Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[Propainn]

I actually expected a long-winded rant about the existence of deities, or lack thereof. I was pleasantly surprised to see a well constructed argument about the use of the word agnostic. Well done.

It would've actually been logical had he properly defined gnostic and agnostic.

[Phildozer]

It's adorable when kids go to college and start spewing out a mixture of shit their professor mentioned mixed with the shit they googled when they decided to make a thread about. No one cares about your stance on Agnosticism. I don't care what literally anyone on the planet thinks about something I can make my own judgement on...and neither should you.

[rantus]

That's not practical atheism. You need to have a deep faith in scientific fact to be a practical atheist.

Scientific fact requires no faith, as science is built around the opposite of faith, evidence, research, questioning and so on.

[Salarius]

You could be a deist too. Believing that there is a creator but that's all and he doesn't interact with the world since the point of creation.

An Agnostic is a person who believes there is a force or god of creation but doesn't choose to define it through a religion.
An atheist believes that there is no creator or god, the world is just what is, and that religions are human constructs based on the culture of origin, nothing more.

If you want to hear some religion versus atheism you could listen to a podcast like http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ , some of their casts are a bit racy but they can be fun. FYI the gnostic movement is a mystery tradition that has nothing to do with the state of being a agnostic, the only similarity is the use of the greek term "gnosis" meaning knowledge.

[Device]

A scientific theory is not a guess. Theories explain facts. Sure a theory can be replaced by another theory but the fact still remains, the new theory just explains the fact better/in a different way than the old one.

Yes exactly. Theories EXPLAIN facts, not prove them. There is no way to know if the Big Bang actually happened or not, all we can do is make are theories

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Why are we taking the dude with the "troll" face so seriously?

Anyway, contrary to what the OP thinks, it is a set of beliefs, and though not one I follow, I'd hate for these kinds of threads to continue to pop up. How long until all belief sets are seen as fair game to be bashed upon?

[chani666]

Scientific fact requires no faith, as science is built around the opposite of faith, evidence, research, questioning and so on.

Not true either, as many many other statements in this thread. And its all about the real meaning of agnosticism and similar degrees of certainty.

In science you cannot proof a theory. You can give facts that support your science and all, but in the end you have some sort of faith in a system which supports your ideas. Some scientist think that some things in the universe cannot be tested, some even believe that an system which appears to be true in its own way can still be wrong. So this is all a very difficult topic, and if you want to be good scientist you need also understand philosophy and know which implications a statement has and which it doesnt. Nothing and noone can claim absolute truth, even with scientific proofs/facts.

[Deleted]

, there is no in-between.

yes there is. I do not believe in God or anything like the god concept. or anything supernatural for that matter. but on the other hand I do not say it cant be. Until proven otherwise there is no god.

In the end there is a weak and strong agnosticism and one can be summed up as "I just dont ask the question whether there is a deity or now I dont give a fuck" there ya go thats where I stand.
No need for a god, not yours not anyones.

[rantus]

Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
Agnostic - Claim of not knowing

Theist - Believes there is a God
Atheist - Believes there is no God

An atheist believes there is no god or creative force in this reality, they have already made the claim that they reject the idea of an intelligent creative force at work.

A gnostic atheist would says "I know there is no god." An agnostic atheist would say "I don't think there is a god." Both claims take just as much faith as any theist stance.

Sigh, I thought "this is someone who can explain it in simple terms for the idiots to understand", but then I see your last sentence.

How can a lack of belief in something require faith?

[Salarius]

Sigh, I thought "this is someone who can explain it in simple terms for the idiots to understand", but then I see your last sentence.

How can a lack of belief in something require faith?

lol agnostic and atheist are totally different that's hilarious I missed that guy's crappy post.

[Purrfunctory]

Before you define me would you please tell what you believe you are defining me as?

I consider myself a rational, reasonable person who is sound of mind. I have defined myself as such and have made the only conclusion any such person could make.

[rantus]

Not true either, as many many other statements in this thread. And its all about the real meaning of agnosticism and similar degrees of certainty.

In science you cannot proof a theory. You can give facts that support your science and all, but in the end you have some sort of faith in a system which supports your ideas. Some scientist think that some things in the universe cannot be tested, some even believe that an system which appears to be true in its own way can still be wrong. So this is all a very difficult topic, and if you want to be good scientist you need also understand philosophy and know which implications a statement has and which it doesnt. Nothing and noone can claim absolute truth, even with scientific proofs/facts.

Technically yes. You need a minuscule amount of faith that everything science has discovered so far changed overnight, in the same way you need a tiny amount of faith to believe that if you jump from a tall building you will fall to the ground and be injured or killed.

Yes, you MIGHT become an exception to the theory of gravity at the exact time you jump, you MIGHT be trapped in some unexplained field and the dimensions MIGHT become stretched causing you to fall slowly and be fine. But, considering nothing like this has ever happened, and that people are killed from falling, the amount of faith it would take to believe the same would happen to you is tiny.

Theories are of course never 100% proven, but they reach a stage beyond any reasonable doubt, so don't need faith in a traditional sense to believe.

---------- Post added 2011-02-13 at 12:12 AM ----------

lol agnostic and atheist are totally different that's hilarious I missed that guy's crappy post.

Different but you can of course be both.

I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know for certain, so I'm both agnostic and atheist

[Twoflower]

All I know is that I am agnostic. I am not sure yet on the existence of god though.

