Why are there more atheists than agnostics?

Great Debates
1

Apologies if this has been covered before, but hell, you try to do a search for “atheist” in GD and sort through the results! It could take decades.

To me, an atheist is almost, but not quite, as bullheaded in declaring that they KNOW there isn’t a god, as a theist is in declaring that not only do they know there’s a god, but that they know what he wants us to do. (Having said that, I’m far more comfortable in the presence of atheists. None of them have ever tried to show me the light [or lack thereof]).

Perhaps science can disprove a few of the world religions, but it doesn’t rule out the existance of a god that lies outside the realms of religion.

Also, could I call myself an atheist if I suspected that god didn’t exist, but wasn’t positive? Wouldn’t that make me agnostic by definition? Are ANY of you atheists out there 100% positive that there is no god? I suppose the same could apply to theists as well. If you really think about it, wouldn’t the only people who aren’t agnostic be those who are so stubborn/stupid/deranged that they refuse to admit that there’s any possibility that they could be wrong?

2

“Could I call myself an atheist if I suspected that god didn’t exist, but wasn’t positive?”

I think you just gave a pretty good definition of an agnostic.

“If you really think about it, wouldn’t the only people who aren’t agnostic be those who are so stubborn/stupid/deranged that they refuse to admit that there’s any possibility that they could be wrong?”

I could be wrong so you know where I fit in this puzzle.

3

If you would like to call yourself an atheist, I believe “soft atheist” or “weak atheist” may describe you.

No. Neither am I 100% sure Santa does not exist. But I don’t bother to call myself agnostic about Santa; I don’t believe in him.

You might enjoy perusing the Atheist/Agnostic thread and the Alt.athiesm FAQ.

I personally prefer “soft atheist” to “agnostic” (although I won’t holler too much if called agnostic) because “agnostic” to me implies that I have no opinion as to whether God exists or not, and that God can never be proven or disproven. I think it highly unlikely that God exists, but I think if He did exist and wished to prove it to the standards of a reasonably skeptical person, He could certainly do so. So I call myself atheist.

4

Well, now that’s a little different. Santa can easily be disproven by the laws of physics, lack of Christmas Eve B & E police reports, and lack of unexplained presents under the tree. Even if there was a Santa, I’m pretty sure he would have been gunned down years ago by somebody trying to protect his property. :slight_smile:

The lack of a god isn’t so easy to write off.

5

Er, I meant the PRESENCE of a god isn’t so easy to write off, of course.

6

Ah, but Santa is magic and can break the laws of physics. Have you personally investigated every single Christmas tree in the entire universe to see that there are no unexplainable presents!? Maybe no earthly children were good enough to get presents. How arrogant to disbelieve in Santa, then!

Similarily, you can disprove a God that always turns the rocks purple on Jan. 15; you cannot disprove every God. You can disprove a Santa that must obey the laws of physics and deliver presents to every child, but not every possible Santa. However, most people do not feel compelled to believe in everything that could be; it might be that people turn into turnips when I do not look at them, but I do not consider myself agnostic about people’s capacity to turn into turnips. I do not believe people turn into turnips, though I cannot prove they do not do so by some supernatural agent.

7

True enough, Gaudere.

But the concept of a god was created to answer a question that nobody could adequately explain - namely, how the hell did we get here?

Not so with Mr. Kringle. I’ve never heard anyone make claims of unexplained presents under the tree.

I have, however, heard of about six billion people who ARE here and aren’t sure quite how it happened.

Assuming the big bang is true, where did the material that made the bang come from? Assuming every living thing evolved from single celled organisms, where did the organisms come from? Saying a god put them there seems just as plausible to me as saying that they were simply always there.

That’s why I’d be atheistic towards your other examples, but agnostic towards existance of a god.

8

the concept of god does not adequately explain how we got here.

but even if it did, what would then explain how god got here?? it solves no problem to assume that some god created teh universe. or rather it solves one, but creates a new identical one.

aar, in regards to the op. i call myself an atheist as opposed to agnostic, because none of the gods i’ve heard of has been even remotely substantiated. i’m not wavering or wondering or feeling uncertain.

