65

I think you have a false premise. Your premise seems to be "Devout believers/adherents of the religion Islam believe that humans need not make any effort in their survival in the natural world." I don't think that is true. Evidence against that premise is that people in Saudi Arabia farm, gather, purchase, or otherwise obtain food to eat. If your premise ...


31

There's a good joke about this. The Mississippi floods, but this guy stays put and says "God will save me". A policeman comes past and says "Better be going" but our guy says "God will save me". The river rises more, and he moves upstairs. A rescue boat comes past and the crew say "Come on, you've got to go", but our guy says "God will save me". The river ...


19

There are some religious groups --I'm thinking here of "prosperity" churches --that promote the message that nothing but good things will ever happen to the truly faithful. But these are definitely among the minority among religious traditions. Most religious people don't take it as an article of faith that bad things won't sometimes happen in their lives. ...


18

Whether atheism can be reached by scientific reasoning depends on whether scientific reasoning is the only way to form justified true belief. Can I only say that I know something if it can be scientifically demonstrated? More weakly, can I only know that a deity exists if that deity can be demonstrated scientifically? I cannot see an analytic argument which ...


11

If one is both attentive to empirical scientific studies and to philosophical investigations of the limits of knowledge, then the only rational position is philosophical agnosticism plus pragmatic atheism. One should be agnostic because one must be agnostic about everything: there simply is no (non-controversial) known path to get completely certain ...


10

Descartes was the modern founder of what is called foundationalism about knowledge, the idea that we must find a secure self-evident ground from which all the rest of our knowledge can be justified. Many classical philosophers (e.g. Plato, Kant, Frege, Husserl) shared this belief, and some continue to share it. The alternative, they believe, is universal ...


10

Atheism is a null hypothesis. Treating atheism scientifically is to say "I don't believe that god(s) have any effect on [thing being studied]". Calling atheism into question is as simple as providing statistically significant data demonstrating an effect where the null hypothesis would predict none. For example, an experiment to test the efficacy of some ...


8

Spinoza spends the whole first part of his master book, Ethics, describing God and its properties, so clearly he thought there is something we can known about it. He is often described as deist or pantheist ("God is the universe"), also atheist by some (he did not believe in a personal god), but he does not fit the definition of agnostic by any ...


7

Subjectivity is the point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy First I must point out that The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in a specific context: as a response to a decision by a school board — i.e. a government sponsored institution — in the United States. This was later taken to court and the school board's decision was ruled unconstitutional. ...


5

Being an atheist is about as scientific as being anti-flying spaghetti monster. Now, scientists may by and large not believe in the FSM. But, what scientists believe is not the same as science. Science is hypotheses confirmed or invalidated by empirical evidence. If your hypotheses can neither be confirmed nor denied, then it isn't science. Therefore, ...


5

Short Answer: No, because the odds of winning on this wager are extremely low so no case (including Strong Agnosticism) justifies taking it. Long Answer: This wager only seems reasonable (to some) because of its implicit (unfounded) assumptions. Take these assumptions away and you'll see this wager is simply not worth playing. In particular this wager ...


4

The determining factor is not how strongly you are convinced that knowledge of God's existence is possible or impossible, but rather the extent to which you are convinced that belief in God would be beneficial in the case that God exists. It's all about the value you place on belief, not the probability you assign to that belief being correct. In the ...


4

The position in question has been called weak agnosticism (also "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism"). Here are the relevant definitions from Wikipedia. Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the ...


3

I think that, in this case, rational does not mean ethically sound, but rather logically consistent. For example, suppose God is known to exist and is known to exist in the form of some animal. Suppose I say to you "True or False: God is a lion." If you say True, you are probabilistically more likely to be incorrect, because there are millions of animals ...


3

It's easy to conceive of a God that doesn't punish people and doesn't directly interfere with whatever afterlife they may or may not have. Rejecting one idea of God is neither atheism nor agnosticism. Many people who are not atheists or agnostics reject the idea of Zeus or Odin, after all. As far as how close atheism and agnosticism are, it depends on the ...


3

One deals with faith, the other with knowledge Using the definition of atheism as presented by modern atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, atheism is the rejection of theism, and theism in turn is: faith-based arguments and/or doctrine. I prefer to use this definition because to define "theism" / "atheism" as "the (lack of) belief in a ...


2

Knowledge is useful or explanatory information. An item of knowledge need not be believed by anybody. For example, there is lots of knowledge in books, computer programs and even genes that nobody knows. The information is just as valuable and just as much in need of explanation as knowledge that happens to be believed by somebody. See "Objective Knowledge" ...


2

An atheist doesn't reject the possibility that one or more "gods" exist. The atheist has decided for herself or himself that the likelihood of the existence of "gods" and that such an existence could have any influence on her or his life is so low that it can be ignored. On the other hand, people who make claims that being an atheist would be in some way ...


2

EDITED to address specific quote Let us first address your question in a general sense. Let us take "I am an agnostic" as meaning "I do not know whether or not God exists". Can you be an agnostic --as so defined --if you "want to believe" in God? I don't see any contradiction here --your desire to believe does not change your level of knowledge. Can you ...


2

Atheism isn't scientific. It was Laplace that introduced it into the scientific-philosophical-theological conception pictured by Newton by pointing out that his conception did not appear to require a creator God. Newton himself devoted much more time to theology than he ever did to physics. Also note the final paragraphs in this essay, More is Different by ...


2

You can't say one is 'more rational' than another, they are different ways of rationalization. We could say agnosticism is more 'conservative'*, and they have reason in saying atheists can't prove God doesn't exist. Although, atheist are more 'practicals', and they are also correct to say that agnosticists can't use this kind of logic to everything. ...


2

Atheists say that God doesn't exist. But I've never heard an atheist say he can prove that God doesn't exist. Well, I am going to say it, and I am going to say it, now. "God" is defined as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity that created the world. The world is full of violence and cruelty. Ergo, if any entity actually created the world, it is either ...


2

Ignoticism as defined in the link from the OP question emphasizes the general rule that any discussion presupposes that the dialogue partners have defined - explicitly or by common use of language - their terms. A sound definition requires that the terms in question are reduced to well-known terms. And that the latter terms are not contradictory. Without ...


2

(Unable to comment yet, sorry) Whenever the thorny issue of theism vs. atheism comes up -- especially on the internet -- -- you need to be aware that you are speaking in an arena where context is murky at best and nearly every word longer than 3 letters will have multiple meanings & connotations! This is why, in informal settings, the definition of ...


2

Should we keep on questioning until nothing is left to question or is there a point on which we need to stand (which we often tend to do). Descartes used 'I think' as this fixed point, there may be others. But what is a rational way to find one, if any? How is this question addressed in modern philosophy? Your first sentence ought to end with a question ...


2

Is the coronavirus (COVID-19) another piece of evidence that we are all either ‘atheist’ or 'agnostic'? ... Most of the people in the Persian Gulf nation pray five times a day, ... No. The tags that you used atheism and agnosticism clearly explain: Atheism is (in a broad sense) a skeptic attitude towards the belief in deities. In a narrower sense, ...


1

Since you probably do not have a very good working definition of God you are probably going to have to come up with your own tentative idea. Then the question is whether you think there is something tangible that could be anything near your idea. If you think there is anything that could distinguish itself beyond neutral meaninglessness then you should ...


1

No, agnosticism does not require absolution. Agnosticism is merely ignorance of deity, specifically agnosticism is lack of knowledge regarding deity, and has nothing to do with belief. From the Greek, the "a" in agnostic means "not" or "lack of" and "gnostic" means "known". Not to confuse the person with the position, but as an example of the terms use, an ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible