It takes an application of the scientific method with either Positive or Negative results.

With the issue of God, neither a Positive nor a Negative result are possible because you cannot test the hypothesis that God exists or doesn't exist. Thus the position is: We do not know.

This is a valid third point in science.
Like I said:

Positive = Belief
Negative = Disbelief
Neither = Uncertainty

I wish you had said that before. FFS we agree. lols

I agree, I think everyone is agnostic, some people just don't know it.

ok - I'm going to be simplistic here because I only took a quick break so I havn't REALLY read through all the posts - but....

The purpose of a Christian missionary is to go and "educate" those who have never heard of the Bible or the god of that book.

Are you saying those poeple who have NEVER been exposed to the idea of a supreme or absolute being are agnostic?

Now suppose someone tells them the story of Adam and Eve and how they were 'created' by this being called God. If they don't buy it are they agnostic?

Now suppose that they are pantheistic people, they believe the universe is a living thing (not necessarily a being but a living thing) To them the all that exists are simply components of the living a and emerging universe. No actual 'mind' has conceived or even created all that exists because all that exists is simply the univers in an emergent process.

Upon hearing the Biblical words they attempt to find similarities between what the Christian said and their own beliefs. When they come to understand that neither holds the 'same' belief - are they BOTH then agnostics?

Sorry - but I don't buy the agnostic thing. I don't believe in a fairy god-mother either but some people belive that angels watch over them, like a fairy god-mother - am I agnostic because I don't believe in angels but I'm not agnostic when I don't believe in fairy god-mothers????


Am I just tired or being a fundamentalist athiest?

by the way - MANY years ago - really many ago - I read an article about an albino elephant, they are pink. It had something to do with their natural non-pigmented state being pink rather than without color. Ok, so I was about 15 when I read it, but I still recall it cos the Elephant was just a baby and it was so cute. Oh - it had not developed wings yet, maybe that species never does!

I'll just assert once more that it all depends on what we're calling 'god'.

When it comes to the gods described in the Torah, Koran, or Bible, then I'm definitely an all-out atheist.

As far as I'm concerned those "gods" can't possibly be true because the stories require that those Gods are less intelligent than mortal men.

Do I believe like Jesus preached?

Maybe.

He said, "Ye are Gods".

That's pantheism.

We are all "god" in the sense that we are all consciousness.

Deepak Chopra is a Buddist he makes absolutey no distinction between consciousness and spirit. From his point of view these things are one and the same concept.

Now the real question is what gives rise to consciouness? A brain?

Is a brain required for consciouness?

Well that may well depend on how we define the term. Externally or internally. Objectively or subjectively.

The real question is simple; "Are we the form, or are we the thing that is taking the form?"

That's the real question.

If you don't know the answer to that question then you are agnostic.

If you think you know the answer to that question then you are either a theist or atheist depending one which answer you think you know.

Atheists believe that we are the form.

Pantheists believe that we are the thing that is taking the form.

Monotheistic religions believe that we have been formed by a cookie-cutter God who is raising souls to be used as devoted eternal servants. The questions then become, "Why does God need servants?"

That implies that God is needy and imcomplete. God needs souls!

And to make matters worse a fallen angel is winning the bulk of them in some sort of poker game where human souls are the betting chips.

Sheesh! Everything I think of that picture I start viewing atheism as a truly wonderful alternative.

I'm totally convinced that I would rather we just die when we die than to discover that we are nothing more than betting chips in a game of poker between a God and a fallen angel.

What a dismal pathetic situation that would be.

Fortunately pantheism offers an possible ulternative that is more inviting than either atheism or monotheism.

So if religion is based entirely on faith then pantheism get's my faith!

So in that sense I guess I'm a theist and not an atheist.

But in truth I confess that I'm agnostic. I truly do not know what's going on, and I don't believe that anyone truly does. But if monotheism is true, then we all lose.

I think when I said everyone is agnostic it was overly simplistic to truly represent what I meant. I am often bad about that, as many of us are, at the end of the day we have only our own perception to use as a tool to make these short quick statements, and it would take weeks to qualify everything we say before the fact. I am however thankful you pointed our my brash generalization for this is actually an interesting topic to go into detail.

Problem #1
The fact that people are notorious for making a thousand different meanings for a single word does not help either.

# someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
# of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
# a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
# uncertain of all claims to knowledge

Acknowledgment #1
Given these different meanings above then my statement really only deals with those that have been presented with the concept of a god, any god.

Clarification #1
Now what I meant is that no one can prove god exists, and there for if they are intellectually honest then they must admit some level of probability that they are wrong, irregardless of %. The opposite which is proving a negative is idiotic and absurd, so I will not detail that lol.

Problem #2 The term agnosticism again deals with beliefs, and a positive belief about the likelihood of absolute knowledge of a gods existence. Beliefs being a fairly tricky subject just makes this harder.

