Agnostics vs. Atheits: Which is more Rational?

[LawnOven]

athiest= lack of a belief in god(s)

agnostic= impossible to know the nature of god (including if one exists)

theist= believes in god(s)

most agnostics are athiests aswell, if you don't have a positive belief in god, then you are an athiest.

athiesm and agnostism are not mutually exclusive.

I get my definitions and understanding of these terms from

"Athiesm: The case Against God" by George E. Smith

 

[Tricky]

...most agnostics are athiests as well...

Mostly good, but this part I don't agree with. With the exception of hard-core fundies, most people who believe in God will, when pressed, admit that they are not positive, or that their perception of Him/Her/It could be incorrect. In fact, most will argue that it is impossible to know God perfectly. So unless one is certain beyond all doubt that one is correct (and there are quite a few like this), then one is an agnostic theist. They believe there is a god, but they admit they don't know.

However, it is true that however correct it is, few if agnostic theists would use this nomenclature on themselves, because the word "agnostic" is tainted.

 

[ebola]

T'ai Chi wrote:

Truthfully, I was just interested in what people consider more rational, Atheism or Agnosticism.

So it boils down to this:

Over the course of human existence, we have created/worshipped/experienced thousands of supernatural beings, any or all of which could be described as a god. Is it more rational to contemplate each and every one of these from Zeus to Xenu and allow for the possibilty that any or all might exist ( agnosticism ), or would the more rational position be to reject them all based on the total absence of evidence supporting their existence ( atheism )?

Does atheism then become a faith due to or based on a lack of faith?
Do atheists know the truth because it has not been revealed to them?

If one commits to a rational position, and adopts atheism as the more rational stance, it would hardly be rational to ignore evidence conclusively proving the existence of a supreme being. For this reason, I reject the premise of so-called hard atheism, wherein the non-existence of god(s) is a matter of faith. Hard atheism simply could not exist within a rational mindset, and the last two questions would not apply to the only tenable remaining form ( soft atheism ) of atheism, as an agnostic atheist would admit that there is room for change based on new evidence.

The most rational position examines the evidence, and adopts the position supported by it.

Eric

 

[LawnOven]

Mostly good, but this part I don't agree with. With the exception of hard-core fundies, most people who believe in God will, when pressed, admit that they are not positive, or that their perception of Him/Her/It could be incorrect. In fact, most will argue that it is impossible to know God perfectly. So unless one is certain beyond all doubt that one is correct (and there are quite a few like this), then one is an agnostic theist. They believe there is a god, but they admit they don't know.

However, it is true that however correct it is, few if agnostic theists would use this nomenclature on themselves, because the word "agnostic" is tainted.

Haha, I agree with what you say aswell I think perhaps I just didn't explain myself well enough.

When I said "most agnostics are athiests as well", I meant people who would identify themselves as agnostic. That is, when you ask them "do you believe in god?" and they say "I don't know, I'm agnostic". Those people are athiests aswell because they lack a positive belief in god.

There is such thing as agnostic thiest aswell, I agree (also discussed in that book; good book). Probably most of your everyday run of the mill thiests are agnostic thiests because once you start defining your god(s) you are able to test for thier existence.