How is atheism more rational than deism?

[Red Dawn]

I don't care if some believe in God or a higher power but they should understand that using their beliefs to justify something holds no weight with me.

 

[MJinZ]

gnostic - a claim to knowledge
agnostic - lacking knowledge

It aint rocket science buddy. You can "question" human knowledge all day long. Fine and dandy. The bottom line is that BELIEF is a black or white issue. You either currently have a belief in a deity, or you don't. The chart is accurate and it exhausts ALL the possibilities in the realm of religion.

Complete and utter failure. You just pulled up your own Merriam Webster's definition of ESTABLISHED words. IF you do not understand the meanings of the concepts being discussed, conjuring up your own simplifications is both preposterous and pathetic.

When you feel like discussing Agnosticism and Gnosticism, which are complex and historical ideas having nothing to do with simply "lacking knowledge and a claim to knowledge", then we can continue.

IF you feel like starting a thread about "Claim to knowledge or Lacking Knowledge", then you can make up your own words this time so you don't confuse others, feel free.

 

[Soltis]

This only proves that there are many schizophrenics in the world. Comparing people who think they hear or "feel" God with tangible (and verifiable) events in human history is an epic fail.

Part of my point is exactly what you just did there. You dismissed what they said as sufferings from schizophrenia when in reality their claims could be completely true given the concept of the being they are describing. It would be like saying no human can move faster than 100mph, when technically he would be moving faster than that if he got in a [insert fast car brand here] and started driving.

Ill give you another example. People "know" there is air around them and that they breathe it in. You can't see air, but you can "hear" it move when its moving fast, and "feel" it when its pushing against you. Are you schizophrenic? People "know" there is oxygen in the atmosphere. People believed oxygen existed around the time and before any microscope could show it to them. Were they crazy to believe that something they couldn't yet prove might be possible?

One is schizophrenia and one is not because you're not aware of your bias. Either that or you willingly embrace your bias, but I try not to assume that that is the case for most people.

Also, I'm against "forcing" any religion or religious ideas onto people, and I don't believe secular government should do it either. I say live and let live, inasmuch as we're respecting the laws of the country.

 

[bfdd]

my point is who gives a fuck? both are irrational because there is no way of proving either so being so goddamn dead set in your beliefs that you let them control your life is straight fucking stupid. i don't believe in a god, but i'm not about to point to people and call them dipshits for believing in a god or gods because what the fuck do i know?

 

[Tristicus]

I don't care if some believe in God or a higher power but they should understand that using their beliefs to justify something holds no weight with me.

We care so much what you think of our beliefs.

 

[Red Dawn]

We care so much what you think of our beliefs.

It's good you don't, that means you won't bother me trying to convince me of them. We'd get along just fine.

 

[totalnoob]

Complete and utter failure. You just pulled up your own Merriam Webster's definition of ESTABLISHED words. IF you do not understand the meanings of the concepts being discussed, conjuring up your own simplifications is both preposterous and pathetic.

You are being obtuse in trying to turn agnosticism into something more than it is buddy.. I get the sense you've become comfortable calling yourself an agnostic and are now trying to trump up the term with a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit to make yourself feel like more of an intellectual. Whether you like it or not, the term ultimately boils down to is exactly what I described..a lack of knowledge and/or the belief that certain things may remain unknowable. It answers a completely different question than belief in a God or Gods (theism) or lack of belief (atheism). Don't try to claim it is any sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism, because it clearly isn't. We are ALL technically agnostics..so using the term to label yourself is redundant. Every human on earth is agnostic about what existed "before" the big bang or what exists "outside" the universe. Those who are convinced otherwise are delusional.

Part of my point is exactly what you just did there. You dismissed what they said as sufferings from schizophrenia when in reality their claims could be completely true given the concept of the being they are describing. It would be like saying no human can move faster than 100mph, when technically he would be moving faster than that if he got in a [insert fast car brand here] and started driving.

