Why Atheism instead of agnosticism of some sort

[LastPoet]

It may be so loki, but from there to assume goddidit and try to portray what that god's will is, its a really giant leap.

[Ace Otana]

My question to the atheists is why atheism instead of agnosticism of some sort?

Because I don't believe in god, this automaticly classes me as an atheist. Also I'm not claiming that there is a god or not and state that I do not and cannot know whether there be a god, so this also makes me agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not, and I lack belief in it. I need evidence.
I'm an agnostic atheist.
Simple.

I'd just like to note that I have a very strong lack of belief. As I'm 99.99999+ sure that there is no god. Due to lack of credibility, evidence, logic and reasoning. I consider the whole god thing to be extremely idiotic and so I require extraordinary evidence to support such an incredible idea. God is on the same credibility level as any fictional character that can be thought up. Which is why I reject it so quickly and strongly.

[Paul the Human]

I'm an agnostic atheist, even though I say that I believe there are no god(s) in existence and never have been. I am 99.999% convinced that there is no such thing as a god, but I can't honestly say that I know for certain. That's pretty much the definition of agnostic atheist. I personally find the agnostic part to go without saying, and so I simply identify myself as an atheist.

Others have mentioned the complete and utter lack of evidence to support the claims of god(s) existence (philosophical "evidence" doesn't count, as it is simply mental gymnastics in action), but beyond the lack of evidence... there is the complete and utter lack of reasons to believe. I have never been presented with a reason to believe that god(s) exist that wasn't a form of wishful thinking or that didn't require god to exist (e.g. 'If you don't believe, you'll go to hell'... only works if god is real).

[Ashendant]

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.

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

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Because agnostic means I think there could be a god, and I don't.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Philosophically?? you actually make such an "argument" with a straight face? Philosophically there had to be no uncaused cause. So there.

[The Skeptic]

Here's how I would phrase it. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity. Theism is the belief in a deity that is active in the world. Deism is the belief in an uncaused cause sort of god that left the universe to work like clockwork ( for the record most of the founding fathers were deists. Being a deist back then was like being an atheist today in a sense. ). Those are statements of BELIEF.

Agnostic is not a statement of belief, but an epistemological statement. That's a statement about what you KNOW or CAN know ( or at least think you can know ). One could believe that their knowledge is not 100% certain ( agnostic ) but still believe in God and be a theist. One can also be an atheist and an agnostic.

Richard Dawkins has a scale in the God Delusion about belief, with Gnostic theists ( not the old sect, I mean, as in knowing ) being number one and gnostic atheists at 7. Everything in between is technically some variety of agnostic.

[Tiberius]

Richard Dawkins has a scale in the God Delusion about belief, with Gnostic theists ( not the old sect, I mean, as in knowing ) being number one and gnostic atheists at 7. Everything in between is technically some variety of agnostic.

I agree with your post entirely apart from the inclusion of this bit. Dawkins' scale mixes the terms "knowledge" and "certainty" without any regard for what they imply. He also likens a "pure agnostic" (the middle position on his scale) to the belief that "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

It's a terrible scale for what it is supposed to do. Try this one instead: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3817.html (shameless plug)

[The Omnissiunt One]

I am agnostic in the sense that I cannot be certain that there is no god. Arguments against are not conclusive. However, I don't believe that God's existence is equiprobable to his non-existence, so I'm not agnostic in the common sense of the word. So, I suppose I am a 'probabilistic agnostic atheist'.

Simples.

[The Skeptic]

Richard Dawkins has a scale in the God Delusion about belief, with Gnostic theists ( not the old sect, I mean, as in knowing ) being number one and gnostic atheists at 7. Everything in between is technically some variety of agnostic.

I agree with your post entirely apart from the inclusion of this bit. Dawkins' scale mixes the terms "knowledge" and "certainty" without any regard for what they imply. He also likens a "pure agnostic" (the middle position on his scale) to the belief that "God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

It's a terrible scale for what it is supposed to do. Try this one instead: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3817.html (shameless plug)

Yeah, that scale seems a bit better. If Dawkins was a professional philosopher it would probably be better. He's a biologist though, so for his philosophical venture in the God Delusion, I was pretty impressed.