Opinions On Agnosticism?

Muntasir · August 29, 2011

What are everyone's thoughts on agnosticism :)?

14infallibles · August 29, 2011

Something most atheists will hide under in a debate...

"OK I understand that you dont accept my God, but how do you know FOR SURE that a God doesnt exist??"

"UMMMMMMMMMMM You see you can never be sure but its very unlikely that a god exists.."

"So youre agnostic?"

"NO GOD DOESNT EXIST."

lol :lol:

Edited August 29, 2011 by 14infallibles

Pascal · August 29, 2011

Youre making a strawman there, surely i thought someone like you knew better than that 14infallibles.

Agnostic is a much more logical position. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics. To be a pure atheist means being 100% sure God doesnt exist, even if he appeared infront of you and told you so, you would still not believe, because, you *know* and are 100% sure there is no God at all, not now, not ever, not even remotely possible. This makes the atheists of this fashion just as bad as the religious fundamentalists they criticise for having 100% belief and not even needing any proof at all or despite proof to the contrary. So, you can see why agnostic is a much better position. I would believe there was a God if he came down and told me so, seems like a much better way to gather followers too...

A quote form wiki (im not a dawkins fan but there is truth in his words in this instance):

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

Edited August 29, 2011 by kingpomba

Muntasir · August 29, 2011

Something most atheists will hide under in a debate...
"OK I understand that you dont accept my God, but how do you know FOR SURE that a God doesnt exist??"
"UMMMMMMMMMMM You see you can never be sure but its very unlikely that a god exists.."
"So youre agnostic?"
"NO GOD DOESNT EXIST."
lol :lol:

Atheism doesn't say with complete evidence we know god doesn't exist. Its the denial of a deity to exist, any atheist making the claim to disprove the existence of a transcendent being would be wrong doing so. I have to admit many supposed atheists do this.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Muntasir

14infallibles · August 29, 2011

Youre making a strawman there, surely i thought someone like you knew better than that 14infallibles.
Agnostic is a much more logical position. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics. To be a pure atheist means being 100% sure God doesnt exist, even if he appeared infront of you and told you so, you would still not believe, because, you *know* and are 100% sure there is no God at all, not now, not ever, not even remotely possible. This makes the atheists of this fashion just as bad as the religious fundamentalists they criticise for having 100% belief and not even needing any proof at all or despite proof to the contrary. So, you can see why agnostic is a much better position. I would believe there was a God if he came down and told me so, seems like a much better way to gather followers too...

Hello , nice post

That is exactly what I meant ... During a debate atheists will generally hide under a more logical belief, that god MIGHT / probably doesnt exist but we dont know / havent been provided with enough evidence.

Edited August 29, 2011 by 14infallibles

Muntasir · August 29, 2011

Youre making a strawman there, surely i thought someone like you knew better than that 14infallibles.
Agnostic is a much more logical position. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics. To be a pure atheist means being 100% sure God doesnt exist, even if he appeared infront of you and told you so, you would still not believe, because, you *know* and are 100% sure there is no God at all, not now, not ever, not even remotely possible. This makes the atheists of this fashion just as bad as the religious fundamentalists they criticise for having 100% belief and not even needing any proof at all or despite proof to the contrary. So, you can see why agnostic is a much better position. I would believe there was a God if he came down and told me so, seems like a much better way to gather followers too...
A quote form wiki (im not a dawkins fan but there is truth in his words in this instance):
According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

I have to disagree. Agnosticism, is the least rational decision in my opinion. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics? Thats quite the bold statement, I am sure that some of them are but to say most isn't true at all. The rejection of a god does not mean one can disprove it, that's not atheism's claim, you should probably read more on it. I cant say for sure there isn't a god, im 100% sure. However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a good ( my opinion )

Thats atheism. Not agnosticism. I think dawkins quote there is accurate. Heres a 7 part spectrum.

1) Strong thesit. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’

2) Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3) Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain but I am inclined to believe in God.’

4) Exactly 50 percent Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’

5) Lower than 50 percent but not lery low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I am inclined to be skeptical.’

