I became an agnostic because, from my perspective, there isn't enough evidence to prove whether there is a God or Higher Powers or not. I think atheism is based more on belief rather then empirical evidence and science, though much evidence would concur that there isn't a God.
Alright, shoot.
I grew up in the Episcopal church with parents who nominally believed. We would have dinner table discussions about anything and everything but you had better be able to defend your position. It was also a gift that both of my parents admitted they were wrong which was huge when I grew up and saw how unusual that was. We were raised to read, to learn, to observe and to question. We were taught how to take care of ourselves in the bush and to take care of the bush.
With this background, religion and it's "Because I said so." type of background never really had a chance.
I am an atheist because i don't belief a god exist. Who came up with the concept anyways? I'm not agnostic because I also don't believe in dragons fairies, slender man, big foot or anything else that makes no sense. Are you an agnostic of those claims as well or do you not think about it? what about the claims you haven't heard yet? are you Agnostic towards claims you haven't heard?
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. The theistic answer involves a supreme being (That comes from where?) that looks us over all the time, who has a plan, while we have free will. That conveniently doesn't actually show up anymore. If you look at all that, and compare it to the idea that life evolved, you realize that life evolving is a more probable and simpler answer.
What makes you believe Harry Potter doesn't exist?
Or Unicorns?
Ooh I like unicorns.
I question the reasoning of "beliefe" and "proof" to begin with! Secondly, the evidence is always somewhat biased. Here is a thought, what about culture is that also a belief system?
Somehow this tends to get conflated when the subject is God. If you put it in perspective though, I don't believe in fairies or unicorns either. Could they exist? I suppose. But so far I have no reason to even entertain their existence. Likewise, I haven't seen a single shred of anything I'd consider evidence for God's existence. Thus, I don't need to be conflicted about whether or not there's some possibility such a being might exist or something.
I don’t have a problem to acknowledge a God existing, but these ones described written y man, there is no way those Gods exist. If a God today proves to me he was real then I would acknowledge his existence. I just don’t see no point in living your life according to what is written down in a book by a bunch of Bronze Age people, filled with Bronze Age rules when you could just be enjoying the only life you may only possibly have.
There's a quote, "the world behaves just like it would if there were no god", or something to that effect. But maybe I'm not technically a full-on atheist. I just think it fits better than agnostic. Because the existence of supernatural magical beings that I have to believe in so that they become real to me is just a bridge too far. Also, the supercomputer that keeps up with every human thought or act for millions of years (or thousands), just no. I do have a vague concept of redemption. Meaning something bigger than us absolves us of most of our petty misdeeds. This is something I feel, so I guess it's fair to say I "believe in" it. I also feel, in much the same way, that we are accountable to something. I just don't think we are any good at identifying or naming whatever this is. And as soon as this thing starts enumerating rules, I'm like, no. That's something people are doing and saying it's from a deity. I'm more than ok with there being a mystery. With not being certain of everything. But I'm certain there's no sky daddy breathing down my neck. You can't prove a negative, but it just makes logical sense to me.
I think it's a slight play on words here - but it's not that I believe that no deity exists - I don't believe a deity exists. I know - but it means 2 different things to me. But I guess it's because I believe "gods" once had a purpose and that was to explain things we don't understand. Every culture had one or more and every one was there to explain why... why day and night, why birth, why tides, why weather. We don't need them anymore.
Yes we do. We have science.
I don't see any existence of deity in the first place... Burden of proof lies with those who believe. If someone tells you that they have an invisible friend they talk to but no one else sees, would you believe it's there? Unless that person provides evidence ( maybe a brain tumor?) Then sure. Otherwise, nope
I believe that if you traumatize someone especially at a young age there perspective of life even if different would always be based on that fear. Unless they would be able to get away from those that are constantly reinforcing those beliefs with the fear of hell, alienation, or just plain dissapointment from those you honestly love. Its hard to detach yourself from an abusive relationship especially when you don't think their is any abuse cause you're doing the same thing as them.
I like this subject a lot. This is why I joined the group. I don't mind whether people call me an athiest or an agnostic, this doesn't matter to me. I would say that it is not possible to disprove something which is unfalsifyable (infact the very definition of 'unfalsifyable' is something which can not be disproven). I would argue that anything which is unfalsifyable is extremely unlikely to be true and in no way should be taken seriously (I am talking about the spagetthi monster, the flying teapot etc). When you have a theory which is not testable, or falsifyable, then you have nothing which can be proved to be true. The only way I could except that god exists is if there was some actual evidence that stood up to ridicule. This does not exist.
I don't say that god definately doesn't exist, instaed I would say that there is absolutely no evidence what so ever to support the god theory. If you think this makes me agnostic then fine you are welcome to that opinion. But if this is the case then I would say I am just as agnostic about the tooth fairy, the spagetthi monster, invisible unicorns living on the rings of saturn and any other silly unfalsifyable thing you want to think of.
