Printable View
I just thought that since there was an Athiest thread, and a Christian thread, there should also be an agnostic thread.
I'm agnostic.....I don't believe in God, but I don't think there is any way to truly know what truly 'is' or 'isn't'......I, myself, believe that there is a connection between all living organisms.......
Questions, comments, opinions, or snide remarks?
Firstly, I believe its useful for us as a group to comprehend the definition of agnostic and what it principle is.....
I would write my own post but its 2:30am in the UK (lol).
Im waiting for the UK elections and its boring so i thought i would use DV.
If you got this far, check out the site if you want to know what agnostic means:-Quote:
What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time. *
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists. *
Since you deny `God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to conduct?
An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'. *
How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic consider a sin?
The Agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation. *
As for `sin', he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept Hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of `sin'. [/b]
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/...ll/agnostic.htm
Well, it isn't that I don't think there is absolutly not a higher being........At least not in the way Christians interpret a higher being....
Personally I think agnostics are the ones who really have the best chance of being right. I am some kind of christian, but on the other hand I'm also agnostic. I believe the God exists in some form but I also don't believe it's possible to prove nor unprove that.
PS. This topic should be named "This topic is for Agnostics only! (You can't prove if Jesus is my saviour, etc." http://hoyhensaaret.info/foorumi/images/smiles/lol.gif
I’m in the same boat, not 100% Christian, but I have dreams about morals and a higher force governing laws of truth etc. When I dream about my friend who’s Christian we always end up arguing, he doesn’t understand that I cannot blindly accept something that might be fabricated. If I want to discover truth, I want to understand it on my own terms before some tries to "save me" I find it really patronizing and very hard to deal with. Faith is not part of religion in my opinion but I would like to understand Faith..
A sense of direction maybe....
Agnostics: The Ultimate Fence Riders
(I always did prefer snide remarks.) :P
Agnosticism is the only position on the question of god that makes any sense. To say that there is a god is like saying Joe P. Smith has a computer in his basement. While it is certainly possible, maybe even likely that Joe has a computer in his basement, we really don't know(even if we've been to his house and seen it - it may have been moved). To say that Joe doesn't have a computer in his basement is equally untenable. When people get into particulars of religions it gets even more complex and unlikely.
Of course it all comes down to a person's epistemology. Empirically there really is no case either way(there would probably be more evidence to favor the existance of a god). The only way you can really justify believing in a god or believing god doesn't exist is if you are a rationalist and believe that one way or the other there is an innate principle of reasoning that is authoritative on the subject(which I don't see), or more likely, you're an irrationalist and don't really have a logical justification for your claims either way. Skepticism is also only compatible with agnosticism.
I would say that there are few people who assert that god does not exist(atheism), but many people who don't believe that god exists(agnosticism). Personally, I wouldn't include agnosticism in this debate, I really see it more divided along the lines of whether or not you believe that god exists. Agnostics generally don't believe in god and so they should be classified as Atheists because the lack the belief in a god whereas Theists believe that god exists. Whether you believe god does not exist or not is a different matter entirely.
Huh?!Quote:
Originally posted by Belisarius
I would say that there are few people who assert that god does not exist(atheism), but many people who don't believe that god exists(agnosticism).
Agnostics generally don't believe in god and so they should be classified as Atheists because the lack the belief in a god whereas Theists believe that god exists.
I always thought that agnosticism means that a person believes that there isn't enough evidence for neither that god(s) exists nor that god(s) don't exist, or that it's not even possible to get that evidence.
I don't think you can classify agnostics as atheists. As I told, I do believe in God, but I don't believe it's possible to prove that he exists. So, I'm a theist (Christian) but on the other hand I'm an agnostic.
You know what I think? With the millions of people on the planet, you aren't going to find a word to describe all of their opinons. So stop trying.
Hate, it is because atheists have given agnosticism a skewed name. Atheists have split themselves into 2 basic sects: those who assert that god does not exist (classic atheism; strong atheism) and those who have an absence of belief in god (contemporary athiesm; weak atheism). Technically speaking, anyone who is not a theist is a weak or contemporary atheist.
Now, somewhere along the way, maybe either by classic atheists not wanted to be associated with contemporary atheists or by contemporary atheists not wanting to be associated with classic atheists, contemporary atheism has come to be synonymous with agnosticism (contemporary agnosticism; weak agnosticism)
However, classically an agnostic was not only someone who was undecided on the existence of god, but also someone who believed that the question was unanswerable. We cannot know if god exists or not, and therefore we should neither believe nor disbelieve in god (classic agnosticism; strong agnosticism).
