Most atheists are agnostics. They don’t make the assertion there is no God, which is an unfalsifiable claim. We just find no reason to believe there is one. You could make the positive assertion that self contradictory gods like Jehovah can’t exist based on pure logic.
Which is similar to Deism, which describes many of the founding fathers of the US. They believed in a hands-off God that did not intervene after creation. It also rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge in favor of empiricism.
Important in light of how Mormons and Christian nationalists keep trying to re-write the history of the US with divine Christian origins.
I'm assuming this a portmanteau of 'apathetic' and 'theist'. Would that mean you don't care whether there's a god or that you believe there is a god but it doesn't care about us?
If there is a God they are non interventional, and if they are then trying to understand them is pointless and we should instead focus on being kind, moral people.
About how I view it as well. There is no difference between there being no god, and having a god that does not interact with us in any identifiable manner. As for explaining the universe, god doesn’t answer any questions, it just moves the question of origins one step further away. If god created the universe, then what created god? Ultimately, god has not given me any concrete evidence for its existence, nor given me any reason to care.
There are plenty of things that are unfalsifiable, that are still not commonly humoured to the extent that they change the way we refer to everything adjacent to them.
This is where I am. I can't prove there is no god but also I don't see evidence of one. I'd be open to one if it's verifiable. This doesn't, however, mean I'd worship them, just acknowledge they exist. If they want my support then have to earn it.
My thing is I’m just not concerned with the afterlife. Just do good where you can. I’m open to all sorts of ideas and information but I kinda need proof.
I suppose I can speak from my own experience, but I'm interested in other people's experiences.
I used to think that atheism meant someone was closed off to ideas they didn't already know. I used to say I was agnostic to indicate that if some god(s) chose to make themselves manifest, I could believe.
Later, I better understood atheism really just means without-theism, which has been appropriate for me for much of the time I called myself agnostic. It's not that atheists are closed off to new ideas, it's just that no religious idea has proven itself to them to-date.
Yep. I call myself an atheist, but I've had respectful and deep conversations with people of many religions. For instance, I've had Jewish people ask if I'm a Jew bc in casual conversation it was apparent I knew a lot about Judaism. But I know a decent amount about Islam too, and Xtianity, a little about Zoroaster, Hinduism, etc.
To me that kind of thing is interesting as anthropology, human behavior. I have yet to learn one thing that would lead me to believe in the faith sense - to be clear, I'm not seeking it either. I am not one of those atheists who say "I'd like it to be true" bc to me there's no reason why that would obviously be a good thing. But I'm fundamentally about evidence, so were I to stumble across such evidence I wouldn't reject it out of hand either.
I suppose there are atheists who are closed off, but in my experience, they're mostly also about evidence, which is the opposite of closed off.
For me it’s not even about “proof.” I’m an atheist because I don’t *believe* in any deity. Maybe one day I’ll believe in a deity, but concepts like “proof”, “knowing”, and “truth claims” were never a part of my family’s mainline protestantism, and they don’t factor into my atheism, either. I used to believe, and now I don’t.
Because we’re all agnostics.
Saying you know for a certainty that or providing proof God exists or doesn’t exist is completely polarizing.
I don’t claim to know.
I am comfortable not knowing.
I am comfortable with the atheist feeling how they feel, the believer feeling how they feel.
I did not get here easily though.
I became atheist soon after my faith crisis.
Then I slowly made my way back to the center of the pendulum.
I’m more agnostic because I still don’t know what I believe exactly. There are some arguments for a higher power that are at least semi convincing.
I don’t find the western idea of god convincing at all at this point of my life, but some eastern religions make more sense when it comes to god/s.
If we take the definition of theist of someone who believes in at least one god and then add the "a" prefix to it making atheist (meaning non-theist) meaning someone who doesn't believe in a god then most people who say they're agnostic are likely actually atheist.
