I think not.
Some say that they just aren't sure, but they figure "I'm a good person, so if there is, I'm fine". I'd say that person is actually a theist.
Others say they don't know and don't care. They never think about any possible rewards or punishmentts. They are actually atheists.
I say all agnostics are actually one or the other. They may not wish to take any sides, either because they have no wish to offend or because they simply do not care, but they are not actually agnostic. They believe in gods or they do not.
Wow Pcunix, what's with all the religious post these days? Did you have to fix a Priest's computer or something?
I don't know what I should be called and frankly I don't care. I'm sure you really don't yourself, you just seem to want to have fun these days.
It has always been a subject of interest to me..
I'm just poking at things I see as a bit shaky. They won't fall down, but I like watching 'em wobble a little.
He is slowly slipping over to the dark side.... this is the first signs. Next it will be 3,000 words quotes from the bible without any paragraphs!
Repent before it's too late !!
There are probably a few true agnostics out there. I've met some people who tell me they "just don't care" about religion or whether there's a God, I'd describe them as agnostics, although apathetic-atheist might be a better term
I'm an agnostic-atheist, most atheists are agnostic, so are most theists, but it isn't the same thing as a pure agnostic. The terms become really confusing and it ends up being a discussion on the root, origin of words, all just word games. My guess is that there truly are some people who don't have a belief stance and who just say that the existence of God is unknowable either way.
From what I understand a pure agnostic is someone who holds neither belief nor disbelief, so they have no atheist or theist stance and believe that knowledge of God is impossible. Depending on the definition of atheism being used it could be said that agnostics like that are automatically atheistic since they have no positive belief in gods but I've met a few agnostics in my time who would disagree.
There's also apatheism, which I called apathetic-atheism, which is basically disinterest towards whether or not there is a God.
The rule is far simpler...
If a man believes in god and is not absolutly sure of his belief, then that element of doubt makes his belief false....
Thus he believes in a false God....
If a man Believes there is no god ... then his belief again is false...
so He too believes in a false God...
If a man claims absolutely belief in god, but cannot find proof of belief to be 100 percent convincing to himself...
Then he too believes in a false God.
So we see That True believers are those wo are absolutely Sure with Absolut proof...
This can only happen when that one has found Truth.
For God is Truth.
Nevertheless it is The will of the Father that ignorance will persist in man for a time...
Seemed to have only one thought to me..
Clap, clap. Every time.
I would have to say that Yes...There is real Agnostics out there...People who are without knowledge one way or the other...There are also Theists.. those who believe in at least one god...and there are Atheists...those who don't believe there is a god...and then you have the Gnostics...those who do have knowledge one way or the other...
agnostic can be both theist and atheist - it is not in the middle. It refers to certainty of knowing. I don't believe in God (atheist), but am not absolutely certain I'm right (agnostic), so that makes me agnostic atheist.
I am a real agnostic, though I prefer to describe myself as rationalist, which is, if you like, the thinking wing of agnosticism, not the apathetic wing.
As a rationalist, I try to avoid belief altogether. Belief is a psychological need to provide an answer where none exists. The problem with this is that it closes the open question.
I prefer to leave the open question open, and continue the search. That way, knowledge, as distinct from superstition, has a chance to grow.
I do not believe in any god. But it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence through all time and in every place of anything, god included.
Therefore to say 'there is no god' as a categorical fact is unjustifiable. i.e. simplistic atheism is irrational.
However, to say 'there is no god' as a testable proposition, falsifiable by manifestation, is a scientific or rational position, and one I am happy to take.
Agnostics are like Humpty-Dumpty, fence sitters with no spines who would crack the moment they hit the ground on either side of the fence.
By your strict definition their can be no agnostic.
Agnosticism is not limited to what you "believe" but rather what you can KNOW. It is rooted in what is known and what is knowable. For instance I can NOT BELIEVE in a diety and yet NOT CLAIM that no diety exist.
In your case, you believe that you can prove that NO DIETY exist. Another athiest may argue the pit falls of trying to prove a negative. So while your BELIEF is that you have PROVEN that no diety exist, others may be skeptical of that PROOF, but still NOT BELIEVE in a diety....
