If someone does not believe in the concept of God, how can they claim to be agnostic? I always thought that this subgroup (Agnostic Atheist) of people feel that we cannot PROVE there is a God, and stop at that. They do not directly claim God does not exist, they just don't bother to believe. So how can some say there is NOT one without proving it?
2007-01-18 00:47:49 · 18 answers · asked by reginachick22 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
one can not be an atheist and agnostic .as you have stated, the agnostics do not bother about discussing the existence of god and do not argue that god does not exist. but where as an atheist believes that he/she does not believe in the existence of god.
2007-01-18 00:54:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I am Agnostic, and there are many reasons and rationals for being so. Mine is related to the Greek adage of "all I know its that my knowledge is not all the knowledge, and therefor I "know" nothing. But I am pretty sure about many things. On a matter of this kind, I do not have enough proof from my logical, egotistic or meditating mind to make a hard lean one way or the other and feel solid or honest to my self.
Though for example,I have never seen a giraffe in real life, nor can I go about proving it exists right now in my life, but my whole thinking process feels solid in claiming: giraffes exist.
I am not an Agnostic Atheist, but I lean on Atheism in my logic, but I feel I must mention I do not believe god is attached to an afterlife. (some peoples loose definition of Atheism seems to include no afterlife and ironically these same defenders of the faith will claim others can't stop thinking in terms of Christianity)
I lean on there being an afterlife of some kind, I just have no idea what it may or may not be like.
But as God is usually interpreted, I would believe in faeries first. (I have more proof..:) I am tempted to use the term Agnostic Atheist, but I do not think it is logical to be both; I am an Agnostic only.
Hope that helps.
2007-01-18 07:34:15 · answer #2 · answered by Sqwrll F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An atheist has no supernatural beliefs, at all. None.
An agnostic says you cannot prove the existence of gods one way or the other. He doesn't know, and will tell you that you don't really know, either. An agnostic is unlikely to accept anything strictly on faith.
"Agnostic atheist" is a polite way of saying you're confused and don't know what to think. It's not a valid way to characterize someone. This is a person who needs to sit down and make a decision. Of course, this is probably someone who doesn't want to offend anyone, and ends up offending agnostics and atheists.
2007-01-18 01:00:21 · answer #3 · answered by link955 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You have to deal with the actual definitions of these words, and the principles of logic, to get to the bottom of this. Yes, you can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Here's a link to an article explaining this:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
I am an agnostic atheist, and this is what that means:
Atheism is about belief. I do not believe that God exists.
Agnosticism is about knowledge. I have no way of knowing either way.
Agnostic atheist:
I have no way of knowing whether or not God exists, but I do not believe that God exists.
Agnostic theist:
I have no way of knowing whether or not God exists, but I believe that God exists.
Note that I am not required to prove that God does not exist, I only have to refuse to accept the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim to prove it.
If I were to say, "there is no God", I would be claiming to know that, and that is not agnostic.
2007-01-18 00:52:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are describing atheists, not agnostics. The idea that most people have of agnostics is that they DO believe in God, but can't decide whic one it is.
That is not true.
Agnostics do not believe that their lives are dictated by a supreme deity or invisible man in the sky, but logically they cannot discount the idea that there could be SOME form of higher consciousness, energy or understanding that we do not know yet.
Atheists, by contrast, do not believe in anything more than "you're born, you live, and you die." An agnostic that cannot believe in the existence of an unprovable deity also cannot believe in unprovable nihilism, and accepts the fact that nobody may EVER really understand what happens to our consciousness and experiences after death.
2007-01-18 11:50:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agnostic - somebody who isn't specific that God would not or does exist, yet would not take facets. Atheist is on 2 categories: a million) vulnerable Atheist - uncertain and skeptical of a God, yet trusts logic. 2) Gnostic/good Atheist - against the belief of a a deity(-ies) present day as there is not any information, hence, no God(s) as an occasion, i'm a Gnostic/good Atheist and there is not any information not medical nor Metaphysical to describe the life of any variety of God/s, hence, the belief of religion is a primitive and conservative rigidity that would not income society.
2016-10-31 10:32:27 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"So how can some say there is NOT one without proving it?"
That part doesn't make any sense. We don't have to prove the nonexistence of things in order to have a valid reason to believe those things don't exist. You'll want to read up on the "burden of evidence" (or "burden of proof", though that's not the right standard for this).
The agnostic position seems silly to me. All of the reasons for being agnostic with respect to the existence of god are equally valid reasons for being agnostic with respect to the existence of lime-green flying elephants, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, orbiting teacups, and pink unicorns. Would an agnostic REALLY say "I don't know whether or not there are pink unicorns"?
Descartes resolved to not believe in anything that he could not logically prove to be true. He wound up describing a silly justification for his beliefs. Since then, we developed modern science, with its reliance on evidence rather than a doomed insistence on proof. Descartes "Method" was his most serious mistake. Both the Christian absolutists and the agnostics seem to be repeating that mistake.
2007-01-18 00:51:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Everybody seems to need a label. I fail to see why, but it seems it's needed.
I don't believe in a God. Everything in me says that the concept of a God or any Higher Power is a silly one. That's why I could call myself atheist.
I'm also fully aware of the fact that I can never claim to have the truth. I'm not sure, just like nobody can be absolutely sure on the "god/no god" question. That's why, if I would label myself, it would be agnostic atheist.
2007-01-18 00:54:33 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
that would be me.
but agnostics say that if there was proof there was a god, they would believe in it. atheists say they just dont believe there is one, and would never worship one, even if there was proved to be a god in the first place.
k?
2007-01-20 07:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by Bear 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many 'agnostic' atheists use the simple principle, "I cannot disprove the existence of a god anymore than I can disprove that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun. However, I can be as certain as I can be that there is no teapot orbiting the sun as there is no evidence to support it. If evidence of god were to be given to me then I would be an idiot to deny it."
2007-01-18 00:55:46 · answer #10 · answered by Thomas V 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