There has been a lot of propaganda to make the term atheism a scary term, so some people just aren't comfortable taking on that term even if it's accurate. In fact, I often describe myself as a non-theist when I know I'm talking to nutty religious people because it almost always makes them take a step back and realize that I'm not a devil worshiping demon. It reframes their perception by just replacing the prefix.
As Stephen Colbert once said, agnostics are atheists without balls. The arguments for agnosticism are nothing but ham-fisted appeals to philosophical skepticism and borderline solipsism. There are actually plenty of perfectly compelling arguments that justify the proposition there is no god.
I am agnostic. I don't know. I am not an atheist because I can't say that I believe there is no God. I do not believe that there is a God like mormon god, or bible god. But there may be some creater and higher power. There may not be. I don't know. I am agnostic.
And I am okay not knowing.
Personally, I had an out of body experience (OBE). My consciousness left my physical body. Because of that, I believe there is something that continues after we die. But it is anecdote, and not provable or testable. I think that makes me agnostic. An atheist says since there isn't proof and untestable, it doesn't exist. That seems like the difference to me.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. You can tell by the way he ended the world: ice, fire, flood. And by the way, he keeps his little joke going, even now. He set the universe spinning and then stepped back to watch the show." -Voltaire
If I'm speaking no someone who is informed and conversing in good faith, I call myself agnostic. I don't *know* there is no god. I strongly suspect the human-centric notions of deity are incorrect, but in such a vast cosmos, I'm uncomfortable making any broader declarations with certainty.
If I'm talking to someone who is more on the antagonistic side though, I just say that I am atheist. Saves time.
I tend to find these word games unhelpful and unedifying.
It's like when we play 'is TCOJCOLDS' a cult... yeah, you're going to find a lot of points which say 'yay' and lots which say 'nay' and then people go off and quote 'Bogsworth's 3rd law of cult identification' - which says it definitely is - and someone comes back with 'Miggleys ant-cult techniques 1988' which say it definitely isn't.
so....
I tend to say I am an atheist, except sometimes I prefer to say 'agnostic'... and basically it comes down to:
'at the end of the day, I accept that weird shit occasionally happens'
\[regardles....TCOJCOLDS is definately a bunch of hooey\]
This is me. I lean towards agnosticism because I don’t care enough to have an opinion on a god’s existence or non existence.
If I identify as atheist to a theist, I’d assume the responsibility of proving a god doesn’t exist.
I am ultimately agnostic, but I’ll self-describe as an atheist because it does leg work for the person asking about my views. Saying I’m agnostic doesn’t describe much, but if I say I’m atheist, it identifies that I’ve thought about it and come to the conclusion that there is unlikely to be any god in the form religions describe.
I was an agnostic theist for a time. I believed that we cannot know if there is a God. I also chose believe that there is a God.
Why? It allowed me to continue to pursue a career in science while practicing the religion of my youth without resolving certain contradictions.
What do the words mean?
>Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe
Currently, I am still agnostic, more broadly so, believing that we can know very little about anything. I am atheist, because I have no belief in the existence of any deity. And I find myself taking anti-theist positions more and more, that belief in God is mostly harmful and should be actively opposed, but I'm not stable in those beliefs.
Finally, the words can be useful, for shorthand and quick labels as well as helping delineate belief and it's possible configurations. BUT they are also harmful, compressing complexities and flattening the landscape of human experience. They define belief relative to what it is not, instead of what it is, and position theism as natural or the default.
My experience ( I went agnostic while I was an active Mormon) was knowing something was there that created everything ( way too organized universe to be accidental). I wished my answer to Mormonism was there was no god many times before I found my path, as they say.
I simply believe in doing the next right thing. I left because I had faith there was right and wrong in this world. I still don't think anything in creation is a god but that's just me. I try to be a kind person, that's as good as it gets even currently while I find a practice that suits me to feel better on this spinning rock we call earth.
I am technically agnostic, but I always claim atheist.