6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De Facto atheist. ‘I cannont know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

7) Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one’

Agnosticism fails to offer itself anywhere in probability or on the spectrum.Either you believe or you don't. We don't have anything other than atheists and believers Some agnostics are atheists some are believers, but there is no in between. If you are agnostic one point in your life for a temporary amount of time, i think that is very reasonable, but long permanent agnosticism is really fence sitting

Edited August 29, 2011 by Muntasir

14infallibles · August 29, 2011

I have to disagree. Agnosticism, is the least rational decision in my opinion. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics? Thats quite the bold statement, I am sure that some of them are but to say most isn't true at all. The rejection of a god does not mean one can disprove it, that's not atheism's claim, you should probably read more on it. I cant say for sure there isn't a god, im 100% sure. However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a good ( my opinion )

Hi Muntasir welcome back to SC

"However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a god (my opinion)"

This only means that you dont need to believe in god because nobody has provided you with a reason to believe. Agnostics will say maybe there is a god but there is not enough evidence, which is basically what your sentence is saying. However, atheists say THERE IS NO GOD .. what is the proof of this claim? If there is no proof of god then that does not mean that he doesnt exist.. so you would be better off being an agnostic

Psychopath · August 29, 2011

However, atheists say THERE IS NO GOD .. what is the proof of this claim? If there is no proof of god then that does not mean that he doesnt exist.. so you would be better off being an agnostic

You cannot prove a negative. The onus for evidence and/of 'proof' would be on the person making a claim about a metaphysical existent (or anything else for that matter). In other words, it is not for those who lack a belief to prove evidence to support their lack of belief, it is for those who do have a belief to make a case for it.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Psychopath

Muntasir · August 29, 2011

Hi Muntasir welcome back to SC
"However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a god (my opinion)"
This only means that you dont need to believe in god because nobody has provided you with a reason to believe. Agnostics will say maybe there is a god but there is not enough evidence, which is basically what your sentence is saying. However, atheists say THERE IS NO GOD .. what is the proof of this claim? If there is no proof of god then that does not mean that he doesnt exist.. so you would be better off being an agnostic

Thanks :)! I am an atheist because after examining all things, there doesn't have to be a god. Everything has an explanation, some which we cant explain, but as things progress we will find those answers. It is the series of hypothesis and validations of peer to peer examinations which make many theories great. No atheist( sane one at least) has ever said that you can prove that there is no god, but as I believe there isnt any suggestion to believe that there is a god.

Agnosticism is preposterous. To which idea is it agnostic? A deistic god? A monotheistic god? Or is it any god in general. These questions have to be well thought out. Temporary agnosticism is fine with me, many people have to think this out, but a permanent one is just complete fence sitting.

**Quisant** · August 29, 2011

Hello Muntasir,

Welcome back, nice to see you again ...hopefully reinvigorated.

I will add my opinion about Agnosticism and Atheism.

Most things about the universe are unknown. Many things may be impossible to know. We can make educated predictions about reality and see how close they are to observation, but beyond that we're all in the dark.

The definition of Agnostic (according to the Cambridge Dictionary) :

Someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists

Consider ANTS, they have a sophisticated society, communicate and interact with each other but they are unable to register our intellectual presence. Humans are just forces of Nature, often disasters.

In that sense Ants are agnostic; humans may also be similarly agnostic about other intellects.

My understanding of Atheism:

(Copy and paste from a previous post I made)

1) What is an atheist?

An atheist is someone who does not think there is a God.

Atheism has no set of common beliefs. But prominent secular thinkers generally agree on pursuing the common good on the basis of compassion, and the advancement of science to increase our knowledge about the world.

2) Why do atheists not believe in God?

Because there is no evidence for God. The best that can be said for the proposed evidence is that God is one possible answer among other possibilities. But mostly, the proposed evidence is speculative, insufficient, and self-contradictory.

3) Are we not supposed to have faith?

The problem with faith is one can have faith in anything. If we don't use evidence as the criteria by which we choose what to believe, then reality becomes a preference. Obviously, reality is not always what we want it to be, so faith is an invalid basis for belief.

4) How can you know there is no God?

We can't. But we can't really KNOW fairies don't exist either. That's not a reason to believe in them, is it? It's all about considering the evidence, evaluating the claims, and making the reasonable judgment.

5) Then where did the world come from?

We don't know that it came from something. And if it did, we don't know that this thing is a god or an intelligent being.

When faced with the unknown, "we don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer.

6) How could such a sophisticated world not be the result of an intelligent creator?

If a sophisticated thing requires a creator, then who or what created the sophisticated creator? If we don't need a creator for the creator, then we don't need a creator for the world. Logically, we can't have it both ways.

7) Is atheism dogmatic?

Like all people, some atheists may be dogmatic, and some are open-minded people who simply have an opinion that could be right or wrong.

8) If atheists are wrong, won't they go to hell?