9

This has been something I have always thought too, until lately. I always had assumed that the “default setting” of the universe was nothingness, but what if it wasn’t? Maybe life has always existed in some form, and is simply the axiom from which the universe started. That still would not prove or disprove the existence of a deity, and I’m with Gaudere [and Libertarian] on this, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. And if there is such a being, if we were supposed to know about it, we would know. So, I am agnostic, because I simply do not know. Are there really more atheists than agnostics?

10

Well, but the point of agonsticism as far as I’m concerned is the positive assertion that “god” (the ultimate nature of reality, the source of creation) has not been heard of by anybody, let alone substantiated. I’m not wavering either.

I’m not wondering if there’s a Yahweh or a Zeus.

Although I am wondering.

11

From reading these posts, I don’t think there are necessarily more athiests than agnostics; I think it’s possible that people who identify as athiests are just more vocal than people who identify as agnostics, just as people who wholly (holy? heh) believe in a god or gods are more vocal about it than agnostics.

There is more point (in the context of a debate) to loudly crowing a hardline belief in the LACK of a higher power than there is in being unsure. If a person declares, “God almighty exists, and you can’t tell me otherwise!”, replying with “Well, I’m not so sure, but you could be right” doesn’t have the same impact as “You’re WRONG! There IS NO GOD!”

I could be whistling in the dark, of course. Which would, I suppose, make me agnostic. :smiley:

12

Who really cares? I mean, not to be glib or belittle the OP, but what’s the obsession with labels?

I suppose in the purest sense, I am agnostic. I don’t know, I don’t think you know, and I don’t know if it’s even possible to know whether a deity exists.

I consider myself an atheist because, based on what I do know, I consider the possibility to be so close to zero as to be indistinguishable. In my day-to-day life, the very idea or concept of gods is off my radar, so to speak. It just isn’t something I think about. So “atheist” is a perfectly useful word for describing how I feel. It doesn’t mean that I consider myself to be in possession of information that noone else has; it means that I’ve reached my conclusions based on the available evidence, and right now my conclusion is that gods don’t exist.

13

Hey everybody-neutron star didn’t get any presents! How did you explain all that coal and them switches?

re: the OP - because we throw better parties.

I think phil phrased it pretty well. Let’s talk about something else supernatural that you firmly believe is entirely bunk. Say telekinesis. How do you feel about it? Do you simply assume no one claiming telekinetic ability so far has been able to do it, but who knows, tomorrow is another day? Or do you say, it isn’t explained by any know science, it isn’t necessary for anything I understand to be true about the universe and its inhabitants. When added to the historical lack of proof, that shifts the odds pretty well towards one end of the continuum such that I can say I believe telekinetic ability does not exist within humans.

Slight hijack, I am regularly surprised at the number of people I discover attend mainline christian churches, but are pretty darn fuzzy on what they actually believe in. What is the appropriate term for someone who simply believes there is “some greater force/power/entity,” but is unwilling to tie it down with any more specificity?

14

(Virgin poster, so please forgive a faux pas or two)

You’ve managed to hit the definition pldennison, or at least part of it. Agnosticism (literally “to not know”) has its basis in not knowing anything about the NATURE of a god. A god’s EXISTENCE, or lack thereof, isn’t really covered by agnosticism. Rather, agnosticism is dichotomous: Theistic agnosticism posits that there is SOME other-worldly spiritual thingy, but one CAN NOT EVER know anything about it. Atheistic agnosticism, rather, asserts that there are NO other-worldly spirits, and if there were, by nature one CAN NOT EVER know it.

An odd dividing line, I know, but an interesting one. Looking over the previous posts, It seems that modern agnostics TEND to hold the position of “I accept the POSSIBILITY of a god, but I’m withholding judgement for now.” This has certain advantages, in that it is not really a position at all. No decision is being made one way or the other on a binary choice (EXIST / NOT EXIST). In fact, it is closer to pleading ignorance than to agnosticism. Not that either is bad, but I think people get mired in labels, as pldennison said, and it’s good to have an up-to-date glossary.