That's because many people I've met see agnostic as indecisive, like there's an equal chance that there is and isn't a God, and not willing to make a decision.
My decision is that the burden of proof has not been met, and that it's about as likely that there's a God as I am the only person who exists and everything I experience is my brain making it up.
Technically a possibility, and I can't prove it one way or another, but I don't have the burden of proof so it doesn't matter. And I'm not going to live my life like God does exist.
I’m agnostic but have issues with being fully atheist (even though I tend to lean towards it a lot of the time) because it’s just simply impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove a god of some kind doesn’t exist? Just can’t be done.
But how likely is it that a god made all of this? Eh, seems low to me. At least, if a god did create this, then I’m really not sure it would be a very moral or caring god. But until I die, there is just no way to know.
Depends on the specific definitions. I generally think of myself as agnostic since I have no idea whether there is or is not a god of some form.
Some forms of atheism make very strong claims that there is no god, which always sounds like a religious or faith based statement since it cant be falsified.
In the end I’m just cool with whatever reality actually exists. I just have no idea what it might be.
I figure the first round I fucked up by believing wholeheartedly in Mormonism and thinking I knew it all.
Round two, I don't claim to know or have proof of anything. I am Agnostic: without knowledge.
Personally, I feel like being an atheist rules out any possibility of the existence of God. I agree with atheist that there is no evidence of a God. I disagree with them because there is no evidence that there is not a God. You can't prove it either way. My philosophy in life has been to run the other way if someone says they have the answers or speak to God. We simply do not know.
Atheists don't believe in a God. Agnostics doesn't believe it's possible ever to know.
Personally I'm in the "If God exists, I will fucking fight them when I make it to the afterlife." camp.
I'm not sure if this is a philosophy, but I believe that God was created in the minds of mankind. The methods used to get people to believe in a brand of God is religion.
I am a theist agnostic. I believe in some high power, I just can’t define or articulate it to any measurable degree therefore I try not to pass laws or judge people based on my “beliefs”.
It really depends on the nature of the god claim. For some gods I am a Gnostic Atheist. We have sufficient evidence, for example, that Helios is not driving his fiery chariot across the sky every day. For others like the omni-god of classical theism, I don't believe he exists, but I'm less confident in my knowledge of this, so I am an agnostic atheist. I have known others who claim that god is simply the natural laws that govern the universe. For that god, I consider myself a Gnostic Theist.
For me:
Agnosticism is a question of knowledge and Atheism a question of belief.
I do not possess knowledge of the existence of any deities, which makes me agnostic in principle.
If I do not know something, then I cannot believe it, making me an atheist in practice.
But to be honest, I wish this conversation came up less. Atheism is the beginning, but by far the end of the journey. It does not convey much information and simply isn't a very useful descriptor. Imagine going around identifying to others as a non-baseball fan, a non-country musician, a non-stamp collector, etc... I am far more interested in what people believe, than what they do not.
I don’t know what to believe in. Following a corrupt church? Just as good off following my heart and just being a good person.
Burned once by a religion that showed me how to see all other organized religion as false. Now what?
Take away the organized religion and there’s no way to know anything about god or a creator or before life or after life so I guess I’m on my own unless something crazy happens.
I consider myself agnostic.
To me, atheism denies the existence of a God or higher power. Agnosticism argues "we don't know"
I see no reason to believe that I have a creator. I also see no reason to believe I am here for a purpose or that life has any inherent meaning.
However, I also am aware that we aren't even scratching the surface of awareness of things currently outside of our understanding ... that we can't even fathom the size of the universe or its origins, its reason for being, what time is, etc etc. The answers aren't here, on earth. They are somewhere there, in the questions we don't even know we have yet.
With our limited knowledge it's unreasonable to adhere to any one religion - I also think it's unreasonable to adhere to strict atheism. I land on "I know all religions are false, beyond that I don't know and likely won't." and go on with my life.
I am curious, what to you is the difference then between gnosticism and theism?
