Dec 19 2007
I am Agnostic not Atheist
Often times people have nothing better to do than pass judgment on others with regards to religious beliefs. I am often asked what church I attend or what my beliefs are and I will lay it all out right here.
I am an Agnostic, which means in simple language, I believe there is a chance of a higher being but I am not convinced of one and that no one can know the truth either way. This does not mean I am against anyone’s God or Goddess. I do not deny the existence of a God. This is an Atheist.
If you were to study all major religions in the history of the world (I have), you will see that each one has something to offer the world. They also make sure to contradict most other religions. This is to insure their belief that they are the only right path to salvation or the light. It is the I am better than you mentality.
For thousands of years there have been religion and as people evolved or regressed, depending how you look at it, the course of religion has changed. At one point, women were the focus point of worship and the Goddess was a symbol of life itself. As newer religions emerged, men took center stage and the religions took a more paternal look. In this path, women were suppressed and made inferior to men. Now in the modern world, many people are turning to a more dim look at faith and many scandals have caused people to look at other ways to place their faith.
Religion has also played a major role in much of the violence the world has to offer. From the earliest religions, violence in one form or another have played a part on religion. In early times, human sacrifice played a key role. In later times, it was the violence of wars to eliminate the non-believers that took center roles in the religious world.
What many call a religion of love and hope, to others it is a religion of suppression, hate, and despair. From the ashes of ruin, we see those who still cling to the falsehood that they are superior to their fellow man because they have their God or Gods.
I have studied as many world religions that I could find information about. I respect some and have disdain for others. All seem to share the premise that you are to harm none but then they distract from that when they speak of the enemies of their religion. I am not writing off the possibility of a higher being or beings but I am also not saying I believe there is a way to know for sure.
I do believe that whatever your belief, you have the right to that and to not be attacked for what you believe. I do not believe in the my God is better than you God. Religion is solely based on faith and to say that one is right and the other wrong conflicts with the core base of most religions.
Because one says they are Wiccan, it does not mean they will eat your children or kill a chicken. For this reason, it is wrong to attack such a person for their belief. Just like all Muslims are not terrorist. In fact, against common thought, they share the same God with Christians, there difference comes in the fact that they believe that Jesus was a prophet not the son of God. They also do not, contrary to what a lot of preachers claim, think that Mohammad is a God, he is, in their belief, the most prized prophet of God.
My point of this is to point out that I as well as you and everyone else should be able to believe what we want without others judging us or condemning us for those beliefs.
I am an Agnostic…not an Atheist!
What a poor position to take!
So, because the majority of religious people have harmless beliefs, we should let them all be, including the dangerous ones?
Frankly, the sheer definition of faith is irrationality – believing something in the absence of proof, or in the face of proof to the opposite. Saying that we should let people continue to believe such absurdities when the proof is weighing up against them is tantamount to saying that we should abandon reason altogether.
And let’s not forget that without our ability to reason, we’d still be living in caves.
Actually, you’re an agnostic/atheist . For a simple explanation, watch this video which explains what an atheist and a theist are, and how agnostic is a qualifier for both positions. It’s an easy video to follow and explains all of the positions.
http://www.afterfaith.com/?page_id=405
Thanks for your opinion neverending. I think that we as humans have a right to believe whatever faith we would like to believe. Who are you or me to say that anyone’s faith is wrong?
As far as proof, please provide me with the proof that a god does or does not exist. Please share that with everyone and I am sure my blog will be the most popular blog in the world if you have such proof.
As far as reason, I not once said we should not have reason, and reason is clear that we can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.
Jake disagree but thanks for the video. I would love to watch but since I am in my own hell called dial-up, I am not able to get it to load.
Atheism is not a belief in no god. It is a lack of belief in a god.
To break it down:
If you are a Theist, you believe in a god.
Otherwise, you are an Atheist. Because you do not believe in a god.
It is lack of belief in one, not belief that it doesn’t exist.
So you are an Agnostic Atheist by what you have described yourself. (Agnostic means lack of knowledge, meaning you believe that there is a lack of true knowledge about existence of a god)
Atheism is not a religion, and it is not a belief. It is what you are if you do NOT believe.
Yes, it does include the people that believe there is no god. They are also atheists. But someone who simply doesn’t have “faith” in a god’s existence is also an atheist.
It is a common misconception, since Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Theism/Atheism (Believe in a god/Lack of belief in a god)
Agnosticism (Belief in lack of information)
One of the reasons for this misconception is that there is generally a bad stigma surrounding the term Atheist, since the die-hard anti-god believers are the ones that frequently take on that term.
If you don’t want to offend a religious group, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to take on that label. However, by definition you are an Atheist from what you have said.
I am an Agnostic Atheist. I do not try to “ruin other people’s fun” with their religion. The only time I step up to the plate is when they try to force their religion on others, against their wishes. Well, I also will generally stand against a religion when they speak messages of hatred against others that are different. I don’t think that is a unifying cause.
