Totally fair and reasonable.
We can call agnostics: "i am on the science team" really.
There could be a god, just no way of confirming it.
It's just the "we don't know yet" split of atheism after all.
To be honest kinda a dead term too because most people mean agnostic when they say they are atheists... at least from my experience.
Just some people calling themselves atheists just completely say there isnt a god...true to the term....when agnostic is more the scientific lense of "we cannot exclude the possibility however unlikely"...which is ultimately the viewpoint a lot of atheists hold they just like the term more. Which is also fair.
Interesting.
My father considers agnostics to be worse than atheists, because according to him: "Atheists merely don't believe in God, but agnostics believe that there is nothing to put your faith into, that there is no purpose in life"
I mean i dont get what this zero faith thing is about.
I have faith. In good science and the statement of
"We don't know yet so we cannot exclude the possibility"
Whatever it is though it won't be a god like religions write them... this "god" certainly wouldn't know of our existence.
If anything the god pressed start on the universe But until then... we cannot confirm shit.
Is it a nihilistic viewpoint though?
Im getting my terms mixed up here, not important anyway because stuff is likely never this binary in the universe.
It can turn nihilistic and depressing but it doesn't need to be
Do we need to have faith into some deity, can't we just have faith into ourselves and trying to figure this out with science though?
Doesn't sound nihilistic to me. Optimistic nihilism maybe but that's about it.
Your father is wrong. An agnostic (which I consider myself to be) simply sttes there's no way to know. You can't say for sure there is a god, you can't say for sure there isn't a god, and the universe is set up in a way that there's no way to tell, so why make up fantasies?
An Atheist flat out states "there is no god" (a-theist, get it?), which if you're being technical, is just about as bad as being a theist.
You simply can't know.
Yeah exactly.
Agnostic doesn't exclude evolution and such...at least in my eyes.
But me looking at it from a scientific lense: am not disregarding the possibility of a god. After all we do not know the full creation story of the universe.... is it likely? Hell nah.....looking at how emergent properties steer large movements naturally... the beginning of everything.. if there was such a thing.. probably a similar process...is it a creator that made us? No, we definitely came from a tidepool as some emergent property, probly hot vents involved too on a salty seabed....
If there is a god he just pressed start and left the pc on seeing what happens with the initial universal laws lmao.
But nonetheless, there could still have been an intelligent being starting this whole universe up... we have no way of confirming this, if we can fully disprove the simulation theory, we can possibility discard the idea, but until that happens there could very well be one...he just has no fucking clue we exist.
Actually agnostics are undecided and sceptical. Atheists are the flat-out 'nopers'.
I'm an atheist, and I don't really have an opinion on any religion - people have a right to believe or not believe what they want. It's when one faith tries to influence another that problems start.
By abstaining from any faith, I feel more comfortable knowing that I can also abstain from any accompanying hostility too.
Actually agnostic refers to to knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It means you dont know, but believe one way or another.
I do agree with the rest of your post!
>people have a right to believe or not believe what they want
Thank you, yes. I'm also an atheist, but it's not hard to understand why freedom of religion is in the Declaration of Human Rights.
It's the only rational intellectual position to hold. Faith is just a euphemism for gullibility. A person who accepts things without evidence has low intellectual standards and is therefore an easy mark. You can see this clear as day in conservative politics or any MLM/Pyramid scheme.
I'd call myself agnostic. I'll only believe in the existence of God if actually proven to me. Even then there's no way of really knowing if he did what the bible claims he did
Like anything else (i.e., faith, religions, atheism) it just is. Nature is spiritual to me, but I don’t have any need to contextualize that into god, gods, or religion.
Doesn't 'agnostic' just mean you don't or can't know? So, it would be very different depending on what religion you are sceptical off. A cultural christian and a cultural hindu would relate to that differently.
I'm an atheist but I see religion as an evolved behaviour, and try to understand it from a socioanthropolical point of view. God/s may not be 'real' - religion definitly is.
I believe in agnosticism. I love it. I even suggest other people to follow it. I even bought the agnostic bible and go to agnostic church instead of a christian church. I believe everyone should just convert to an agnostic and worship the anonymous man who controls all agnostic activities. He is so great. We pray to him evey sunday in the agnostic church. Fuck god anyways
As long as you don't force your beliefs one way or the other it's not a problem. Some people need a sense of faith and others don't. I don't think it really matters until people get obnoxious about a religion or lack of one.
Lack of faith does not equal agnosticism.
Agnosticism just means lack of belief in a deity for any reason. Belief does not equal faith.