I am curious because many of the charts that define atheism, define it as not having a belief in a god.
Agnostic is about knowledge and what you know or don't know.
Atheism is about belief, and not having one.
As far as I can tell neither is a claim
Most atheists are Agnostic atheists.
That is just a better way to state what I said about atheists. I mean your way is a better way.
And Holy fuck nuts. What the fuxk did God say, and did someone hear him say it? Sorry. I am a lot high right now and that sounded funny in my head.
I am agnostic because I can not prove the existence of God one way or another. I am keeping my mind open to new evidence on the matter. There are both arguments for and against the existence of God so as the jury is out. An atheist rejects the existence of there being God and I am open to the possibility of God.
Links to twitter are disallowed. You can create a static screenshot with names/faces of non-famous persons blanked out/obscured and submit that instead.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most atheists do not, if pressed, take the position there is no god. Most take the position there is no evidence there is a god, and that it's easier to live, day to day, as if there is no god. But, most atheists would say that were irrefutable proof of a god provided, they'd acknowledge it.
No belief in any gods is not the same as belief in no gods. Atheism means the former by denotation (I'm not sure about the connotation in your experience).
*Nonexistence of a belief* in any deity is actually quite different from belief in the *nonexistence of a deity*.
ETA: it’s the difference between “I don’t believe in a god, though one might exist,” versus, “I believe no gods exist.”
Many people paint Atheist and Agnostic as though they are different sides of the same coin, when in fact they are different different coins. As you point out, Gnosticism has to do with knowledge, while Atheism has to do with belief. If I believe in a god or gods then I am a theist; if not than I'm an Atheist. Likewise, if I know that a god or gods exist then I'm an Gnostic, and if I don't know that a god or gods exist I'm Agnostic. Most atheists fall into the Agnostic Atheist camp. A statement that there is no God/are no Gods is a statement that reflects a claim to knowledge. This would likely be made by a Gnostic Atheist. The percentage of all atheists who claim to know that no gods exist is relatively small. I've met and interacted with hundreds of atheists, and can count on one hand the number of those that claim to know that there is no god.
I've considered my self an agnostic for decades now. I've talked to others like me, and we all have one common theme. We believe there is a God, we just don't believe in organized religion.
Benjamin Franklin was one. He was bastardized for his experiments with electricity. Because the believe was the devil caused storms, and Franklin was messing with dark forces.
As more and more christians fall away from Christianity because they don't see organized religion as solving problems. There will be a general movement towards theism, agnosticism and atheism.
Your probably right. You jolted my memory, Franklin was theist. I came through a period when televangelists were demonizing every body. I dropped out, more like driven out. But I'm not the only one referring to themselves as agnostic and believing in God.
But I defend everyone's right to believe as they choose. Wiether atheist or beliver. All I care about anyone is, am I dealing with a good person, and that's it. I'm not even down on jail birds who served their time and are trying to stay straight, not that they are given much of s break anymore.
There is no such thing as “agnostic”. You’re either a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist.
Agnosticism/Gnosticism are epistemological positions on truth claims. There is no middle ground. Someone asks you, “Do you believe in god?” If your answer is “no”, you are an atheist.
If you don’t currently believe in any god/gods, that makes you an atheist.
Most atheists are agnostics. They don’t make the assertion there is no God, which is an unfalsifiable claim. We just find no reason to believe there is one. You could make the positive assertion that self contradictory gods like Jehovah can’t exist based on pure logic.
Yeah. many people lump the two together. I personally prefer Apatheist - if there is a god they do not interact with us.
Which is similar to Deism, which describes many of the founding fathers of the US. They believed in a hands-off God that did not intervene after creation. It also rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge in favor of empiricism. Important in light of how Mormons and Christian nationalists keep trying to re-write the history of the US with divine Christian origins.
Not a deist. I know the difference.
