NationStates Jolt Archive

Being Agnostic means that you believe in a higher power but don't know who/what/where/when/why, right? Not a part of any of the currently existing religions, but you feel that there is something up there.

Correct?

I believe the true definition is being unsure. One doesn't believe there is a God, but doesn't rule out the possibility.

At least that's what I am, and I consider myself Agnostic.

I believe agnosticism is the idea that we can never know for sure whether any deity or deities exist.

I believe agnosticism is the idea that we can never know for sure whether any deity or deities exist.
I consider myself agnostic, and I agree with that definition completely.

Yes, agnostic = unsure, like me. Apart from that requirement a lot of people qualify; from people like you Klonor who think there's some higher power but are unsure as to what, to cynics like me who don't think there is a God, but still recognize the faint possibility that there might be something. Atheism, on the other hand is the utter disbelief in anything vaguely supernatural. Therefore, it is only possible to have no religious beliefs at all if you are agnostic, as atheists believe that there is no God at all, even without proof that there is no God, if you get my meaning.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Yes, agnostic = unsure, like me. Apart from that requirement a lot of people qualify; from people like you Klonor who think there's some higher power but are unsure as to what, to cynics like me who don't think there is a God, but still recognize the faint possibility that there might be something. Atheism, on the other hand is the utter disbelief in anything vaguely supernatural. Therefore, it is only possible to have no religious beliefs at all if you are agnostic, as atheists believe that there is no God at all, even without proof that there is no God, if you get my meaning.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia
I agree with the first part. But atheists are not religious by any means. I am presented with an idea: God exists. I deny that. Doesn't make me religious.

I think agnostics are people who look at the world and feel it suggests a guiding hand, but don't concern themselves with identifying said hand.

Varyig degrees of agnosticism use various definitions. The definition you use is perfectly compatable with the original use of the term, one I favor. But the meanings of words change and now agnostic is pretty much interchangable with weak atheism (the forms others have presented). As for it not being part of any currently existing religions there are a few that deny the nature of the Divine being decernable to man, look to the NeoPlatonics and (some forms) of Deism for examples. Usually considered more of a philisophical viewpoint by practitioners of religion than an intregal part of the doctrine, but Jainism (and it's offshoot Shinto) have agnoticism as part of their doctrine, as do various Kabalistic sects of Judaism.

I am a stolid atheist (though cultuarally Sfaardic, but that's heritage), and I consider it to be a religious position, and therefore a religion. You are presented with an idea ("God exists") and counter it with your own idea ("Humans exist"). I am a secular humanist and that is a religion, if not one that I would be willing to wage wars and massacre thousands over. We live in the age of ideas and information, and if the churches want to keep their little patrons, they need to present some evidence.

I am a stolid atheist (though cultuarally Sfaardic, but that's heritage), and I consider it to be a religious position, and therefore a religion. You are presented with an idea ("God exists") and counter it with your own idea ("Humans exist"). I am a secular humanist and that is a religion, if not one that I would be willing to wage wars and massacre thousands over. We live in the age of ideas and information, and if the churches want to keep their little patrons, they need to present some evidence.
Atheism isn't a religion anymore than an empty can is a soda. It's the absence of religion, not the present of an alternate one.

You are right Klonor: I Know that there are higher powers. Every one I've ever encountered have been physical beings, not God, therefore I Have no belief in any God. All canbe be brought down. That does include myself for I hold no illusion about reality, only observations.

Being Agnostic means that you believe in a higher power but don't know who/what/where/when/why, right? Not a part of any of the currently existing religions, but you feel that there is something up there.

Correct?
NO!!!!

the original meaning of agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know about the existence of God, usually due to awareness of human limitations. agnostic also has come to bear a secondary definition in recent years, as somebody who simply has yet to make up their mind on the subject of God's existence. i don't like that second definition, because it really is very different than what agnostic is supposed to mean, and it confuses people about what a "real" agnostic is...i think it is better to simply refer to undecided people as undecided, and leave "agnostic" to refer to those who believe it is impossible to know one way or the other.

I don't know.

What Bottle said.

From a theological standpoint, just about all of the major Christian churches are agnostic, as are Muslims. Eastern religions tend to be gnostic, which is to say, humans can know the divine.

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

--http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html

Is it possible that most atheists are humanists?