Ill give you another example. People "know" there is air around them and that they breathe it in. You can't see air, but you can "hear" it move when its moving fast, and "feel" it when its pushing against you. Are you schizophrenic? People "know" there is oxygen in the atmosphere. People believed oxygen existed around the time and before any microscope could show it to them. Were they crazy to believe that something they couldn't yet prove might be possible?

I admire your effort, but everything you described can be empirically tested and verified. Speed can be measured. Oxygen molecules can be tested. Even before detection equipment for these things existed, they were available in principle for everyone to observe and perceive. A magical voice that appears only inside the imagination of a religious believer doesn't fit the same criteria. Supernatural events that exist only on the pages of books written 3000 years ago by scientifically illiterate nomads do not qualify as facts about reality. If you are going to have such a low standard of evidence, every myth and ghost story ever told much be given equal consideration.

 

[MJinZ]

You are being obtuse in trying to turn agnosticism into something more than it is buddy.. I get the sense you've become comfortable calling yourself an agnostic and are now trying to trump up the term with a bunch of pseudo-philosophical bullshit to make yourself feel like more of an intellectual. Whether you like it or not, the term ultimately boils down to is exactly what I described..a lack of knowledge and/or the belief that certain things may remain unknowable. It answers a completely different question than belief in a God or Gods (theism) or lack of belief (atheism). Don't try to claim it is any sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism, because it clearly isn't. We are ALL technically agnostics..so using the term to label yourself is redundant. Every human on earth is agnostic about what existed "before" the big bang or what exists "outside" the universe. Those who are convinced otherwise are delusional.



I admire your effort, but everything you described can be empirically tested and verified. Speed can be measured. Oxygen molecules can be tested. Even before detection equipment for these things existed, they were available in principle for everyone to observe and perceive. A magical voice that appears only inside the imagination of a religious believer doesn't fit the same criteria. Supernatural events that exist only on the pages of books written 3000 years ago by scientifically illiterate nomads do not qualify as facts about reality. If you are going to have such a low standard of evidence, every myth and ghost story ever told much be given equal consideration.

Well, it looks like you fit your own bill quite well, delusional it is then.

Don't try to make up your own definitions of adult words. Because you are clearly not qualified to do so.

 

[totalnoob]

MJ, I've never claimed absolute certainty. I like you, believe knowledge of what exists before/outside the universe will forever be beyond our grasp. Lack of knowledge combined with a complete lack of evidence of a supernatural/magical realm leaves me no reason to believe in a supreme being, hence I'm an agnostic atheist. If you are discussing your opinion on God/Gods, BOTH terms are necessary to properly define your position. It's time for you to man up and ask yourself where you stand.

 

[Daedalus685]

Well, it looks like you fit your own bill quite well, delusional it is then.

Don't try to make up your own definitions of adult words. Because you are clearly not qualified to do so.

All the semantics aside... the term only first showed up in the late 1800s... regardless of what gnosticism meant at the time of the Greeks agnosticism was coined to represent the unknowable, in a very broad sense.

This is a good reason why I despise our language... not enough words so we apply any number of dozens of meanings to the few words we do have... at least colloquially. Shouldn't we be more interested in how one uses a word than what we believe it 'should' mean? I think everyone at this point has realized how so and so meant what they said. It would be far more useful to now discuss the merits of that meaning than the use of the words..

 

[Soltis]

I admire your effort, but everything you described can be empirically tested and verified. Speed can be measured. Oxygen molecules can be tested. Even before detection equipment for these things existed, they were available in principle for everyone to observe and perceive. A magical voice that appears only inside the imagination of a religious believer doesn't fit the same criteria. Supernatural events that exist only on the pages of books written 3000 years ago by scientifically illiterate nomads do not qualify as facts about reality. If you are going to have such a low standard of evidence, every myth and ghost story ever told much be given equal consideration.