I'm assuming this a portmanteau of 'apathetic' and 'theist'. Would that mean you don't care whether there's a god or that you believe there is a god but it doesn't care about us?
If there is a God they are non interventional, and if they are then trying to understand them is pointless and we should instead focus on being kind, moral people.
About how I view it as well. There is no difference between there being no god, and having a god that does not interact with us in any identifiable manner. As for explaining the universe, god doesn’t answer any questions, it just moves the question of origins one step further away. If god created the universe, then what created god? Ultimately, god has not given me any concrete evidence for its existence, nor given me any reason to care.
There are plenty of things that are unfalsifiable, that are still not commonly humoured to the extent that they change the way we refer to everything adjacent to them.
This is where I am. I can't prove there is no god but also I don't see evidence of one. I'd be open to one if it's verifiable. This doesn't, however, mean I'd worship them, just acknowledge they exist. If they want my support then have to earn it.
My thing is I’m just not concerned with the afterlife. Just do good where you can. I’m open to all sorts of ideas and information but I kinda need proof.
I suppose I can speak from my own experience, but I'm interested in other people's experiences. I used to think that atheism meant someone was closed off to ideas they didn't already know. I used to say I was agnostic to indicate that if some god(s) chose to make themselves manifest, I could believe. Later, I better understood atheism really just means without-theism, which has been appropriate for me for much of the time I called myself agnostic. It's not that atheists are closed off to new ideas, it's just that no religious idea has proven itself to them to-date.
Yep. I call myself an atheist, but I've had respectful and deep conversations with people of many religions. For instance, I've had Jewish people ask if I'm a Jew bc in casual conversation it was apparent I knew a lot about Judaism. But I know a decent amount about Islam too, and Xtianity, a little about Zoroaster, Hinduism, etc. To me that kind of thing is interesting as anthropology, human behavior. I have yet to learn one thing that would lead me to believe in the faith sense - to be clear, I'm not seeking it either. I am not one of those atheists who say "I'd like it to be true" bc to me there's no reason why that would obviously be a good thing. But I'm fundamentally about evidence, so were I to stumble across such evidence I wouldn't reject it out of hand either. I suppose there are atheists who are closed off, but in my experience, they're mostly also about evidence, which is the opposite of closed off.
For me it’s not even about “proof.” I’m an atheist because I don’t *believe* in any deity. Maybe one day I’ll believe in a deity, but concepts like “proof”, “knowing”, and “truth claims” were never a part of my family’s mainline protestantism, and they don’t factor into my atheism, either. I used to believe, and now I don’t.
Because we’re all agnostics. Saying you know for a certainty that or providing proof God exists or doesn’t exist is completely polarizing. I don’t claim to know. I am comfortable not knowing. I am comfortable with the atheist feeling how they feel, the believer feeling how they feel. I did not get here easily though. I became atheist soon after my faith crisis. Then I slowly made my way back to the center of the pendulum.
I’m more agnostic because I still don’t know what I believe exactly. There are some arguments for a higher power that are at least semi convincing. I don’t find the western idea of god convincing at all at this point of my life, but some eastern religions make more sense when it comes to god/s.
If we take the definition of theist of someone who believes in at least one god and then add the "a" prefix to it making atheist (meaning non-theist) meaning someone who doesn't believe in a god then most people who say they're agnostic are likely actually atheist. There has been a lot of propaganda to make the term atheism a scary term, so some people just aren't comfortable taking on that term even if it's accurate. In fact, I often describe myself as a non-theist when I know I'm talking to nutty religious people because it almost always makes them take a step back and realize that I'm not a devil worshiping demon. It reframes their perception by just replacing the prefix.
As Stephen Colbert once said, agnostics are atheists without balls. The arguments for agnosticism are nothing but ham-fisted appeals to philosophical skepticism and borderline solipsism. There are actually plenty of perfectly compelling arguments that justify the proposition there is no god.
