when choosing whether to use "agnostic" or "atheistic" in describing whether there is a god. I am an atheist. This is not to say I think the possibility of the existence of god is zero. I am open to god's existence. But I assessed the evidence and estimated the possibility of god's existence to be so slight that it would be as silly for me to weight that possibility heavily; To weight it heavily would be as silly as if prior to jumping out of the airplane without a parachute, I spend a long time composing a script of what I would say during the National Inquirer interview.

So to say I am agnostic is technically true, but uninformative. To say I am atheist may in some sense not be entirely true, but it is far more informative of the degree of my agnosticism.

[Loki_999]

Sorry for the short post... on my mobile and just testing out Chuck's theory.... only 3000 feet left to fall... still no sign of a nearby parachutist.... will report back la

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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.

I believe there might be a creator,and have never claimed otherwise. I dis-believe, I do not un-believe.That's called agnostic atheism.

A skeptic, I demand evidence. Not a complex idea,yet it seems beyond most of the theists who insist on infesting this forum.

[Anomalocaris]

Sorry for the short post... on my mobile and just testing out Chuck's theory.... only 3000 feet left to fall... still no sign of a nearby parachutist.... will report back la

I'll put my ear to the ground, and as soon as I hear a slightly squishy thud, I will cancel your National Inquirer interview.

[solja247]

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.

Indeed. However, philosophically there had to be a cause, an uncause caused.

---

Unless the universe is infinite and eternal and it's uncaused then the philosophical argument for god falls from there

This goes agianst the second law of dynaimics. At one point in time the universe had complete order, now it is slowly going to disorder.

[Tiberius]

This goes agianst the second law of dynaimics. At one point in time the universe had complete order, now it is slowly going to disorder.

I'll assume you meant "second law of thermodynamics", but you are still wrong. It only goes against the law if it is assumed that the law has always been around. If the law came into existence at the point of the Big Bang, then whatever happened "before" (if there was a before) wasn't under its influence.

I watched a documentary recently on how a lot of physicists are now rejecting the idea that the Big Bang was the "start" of everything, and moving more towards whether there were events before the Big Bang. It went into the realm of multiverse theory, so it can all be taken with a pinch of salt, but it's very interesting nonetheless.

[Anomalocaris]

I might suggest Brian Greene's Fabric of The Cosmos, ISBN 0375412883, as a readable book by a prominent practicing physicist that cover the various cosmological models advanced by modern physics and how they fit into the broader framework of modern physics in general, including the second law of thermal dynamics. He specifically covered how the second law of thermal dynamics governed both the inflationary model of the universe with a starting point, and a string theory model of an universe that cycles infinitely.

One can take it for granted that physics is infinitely more rigorous than Sol's notion of philosophy.

[Ervin]

Tonight I have been watching on you tube Dan Dennet's Good reasons for believing in God and I must say that I truly believe that he is being very honest, litle bit biased but honest.

But then I think about night, day, the improbability of life raisning spontainesly and all that and I end up thinking there could be a Deist sort of God. Who knows?

I do believe that science is very important in helping us understand reality, however in my case I don't have a very good understaning of it. I am not very educated, so I don't know much.

However I haver enroled into university and will be doing philosophy. If I finish a uni I honestly can't say wether I wil be a Deist philosopher or something else. I mean there is pantheism, atheism and whatever.

Critical examination and aplication of reason is why I am not a theist. Reason and science are the best things we have wether trying to understand a deist God or No God theory and it is something that we need to encourage in everyone.

The only thing that I would change about some Atheists(atheists naturaly promote science and critical thinking) is their aproach, I mean some of you can be quite ruthles in your dealings with the believers.

One of The worst things about believing in a theist God is the belief in hell. I don't think that I have to elaborate on why, however I will mention that if you believe God will do that to someone just for disbelieving in him then who is going to stop you from doing something of a finite punishment.

Thanks

[Captain Scarlet]

I am not an agnostic as we know that is the only position that is wrong. Either there is a god of some sort or there isn't. I'm therefore an athiest who makes a knowledge claim that there is no god. I am happy to advance and back arguments for gods non-existence. All arguments fall short of proof in the same way the theists or deists arguments fall short. But I still beleive I am justified in advancing my position because I beleive of the weight of evidence is on my side.

[Tiberius]

I'm an agnostic because I understand what it actually means, and that it doesn't contradict the law of the excluded middle as Captain Scarlet seems to think it does.