And if Muslims are right, Christians go to hell. If Catholics are right, evangelicals go to hell. The idea that life is a religious test, or that someone deserves eternal punishment for believing the "wrong" things or having the "wrong" opinion, may indicate that God and hell were invented to instil fear and control people.

9) What about the Bible and the Quran?

They contain stories about Virgin births, talking snakes, flying horses, talking ants, and people getting out of their graves and walking around. There is no evidence for any of those mythical-sounding stories, and no real reason to take them seriously. Many ancient texts have similar stories, so neither Bible or Quran are unique in that respect.

Wslm

*

**.InshAllah.** · August 29, 2011

You cannot prove a negative. The onus for evidence and/of 'proof' would be on the person making a claim about a metaphysical existent (or anything else for that matter). In other words, it is not for those who lack a belief to prove evidence to support their lack of belief, it is for those who do have a belief to make a case for it.

You can prove many negative (e.g. there is no bag under your chair), and you cant prove many positives (e.g. Aristotle had 3 moles of his left thigh), and many negative can be rewritten as positives (e.g. There are no supernatural entities ----> Only natural entities exist)

'You can't prove a negative', and other atheist myths

Psychopath · August 29, 2011

^ Apologies. The first statement was meant in reference to metaphysical claims. The statement is often made a shorthand for saying so and I think you probably already knew that. Other than that, sure, I can prove that there isn't a bag under the table and indeed that there are no married bachelors. I cannot, however, disprove that God doesn't exist, or that there isn't a different God for each galaxy. I don't know whether this was an attempt to overturn the lack of belief argument or whether you were just being disingenuous.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Psychopath

**.InshAllah.** · August 29, 2011

Apologies. The first statement was meant in reference to <em>metaphysical</em> claims. The statement is often made a shorthand for saying so and I think you probably already knew that. Other than that, sure, I can prove that there isn't a bag under the table and indeed that there are no married bachelors. I cannot, however, disprove that God doesn't exist, or that there isn't a different God for each galaxy. I don't know whether this was an attempt to overturn the lack of belief argument or whether you were just being disingenuous.

Even for metaphysical claims it is not true. For example, the metaphysical claim 'There is no supernatural energy under your chair that confers on you special powers if you sit on your chair' is proven if you sit on your chair and don't develop special powers. And negative metaphysical claims can be rewritten as positive ones as the example in my last post shows.

Anyone who says that there is no God is making a claim about the universe; they are saying that the universe is of a particular nature, and for this they need an argument. They cant rely on the (false) ''cant prove a negative'' slogan to justify their lack of argument.

Psychopath · August 29, 2011

Even for metaphysical claims it is not true. For example, the metaphysical claim 'There is no supernatural energy under your chair that confers on you special powers if you sit on your chair' is proven if you sit on your chair and don't develop special powers. And negative metaphysical claims can be rewritten as positive ones as the example in my last post shows.
Anyone who says that there is no God is making a claim about the universe; they are saying that the universe is of a particular nature, and for this they need an argument. They cant rely on the (false) ''cant prove a negative'' slogan to justify their lack of argument.

Can the same be applied to God, then? Are you seriously suggesting that the responsibility lies on those who don't belief to disprove, rather than vice versa? If not, then I'm not entirely sure of your angle here. Otherwise, any other claim, no matter how absurd, must be accepted until disproved. Your logic seems to indicate guilty until proven innocent. Does the burden of proof not lay on the person making the claim?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Psychopath

**.InshAllah.** · August 29, 2011

No, my logic is agnostic until proven guilty or innocent. Why believe that the universe is a particular way if you have no idea? The burden of proof is on the one who says that there is no God, just as it is on the one who says there is a God. Both are making a claim about the universe. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim about the universe.

MysticKnight · August 29, 2011

There is arguments against God, the major ones I know of is the problem of suffering/evil and imperfect design.

So if you are convinced of the arguments against God, you can conclude there is no God. However the arguments against God are not like mathematical arguments, they rely on subjective opinion, so there is room for doubt. That is why most Atheists are agnostics, despite those arguments.

Edited August 29, 2011 by MysticKnight

Psychopath · August 29, 2011

No, my logic is agnostic until proven guilty or innocent. Why believe that the universe is a particular way if you have no idea? The burden of proof is on the one who says that there is no God, just as it is on the one who says there is a God. Both are making a claim about the universe. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim about the universe.

