atheism vs. agnosticism

[boxofpaints]

I am afraid that there's no way for me to ask this question without offending anyone, but I'm going to try. I'd like to start by saying that I am asking this out of genuine curiosity, this isn't a smug way of saying, "Your way is silly, defend yourself for my amusement" kind of thing. Seriously.
In my experience, ( and I have known A LOT of agnostics and atheists, many of which have been good friends of mind, actually) the main difference between the two is the level of hostility. Agnostics say," Well, I don't believe in a god, but if someone shows me a real reason to, I'll look into it." Meanwhile, atheists say," The belief of any kind of deity is naive, and the very idea that someone believes it is offensive to me." Basically, what I'm saying (I'm sorry if I piss someone off) atheists seem to get angry if (specifically) christianity is brought up; like it is a personal attack. This is only based on the atheists I have known. Having said that mouthful, my question is quite simple: Why does christianity invoke such hostility in atheists?

[McCulloch]

The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

[bernee51]

Many atheists claim: “I don’t believe in God, because I have no evidence of this.” But when you ask them: “What evidence do you have of the opposite?” they can only present their hypotheses, without a shred of actual evidence.

So you are asking for provision of the evidence of something that does not exist. Easy - it is invisible.

Thus, their atheist position is not the result of any evidence, but simply their CHOICE between two, improvable aspects: the existence and the non-existence of God.

Some may...but for me it is a conclusion. The creator god of christianity, if it is an all powerful, all knowing, eternal, perfect and unchanging being is a logical impossibility. It cannot be otherwise without resorting to logical fallacies.

On realizing this impasse, and in their attempt to avoid this logical contradiction, some of them say: “I am not rejecting the existence of God; I simply don’t have a piece of evidence that will make me believe in God”.

So you tell me. What need or reason is there for the existence of your god.

But they are easily detected, by their open hatred towards anything that has to do with God.

Why oh why is this old canard being wheeled out? God doesn't exist because the atheist hates god.

It is therefore important –in any conversation with atheists- to clarify exactly what they mean, and what their affiliation is to Agnosticism.

Let me make it clear for you...god does not exist.

So, from the moment someone says: “I am an atheist”, he is actually declaring his faith in an unproven statement that: “God doesn’t exist”.

Can you prove this opinion with logic? Without resorting to an equivocation on the word 'faith'? I think not.

And it is so improvable, as is the acknowledgement that “God exists”. Hence, atheism is not aligned with rationalism and logic. It is simply one more religion.

A creator deity is a logical impossibility - I have shown this on this forum on several occasions. No one yet has shown this proof to be faulty without resorting to logical fallacy.

I cannot and would not presume to speak for all atheists but for myself non-belief is the ONLY rational and logical position to hold.

[zepper899]

The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

the issue that needs clarification here is the usage of "God" compared to "god." an atheist can fill either role, as a strict definition is one who refutes teh existence of God or god(s). One can easily refute the existence of God (Bernee), but not rule out teh existence of god(s). Atheism by this definition is vague enough to prevent these arguments.

[Openmind]

Thus, their atheist position is not the result of any evidence, but simply their CHOICE between two, improvable aspects: the existence and the non-existence of God.

If the ignorant atheist from your story has a hard time rationalising his position, Catharsis, let me do it for him. Let us take it as given that there is no proof of God, and there is also no disproof of God. You have already agreed to this.

Let us consider two philosophical positions regarding Gods.

Position A: Atheism - "Lack of belief in God/s"
Position B: Theism - "Belief in the existence of God/s"

Note that the atheist position is a lot like a clean slate. I lack belief in astrology, I lack belief in Superman, I lack belief in fairies. I lack all of these things. Take particular note of the meaning of "lack". A clean slate. Not a positive position, a base position. Now note theism writes on this clean slate. It fills the void of "lack", and replaces it with "belief". Your position has substance, mine does not.

Now let us consider two universes:

Universe A: Matter explained in naturalistic terms
Universe B: Matter explained in naturalistic terms + extremely powerful unexplained being

Let me ask - which universe has more unknowns? Which universe has more in it? Seeing as both atheism and theism cannot be proven, why should one bother believing in the Universe that has more unknowns? There is no reason to believe, and it just raises more questions.

That is my rationalisation. Atheism is the base position of all. People are born with a clean slate. People add their own beliefs about Gods and whatnot after this base. You agree there is no proof for God, so how is it rational to add unproven forces to the universe?

This is why I am an atheist. I openly acknowledge the possibility of God existing, but I lack belief in it; to add to the universe, because doing so simply raises more unknowns and is logically unjustified. Do not make the mistake of thinking it is a toss-up between atheism and theism, and both are equally as likely. They are completely different positions. Atheism runs a whole lot deeper than theism, it the basis from which various cultures create their deities.

[Furrowed Brow]

And it is so improvable, as is the acknowledgement that “God exists”. Hence, atheism is not aligned with rationalism and logic. It is simply one more religion.

No.

Strong atheism of the "there is not any god" variety" is just one more irrationality. However strong atheism of the form "the Christian god does not exist" specifically rejects Christian metaphysics, supernaturalism, and stories. When pitched against the Christian god strong atheism is rational and logical.

Non belief or weak atheism of the "I do not believe that for which there is no evidence" is perfectly rational and logical

Atheists of either variety do not pray, worship, attend communal meetings, sing songs, wear pointed hats or have a set doctrine. Neither is a religion.