still wrong. an agnostic cannot know if there is or is not a god.

According to the last few views..
I don't know what I am anymore.
I believe in a 'higher power'.
I don't believe in the Bible; in any way.
So, in the eyes of most (not all) Christians..
I'm a blasphemer.
At the same time, I don't give a f*** what they think.
Because I believe that religion is based on lies and deception.
An concoction forged merely to keep order and the masses in check through fear.

I do, however, believe something put us here.
That 'something' is powerful, but idk if He/She is actually as kind, gentle, and warm hearted as often portrayed either..

So, anyway..

If an agnostic person 'cannot know' if there is a God or not, then we are ALL agnostic, are we not? Believers, do just that 'belief' but they have no solid, concrete proof of such existances.

I always thought an agnostic was someone who believed in a higher spiritual power but that this entity didn't necessarily have a name or religious organization inspired in that diety's name...

Then again, idk what I really am anymore.. lol.

Me, personally, I'm not on the side of athiests, becuz that's just saying we are becuz we are.. and that, IMO, is truly niave. However, at the same time, it could be, oddly enough true. Maybe we are just descendants of apes or whatever, but then my question is.. where did the ape come from that we descended from?

Now from the Christian stand point; I understand the concept of wanting to believe in something higher and better than ourselves, but at the same time, the desperation in uncovering this answer has led many to a false-pretense of security in a church built on lies and arrogant demeaning behaviors.

I'd defend that last statement; but that's not what the topic is about, is it?

I think I forgot my point unless I made it already, lol. >.<

Many would say 'yes, but only some of us know/admit this'.

As Bushi explained, one can be 'agnostic' and still be a theist. You sound a lot like an anti-religious agnostic theist.



This is a common use of the term. It is not consistent with the way the term is used in the discourse community of 'academic philosophers', but that doesn't make it 'wrong'. I think its silly when people insist the word can only be validly used in one particular way. That said, its also good for us to be aware of how 'the professionals' use the term, and Bushido is doing a great job of explaining that.




Sorry, but thats just completely wrong. You are ascribing a separate, additional belief to a group of people who are categorized only by a lack of a particular belief. This is completely illogical, and strikes me as a form of bigotry against atheists.

This kind of bigotry is common amongst people who have spent a lot of time with theists.

agnostic literally means without knowledge. It is used for someone who is on the fence. They do not deny or claim in the existence of a god. They just take the stance that they do not know.

you were wondering what you were after reading the several posts. i don't see you as agnostic though if you believe in a higher being. believing is knowing in your mind that a concept is true. an agnostic when speaking of religious concepts thinks that the human mind is incapable of knowing the existence of gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena. beyond religious discussions an agnostic thinks he cannot know anything that he hasn't himself experienced. and yes, agnosticism suggests that everyone who possesses a human mind must by definition be agnostic just as christians believe that every human was created by the christian god no matter their religious affiliation. christians simply have this elitist attitude that they are the only people with any common sense so they go to heaven, the rest of us burn in hell.

nope, dead wrong. agnostic literally means "about what is unknown AND unknowable".

ag⋅nos⋅tic  /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
Use agnostic in a Sentence
See web results for agnostic
See images of agnostic
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


has not a thing to do with being "on the fence". unless of course the fence looks down on one side which is composed of theists who believe that there is a god on one side and one the other side are atheists who believe god does not exist. then i'll conceded that the "agnostic on the fence" sees that neither can ever prove himself right and the other wrong. they are both delusional. if you want to call me a fence sitter then fine. like the air up here better.

So agnostic does not have to even be about God.

Its a belief that nobody or no entity can be 'all knowing.'

That describes me.

I also don't believe in a deity.

So I am both agnostic and atheist.

agnostic has to do with knowledge in general. really has nothing to do with god as i keep saying. has to do with the concept that nothing is knowable other than what we experience. but i don't see that you are agnostic if you believe in spiritual or other supernatural phenomena. belief as i understand it to be means knowing something to be true or fact. an agnostic cannot know anything so he can believe that nothing can be true of fact absolutely. but you're right, agnosticism has nothing to do with god.

Why would you assume what I have or have not experienced? (The spiritual etc.) Also, I don't know what you define as "super natural phenomena." And you should not assume what I have or have not experienced.

