Disclaimer - I am an agnostic not trying to convert anyone.
Definitions - Strong agnostic - We don't know for sure if there is a God or not and we can't find out until we die.
Weak agnostic - We don't know for sure but there might be some evidence that we get before we die to prove one way or the other about the existence of God.
So, a question for strong agnostics, how can you be so sure that you wouldn't get evidence for God while you are alive one way or the other?
2006-08-27 01:34:07 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Quibble, quibble, quibble. Forget labels and definitions. Just consider the following sentences:
1. "I do not KNOW whether god(s) do or do not exist.
2. "I DO NOT believe that god(s) exist."
3. "I believe that god(s) DO NOT exist."
1 is generally taken to be the 'agnostic' position...
2 is generally taken to be the 'weak' atheist position...
3 is generally taken to be the 'strong' atheist position.
Notice that 2 (weak atheist position) is TRUE for both 1 and 3.
If you don't 'know' whether or not god exists (1), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).
If you 'believe' that god does not exist (3), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).
So, the common denominator between 'agnostic' and 'atheist' is that neither positions harbors a 'belief' in god... and thus, both are 'non-believers'. That also seems to be the only position that makes sense, since for someone to say that they 'believe' that there is no god implies a logical proposition that 'god does not exit = true'. THAT implies that there must be some kind of logical 'proof' for that assertion... and, of course, since it is impossible to prove such a thing in the absence of infinite knowledge, it is no more than a red herring. Further... if you possessed the infinite knowledge to 'prove' such a logical proposition, then you would fulfill the definition of a god yourself, and end up in a 'Divine Paradox'. Thus, position (3) is logically untenable.
For purposes of this answer (and for most of the answers I give), it should be understood that when I say 'belief', I am referring to an internalized (part of one's self-description) certainty of the 'truth' of some matter pertaining to a fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality.
The only sensible course is to say "I do not believe in god," and let it go at that. It would seem obvious to me that if the FSM descended from heaven on a cloud, and touched me with his noodly appendage... or some other god performed his own version of that trick... I would be logically obliged to reassess my disbelief. But, until that happens... I don't believe in god(s).
2006-08-27 03:50:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd class myself as a weak agnostic (according to your definition) and an atheist also.
Evidence for god before we die is not logically impossible, but then again neither is levitation (until you are aware of relevant facts of physics, and then the use of logic precludes the possibility). Maybe strong agnostics are so well informed that they can preclude the possibility of pre-death evidence for God altogether, or at least to a highly significant degree, hence their "strong" position. Maybe they don't want to indulge in "merely philosophical" positions which say something might happen, when *all* of the evidence gathered *so far* points in the other direction.
2006-08-27 08:48:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have your terms a little confused. You should be asking if ATHEISTS are sure they are right. Agnostics are questioning the existence of God already. Atheists believe there is no God. I think you are a smart person to quesiton the existence of God. Mostly, mankind everywhere and at every time has had to create a god or gods to deal with the mysteries of the universe and to explain how mankind got here and what we are doing and how they should live. So, is God a general concept that mankind has created to help them with the mysteries of the universe? If Mankind created God, does that mean God exists? Are the stories of the Greek gods, which we call myths, any different than the stories of the Bible, which is also a man-created book?
2006-08-27 08:45:22 · answer #3 · answered by janeinthecity_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your definition is wrong for Agnostic.
I would say that I am Agnostic & I honestly don't know what to think so I remain neutral about it all. I simply could care one way or the other. * I don't go to church, or neccessarily pray, read any one bible or religious scripture ...etc... & on the other hand I don't criticize others for what they believe, or think to be true.
To each person, is their own belief & opinion! Everyone is entitled to that!!
What I don't understand is how people can just so easily, be naive, to believe whatever they are told to believe & not ask any questions as to " Why?" & How? and what???
2006-08-27 08:50:02 · answer #4 · answered by Blondie* 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would you want to be sure of anything. Being sure is the only sure way to miss the truth if you are misunderstanding the thing that you think that you are sure about. The safe course is to keep an open mind.
This way if you are mistaken about what you are thinking you will be open enough to realize that the possibility exists that you have misunderstood.
Any thing else is little more than a definition of abject ignorance.
Love and blessings
don
2006-08-27 08:42:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your Definitions are wrong. Agnostic admit that they don't know. They have questions. They don't know the universe. Atheists are the ones who say that there is no go. Agnostics say that they just don't know. They are waiting for the facts to come in.
Hope this helps.
As for me. I am waiting for the facts to come in before I judge.
b
2006-08-27 08:38:03 · answer #6 · answered by Bacchus 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because nobody in the entire history of human kind has come up with any decent evidence. Weak agnosticism has always been a belief that confuses me... That one day we may be able to prove the existence of God. :-\
2006-08-27 08:38:11 · answer #7 · answered by 8Dave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being an agnostic implies being open to new information/evidence... otherwise what's the point? I don't agree with your split into weak and strong.
Aloha
2006-08-27 08:39:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the point! Agnostics only know one thing for sure: they are doubting.
It's only for you to know what you are sure of, only for you to know if you are in doubt or not...
2006-08-27 08:41:50 · answer #9 · answered by carreaux_bleus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you cant prove the existince of a G-d or gods or which religion is ture or false until your dead because then you know forsure. you can believe you heard a voice, doesnt mean you did.
2006-08-27 08:40:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