When I am asked what my religious beliefs are, I don’t know what to say. Because I find the existence of a super-human being known as god, who created everything extremely unlikely, ludicrous even.
BUT… I also understand that because our experience of the world is not direct, but is via our senses, so we can’t know what we see or hear is really there, we can only trust that our senses are working, and therefore accept that it is probably there.
It is theoretically possible that each one of us really is in a matrix style situation (though very unlikely) because we have no way of knowing that what we see and sense is fed to us via a virtual reality system or fed to us via our own natural senses.
So, because I accept that we can’t know anything is true, we (I) therefore can’t know that God doesn’t exist. So logically I must be Agnostic, but so strongly believing in the non-existence of God that I must be Atheist.
I suppose a good analogy is - I believe strongly that the earth is not banana-shaped, but since I have never seen it from space, I’ve only seen pictures of it, and words saying it is mostly spherical (which could be propeganda) If I were to say “I KNOW it’s not banana shaped” then I’d be lying, because technically I do not know it.
You can prove to yourself that the Earth is spherical, though. All you need to do is a whole lot of trig and globetrotting. Of course, why do that when we can just listen to the scientists who know better. Still, it’s a bit different than believing in God, which as far as we know, is impossible to prove the existence of.
I’m Atheist not b/c I KNOW god does not exist but b/c I can find no convincing proof that he does exist. I don’t believe in Bigfoot or UFO abductions for the same reason. An agnostic would be more like I don’t think bigfoot exists but it’s a big forest so I don’t really disbelieve either.
These systems of thought aren’t set in stone. You can be an agnostic atheist or a hard line atheist or a pure agnostic.
Personally I find the bitterness and swipes that occur occasionally between Agnostics and Atheists on this board baffling.
I’d call myself an Atheist with some Agnostic tenancies. I remain open to the IDEA of god and if convincing proof came along I would change my mind…but I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon
I think the term Agnostic is used because it is less “harsh” sounding than Atheist. I consider myself an Atheist, but would change my mind if god could be proven to exist. I used to say I was Agnostic primarily because of the negative stigma attatched to the word Atheist. However, to be honest, I am and will remain an Atheist until the god thing is proven otherwise.
Lobs it sounds like you’re admitting that you don’t know anything.
or at the very least…
You are skeptic about everything you “know”.
Perhaps you are the one who does not exist. Maybe GOD is deciding whether to believe in you or not.
Why do you have to say anything?
I concur, yet I think it is possible for a higher power than ourselves to exist. There are other more sophisticated ideas regarding the existence of a “Supreme Being”.
Belief in GOD is not restricted to fairy-tale definitions and far-fetched stories.
BUT In response to the OP…If you have to ask the question, then you have doubts (which you admit), therefore you could only truthfully claim to be agnostic.
Peace on Earth
and good luck to you Lobsang in the New Year. May it be better than the last.
Good luck to you too t-keela. Based on Darkhold’s Bigfoot analogy I’ll call myself an Atheist because it implies that an agnostic is a person who believes there might be a god, whereas I believe there almost certainly isn’t one.
When someone asks you “Do you believe that God exists?” do you answer “No” or “I don’t know”? If you answer no, you’re an atheist. If you answer “I don’t know” you’re an agnostic.
Refusing to identify as an atheist because you are skeptical about all knowledge only makes sense if you refuse to claim any belief.
If a family member asked me right now if there is any milk left in the fridge (I just checked), I would say “Yes.” I would not say, “I think there is, but I could be wrong because my belief in the milk’s presence is based on the unverifiable assumption that my mental perceptions correspond to an external physical world whose existance is ultimately unknowable, plus somebidy could have filled the jug with soy milk or water mixed with glue and not told me, plus I could be misremembering my experience of two minutes ago,” even though all that is, of course, technically true. I assume you do the same.
If you are roughly as certain that God does not exist as I am that there is milk in my fridge, you’re an atheist, not an agnostic.
The difficulty here, if that’s the right word for it, is that agnosticism often becomes an issue of fitting the word rather loosely (and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it’s explained rather than just having the word be issued out as a blanket characterization) to what is often a specific belief.
Some agnostics believe that, for them, it is not possible to know enough to profess a belief in some divine power/deity/etc. Others believe that is true for all humans. Some believe that the existence of such an entity is possible but they do not know for sure for themselves (or for others, etc).
I call myself an agnostic theist because while I have a definite lack of proof that any higher being exists, I have some sort of feeling that such a being might/does. However, I have no proof and I doubt I will ever have significant/substantial proof for myself, let alone someone else. I would call you, FWIW, an agnostic theist. You’re not sure about the proof but you doubt God exists. I would encourage, again FWIW, that rather tham just saying, for example, “I am an agnostic atheist” or “I believe bananas rule the earth”, that you instead explain your foundation and then say “I call that X. I dunno if that’s the best term for it, but it’s the one I have.” That way people understand where you’re coming from moreso than they would if you merely labeled yourself as agnostic or atheist or whatever.
An atheist can believe that no god exists for that person, nor for any other person. An atheist can also refrain from making that extension (meaning to cast no aspersions there, understand). An agnostic can similarly believe that it is not possible to know, either for that person or for all, about the existence of any god. Both are, to my understanding, able to allow for others to believe as they wish regarding the presence/existence of a deity … depending, of course, on what they believe. Atheism in my experience tends more to the “none exists for me or for anyone”, but perhaps that is more the people’s belief than the theory of the belief.
Both words mean very succinct (well, for the sort of things they define) things in the dictionary and can carry a wide range of meanings outside it.
I’m in the same boat. The way I look at it is… for any topic (not just “god”), I take all the evidence of lack thereof, evaluate it all, and come up with the most likely scenario. If the most likely scenario seems pretty likely, then I’ll says I think it’s true. So based on the lack of evidence of “god”, etc. I call myself an atheist, i.e. I don’t believe in the existence of God. But if someone ever comes up with really good evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to listen to it.
A good friend of mine describes himself as agnostic, and I describe myself as atheist. His reasons for calling himself agnostic are similar to my point of view, i.e. show me some really good evidence and I’ll consider it. I asked him why his self-description of his certainty about God is different from that of any other topic. He didn’t have a good reason.
“I don’t know” is not an answer. Either you believe or you don’t. Unless “I don’t know” applies to the belief itself, IOW, you don’t know whether you have a belief in God or not. Which makes you pretty messed up all the same.