NO!!!!

the original meaning of agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know about the existence of God, usually due to awareness of human limitations. But early agnosticism does not reject a belief in the existance of higher power or a sense of a higher power, it only rejects knowledge of the certainty of the existance of a higher power. Belief is seperate from knowledge (read Huxley's rejoinded to Dr Wace who accused him of not believing in Christianity). One can believe in the existance of the Divine while also believing that it impossible to prove the existance of the Divine, such are not mutually incompatable positions but merely require one to accept that one's belief is not based upon provable evidence. A similar point can be made that one can believe in the existance of atoms without performing the necessary experiments to prove thier existance while accepting that such a belief is not proven to one. An agnostic (old usage) goes further and believes that Knowledge of the supernatural is by definition beyond the capacity of those bound by nature to obtain. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

But early agnosticism does not reject a belief in the existance of higher power or a sense of a higher power, it only rejects knowledge of the certainty of the existance of a higher power. Belief is seperate from knowledge (read Huxley's rejoinded to Dr Wace who accused him of not believing in Christianity). One can believe in the existance of the Divine while also believing that it impossible to prove the existance of the Divine, such are not mutually incompatable positions but merely require one to accept that one's belief is not based upon provable evidence. A similar point can be made that one can believe in the existance of atoms without performing the necessary experiments to prove thier existance while accepting that such a belief is not proven to one. An agnostic (old usage) goes further and believes that Knowledge of the supernatural is by definition beyond the capacity of those bound by nature to obtain. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
that's what i said. it is possible to embrace one's own limitations, to fully and completely admit that one cannot know about the existence of God, and choose to adopt the (admittedly irrational) belief that God exists. few people are strong enough to face their own faith in this manner, and to admit the full extent of their own irrationality in choosing to believe...most people still feel the need to defend their belief, or to convince themselves that there is evidence, or all that jazz. it is possible to be an agnostic who also believes in God, just very, very rare.

NO!!!!

the original meaning of agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know about the existence of God, usually due to awareness of human limitations. agnostic also has come to bear a secondary definition in recent years, as somebody who simply has yet to make up their mind on the subject of God's existence. i don't like that second definition, because it really is very different than what agnostic is supposed to mean, and it confuses people about what a "real" agnostic is...i think it is better to simply refer to undecided people as undecided, and leave "agnostic" to refer to those who believe it is impossible to know one way or the other.

Exactly my definition of it...that's the kind of agnosticism I ascribe to. This stuff about being undecided seems to be a misunderstanding. An agnostic is one who does not confirm or deny the existence of God. A person undecided about the existence of God is just that. An agnostic realizes that one can never know, and so does not make a decision or bother with the futility of trying to do so.

Agnosticism does not definately mean 'not sure'.

There's usually two meanings.

1) An Agnostic is sure that there will never be a way to prove or disprove God.
2) An Agnostic is unsure. He doesn't believe in a God but hasn't ruled out the existance of one (same thing as a weak Atheist.)

It means both things to me, alternately. There are days when I feel I'm not sure, and days when I feel I don't care because it could never be proven anyway. And days when I feel absolutely atheist. That's usually after debating with a fundamentalist; polarization does that.

Question to agnostics (the kind that aren't sure whether or not any sort of "higher power" exists): If you're not sure, it seems like you would want to work very hard to find out, in case there is some sort of god/afterlife/heaven/hell (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp), so you won't find out after you get there.

that's what i said. it is possible to embrace one's own limitations, to fully and completely admit that one cannot know about the existence of God, and choose to adopt the (admittedly irrational) belief that God exists. few people are strong enough to face their own faith in this manner, and to admit the full extent of their own irrationality in choosing to believe...most people still feel the need to defend their belief, or to convince themselves that there is evidence, or all that jazz. it is possible to be an agnostic who also believes in God, just very, very rare.I don't know how rare it is, Kirkegaard made it a central tenant of his Chistian Existentialism and Lewis seemed to be pretty capable of it. The Jainist monks reject the possibility of ever knowing the nature of the Divine while bound by nature yet devote their entire lives trying to surpassing nature in a belief that have to admit is not based upon anything but faith, and consider the physical world as a distraction from believing without knowledge. Then again there are not many jainists arround . . ..

From a theological standpoint, just about all of the major Christian churches are agnostic

You're completely wrong there.