Ill start off by saying any objective view technically would give the same consideration to myths and etc until they observed reasons not to, this is also why people ask do you believe this is true? not, how is this a fact? it's the view you eventually you choose to have of the situation after the conclusion of the "facts" presented(which is that it might be possible).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you say "available in principle". From what I can understand I'm ok to say air was "available in principle", but it wasn't and still isn't today "observable" without a tool of some sort, and oxygen definitely wasn't and still isn't without complex tools.

I think you're "mis-relating?" in a sense, a force in the universe and an actual entity. Something like gravity making the planets revolve around the Sun due to mass, etc. is not conscious in the way that an entity might be. A good example would be a person in a pitch black closed-in stadium with a key-chain flash light finding part of the outline for a basketball court, compared to him finding a cat that's trying to hide from him and can make him deaf to it's sounds at will. lol ill admit that's a weird analogy but basically stadium = the universe, outline of the basketball court = gravity, key-chain flashlight = man's knowledge and his methods of search on a universal scale, super-silent cat = entity.

When you take into account an entity maybe hiding undeniable proof of his existence on purpose, its quite possible that it gave glimpses of itself to those people 2000~ years ago specifically for us to engage in discussions like these.

Also there are many(including myself due to certain experiences in my short life) that see the influence of an entity in between the lines of coincidences that have happened in life. I was gonna write out my example but this is already kinda long so ill just cliff note it;

*I played an mmo for a few years and suddenly got urge to sell my account.
*I was going to build my first pc with the money, even though I had no experience with this.
*I sell the account for around $2650 within literally the same week the IRS threatens to put a lean on our house if we don't catch up on tax papers.
*I lend most to mom who will get more than double back when tax money is sent back.
*I use abit of money to get this laptop(our last pc broke like 3 years before, mmo was on ps2) and actually learn how/what I need to build a PC(I didn't even know what thermal paste was when I got that money and I was about to go buck-wild in spending, also this was right before the 5000 series hit newegg)

I've had far far too many coincidences line up like this in my life when i stop and examine my situations, and for this particular one, lol God knows I didn't want to lend any of that money to anybody at first...

 

[Matthiasa]

Proof for what? If you think you can present a sound reason to be a theist, then be my guest.

Let the game begin.

How about unsound reasoning.
Everything we know is and will be finite in duration. There is a finite amount of time that this universe will exist, Is it a long time sure but it is finite. It also has not always been. Current theory has it being formed from the interaction of membranes in nth dimensional space. But then at what point were those membranes created? Were they created from interactions from even high dimensional space, and if so what created those dimensions as well.
It is then that they can postulated that there had to be a beginning to all of that as nothing is infinite in nature, and so whatever began that process can therefor be referred to as god.

 

[MJinZ]

All the semantics aside... the term only first showed up in the late 1800s... regardless of what gnosticism meant at the time of the Greeks agnosticism was coined to represent the unknowable, in a very broad sense.

This is a good reason why I despise our language... not enough words so we apply any number of dozens of meanings to the few words we do have... at least colloquially. Shouldn't we be more interested in how one uses a word than what we believe it 'should' mean? I think everyone at this point has realized how so and so meant what they said. It would be far more useful to now discuss the merits of that meaning than the use of the words..

MJ, I've never claimed absolute certainty. I like you, believe knowledge of what exists before/outside the universe will forever be beyond our grasp. Lack of knowledge combined with a complete lack of evidence of a supernatural/magical realm leaves me no reason to believe in a supreme being, hence I'm an agnostic atheist. If you are discussing your opinion on God/Gods, BOTH terms are necessary to properly define your position. It's time for you to man up and ask yourself where you stand.

Let me back up a second, I will admit I am not being clear about "making up meanings". I am referring to mixing up meaning/usage.

The meaning of the word is the whole point of discussion here. One word can have multiple meanings, so we must be talking about the same word and the same meaning to have any sort of meaningful discussion. If you wanted to discuss what it means to be "fast", we could be talking about how fast a person can go versus how "fast" they can be stuck to something.

http://www.jimwegryn.com/Words/Antagonyms.htm

The problem here is ONE person is talking about "fast" to refer to velocity, but then compares that SAME meaning to the opposite of "fast" to mean WEAK (the opposite of strong, which is how it is otherwise used), when arguing a point. This is both pointless and inane.

