Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[Landwhale]

I never said it wasn't a viewpoint. I said it wasn't a system of belief.

re-read his post. agnosticism is defined as the BELIEF that certain metaphysical questions are unknown and/or unknowable.

[deevicoos]

If you're being asked "Do you believe in a God" and you don't know, then again, it's most likely that you don't believe in any, which makes you an atheist.

But I don't know. I do not know. I don't know what I believe. It can be likely, but I don't see any thought on the subject reaching a useful point. In essence I'm Shroedinger's theist, I exist both as a theist and an atheist. If you have to categorise me. But I don't really feel that either stating "I don't believe in god" or "I do believe in god" feel comfortable at all. Both sit wrong with me. It's like I'm lying whichever I say.

[mercutiouk]

Just as I can't QUITE place where I am. I considered agnostic to be the belief that while there my be a god/gods nothing from any prescribed religion fit what I thought about it?

I belief in some form of balance that works to keep things level. I guess the budist "karma" idea comes close. I try and life as a pretty decent person while not being walked on and assume this will result in decent things happening for me. It's never to an extreme but I weigh actions regarding others. If it's something small that will make a huge difference to someone else, why not do it?

I consider my level of "luck" to be pretty high as a result. So it's either an amazing placebo effect or there is something in it. I occasionally sit quietly and ask in my head for things to happen and the direction I will for things to go. They don't always happen how I want but the direction seems to be about right.

But yeah, back on point. Does agnostic cover me? Or am I atheist agnostic?

[Ägallar]

The only thing I've gotten out of this thread is:

If you attempt to be non-combative within any given conflict, you will be assaulted for inactivity. Believing that something is not worth fighting over is an act punishable by those with a steadfast resolve.

I do not see how being angry over religious affiliations makes anyone any better than someone that chooses to remain neutral on an issue they don't feel is worth bloodshed (either verbal, or physical).

[Sarcasm]

When you flip your coin and tell me it's not heads, I do not accept it. Does this mean I accept that it must be tails? No, I would reject that notion as well, until you lifted your hand and showed me.

Not the same. There are two different claims here to be rejected/accepted. If you reject the claim "the coin is not heads", then that's that, you rejected the claim. You then move on to the claim "the coin is tails", which again, you can accept or reject.

[BlackwingHecate]

This isn't quite right. There is no way to "believe" God doesn't exist. You can't believe in a nothing. You can "know" God doesn't exist, which would make you a gnostic atheist. If you reject theistic claims, you're an atheist. Whether you're an agnostic or a gnostic atheist is up to you, and what you're willing to claim about God.

There very much is a way to believe god doesn't exist. You're not believing in nothing, your believing in the lack of something, which is not the same thing.

[Deleted]

I believe there is a higher power (not a deity as such, more like some sort of primal energy that... errr... makes stuff happen I guess) but it's unexplainable to the extent that all worship and/or weaving stories around it is pointless since it eventually doesn't care about you. Where does that put me?

Though I will admit I usually just say I'm agnostic (I know it's a flawed description, but funnily enough it makes religious people shut up and not press the point, unlike declaring yourself an atheist).

[phoenixbow]

You're all arguing this point as if atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic lie on the same continuum. They don't. They are 2 different spectrum. If you don't care, you're not agnostic, you are apathetic.

An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

A theist gnostic is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.

An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.





http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

[zorkuus]

Nope, I neither reject nor accept the idea. I'm just not deciding until I know for certain.

Belief/nonbelief is not a matter of choise. Either you are persuaded by something or you're not. You can not choose to believe that which you do not believe, and vice versa. A/theism and a/gnosticism deal with two completely different questions. a/theism = Do you believe? a/gnosticism = Do you know? If you don't know then you are either an agnostic atheist (you don't believe but don't claim to know either) or an agnostic theist (you believe but admit you have only pure faith and no actual knowledge).

[RabbitPrime]

What makes you think we aren't educated? Because we don't agree with you? What your teacher told you and what my teacher told me could be different things, you see.

