Why Atheism over Agnosticism?

[sonofskeptish]

Greetings,

I have always wondered what brings many people to the point of saying they are "Atheist". I mean even at the most misinformed part of my life I would only be able to say I was Agnostic. This is not a debate, just honestly asking what makes it Atheist cross that gap (if any) going straight into Atheism rather in the belief that we cannot know?

There is only a "gap to cross" when one starts life on the religious side of the valley. I know many people who have made the journey (to Atheism) who required "pit stops" on the way, mostly because they needed to drop-off some baggage.

But others among us grew up in the free-thinking, skeptical side of the valley and have no journey to make. Through science education, and a non-faith-based upbringing, a natural world-view emerged "naturally". In this case, there is no need to "cross a gap".

Another factor is an individual's desire or need for god to exist. The thought of not having someone watching over us, or someone to appeal to for help, is a scary thing for some people. If you don't have this fear, God generally doesn't have a need to exist.

Also, there's the fact that humans are curious creatures, and that we have a desire to understand the currently unexplained. In ancient times, natural explanations for many things did not exist, leaving room for (default) supernatural explanations. But as more and more of the world's wonders are explained naturally, more and more of the supernatural explanations get dropped. Just like the answer "because" is not a suitable answer for a inquisitive child, the answer "god" becomes insufficient for a skeptical mind.

And at some point, some people decide that all there IS is a natural world, and that it does not make sense to default to a supernatural explanation for things we do not yet understand. It's okay to say we don't understand, and it's prudent to ask for evidence to believe something, especially when the worldview from which the claim is coming from has so often been wrong.

When looking through a 100% natural lens at the world, there simply is no evidence for god, and god melts away and we declare ourselves Atheist. But labeling ourselves as such is "forced upon us"... because, let's fact it, we are all Atheists when it comes to other peoples gods.

Bottom line, Atheists simply do not make god exempt for the rational thought processes we use to believe anything else we believe.

 

[Copernicus]

One point that I think is often missed in these discussions of what "agnosticism" means is that agnosticism is also fully compatible with theism. That is, one can claim not to know whether gods exist but to still be inclined to believe that they do. The interesting thing about the way people use the word is that it is usually used to describe people who are inclined to lean slightly against belief in gods. I believe that this inclination is caused by the generally held view that theism is the default position and atheism is the position in need of defense. Agnostics are people wavering between the two poles, so the label gets assigned to the group of waverers who swim against the current of popular opinion. Theists who admit to doubts are still counted as flowing along with the current of opinion. In reality, though, most people waver, because they see no clear proof one way or the other. It's just that some of us swim harder against the current, and some of us try to get out ahead of it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What I dislike about the term "agnostic" is that people equate it with the position that belief in the existence of gods is equally as plausible as disbelief in their existence. I am not neutral about the existence of gods, even though I cannot claim absolute knowledge on the matter. So I usually avoid calling myself an "agnostic" in order not to give that false impression.

What he said.