|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:09 am
Basically, Agnosticism is the view that, due to the lack of fact or conclusive evidence to support any existing religious belief (including Atheism), we can't know the nature of anything divine or otherwise having to do with religion or the supernatural.
An extremely simple way of looking at things, and the one I personally prefer. I actually came to this conclusion myself a while ago without realizing that it was already a well-known view.
Do you guys have any comments or criticisms? I'd like to know what others think--especially religious or atheist people. I have yet to discuss this in-depth with anyone, so I haven't really heard any outside opinions.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:25 am
***
===================================
So your Agnostic?I have never heared it put that way.Interesting.Anyways,I'm also Agnostic and agree for the most part.I'm more or less a realist and the only one in my family it seems.I don't have HUGE problems with other religions,do I have some disagrements? Yes.But whenever I find someone knocking at my door,I always end up listening to them,and take their flyers and books or whatever they are handing out.I just don't wanna apologize for being human,either.
===================================
***
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:37 am
I'm agnostic too, but I'm also atheist. Agnosticism refers to knowledge - if you think you know god exists / doesn't exist, then you are not agnostic. But, most atheists would argue that this is thier belief, not knowledge. To put it simply:
I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know if god exists.
Also, your "brand" of agnosticism assumes that existence and non-existence are both equally valid choices even when it comes to belief. But if there is no evidence for the existence of something, then you shouldn't believe it exists. The lack of evidence for non-existence is irrelevant, because you're making a judgement on whether or not something exists - not on its non-existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:27 pm
Well I'm an agnostic theist, and I also know someone who considers himself just agnostic. I have heard it your way too, but you can't pin just one definition as agnosticism in its entirety because there are multiple interpretations centered around some stance of a lack of knowledge, and on top of that what exactly is considered knowledge is debatable. In my opinion when compared with belief knowledge must mean something that has been proven scientifically. Even evidence is not enough unless it is conclusive. But that's my definition of knowledge in context of agnosticism and mine alone. It translates to my religious beliefs as I believe in gods (and a good bit of other metaphysical stuff) but at best have only non-conclusive evidence to support my beliefs, at worst a philosophical argument.
I find agnosticism to be a very laid back take on beliefs generally, but with so many interpretations I also find can become a hassle explaining what exactly your interpretation is every time someone asks what you are spiritually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
