Atheist or agnostic?

what one(atheism, agnostism) would make most sense from a logical perspective.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God.

Agnostic is the position that ultimate truths (such as the existance of God) are unknowable.

This the way people who represent themselves as atheists and agnostics usually define the terms. Other people usually define the terms a little differently. They consider an atheist as someone who denies or believes that there is no god. They think of an agnostic a someone who isn't sure if god exists.

Among atheists some make the distinction of "strong atheist" as someone who believes no gods exist and "weak atheist" as someone who doesn't believe in any god.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Some athiests shy away from the agnostic label because the way other people define the term it makes their position seem weaker.

well I guess technically you can never actually say you KNOW FOR SURE there is no God, you can't actually prove this negative... so agnostism...)

well, personally, I am a combination of the two. It really just depends on what you think. If you don't believe in God or Jesus or anything 'holy' than you are an atheist. If you cant say you believe but you cant say you dont believe, then you are agnostic. I f you are agnostic but leaning more toward not believing, then you are an atheist agnostic, like me! hope this helps!

I agree with the first answer. A "logical perspective" means 100%, and you can't really prove there is a god (without a doubt), so therefore you can't prove there isn't. There will always be that small chunk of doubt, AKA agnosticism.

They both make sense. Agnosticism is being "without knowledge" in the Greek. Atheism is being "without belief in gods" in the Greek. If I have no knowledge of any gods, why in the world would I believe in them? That is why I declare myself an agnostic atheist.

Formally, as filletofspam has explained, agnosticism is a claim that gods are unknowable. But how can you know that gods are unknowable, unless you have access to at least 1 bit of knowledge about gods; namely, that they are unknowable.

Formal agnosticism is thus inconsistent.

In the vernacular, the word 'agnostic' generally just means "I don't know anything about any gods". This isn't a logically inconsistent position, but it is inconsistent in the sense that it gives unearned plausibility to the concept of gods. People don't go around saying "I'm unsure if Scooby Doo is real". The average agnostic would treat such an idea as laughably absurd, yet, there's equal evidence for the existence of a historical Scooby as there is for the existence of creator-type gods.

So, is atheism a logically consistent position? As long as it's understood to simply be an ordinary inductive conclusion like any other, then yes. It's logically possible that there is a real Scooby Doo, but ordinary inductive reasoning concludes there is not. The same for gods.

The existence of a supreme deity or an afterlife cannot be determined, measured, observed, or recorded through any means other than personal faith. Because we have no way of disproving that someone is placing their faith in a supreme deity (as it is often defined), then some people claim there is no way of disproving that god exists.

I'm more agnostic atheist like filletofspam said, because for me if I cannot have proof there is a supreme deity and know for certain that it does exist, it may as well not.

I like what the philosopher Bertrand Russell said about being agnostic/atheist:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. "

According to the strict definitions, everyone is agnostic. Cause even believers have no knowldge of the existence of a diety. They just blindly believe there is one.

Athiests simply don't believe in the supernatural. That's it.

jimahl,

To be technically correct, I think we must say that atheists don't believe in any gods. There are atheists that believe in other supernatural phenomena such as ghosts and psychics. I can't imagine why they don't apply the same skepticism to these things as they do religion but it does sometimes happen.

You are right eleni, but I think most people who seriously and critically examine religious belief and see it for what it is also see other forms of supernatural belief in the same way. But there are exceptions.

Neither. Now if you want to talk Christianity let me know

I really don't think logic has anything to do with any type of religion... I'm agnostic, btw.

I think logic would point toward Agnosticism. Since the existence of God, god(s) has yet to be proven or disproven, and since faith is illogical; the logical choice is to neither believe nor disbelieve.

...in MY head anyway. But logic isn't my reason for being Agnostic.