Question to agnostics (the kind that aren't sure whether or not any sort of "higher power" exists): If you're not sure, it seems like you would want to work very hard to find out, in case there is some sort of god/afterlife/heaven/hell (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp), so you won't find out after you get there.

Why? There is no way to know.

But, I suppose you were addressing the other kind of "agnostic" (I still don't buy that definition).

Question to agnostics (the kind that aren't sure whether or not any sort of "higher power" exists): If you're not sure, it seems like you would want to work very hard to find out, in case there is some sort of god/afterlife/heaven/hell (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp), so you won't find out after you get there.


Why? There is no way to know.

But, I suppose you were addressing the other kind of "agnostic" (I still don't buy that definition).

In addition, at least I personally believe that if God does exist, then I would be judged when I die on the basis of what kind of person I was in regards to my relations with other people. The golden rule - do unto others what you want done to you. I figure that trumps all, and if God exists, and he really is as merciful as most religions make Him out to be, then He'd understand. :)

You're completely wrong there.
I'll remember to pass your message on to my theology professor if I ever run into him again. Oh, and a lot of religious historians. ;)

Bear in mind I wasn't using the more common definition of agnostic, that of not knowing whether God exists or which religion is right. I was using the word in the sense of God being unknowable by living humans, because he exists beyond human dimensions and the limitations of their conciousness.

Agnostic in this sense is the opposite of gnostic, which is the belief that people can achieve to appreciate the full extent of divinity, generally through mystic means. There are gnostic Christians, and there used to be more, but always a minority, and historically persecuted by the official churches as heretics. If you ever feel like annoying a bishop, simply insist their church should embrace gnosticism.

(Warning: I can become extremely boring on agnosticism/gnosticism. I have a fair amount of undischarged useless knowledge on the subject.)

PS: All three of my theology teachers were ordained Christian ministers, for what it's worth!

From Miriam Webster:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

So, it seems there's a little bit of most thins people are saying. In my experience, many agnostics (like me) would like to believe in a God/higher power, but crave some sort of evidence beyond scripture. Many of us are spiritual people, but hesitate to say that God exists. Many are not spiritual, however, and some could care less if there is a God or not. The defining bit is uncertainty to the extent that you feel that you can't lean towards one side or the other.

I believe in God and was just wondering whether agnostics believe in an afterlife or not?

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

--http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html

Is it possible that most atheists are humanists?

Not necessarily. You can be an atheist and have no respect for the life, law or property of any other group or individual in the world. Not believing in God doesn't imply a specific moral or ethical code.

Not necessarily. You can be an atheist and have no respect for the life, law or property of any other group or individual in the world. Not believing in God doesn't imply a specific moral or ethical code.

I agree, all of my agnostic and atheistic friends don't seem to care at all about anything other than themselves/their grades. And anyway what does not believing in God have to do with an ethical resonsability to improve humanity.

I don't think you have to believe in the Abrahamic God to be spiritual. Divinity transcends monotheism or dogma.

I agree, all of my agnostic and atheistic friends don't seem to care at all about anything other than themselves/their grades.

Hah! I have noticed it before. Eventually a lot of people do begin to develop their own code of conduct that's more in line with an "I'm alright, you're alright" concept. I know I did, and I was never brought up with any kind of religious framework - I was taught to treat others how I'd like to be treated myself, and not to steal and tell lies. I like to think I turned out alright in the end.

To answer your question about an afterlife, agnostics will file that under "can't be sure" as well - rightly so. You can't prove it exists, and you can't prove it doesn't. Either way, it's a matter of faith. Which comes back to what was said at the start of the thread; while atheism can't be called a religion, it's nevertheless based on faith just like theism is.

I hope I don't offend anyone but at least with everyone I know the reason people are agnostic, atheist or Christian is because they don't want to follow any laws of conduct set by all the other religions(what not to eat, wear, do).

I hope I don't offend anyone but at least with everyone I know the reason people are agnostic, atheist or Christian is because they don't want to follow any laws of conduct set by all the other religions(what not to eat, wear, do).

I do understand this. It jars a lot of people to be told that they can't do the right thing without having to follow rules set out for them by other people. Certainly I find the idea that I'd need a rulebook to tell me how I should and shouldn't act fairly patronising. For me, that includes Christianity - Christian sects through the ages have had their fair share of restrictions on what you can eat or wear. I also understand that some people enjoy having that framework to fall back on if they ever stumble into a crisis.

