Why Agnosticism trumps Atheism and Theism.

[Sleeper]

What is agnosticism? Rather than wiki it and provide you within something I don't like, I will steal from smart people I like enough.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

When addressing the sentence: God exists.

A theist is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a proposition and who classifies the proposition as true or probably true.

An atheist is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a proposition and who classifies the proposition as false or probably false.

An agnostic is someone who allows that the sentence expresses a proposition, and who grants that he/she knows what that proposition is, but who is noncommittal about its truth or falsity on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Agnostics are sometimes defined as Atheist Agnostics or as Theist Agnostics for a lot of reasons, but that is all here or there.

Agnostics are different than those with absolute beliefs concerning divinity, even weak absolutes, because our belief in god is not essential to our understanding what we believe about God. That gives us a lot of advantage in any argument concerning divinity.

We also can talk down to both sides as one does to a fundamentalist if one has enough education to understand how deadly any fundamentalism is.

This list goes on...

[wilting]

All agnostics are atheists. I could never figure out whether I was agnostic or atheist until I realised this simple truth. Seperating the two is splitting hairs.

[Sleeper]

Wrong. Next.

[wilting]

Do Agnostics believe in god? No. Agnostics are Atheists.

I don't know if god exists = Non belief in god, for all intents and purposes.

[Last Roman]

Do Agnostics believe in god? No. Agnostics are Atheists.

But on the same hand, they don't not believe in God(s)

[HopliteElite]

I consider myself an atheist in that I only believe in what can be proven through the scientific method. Since God cannot be proven, he does not exist. Should someday God's existence be proven, I will change my point of view, as I am an atheist only because God cannot be proven to exist. One could try to label me as an agnostic because I cannot say, with certainty, that there is no God or gods, but I can say, with certainty, that given the evidence at hand, there is no God or gods, as they cannot be proven to exist. Since the evidence is what we go on, one could come to the logical conclusion that without any evidence, something cannot exist.

If you do not believe in God or gods, you are an atheist. I do not like the agnostic path because I think it is a false path, designed by people that are basically trying to have their pie and eat it too. Agnostics like to claim that they just don't know but are open to the idea that there might be a God or gods. This is no different, in my eyes, than not believing in God or gods but agnostics are self-deluded and convince themselves (and occasionally try to convince others) that they are somehow seperate from atheists (perhaps to save their hides in case there actually is a vengeful God).

The conclusion I draw, to put it as bluntly as possible, is that so-called agnostics are cowards who are afraid to take a stand on the issue. They want the security of God's forgiveness, should he exist, because, after all they haven't "rejected" him as they imagine atheists have, but also want the respect, in life, given to people who are "open-minded". The fact is though, every agnostic will burn in hell with the atheists if God does exist because no matter how effectively they have convinced themselves of their somehow neutral position on the matter, they still refuse to accept God, as he demands according to the Judeo-Christian religions.

Most atheists are just like me in the end, as are most agnostics, even if they do not want to admit it. We demand proof of something before we accept it but regardless of this, we are both, atheists and agnostics, rejecting the idea of God or gods, which makes us, essentially, one in the same. Trying to claim an agnostic is so different from an atheist is just something agnostics do to make themselves seem more open-minded and philosophical than atheists.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I consider myself an atheist in that I only believe in what can be proven through the scientific method.

That limits things quite a bit. How do you handle things like abstract concepts or aesthetics?

Agnostics like to claim that they just don't know ...

No, they say God is unknowable. That's quite different. It's not "I don't know", it's "we can't know". I've just spent pages trying to get this through to several theists, don't tell me I have to start explaining it to a fellow atheist as well.

The conclusion I draw, to put it as bluntly as possible, is that so-called agnostics are cowards who are afraid to take a stand on the issue.

Wrong - see above.

[Ummagumma]

All agnostics are atheists. I could never figure out whether I was agnostic or atheist until I realised this simple truth. Seperating the two is splitting hairs.

Wrong. Next.

He is correct, from a certain point of view. I've never met a theistic agnostic - there is an abundance of 'no God' though. It may not be 'there is definitely no God/s', but also there is never 'a God/s'.

[Sleeper]

Not so. Negative belief is as absolute as positive belief. Agnostics choose to wait for evidence of weight. We stand above the fray.
Read the post. You might find yourself learning something, or just thinking.

[Sleeper]

Agnostic Theism

An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this.

You have met your first agnostic theist. Congrats.
Everyone is correct from a certain point of view Ummagumma.

[Ummagumma]

Agnostic Theism

You have met your first agnostic theist. Congrats.

Well, I may have read about them, but still never met one. I am possibly agnostic to the existence of agnostic theists..

Everyone is correct from a certain point of view Umma the Gumma.

Indeed, It's always a matter of perspective. (Ummagumma is one word, unless you're implying I'm a syphilitic tumour..)

[Scorch]

He is correct, from a certain point of view. I've never met a theistic agnostic - there is an abundance of 'no God' though. It may not be 'there is definitely no God/s', but also there is never 'a God/s'.

