Why atheism or religion and not agnosticism?

As the title says why do people go with atheism or religion and leave out the only 'rational' belief agnosticism.
For those who dont know here a brief on each from wikipedia:

Atheism - Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Religion - Speaks for itself i think.

Agnosticism - Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge.

Now i was brought up in a christian family and i used to go to church every sunday. When i grew up i started to question my christian religion, there was so much that made no sense and to be honest it just seemed down right crazy, so i stopped going to church and looked else where.

At this point i would have called myself an atheist, only because i didnt believe in religion. After a few years i came across agnosticism and u cant seem to argue with it.

Now why say your an atheist and you dont believe in God when there is NO PROOF of that.
Now why say you believe in religion and there is a God when there is NO PROOF of that.
Now why not say your agnostic and just admit that we DO NOT KNOW if there is a God?

As for the religious people on here i know they will come back and say oh but the bible is proof of God. Actually no its not, God did not write the bible, men did who say they where influenced by God, (Old testament) and im afraid men saying there where influenced by God just isnt good enough. Try passing of something like that in these times it wont go down well i tell ya.

My personal stance now would be 'weak agnosticism' which means:
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Now can anyone tell me thats not the most rational way to think.
Help me out here with your thoughts.

reply to post by CharterZZ

My personal stance now would be 'weak agnosticism' which means:
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

But until that evidence presents itself you presumably do not hold a belief that any god or gods exist, in which case you are an atheist as per the second definition that you posted (i.e. atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist).

That is my own position and that of most people I know of that describe themselves as atheists; what they usually mean is that they are an agnostic atheist.

I used to wonder the same question, and spent lots of time questioning people to understand.

It is very simple.

What both atheists and religious have in common is a concern about what ideas, beliefs, and values are adopted by the collective.
The agnostics are often more independant minded (to each his own) so do not feel the pressures of the collective upon themselves and don't care what is the most popular belief about reality and truth.

The atheists are in direct opposition to the religious not only because they lack a belief in God, but almost always feel that having a belief in God (s) is detrimental to the society, community, and individual.

reply to post by Mike_A


I see what u mean, altho i thought of and atheist as one who says there is no God and will never be, however weak agnostic would just say they do not know there isnt enough proof, altho there could be. Thats the differance.

I neither belief or disbielf in God i just do not know, neither does anyone else for that matter.

Anythingism where anything can or cannot exist. Why not this if agnosticism and not athiest???

What kind of label do you put on someone who couldn't give a stuff if God does or doesn't exist?

Originally posted by CharterZZ
Now why say your an atheist and you dont believe in God when there is NO PROOF of that.
Now why say you believe in religion and there is a God when there is NO PROOF of that.
Now why not say your agnostic and just admit that we DO NOT KNOW if there is a God?

I agree that it seems rational to admit it when something cannot be known. But this very statement is an assertion, a mere opinion which is elevated to "rational" simply because of the number of people who hold the same opinion. But as the book/movie I Am Legend pointed out, the normal and the abnormal can switch places solely by virtue of which is in the majority. In other words, rationality itself is an artificial construct, and this whole discussion stems from a given, a "just so" opinion that happens to be held by the majority, and even then, depends quite a bit on one's culture.

As for the religious people on here i know they will come back and say oh but the bible is proof of God. Actually no its not, God did not write the bible, men did who say they where influenced by God, (Old testament) and im afraid men saying there where influenced by God just isnt good enough. Try passing of something like that in these times it wont go down well i tell ya.

A broad-brush that may describe some in the group, but certainly not all. Yet you say "I KNOW", as if you can prove this universal quality of "religious people". Shouldn't you say "I believe" or "I expect", or "the odds are"? If we're nitpicking about definitions and precision in terms, let's be consistent... and open-minded. This would be in line with your def. of "weak agnosticism".

reply to post by CharterZZ

I see what u mean, altho i thought of and atheist as one who says there is no God and will never be

Not necessarily. You posted the definition yourself; at its broadest atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, therefore someone who says there is no god is just as much an atheist as someone who just lacks a belief in one.

Note that someone who says "I don’t believe in god" is not saying "I believe that god does not exist".

I neither belief or disbielf in God

Then you are an atheist, albeit an agnostic atheist, since you don’t believe in the existence of god.

I think because agnosticism is admitting you don't know and that is too much for most people to handle. Also, we are not 100 percent agnostic. There are some things we know. We know fire is hot, ice is cold. We comprehend moments of time even we don't know time itself. Some people are more agnostic than others, and some just think they are less agnostic than they really are.

reply to post by CharterZZ


Because agnostics must be either theists or atheists.

Not knowing doesn't exclude not believing.

Once more:

Agnostic atheist: I do not think I can be certain, but I do not believe in a deity.
Gnostic atheist: I am certain that there is no deity.

Agnostic theist: I do not think I can be certain, but I do believe in a deity.
Gnostic theist: I am certain that at least one deity exists.

oops double

I've always claimed to be "agnostic". I don't "believe" in organized religion, but I don't 'believe" what Stephen hawkings says happens after we die, everything just "turns off". I guess you could say I believe in "god", in a way, but definitely not in any "traditional" way, some super-being, some kind of separate super-consciousness who has his hand directly involved in earthly matters. If there is a "god" I don't believe he really "cares", but I don't think you can attribute human qualities to a "supreme being". The truth is very often MUCH STRANGER then fiction, and I believe this to be the case in our existence. Things are not always what they seem.

In reality, we are not any different, nor removed from the rest of creation. I think Lenny Bruce was onto something when he said, "We're all the same schmuck". I believe there is truth in that statement. I simply "know" I've been here before, and I will be back again. I of course can't "prove" anything, nor find any significant evidence pointing towards my beliefs, but it's what I "feel" is closest to the truth. It all just is, it's not a test, it not a punishment, its not a reward... it just "is", and in the end, there is no difference between the fat-cat draped in silks, furs, and pearls, and the beggar wearing woolen scraps begging in the alley behind that fat cat's luxury penthouse apartment. The poor African child, born malnourished, and hungry, screaming for life, and the plump, cute, western baby cooing in his carved oak crib, the multiple murderer, and the holy priest consoling him before his execution. there is NO difference.

reply to post by CharterZZ


Because i'm agnostic to any unprovable claim. That's why i'm an Atheist.

Both the Theist and the Atheist should concede that there is no way to falsify the claim, but who's making the claim? Not the Atheist, unless they specifically claim there is no God.

But it depends how you "DEFINE" God:-

Does "GOD" intervene in nature? No.
Does "GOD" intervene in human affairs? No.
Does "GOD" rewards followers of man-made religions? Still awaiting evidence

But what merciful intelligent God would decide the (eternal) fate of his creations based on whether they had followed religions created on a planet in the Milky Way gallaxy?

I'm a Gnostic Atheist towards specific definitions of God (because it's unknowable) and i'm Agnostic Atheist in regards to a "Source/creator/igniter"......

but let's still acknowledge that this claim has been formed without evidence too, it's a simple guess based on a lack of knowledge, that doesn't make it untrue though.

Pascal's Wager
===========

ascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Atheist's Wager
============

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Which is the more courageous?
Which is the more honest?
Which is the more moral?

"Agnostic Atheism"

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have absolute knowledge of such.