Agnostics are generally people who don't quite have the courage to denounce religion and call themselves atheists. I consider myself more of an antitheist
Be careful about what you say, dude. You just called me a coward. Indirectly, maybe...but still. And I'm sorry, but religious people are usually gullible. I'll make an exception for those who are religious because that's what they've been taught from birth. Likewise, atheists, while not gullible, are closeminded. Both factions are stubborn. Agnostics believe that there is no proof either way and do not acknowledge the existence-or lack thereof-a deity.
And what, exactly, is the distinction between a church and a cult if that is the definition? One has a less...aggressive name? Lol. Sorry, just saying. Orion does kind of have a point.
[/quote]Be careful about what you say, dude. You just called me a coward. Indirectly, maybe...but still. And I'm sorry, but religious people are usually gullible. I'll make an exception for those who are religious because that's what they've been taught from birth. Likewise, atheists, while not gullible, are closeminded. Both factions are stubborn. Agnostics believe that there is no proof either way and do not acknowledge the existence-or lack thereof-a deity.
Sorry if you misunderstood. To lack courage does not make one a coward. Even the bravest man is afraid sometimes.
Agnostics believe in the possibility of a deity, this in itself could be construed as a religion unto itself. Atheists generally are not closed minded as few people are born into atheist families and are raised as such. Atheism generally arises later in life, after one educates oneself.
My question is this: Why cling to even a remote possibility that the men who wrote some random religious document could actually have been sincere in their desire to better mankind?
Odd are, those who wrote the bible, the quoran ect just wanted to control others.
And it is impossible to prove a negative, one can never prove the non existence of God, Allah, Zeus, Buddha ect. What makes one more valid than another, or do you just roll the dice and hope you are right?
Sorry if you misunderstood. To lack courage does not make one a coward. Even the bravest man is afraid sometimes. Agnostics believe in the possibility of a deity, this in itself could be construed as a religion unto itself. Atheists generally are not closed minded as few people are born into atheist families and are raised as such. Atheism generally arises later in life, after one educates oneself. My question is this: Why cling to even a remote possibility that the men who wrote some random religious document could actually have been sincere in their desire to better mankind? Odd are, those who wrote the bible, the quoran ect just wanted to control others. And it is impossible to prove a negative, one can never prove the non existence of God, Allah, Zeus, Buddha ect. What makes one more valid than another, or do you just roll the dice and hope you are right?
Sorry if I misunderstood. That is true enough. I think you, now, misunderstand my standing on agnosticism itself. Whilst I do not speak for my fellow agnostics, I myself do not believe in all existing religions or even the possibility of them, however I do accept that there is no proof and acknowledge the faith of those who do believe in such things(for example, I would not usually get into a debate with someone on religion, as nothing therein can be proven). However, I do not blindly deny the possibility that there could be a deity of deities of some sort, that we merely have not yet discovered and may never. Do you understand now? By the way; your last line is basically a summing-up of agnosticism. By the way, to put something in quotes, you highlight it and click the blue "Quote" button at the top of the text box.
So, in a nutshell summary type deal and to satisfy my own curiosity after stumbling upon this thread, if I do not believe in a religion because I do not see that there is any evidence proving the religion true or false but I do realize that with further evidence a religion can be proven true or false, I am agnostic.
As for the rest, an atheist is someone who religiously believes there is not God. An agnostic can swing either way, given evidence.
Wrong. being an atheist is not a religion. You don't have to religiously believed there is no God. You just have to not believe in a god. That all there is to it.
Agnostics believe in the possibility of a deity, this in itself could be construed as a religion unto itself. Atheists generally are not closed minded as few people are born into atheist families and are raised as such. Atheism generally arises later in life, after one educates oneself.
For both of you Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with your knowledge in this particular case of god. Read my first post and go see my video. Your just applying a definition that is incorrect to the term.
As for the close minded part most atheists just want evidence to prove there is a god. That's not being closed minded that being rational.
if there was a crowd voting for god, then the atheist would vote 'no' and get into arguments with the people who voted 'yes'. but the agnostic would abstain and just walk away.
For both of you Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with your knowledge in this particular case of god. Read my first post and go see my video. Your just applying a definition that is incorrect to the term.
Seems to me that either you believe, or you don't believe. An absence of believe is atheism.
Personally I see agnosticism as a gateway towards true atheism. At one point I considered myself agnostic. Then I questioned why I still cling to any notion of belief.
The answer was simple to me. There is no god/gods. Man created god in his own image. Man can also destroy god, and I dream of a day when that finally happens.
I suppose I am an Apathetic agnostic? ie., I don't know if there's a god or not, and don't see what difference it makes whether god exists or not. (I lean towards practical atheism though, as I generally prefer scientific to metaphysical explanations of things).
I do however reject the notion of an Abrahamic god. There's simply too much contradiction between reality and their holy texts for any logical individual to believe in them without having been indoctrinated by others.
Seems to me that either you believe, or you don't believe. An absence of believe is atheism.
It depends on which propositions you accept. Just not believing in God doesn't mean you're an atheist. An atheist would reject the following claim: There is an all-powerful being that does such and such. But the agnostic would neither reject that statement or affirm it.
Just like the agnostic would not accept the proposition: There is no all powerful deity that such and such. While the atheist certainly would.
To sum up, just because you reject a particular proposition (i.e. that god exists) does not mean that you accept (or believe) the negation of that proposition. More simply put, you might not think lucky charms are all that good. But they're not that bad either. You don't like them, but you don't dislike them. You'll eat them if there's nothing else, and you certainly don't seek out buying them at the store. You're agnostic, then, about lucky charms.
Yeah, Agnosticism's been summed up here, but I find that it comes with a margin of respect for other religions.
As an Agnostic, I do have a decent knowledge of most beliefs, I just don't choose a particular one to actually believe in. And, once again, I don't deny nor affirm any of those beliefs.
