Thread: Tell me about Agnosticism

I haven't made my mind up about it yet.

It is soft and tender.

Agnostic is personal to every person who believes in it. It's technically someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. But mostly it's a pick and choose of all religions.

This seems fairly knowledge-stained.

Agnosticism is NOT an alternative to atheism or theism. It's an element of each system.



An agnostic atheist would be one who is unsure as to whether or not there is a god, but does not ACTIVELY believe in one. An agnostic theist would be one who believes there is a higher power of some sort or another, but has no clue what that power might be, or if it actually exists. A person who is wholly undecided on the matter is usually classified as an agnostic atheist, as they do not technically believe in a higher power.

Well, thanks guys.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Agnosticism is NOT an alternative to atheism or theism. It's an element of each system.



An agnostic atheist would be one who is unsure as to whether or not there is a god, but does not ACTIVELY believe in one. An agnostic theist would be one who believes there is a higher power of some sort or another, but has no clue what that power might be, or if it actually exists. A person who is wholly undecided on the matter is usually classified as an agnostic atheist, as they do not technically believe in a higher power.

I guess I consider myself agnostic atheist since I don't really believe in higher power, really because there isn't much evidence that we currently hold.

Also related, but distinct for Agnosticism is Ignosticism. From Wikipedia:

The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.

In other words, if the nature of god is indefinite, then the question of god's existence is pointless, since you can't prove of disprove the existence of something indefinite.

Originally Posted by Siиdяed

I haven't made my mind up about it yet.

funny

Alright... thanks guys

Let's dissect the word. 'Ag' is greek for act. No means against. 'Sti' is a latin pre/suffix for 'to make a stand.' And c/ism means a belief. So agnosticism is a belief in which someone takes a stand against acting, probably because that form of entertainment detaches us from reality and blurs our perception of the world. Hope I helped.

I think it means something different to everyone else. I am an agnostic because I was raised Atheist but I don't believe there is nothing else out there like my family does. I heard somewhere a quote that agnostics "Swear there's not a heaven, but pray there's not a hell." that doesn't really apply to me, but on some level I think maybe a greater force is just wishful thinking? But then other times I'm sure there's life after death and all that, so I dunno. Basically I've decided that I'll follow my own moral code, which is basically trying my best to always do the right thing, while hoping there is some kind of meaning behind everything.

I'm agnostic about everything, not just God.

Really, there is little difference between the word agnostic and atheist. The way most people use the word agnostic, they should actually be saying atheist. And the way most people use the word atheist, they should actually be saying anti-theist.

Really, there is little difference between the word agnostic and atheist. The way most people use the word agnostic, they should actually be saying atheist. And the way most people use the word atheist, they should actually be saying anti-theist.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure athiests simply believe there is nothing out there, except they probably believe in science, but agnostics are open to the idea of some kind of greater force.

Originally Posted by LostInThought

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure athiests simply believe there is nothing out there, except they probably believe in science, but agnostics are open to the idea of some kind of greater force.

Believe it or not, most atheists recognize that there is the possibility of a higher power. They just choose not to believe in it. In today's connotation, "agnostic" is usually closer to the dictionary definition of "atheist," in that many agnostics don't actively believe in a higher power. Atheism, in the mean time, has come to mean a person who doesn't believe in a higher power...but also tends to look down upon religion.

Originally Posted by spockman

Really, there is little difference between the word agnostic and atheist. The way most people use the word agnostic, they should actually be saying atheist. And the way most people use the word atheist, they should actually be saying anti-theist.

I agree. I don't really make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I sometimes go as far as to say there is no such thing as agnosticism, and most debates on religion have to do with specific aspects of a religion on Earth rather than the concept of a higher power. Both can be open to the idea of a God, but by default they assume there is no God until proven otherwise. Atheists can be just as uncertain as agnostics.

I was thinking that Agnostics basically don't believe in God by default, but they just cannot be too sure because there is that "what if". Then there are Atheists who basically think that religion is a load of crap, pure and simple.

Thanks for all the info guys

You seem to miss that agnosticism in its true form doesn't mean "I don't know" but "One cannot know".

Actually there is a very great difference. Since perception determines conception, conception determines will, an agnostic is the only one of the three that simply says, "If a thing exists then it can be found like any thing else." So called belivers do not need evidence, and athiests will often ignore evidence. A true aethist is as religious as anyone else.

I use to be agnostic, till I found evidence of something. Belief is founded upon direct experience. Secondly, when evidence is found, that is the only thing known--it does not support mysticism or denial of fact.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Actually there is a very great difference. Since perception determines conception, conception determines will, an agnostic is the only one of the three that simply says, "If a thing exists then it can be found like any thing else." So called belivers do not need evidence, and athiests will often ignore evidence. A true aethist is as religious as anyone else.

I use to be agnostic, till I found evidence of something. Belief is founded upon direct experience. Secondly, when evidence is found, that is the only thing known--it does not support mysticism or denial of fact.

Perception doesn't determine fact, though. And if it did, it wouldn't matter what anyone was. Atheist, theist, it wouldn't matter.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Actually there is a very great difference. Since perception determines conception, conception determines will, an agnostic is the only one of the three that simply says, "If a thing exists then it can be found like any thing else." So called belivers do not need evidence, and athiests will often ignore evidence. A true aethist is as religious as anyone else.

I use to be agnostic, till I found evidence of something. Belief is founded upon direct experience. Secondly, when evidence is found, that is the only thing known--it does not support mysticism or denial of fact.

I'm assuming you're talking about gnostic atheists...the ones that claim to know for fact there is no god.



You'll find most atheists are agnostic atheists, or at least acknowledge the possibility of a god. They just choose not to believe in any god or higher power.

Claiming that something does not exist because one has not known something is an affirmation based on ignorance.

Originally Posted by spockman

Perception doesn't determine fact, though. And if it did, it wouldn't matter what anyone was. Atheist, theist, it wouldn't matter.

Perception is part of a causal chain. Plato put it another way, the ability to change something else is power, ie. existence. Causality denotes that something exists.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Claiming that something does not exist because one has not known something is an affirmation based on ignorance.

Let me put it this way: if you genuinely don't KNOW that something exists or doesn't, then you don't believe in it. You are de-facto atheist. You don't have to claim it doesn't exist. You don't have to know it doesn't exist. What it comes down to is whether or not you believe it exists. You either can, or can't. I hold that believing something without any evidence is far less wise than not believing in it. Choosing not to believe in no way means you have ever said it does not exist. It can exist. For someone who claims to be so bright, why is this such a difficult concept for you?

Please note that atheists aren't denying evidence. It is literally impossible to collect any evidence whatsoever for any divine being.