Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[Undecillion]

i alwas run into this problem in debates in the ED, what it usually gets down to is that agnostics claim that lack of evidence should lead to a state of doubght, while I say that lack of evidence reverts the most logical conclusion to the defaulting theory (atheism)

however I thihnk my argument could use some help, what are your stances on this?  

[Levis Pennae]

Undecillion

i alwas run into this problem in debates in the ED, what it usually gets down to is that agnostics claim that lack of evidence should lead to a state of doubght, while I say that lack of evidence reverts the most logical conclusion to the defaulting theory (atheism)

however I thihnk my argument could use some help, what are your stances on this?

If you can prove that there is a God then there is a God. If you can't then it's a nice horror story with a couple of lessons.  

[Captain_Shinzo]

I always say that it is just a matter of opinions when it comes to these A&A fights.
I always just tell them that even if they think their is the possibility of a higher power, I can't believe because it doesn't make scientific sense in my point of view. Whenever I bring up matter they always get all hush-hushy.  

[MiniSiets]

Undecillion

. . .while I say that lack of evidence reverts the most logical conclusion to the defaulting theory (atheism)

I have a hard time understanding what you mean by this. Atheism isn't really a "theory" of any sort by my understanding. It is simply a lack of belief, or rejection of the claim that gods exist. So in that sense, atheism is a state of doubt regarding specific supernatural claims.

I think the core of the problem with this whole atheism versus agnosticism debate is semantics. Anyone who hasn't really formally debated the subject before usually doesn't have the terms very well-defined, and as such, they become confused when someone tries to explain to them that agnosticism and atheism aren't separate mutually exclusive stances on the issue. I consider myself an agnostic atheist for example. So in my opinion, the best way of handling this issue is to actually define the terms very concisely and explain to them why it is that you have defined them this way.

Another major disconnect is that a lot of so-called "agnostics" don't seem to recognize some basic fundamentals of logic. They think that they can somehow believe and not believe at the same time, or neither believe nor disbelieve; both of which are logically impossible stances to have. Belief is a Boolean concept; either you believe or you don't. There is no in-between. If you are unsure of what to believe, that is still technically considered disbelief.  

[Boogiepop Prince]

Captain_Shinzo

I always say that it is just a matter of opinions when it comes to these A&A fights.
I always just tell them that even if they think their is the possibility of a higher power, I can't believe because it doesn't make scientific sense in my point of view. Whenever I bring up matter they always get all hush-hushy.

Your Siggy had me dying for a minute. lol  

[D i v i n i t y]

I think it depends on the people... Also, it's just a huge semantics war which ultimately leads nowhere. We accuse agnostics of being pussies and they accuse us of being ignorant sheep, but on the other end of the spectrum. Ok, maybe a little exaggerated...

From what I've learned, I think that "agnosticism" is not really an alternative to "atheist" or "theist". You can be an agnostic atheist (someone who doesn't believe in god because of the lack of evidence but does not completely dismiss the possibility). An agnostic theist, however, is someone who believes in some sort of deity (for whatever reason), but accepts the possibility that there may be no gods whatsoever.

Agnostics sometimes criticize atheists of being "illogical" since we often say that there is no evidence for gods, BUT we accept that gods may exist IF there were a better amount of evidence. They find this illogical because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Basically, they think that just because there is no good evidence for God, that does not mean that this entity does not exist. Therefore, they take a neutral stance. Atheists commonly respond, though, with something along the lines of:
The fact that there is no good evidence is enough to dismiss the idea. If there is more evidence then we will change our minds. Although we may not be 100% sure that there are no gods, there is no good evidence to back up the claim so we simply dismiss it. This is not illogical because if we were to follow the agnostic line of thinking in our every day life then we should greatly reconsider a lot of things, such as the existence of unicorns, ghosts, zombies, invisible undetectable dragons, etc.  

[Lord Maxdom]

Divinity, I am what one can call an Agnostic Atheist. To be simply Agnostic is impossible by definition, one would either be theistic, or atheistic. If not theistic, atheistic, is the simple way to understand it. Personally, I just find anyone can believe what they want. I think one can't know if there is a god or not, other atheists can believe there definitely isn't a god, theists can think there definitely is a god. Just let everyone believe what they want, and if you want to argue with others about your beliefs, then go ahead. Though that is just how I see it.  

[Edible Jennann]

Undecillion

i alwas run into this problem in debates in the ED, what it usually gets down to is that agnostics claim that lack of evidence should lead to a state of doubght, while I say that lack of evidence reverts the most logical conclusion to the defaulting theory (atheism)

however I thihnk my argument could use some help, what are your stances on this?

I think one if the main distinctions of an atheist standpoint vs agnostic is the need for empirical evidence.... concrete proof of the evidence of a god. We side with the scientific method of "give me a repeatable experiment or valid equation that logically proves what you believe."  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Agnostics are just scared of out-right saying that materialism is correct. it is a way to admit materialism in practice, while denying it in words, to suck up to the idealists.

They cite 'lack of evidence,' but what we have is lack of evidence in the existence of a deity, not a lack of evidence against said existence. If the universe is materialist, then there cannot be evidence of the non-existence of the non-existent. However, if the universe were idealist we would have not only 'evidence' (which would be redundant) but actual manifestations of it. In this case, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, despite al their black swan arguments.