Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[Eloona]

I red some parts of the bible when I was around 10 years old, and I decided it was a complete nonsense.

Well since you can't even spell the word "read" correctly we can all assume that you wouldn't have been able to understand anything that you read anyway.

Mod Edit: This is an international forum, not everyone speaks English perfectly. Personal attacks are also unnecessary.

[Ägallar]

Did you read the first seven pages? I've stated my points several times over.

You almost dodged the statement I made. However, I DID read the first 7 pages and have found a severe lack of anything aside from "He is right, everyone else is wrong." coming from your arguments. What I'm asking is for you OR for Sarcasm to reference with links, the resources you're both using to come to such profound conclusions.

Just because someone asserts something as fact, does not make it fact. Let's use your scientific minds to SOURCE your arguements before you so condescendingly dismiss others.

[RabbitPrime]

@Rabbit
I'm saying he's always correct, but there is no argument left. We say "here is what the letter 'a' does to this word." You say "No, I don't want to believe that, here's some stuff I think is real instead." Where is the discussion, then?

Read my post, he's objectively wrong in his original assessment and so all arguments dependent upon that original assessment being truth are now also wrong.

[Rukus]

It's actually an excellent thing to do. There is NEVER a reason to take anything on faith. If it can't be backed up with evidence to prove or suggest it, it's not worth considering.


This is pretty much the crux of it. Coming from a circle of friends where roughly half of us are theists, I am the only atheist amongst us who does try and call myself "agnostic" to describe my beliefs, because the others just don't want to offend those of us who are theists by trying to put themselves in a 'middle position'.

This is early 1900 empiricism at its finest! There are many things we take for granted on faith ALL the time without evidence to back it up. Even "science" itself is not a tangible object or something you can put in the test tube (im talking about science as the actual scientific methodology here). The existence of moral values cant really be "proven" but yet we take them for granted every day (ex: it REALLY is wrong to rape a little child even though it may provide some evolutionary benefit for the rapist). The fact that we trust our cognitive faculties to give us a clear picture of the outside world is based on pure faith...we rely on something that we cant even know exists much less prove its existence. For instance, am I 100% that I am NOT a brain in a vat of chemicals right now that is being prodded by a mad scientist to believe I am a real person typing on a real internet forum? I cant really prove that I am not, but anyone who would consider such outlandish belief would be considered a fool! Even though its not verifiable by science or "proof".

Absence of evidence is also NOT evidence for absence...remember that. Just because we lack evidence for a planet with green aliens on it does NOT mean such a planet does not exist. To conclude "planet X simply doesnt exist because we dont have much evidence for it" is really taking an extreme position thus requiring the person making that claim to provide some burden of proof.

Atheists, like theists, must also share a burden of proof if they are to claim the non-existence of something. Wonder why most Atheists withdrew from their "God does NOT exist" claim to the much more subtle "I lack a belief in God" title? Because they realize the "God does NOT exist" claim can never be backed up by any evidence and thus the burden of proof can not be held.

I am a theist (if you couldnt tell) but I am also a philosophy student and I have studied these issues for well over 6 years. The internet is crawling with bad logic, ignorant claims and empty arguments. If you really wish to dive into this issue, I suggest reading some scholarly books on the subject: For great atheist philosophers go with Quitin Smith, David Hume (really agnostic), Austin Dacey, Antony Flew (who is now a deist). I would stay away from the "popular" ones such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Htichens and those like them...they really are bad at philosophy and theology.

For the theist side these are the best in the game: William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Francis Schaeffer, Alister McGraff, etc.


To the OP: I agree with you that there really is no such thing as an "Agnostic" position. Over time, one will tend to favor one side of the fence more so than the other. Agnosticism is only a temporary "lack of knowledge" position and cannot be a tenable world view.

