Agnostics say not only that they do not know, but that it is not possible to know. And for them, it is true because that is the way they filter the information they receive.
When a person believes in God (one or more), they cannot usually prove it except by using a definition of God which admits of logical proof. Descartes started that. God is the biggest; there must logically be a biggest, so there must logically be a God. OK; but there's no detail in that to make the difference people need when they say they believe in God.
Ultimately, it's not the sort of thing that admits of proof, because everyone has a somewhat different definition of God -- or, as I say, multiple gods and goddesses, which is my own way. To me, this is a thing as personal as trying to "prove" that you love someone.
In fact, it has been said that God IS Love. Not a bad definition, if you are digging around for one.
2007-04-06 00:41:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by auntb93 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
I call myself a natural born atheist. I'm not raised with any kind of religion by my parents, I was not told there is no god, neither was I told there is one. If it wasn't for the fact that other people, who are raised in a religious way, have confronted me with the god/creator concept (I might not have come up with the idea myself, just like most likely I wouldn't have been the guy that invented the wheel if I'd lived in the early days of humanity), I'd have been an atheist all my life. Only after the contact with people who believe in god, I got the possibility to start thinking about god and religion, and say, ok, the creator-concept can't be disproved, so now I'm an agnostic. Still this would be an unrealistic move for me, because nothing changes the fact that this would mean a swing towards a very unrealistic concept, that only can have come out of human brains.
2007-04-06 01:06:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Caveman 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
2007-04-06 00:42:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're ignoring the fact that there is evidence that gods are man-made. There is ample evidence of how humans tend to create various superstitions and believe them. There is also ample evidence in each of the major religions that shows that those gods are all man-made.
So, the atheist position is not unfounded.
Also, your definition of agnostic is a bit off. An agnostic, classically, believes that gods cannot be known. It makes a statement about what one can know about gods, not whether there are any.
Therefore, your statement is not the most correct statement.
2007-04-06 00:43:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by nondescript 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
i'm agnostic If I witnessed Jesus' miracles, i could have self assurance in his ability to accomplish miracles, yet i'm uncertain i could have self assurance it replaced into from the God he pronounced his powers got here from. i could probable choose so plenty greater convincing. i'm puzzling like that. I do already have self assurance there are issues that take place each and every now and then that we are no longer able to describe utilising technology, yet i'm no longer prepared to place my faith in a god merely yet. perchance interior the distant destiny we are able to locate an answer for each thing no count if or no longer it is those issues take place because of the fact of a few very complicated medical phenomenon, because of the fact of God/different deity/deities, or slightly of the two. i could be happy with any of those conclusions in the event that they have been the actuality and could end the main important, longest, bloodiest argument in all of human history.
2016-11-07 09:04:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is the most correct statement if you do not believe in God.
2007-04-06 00:38:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by bungyow 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
To "believe" in anything unsustainable by science takes a leap of faith. One thing to "Know" and another to "Believe".
Skepticism and agnosticism are natural outgrowths of people who think. Now as to being correct you will find those who will argue with you as they think they are correct. As for me, I have never been afraid of those who are searching for the truth. It is those who know it that worry me.
2007-04-06 00:43:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by emiliosailez 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The evidence would suggest it is most correct to be atheist
2007-04-06 00:44:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I am Christian and I have chosen to place my faith in Jesus. Jesus is historically documented person. Faith starts where the proof ends.
How anyone who admit that they do not know could be the mot correct people? Especially when Jesus asks us all to follow Him. : )
2007-04-06 00:49:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by SeeTheLight 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
We have the best spelling and punctuation.
2007-04-06 00:39:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