For example:

Meaning A)

An Agnostic is one without "Divine knowledge", to put it simply. A Gnostic is a Religious person. These are the ONLY two definitions that must be compared hand in hand, because that is the topic of discussion we are talking about (Atheism/Theism).

Meaning B)

Gnostic itself also means "Of or pertaining to Knowledge". <- This usage, like "stuck fast" is not what people will automatically assume you to mean.

You can also prefix Gnostic with (A-) to create Agnostic, which logically means "Not of or pertaining to Knowledge".

In all the graphs depicted so far, the use of Meaning B) has been injected into a discussion that should be using Meaning A), because we are discussing Atheism and Theism.

A better analogy would be: when two people use the word "Fast" in a discussion about Cars, light, or any moving object, you must be certain you are you discussing Velocity and not Strength.

Now that is clear, I will reiterate what I already posted in this thread about Agnosticism:

"No, Agnosticism is *lack* of faith. It is the understanding that truth values of certain things can't exactly be ascertained to complete certainty by the limitations of human comprehension and observation."

It is not lacking knowledge, or having knowledge.

Certain things are elementary, like the existence of the Oceans and rise and set of the Sun. These we can easily posit their existence. However, like our eyes and ears are not sufficient to see Ultraviolet radiation, it does not mean our skin cancers are caused by magic or red light.

By relying strictly on our senses and sensibilities (aka logic and reason), we may get things right and we may things get wrong.

Certain things are clearly not elementary. Natural sciences like physics, biology, chemistry - Social studies like psychology, ethics, religions etc. These things are clearly not as clearcut as the Oceans of the world.

True Agnostic are the middle of the road. We recognize that there may be innate limitations on the fundamentals of our comprehension, apprehension, sensation, and interaction as part of being human. That can't be too hard to comprehend, after all. Some insects are able to see a much greater field of the electromagnetic spectrum. Others may be able to detect magnetic variations and act as their own map and guide.

Is it that hard to imagine that there are things that are incomprehensible to human senses, reason and logic that require quantum leaps that our brains are not advanced enough to produce, things that are unexplainable or the things we seek to be impossible to detect, except by some sort of intuition, instinct or "feel"? Is it so hard to imagine that hypothetically, what the religious zealot may have "faith" in is an evolutionary 6th sense that others professing no spirituality do not possess? The rest of their bullshit is just their minds trying to fill in the rest to make sense of this undeveloped 6th sense?

Agnostics examine the finality of our own determination, which by itself also means we can be wrong about it all and that either the Atheists are completely right or the Theists are completely right.

The bottom line is that an Agnostics do not claim Gods to exist, nor do we claim ourselves to BE a sort of Gods (which many Atheists effectively explicitly or implicitly argue), we recognize the many possibilities that are out there and that remain a mystery to be solved (or not), by merit of our own human limitations, whether they are ones of weakness, strength, arrogance or humility, *feel*, or rational thought.

 

[Daedalus685]

It is just too tricky to label all things with so few words.. I believe the universe is infinite, thus the knowledge one could attain would be infinite. As finite being it would logically be impossible for us to know everything.. However, I do not believe that any knowledge is unknowable.

It is all well and good for one to understand what I mean, but we could waste years trying to argue whether I would be an agnostic by one way the word is commonly used vs atheist by another.

"No one can know everything, but nothing can never be known."


You are arguing that your definition of the word is correct vs another very valid definition is not. That really isn't important. I know what you mean, I think everyone worth their salt does too. It is perfectly valid to use the term to describe the inability to know something, or to reserve it to talk about god. It is confusing at first but this is English and when is that not the case?

