Then I asked if they studied many types of religion before making their decision.

There is not a none of the above in are you convinced? It’s either yes or no in logic.

Agnostics have always brought a secret smile to my face. They want to live a secular life but need to have a god available in time of desperate need.

Even as a child, attending Sunday School and Church, I was a skeptic, it was not much of a reach for me to cast the whole thing out as superstition and fraud.

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2024, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I was that person for a time until I realized I was fooling myself, I had no rational reason to hold on to hope.

There seem to be more definitions of what a "god" is than there are people on this one planet. Can't imagine how many other billions of planets are also wasting energy thinking about this.

I actually like to say I'm an a-theist, and anti-theist, someone who doesn't believe that there's any reason to invent some "theo".

My father made it easy for me when I was 6 or 7. We (mainly Mom and kids) went infrequently to an Episcopalian church. I asked him what he thought about the existence of "god". He told me "I don't spend any time thinking about it."

Used to be part of a Secular Humanist group - some thoughtful people.

Unless it’s in discussions with close friends or family members where I want to understand where they are coming from, and wanting them to understand me as well.

Just in case there is. So I’d say I’m a theist. Though not sure that god is the god of the Bible. But I like some of the concepts that the Bible teaches, certainly do unto others as you would have done unto you.

What if the specific form of Christianity I chose to follow just in case is wrong? There are over 1000 denomination in the US alone, all with differing beliefs about how to be saved. Islam’s hell is scarier than Christianities. Never mind Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism etc.

As far as the Bible I don’t find anything “good” in it that I can’t get access to from other sources. I don’t find any worth in following a book that allows human beings to be owned as property, or where a god kills innocent people because he’s mad. The Bible teaches people lazy thinking (just have faith with no evidence) that leads to people making poor choices. To be honest the god of the Bible is a monster when you read what the Bible claims he’s done. Even if it was demonstrably that he was god I would not worship him.

Instead of "all agnostics are atheists," I tell people who ask me what the difference is, that it is necessary to define the terms. If "agnostic" means that one is not sure, but will be sure when shown proof, then all atheists would be agnostics. We're sure there are no gods, but if we were to be shown proof, then we would believe it. Of course the proof has to be demonstrably true, which has always been a sticking point.

The all knowing god Pascal is pretending to believe in obviously knows Pascal’s belief is insincere. As it turns out the god is the nasty vindictive being from the Old Testament, Pascal gets super special eternal torture.

That is a term I have not heard recently. The way the Chrisitan Right is trying to control the government and policies, it should be used and practiced more often.
Tax the church. Untaxed churches is a way that helps establish religions.

A Theist believes there is a god (or gods),
An Athiest believes there is no god(s),
And an Agnostic has no belief either way.

I consider myself an Agnostic because I don't have any reason to believe there are gods, and I also know that you can't prove a negative (so there could be).

When I think of the idea of humans existing with and relating to a god(s), it makes me think of how an ameoba might relate to a human(s), from the ameoba's point of view, they couldn't comprehend the godlike (to them) complexity of us anyway, so to them, it really doesn't matter if we exist or not. Which is why I like the phrase "Apathetic Agnostic", I don't know and I don't care.

of existence is unknowable, it cannot be decided by logic or evidence.

An apatheist just thinks the issue is irrelevant.

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2024, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

If a person wants to spur their own evolution in some way, then they might adopt some practice that opens the mind (or 'soul'). Prayer or meditation, gardening, artwork, dance or music, or Sufi whirling can induce expansiveness, joy, insightfullness, connectedness, awakening. "Believing" in some metaphysical aspect to these practices is not necessary for effectiveness. If believing in a diety or dieties, thereby binding yourself to a conceptualization that embodies or epitomizes your aspirations, and if worshipping enhances the outcome of your practice, then it makes sense to put forth the effort to maintain faith in the diety/dieties. If dieties are extraneous, distracting, or detrimental to the intent of your practice or to your goals or to your peace of mind, then atheism is, perhaps, obligatory; a dead diety is an albatross. If flickering faith enhances your trip like a strobe light on a dance floor, then claim "agnosticism". As an agnostic, maybe you know with rational and scientific certainty that you are alone on the dance floor, but you are willing to take a spin around the floor if and when whomever shows up. So, hold my beer, I'm going with agnostic.

binary propositions. They are probabilistic claims. An agnostic atheist generally is asserting that she cannot know with certainty that no gods exist, but instead thinks it is vastly improbable.

Theists can escape empiricism by claiming revelatory knowledge. They know a god exists without having to point at that god in the universe. For them the god proposition is binary. They are not making empirical claims.

"An agnostic atheist generally is asserting that she cannot know with certainty that no gods exist, but instead thinks it is vastly improbable."