[sprrw]

if "agnostic atheist" means, as a few posts have mentioned, that one does not believe in gods but admits that it cannot be known, then what is the point of the word agnostic?

maybe it's just the way i roll, but i kind of feel that everyone implies the phrase "but that cannot be known 100% absolutely" after everything they say. "agnostic" seems redundant.

if someone asks you for a can of beans, you don't say "this MIGHT be a can of beans. but there's a chance there was an error in the factory and it's actually filled with peas despite its bean-label. i'm not sure, here you go!" no, you use your reasoning to determine that stuff like that probably doesn't happen much so there's no point in even acknowledging it. of course it's possible, but you don't think it's the case.

example scenario
jerry: where's pam?
dale: she went to the grocery store.

pam's not the type to lie, and dale saw her get in the car and drive off in the direction of the store--but pam only went to the store as far as the best of dale's reasoning abilities are concerned.


i'm an atheist, and i know that it's entirely possible that i could be wrong. but to the best of my reasoning abilities, i don't think i am, so i don't use the word "agnostic." not since high school, at least. but maybe i'm still getting the definition wrong.

[Lysah]

You almost dodged the statement I made. However, I DID read the first 7 pages and have found a severe lack of anything aside from "He is right, everyone else is wrong." coming from your arguments. What I'm asking is for you OR for Sarcasm to reference with links, the resources you're both using to come to such profound conclusions.

Just because someone asserts something as fact, does not make it fact. Let's use your scientific minds to SOURCE your arguements before you so condescendingly dismiss others.

I'm not going to retype the twenty posts I've already made in this thread, they're still there if you want to see my opinions. I've agreed with Sarcasm a few times, it is hardly the entirety of my presence in this thread.

@Rabbit
He is not. If you are not a theist you are an atheist, that is simply how the language works. We never were arguing over the religious stuff here, it has always been about the semantics. Sarcasm wants "agnostics" to stop pretending they're so much better than "atheists" when they're really the same people, and I'm just trying to teach people a thing or two about the first letter of the alphabet.

[Landwhale]

Deism has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not one believes in a god. Deists, by definition, must believe in a god to be a deist. They just don't believe that god interacts with our world in any way, shape, or form.

Fideism maintains that faith is independent of reason. Once again, it doesn't have anything to do with gnostic/agnostic. The doctrine simply states that faith is superior to reason when trying to determine truths. It still results in someone claiming to "know". IE, "Credo quia absurdum" ("I believe because it is absurd").

are you joking? deism has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not one believes in a god. deism is the belief that there is a god and that you can prove it with reasoning etc. what that god does (interacts w/ the world or not) is completely irrelevant.

[haxartus]

Well since you can't even spell the word "read" correctly we can all assume that you wouldn't have been able to understand anything that you read anyway.

I fixed it I was thinking which was the past tense form of "read" so the mistake come from there. I'm not from an English speaking country, but I know 3 languages, which is definitely more than you, I imagine.

[Sarcasm]

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Textbook definition of agnosticism.

He's wrong in his model and so is wrong in everything else.

If you mean to tell me that he is only correct if I see things from his point of view, then you're telling me that he is not objectively correct and so is indeed wrong.

Atheism is not a religious doctrine. I don't know how many more times I have to say it.

[RabbitPrime]

Except that's actually choosing between two different objects (or two different religions). Atheists don't argue that "atheism is correct", they're arguing that religion is not correct. That's all atheism is. Choosing neither watch is rejecting both watches, which is being atheist, because you can't decide which religion is superior.

Atheism is not an absence of choice, atheism is choosing to reject theism.

a·the·ism   
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[dragonix]

you sir, are very annoying. there is a middle ground between 100% believer and non-believer. I believe that there must be some sort of divine being or whatever, its just that there is no way i can possibly believe he is some sort of all knowing, all powerful, benevolent creature of goodness. If there is a god, he must be one sick, twisted creature. seeing as how there is no religion that believes in a being like that, i choose to simply say im agnostic.

[Device]

Atheism is not an absence of choice, atheism is choosing to reject theism.

a·the·ism   
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You just proved his point by trying to disprove it

[Doylez]

5 seconds to reject or accept the equation? You're kidding right? That's like telling scientists at the LHC "You have one week to prove the Higgs-Boson exists, otherwise it obviously must not."