The burden of proof is upon the one making claims about the universe without evidence. (1) Claim -> No Evidence -> Belief. (2) Claim -> No evidence -> Lack of belief. The latter is a more cogitable position to hold, otherwise any absurd claim about things existing beyond the senses with a lack of evidence indicating towards it would have to be entertained. Nonetheless, I agree that agnosticism is a more logical position to hold than either; but I think it is dishonest to make it out as though a lack of belief in something which does not have satisfactory evidence is equally unsustainable as believing in something without evidence.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Psychopath

Gypsy · August 29, 2011

No, my logic is agnostic until proven guilty or innocent. Why believe that the universe is a particular way if you have no idea? The burden of proof is on the one who says that there is no God, just as it is on the one who says there is a God. Both are making a claim about the universe. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim about the universe.

This is an argument for an agnostic. An agnostic does not reject God because in order to reject God you need to come up with a better explanation of the origin of the universe and all the creations.

Interesting thread

Muntasir · August 29, 2011

No, my logic is agnostic until proven guilty or innocent. Why believe that the universe is a particular way if you have no idea? The burden of proof is on the one who says that there is no God, just as it is on the one who says there is a God. Both are making a claim about the universe. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim about the universe.

Who is making a claim for the universe? No sane person can do so, like I said all we can say is that we cant say no to the idea or disprove it but that there is no evidence to support it. </p>

This is an argument for an agnostic. An agnostic does not reject God because in order to reject God you need to come up with a better explanation of the origin of the universe and all the creations.
Interesting thread
http://www.shiachat....ygombs-paradox/

No one rejects it... why? Because we cant its impossible, theoretically speaking. If you believe in god you have to come up with a good explanation for the origins of the universe as well. It works both ways, its really a stupid coin flip of an argument.

Hello Muntasir,
Welcome back, nice to see you again ...hopefully reinvigorated.
I will add my opinion about Agnosticism and Atheism.
Most things about the universe are unknown. Many things may be impossible to know. We can make educated predictions about reality and see how close they are to observation, but beyond that we're all in the dark.
The definition of Agnostic (according to the Cambridge Dictionary) :
Someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists
Consider ANTS, they have a sophisticated society, communicate and interact with each other but they are unable to register our intellectual presence. Humans are just forces of Nature, often disasters.
In that sense Ants are agnostic; humans may also be similarly agnostic about other intellects.
My understanding of Atheism:
(Copy and paste from a previous post I made)
1) What is an atheist?
An atheist is someone who does not think there is a God.
Atheism has no set of common beliefs. But prominent secular thinkers generally agree on pursuing the common good on the basis of compassion, and the advancement of science to increase our knowledge about the world.
2) Why do atheists not believe in God?
Because there is no evidence for God. The best that can be said for the proposed evidence is that God is one possible answer among other possibilities. But mostly, the proposed evidence is speculative, insufficient, and self-contradictory.
3) Are we not supposed to have faith?
The problem with faith is one can have faith in anything. If we don't use evidence as the criteria by which we choose what to believe, then reality becomes a preference. Obviously, reality is not always what we want it to be, so faith is an invalid basis for belief.
4) How can you know there is no God?
We can't. But we can't really KNOW fairies don't exist either. That's not a reason to believe in them, is it? It's all about considering the evidence, evaluating the claims, and making the reasonable judgment.
5) Then where did the world come from?
We don't know that it came from something. And if it did, we don't know that this thing is a god or an intelligent being.
When faced with the unknown, "we don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer.
6) How could such a sophisticated world not be the result of an intelligent creator?
If a sophisticated thing requires a creator, then who or what created the sophisticated creator? If we don't need a creator for the creator, then we don't need a creator for the world. Logically, we can't have it both ways.
7) Is atheism dogmatic?
Like all people, some atheists may be dogmatic, and some are open-minded people who simply have an opinion that could be right or wrong.
8) If atheists are wrong, won't they go to hell?
And if Muslims are right, Christians go to hell. If Catholics are right, evangelicals go to hell. The idea that life is a religious test, or that someone deserves eternal punishment for believing the "wrong" things or having the "wrong" opinion, may indicate that God and hell were invented to instil fear and control people.
9) What about the Bible and the Quran?
They contain stories about Virgin births, talking snakes, flying horses, talking ants, and people getting out of their graves and walking around. There is no evidence for any of those mythical-sounding stories, and no real reason to take them seriously. Many ancient texts have similar stories, so neither Bible or Quran are unique in that respect.
Wslm
*

Thank you, i was just bored and decided to post some things, how are you anyways :)?