Sarcasm has explained this in as many ways as I can think of, honestly.

Sarcasm is explaining things based on his inaccurate definitions. Everything he's brought goes back to that foundation he set, but the foundation is a faux foundation and so his points are faux points and nothing he has said holds any water or is drawn from any fact; it is rather drawn from misinformation and assumptions.

[Device]

re-read his post. agnosticism is defined as the BELIEF that certain metaphysical questions are unknown and/or unknowable.

That's a different belief. Belief doesn't always have to be something like religion

[Doylez]

If you don't accept an idea, then by definition you reject it, whether you realise/want to admit it or not.

No, you still don't get it. Here have another example.
You have 5 seconds to accept or reject this equation:

942*145*741*441*129*111-639128805416009 = 3

Do you believe this is true or not? Or do you wait until you know for sure before you make a statement?

[Espe]

It takes just as much faith to be a theist or an atheist. You're saying you know for sure one way or another. Agnostics literally consider themselves "without knowledge" of such things.

Agnostics do not know where our consciousness arises from, what purpose it holds (if any) beyond our perception of this objective reality, if there was an intelligent creative force at work at any point, etc.

Atheists say they know for sure that the theists are wrong. That is a stance that takes a great deal of faith.

Theists think they know the easy answers to all of these questions that would normally bind us. This also takes a great deal of faith.

True agnostics know that they don't know. There is an inherent rejection of any stance that takes faith - theist, atheist or otherwise.


Also, contrary to what I've been seeing here, most agnostics I've met do care. They think that these questions all of humanity shares - who are we, what are we, what are we doing here - are much more important than the myriad of baseless answers people have created in order to feel better about their place in this reality. To come to this conclusion takes much more consideration than giving yourself away to claims made by any other human being.

Think about it <3

[Lysah]

Sarcasm is explaining things based on his inaccurate definitions. Everything he's brought goes back to that foundation he set, but the foundation is a faux foundation and so his points are faux points and nothing he has said holds any water or is drawn from any fact; it is rather drawn from misinformation and assumptions.

No, it is simply your inability to see things from his point of view, that is, the literal definition of the words. If it helps, write the four denominations out in a line, the "agnostics" fall in the middle, between gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. That's as close to a "middle ground" as there exists.

[Badpaladin]

Um, No good parent will force a belief on their kids if their kids will fundamentally reject it?

We already ascertained the guy in my example was wacky (unless you think it's "ok" for a 30 year old to believe in santa claus and tell his kids he exists), hence not a good parent, hence you can't rely on him to make good judgements?

The problem is the parent, not the belief. There's a very fundamental disconnect that you're not seeing there. There's nothing wrong with the belief that Santa Claus exists, because that belief can be changed and rejected through personal reflection. There is a problem when a bad parent forces his kids to believe this, but that problem is not the belief. What if the kid was theistic and the parent was forcing atheism on him? There's nothing wrong with Atheism in that scenario, the problem lies with the parent.

Yes... and they think they're superior to everyone else - because you atheists are all going to hell and we will be saved. Good people? Sounds morally corrupt to me - people behaving a certain way to get to la-la land?

Correction, you think they think they're superior. I've been around Christians all my life, and I have zero evidence to suggest they think they're superior to me. They're my friends, and we've had our fair share of fun ranging from blowing shit up to building BMX jumps to playing video games and so forth. Something you also need to realize is religion evolves. Many, many Christians see many of the stories in the bible as figurative now. It was a Catholic Priest who came up with the idea of the Big Bang. I think you've got this idea that Christians are part of some secret club that laughs at those not in it, when that's wholly untrue.

Um, Where did science come into it?
Science is not a religion

Because the scientist, a man of fact, who distorts fact to fit his goals is present in this world, and far more dangerous than the preacher who distorts scripture to fit his goals. Most scientists don't do this, which is a good thing, but some do and their impact causes a lot of harm, more so than the fundamentalist preachers who tell people what to believe. At the end of the day, if a man of faith tells you what your faith should be, you're more likely to question it than something a man of fact tells you is true.