In the West, we're also quite limited in the different types of characters we're going to run into. I've never met a Hindu, for instance, but I'd bloody love to bounce ideas off one. Same with a Taoist, or a Palero. It all boils down to what feels right for you - if you can't possibly reconcile yourself with the concept of a big man in the sky, then no amount of mental twisting and turning is going to squash that belief in your head.

Uh.....guys, all I needed was a "Yes" or "No" answer. I think three pages of heated debate is a bit excessive.

I do understand this. It jars a lot of people to be told that they can't do the right thing without having to follow rules set out for them by other people. Certainly I find the idea that I'd need a rulebook to tell me how I should and shouldn't act fairly patronising. For me, that includes Christianity - Christian sects through the ages have had their fair share of restrictions on what you can eat or wear. I also understand that some people enjoy having that framework to fall back on if they ever stumble into a crisis.

In the West, we're also quite limited in the different types of characters we're going to run into. I've never met a Hindu, for instance, but I'd bloody love to bounce ideas off one. Same with a Taoist, or a Palero. It all boils down to what feels right for you - if you can't possibly reconcile yourself with the concept of a big man in the sky, then no amount of mental twisting and turning is going to squash that belief in your head.

I am not personally a Hindu or Daoist but have read parts of the Bhagavad Gita and the whole Dao De Jing, so feel free to bounce some ideas off me.

In the West, we're also quite limited in the different types of characters we're going to run into. I've never met a Hindu, for instance, but I'd bloody love to bounce ideas off one. Same with a Taoist, or a Palero.
:eek:

In Britain? Leave your lowland fastness and visit our southern civilisation. Here there are many exotic wonders to be experienced!

(I agree with the spirit of your post BTW.)

Uh.....guys, all I needed was a "Yes" or "No" answer. I think three pages of heated debate is a bit excessive.

I'm not having a heated debate. I'm simply having a gentle discussion.

We haven't offended you by it, have we?

Uh.....guys, all I needed was a "Yes" or "No" answer. I think three pages of heated debate is a bit excessive.

I think the answer to your question is, "it depends what you mean by agnosticism". Does that help? :p

I'm not having a heated debate. I'm simply having a gentle discussion.

We haven't offended you by it, have we?

Nope, it'd take a lot more than a simple discussion to offend me. I actually find it very interesting to see what everybody has to say on the subject. Heated debate doesn't mean swearing, flaming, and insulting everybody who doesn't see your point of view.

I'm just saying that it's unrelated to the subject of the thread.

I am not personally a Hindu or Daoist but have read parts of the Bhagavad Gita and the whole Dao De Jing, so feel free to bounce some ideas off me.

That would be the mother of all thread hijacks, very impressive. Most of my struggles with particular concepts come randomly, and I can't think of any immediately offhand that I'd like to comment on - it is always useful to find people well-read enough to be able to deal with them, especially since they're so thin on the ground.

Apart from in England, of course, which I am led to believe is a veritable hothouse of interesting religions, including voodoo and "kabbalah".

In addition, at least I personally believe that if God does exist, then I would be judged when I die on the basis of what kind of person I was in regards to my relations with other people. The golden rule - do unto others what you want done to you. I figure that trumps all, and if God exists, and he really is as merciful as most religions make Him out to be, then He'd understand. :)

Indeed, I see that kind of "well, I believe because if I don't, I may go to Hell," faith as exactly the kind of false faith that Jesus scoffed at. If God does exist, and he is that great, it seems to me that what he wants is real faith, not lip service by fear-of-the-unknown.

Indeed, I see that kind of "well, I believe because if I don't, I may go to Hell," faith as exactly the kind of false faith that Jesus scoffed at. If God does exist, and he is that great, it seems to me that what he wants is real faith, not lip service by fear-of-the-unknown.

I'm not sure, but is it the Catholics who have the idea of limbo? Non-believers who led decent lives will end up there, and will still be judged on their conduct rather than what they believed in. I can't be certain, though. Certainly some Christian sects make more allowances for non-believers than others.

I read the first page.. it seems to me the lot of you are either illiterate and have some small child translating the swiggling symbols you don't know to be words before you.. or you've kindly forgotten of our good friend the dictionary. NO matter of opinion, no arguements.. the dictionary can define your questions.

Agnostic- ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Atheist- a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
.

You are welcome.