It’s up to you what to call yourself ultimately, labels frequently determine what people think of you, however wrong it is. I myself will continue to call myself what is in-line with my beliefs, and if people appear to get the wrong impression I will elaborate.
Allow me to explain then.
To clear up a misconception you seem to have, an atheist is not just someone who claims 100% that no gods exist. Although some atheists DO make this claim, it isn’t necessary to make that claim to be considered an atheist. First lets look at what the words literally mean to understand better.
Atheism means (a) without ( theism ) belief in a god or gods.
Theism means (theism) belief in a god or gods.
Agnostic means (a) without ( gnostic ) knowledge .
Notice that the first two definitions deal with belief, and the third deals with knowledge ?
I am an atheist/agnostic, that is to say, I do not believe in one, because I have no knowledge of one.
A person can also be a theist/agnostic, that is to say, one who believes in a god, but professes no knowledge of one.
So in the realm of religion and gods, the question is one of belief. Do you believe in a god ? If yes, then you are a theist. If no, then you are an atheist. Agnostic comes in as a qualifier to the question of belief, it is not a position of it’s own. It’s a binary question. Either you have a belief in a god, or you don’t.
Hence why, from what you’ve wrote, it seems you are an atheist/agnostic. You profess no belief in any gods, but don’t rule out the possibility.
I am not an atheist. I do not deny the existence of any God or goddess. I simply stand by the reasoning that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Here is some definitions of agnostic:
One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable
a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
A term invented by Prof. Huxley in 1885 to indicate the mental attitude of those who withhold their assent to whatever is incapable of proof, such as the absolute. In regard to miracles and revelation, agnostics neither dogmatically accept nor reject such matters, but simply say Agnosco- I do not know – they are not capable of proof.
Here is the definitions of atheist:
One who rejects or is ignorant of theism
A person for whom the idea of god is senseless. Not to be confused with a person who hates (and necessarily believes in the existence of) god.
someone who denies the existence of god
There is a clear difference and I am clearly not an atheist because no where do i deny that God or a God or a Goddess exist.
I have studied many of the world religions and many offer words of hope and of faith but none offer proof one way or the other.
You both merge the two together yet they are not the same. I
I think what you’re missing is the difference between belief and knowledge. Everything you wrote up there has to do with knowledge. Gnostic refers to knowledge. The question of theism is one of belief however. They are two different topics, but not mutually exclusive. I do not know if there is a god. That makes me an agnostic. However I’m also an atheist because I hold no belief in a god because I don’t know if there is one or not.
Once again, not all atheists claim they know a god or gods exist. These are called agnostic/atheists.
Think of it this way…
Me : An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a god.
You : I don’t know if there’s a god or not.
Me: Do you have an active belief in any gods ?
You : No, I said that I don’t know if there are any gods or not.
Me : So that would make you an atheist. Since you don’t know if there are any gods or not, you can not have a belief in any.
You : But I’m not making the claim that no gods exist.
Me : I understand that, in in the realm of knowledge or proofs, that would make you an agnostic. However the question of theism is one of belief. So since you have no active beliefs, you are by definition an atheist.
So again, that would make you an agnostic/atheist , just like me.
Thinking that agnostic is some sort of middle position is like thinking there’s a middle position between being alive and being dead. There’s no middle ground. Either you believe, or you don’t believe. It’s really very simple.
Interesting, but I disagree. I BELIEVE you (Jake) are a male. I have not met you face to face, so I don’t KNOW.
So, in essence, one CAN believe without absolute certainty or knowledge. Therefore, I believe in (a Deist model of) God, but am not absolutely 10000% certain, I consider myself Agnostic/Deist – and I refuse to classify myself as an atheist merely because of the semantics involved.
If I misunderstood, please explain.
I don’t see how that statement is in any disagreement with what’s written above.
The assertion of the belief is the stance of the theist. The lack of knowledge is condition of the agnostic.
Here is how the different scenario’s play out:
A) “I believe Jake is male – I have not met him face to face, but I have ‘felt’ his presence.”
– Theist/gnostic
- person states that they have direct knowledge and personal proof. With religion, this proof is not tangible or transferrable.
B) “I believe Jake is male – I have not met him face to face, but C’mon, he’s gotta be…”
– Theist/Agnostic
- person states that although thebelief is not grounded on hard fact, it is ‘passable’ enough to believe in. Basically, its a hedged bet, based on an assumption that Jake being a male makes sense enough to bet the family farm (or our ‘erternal souls’)on it.
C) “I don’t believe Jake is male. I mean, who know’s, he could be a she, he could be a computer program, a figment of my imagination etc, or even worse a lawyer….?”
– Atheist/Agnostic
- person states that there is no belief in jake being a male, there is also no knowledge of who Jake really is. Some go a step further to say that given all the possiblities, there is very little merit (like near zero) in actually assuming that Jake is male.
D) “I don’t believe Jake is male, she is a female, I’ve seen her.”
– Atheist / gnostic
- person states that Jake is not a male and that evidence exists.
———————————————————————————
Take it as you will.