By the definition #2 that you posted, I am also agnostic.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

That says nothing about God or spiritual.

i assumed nothing for crying out loud. look at my statement again. "but i don't see that you are agnostic if you believe in spiritual or other supernatural phenomena." key words being "if you believe". i did not assume you believe i said that IF you believe in spiritual or other supernatural phenomena as you've stated on several occasions then you are not agnostic as i understand the term. if on the other hand i heard you wrong and you don't believe anything then you would be an agnostic.



these are not my definitions. the second definition refers to "some area of study". if the area of study that we are discussing is religion, then agnosticism applies as regards religion. god is unknowable for instance. if the area of study that we are discussing is spiritual, than agnosticism applies to one who sees that spiritual events are unknowable. the area of study could be astrophysics or model airplane aerodynamics or puff the magic dragon. in every case an agnostic would take the stance that nothing can be known absolutely with regards anything that might become the topic for discussion.

as regards the definition of "supernatural" i don't define words as a practice i accept one or more dictionary definitions as definitions as i posted for "agnostic". i offer this as some definitions for "supernatural" that i find acceptable. whether you find them acceptable is of course none of my concern.

su⋅per⋅nat⋅u⋅ral  /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
Use supernatural in a Sentence
See web results for supernatural
See images of supernatural
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

–noun 5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8. the supernatural, a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

Okay it looked like you assumed something because of the way you wrote the above.

Although some of your sentences are not complete sentences that is the meaning I got out of it. Here is one of your incomplete sentences:

"has to do with the concept that nothing is knowable other than what we experience."

What should I assume the "subject" of the above sentence is? (I don't like to assume.) There is a period before it, but no capitol letter. It has a period at the end of it so I am going to assume it is a sentence. If it is sentence it has a verb (has) but no subject.

Followed by another sentence:
"but i don't see that you are agnostic if you believe in spiritual or other supernatural phenomena."

Next sentence:
"belief as i understand it to be means knowing something to be true or fact."

That is debatable. Belief and knowing are not the same thing.

Next sentence:
" an agnostic cannot know anything so he can believe that nothing can be true of fact absolutely.

assertion #1.
an agnostic cannot know anything

Your logic following that premise:

"so... he can believe that nothing can be true (or) fact absolutely.

So you apparently believe that an agnostic believes in nothing.

I do not accept that definition. I do not agree that nothing can be known.

I am saying by the definition you posted:

(#2)a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

In and of itself means I can describe myself as agnostic according to this definition.

You indicated that: nothing is knowable other than what we experience.

And you also indicated that you did not see me as being an agnostic if I believe in anything spiritual or supernatural, as I have often indicated I do.

Therefore it appears that you assumed that I have not experienced anything supernatural or spiritual.

But now I see that the only reason you said that was because you think that an agnostic is a person who cannot know (hence believe) anything.

bean, communicating with you is far more difficult than communicating with anybody else here in my view. never have i had to provide the number of definitions of everyday words such as "supernatural" as i provide you. i'm simply not going to keep coaching you along to understand what i have to say. you use this "misunderstanding" of me often as it feeds your strawman strategy for debating. it doesn't do anything to get your point accross. so read my words, interpret or read what words you want to read or change them as you wish. we don't see much the same anyway and i doubt that we ever will.

I don't know why you have a problem understanding me. I use complete statements and complete sentences. I try not to assume things unless you leave me in a position that I have to. I try to say exactly what I mean. I try to understand what you mean.

When I run across someone I can't understand I do make an effort to understand them. I don't just throw up my hands and give up. I don't need any "coaching" from you, I just need you to be a little more clear about what you are saying.

I don't use the terminology "strawman" either. It means nothing to me. I simply write what I am thinking or feeling as clearly as I can.

JB,

Going back to your 7:24am post, tt seems to me that you are using the term "agnostic" in the sense of "with respect to some particular topic or claim" - and not necessarily any of the topics or claims that are most often under consideration when people use the word agnostic. AFAIK, this is an absolutely a valid use of the word, and we are all agnostic on some topic or claim.

On the whole, it seems to me that you are refining your use of these terms based on the many definitions and explanations that people are posting.

Just quoted for truth.

Welcome to the club! Its the Agnostic Atheist Club, mingle2 members 2. (that is just those that have told me )

A lot of this is confusing because the nature of when a belief is held, how that belief came to be and the line between doubt and belief is naturally subjective and perhaps for any given idea not well established in the mind of the potential believer.

Some people will have a methodology on how and when they construct beliefs, some people are completely emotional and rely solely on feelings on how they construct beliefs, most people fall somewhere in between.