What was that comment all about? It sounds more and more to me like you are a wolf in sheeps clothing, mr Theist. No matter how you try defend yourself, you look more hypocrytical saying: "I'm an atheist, but I support Religion and I feel scientists are more evil distorting the media"

If your perogative is to be insulted and think I'm out to misconstrue, then that's your problem and not mine.

I would love to know what on earth these scientists are trying to distort the media with? Could it be... evolution? Gasp! They don't support your theory of "intelligent design" in schools? What the hell are you going on about?

I chuckled. Intelligent design is a laughable attempt to use science to prove religion.

[Cephyid]

It's not that simple. Atheism is a "stance" on belief (one does not belief), agnosticism is a "stance" on knowledge (one does not know). Most atheists are also agnostics, and pretty much ALL agnostics are also atheists. This isn't a black/white issue where the agnostic is simply sitting right in the middle.

No actually it is that simple. Whether someone believes in god more than someone else or believes in souls, ghosts, zombie wizards, etc. while someone else doesn't is not relevant to the discussion and is just playing with semantics. If someone comes up to you and tells you that they're atheist then we understand what that means. If they say they're agnostic we understand what that means. Whether that agnostic person is leaning closer to "believing" than another agnostic person has no bearing on their use of the word. Atheists and Agnostics can not agree on much. The Atheist will harass the agnostic that there is no God and the Agnostic will annoy the crap out of the atheist with "How can you know?" No progress will ever be made.

Ask yourself a simple question. If God was standing in front of you would you definitively know it?

Could you tell the difference between God and a 3 billion year old Zombie Wizard from space dressed up as an old man with a white beard?

The Theist will of course tell you that they would "know". The Agnostic would tell you that they wouldn't know. The Atheist would tell you it's all a lie.

[Sarcasm]

False. The middle ground there is "I neither accept nor reject as each side seems perfectly valid to me at this point in time, so I am with-holding my opinion until I have more information."

Wrong. When you're saying "I neither accept nor reject as each side seems perfectly valid", you're dealing with two different claims. If we take "God is real" as a claim for example, you can either accept or reject this. There is no middle. You accept this claim or you don't. If you reject this claim, your options for the claim "God is not real" are open. You can choose to accept or reject this claim as well. There is no middle.

[Landwhale]

If you don't care, you're not agnostic, you are apathetic.

An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

A theist gnostic is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.

An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

for the third time: theres no such thing as gnostic theist or an agnostic theist. your website is full of misinformation.

these things are DEISM and FIDEISM.

there is also no such thing as an "athiest gnostic" as that is an oxymoron.

gnosticism is the belief that there IS a god-like creator of everything. you people are working with the wrong definitions of gnosticism as defined by the mistaken OP.

[RabbitPrime]

No, you still don't get it. Here have another example.
You have 5 seconds to accept or reject this equation:

942*145*741*441*129*111-639128805416009 = 3

Do you believe this is true or not? Or do you wait until you know for sure before you make a statement?

Let's go back to the watches instead (as it is an excellent analogy) you're asked to pick between watch A and watch B. Group A says that watch A is superior to watch B. Group B says that opposite, that watch B is superior to watch A. Both sides present many arguments and theories and logical arguments, but neither one can conclude which watch is superior.

You choose not to wear either watch, but to leave them on the table until one is definitely superior to the other. That's agnosticism.

[Device]

Wrong. When you're saying "I neither accept nor reject as each side seems perfectly valid", you're dealing with two different claims. If we take "God is real" as a claim for example, you can either accept or reject this. There is no middle. You accept this claim or you don't. If you reject this claim, your options for the claim "God is not real" are open. You can choose to accept or reject this claim as well. There is no middle.

I agree with you, but what if I reject 'God is real' and also reject 'God is not real'?