Then there is also agnosticism as coined by Huxley that simply means a rational method; that is, someone who proportions their beliefs to the strength of reasoning. Agnosticism in this sense does not focus on the question of god, but on a broad range of philosophical and metaphysical questions. In this type of agnosticism on the question of god, if evidence establishes theism, the person will be both theistic and agnostic. And also the opposite is true if evidence establishes atheism. (original agnosticism)
So then we have:
classic atheism = positive belief god does not exist
contemporary atheism = absence of belief in god
contemporary agnosticism = contemporary atheism
original agnosticism = proportioning belief to evidence
classic agnosticism = absence of belief in god based on rational conclusions that the question is unanswerable
And to make matters even worse, there is apathetic agnosticism (ignosticsm or apatheism) that takes the view that question on the existence of god is ultimately meaningless, and has no verifiable consequences. It is a question that is of no importance. And even if suddenly the answer to the question were to become known to all, it would not be likely to have any effect on your life or lessen your pain or increase your happiness (ok that is tossing a bit of Buddhism in there. I apologize)
When I personally use the term agnostic, I mean in the classical sense. However, more and more, people are using the term to describe contemporary atheism, which I think is where some of the confusion has come into play. Classic atheists don't want to be associated with contemporary atheists, and neither do classic agnostics. Perhaps contemporary atheists/contemporary agnostics should define their own system and stop trying to nudge into others ;)
I found this, which is kind of cute to boil it down:
theists don't deny, agnostics don't know, atheists don't believe, and apatheists don't care.
Myself personally, I am most closely aligned with apatheism, classic agnosticism, and original agnosticism; though none completely describe myself.
I didn't have enough room to type it all...I got to Savior, and I couldn't type anymore....Quote:
Originally posted by hate
PS. This topic should be named \"This topic is for Agnostics only! (You can't prove if Jesus is my saviour, etc.\"
Well, when I say I'm agnostic, I associate it with classical agnosticism.
Without dropping my bookshelf on this thread, I'd make the following distinctions...
Agnosticism is an acknowledgment of personal ignorance. That's another way of describing Comtemporary Agnosticism, but the most important element of this perspective is that there is no active belief. The agnostic does not say "I believe [blank].' Not even to say, 'I believe there is not enough evidence.' It is more appropriate for the agnostic to state, 'I simply do not know.' The general denunciation of belief implies knowledge of (or faith in a belief about) the veracity of another person's theological epistology.
Athiesm is a faith position. Athiesm flatly denies the existence of God. This position of faith, particularly when held by rationalists, is absurd. It's a direct controdiction of basic science. The non-existence of God is clearly unprovable. So called contemporary athiests erode the value of the acknowledgement of one's ignorance by attaching a faith position (ar at least the term that implies this) to a non-faith based understanding.
At least, that's how I have come to view these things.
Yeah i indetified with Athiesm for a while but then I realized that humans pretty much know nothing about the universe considering we are only 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000 of it.
agnostics remind me of the fat guy in line at burger king that cant make up his mind. hurry the fuck up and come to a conclusion you selfish bastards.
Fun Fact:
Agnosticism is not a third option to theism or atheism; it is a type of theist or atheist.
Read this article:
Atheism vs. Agnosticism: The difference between the two
Here's a brief excerpt:
[quote][SIZE=2]Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that “agnosticism” actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that “atheism” is limited to “strong atheism” — the assertion that no gods do or can exist. If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of “third way” between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true.</span>
Summary: If you "just don\'t know" whether or not there is a god, believe there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove God\'s existence, etc, then you are an "agnostic atheist."
Definition of an Dead Agnostic: All Dressed Up With Nowhere To Go.
LOL...nice! ;) ~Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
Definition of an Dead Agnostic: All Dressed Up With Nowhere To Go.
LMFAO @ KP!!
Ok I had a big long post written out, but I didn't think it was turning out right, so I'll just say:
I'm agnostic in the sense that I don't believe there is enough evidence either way to conclude on whether or not God is real, and I'm not going to structure a whole "Belief system" off of something I'm not sure of.
Also I think the "Agnostics need to hurry up and choose something" standpoint is pretty humorous. :chuckle: No offense to those that feel that way.
I'm not sure this topic is for me.
Wouldn't that be a dead Atheist?Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
Definition of an Dead Agnostic: All Dressed Up With Nowhere To Go.
A dead Agnostic would be more like, all dressed up and not sure of where they're going or not.
Nope - a dead Atheist would cease to exist. A dead Agnostic would neither be able to cease to exist nor go on to the fantasy-land-in-the-sky.
i just came in here to find out what an Agnostics was, im sure everyone else knew what it was its justme who dont :(
aahhh this makes me feel all warm a tingly :loveyou:Quote:
Originally posted by dream-scape
And to make matters even worse, there is apathetic agnosticism (ignosticsm or apatheism) that takes the view that question on the existence of god is ultimately meaningless, and has no verifiable consequences. It is a question that is of no importance. And even if suddenly the answer to the question were to become known to all, it would not be likely to have any effect on your life or lessen your pain or increase your happiness (ok that is tossing a bit of Buddhism in there. I apologize)
Well, I think there is a 1 in a google (1 with 100 zeros) chance that what can legitimately be called "God" exists. Any good scientist leaves some room for error. Does that make me agnostic? I would say about the same about the Tooth Fairy. Would you say that based on that I "don't believe" in the Tooth Fairy? As for the Judeo-Christian God, is see more like a 1 in a google squared chance.