If I state that a belief is a concept with positive characteristics, and we can all agree on that, then we can know what it is by defining the characteristics.

Lets use some examples.

I believe that my chair will support my weight. Perhaps I have come to this belief empirically, through testing or observation of its weight bearing characteristics, perhaps it will be the communication of a trusted authority, my brother told me its a nice sturdy chair, or perhaps its pure emotion, I have a fond attachment for Victorian straight backed chairs(no I really do not)and believe they are always sturdy.

Regardless of how I have come to trust that this chair will support my weight, the belief itself is an idea that I hold to be true.

So I hold that beliefs are ideas we hold true.

But we must distinguish between "I believe that", and "I believe in" statements.

I believe in giving to charity.
I believe that giving to charity is good.
I believe that giving to charity is my responsibility.
I believe that many of the poor are not to blame for there situation.

Usually believe in statements hold several believe that statements hidden within them.

Anytime you hear a believe in statement, try to think of the actual things within that statement that you "believe that".

So if someone says I believe in spirit. What you do believe that spirit does? What do you believe that spirit is made of? What you do believe that the purpose of spirit is?

I believe in god. What do you believe that god does? What do you believe that god is? What do you believe that happens to you when you die?

I would appreciate it is everyone could break down the believe in statements to the believe that components, then we can really dig into what people believe is happening, taking place, or what actually is. This also helps the individual understand more about what they actually believe. Many things are easy to "believe in" in the abstract, but when we break down the believe that, we are like Einstein and end up agnostic atheists after all.

The last part of what I wanted to mention was that many times people do not see belief as a definite thing.

I do apparently, I hold that belief is accepting an idea as true. So to me beliefs are positive, and either pass the line from non-belief to belief by being accepted as true regardless of actually being true.

So from that point of reference anyone who doubts the existence of god is an atheist if only for a second, then if they change there mind the next second, they are whatever they do or do not believe that moment.

Bushi said Well said.

(double post)

I agree with that assessment.

What would you call holding an idea as being more possible than not?

Like I believe that non-human life forms (some call aliens) exist but I am not 100% certain of that. I am more like leaning towards the possibility (85% worth) that it is probably true.

Is that "belief?" Is it dis-belief? or is is agnostic?

Probability is a tricky thing ehh? Prediction are also one of those iffy things.

Id say in the realm of belief you can hold beliefs very strongly, or not so strongly, or not at all, and nothing else (shades of grey certainly) but not the opposite, you do not not hold a belief weakly.

The strength of the beliefs, in most cases, says far more about what supports your beliefs then does the belief itself.

If you think you might be wrong, but are going to work on a given belief, you do not hold it strongly, but you hold it never the less to be true until shown wrong.

I mean lets try to think of what the opposite would even be . . .

Not hold an idea as true? (no that isnt it, thats just not believing, not quite the opposite of belief, just the lack of it.)
Hold a non-idea as true? (Ohh non-idea, perhaps thats like spirit and is either everything or nothing, but somethings lack of something else?)
Hold ideas as not true? (I guess collect not true things until left with whats true?)

Me I only see one way personally and that is with beliefs being positive things that we add up based on what we accept as true.

So basically if beliefs are made up of ideas, then what are non beliefs made of?

My point of course is to demonstrate that beliefs are positive and an idea must exist first to be "believed in" or not. OHH OHH a believe in, lets also recognize that the "believe that" cannot exist until we break up the ideas representing the concept to be analyzed for truth.


So my problem with folks who use the term atheism to mean one who denies god, or one who believes that god does not exist really irks me is because in the first case its absurd to deny something that does not exist, afterall there is nothing to deny. (ie I am not denying god anything, he isnt there to deny.) and in the second case becuase beliefs are positive things, I do not hold a positive belief that something does not exist.

That is on par with trying to prove something does not exist, after all if your criteria for beliefs are positive criteria then no amount of negative criteria will initiate a belief. No amount of lack of evidence in god will make me positively believe god does not exist.

(entirely my personal view)That to me is the only honest assessment given, a) the state of knowledge and how knowledge is attained, b) the state of beliefs and how beliefs are attained

Nope I am not dead wrong.

Agnostic comes from gnostic which means possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things. Used to refer to a cult of Christians called the gnostics. Gnostic comes from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge. The prefix "a" is used with greek words and means without, no, or absence.

So when I say the literal translation of agnostic means without knowledge I am dead right.

But thanks for being an *** about it and take care.