It doesn't matter what people might or might not automatically assume you mean, as this will differ from place to place and population to population.. In my circle the divinity of the word is almost entirely removed, other places not so much. Things like this are far too plastic to say which is 'true.'

I'm curious though... it really seems like the term was coined to pertain to unknowable in general, not specifically divine. Why would one assume the original intent is not what most assume? Despite that, why does it matter once it is clear what one means?

I understand where you are getting.. I don't necessarily agree as I do not believe that anything is unknowable, and that my assertion that it is impossible to prove god does not exist does not limit my belief that it is profoundly unlikely the gods of this world exist.

I am not agnostic though, based on the belief that all knowledge is knowable.

Mind you.. there are folks that would say that my belief that one can not know all things makes me agnostic.. which I would disagree with, as the term should be reserved for that which fundamentally can not be known, not that which may not be known due to the infinite nature of the universe.

Which really brings up a third definition people often use, even in this thread.. as many times over one who claims to simply not have absolute knowledge in the existence of god is described as agnostic, which is the one definition I do have issue with as it avoids the meat of the ideas the word should bring up. To those who claim that not being able to disprove a being existence, while never being able to prove its existence (in the case it does not exist) makes me agnostic I'd have to claim that I must be agnostic about every 'fact' I have ever held.

I must add, the quote from David Hume pretty much sums up what science is. The endeavour to know, knowing full well ones beliefs will have to change over time, and no things can be known to absolute certainty, just strong probability. If a scientist were to claim to know absolutely the answer to any questions I'd be right beside the rest of the community to call them a bad scientist . I don't think how important uncertainty is in science is fully understood by the public.

 

[MJinZ]

It is just too tricky to label all things with so few words.. I believe the universe is infinite, thus the knowledge one could attain would be infinite. As finite being it would logically be impossible for us to know everything.. However, I do not believe that any knowledge is unknowable.

It is all well and good for one to understand what I mean, but we could waste years trying to argue whether I would be an agnostic by one way the word is commonly used vs atheist by another.

"No one can know everything, but nothing can never be known."


You are arguing that your definition of the word is correct vs another very valid definition is not. That really isn't important. I know what you mean, I think everyone worth their salt does too. It is perfectly valid to use the term to describe the inability to know something, or to reserve it to talk about god. It is confusing at first but this is english and when is that not the case?

It doesn't matter what people might or might not automatically assume you mean, as this will differ from place to place and population to population.. In my circle the divinity of the word is almost entirely removed, other places not so much. Things like this are far too plastic to say which is 'true.'

I'm curious though... it really seems like the term was coined to pertain to unknowable in general, not specifically divine. Why would one assume the original intent is not what most assume? Despite that, why does it matter once it is clear what one means?

I understand where you are getting.. I don't necessarily agree as I do not believe that anything is unknowable, and that my assertion that it is impossible to prove god does not exist does not limit my belief that it is profoundly unlikely the gods of this world exist.

I am not agnostic though, based on the belief that all knowledge is knowable.

Mind you.. there are folks that would say that my belief that one can not know all things makes me agnostic.. which I would disagree with, as the term should be reserved for that which fundamentally can not be known, not that which may not be known due to the infinite nature of the universe.

You are basically disagreeing with the commonly held notion of what it means to be an agnostic. Your own rational mind is putting "gnostic" together with "A-" to create this bias.

However, if you study Gnosticism, its history, hell if you even played video games like Xenogears or Xenosaga that to an extent, explore these ideas, you'd understand how specific the term is actually used.

A scientist would say Nuclear, and a layman would say Nucular. But if you've heard Nucular all your life, nothing a scientist tells you is going to change your mind about what "sounds right" in your head.

Because your notion of Agnosticism is different than mine, we are actually concluding different things. Like your idea of "fast" is related to "velocity", while mine is related to "strength. What ends up happening is that while you arrive at a conclusion for the Speed of Light, I am talking about the Power of Light.

