Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

[theVOID]

Intellectually, there is not much difference between an Atheist and a Theist.

Nonsense, there is a substantial epistemic difference between the positions.

As a species we have only existed for a miniscule amount of time compared to the age of the universe(~14 Billion years according to Scientists). Of this time we have only been studying Science in a rigorous sense for ~ 300 years. It is no exageration to say that, although we have learned a lot in that time, we have much to learn in the future. In fact, it is not just that we do not know everything, but we do not even know how much we don't know.

Agreed.

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability, based upon current scientific knowledge. But probability is only based upon uncertainty and therefore, any claim that God does not exist must be, in the end, a belief (even if based upon the latest empirical and scientific evidence). From this perspective an Atheist and a Theist both share something in common - belief.

1. It depends on the god that is being claimed to exist, certain concepts of god are internally contradictory and necessarily false, others (most of them) are defined in such an incoherent way that it is meaningless to ask whether or not this incoherently defined concept exists or not - These gods can be dismissed. Before you are going to even consider giving such a concept a probability it must be defined sufficiently - Can you give us a definition of god?

2. Probability is not based on uncertainty, some of the answers simply cannot be stated with certainty, others can.

3. There is not just one classification of belief, some beliefs are epistemically rational, some are instrumentally rational, some are both and some are neither - I would content that given the evidence it is much more likely that a god does not exist, not only is the prior probability of an omniscient being existing extraordinarily low, but there is no evidence (that I know of) that indicates a deity exists in any way shape or form, as such atheism (not a belief but a lack thereof) is more likely than theism and thus would be the rational conclusion.

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic. It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

And there are so many problems in this last paragraph that it's hard to know where to start...

1. Who cares about knowledge? It's a poorly defined and unnecessary condition, we should be concerned with what proposition is most likely true given the evidence, that is not a question of knowledge but epistemic rationality.

2. You are misusing both the terms Agnostic and Atheist - Atheist comes from the Latin "A Theos" which means "Without (A) Belief In God (Theos)" - Anyone who does not believe in God, whether they claim knowledge (Gnosticism) or not (Agnosticism) is an Atheist. For example, I am without belief in God(s) but I do not claim to know there are no Gods - I am an "Agnostic Atheist", I claim that Naturalism is more likely given the evidence and it is therefore what we are rational in believing. You can also believe in God and be an Agnostic, that is, you believe in God but do not claim to know of the existence of God, you believe it for some reason or another that does not qualify as knowledge - Most deists for sure are agnostic, some theists are too.

3. No definitive statement can be made about the existence of some gods, that does not mean the two beliefs are equal, naturalism is much better supported by evidence and is much more likely true. I agree that gnosticism is irrational regarding the existence of god but not agnosticism, well not as far as agnostic atheism is concerned - Agnostic theism is irrational.