Personally, I think atheism is superior. My problem with agnosticism is that it doesn't put a probability of the question of God's existence. The term makes it sound like there is equal evidence supporting both theism and atheism, which I don't think is the case.
Texas14: " but atheists are so arrogant to the point where they say that they know that God doesn't exist. " I am not arrogant on the subject. I accept the possibility of a god; there just isn't any evidence of one. If there is legitimate, scientific evidence of a god's existence, I have no problem changing my stance on the topic.
I would like to inform the uninformed about the different forms of Agnosticism. There are...
Agnostic Atheist- One who does not believe there is a god but does not claim to know of one's non existence.
Agnostic Theist- One who believes in a god but does not claim to know of one's existence.
Apathetic- One who believes that regardless of whether or not a god exists, they do not seem to care about the Universe or its inhabitants.
Strong Agnostic- one does not know if there is a god and does not believe we can know.
Weak Agnostic- one who does not know if there is a god but believes that eventually we can know.
Which of these would do you think you fit?
I would be a Weak Agnostic Atheist/Apathetic.
I have to see, to see that i dont see a dog right now. In other Words, i dont know god, and only know is true. Beyond what i know is what i dont know, and i have to imagine what my neighbour is doing right now. False=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now. My personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing
Dookieman "@Varrack I just wanted to get people's opinion on non religious worldviews." Just wanted to point out that some people can stretch atheism to the point it is a religion for them. Also, some people can be theists without being religious. Believing in God doesn't mean a person subscribes to a religion and lack of belief in God doesn't mean they are without a religion necessarily.
Now, I'll try to back my claim here... A religion doesn't have to be any of the formed and organised religions there are out there... All a religion has to be to fit the Merriam Webster dictionary definition is partially (there are more definitions): "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group."
Obviously many atheists think their atheism is important to them - otherwise why the debate? Why the discussions?
Also, a person can be a theist and not be part of a religion necessarily, by not participating in the debates. They would continue to believe in God, but potentially not find much importance in this belief. In some ways it depends on the individual.
As for the answer, I would say Agnosticism is better than Atheism because atheism as a concept acts as if it is too certain. What about the doubt that there might be a God? Agnosticism allows for that doubt to exist.