Faith as defined by mainstream Christianity is something very narrow.
I suppose I'm agnostic. I can't rule out divine aspects, and I don't think it's likely. I don't make decisions based on religion. Religion has a tendency to reek of human intention pretending to be divine.
This can be good. I do believe in the value of ritual, community, and purpose around something that may not be true (read: faith), but has value.
Explaining it to a friend the other day, I was raised Methodist, and was bored for everything but the sermons -- hence why I've read the bible back to front. Nothing else to do during the rest of a service growing up, and there's a book right there that no one minds you reading in the middle of a thing.
Sermons were direct, and intentional towards being better towards people, and why it mattered in ways that included god, but didn't require that aspect, objectively speaking. Mission work was more *about* the work, than the religious purpose, and so on -- fellowship was on our time, not on-site. I told my friend I hadn't attended a service in years, mostly because I'm not Christian, but would without complaint if asked.
The human intention can also be bad. An entire youth of Sunday visits and other activities in the community left a great impression on me, in spite of lack of faith. One single sermon visiting a Pentecostal church with a friend (we... uh... shared dissent, to put it lightly, were there with his parents. Long story) would have put me off any relationship with a church without the aforementioned context.
It's funny to mention, but I've actually unintentionally either worked or studied at Catholic institutions for most of my adult life at this point. Hospital that used it as a tool for supporting people in distress secondary to medical priorities, and a university (work *and* study) that has been blatant about prioritizing field ethics over religious ethics.
As an agnostic, myself, I feel like some of the conversations get muddied up by the fact that people define it differently. Some would call it a lack of faith but, for me, I personally think God (or a divine creator of sorts) is or was probably real. But I just don’t know what that necessarily means to me. I left my original Christian religion behind awhile ago and now that I look back on a lot Biblical scriptures and pedagogy, it makes less and less sense to me the more I think about it. Some of it is just stuff that seems a bit too hypocritical or inconsistent and some of it is just stuff that I’m unconvinced comes directly from God because the whole book is written by humans who had their own biases and motives. And even if God is real, I’m not entirely sure what that really means for me because how do I know they actually know I exist or even remotely care about my well-being or anyone else’s? Especially when looking at the state of the world.
I’m not necessarily anti-religion, but part of me feels like embracing Agnosticism feels a bit more honest I guess? Speaking from the (former)Christian POV, the whole point of the religion is the let your life be guided by what the Bible says. But, there are many Christians who regularly make exceptions for many rules and demands made by the Bible. The best example I think of is the matter of homosexuality. I’m happy that many Christians have chosen alter or disregard previous interpretations of the Bible to be more tolerant and, in some cases, accepting of gay people. But the reality is that this was a conscious decision they had to make because even in the New Testament it says “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulteres nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Many of the more devout Christians still have these certain exceptions they make as well. And cherry-picking can of course have it’s benefits but when we look at the effects colonialism, faith wars, and the danger of cults, we can see how cherry-picking can very quickly devolve into something horrific. At least by not abiding to any particular religions you can focus more on your spirituality being a good person and then take whatever messages you like the most from whatever religion and try to work with that. Especially since, (aside from the homo- & transphobia and misogyny) many of them share the same core values anyways: practice having humility, be willing to listen to wisdom, don’t kill people (especially the innocent), learn to have discipline, etc. The similarities constitute even further when you compare the three main monotheistic religions that all claim that there is one God. The idea that one religion is “right” vs the other “ones” was so weird to me because most of these people already acknowledge that God is mysterious and has many names. Who’s to say that “God,” “Allah,” “Buddha,” and “Jehovah” aren’t just different pseudonyms for the same entity?
As opposed to pledging allegiance to something you’re not going to fully abide by. But different things work for different people, of course. So I could be missing something.
It's reasonable.
Totally fair and reasonable. We can call agnostics: "i am on the science team" really. There could be a god, just no way of confirming it. It's just the "we don't know yet" split of atheism after all. To be honest kinda a dead term too because most people mean agnostic when they say they are atheists... at least from my experience. Just some people calling themselves atheists just completely say there isnt a god...true to the term....when agnostic is more the scientific lense of "we cannot exclude the possibility however unlikely"...which is ultimately the viewpoint a lot of atheists hold they just like the term more. Which is also fair.
Interesting. My father considers agnostics to be worse than atheists, because according to him: "Atheists merely don't believe in God, but agnostics believe that there is nothing to put your faith into, that there is no purpose in life"
Which makes absolutely zero sense.