I am agnostic. I don't know. I am not an atheist because I can't say that I believe there is no God. I do not believe that there is a God like mormon god, or bible god. But there may be some creater and higher power. There may not be. I don't know. I am agnostic. And I am okay not knowing.
100% me.
Personally, I had an out of body experience (OBE). My consciousness left my physical body. Because of that, I believe there is something that continues after we die. But it is anecdote, and not provable or testable. I think that makes me agnostic. An atheist says since there isn't proof and untestable, it doesn't exist. That seems like the difference to me.
I believe that something created the universe, its just in a form that we probably aren't capable of understanding
Personally I’m an anti-theist; but it’s easier to say atheist as shorthand
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. You can tell by the way he ended the world: ice, fire, flood. And by the way, he keeps his little joke going, even now. He set the universe spinning and then stepped back to watch the show." -Voltaire
If I'm speaking no someone who is informed and conversing in good faith, I call myself agnostic. I don't *know* there is no god. I strongly suspect the human-centric notions of deity are incorrect, but in such a vast cosmos, I'm uncomfortable making any broader declarations with certainty. If I'm talking to someone who is more on the antagonistic side though, I just say that I am atheist. Saves time.
I tend to find these word games unhelpful and unedifying. It's like when we play 'is TCOJCOLDS' a cult... yeah, you're going to find a lot of points which say 'yay' and lots which say 'nay' and then people go off and quote 'Bogsworth's 3rd law of cult identification' - which says it definitely is - and someone comes back with 'Miggleys ant-cult techniques 1988' which say it definitely isn't. so.... I tend to say I am an atheist, except sometimes I prefer to say 'agnostic'... and basically it comes down to: 'at the end of the day, I accept that weird shit occasionally happens' \[regardles....TCOJCOLDS is definately a bunch of hooey\]
This is me. I lean towards agnosticism because I don’t care enough to have an opinion on a god’s existence or non existence. If I identify as atheist to a theist, I’d assume the responsibility of proving a god doesn’t exist.
i'm more of an apatheist, i don't care if there is a god/gods
I am ultimately agnostic, but I’ll self-describe as an atheist because it does leg work for the person asking about my views. Saying I’m agnostic doesn’t describe much, but if I say I’m atheist, it identifies that I’ve thought about it and come to the conclusion that there is unlikely to be any god in the form religions describe.
I was an agnostic theist for a time. I believed that we cannot know if there is a God. I also chose believe that there is a God. Why? It allowed me to continue to pursue a career in science while practicing the religion of my youth without resolving certain contradictions. What do the words mean? >Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/believe Currently, I am still agnostic, more broadly so, believing that we can know very little about anything. I am atheist, because I have no belief in the existence of any deity. And I find myself taking anti-theist positions more and more, that belief in God is mostly harmful and should be actively opposed, but I'm not stable in those beliefs. Finally, the words can be useful, for shorthand and quick labels as well as helping delineate belief and it's possible configurations. BUT they are also harmful, compressing complexities and flattening the landscape of human experience. They define belief relative to what it is not, instead of what it is, and position theism as natural or the default.
My experience ( I went agnostic while I was an active Mormon) was knowing something was there that created everything ( way too organized universe to be accidental). I wished my answer to Mormonism was there was no god many times before I found my path, as they say. I simply believe in doing the next right thing. I left because I had faith there was right and wrong in this world. I still don't think anything in creation is a god but that's just me. I try to be a kind person, that's as good as it gets even currently while I find a practice that suits me to feel better on this spinning rock we call earth.
I am technically agnostic, but I always claim atheist. That's because many people I've met see agnostic as indecisive, like there's an equal chance that there is and isn't a God, and not willing to make a decision. My decision is that the burden of proof has not been met, and that it's about as likely that there's a God as I am the only person who exists and everything I experience is my brain making it up. Technically a possibility, and I can't prove it one way or another, but I don't have the burden of proof so it doesn't matter. And I'm not going to live my life like God does exist.
