...well with that theory then everyone would be considered Agnostic since nobody can prove God exist or doesn't exist..and therefor everyone would be Agnostic by default.
Am I wrong?
2007-12-19 10:54:50 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
By that definition, you would technically be correct, but an agnostic is someone who admits that they don't know one way or the other. Everyone else professes to believe that God (or gods) either exists or does not. Therefore, the defining characteristic of an agnostic seems to be the acknowledgment that he or she can't prove one or the other, and therefore can't say positively which is true.
Even though noone can definitively prove God's existence or lack thereof, most have made an opinion one way or the other and are sticking to it, so we can't be labeled agnostics.
2007-12-19 11:01:09 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.Samsa 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
To be agnostic simply means that a person does not know. No one truly know whether or not God exists, so in the truest interpretation of the word "agnostic", sure, we are all agnostic. However, believers say that their faith in God is all the proof they need, whereas the athiests do not believe in God unless they are shown some hard, tangible evidence to prove God's existance.
2007-12-19 11:01:51 · answer #2 · answered by SmokeyD 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question....
...but some people believe that a 'god' IS proven.
Other people (like myself) don't have an active belief in a god because we consider it unproven, but I don't deny it might be possible to be proven if it existed, so I am not agnostic.
But an agnostic (dictionary def.) believes it is impossible to prove one way or the other...
******************************************************************
Agnostic
Pronunciation:
\ag-Ënäs-tik, Ég-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek agnÅstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnÅstos known, from gignÅskein to know
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
**********************************************************************
So yes, you are wrong by the first definition, but *broadly*, you could call many atheists 'agnostic' too.
I guess I'm atheignostic!
2007-12-19 11:00:52 · answer #3 · answered by Bajingo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since God cannot be proven or disproved, Agnostics refuse to commit believing one way or another, placing themselves in he middle.
What sets religious folk and Atheists apart from the agnostics is that they have decided to believe or disbelieve and have no in-the-middle doubt.
So, yes, you are wrong, but that was a thought-provoking question.
2007-12-19 11:03:10 · answer #4 · answered by thezaylady 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's basically accepting that you have no proof and taking no stance on it. I think there is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of all the gods that I have studied so I am atheist. Theists think there is sufficient evidence to prove that there is a God and they decide it is true. It's not so much that someone has more information than anyone else, it just shows how each individual choses to interpret the information.
2007-12-19 11:01:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am agnostic in my belief of an afterlife. Given the proof of nature and that nothing creates life on it's own, I say with certainty that an individual deity does not exist.
2007-12-19 11:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You aren't right or wrong. You're right in that no one can prove god exist, but wrong because most religious people can't admit that they cannot prove he is real. They always throw the bible at you as proof, and if the bible was enough proof then everyone would believe god.
2007-12-19 11:03:30 · answer #7 · answered by Devils's Advocate 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I alwyas thought they were agnostic because they didnt really believe per se, but did accept the possibiltiy of a god.
BeLIEvers dont need proof.
To believe is to have faith without proof.
2007-12-19 11:00:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me being agnostic in part means needing more than just faith to believe in God, and more than just soft evidence to disprove same.
2007-12-19 11:08:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes you are. To believe or disbelieve is one thing, not knowing is another.
Agnostics don't claim anything. They merely say the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven philosophically.
2007-12-19 11:06:26 · answer #10 · answered by Emory 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