Why atheism over agnosticism?

[stromboli]

Like Hijiri I am more inclined to identify as a secular humanist. The problem with identifying as an atheist is that most theists automatically think antigod versus non belief. Secular humanist has a more positive aspect about it.

[Contemporary Protestant]

wouldnt the end of the ice age cause floods, i always attributed floodstories to the ice age

[SNP1]

It appears to me that more people are atheist, than there are agnostics. Which doesn't make sense to me, isn't atheism an assumption about something that cannot be known with certainty?
In all honestly, the only people who don't assume things are the nihilists who believe in absolutely nothing, not even the existence of things outside of their sphere of influence

It all depends on the definition of god being used.
If the definition is internally and/or externally incoherent, I can say that that god does not exist.
If someone proposes a god that is internally and externally coherent (has not happened yet), then I would be more agnostic about that god.

Also, you are strawmanning nihilism. You are putting all branches of nihilism in one. Only epistemological nihilism takes the position that nothing can be known for sure.

[Contemporary Protestant]

it isnt a strawman if i am not attacking it, i will be more specific in the future

what would be a coherent god?

[dtq123]

it isnt a strawman if i am not attacking it, i will be more specific in the future

what would be a coherent god?

Some people direct their attention to the biblical god, which contradicts itself if taken literally.

This causes a fair chunk of the atheist population.

Argumentation against an omnipotent, all-loving god also contributes to a growing conversion.

We don't really have a strong definition of god (unless you consider the literal biblical god, which fails to hold water). This deters people from the Judeo-Christian God, and unlocks insight on what a "bad god" and used to disprove arguments against those who don't take the bible literally.

As far as I know, there is no consistent god that can be determined to hold water.

My two cents into the matter, now don't beat me for it.

[Contemporary Protestant]

fair enough

i would agree that classical theism is shaky at best

[Solitary]

So is modern theism unless you are Deepak Chopra that thinks quantum mechanics is about spirituality and not matter, which is laughable because it deals with mechanics and particles. This is why I prefer to be called a freethinker. Solitary

[Contemporary Protestant]

what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force

[Hydra009]

what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force

That's just regular theism.

[Solitary]

what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force

Air is invisible too, but there is evidence it exists, but none for a God that is invisible. There are forces too small to see, but there is still evidence they exist, like gravity that pushes the stars around, and not angels like once was believed. You might like to take a course in physics and biology that give answers to questions with evidence and not faith. Solitary

[Contemporary Protestant]

i got As in biology and physics

there isnt much knowledge about the possibity of other dimensions

[Youssuf Ramadan]

what about natural theism? or the idea that God is an invisible force

Isn't that just pantheism of a sort... God is everything.  Theists tend to have a suitably undefined view of what god is, so they can move the goalposts when their ideas get questioned.

Would someone pray to an invisible force if that's all god is? Maybe, but I fail to understand why they think that force would be able to reply, or that they're that special that they'd merit a reply, especially considering the unresolved shit that is happening to Christian (etc.) people all round the planet.  However, I digress....

[SGOS]

I didn't realize someone could be both, I thought being an atheist implied a disbelief in god, as if a person had made a decision on the topic, while an agnostic would say its impossible to know and so therefore I am neutral

If you don't believe in God, you are an atheist.  If you are neutral, you don't believe in God, and you would be an atheist.

However, agnosticism is not about being neutral.  It's about not knowing.  Not knowing does not make you neutral, so you can still believe or have no belief in God.

I'm surprised you don't know this.  You've been around here for a fairly long time.  Most atheists are absent of a position, so to speak.  They are not on either side of a "yes there is/no there isn't" debate.  They do not know, and they recognize that they don't have a belief.  It is not a denial.  It's lack of belief, which, by definition, means atheist.

This is hard for some, but not all, theists to wrap their head around.  They assume an atheist is saying, "There is no god," when that's not what they are saying.  This somewhat subtle point get's lost on some theists, because some atheists do say, "There is no god."  But most atheists don't.  Rather than being in a position of belief, they are simply in a void, waiting for evidence.

[Aroura33]

Like other here, I'm a gnostic atheist concerning specific god (the Judeo-Christian one can be disproved), but when someone starts using more vague terms to define god, like a force outside of nature that created everything, well, then I'm an agnostic atheist.  But it's pretty useless as a stance, since the proposed gods in those cases could be anything.  It's like, I'm an agnostic invisible pink aunicornist.  I don't think there are any invisible pink unicorns, but there might have been, might be some on another planet for all I know.  But for the purposes of day to day life, why even posit the proposition of an unprovable creature, then get angry at people at people who dismiss it?  It's why we have Russel's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  These aren't there just to piss people off, they serve the purpose of pointing out that proposing an unprovable hypothesis is silly.  The Flying Spaghetti monster is just as likely as a deistic deity, but neither one actually matters if they turn out to exist.

Such are the deistic (non personal) gods.  If they do exist, they don't matter because they don't care about us and didn't create us with love.

It's frustrating to me, that Christians often fall back on the non-specific god argument, because they usually don't realize that at that point, they have undermined the point they were trying to make.

To be clear, how one defines god makes a difference.  All definitions of god that I have heard so far fall into 3 categories:
1) Completely provably false, such as Zeus and Jehovah.
2) Pointless (Energy god, deistic god, outside the known universe, etc).  Can't prove or disprove, but not important either way, as they don't actually impact the universe as they are proposed.
3) Aliens.  Laugh, but I'm serious.  If something did create the universe, or create us, or meddle with us, or whatever claims people make, what exactly defines it as a god as opposed to just a very advanced alien life form?  I cannot think of ANY proposed god that wouldn't actually be defined as an alien life form if we actually found out it existed. 

So I guess #3 makes me a sort of gnostic atheist, as I think there is no logical definition of a god. Not sure if that's the same as not believing in one, what I don't believe is that there has yet been a god proposed that makes any sense.  I don't think it is possible to even have a sound definition of a god that doesn't fallinto #2 and #3, making gods....all gods....utter nonsense.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

I don't believe in unicorns because there is no evidence or rational argument for them.  Therefore I'm an a-unicorn-ist.  Same goes for god.  Show me some evidence or rational argument for god or unicorns and I'll reconsider my position.