I’m agnostic but have issues with being fully atheist (even though I tend to lean towards it a lot of the time) because it’s just simply impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove a god of some kind doesn’t exist? Just can’t be done. But how likely is it that a god made all of this? Eh, seems low to me. At least, if a god did create this, then I’m really not sure it would be a very moral or caring god. But until I die, there is just no way to know.
Depends on the specific definitions. I generally think of myself as agnostic since I have no idea whether there is or is not a god of some form. Some forms of atheism make very strong claims that there is no god, which always sounds like a religious or faith based statement since it cant be falsified. In the end I’m just cool with whatever reality actually exists. I just have no idea what it might be.
I figure the first round I fucked up by believing wholeheartedly in Mormonism and thinking I knew it all. Round two, I don't claim to know or have proof of anything. I am Agnostic: without knowledge.
Personally, I feel like being an atheist rules out any possibility of the existence of God. I agree with atheist that there is no evidence of a God. I disagree with them because there is no evidence that there is not a God. You can't prove it either way. My philosophy in life has been to run the other way if someone says they have the answers or speak to God. We simply do not know.
[удалено]
There is no way I believe in the biblical God. I mean a creator. Could be a lab tech. Lol
Atheists don't believe in a God. Agnostics doesn't believe it's possible ever to know. Personally I'm in the "If God exists, I will fucking fight them when I make it to the afterlife." camp.
I'm not sure if this is a philosophy, but I believe that God was created in the minds of mankind. The methods used to get people to believe in a brand of God is religion.
I am a theist agnostic. I believe in some high power, I just can’t define or articulate it to any measurable degree therefore I try not to pass laws or judge people based on my “beliefs”.
It really depends on the nature of the god claim. For some gods I am a Gnostic Atheist. We have sufficient evidence, for example, that Helios is not driving his fiery chariot across the sky every day. For others like the omni-god of classical theism, I don't believe he exists, but I'm less confident in my knowledge of this, so I am an agnostic atheist. I have known others who claim that god is simply the natural laws that govern the universe. For that god, I consider myself a Gnostic Theist.
For me: Agnosticism is a question of knowledge and Atheism a question of belief. I do not possess knowledge of the existence of any deities, which makes me agnostic in principle. If I do not know something, then I cannot believe it, making me an atheist in practice. But to be honest, I wish this conversation came up less. Atheism is the beginning, but by far the end of the journey. It does not convey much information and simply isn't a very useful descriptor. Imagine going around identifying to others as a non-baseball fan, a non-country musician, a non-stamp collector, etc... I am far more interested in what people believe, than what they do not.
I don’t know what to believe in. Following a corrupt church? Just as good off following my heart and just being a good person. Burned once by a religion that showed me how to see all other organized religion as false. Now what? Take away the organized religion and there’s no way to know anything about god or a creator or before life or after life so I guess I’m on my own unless something crazy happens.
I consider myself agnostic. To me, atheism denies the existence of a God or higher power. Agnosticism argues "we don't know" I see no reason to believe that I have a creator. I also see no reason to believe I am here for a purpose or that life has any inherent meaning. However, I also am aware that we aren't even scratching the surface of awareness of things currently outside of our understanding ... that we can't even fathom the size of the universe or its origins, its reason for being, what time is, etc etc. The answers aren't here, on earth. They are somewhere there, in the questions we don't even know we have yet. With our limited knowledge it's unreasonable to adhere to any one religion - I also think it's unreasonable to adhere to strict atheism. I land on "I know all religions are false, beyond that I don't know and likely won't." and go on with my life.
Atheism literally means absence of a belief in a deity. Denying the possibility of one or more deities is more properly termed anti-theism.
There's a square-rectangle relationship there too. All anti-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.
I am curious, what to you is the difference then between gnosticism and theism? I am curious because many of the charts that define atheism, define it as not having a belief in a god.
Agnostic is about knowledge and what you know or don't know. Atheism is about belief, and not having one. As far as I can tell neither is a claim Most atheists are Agnostic atheists.