I get SO annoyed by that ridiculous "you can't prove a negative".
Why do people think that?
Because when something isn't available for inspection it's hard to disprove. Example you find a set of strange tracks in the forrest. You say it's bigfoot. I say it's not. You have physical evidence. What do I have? Nothing but my disbelief. I can make arguments that raise questions to the validity of the physical evidence. I can capture the animal that made the tracks. How do I prove it's NOT a bigfoot once captured? Especially if I capture an unknown animal.....
Agreed, some things do lend themselves to negative proof. Mathematics for example. When dealing with metaphysics there is more unkown than known....or so most believe. The fact is that most NEGATIVES are only proven when something else is proven to be true. Therefore making the negative impossible. In short absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
But we have logic that says no god can exist.
Theists have to assume illogical things to support the idea of any god. We don't allow illogical defenses in a court of law - you can't tell a judge that I teleported to your living room and turned your couch into a Great Dane and that you wish to sue for damages.
Theists provide equally ridiculous explanations for why their illogical and impossible gods could exist. That's why I say we CAN prove that gods do not exist - it's just that the theist will accept ridiculous statements to avoid that proof.
Agreed. Your proof only works when both parties agree on the definition of a "diety". Specifically the Christian claims that their god is NOT bound by space and time.
pcunix - the phrase 'you can't prove a negative' is a popular corruption of 'you can't prove non-existence through all of space-time'. You must allow for the fact that all people are not scientifically inclined, and will speak colloquially. Not to do so is to be elitist.
I'm not sure what I am.
There is certainly something going on.. doubt it is a sole creator. Something we don't understand could easily be going on.
I disagree with you. I always thought there were a whole lot more agnostics out there then would admit it. I think a lot of people that go to church are probably agnostic, and I always assumed a lot of atheists were actually agnostic.
Agnostic seems like the most sensible approach. Theists and atheists are taking a stand they can't prove.
I emphatically disagree. Gods CAN be disproved.
Theists are like the defendants mother. They ignore the proofs, their son is always innocent. It's a frame, the witnesses are lying, it must be a lookalike, fingerprints are not unique, DNA is faked or that one in 200 million change MUST be what happened..
I'm so not in to religion that I never actually went to that huge thread about how you disproved it.
How can Gods be disproved?
I'll even say I am a "real agnostic" just to see your point, even though I'm not sure that I am.
Why am I wrong for being a real agnostic?
I disagree. Because I always thought I was an atheist, but now. I have begun to feel spiritual, and I do feel that there can be a creator, absolutely. But do I believe in the God that Catholics depict, or any other God man-made. Def not.
So if you can, please explain to me what I am. And how you can disprove my God. Because I really am curious.
You are a theist.
The other thread is easy to find. It is http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/66856
Well, what if the Catholics are right, what if there is a God and a heaven and hell. And an afterlife, and am beginning to feel that there might be an afterlife, in some way shape or form.
There is no way I am a theist.
I very well might be a true agnostic
This is from Wikipedia.org
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence"
I believe in the "possibility" of such an existence.
I can easily place myself in either of those categories.
Pcunix. I get your zeal. But it just isn't true. If it was, everyone would agree with it. You are pure atheist. I am pure theist. We are unique, I think. I think a lot of people just don't take the time we do questioning it. They go with whatever crowd they're in, on the surface. Inside they don't know, and don't care to come to any decision either way.
Sorry, but it is true. You know it is.
What "everybody" believes is of no interest to me. Facts speak for themselves and the facts are that all gods are impossible.
But that's not what this thread is about.
nicely said. However, even an agnostic (an implied gnostic) must ultimately take a position...you know the whole Gog Magog thing............ I am joking --no really, no.
An agnostically challenged theospohist.
I don't believe in God as a spirit that created everything. To that end, I would be classified as an atheist. However, the concept of God as a combination of father time, mother nature, and infinity is something I can accept. To that end, I would be classified as a theist.
Zero and one - sounds like binary to me, and the path to all possibility.