My question is, what would be the correct term for someone who admits they can not know with certainty if anything above known biologically-induced consciousness exist but thinks it is probable?

Would that be an Agnostic Theist?

'there are thoughts' is essentially for each of us the only certain knowledge we have.

The skeptical position is that all we can be certain of is thoughts in our heads. An agnostic theist is just the opposite of an agnostic atheist. The existence of gods is unknowable, but the agnostic theist has decided that it is more probable that gods exist than that they don't.

Agnostic theism was quite common back when modern skepticism developed in europe and various philosophers were trying to not suffer the consequences of overt atheism while developing a rational scientific empirical theory of knowledge. Pascal is an example.

Gnostic believe we can only contact the great spirit through one's self. An agnostic believes it's not possible to know of the existence either way, you can't be sure you can't be sure it doesn't exist. But practically it's still "bring proof or go home" as to a supposed powerful being.

...I think that definition of Agnostism is the most honest and reasonable.

It's pretty simple, really:

Yes = you are a theist
No = you are an atheist
I don't know = you are an agnostic

A or not A in logic are the only two options, "I dont know" is part of not-A.

https://criticalthinkeracademy.teachable.com/courses/2514/lectures/51567

Claims for example about the existence of a property or object in the physical universe can be, in fact more or less have to be, probabilistic claims. "The earth is flat", for example is neither true nor false, it is just exceedingly unlikely to be an accurate claim about a property of the planet earth.

Are you an Atheist? A or not A?

Are you a Theist? T or not T?

Are you an Agnostic? Ag or not Ag?

And an agenda, which doesn't really lead to a fruitful dialog. Good luck with your crusade, dude. I don't really understand why you feel so strongly about your ideosyncratic take on the meanings of English words related to religion. Perhaps you had a bad experience with parents who were religious or something. My sympathies.

That worships a false prophet like t$#&p! This christofascist type of Christianity has really turned me off. And it’s hard now to find true words and deeds of Jesus type of Christians.

Knowledge since that time has exploded. That doesn't mean everything from two thousand years ago needs to be thrown out. But much of it no longer comports with known facts.

Basing our society today on religious proclamations from two thousand years ago is like basing your medical care on the practices of two thousand years ago. How much regard do you think the society of two thousand years in the future will hold for practices based on the knowledge of this time?

My personal belief is "There's things going on that you don't know".

Whether those things are supernatural or simply natural laws we haven't yet discovered is unknown at this time.

There is no god.

Through the ever-expanding knowledge from Science, the answers to creation, life and the cosmos can be discovered without resorting to any supernatural forces.

It's easier because I don't have to twist myself into illogical knots. In fact, I don't have to do anything at all!

Anyone can believe whatever they want as long as it isn't imposed on my life.

...does leave open the possibility of an unyet-recognized conciousness more complex than ours.

An example: Suppose it turns out that "intelligent design" in lving beings is true. That doesn't support the proposition that a god or gods exist or ever existed. Just that at some point creatures or energies smarter than us exit or existed in the past. Just because we can do things vastly more complex than a flea doesn't make US gods. It doesn't mean we can communicate with, care for, or need the adoration of fleas.

Sorry, you are stating that for you, all propositions are either yes or no. You can believe that if you want, but the fact is that there are non binary propositions.

In this case, the agnostic is simply saying that they do not have enough or any information on which to make a decision. They don't know. An atheist or a theist may feel that they have enough evidence to be able to answer your binary proposition. Good for them.

The agnostic just does not know.

I have listened to this discussion for decades. It is common for both atheists and theists to argue that there are no agnostics, because they assume this is a binary proposition. It's not.

Some people just don't know. They are agnostics.

...logic or knowledge.

There seems to be, empirically, some probably genetically driven predisposition to mystical thinking. Many of the finest minds ever to existed seem to have displayed this predisposition. Other very fine minds have reasoned it away.

I have reasoned it largely away, but still if I'm honest with myself, I do experience superstitious thinking from time to time.

I deliberately engage actively with religious superstition when I am addressing or interacting with someone I love to whom such thinking is important, just so long as they are not using their faith to encourage evils like Trumpism. Indeed, I do as much for a dead person who existence is entirely a function of the emotional and practical memory of her survivors, my mother. Each Good Friday I go to a church and participate in the service and act as though I embrace the absurd story being told. In a psychological sense I find this rewarding, even though logically I find the connected tales recorded by barely literate sheep herders to have no phenomenological basis.

My deepest mystical impulse is connected with the magnitude and mere existence of the universe itself, and I need no anthropomorphic diety to be struck by its magnificence and a sense of wonder.

As a long time atheist who comes from a liberal Christian background, I started off with the agnostic label. As I got older I moved to the atheist label once I become much more comfortable with my position. Those brain connections regarding Yahweh were developed very early and they are always there taunting me, but after a while I became more comfortable saying to myself what I really didn't believe. So, for me the term agnostic was truly an off ramp to atheism both of which were used to indicate "I'm not one of the deity believers".

