Agnostic

[manbearpigg]

Just a question,

What does it mean for YOU(or someone) to be agnostic?

Does it mean that:

1) a) can be right, can be right, and c) can be right, I do not know which is right.

or

2) a, b, c, claims to have the ultimate truth. none of them are right. only I, who knows that no one is completely right is right.

I'm not looking for a textbook definition only personal.

[Likely Guy]

IMHO, neither theism or atheism can be proven as a fact. Or rather, neither can be proven wrong. As a result I don't give the subject much thought.

[Beckys_Mom]

You have put the - b and ) too close it has came out a - instead of - b ) OR B )

Edited February 1, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[freetoroam]

Many people come up with different things, but the best I have heard and what i stick with is:

Atheist: does not believe in your god, eg: Jesus and the Jews would have been seen as Atheists by the Romans as he did not believe in their god.

Agnostic: someone who does not believe in god but is open to believe if proof is found, so is sceptical.

Ignostic: does not believe in god, will not believe in god and says there will never be proof.

[Zaphod222]

Just a question,

What does it mean for YOU(or someone) to be agnostic?

Does it mean that:

1) a) can be right, can be right, and c) can be right, I do not know which is right.

or

2) a, b, c, claims to have the ultimate truth. none of them are right. only I, who knows that no one is completely right is right.

I'm not looking for a textbook definition only personal.

The definition is close to "a". I don´t know where you got "b" from.

The problem I have with agnosticism is that by taking the starting point of "I don´t know", it give theism too much credit.

My basic position is that "if you want to convince me of god, show me proof".

An agnostic position implies that if someone claims that Elvis Presley lives in his attic, well, he just might be right. I do NOT give theisms that much credit, that is why I call myself atheist and not agnostic. But of course the border is fleeting.

[Likely Guy]

The definition is close to "a". I don´t know where you got "b" from.

The problem I have with agnosticism is that by taking the starting point of "I don´t know", it give theism too much credit.

My basic position is that "if you want to convince me of god, show me proof".

An agnostic position implies that if someone claims that Elvis Presley lives in his attic, well, he just might be right. I do NOT give theisms that much credit, that is why I call myself atheist and not agnostic. But of course the border is fleeting.

Oh, please. The premise that Elvis 'might' live in my attic... sad

I'm a happy healthy agnostic. I don't live on a fence, as you theists and atheists believe. I really, really, really don't care about your perpetual debate.

The only reason that I'm here is because the OP asked.

[Zaphod222]

Oh, please. The premise that Elvis 'might' live in my attic... sad

It is not any different from believing that a piece of bread literally turns into the flesh of Jesus, believing that at the end of the day the sun sinks into a puddle of mud, or believing that by flying a passenger plane into a building you will be rewarded with 72 virgins in afterlife.

I could go on for pages.

In fact, having Elvis live in my attic would a lot more plausible than most of the things that theists believe in.

[Rlyeh]

IMHO, neither theism or atheism can be proven as a fact. Or rather, neither can be proven wrong. As a result I don't give the subject much thought.

For someone who replies on the subject quite a bit, I find that hard to believe.

[Mr Walker]

The simplest comment I can make is this. Theism and atheism are both belief constructs built around the concept, or existence, of god(s). Agnosticism is slightly different, in that it says, "I choose NOT to actively believe, or to disbelieve, in the existence of god(s). I just do not know."

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Pure_Nous3]

To me, agnosticism is an intermediary position, or one that is transitional in nature. It's a "the jury is still out" kind of thing and in my instance, the jury has been deliberating for well over 8 or 9 years.

[Paranormalcy]

For my position, I lean toward Pure-Nous3's definition. I have had a few experiences which suggest some unusual things in the world, and read enough in books and online and talked to enough people that suggest there *may* be not just "paranormal" but possibly some variation of an apparently "divine" aspect to things, but the human mind and human experience is still far too unknown to be able to confidently place things we haven't yet identified into the realm of the divine.

For me, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a correlation of anomalies and identified paranormal events (though not necessarily their causes or full definitions), though not anywhere nearly sufficient to classify them as direct irrefutable indication of one or more gods as the terms are generally applied.