*sigh* You still don't get it. The point is you can't possibly know the answer in the given timeframe. Just as you cannot find the answer to "Does god exist or doesn't he exist" during your lifetime.

[Landwhale]

Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
Agnostic - Claim of not knowing.

gnostic: claims there is a god-like creator of the universe. someone earlier posted about the origination of the word agnostic. go read that post.

[muCephei]

The thing that scares me about all of this is that if I go on in life without believing there is a God then I die, and there really is a God, I go to hell. If I do believe in God and I accept Jesus christ as my savior then I die, and there isn't really a God, nothing happens. Unless in fact I just chose the wrong faith and then I'm just screwed either way. There is no proof either way no matter what some of you people say.

That sounds exactly like Pascal's Wager and the strange thing is you even include in your post exactly why Pascal's Wager is flawed. It is flawed because it creates the false dichotomy of Christianity and Atheism, when as you said other religion's could be right.

What if Islam is right? You're going to hell to be tortured
What is Judaism is right? Then you're not going to "hell" per say, but the idea is more of the original concept of Hell, a place without "God's light"
What if Paganism is right? Then you're getting reincarnated

Until I see some proof that God doesn't exist, this is what I will believe.

Side note: Its your job to prove God(s) exists, not up to us to prove they don't. You're asking us to prove a negative. Its a logical fallacy, look it up.

[RabbitPrime]

Atheism is not a religious doctrine. I don't know how many more times I have to say it.

You left out a very important section of that post. Your definition of theistic atheism is wrong. Your entire argument is based on all four definitions being correct. Therefore, if one is wrong, they all are wrong and you need to reassess the entire model before telling people it is factual information.

[Sarcasm]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that one has to accept one and reject the other. Several people have said as much, and you have yet to come up with an acceptable reason that this is true. There IS a middle ground. Neither accept or reject either. There. middle ground.

I never said you have to accept one and reject the other, not at all. As an agnostic atheist, I reject both statements. "God exists" nope, I don't buy it. "God doesn't exist" nope, I don't buy it. But because I have rejected the statement "God exists", this makes me an atheist, regardless of whether or not I accept/reject the statement "God doesn't exist".

[Patchwerk]

My definition of God is what's beyond our senses and our universe. The forces behind the creation of our universe. I don't believe in any kind of judgement in death based on our life. That is simply ridiculous

[Eloona]

I fixed it I was thinking how was the past tense form of "read" so the mistake come from there. I'm not from an English speaking country, but I know 3 languages, which is definitely more than you I imagine.

Wow I'm giving you an "E-cookie". Congratulations on knowing 3 languages. *pats your back*

[Halabash]

Out of the 4 possible categories I think what matters after death come to a few possible conclusions:
1.Gnostic= you die, you get judged, (thinking of saying "I knew it" would be validated ) or nothing happens(feeling silly for beliefs is really moot , cause your dead)
2.Agnostic= you die, you get judged, (surprised?) or nothing happens (feeling like saying "I knew it!" is rendered moot, cause your dead)
3. Gnostic Athiest= you die, you get judged, (your upset cause this not how this was supposed to go down) or nothing happens (see agnostic response in the same situation)
4.Agnostic Athiest= you die, you get judged,(gnostic athiest response to being judged) or nothing (see agnostic response for same situation)

100%= chance of not caring if nothing happens
62.5%= chance of being upset if you get judged
25%= chance of being happy to go thru judgement
12.5%= chance of being happy to go thru judgement w/o prior preparation

I'm not saying subscribe to a specific religion but I am saying that not recognizing God mathematically does not make sense to me. As far as proof of God's existence I think that is highly subjective your own life experiences. For me the proof is visible everyday just like trees outside my home. On a side note to those that question thiestic claims....You guys should read the a little short story called The Three Stigmata of Simon Eldritch written by a guy named Phillip K. Dick