So you see how one must reorient to the topic correctly in order to gain the proper perspective. I absolutely understand the argument about "Knowledge/Lack of Knowledge". By that framework, everyone is technically an Agnostic, but we are all Atheists or Theists ultimately. Therefore, it is pointless to argue for Agnosticism, it is like arguing everyone is flesh and blood - it is almost irrelevant.

In a different framework, Agnostic stands squarely in between Atheism and Theism because determination itself is the point of discussion, not a given and patently obvious conclusion on the subject of probable doubt that is fairly easily extracted from the "Knowledge/Lack of Knowledge" understanding of the word.

 

[actuarial]

How about unsound reasoning.
Everything we know is and will be finite in duration. The is a finite amount of time that this universe will exist, Is it a long time sure but it is finite. It also has not always been. Current theory has it being formed from the interaction of membranes in nth dimensional space. But then at what point were those membranes created? We they created from interactions from even high dimensional space, and if so what created those dimensions as well.
It is then that they can postulated that there had to be a beginning to all of that as nothing is infinite in nature, and so whatever began that process can therefor be referred to as Santa.

Fixed.

I could apply religious logic to belief in Santa all day. It's quite fun actually.

 

[Daedalus685]

You are basically disagreeing with the commonly held notion of what it means to be an agnostic. Your own rational mind is putting "gnostic" together with "A-" to create this bias.

However, if you study Gnosticism, its history, hell if you even played video games like Xenogears or Xenosaga that to an extent, explore these ideas, you'd understand how specific the term is actually used.

A scientist would say Nuclear, and a layman would say Nucular. But if you've heard Nucular all your life, nothing a scientist tells you is going to change your mind about what "sounds right" in your head.

Agnostic is the belief that some knowledge (a datum) can not be known, in the general sense. In the other definition you point out it is the unknowability in the divine, which is the same thing just specific.

The third definition that I have a problem with is the mixing of agnostic with uncertainty. We have a good word for that, it is called uncertainty. It is a fundamental premice of science and has nothing to do with the fundamental ability of a datum to be known. Agnosticism should be reserved for philosophical discussion, as to use it to label one who does not absolutely know is mindlessly redundant. There is no endeavour in factual based discussion where a rational person could not be agnostic in that sense. Where as the other two definition s are fundamental differences in philosophical principal.

I absolutely understand the argument about "Knowledge/Lack of Knowledge". By that framework, everyone is technically an Agnostic, but we are all Atheists or Theists ultimately. Therefore, it is pointless to argue for Agnosticism, it is like arguing everyone is flesh and blood - it is almost irrelevant.

I think we agree but aren't quite on the same page.

The fundamental ability of knowledge to be known or not is how most intellectuals use the term, as what you said, and what I said above demonstrate how pointless it is to use it in the uncertainty way as it is pointlessly redundant.

If one believes that knowledge of god cannot be known, period, they would be agnostic. Thus comparing evidence is pointless as one side is fundamentally unknowable (thus there could be no evidence). The opposite point of view is that no knowledge is unknowable, but because of the infinite nature of the universe this fact does not mean it can all be known, just that each individual datum is in the realm of possibility.

 

[bfdd]

... this is a rather simple discussion what's with the numerous wall of texts? Both are irrational, period. You can't rationalize it because there's nothing to base your opinion on other than it's your opinion/belief.

 

[Matthiasa]

Fixed.

I could apply religious logic to belief in Santa all day. It's quite fun actually.

In that case Santa would be god.

 

[irishScott]

As a fellow Deist (holy shit Anarchist and I have something in common), I would say that Atheism is technically more "rational". They base their beliefs on sheer logic, whereas Deists have a modicum of faith.

What makes me /facepalm threads like these is people who judge others by their faith. There are plenty of Christians who have more common sense than the most devout Atheist. I also find it ironic that most religious people I know are just living their lives; and mentioning atheism to them earns little more than a shrug. Most atheists I know on the other hand are incredibly defensive and seem to be on some angry moralistic wannabe crusade to stamp out beliefs they don't understand.