Greatly depends on the definition or idea of god.

[mrwingtipshoes]

Stupid question, but how many people actually not what being Agnostic is?

There are MANY different forms of agnosticism and it is more of an umbrella term than a truly defined system of beliefes. While Wikipedia is usually a taboo for proof the article on Agnosticism is pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Personaly i do not believe in either the existence or nonexistence of a god or other deific figure but rather i believe that we as humans are arrogent to believe that we know the truth about the possible existence of an all mighty and omni potent figure. We are in fact nothing sure of foolish to believe that something that powerful and with that much control would allow us to know of his existence unless he wanted to. Of course unless he wanted to just toy with us.

So wait, according to your thread title that means that I do not have a system of beliefs? wait a second who are YOU to tell me that i am wrong and that my beliefs do not qualify as a belief structure? Fine then Christianity isnt a belief system. Why? because i think its not and i don't agree with the word it preaches. No, I'm not serious. YES I'm being sarcastic to prove a point.

[RabbitPrime]

Scientific fact requires no faith, as science is built around the opposite of faith, evidence, research, questioning and so on.

Relying on science for the answers to the universe is a faith game at this point.

[treston323]

Saying god does exist is as stupid as saying god doesn't exist because you simply don't know. You can't know. Nobody does.
What does that make me now? I'm confused.

The burden of proof is on the believer. If you come out and say "God exist!", you have to PROVE he exist. You cant turn it around and say "well, PROVE that he DOESN'T exist!". That would be as ridiculous as me coming up to you and saying "I can fly, now prove that I can fly". You would probably think I am fucking crazy.

I don't care what peoples personal beliefs are. I bet if you asked a bunch of christians what their idea of God was, all of them would be different. If it personally helps them get through their day, I am fine with it.

When it wonders into schools and inslaves innocent minds, I am not ok with it.

[Retsucks]

The burden of proof is on the believer. If you come out and say "God exist!", you have to PROVE he exist. You cant turn it around and say "well, PROVE that he DOESN'T exist!". That would be as ridiculous as me coming up to you and saying "I can fly, now prove that I can fly". You would probably think I am fucking crazy.

I don't care what peoples personal beliefs are. I bet if you asked a bunch of christians what their idea of God was, all of them would be different. If it personally helps them get through their day, I am fine with it.

When it wonders into schools and inslaves innocent minds, I am not ok with it.

Exactly.

Also, you have nothing at all to even base your belief on. I have the fact that magic is not real, unicorns don't exist, people don't rise from the dead, etc. I have practical experience and logic. The very foundation of religion makes no sense. A giant man in the sky with magic powers that simultaneously loves us and destroys us who for some reason decided to send his only son in the world with no proof of his existence. It's utterly ridiculous when looked at from a logical perspective.

Added logic: The fact that most religions adhere to teachings from books that are thousands of years old, written by fallible human beings, and have been edited over 9000 times... I don't even know what to say to that.

[Landwhale]

You made a blanket statement that all religious people only follow morals to avoid a punishment. However, there are several religions which do not threaten their followers with punishment. There are many religions which lack a concept of "hell". You have no religious education aside from what mommy and daddy taught you. You've not even bothered to explore alternate religious doctrines. You have no grounds to accuse every many of faith or religion of acting only to avoid reprimand (which EVERY HUMAN BEING on the planet is ALSO doing). You have no grounds to claim that only religious peoples follow a moral code to avoid negative consequences.

its nice that you make assumptions about me. i have taken MANY religion courses as well as done leisure studies on countless religions. we arent arguing about religions here, its about the belief in a god. and my point is that regardless of whether you believe or dont believe, it doesnt affect your morals.

moral theories are what govern morals, not religions. for example, i am a firm believer in utilitarianism. my point was simply that having a god doesnt mean you are a moral person. MANY people do follow religious doctrines that tell them how to act, but in MANY cases thats to avoid punishment and receive rewards. another example other than christianity is hunduism. they believe in karma. and that the karma you get during this life affects how you will be born in the next (higher or lower status). same type of thing for buddhism, the better you are in this life, the higher chance you have at enlightenment in the next.

it seems to me like YOU dont know anything but hearsay, as you havent given me any examples of religions that dont tell you to act one way or another for some type of benefit to yourself.

[mrwingtipshoes]

The burden of proof is on the believer. If you come out and say "God exist!", you have to PROVE he exist. You cant turn it around and say "well, PROVE that he DOESN'T exist!". That would be as ridiculous as me coming up to you and saying "I can fly, now prove that I can fly". You would probably think I am fucking crazy.

I don't care what peoples personal beliefs are. I bet if you asked a bunch of christians what their idea of God was, all of them would be different. If it personally helps them get through their day, I am fine with it.

When it wonders into schools and inslaves innocent minds, I am not ok with it.

Your version of proof =/= their version of proof. To some Faith is enough to be proof.

[Rocketsurgeon]

Wow this one blew up fast. Sad I missed it earlier.
Being agnostic simply means you don't know. You lack knowledge. I do agree that one could use the word to describe the nature of one's theism or atheism. But it can exist on its own to denote a 5th stance skipped by the OP's list of 4 options.

Is there a god? Can you prove it?:
There is! I can!
There is! I can't
There isn't! I can!
There isn't! I can't
#5 Don't know / Don't care