It's pure semantics about being confused.
I am not going to be a language purist on this issue. I won't entertain EXACT definitions. I am talking about the actual belief of an individual and nothing more.
What we describe as "Agnostic" is someone that doesn't know if there is a god or not. Well, hell, that actually is everyone, believers, and non-believers.
The fact is you either have faith that there is a god, don't have faith that there is a god, or you are confused.
Believers have faith that there is a god. They have that faith out of no more proof than brainwashing and or indoctrination.
Atheists don't have faith that there is a god. There is not one shred of evidence that there is a god so they don't accept the myth of a god that is foisted upon humanity.
Agnostics say that there may be a god or may not. But that could be true of anything. There could be an invisible purple cow billions of miles cubed that resides on the other side of the sun. That is a ridiculous idea, but no more ridiculous than accepting that there could be a god. So agnostics are just confused, muddled minded, refusing to just accept facts the way they are.
It makes NO sense what so ever to say that there may be something when in fact there is not any, never has been any, evidence that that something ever existed.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Fantastic point, Mykcob4. I've been puzzled by the same and it helps to read your post.
I understand being agnostic about the exact location of Fiji or the root dialect of a given language, but it is meaningless to say "agnostic" regarding a being that supposedly exists outside of time and space. And it's silly. As you said, we all are. Some feel certain, but no one "knows" such a thing. So the term Agnostic is meaningless in the context of god. And those who 'know god exists' are desperately confused and wrong.
The key is to define 'god'.
I don't think many people are agnostic about the three-for-one offer. I have recently challenged two Christians who say they believe in god to say they believe the entity consists of Dad, Son and Ghost. They didn't deny that is superstition or downright silly. I don't think many British Christians seriously believe in a specifically Abrahmic god at all. They talk of the "Christian tradition". They appear to believe that it is some entity that sort of oversees everything. The more I try to pin them down to a precise definition, the more doubtful they sound about the whole concept of god. They seem close to this Dutch position...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362
I have never challenged Christian friends before so it is interesting that their 'faith' is so vague. The problem seems to be that they still think religious faith is inherently good somehow. We don't discuss it much.
Folks have many definitions that differ from another's. My definitions of a/gnostic and a/theism are likely different than the person's standing next to me. Okay. It seems to me that the crux of the biscuit, so to speak, is offering a description of that definition prior to discussion in order to reduce potential confusion. Beyond that, call yourself anything you like but don't expect me to dress in your words.
@CyberLN
So explain "Agnostic". Aren't everyone agnostics? And if someone is self-described as agnostic then what DON'T they believe in? Why not think everything could be real instead of having discretionary and critical thought?
I will provide my definitions: A/theism is about belief. A/Gnosticism is about knowledge. You can get 4 stances from that. I identify as an agnostic atheist. In other words, I do not believe there are god(s) but I have no knowledge either way. There are folks who identify as gnostic a/theists. You can say this person can't possibly 'know' but how someone describes themselves, IMO, is just not up to you.
Again a personal attack by you CyberLn. I said I would not entertain literary definitions. I am not making this about me. You could make that accusation about every single OP.
I am talking about the individual.
No one knows for sure that is a fact so by definition they are agnostic, but that isn't the actual fact of that person. Which is why I laid out the three variables.
1. Growing up, I truly believed in God and I prayed as often as I could. I had no doubt of his existence.
2. Soon I began to see how religion was divisive in nature and rejected it but didn't question my faith in God.
3. I searched for this God devoid of religion and ended up nowhere as god seems to exist only in religion. I didn't know what to think.
4. Finally I accepted the possibility that all that I believed in was probably incorrect as I found no evidence in support of it.'
The above is a summary of my journey through faith to disbelief. I went through what I deemed as stages.
1. Theist
2. deist
3. Agnostic
4. Atheist
I guess agnostic in my opinion is more a stage on the journey from theist to atheist. In fact I believe deist is a stage as well. Its just that some people are more comfortable with a particular level of disbelief.
My stage of Agnosticism was punctuated and perplexing. I could not accept that there is no answer and I searched more until I was forced to say that in all probability God does not exist.
This is however in reference to the OP and not a perfect definition of the word agnostic
Charvak THAT is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for this post!
I see agnosticism as a weak version of Pascal's wager. Agnostics are pretty convinced that there isn't a god, but they want to keep the door slightly open just in case.
Mykcob4 - you stated that:
"Believers... have that faith out of no more proof than brainwashing and or indoctrination... It makes NO sense what so ever to say that there may be something when in fact there is not any, never has been any, evidence that that something ever existed."
In reference to "evidence", what kind of evidence for the existence of God would be sufficient for a rational individual?
Thanks in advance for the help.
In answer to your question Freeslave, I don't actually know. As for the kind of evidence, I would say credible evidence. First-hand knowledge supported and corroborated. Evidence that can be and is peer reviewed and independently tested.
@Freeslave: "what kind of evidence for the existence of God would be sufficient for a rational individual?"
How about amputees growing new arms or legs at Lourdes? Or perhaps a church full of faithful believers being levitated out of the way of a tsunami or lava flow. I'd most like to see spontaneous combustion of priestly pedophiles.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Charvak that was well written ,Mykcob4, I agree with most of your posts and I encourage you to keep posting,as I read them and think about them. Please don't let someone chastising your every word or picking apart your syntax deter you from posting. I rarely post so as to keep the "sharpshooters" from picking apart any post of mine. However I do enjoy reading the posts of those who dare to. I hope that the posts of the future are posts of hypothetical musings, I post something that is a product of my mind and my view point so maybe you readers can see things from my point of view and not view it as a target. View it as exactly what it is, and, take it for what its worth or not worth. Character assassination will not improve the forum in the least. Not saying at all that anyone is guilty of that but to forewarn posters of the vicissitudes of such. This is not a forum of grammar or of anti religion, But I view it as a forum to post your innermost thoughts that you cannot possibly speak of in your work place or in your neighborhood for fear of job loss or ostricization by your neighbors and employers. I appreciate your posts everyone and hope to see a lot more in the future.
Thank you, Thinker.
As to character assassinations, I am most likely the most guilty of that infraction. CyberLN has had to remind of that fact over and over and rightly so. I have had to apologize on one occasion, and rightly so. I was just being a bit of a shit and needling them for a slight, and I mean a very slight hypocrisy.
I think that some actually deserved it though. Like when you got on Friedmanite's case. Thanks for that.
@Thinker
You may be interested in all of Truett's posts. He is a thinker just like you.
Thanks, Mykcob4.
Thank you thinker
I've thought that the whole concept of agnosticism confuses me as well. However, as a young person, I run into this a lot, and it is better than running into street preachers. I'll take an "agnostic" over a southern baptist any day.