You can classify me as you wish. I'll just continue saying I'm agnostic.
"Nevertheless it is The will of the Father that ignorance will persist in man for a time..."
So your god wants us to be ignorant? How nice of him! I am delighted.
"So we see That True believers are those wo are absolutely Sure with Absolut proof..."
I like that "absolute proof" part.
Just a word-play, nothing else. Should I clap too?
This is from online dictionary:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
I think I am as close to being agnostic as you can be.
I'm neither atheist or theist. I'm just jaded. I find this whole arena very entertaining.
I think you are often like to label things black or white, I find that extremely difficult when you consider the world and universe is 99% unknown to all of us, and we cannot prove or disprove a person is 100% theist or 100% atheists.
Under the true sense and meaning of the word common sense, we are all agnostic. Under the unreal common sense of the 8/10 - 9/10 of the people of this world, they claim them self theist. I claim that everyone is god and it works in my own universe and it makes good sense to me.
Evangelizing Tolerance is when you here there no contradiction in the Bible, that give a real creepy brainwashing feeling all over.
I haven't joined in on one of these before. It's quite exciting.
Someone I know is an anesthetist, but we don't discuss religion much.
I reckon I am an agnostic, even though Pcunix says very cleverly I can't be. That's because I don't believe, but I am prepared to leave a little gap on the offchance. Which is like an optimist really, but you haven't mentioned optimists in this thread.
If Noah had been an atheist then where would we be now?
I rest my case.
I don't say you can't be.
I simply say that I think very few are and that most are simply people who wish to "play the middle" to avoid taking sides.
Yet you have singularly avoided addressing my first post.
I don't believe in a God, or Noah actually, or heaven and I think religion is a con played on people fulfilling some kind of need to er.. whatever. So as far as that goes I'm an atheist.
But then I look at the stars and think about how big it all is, and where does it stop, and when did it start (the Universe) and I get to feeling very very small.
And around that point I like to let someone else (a god of some sort) worry about it. He made it. It's very simple and quite reassuring. By 'god' I mean something beyond my understanding. Maybe aliens or something.
People will see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. I do get answers too, from people who do not want to reply.
Look, no offense meant, but often you say things that just are not possible to reply to. They make no sense to me at all and I just have nothing to say. Trying to figure out what you might mean just doesn't seem worth the effort.
At other times, there is just no point. It's a difference of opinion, so why bother?
This is particularly true here. Obviously people can use any label they prefer. I'm simply observing that, from my point of view, many so-called agnostics are actually theists or atheists in spite of their insistence otherwise.
It doesn't matter: we believe what we believe no matter what labels are used. I do get annoyed by those who are just not wanting to offend anyone by actually taking a stand, but again, if wishy-washy is what they want to be, that's what they will be. They don't want to tick off anyone? Well, they ticked off me, so there
I am an agnostic.
A Christian once told me that, when it comes down to it, everyone must be agnostic, really, because, whatever one believes ~ even if one has no doubts ~ one can never really 'know'.
I don't know the answers to the apparently 'supernatural'. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps I am really an atheist and then I'll wonder if I am really a believer. I really don't know enough to know. I don't think that anyone does.
I think that there are many mysteries in life and, until they are all fully explained, I shall keep an open mind ~ a mind that simply does not have the answers. I do not know.
Are there any real agnostics?
There can't be any real agnostics/athieists truly speaking. It is a temporary state; till they find and accept the reality.
by Keith Schroeder 2 years ago
What is a good religion for an atheist to start with?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
Why do so many people have misperceptions about atheism and agnosticism?
by bdn9385 2 years ago
Does atheism means I don't believe the existence of God or I hate God for who He is?
by augustine72 7 years ago
I have talked to many atheists and some say that atheists are people who do not believe in the concept of God. But in the past people said that atheists were people who believed that there was "no God". What actually is atheism?
by Cattleprod Media 8 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
by paarsurrey 7 years ago
Hi friendshttp://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51068?p … ost1168161Religious Tolerance Comparison of US Religious Sentiment vs. Other Predominantly Christian Nations; courtesy Pandoras Box“Since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|