Pascal · August 30, 2011

I have to disagree. Agnosticism, is the least rational decision in my opinion. Most intelligent atheists are actually agnostics? Thats quite the bold statement, I am sure that some of them are but to say most isn't true at all. The rejection of a god does not mean one can disprove it, that's not atheism's claim, you should probably read more on it. I cant say for sure there isn't a god, im 100% sure. However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a good ( my opinion )

I think we have differing definitions and thats where the problem arises, if you define it as that, then i am also what you stated - "However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a good ( my opinion )"

However, if he came down and told me i would probably start believing...

It also raises epistemological questions about how if we can even truly know anything. Say i have a cat in a box and you do not know the gender of the animal, even if with all your logic you think the animal 100% positively must be a female, it doesn't change the fact it is a male. Same deal here. You can't really be 100% sure of these things in an epistemological sense.

Right now, i do not believe there is God out there. I live my life as if there were no God. As dawkins is, i am a 6.9. However, if i suddenly got some overwhelming evidence or hard and fast proof, i wouldn't reject it like a #7 would.

Agnosticism fails to offer itself anywhere in probability or on the spectrum.

I don't think you really quiet understand agnosticism. You can be an athiest leaning agnostic. Which would be in the 6 area.

iSilurian · August 30, 2011

What are everyone's thoughts on agnosticism :)?

Agnosticism is the most honest position on religion that any person could ever take.

After having exposed themselves to the large amount of legitimate, non biased research from multiple fields of study on religions, anthropology, science and philosophy, there is no doubt, that it is the most honest position.

I cant say for sure there isn't a god, im 100% sure. However I can say, that there is absolutely no palpable and good evidence that there is a good ( my opinion )
Thats atheism. Not agnosticism. I think dawkins quote there is accurate. Heres a 7 part spectrum.
1) Strong thesit. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2) Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3) Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4) Exactly 50 percent Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5) Lower than 50 percent but not lery low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I am inclined to be skeptical.’
6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De Facto atheist. ‘I cannont know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7) Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one’
Agnosticism fails to offer itself anywhere in probability or on the spectrum.Either you believe or you don't. We don't have anything other than atheists and believers Some agnostics are atheists some are believers, but there is no in between. If you are agnostic one point in your life for a temporary amount of time, i think that is very reasonable, but long permanent agnosticism is really fence sitting

Pombas responses are pretty good. The problem is, there are multiple ways to define atheists and/or agnostics.

your definition of "de facto atheist" is in reality an agnostic. But see, the thing is, there is a fine line between the two, and it depends on what God youre referring to and how youre using the word. Atheism is to say, you know there is no God by one use. While atheism is also to know that a certain God does not exist, like the Islam or Christian one, and to reject it. So you can be an atheist while also being an agnostic. But ultimately, when it comes to All Gods, it is irrational to say "i know there is no God" (in all aspects and meanings of the word God), simply because thats such a broad term that it really doesnt make any sense to deny something so obscure.

Which is why atheism is fine with respect to certain theistic Gods, however in regards to all aspects of God, all atheists will ultimately be agnostics as well. And really, all theists are atheists as well with respect to certain Gods, so no theist in here should be making fun of atheists, because you guys are atheists too with respect to all Gods but your own.

Also, someone stated that, lets say for example we have someone like a baby with no knowledge of any form of God. Technically those babies are born with a lack of belief and by that definition they would be non believers/atheists. But it all depends on how you define the word, babies could also be born as agnostics simply due to a lack of knowledge and a lack of having made a decision.

Edited August 30, 2011 by iSilurian

**Quisant** · August 30, 2011

In fairness to young Muntasir,

Atheism can't be true or false because atheism is a lack of belief, not a claim.

(P.S. I am fine, thanks for asking.)

iSilurian · August 30, 2011

In fairness to young Muntasir,
Atheism can't be true or false because atheism is a lack of belief, not a claim.
(P.S. I am fine, thanks for asking.)

by that definition, true.

Muntasir · August 30, 2011

Agnosticism is the most honest position on religion that any person could ever take.
After having exposed themselves to the large amount of legitimate, non biased research from multiple fields of study on religions, anthropology, science and philosophy, there is no doubt, that it is the most honest position.
Pombas responses are pretty good. The problem is, there are multiple ways to define atheists and/or agnostics.
your definition of "de facto atheist" is in reality an agnostic. But see, the thing is, there is a fine line between the two, and it depends on what God youre referring to and how youre using the word. Atheism is to say, you know there is no God by one use. While atheism is also to know that a certain God does not exist, like the Islam or Christian one, and to reject it. So you can be an atheist while also being an agnostic. But ultimately, when it comes to All Gods, it is irrational to say "i know there is no God" (in all aspects and meanings of the word God), simply because thats such a broad term that it really doesnt make any sense to deny something so obscure.
Which is why atheism is fine with respect to certain theistic Gods, however in regards to all aspects of God, all atheists will ultimately be agnostics as well. And really, all theists are atheists as well with respect to certain Gods, so no theist in here should be making fun of atheists, because you guys are atheists too with respect to all Gods but your own.
Also, someone stated that, lets say for example we have someone like a baby with no knowledge of any form of God. Technically those babies are born with a lack of belief and by that definition they would be non believers/atheists. But it all depends on how you define the word, babies could also be born as agnostics simply due to a lack of knowledge and a lack of having made a decision.

