Agnostics vs. Atheits: Which is more Rational?

[T'ai Chi]

Is it possible to state which of a 'freethinking' group is more rational?

In this case, agnostics, or atheists?

[Yahweh]

I dont think its the belief or the group who is "rational"...

I wont be voting, there is clearly no way to determine which beliefs are rational, they are all equally valid.

(And I really doubt too many people will be able to vote outside of their biases...)

[Marc]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont think its the belief or the group who is "rational"...


good point. Even if a belief is completely correct, it does not mean the person reached that belief because of rational reasoning. Such as a person being an atheist simply because of personal incredulity rather than looking at the actual evidence for that stance.

[ReasonableDoubt]

To quote a line from Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach: "Mu".

The question suggests a surprising and sad ignorance of the terms. You might as well have asked: "Degas vs. Debussy: Which is more Art?"

[jj]

Both.

Seriously, the question is fatally flawed.

Unlike religious people, who share a belief, atheists and agnostics are NOT people who share something, rather people who simply don't believe something.

That is a fundamental difference.

[c4ts]

Depends on the atheist. Depends on the agnostic.

[Lord Kenneth]

I believe it was taken for a given the arguments presented by all sides in general, and not on an individual basis.

[epepke]

The answer is yes.

Agnostics think they're more rational because they have a more conservative attitude to what they consider a philosophical question, and atheists are just a bunch of know-it-alls.

Atheists think they're more rational because they don't assert knowledge that would require them to consider the question of the existence of god as different from any other question, and agnostics are a bunch of wishy-washy fence-sitters.

[TheERK]

Where exactly did this mutual exclusiveness come from?

Atheism is a position concerning belief, and agnosticism is a position concerning knowledge.

Eric

[ImpyTimpy]

Feel free to bash me but I voted that Agnostics would be more rational. That is based on the assumption that both individuals think alike except one states There is no God, the other states there is no evidence for God. First one appears to be an argument from ignorance, therefore it is not rational while the second position is the most rational one.

In general though, would an agnostic be more rational then an athiest? Depends on what kooky beliefs either one has. :)

[Ratman_tf]

If you define agnostic as someone who believes that knowledge of god is unattainable, then how do they come to that conclusion? How do they KNOW that knowledge of god is unattainable?

That's why I don't call myselfagnostic. It seems by that definition that they HAVE decided. Just as some atheists have decided there is no god.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Given the amount of evidence for the existance of God...

I consider BOTH to be quite rational. :D

[Tricky]

This poll is completely based on the mistaken notion that atheists claim to know that there is no god. I have seen only a tiny percentage of the atheists here do such a thing.

As theERK pointed out, most of us atheists here are agnostic atheists.

But don't feel bad T'ai Chi. "Atheist" is one of the most misused and demonized terms in the language, so you are not alone in your perception that they are competing philosophies.

[ebola]

Why do you ask?

Eric

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ebola
Why do you ask?

My guess is that T'ai Chi is planning of launching the relatively common attack against atheism that "they are just as arrogant as believers because they also claim to know the truth about God." I could be wrong about T'ai, and if so, I apologize, but I have seen this tactic used so many times on these boards that I'm tempted to keep a "form letter" response ready to paste in explaining how athiesm does not claim to know there is no God.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Tricky

My guess is that T'ai Chi is planning of launching the relatively common attack against atheism that "they are just as arrogant as believers because they also claim to know the truth about God." I could be wrong about T'ai, and if so, I apologize, but I have seen this tactic used so many times on these boards that I'm tempted to keep a "form letter" response ready to paste in explaining how athiesm does not claim to know there is no God.

Yeah, I think you are wrong. :)

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

[Tricky]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, I think you are wrong. :)

Truthfully, I was just interested in what people consider more rational, Atheism or Agnosticism.
Well you have your answer. It is not "either or". They are not conflicting philosophies.

Besides, as you well know, everybody practices the philosophies a little bit different. In order to compare them you would have to get a precise and detailed definition of what one means by them.

[phildonnia]

I think it depends whether you can believe that your belief can be wrong. I would call myself an atheist, in that I positively believe that there is no God. This is something of an article of faith for me, and thus I would call it irrational.

However, I can imagine a scenario in which I would change this belief; so perhaps belief is too strong a word; (I conjecture that there is no God?) Shall I count myself among the agnostic?

In any case, I think that atheism is not rooted in rationality.

Here's a curious thing I just thought of: I am more willing to believe that Jehovah exists than Zeus or Marduk. Why should that be?

[SquishyDave]

Can someone give me a meaning for both these words, I consider myself an atheist, by that I mean I see no evidence to suggest the existence of a god or gods (change of evidence = change my mind). I thought agnostic means, sees no evidence for god or gods, but thinks a god exists anyway, but not in a way we can understand, or that said god/s don't even talk to us in any way.

Fairly vague I know but you guys seem to be using slightly different definitions for these words.

[Schizobunny]

Seen as there is no evidence for god or any religion, for that matter, I find them to be equally 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]

Originally posted by LawnOven
...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]

Originally posted by Tricky

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.