One has to admit, Sleeper, the definition of agnosticism lends itself more to the trend that Ummagumma described:

One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable

While theoretically, the majority of agnostics are most likely inclined more towards the 'God probably doesn't exist, but we can't be sure' view, rather than a view that 'God probably does exist, but we can't be sure.'

At the same time, to say that agnostics and atheists are exactly the same thing is not right. The difference between this is, as the Sleeper points out, a form of fundamentalism, and that is what atheism is, when considered properly.

Let me elaborate. Fundamentalism is the belief in the complete infallibility of your particular religious view, you could say. The view that there is no god is a religious view, in one form or another. Atheism relies on the belief of the infallibility of the view that god does not exist, and so is a form of fundamentalism.

That said, while the majority of agnostics will, most likely, be inclined in the same way towards the views of atheists, in not being convinced of god's existence, there is a subtle but significant difference in the conviction of the two beliefs, in that atheism is a fundamental and absolute belief, whereas agnosticism is not.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'm an agnostic. I do not know whether or not there is a God or Gods or some other driving or creation force. I do not believe that any of the religions practiced today can possibly be true.

[Sleeper]

I'm an agnostic. I do not know whether or not there is a God or Gods or some other driving or creation force. I do not believe that any of the religions practiced today can possibly be true.

There is one religious perspective which is likely to be true. I speak of agnosticism. As Scorch provided:

"One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable."

It is more than likely that we will never be able to conclude what made the Universe even if we are lucky enough to discover what was "here" before the Universe was. Therefore God is unknowable. A being that will never be proven true or false (as it should be). Which means agnostics are most likely to be right.

Doubters typically are; if for no other reason than doubt is the fount from which thinking for oneself springs, or sometimes spurts. We are the torchbearers of thought, the champions of uncertainty, the bane of the self righteous trapped in their circles of absolutism.

We are the light. The men who have walked from the shadows. Let me tell the rest, the Sun feels good. Warm and snuggly like a puppy or twins.

[King of Axum]

There is one religious perspective which is likely to be true. I speak of agnosticism. As Scorch provided:

"One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable."

It is more than likely that we will never be able to conclude what made the Universe even if we are lucky enough to discover what was "here" before the Universe was. Therefore God is unknowable. A being that will never be proven true or false (as it should be). Which means agnostics are most likely to be right.

Doubters typically are; if for no other reason than doubt is the fount from which thinking for oneself springs, or sometimes spurts. We are the torchbearers of thought, the champions of uncertainty, the bane of the self righteous trapped in their circles of absolutism.

We are the light. The men who have walked from the shadows. Let me tell the rest, the Sun feels good. Warm and snuggly like a puppy or twins.

On the contrary the reason why man ( mass populace) do not know or can prove the exsistance of God or Gods is simply because we in this material reality have no means to prove his exsistance for he is of spirit not earth which is what we are made of. Yet in all of this the creator was wise and thus sent an extention of his divine being, ( Jesus) whom is the divine medium whom allows man to reach his father.

[wilting]

I'm an agnostic. I do not know whether or not there is a God or Gods or some other driving or creation force. I do not believe that any of the religions practiced today can possibly be true.

This is essentially the same as what I believe. However I do consider it possible that a human religion could be true, just incredibly improbable to the extreme.

I call myself an Atheist.


Hmm, from an Atheist perspective, all Theists are arguably Agnostic Theists.

Ok Sleeper I concede that both Agnostic Theism (which I understand isn't necessarily the same as Deism [Or Agnostic Deism, whatever] or Fideism, but with which one can draw parallells to) and Agnostic Atheism exist. However, the common understanding of the term Agnostic is Agnostic Atheism.

EDIT: Atheism is NOT the assertion that there is no god or are no gods, it is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

[Sleeper]

EDIT: Atheism is NOT the assertion that there is no god or gods, it is simply the lack of belief in god or gods.

Which is the belief that there is no god or gods. Which, when science is used as an argument, is surely an assertion. Most atheists resort to scientific arguments because there is simply too much philosophy which makes God a reasonable idea.

An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, in particular the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable
but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this.

[wilting]

Which is the belief that there is no god or gods. Which, when science is used as an argument, is surely an assertion.

Wrong. Next.

Most atheists resort to scientific arguments because there is simply too much philosophy which makes God a reasonable idea.

[Sleeper]

Wrong. Next.

How? I provided an argument as to why.


The majority of philosophers address the questions of divinity. If philosophy was an ocean those philosophers that do not address divinity would be a series of small, newly formed inlets with one or two old lagoons that never looked beyond their horizons.

I welcome arguments however, wilting, hopefully ones not as flaccid as your moniker.

[Scorch]

This is essentially the same as what I believe. However I do consider it possible that a human religion could be true, just incredibly improbable to the extreme.

I call myself an Atheist.

Wrongly so, then. Atheist is an absolute and fundamental belief. If you consider the possibility of a human religion being true, you are an agnostic, just one that happens not to believe in God, but recognises the fact that we can never be one hundred per-cent sure about whether he exists.