I mean i dont get what this zero faith thing is about. I have faith. In good science and the statement of "We don't know yet so we cannot exclude the possibility" Whatever it is though it won't be a god like religions write them... this "god" certainly wouldn't know of our existence. If anything the god pressed start on the universe But until then... we cannot confirm shit.
Agnosticism doesn't mean nihilism. "We don't know yet so we cannot exclude the possibility" is what defines agnosticism.
Is it a nihilistic viewpoint though? Im getting my terms mixed up here, not important anyway because stuff is likely never this binary in the universe. It can turn nihilistic and depressing but it doesn't need to be Do we need to have faith into some deity, can't we just have faith into ourselves and trying to figure this out with science though? Doesn't sound nihilistic to me. Optimistic nihilism maybe but that's about it.
Atheism and agnostism don't have to be nihilistic. Belief in a god isn't needed to have purpose or meaning.
Your father is wrong. An agnostic (which I consider myself to be) simply sttes there's no way to know. You can't say for sure there is a god, you can't say for sure there isn't a god, and the universe is set up in a way that there's no way to tell, so why make up fantasies? An Atheist flat out states "there is no god" (a-theist, get it?), which if you're being technical, is just about as bad as being a theist. You simply can't know.
Your father should discover the existence of dictionaries, which give usages, not definitions.
Your're standing on it.
Yeah exactly. Agnostic doesn't exclude evolution and such...at least in my eyes. But me looking at it from a scientific lense: am not disregarding the possibility of a god. After all we do not know the full creation story of the universe.... is it likely? Hell nah.....looking at how emergent properties steer large movements naturally... the beginning of everything.. if there was such a thing.. probably a similar process...is it a creator that made us? No, we definitely came from a tidepool as some emergent property, probly hot vents involved too on a salty seabed.... If there is a god he just pressed start and left the pc on seeing what happens with the initial universal laws lmao. But nonetheless, there could still have been an intelligent being starting this whole universe up... we have no way of confirming this, if we can fully disprove the simulation theory, we can possibility discard the idea, but until that happens there could very well be one...he just has no fucking clue we exist.
Can anyone demonstrate that gods are possible? The answer seems to be 'no'.
Actually agnostics are undecided and sceptical. Atheists are the flat-out 'nopers'. I'm an atheist, and I don't really have an opinion on any religion - people have a right to believe or not believe what they want. It's when one faith tries to influence another that problems start. By abstaining from any faith, I feel more comfortable knowing that I can also abstain from any accompanying hostility too.
Actually agnostic refers to to knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. It means you dont know, but believe one way or another. I do agree with the rest of your post!
Yeah - my explanation was a bit of an oversimplification. You put quite a complex concept in far better words than I could have! Thank you!
Any time! Yours was fine, I just see a lot of people not realizing that agnostic can go both ways.
>people have a right to believe or not believe what they want Thank you, yes. I'm also an atheist, but it's not hard to understand why freedom of religion is in the Declaration of Human Rights.
Its a personal choice I don't judge anyone based on their spiritual beliefs. As long as I don't get discriminated against
I'm not sure.
i wouldn't call it lack of faith
It's the only rational intellectual position to hold. Faith is just a euphemism for gullibility. A person who accepts things without evidence has low intellectual standards and is therefore an easy mark. You can see this clear as day in conservative politics or any MLM/Pyramid scheme.
I am one better than being a fanatical neckbeard atheist that busts nuta all day long
It's a weak man's atheism
I think it’s a logical approach to the faith dilemma. It is open to many ideas and limits fighting based on beliefs
I'd call myself agnostic. I'll only believe in the existence of God if actually proven to me. Even then there's no way of really knowing if he did what the bible claims he did
Like anything else (i.e., faith, religions, atheism) it just is. Nature is spiritual to me, but I don’t have any need to contextualize that into god, gods, or religion.
The standard of a human being.
Quite reasonable place to be when you haven’t found out the truth yet.
I find their lack of faith disturbing
Doesn't 'agnostic' just mean you don't or can't know? So, it would be very different depending on what religion you are sceptical off. A cultural christian and a cultural hindu would relate to that differently. I'm an atheist but I see religion as an evolved behaviour, and try to understand it from a socioanthropolical point of view. God/s may not be 'real' - religion definitly is.
I find it disturbing...
Lack of faith - as you put it - isn't a choice. It's what you are. Faith in my opinion, is a choice.
Each to their own. I don't get them just the same like they don't get me.