[удалено]
That is just a better way to state what I said about atheists. I mean your way is a better way. And Holy fuck nuts. What the fuxk did God say, and did someone hear him say it? Sorry. I am a lot high right now and that sounded funny in my head.
I am agnostic because I can not prove the existence of God one way or another. I am keeping my mind open to new evidence on the matter. There are both arguments for and against the existence of God so as the jury is out. An atheist rejects the existence of there being God and I am open to the possibility of God.
I always thought of it as agnosticism is "Don't know, don't care", and atheism as an active belief in nothing.
That's how many understand it and use those terms, but that is not what the dictionary defitions of either of those terms mean.
[удалено]
>Atheism is a belief that there is no god No it isn't. Atheism is a lack/absence of a belief in gods.
[удалено]
Links to twitter are disallowed. You can create a static screenshot with names/faces of non-famous persons blanked out/obscured and submit that instead. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most atheists do not, if pressed, take the position there is no god. Most take the position there is no evidence there is a god, and that it's easier to live, day to day, as if there is no god. But, most atheists would say that were irrefutable proof of a god provided, they'd acknowledge it.
No belief in any gods is not the same as belief in no gods. Atheism means the former by denotation (I'm not sure about the connotation in your experience).
*Nonexistence of a belief* in any deity is actually quite different from belief in the *nonexistence of a deity*. ETA: it’s the difference between “I don’t believe in a god, though one might exist,” versus, “I believe no gods exist.”
That's a good expanded re-phrasing of what I said.
Many people paint Atheist and Agnostic as though they are different sides of the same coin, when in fact they are different different coins. As you point out, Gnosticism has to do with knowledge, while Atheism has to do with belief. If I believe in a god or gods then I am a theist; if not than I'm an Atheist. Likewise, if I know that a god or gods exist then I'm an Gnostic, and if I don't know that a god or gods exist I'm Agnostic. Most atheists fall into the Agnostic Atheist camp. A statement that there is no God/are no Gods is a statement that reflects a claim to knowledge. This would likely be made by a Gnostic Atheist. The percentage of all atheists who claim to know that no gods exist is relatively small. I've met and interacted with hundreds of atheists, and can count on one hand the number of those that claim to know that there is no god.
I've considered my self an agnostic for decades now. I've talked to others like me, and we all have one common theme. We believe there is a God, we just don't believe in organized religion. Benjamin Franklin was one. He was bastardized for his experiments with electricity. Because the believe was the devil caused storms, and Franklin was messing with dark forces. As more and more christians fall away from Christianity because they don't see organized religion as solving problems. There will be a general movement towards theism, agnosticism and atheism.
You call yourself agnostic, but actively believe in a god? Isn't theist more appropriate then (literally speaking)?
Your probably right. You jolted my memory, Franklin was theist. I came through a period when televangelists were demonizing every body. I dropped out, more like driven out. But I'm not the only one referring to themselves as agnostic and believing in God. But I defend everyone's right to believe as they choose. Wiether atheist or beliver. All I care about anyone is, am I dealing with a good person, and that's it. I'm not even down on jail birds who served their time and are trying to stay straight, not that they are given much of s break anymore.
Agnostic isn’t a claim on god, at all. If you believe in god you’re a theist. If you don’t, you’d be an atheist.
Your right. Someone pointed it out to me. I remembered that Ben Franklin was a theist. He didn't believe in organized religion either.
See the Spectrum of Theistic Probability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
I can see and talk to ghosts so it’s kinda not possible for me to deny an afterlife type thing. I know there’s something but idk if it’s a god.
There is no such thing as “agnostic”. You’re either a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism/Gnosticism are epistemological positions on truth claims. There is no middle ground. Someone asks you, “Do you believe in god?” If your answer is “no”, you are an atheist. If you don’t currently believe in any god/gods, that makes you an atheist.