i get the basic idea but still am a little skecthy on the details, any help?
2007-11-13 07:35:31 · 11 answers · asked by Metal 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Technically speaking, an "Agnostic" makes the active claim that knowledge of God is impossible. However, "agnostic" has been extended to mean "skeptic" as well, since a pack of intellectual and philosophical frauds have appropriated "skeptic" to mean "active disbeliever". In the extended meaning, an agnostic could be someone who either denies the possibility of knowing whether or not God exists (or denies the possibility of knowing some or all of God's attributes, making many Christians at least partially agnostic) OR it could be someone who neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.
2007-11-13 07:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by Hoosier Daddy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agnostics believe that they don't know enough to believe anything.
I think this is a more reasonable association for non-believers than being an "athiest". If you claim to be an athiest, you are stating that you do not believe in any form of god. You are saying that the evidence is sufficient for you in order to believe that.
The problem is that there is no evidence that God does not exist. I am sure a lot will disagree, but if you really think about it, how can you prove that God does not exist? You can't. I cannot prove to anyone that God does exist, but I have seen enough evidence of His existance to make a logical decision about my belief. An athiest, bases his belief on lack of evidence for anything.
If I said there was no gold in China, I could not say that with confidence because I could not possibly know that there is NO gold in China. I could not investigate that statement enough to be sure no matter how long I searched.
If I said that there is gold in China, I could say that with absolute confidence having seen any gold at all in China. I could just see gold dust and be confident in that statement.
In that perspective, being an agnositc would be reasonabley saying that you don't have enough evidence to make a statement at all eigther way. (You have never been to China).
2007-11-13 15:55:26 · answer #2 · answered by RedE1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The suspend belief guy is correct except that agnostics have a strong need to question regardless of so called "proof" that's presented. It's in their vary nature to ask Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How...PEACE!
2007-11-13 15:39:37 · answer #3 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Agnostics believe that one cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a 'god'.
2007-11-13 15:41:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge."
2007-11-13 15:39:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
That since there is no way to prove the existence OR non-existence of a Higher Power, it is just as foolish to say "There is no God" as it is to say "There is a God."
It is just as wrong to say "There is a God" as it is to say "There is no God", because neither position can be proven.
2007-11-13 15:39:33 · answer #6 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That organized religion is a scam to seperate fools from their money.
2007-11-13 15:45:59 · answer #7 · answered by lamuffluver4 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Typically, either they personally do not know if God(s) exists or humans cannot know if God(s) exist.
2007-11-13 15:39:00 · answer #8 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
they believe that there is not enough evidence to say either way...
so therefore they "suspend" a descision until further evidence is found..
2007-11-13 15:38:08 · answer #9 · answered by Jay 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
They're fence sitters, afraid to commit themselves in case they turn out to be wrong.
2007-11-13 15:39:15 · answer #10 · answered by Belzetot 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