So despite what you may read on a tech forum, atheists are not humanity's Vulcan Jesus; however much they might like to be.

Whatever a person's beliefs, what matters is that they remember that faith is just that. Faith. It is not as definite as logic and should not be used in a similar manner. For my part, my faith is a side effect of who I am, not the other way around.

No I cannot prove all of my beliefs logically, no one can (not even Atheists). So threads like this are ultimately useless. Just keep in mind that if your faith is definite (not certain, definite) then all you're doing is confusing faith with fact. Now who wants pie?

 

[llee]

If knowing the truth as you see it is sufficient, why seek out to convert others? Let them suffer for their sins. Refusing to act out will save your face from that of a pariah.

 

[totalnoob]

"No, Agnosticism is It is the understanding that truth values of certain things can't exactly be ascertained to complete certainty by the limitations of human comprehension and observation."

By relying strictly on our senses and sensibilities (aka logic and reason), we may get things right and we may things get wrong.

True Agnostic are the middle of the road. We recognize that there may be innate limitations on the fundamentals of our comprehension, apprehension, sensation, and interaction as part of being human. That can't be too hard to comprehend, after all.

Is it that hard to imagine that there are things that are incomprehensible to human senses, reason and logic that require quantum leaps that our brains are not advanced enough to produce, things that are unexplainable or the things we seek to be impossible to detect, except by some sort of intuition, instinct or "feel"?

You are not saying anything new here buddy..and certainly nothing I disagree with, but once again it does not belong in a conversation about belief. As you so eloquently said, it's a completely different issue.. What is happening here is (I think) you are looking at "strong" theism and "strong" atheism..those who claim these things are known/knowable, and assuming that this is the common position among theists and atheists..and therefore agnosticism belongs somewhere in the middle.

If this is the way you view things, I can understand..but I'm willing to bet only a TINY TINY minority of people on both sides fall to those extremes. There aren't a huge number of religious people who take the bible as 100&#37; literal truth, and there are very few atheists who make claims to certainty that there are no things or phenomena outside the natural world. Many people on both sides (and I believe *most* on the atheist side) are full of doubt and agnostic in the truest sense of the word. Even one of the most "strident" atheists today Richard Dawkins labels himself an agnostic in "The God Delusion". As I said earlier, using BOTH terms is necessary to properly define yourself because they answer completely different questions. You will find very few "gnostic" atheists in the world who would disagree with anything you've said. They (and I) agree with you 100% on your definition, and we simply see atheism as the most rational/logical outcome of this position. Until any sort of evidence about the supernatural is forthcoming (granting it may never arrive), there is simply no reason to believe.

 

[Colt45]

If there was never a supreme being, then how did the earth get here? I'm a deist, myself.

I'm not trying to troll here. I'd really like to know the rationale behind atheism.

 

[rchiu]

Well if it's simply if you believe God exist or not, I guess atheism and deism have 50/50 chance of getting it right.

The problem with deism is that it's not just simply God exists or not, it is the INTERPRETATION of bunch of people about God, the existence, and what the God represent. You are not really believing in God, you are believing what people (and bunch of ancient people too) said about God.

To me, atheism is just more simple and straight forward.

 

[shocksyde]

Well if it's simply if you believe God exist or not, I guess atheism and deism have 50/50 chance of getting it right.

The problem with deism is that it's not just simply God exists or not, it is the INTERPRETATION of bunch of people about God, the existence, and what the God represent. You are not really believing in God, you are believing what people (and bunch of ancient people too) said about God.

To me, atheism is just more simple and straight forward.

This is exactly what bothers me the most about religion. There are hundreds (if not more) of interpretations. Who's right? Everyone thinks everyone else is going to hell because they're "wrong." It's all so backwards.

Side note: I remember when I saw Stigmata in the theaters. At least 5 separate people stood up at some point during the movie, screamed something about Satan or whatever and stormed out of the theater. One of my favorite memories, haha. Only one person stormed out of the theater during The Aristocrats.