BUT

There are many who are just as convinced of the non-zero probability of a deity or deities. This leads to the logical statement that we can't really know and it is possible albeit highly improbable. The statement regarding the off ramp is rather condescending when applied globally so I won't do it - I use it just for me.

My three children were raised without the belief in a deity in a very Christo-centric part of the country - the Deep South. Even though they were bombarded by Christian thoughts and imagery all the time, it was not supported at home. In fact, critical thinking was supported. As adults now, they tell me that it is hard to even imagine a deity for them - certainly not a Christian deity. When pressed to identify themselves they laugh and one even says "well if I must I'm a humanist." To them saying that they are an atheist is akin to saying they are an aunicornist or an afairian (not to insult the believers of the fae out there). I guess there is a non-zero probability of the existence of unicorns or fairies so one could be a unicorn or fairy agnostic.

A question I have had given the experience with life long non-christians is if the terms we use (atheism and agnosticism) are needed because there are so many who have deconstructed their childhood imposed faith in a deitiy and/or because there are still so many in this world who actually still believe in such. We don't have the term aunicornist because that's just not an issue. The terms are used/developed as a way to differentiate from the norm. Perhaps some linguist out there can discuss the terms atheist and agnostic as signifiers for the signified concept of deities. Any Saussure scholars out there want to take a stab? I'm just a statistician so won't touch that semiotic concept any farther.

Atheism is a statement about belief, while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. These are not two points on the same spectrum.

I am atheist because I lack belief in any god, and I am also agnostic because I can't know for certain. One would have to be all-knowing to be certain either way on the existence of a god, and nobody qualifies. In other words, everyone who isn't all-knowing is an agnostic whether they believe in god(s) or not.

Gnostic: Having knowledge of a proposition or concept.
Agnostic: Not having direct knowledge of a proposition or concept. (Not to be confused with having - or not having - an understanding of a theory on the particular subject.)

Theist: Belief in a higher power. “There is a God.”
Atheist: Belief in the absence of a higher power. “There is no God.”

In my understanding of the terms, we are ALL agnostic, as none of us have direct knowledge of the existence of a higher power. Those who profess to “know” are either misapplying the term or are charlatans.

(FWIW, I have openly referred to myself as an atheist for over 20 years. But I’m smart enough to understand that I don’t really KNOW.)

About being an Atheist or a Theist.

To me Agnostic means: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

So to me an Agnostic thinks you can never prove the existence of a god nor can you ever prove the non-existence of a god

As an Atheist, I think there could be valid evidence for the non-existence or existence of a god. It just hasn't happened yet.

I like your term soft Atheist. It may get some people to understand what you are trying to to say.

You asked "Is there a god?"

That is a question of knowledge. In this, EVERYONE is agnostic because no one can answer this question with certainty.

If you had asked "Do you BELIEVE in a god?"

Then there are only 2 answers: Yes, then you are a theist. NO, then you are an atheist.
That question is A and NOT A.

I for one am a gnostic or "hard" atheist. I don't believe in a god nor do I think a god is even possible. However, I cannot be 100% sure nor can any one else.

However, the question of belief is the A, n/A result. The only "I'm not sure" position refers to the knowledge of whether a god exists, not the belief.

You know the "some sort of God" argument maybe with a dash of Spinoza or Tillich?
Then I fully admit I cannot prove "God" does not exist.

But I think I can do the job if we're talking about any flavor of deity believers actually believe in.

Your post doesn't phrase it correctly; it should be "Do you believe in gods or not?" The way you've phrased could be asking about a person's beliefs OR knowledge; and those are different things. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

A person is either a theist (believes there is a god/gods) or an atheist (ie, non-theist) (does not believe in a god/gods). You either believe in a deity or you don't, there's no in between. Gnosticm has to do with KNOWLEDGE, not BELIEF; applles and oranges. It's really just that simple, so you've got it mostly right, FreeState.

For most atheists.

Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position the rational person can have. We don't know if deities exist--and we don't know if they do not exist. Not with absolute 100% certainty. So far, nobody does. Even Richard Dawkins will tell you that he's agnostic about knowing if gods exist or not. He's reasonably sure they don't...but it's not 100%, even for him. Many liberal Christians and Jews think the same thing, making them agnostic theists.

A/theism is something else entirely. You can have doubts (or not) about knowing if deities exist (or don't); it's what you do with it that determines if you're an atheist or theist. Atheists choose not to believe any claims that deities exist, no matter what their position on 'knowing' is. Theists choose to believe they exist, no matter what their position on 'knowing' is.

So, no, agnostic atheist does make sense. It's the most sensible position there is.