I read the definition of agnostic. The impression I get is that an agnostic is just an indecisive atheist. I fit in this group by the way. It seems that saying you're agnostic is just a less offensive way of saying you're atheist. I'm not being a prick. This is a serious question.
2007-09-28 08:48:18 · 35 answers · asked by carna69 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It means an Agnostic is IN THE MIDDLE!
If you say:
"It seems that saying you're agnostic is just a less offensive way of saying you're atheist."
Then one could also say:'It seems that saying you're agnostic is just a less offensive way of saying you're Christian.'
Agnostics are saying "There is no PROOF that there is or is not a GOD" So they stay NEUTRAL on the issue.
2007-09-28 08:56:30 · answer #1 · answered by DrMichael 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Being an agnostic is not about being indecisive. There is no proof of god's existence, but there is not really any proof of the nonexistence of a spiritual power, either. That whole "absence of proof is not proof of absence" shtick. Generally I agree with atheists on everything, but I like to think that I am open-minded. There have been plenty of species that were thought to be myths then were discovered to actually exist (giant squid, etc) and we reinvent science with regularity, so I think it's POSSIBLE that there may be some sort of higher power out there. However, I prefer to call myself an "indifferent agnostic" - I don't know and I don't care. The existence or nonexistence of some deity would not change how I live my life (ie, I would not become a mass murdered upon discovering there is no afterlife, nor would I become a saint upon discovering there is) so I consider it largely a non-issue, to be debated intellectually but essentially unaffecting how the world works or should be run. My main problem with religion is that is does greatly impact the world - sometimes for the better, but quite often for the worse. I also believe "morality" should be a completely seperate issue from religion and it's perfectly possible and in fact PREFERABLE to have a moral code without some scary divine being using a system of rewards and punishments in your face. Doing something because it's right is infinitely nobler than doing it because if you don't you'll go to hell, in my opinion.
So.. I am an agnostic, but I don't think I'm in a wishy-washy area of grey bouncing back and forth between the two camps. I know what I believe - I believe there is no god, but I believe there is a POSSIBILITY that I could be wrong. Any good scientist goes into an experiment without bias and mindful that they could be wrong in their suppositions. I "believe" that science gives us the best answers it is currently possible to have, and it is patently silly not to believe them because some ancient book written by a bunch of old farts says otherwise. But I also think it's fully possible that some divine creature created the entire world this morning before I ate breakfast, including the dinosaur fossils and all of my memories. There's really no way to prove that that didn't happen, so although I'm quite convinced that it did not, I wouldn't be opposed to changing my mind in the presence of conflicting evidence.
That said, that's a quite common misconception of atheists, really. They're (or should be) open to evidence and proof. If science discovered tomorrow that the world really is sitting on the back of a giant turtle, a reasonable atheist would nod and say "Can I see those studies? Hmm. It all checks out. I see." Atheism isn't just about believing that there is no god - it's about believing things which can be proven through measurable scientific standards. Refusing to believe something that's right in front of you is a trait Christians like to thrust on atheists when in fact they're the ones guilty of it - cough cough, evolution, anyone?
2007-09-28 09:07:14 · answer #2 · answered by slytherinferret 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because many agnostics don't understand the definitions of those two terms.
Agnosticism is not a midpoint on some continuum between belief and denial. It is a position on knowledge, not a position on belief. Some agnostics believe in gods, some do not.
Atheism is not a denial of the existence of gods. It is a lack of belief. Some atheists positively deny gods' existence. Some do not.
Many people (myself included) are both agnostics and atheists at the same time. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
2007-09-28 08:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by marbledog 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
in case you agree for the statements which you reported then you definately could be agnostic. you would be comfortable with asserting which you do no longer know if god exists yet do no longer say that he would not. Atheists believe that the belief of god is Inconsequential, immaterial and insignificant. there is not any element in any respect to even supply room to a conceptualized thought which includes god through fact that's basically growing to be something that has no data. it is like thinking the unicorn different than that there is greater data for a available animal equivalent to a unicorn back interior the annals of background. in case you prefer to bypass away room for a god then you definately are an agnostic. in case you do no longer than you're an atheist.
2016-10-09 23:46:20 · answer #4 · answered by pharris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you. I consider myself agnostic because I don't feel qualified to tell billions of people who are believers they are wrong, but I really don't have a problem with an atheistic viewpoint. Besides, believers are less likely to be upset if they think you just need more convincing.
I do consider myself ethnically Jewish though. That was how I was raised.
2007-09-28 08:53:31 · answer #5 · answered by hwinnum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As Stephen Colbert says, an agnostic is just an atheist without balls.
It is a nuance, but I agree with you that agnosticism is a political term that general "sounds better" than atheist.
While a strong atheist (one who asserts there is no god) is incompatible with the term agnostics, I think weak atheists like me (those who do not believe in god) are pretty much agnostics as well. By definition, an agnostic does not believe in specific gods, so they are a sort of weak atheist.
Mostly, I think it is a matter of choice as to the terminology people like to use. I have no issue with "atheist", so I use that term.
2007-09-28 08:53:32 · answer #6 · answered by QED 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wouldn't you run from me too?
Depends on the agnostic, they vary greatly from person to person and many lean one way or the other.
I would say I am agnostic about the possibility of gods, I am just an atheist concerning the known gods.
2007-09-28 08:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Ask yourself are you agnostic about the existance of Unicorns, Magic Elves, Mermaids, Dragons, Leprachauns and the like? Do you think, 'Well... maybe they exist or maybe they don't - we just don't know' ? Or do you say, "Hey - there's no evidence for any of them so that means they don't exist" ? The Atheist says, "Things for which there is no evidence are taken to be non-existant." Thats the difference.
2007-09-28 08:54:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
As an agnostic, you leave the door open, as an atheist, you go about your business.
2007-09-28 08:56:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agnostics say "there's no way to prove either way, so to take a definitive stance saying that 'there is no god' is just as erroneous as taking a definitive stance saying 'there is a god'."
Agnostics admit that there is no way to KNOW, and are comfortable with that.
2007-09-28 09:13:37 · answer #10 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