I also think that Billins makes some good points about belief in god. Jerry Coyne does a lecture which you can watch on youtube
Yes!
There are things we take as read which are unprovable. This is what creationists thrive on but misunderstand science. Evolution is one but Ohms law or rather Ohms theorem is another. Similarly Copernicus vs Ptolemy in terms of relativity are equally viable. It`s just one is "better"
By this same argument then, you must allow for the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Bigfoot. The scientific method cannot prove non-existence. But we can say that people have been trying to prove a deity's existence for thousands of years, and not a shred of evidence has been produced by this effort. It is certainly reasonable to conclude therefore that there is no deity.
I don't think I've ever seen absolute proof of any viewpoint. Evolution is not a belief, it's a fact, but it doesn't necessarily disprove religion. That said, there is plenty of evidence that seems to support the non-existence of a sentient creator/god, in my opinion.
I believe only what I have evidence for belief. I believe in atoms, quarks, galaxies, love, black holes, innocence of children, electricity, compassion, ... but I have no evidence of any deity or demon, not for ghosts, leprechauns, spirits, etc. If I have no reason to believe in something why should I believe in it?
As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no credible, verifiable evidence to make the existence of any god even remotely conceivable. There is, however, ample credible, verifiable evidence that all religion is a scam, meant for the powerful to remain in power, to prey on people and keep them in line. I think the invention of gods was just the way the primitives used their limited faculties to explain the things they didn't yet understand. Most gods went the way of most myths. Some have managed to hang on into modernity and become mainstream. That's only because of religion, not because they're real. Some people need a "tribe" to feel like their lives have meaning. It's actually rather sad.
There is no proof for the existence of god and the whole concept is silly.
gods were invented to explain the otherwise unexplainable ... back when science was outlawed by teh church ... or before that when so little science fact was known. Peace.
Because theists have not met their burden of proof. In the same way that I do not believe unicorns and the Loch Ness monster exist.
If you tell me you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it is up to you to provide the evidence that you do. It is not my job to prove that you do not.
because what is the purpose of a god, is it just so we can bow down to him and make him feel good, if there was a god then it is an attention seeking fool. maybe years ago when humans where scared that the crops would fail or the sun wouldnt rise,i can understand why they worried and prayed. what
do we even need a god for.how can that benifit me in anyway.
The burden of proof for the existence of God is on the person making the claim that there is a God. The answers supporting the assertion that God exists are often illogical, incomprehensible, and sometimes ad hominem attacks on people doubting the claim. I have seen debates on the internet of various people who claim that God exists. They do not meet the burden of proof. For example, William Lane Craig frequently trots out arguments that have been debunked hundreds of years in the past. Frequently also his arguments have logical flaws . It shows his dishonesty because many of his arguments have been debunked long ago and he only brings them out because he believes that the person debating him is unaware of that fact. As someone with a doctor's degree, he should have known that those arguments have been debunked and does not use them in any kind of debate.
Because the burden of proof that there is a God has not been met, it is safe to ignore that proposition in all normal circumstances. Therefore, the existence of God is irrelevant to ordinary conduct of life. Because it is irrelevant, I do not have to believe that God exists, and therefore I can conduct my life as if he does not. Of course, if sufficient proof or evidence comes to light that there is a God, then I will change my mind, and the person who comes up with such proof will receive the Nobel Prize.
Making the statement that there is no God has the burden of proof of such lack of the existence of God. The only way to prove a negative statement is in mathematics, which solves a problem by finding a closed system in which the statement can be discussed positively or negatively. For example, you can prove that it is impossible to trisect an angle using a straightedge and a compass. We can find a system in which that problem can be stated. In that system, we can show that it is not possible to construct a figure that trisects an angle for some angles, and we can say that that the general statement is false. There is no closed system in which the statement that God exists can be examined. There is no closed system in which the statement that God does not exist can be examined. To say that God does not exist has a burden of proof that is impossible to overcome.
There's just no "there" there. That's all.
I read a bunch of comments but not all so sorry if I reiterate points already made in here.
I think the definitions of atheism and agnosticism are too varied and most fall short. We all would need to reach a consensus before a production debate can occur.
I like to add gnostic and agnostic to provide a more granular description of the claims a hand.
Gnostic theist - Claims to know with 100% certainty that God/s do exist.
Gnostic Atheist - Claims to know with 100% certainty that God/s do not exist.
Agnostic theist - Claims that there is a greater than 50% but less than 100% probability that God/s do exist.
Agnostic Atheist - Claims that there is a greater than 50% but less than 100% probability that God/s do not exist.
From an epistemological standpoint, all knowledge is incomplete so all we can ever talk about it the likelihoods of whether a claim is true or not. Bayesian inference\reasoning is the best way that I know of to ascertain said likelihoods. From this position, the Agnostic Atheist has the philosophically sound claim and, but the same goes for an Agnostic Theist. And now we can argue the evidence and update our credences.