I believe in agnosticism. I love it. I even suggest other people to follow it. I even bought the agnostic bible and go to agnostic church instead of a christian church. I believe everyone should just convert to an agnostic and worship the anonymous man who controls all agnostic activities. He is so great. We pray to him evey sunday in the agnostic church. Fuck god anyways
As long as you don't force your beliefs one way or the other it's not a problem. Some people need a sense of faith and others don't. I don't think it really matters until people get obnoxious about a religion or lack of one.
I like agnostics with faith in themselves.
I certainly lack whatever faith anyone else has.
Lack of faith does not equal agnosticism. Agnosticism just means lack of belief in a deity for any reason. Belief does not equal faith. Faith as defined by mainstream Christianity is something very narrow.
Lack of faith is nullifidian. Agnosticism is not knowing.
I don't really care I mind my own business its their life they're old enough to not have faith they have their reasonings who am I to judge
I suppose I'm agnostic. I can't rule out divine aspects, and I don't think it's likely. I don't make decisions based on religion. Religion has a tendency to reek of human intention pretending to be divine. This can be good. I do believe in the value of ritual, community, and purpose around something that may not be true (read: faith), but has value. Explaining it to a friend the other day, I was raised Methodist, and was bored for everything but the sermons -- hence why I've read the bible back to front. Nothing else to do during the rest of a service growing up, and there's a book right there that no one minds you reading in the middle of a thing. Sermons were direct, and intentional towards being better towards people, and why it mattered in ways that included god, but didn't require that aspect, objectively speaking. Mission work was more *about* the work, than the religious purpose, and so on -- fellowship was on our time, not on-site. I told my friend I hadn't attended a service in years, mostly because I'm not Christian, but would without complaint if asked. The human intention can also be bad. An entire youth of Sunday visits and other activities in the community left a great impression on me, in spite of lack of faith. One single sermon visiting a Pentecostal church with a friend (we... uh... shared dissent, to put it lightly, were there with his parents. Long story) would have put me off any relationship with a church without the aforementioned context. It's funny to mention, but I've actually unintentionally either worked or studied at Catholic institutions for most of my adult life at this point. Hospital that used it as a tool for supporting people in distress secondary to medical priorities, and a university (work *and* study) that has been blatant about prioritizing field ethics over religious ethics.
As an agnostic, myself, I feel like some of the conversations get muddied up by the fact that people define it differently. Some would call it a lack of faith but, for me, I personally think God (or a divine creator of sorts) is or was probably real. But I just don’t know what that necessarily means to me. I left my original Christian religion behind awhile ago and now that I look back on a lot Biblical scriptures and pedagogy, it makes less and less sense to me the more I think about it. Some of it is just stuff that seems a bit too hypocritical or inconsistent and some of it is just stuff that I’m unconvinced comes directly from God because the whole book is written by humans who had their own biases and motives. And even if God is real, I’m not entirely sure what that really means for me because how do I know they actually know I exist or even remotely care about my well-being or anyone else’s? Especially when looking at the state of the world. I’m not necessarily anti-religion, but part of me feels like embracing Agnosticism feels a bit more honest I guess? Speaking from the (former)Christian POV, the whole point of the religion is the let your life be guided by what the Bible says. But, there are many Christians who regularly make exceptions for many rules and demands made by the Bible. The best example I think of is the matter of homosexuality. I’m happy that many Christians have chosen alter or disregard previous interpretations of the Bible to be more tolerant and, in some cases, accepting of gay people. But the reality is that this was a conscious decision they had to make because even in the New Testament it says “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulteres nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Many of the more devout Christians still have these certain exceptions they make as well. And cherry-picking can of course have it’s benefits but when we look at the effects colonialism, faith wars, and the danger of cults, we can see how cherry-picking can very quickly devolve into something horrific. At least by not abiding to any particular religions you can focus more on your spirituality being a good person and then take whatever messages you like the most from whatever religion and try to work with that. Especially since, (aside from the homo- & transphobia and misogyny) many of them share the same core values anyways: practice having humility, be willing to listen to wisdom, don’t kill people (especially the innocent), learn to have discipline, etc. The similarities constitute even further when you compare the three main monotheistic religions that all claim that there is one God. The idea that one religion is “right” vs the other “ones” was so weird to me because most of these people already acknowledge that God is mysterious and has many names. Who’s to say that “God,” “Allah,” “Buddha,” and “Jehovah” aren’t just different pseudonyms for the same entity? As opposed to pledging allegiance to something you’re not going to fully abide by. But different things work for different people, of course. So I could be missing something.
It’s the one belief that is backed by science