Im sorry, but i strongly disagree with you view of atheism "While atheism is also to know that a certain God does not exist, like the Islam or Christian one, and to reject it" Atheism is disbelief, there is no certain god, its to a deity in general ( I speak for myself, so this gets problematic) No one is saying there is no god. Anyone who does so is foolish. I noticed on your religion label, you said deist/ agnostic/ atheist. This is the problem, what is the definition of atheism? agnosticism? It seems everyone has different forms of this. My position is, I know there is no god because, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a creator, however i cannot discredit the existence of an entity because, its something that cannot be dis proven.

" we have someone like a baby with no knowledge of any form of God"

And surely if a transcendent being existed it would have an innate sense of god, perhaps not mature. You have to think of it this way. What if this baby his whole life has never heard of something called religion, never in his life has he heard of a god, he just lived it normally. Do you think this would change the way he live? I dont think so. And if one day people told him about " god " , he likely would not believe it, although he cant disprove it. Why? Because everything in his life has worked without the explanation of god. In the end, it really depends on definitions. If you use the definition you say you do, yours views seem well thought out, but I think its just subjective.

**Servidor** · August 30, 2011

. . ." we have someone like a baby with no knowledge of any form of God"
And surely if a transcendent being existed it would have an innate sense of god, perhaps not mature. You have to think of it this way. What if this baby his whole life has never heard of something called religion, never in his life has he heard of a god, he just lived it normally. Do you think this would change the way he live? I dont think so. And if one day people told him about " god " , he likely would not believe it, although he cant disprove it. Why? Because everything in his life has worked without the explanation of god...

This is not entirely so - I can speak from my own experience. I was not raised in a religious family. I grew up, for the most part (I left home at age thirteen), from my first days in troubled, even violent homes. I was not given any religious instruction. The sole thing I did know came from my asking a question - literally my first question I ever asked according to my memory. And yet I had a visceral, ingrained conviction that God is; He exists; He lives. Along with a moral sense of duty with a certainty of immortality after I should die and to what end turning upon my conduct while I live. And in exacting contradiction to your scenario when my stepfather (second), an English teacher and an Englishman, firmly and explicitly denied that God exists - my visual path literally went black. I still trace my eventual degradation into immorality that marked my youth to this darkness, this obscurity, to this lie stated so firmly by someone I admired and trusted, a teacher, an avid and educated advocate of science; which I treated like a revelation later, when discussing religion with those other knaves like my older sister.

I know I have alluded to it on this forum - but I do not know if I have ever actually told the story.

I showed interest, largely to please my stepfather, in some set for aspirant Egyptologists available from the News Agency in installments over a few weeks and asked if we could get it and do it. The first book came with a little statue of Tutankhamen's head based on his funerary mask. The book spoke of their religion - polytheism. I said as a matter of fact, of course, these "gods" did not exist. My stepfather became offended on the part of the pagans; for the persecutors of the sons of Iacob; the only people in history so wicked as to enslave their guests. He insisted how did I know? I replied vigorously that there is only God and not several. He then very clearly and very firmly stated that God Himself did not exist. I did not even know men believed such a thing. I stood quiet and unsettled. I then asked in return, in a distant tone quietly - I believe my question was prescient - "But what happens after you die?". I said it almost as if I was not speaking to him but as unintentionally giving a voice to the question that immediately consumed me and dominated my mind. He was unnerved and even angry and replied very emphatically - "You are just dead." He then refused to do the set with me. Clearly this boy is too stupid to enjoy history.