Problem #3 subjective experiences. The fact that people have differing levels of credulity DOES play a roll in how we perceive our world. Some folks will have a vivid hallucination and it is a religious experience for them, others just talk to flying pink elephants. If someone believes regardless of reality that they have had a direct experience that to THEM proves god, well I guess from the loose definition of agnosticism I would have to admit they are not it. But again In my NOT to humble opinion each person gets to decide there own level of credulity, however if any person is not willing to admit a certain amount of possibility that what they have perceived is delusion, hallucination or what ever you want to call it, is in fact not intellectually honest, and there for easily ignored.

From my perspective everyone is agnostic in the sense that no one can prove to ME, that god does or does not exist.
And that everyone should be honest enough to admit they cannot be certain.

And abra is right what the definition of this god is makes all the difference in the world.

When it comes down to it, sometimes I will be in a lengthy debate with someone about the existence of god, then finally have them define it, and essentially god is the universe and all energy . . .

And then that changes everything. Then I get to have the conversation about what truly makes something a god or just a property of reality, but that is a whole other conversation lol.

So I guess in any general sense, not everyone is agnostic.

agreed, no-one can say for absolute that there is or is not a god.
I'm am on the other hand pretty sure that if there is one it's not the christian god.
There is to much evidence to that one being false.

Ah, Pascal's dilemna!

there are to many gods for Pascal's wager to have much merit.

Abracadabra said:



I can relate to this comment. I have gone through periods of my life where I was in such a tight knit secular group (university setting, students and scientists) that I just assumed I was an Atheist because they were all atheists. Yet at the same time, I couldn’t entirely grasp the idea that this life was it and we possessed no eternal soul. There was no one I could discuss this with. The Christian concept of "god" was horrendously disappointing. How could an almighty creator resemble such a blood thirsty, woman hating tyrant? That wasn’t going to work. Not for me anyway. Im too obstinate by nature to stand for that.

I think now agnosticism is the only way I can go. I do believe in reincarnation and an eternal soul and so far there doesn’t seem to be any legitimate reason for me to give up that "security blanket." I will remain like Linus.

Being uncertain means you do not yet believe.

So to me

Belief = Positive assertion.
Non belief = No assertion.
Uncertainty = No assertion.


The only difference to me between non belief and uncertainty is when you are uncertain you are still willing to look.

And again it is very much possible to not accept the truthfulness of a gods existence and still remain agnostic.

Thus being an agnostic atheist.

I'll add to this that fact that even today's prominent Atheist, Richard Dawkins will readily admit that science, at this moment can't disprove the existence of God, so on his scale of 1-7(1= Full fledged belief in God, 7= full fledged Athiesm), he places himself at about 6.9, which is still technically an agnostic position. The other main thing that Dawkins points out is that everyone on the earth is an Atheist. We are all Atheist to the Gods of Ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece. Today's "Complete" Atheists just go one god further.

I consider myself to be in the same area of the scale as Dawkins. I can't 100% disprove god(as I have mentioned on here many times), but with what I have seen, along with my personally feelings, I agree with Dawkins when he says that the existence of a Deity is very, very unlikely.

Obviously, one of the reasons why people believe what they believe is because they find it easier to live with what they believe. For some people, it is a belief that our lives are already planned out, for others it's a belief that they will "live on" after death. As far as I am concerned, I find it easier to believe that this life, isn't simply just a test.

It's all a matter for each to his own.

If you have the same imaginary friends as a few hundred thousand others then its a religion.

If you, alone, hear voices, then you are certifiably insane!

The difference is ... ?

Answers on a post card please to ...

It’s also scary to believe that this life is it and then once you die, it’s all done. I’m sure that scares the b-jesus out of people. I will even admit to that. Although when you really think about it, it should prompt you to make every last second on earth count because we really don’t have very much time at all. An 80 year life expectancy (barring anything else that can affect health adversely) is nothing. It’s not even a blip on the radar. Just look at the time span that Homo sapiens have occupied a place on this earth. It’s nothing. It’s totally insignificant.

This is why I think being an atheist is a healthy world view.

Every second counts. Live life to its fullest. We get no second chances.

Agreed. I take that aspect of Atheism very seriously and that is a wonderful way to feel about your life in general. However I dont always follow that advise. Look, here I am wasting my time on an internet relay chat interface arguing on behalf of Evolutionary theory. I could be doing something else much more important or beneficial to others. However, I guess as long as you are happy, recreation is recreation. At least Im not smoking or getting into trouble. There is always worse things to be doing, thats for sure.

Aside from how we live our lives, as atheists, we can also accept people, and their actions, for who they are. None of this "You are a sinner, because this book says so"
It just seems easier to be able to live, and let live.

I agree. There is also a degree of overlap. Murdering another human being either in a premeditated act or in the heat of passion is breaking a law that has already been established in our legal code. A Christian would refer to murder as a "sin." The word "sin" has no relevance to a person who does not adhere to this particular set of rules or conduct. Both Christians and non-Christians would agree that a law has been broken however.

A Christian would consider that sex outside of the confines of marriage a "sin" also. That is not illegal. It in no way conflicts with the laws that govern society. So in that sense, a non-believer would not view fornication in terms of being "sinful." That designation has no meaning or relevance.