since i've seen this assumption too many times.
agnostics aren't wishy-washy or indecisive or any of that. they believe we cannot (at least not with the information we have available now) know whether or not a god or gods exists so they SUSPEND belief.
this doesn't mean they are having trouble deciding one way or the other. it means they aren't going to go through the trouble of trying to decide until they have more information.
2007-06-14 17:28:45 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
btw-i'm an atheist :)
i, too, believe that no one can no for sure. however i believe in no god because there is no evidence telling me there could be one. i will, however, admit that i could be wrong, even though i think that chance is so small as to be irrelevant. thus, i choose a side, rather than suspending belief.
i just wanted to clear up what it means to be "agnostic" since so many people seem confused about what it means.
2007-06-14 17:35:53 · update #1
deazone: yes, you can be an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist.
but you can also just be a plain old agnostic by not taking a side. by choosing not to believe, you've taken a side, making you an (agnostic) atheist.
2007-06-14 17:47:33 · update #2
printninja: the difference is that they don't think there is enough info to make a decision on god. one does not suspend believe in fairies for example, because they believe there is enough evidence to prove they don't exist.
i think the distinction comes from the fact that belief in god(s) is so widespread and widely accepted that they allow a higher probability. no-one (save little kids) believes in fairies. but rational adults still believe in god, making it a more complex concept that they believe takes more information before deciding.
2007-06-14 17:50:51 · update #3
This isn't a question.... but I love it!
I've thought long & hard about being an agnostic... I was raised atheist.
The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.
If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.
We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.
I can't be an atheist, because it seems as absolute as being a theist.
2007-06-14 17:31:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation is the most correct when deciding between competing theories. Science has successfully explained how the universe was formed, how life came to be and to evolve on this planet, and found mountains of evidence to demonstrate that these theories are correct...and all this without resorting to some mythical Super-Santa to perform a miracle here and there. On that basis then, the most reasonable assertion is THERE IS NO GOD NOR GODS. We can further assert that WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.
P.T Barnum had a good term that applies to people who believe in things without any evidence: suckers.
2007-06-15 10:40:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If an agnostic person adopts thinking that allows them to be open to the possibility of a supernatural creator, then what stops them from being open to an infinite number of equally implausible supernatural phenomenon?
Saying something is or isn't possible because there is no proof either way is a very slippery slope. I don't see a middle ground when it comes to empiricism. You either approach life from an evidential point of view, or you throw it all out the window and believe what your "feelings" tell you.
I believe in what there is evidence for, and I do not believe in anything else.
2007-06-15 00:42:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you suspend belief, then is it not the same as having lack of belief aka atheism?
I have no absolute knowledge of god(s) therefore I classify myself as a person who does not know if gods exists or not, but at the same time I do not put forth belief in gods because of lack of proof. Therefore I default myself to an agnostic atheist.
2007-06-15 00:37:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have always considered myself agnostic, until my lawyer friend claimed that I am an atheist, with the way we have talked. Who am I, a carpenter, to argue with a university professor/lawyer?
I still think that there is no way for anyone to know.
Who am I to argue with the 'legal' term (whatever the hell THAT is).
I feel like an agnostic, but apparently, I am legally an atheist!
Whatever!
2007-06-15 00:39:36 · answer #5 · answered by The Walkin Dude 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carl Sagans widow, Ann Druyan (however you spell it) is an agnostic and very intelligent and eloquent about it.
I honestly see the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" as being pretty interchangable myself. It depends on how you define "atheist." If you define it tightly enough, you turn nearly all of them into "agnostics."
2007-06-15 00:31:55 · answer #6 · answered by Laptop Jesus 3.9 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The sad truth is that most people don't want to know what it means to be Agnostic or Atheist. Most people don't want the truth about anything it seems.
2007-06-15 00:40:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I put away my silly frog for now. Y!A is becoming hostile toward anything that takes brain cells to figure out. What am I to do? I have first hand knowledge of something I can neither explain or deny.
2007-06-15 12:12:09 · answer #8 · answered by TD Euwaite? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I beleive it's good to admit I don't know if there is a god or gods.
Though I DO know that all religions are false because I have evidence for that.
2007-06-15 00:35:19 · answer #9 · answered by Miltant_Agnostic 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Thank you. I believe the average agnostic to be the most logical of people.
2007-06-15 00:32:51 · answer #10 · answered by Keyring 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