Most thoughtful men throughout history, quite apart from any sustained religious instruction, come to a belief in something more than what it is you believe; I had trouble just then trying to put it, your worldview, into words; not "more than nature and us" - because I have never seen anything involved in religion as contradicting or existing forcibly apart from either; angels to me are as natural and among us as stones and pagans. Many of those thoughtful men come to believe that there is necessarily one God and that He has at least three main attributes or properties. He is infinite (eternal and not spatially bounded), He is omnipotent and He is omniscient. This definition holds good and is independently present in the thought of men almost as long as we have recorded history. They often tended toward some possibility or hope of immortality, in some meaningful sense, after death as well; some times even toward happiness after this life.

Is religion natural or innate? No - I do not believe it is so. It is reflexive. Most people would naturally not come to believe in God without a revelation for the same reason they would not learn another language or read the Socratic dialogues. Most people are not very thoughtful. They do not consider things well. They live to be alive. Their concerns are principally social, monetary and professional. When people do consider things better - they tend toward religion or at least God or at the very least something more.

Many atheists would agree. Dawkins for example has said that things to ordinary eyes do seem to incline toward that God exists. He gave the example of a bat and in quite readable English prose outlined all the things that otherwise would be taken as indicating clearly - God. He goes on to insist that science, particularly the theory of biological evolution, is therefore needed to cure such men of this very natural mistake by providing an alternative, satisfying and purely naturalistic explanation of what we see. You yourself seemed to allude to this when you mention the hypothetical justifications of the natural atheist - everything working.

The tendency of thoughtful men toward belief in God is natural. It is the explanations aimed at going against or excising that tendency that are artificial.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Servidor

**.InshAllah.** · August 30, 2011

The burden of proof is upon the one making claims about the universe without evidence. (1) Claim -> No Evidence -> Belief. (2) Claim -> No evidence -> Lack of belief. The latter is a more cogitable position to hold, otherwise any absurd claim about things existing beyond the senses with a lack of evidence indicating towards it would have to be entertained. Nonetheless, I agree that agnosticism is a more logical position to hold than either; but I think it is dishonest to make it out as though a lack of belief in something which does not have satisfactory evidence is equally unsustainable as believing in something without evidence.

Agnosticism is lack of belief. What I was referring to was the (positive) belief that there is no God. This is not merely a lack of belief in God, but also a belief that there is no God

Psychopath · August 30, 2011

Agnosticism is lack of belief. What I was referring to was the (positive) belief that there is no God. This is not merely a lack of belief in God, but also a belief that there is no God

Ah, that's it then. A lot of atheists will tell you that their atheism is the lack of belief, rather than a positive disbelief. Agnosticism is uncertainty. That's different.

MysticKnight · August 31, 2011

Agnosticism is the most honest position on religion that any person could ever take.

Believe it or not, most Muslims honestly believe their religion is correct and are being honest to themselves. Most people honestly believe what they believe for given reasons. A christian thinks he has being guided by the holy spirit. A Muslim feels he's being guided to attest to the Quran's divine nature.

They don't feel they simply believe, they feel they know it to be true, even if they can't explain it.

Some people feel it more strongly then others.

People can be sincerely deluded. I know for a significant portion of my life, I felt I was sure about the religion of Islam.