I'm not sure, but is it the Catholics who have the idea of limbo? Non-believers who led decent lives will end up there, and will still be judged on their conduct rather than what they believed in. I can't be certain, though. Certainly some Christian sects make more allowances for non-believers than others.

I am Lutheran and have never heard of Limbo before.

I am Lutheran and have never heard of Limbo before.

Never? Bleh. It IS a concept, but I can't think for the life of me where it comes from. Am I perhaps confusing it with Purgatory? I might be. Or they might be two separate concepts from the same people.

Oh, I don't know.

Being Agnostic means that you believe in a higher power but don't know who/what/where/when/why, right? Not a part of any of the currently existing religions, but you feel that there is something up there.

Correct?
a- prefix indicating a lack of something
gnostic-frm the greek gnossos, meaning knowledge
therefore: agnostic= one without knowledge. Doesnt know if there's a higher power.

Never? Bleh. It IS a concept, but I can't think for the life of me where it comes from. Am I perhaps confusing it with Purgatory? I might be. Or they might be two separate concepts from the same people.

Oh, I don't know.

Limbo was certainly a concept that Anglicans used to deal in, which suggests a Catholic root. It was there for the unbaptised - a sort of bland nothing state of afterlife. I don't think it's got official recognition nowadays though.

Purgatory is something else - in the traditional Catholic version it's where believers are cleansed of their lesser sins before entering paradise.

"As I've always said, there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not." - Monty Python's Flying Circus

Limbo was certainly a concept that Anglicans used to deal in, which suggests a Catholic root. It was there for the unbaptised - a sort of bland nothing state of afterlife. I don't think it's got official recognition nowadays though.

No, it's very much "Believe or Burn" today. We're all going to hell of course, whether we believe in the Big Man or not.

At least we've all got a nice barbeque to look forward to. :)

No, it's very much "Believe or Burn" today. We're all going to hell of course, whether we believe in the Big Man or not.

At least we've all got a nice barbeque to look forward to. :)
Not even that. As I understand it, the mainstream Anglican position these days is that you either cleave to God for eternity or are seperated for eternity. The latter could be nothingness - complete death, or a form of limbo. It's hell that's tres passe in today's Cof E.

So, it seems there's a little bit of most thins people are saying. In my experience, many agnostics (like me) would like to believe in a God/higher power, but crave some sort of evidence beyond scripture.

No one's ever been able to show me a factual error in the Christian Bible, a book with dozens of authors written over a couple thousand years, which is pretty amazing. Christianity is unique among religions in that God is merciful and is willing to save anyone, no matter what they may have done, as long as they accept his forgiveness through his son, Jesus Christ (http://www.bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp). Also, the faithof it's true followers and the difference between them and the rest of the world is rather remarkable. The fact that we even exist is obviously the work of some sort of higher being. To believe that your brain came out of time, chance, and a puddle of goo is simply absurd. There's evidence all around you outside of scripture, you just have to look. :)

I read the first page.. it seems to me the lot of you are either illiterate and have some small child translating the swiggling symbols you don't know to be words before you.. or you've kindly forgotten of our good friend the dictionary. NO matter of opinion, no arguements.. the dictionary can define your questions.

Agnostic- ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Atheist- a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
.

You are welcome.One of the problems with defining a word like "agnostic" for a dictionary (wording I intended, but you can use the preposition "from" if it makes it easier) is that it doesn't point to a concrete thing or a consistant idea. The word itself only dates from the mid-19th century and the man who (presumably) coined it didn't bother to define it until it had been in use by others for three decades. A dictionary definition of a word like this can give you a general sense of what many people mean when they use the word (actually that's all dictionaries in English do anyway) but cannot tell you of the nuances the word has. It has been pointed out that there is a stream in mainstream Christian thought that Christianity is in large part agnostic (based upon a belief which cannot be rationally proven), for instance.

I guess I'm what you'd call an Agnostic, the only thing I am sure of is that most organanized religions arrogantly and erronously believe that they and mankind in general have the capacity to comprehend and understand anything remotely like the true nature of the force or plan that binds our universe together. I have chosen not to delude myself with such notions.

I guess I'm what you'd call an Agnostic, the only thing I am sure of is that most organanized religions arrogantly and erronously believe that they and mankind in general have the capacity to comprehend and understand anything remotely like the true nature of the force or plan that binds our universe together. I have chosen not to delude myself with such notions.

This is an excellent post. Strikes a chord, it does.