Another quick point (oh, leave the newbie alone) is that atheism is commonly misinterpreted as the belief that a god does not, and CAN NOT exist. Persons believing this are not typical atheists, but rather silly. I am an atheist (I do not believe in Zeus, Kooloffa the Lizard god, Yaweh, Osiris, or any other spirits) yet, if tomorrow The Lord Jesus Christ shows up, I’ll be the first to offer Him a beer and an apology.

In re the op: There are probably even more atheists than you think. Atheism still has a cultural stigma, and lots of folks are not very forthcoming with their (non)beliefs.

Thank you, and Goodnight.

15

Damn, who left the door open, by Jingo!
Welcome.
Please sir, your definition of atheism?

16

Welcome. Interesting post. I predict a bright future for you.
You make a good point- between “I don’t know right now” and “such knowledge is not possible”. But- if I believe no such knowlegde is possible, on what basis do I decide there is an other wordly spiritual thingy or not? I don’t see why I have to be an athiest agnostic or a theist agnogstic to quailify as an agnostic.

17

Gods were also made up to explain where lightning comes from, and why crops fail. Demonic possession explained behavior that today we know is caused by chemical imbalances and microorganisms. The more we learn about the world, the less we need the supernatural.

I believe that scientific inquiry, though it has not yet produced the answers to all the questions you have put forth, is an excellent way to go about looking for those answers, rather than “answering” the questions by postulating the existence of some being for which we have no evidence–assuming, in other words, that the answers to these questions are ultimately unknowable.

Do you think we shouldn’t try to understand where single-celled organisms came from? Certainly there are researchers who work in this field. There are physicists who think they can explain how the Universe (beginning with the Big Bang) could occur without a cause.

If you have already “answered” these questions with some unknowable God, what will you do if they are answered by science, using nothing but physical laws? Would those answers make God less likely, in your mind? If you define God simply as simply whatever humans don’t yet understand, aren’t you going to be stuck with a continuously shrinking God?

Bottom line: if God exists and interacts with the physical universe, He must have left some evidence, and therefore is to some degree knowable. If God exists and doesn’t interact with the physical universe, uh, why should I care? Inventing such a God is a meaningless intellectual exercise, since I’m part of the physical universe, and if God doesn’t affect me, he might as well not exist. That’s why I don’t call myself an agnostic, though perhaps “materialist” is a much better adjective for me than “atheist.”

18

Jingo, excellent first post. Wish you’d been around for the atheist/agnostic thread referenced earlier.

I suspect you’ll have a harder time defining atheist. The hard and soft aspects make it a bit complicated. Let me just point out that many poeple get soft atheist confused with agnosticism. Personally, I’m a reductive materialist (sub-category of hard atheistm), which means generally that I believe that the only reality is matter and energy and stuff that you can physically touch and see around you (remote sensing through telescope etc. is ok too).

Because Atheism has a cultural stigma, atheists tend to be less vocal about it IRL. In this semi-anonomous format we can let loose. So, we probably are more “vocal” here.

19

Hey, a materialist simulpost. Quuul. Glad to share the electron flow with you Podkayne.

20

Well, of course we should try. My point is that since we don’t yet know for sure, why start making wild guesses and sticking to them? That goes for theists as well as atheists.

Personally, I’m sitting right on the middle of the fence. The concept of a god just seems so silly to me. OTOH, I simply cannot comprehend my soul (for lack of a better word) ceasing to exist. I could go either way, and I’ll probably stick with that school of thought until the day I die (unless I meet the most persuasive fundy in the world :)).

Phil is right, of course. There’s really no point in getting bogged down in labels. We all have a common enemy - the LBMB. :slight_smile:

By the same token, god can’t be disproven. I think I’ll stay up here on my fence.