Edited August 31, 2011 by MysticKnight

Muntasir · August 31, 2011

This is not entirely so - I can speak from my own experience. I was not raised in a religious family. I grew up, for the most part (I left home at age thirteen), from my first days in troubled, even violent homes. I was not given any religious instruction. The sole thing I did know came from my asking a question - literally my first question I ever asked according to my memory. And yet I had a visceral, ingrained conviction that God is; He exists; He lives. Along with a moral sense of duty with a certainty of immortality after I should die and to what end turning upon my conduct while I live. And in exacting contradiction to your scenario when my stepfather (second), an English teacher and an Englishman, firmly and explicitly denied that God exists - my visual path literally went black. I still trace my eventual degradation into immorality that marked my youth to this darkness, this obscurity, to this lie stated so firmly by someone I admired and trusted, a teacher, an avid and educated advocate of science; which I treated like a revelation later, when discussing religion with those other knaves like my older sister.
I know I have alluded to it on this forum - but I do not know if I have ever actually told the story.
I showed interest, largely to please my stepfather, in some set for aspirant Egyptologists available from the News Agency in installments over a few weeks and asked if we could get it and do it. The first book came with a little statue of Tutankhamen's head based on his funerary mask. The book spoke of their religion - polytheism. I said as a matter of fact, of course, these "gods" did not exist. My stepfather became offended on the part of the pagans; for the persecutors of the sons of Iacob; the only people in history so wicked as to enslave their guests. He insisted how did I know? I replied vigorously that there is only God and not several. He then very clearly and very firmly stated that God Himself did not exist. I did not even know men believed such a thing. I stood quiet and unsettled. I then asked in return, in a distant tone quietly - I believe my question was prescient - "But what happens after you die?". I said it almost as if I was not speaking to him but as unintentionally giving a voice to the question that immediately consumed me and dominated my mind. He was unnerved and even angry and replied very emphatically - "You are just dead." He then refused to do the set with me. Clearly this boy is too stupid to enjoy history.
Most thoughtful men throughout history, quite apart from any sustained religious instruction, come to a belief in something more than what it is you believe; I had trouble just then trying to put it, your worldview, into words; not "more than nature and us" - because I have never seen anything involved in religion as contradicting or existing forcibly apart from either; angels to me are as natural and among us as stones and pagans. Many of those thoughtful men come to believe that there is necessarily one God and that He has at least three main attributes or properties. He is infinite (eternal and not spatially bounded), He is omnipotent and He is omniscient. This definition holds good and is independently present in the thought of men almost as long as we have recorded history. They often tended toward some possibility or hope of immortality, in some meaningful sense, after death as well; some times even toward happiness after this life.
Is religion natural or innate? No - I do not believe it is so. It is reflexive. Most people would naturally not come to believe in God without a revelation for the same reason they would not learn another language or read the Socratic dialogues. Most people are not very thoughtful. They do not consider things well. They live to be alive. Their concerns are principally social, monetary and professional. When people do consider things better - they tend toward religion or at least God or at the very least something more.
Many atheists would agree. Dawkins for example has said that things to ordinary eyes do seem to incline toward that God exists. He gave the example of a bat and in quite readable English prose outlined all the things that otherwise would be taken as indicating clearly - God. He goes on to insist that science, particularly the theory of biological evolution, is therefore needed to cure such men of this very natural mistake by providing an alternative, satisfying and purely naturalistic explanation of what we see. You yourself seemed to allude to this when you mention the hypothetical justifications of the natural atheist - everything working.
The tendency of thoughtful men toward belief in God is natural. It is the explanations aimed at going against or excising that tendency that are artificial.

Thanks for the input you put it beautifully :). I think you are quite right, religion seems to some as very peaceful and beautiful, but when in reality i have to disagree. I think your right though, it all depends on the person.

Ah, that's it then. A lot of atheists will tell you that their atheism is the lack of belief, rather than a positive disbelief. Agnosticism is uncertainty. That's different.

true dat my friend, true dat.

**.InshAllah.** · August 31, 2011

Ah, that's it then. A lot of atheists will tell you that their atheism is the lack of belief, rather than a positive disbelief. Agnosticism is uncertainty. That's different.

They might claim that, but in my experience most of these people actually hold the belief that there is no God.

iSilurian · September 1, 2011

Believe it or not, most Muslims honestly believe their religion is correct and are being honest to themselves. Most people honestly believe what they believe for given reasons. A christian thinks he has being guided by the holy spirit. A Muslim feels he's being guided to attest to the Quran's divine nature.
They don't feel they simply believe, they feel they know it to be true, even if they can't explain it.
Some people feel it more strongly then others.
People can be sincerely deluded. I know for a significant portion of my life, I felt I was sure about the religion of Islam.

that is true, but as im sure you know, it is only because they have not taken time to work with other concepts.

**Ruq** · September 1, 2011

I was agnostic towards religion for a long time but not towards God. I think that is a very common position. Unfortunatly the corruptions of religious people leads others to not only turn away from religions, but to turn away from any concept of God.

ShiaBen · September 1, 2011

I always thought agnostics were the most laziest of all the groups lol.

You have the atheists and the religious, where both of them are eager to go out and find/prove each other wrong etc.

As for the agnostics they are the type of people who stick to this "I don't know" attitude to keep themselves innocent lol.

**Muhammed Ali** · September 1, 2011

Even for metaphysical claims it is not true. For example, the metaphysical claim 'There is no supernatural energy under your chair that confers on you special powers if you sit on your chair' is proven if you sit on your chair and don't develop special powers. And negative metaphysical claims can be rewritten as positive ones as the example in my last post shows.

That is not an exclusively metaphysical claim because it involves physical powers.

**.InshAllah.** · September 2, 2011

That is not an exclusively metaphysical claim because it involves physical powers.

By 'special powers' I actually meant supernatural powers. Suppose it does involve physical powers, then we have a metaphysical entitty with a physical effect (ie physical powers). How would this be different to God who creates the physical world? In the case of the latter we also have a supernatural entity with a physical effect.

Sign In

Opinions On Agnosticism?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics