Definition of an Agnostic. Just so we're clear...

**George** · 08-30-2006, 10:19 AM

Definition of Agnostic:

Agnosticism is a concept, not a religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God.

An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that some theologians and philosophers have tried to to prove, for millennia, that God exists. Others have attempted to prove that God does not exist. Agnostics feel that neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task.

Are they Theists? No, because Agnostics do not believe in a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

1. A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. E. Haldeman-Julius suggests that "The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming." 1 This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.
2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists. They use the term "strong Atheist" to refer to a person who denies the existence of one or more deities.

Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic. Such confusion is common in the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog between Agnostics and Theists very difficult.

An agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future. However, some have taken the position that there is no logical way in which the existence or the non-existence of a deity can be proven.

ninikins · 09-02-2006, 06:30 PM

Excellent explanation of the topic I think, thanks for that. agnostics are too often misunderstood.

THEWAULRUS · 09-23-2006, 10:26 PM

Agnosticism can hardly be called a religion. It is the most open-minded of philosophies, in that an agnostic does not believe in anything; he does not even ascribe to a doctrine of unbelief, like an Atheist. A true agnostic does not assume to know the answers to the supreme questions of the universe (why are we here, how did we get here, what put us here . . . ) – he does not say that there is a god or supernatural being involved with the answers to those questions, but he also does not say there isn’t. The definition of agnosticism is very easy: Agnostics keep an open mind toward everything in the universe, and rely on solid proof or logical scientific theories to formulate their opinions.

**George** · 09-23-2006, 10:53 PM

Good points THEWAULRUS.

As stated in my opening post, agnosticism is a concept not a religion. The word philosophy as you used does actually describe it better.

Though agnostics do tend to get persecuted as if they are part of a religion.

THEWAULRUS · 09-24-2006, 04:43 PM

thank you.. it wasnt me it was my friend who wrote that. Me and him are working on a project called Religion Controversy and history
What is Religion? | I will try to answer that question.

This is soon going to become a forum website.

dysfunctional · 09-25-2006, 03:26 PM

I think that is the best way anyone can define agnostic, and that is how I see it too.

THEWAULRUS · 09-26-2006, 06:41 PM

As i said in my previous post, all of the spoils go to my friend Joseph

mplltt · 09-28-2006, 01:45 PM

I wanted to read your post, administrator, to make sure that I am on track with my posts. Aparantly the view of agnosticism, hopefully, I can justify with the posts that I have previously made. I thought the term agnostic is to question because an agnostic does not know if a God or Goddess exists. You are right to say that pending evidence would permit a person to respond with rhetoric in so doing give the justification of a theist a selection of her/his own choice of a higher power. I would like to question other things, redemptory of myself, I believe that the questioning can be a powerful distiction. Instead of making a person a charleton by questioning themselves (this is the crux of the statement) a person would have to go and look their answer up. I believe that referencing material would allow for a person to not have to reign of terror. Phraseology in a manner of speaking has rhetorical effects in soothing mistrust hence the moot point is answered with a question; a question is formulated with rhetoric first and then make it transitive. Questions are easy to make if you want to say something, say it, then put a "question word" at the beginning of the sentance(ie, why is, how do, what are, where have, is the, etc.). But please, don't sit here and identify how you see it, or why you see it, or what you would do. This is annoying. It forces people to be very hurt. The establishment wants to assert itself on other people through establishing that, thats right, don't be confused with the hurt. This is what makes them so powerful: They stay in third person. You want to fight the establishment? Then be in third person, questions with book references. This makes them angry because the establishment thinks it just has to read a few books to keep them happy and they know everything. This is where they go wrong and this is why I am having trouble with the church as well, read post: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

In essense, to lambast, retort, intercede, to make your point about you not hurting anyone, stick to the concept. You are agnostic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

Definition of Agnostic:Agnostics feel that neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task.

Are they Theists? No, because Agnostics do not believe in a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

In so doing, the definition is correct, neither I nor the church has convincingly succeeded at their task. I believe that referencing material is all that is needed to succeed at a task (SCHS learned). Then we shall have the liberty to ask ourselves, now. How much work do I want to do? How lazy do I feel, darnit. So a task is at hand. The establishment done only read a novel or two! My mother (Who will go unnamed) is a reference librarian, she had achieved here masters, suma cum laude, has read literally 1200 novels! She is a genious. Nuf Said, she knows the establishment, so does my Dad. I am sure that my mother will agree, she lives in California with my Dad (also a master's grad in Business, also unnamed) so communication is hard from Arizona. But anyway, a novel will discuss how to approach the earth. The establishment then only knows how to approach the earth as a whole. So if you want my opinion, refer back to my post, what I think the answer to the establishment's problems are: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

}SoC{Sumguy · 09-29-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mplltt

I wanted to read your post, administrator, to make sure that I am on track with my posts. Aparantly the view of agnosticism, hopefully, I can justify with the posts that I have previously made. I thought the term agnostic is to question because an agnostic does not know if a God or Goddess exists. You are right to say that pending evidence would permit a person to respond with rhetoric in so doing give the justification of a theist a selection of her/his own choice of a higher power. I would like to question other things, redemptory of myself, I believe that the questioning can be a powerful distiction. Instead of making a person a charleton by questioning themselves (this is the crux of the statement) a person would have to go and look their answer up. I believe that referencing material would allow for a person to not have to reign of terror. Phraseology in a manner of speaking has rhetorical effects in soothing mistrust hence the moot point is answered with a question; a question is formulated with rhetoric first and then make it transitive. Questions are easy to make if you want to say something, say it, then put a "question word" at the beginning of the sentance(ie, why is, how do, what are, where have, is the, etc.). But please, don't sit here and identify how you see it, or why you see it, or what you would do. This is annoying. It forces people to be very hurt. The establishment wants to assert itself on other people through establishing that, thats right, don't be confused with the hurt. This is what makes them so powerful: They stay in third person. You want to fight the establishment? Then be in third person, questions with book references. This makes them angry because the establishment thinks it just has to read a few books to keep them happy and they know everything. This is where they go wrong and this is why I am having trouble with the church as well, read post: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

In essense, to lambast, retort, intercede, to make your point about you not hurting anyone, stick to the concept. You are agnostic.

In so doing, the definition is correct, neither I nor the church has convincingly succeeded at their task. I believe that referencing material is all that is needed to succeed at a task (SCHS learned). Then we shall have the liberty to ask ourselves, now. How much work do I want to do? How lazy do I feel, darnit. So a task is at hand. The establishment done only read a novel or two! My mother (Who will go unnamed) is a reference librarian, she had achieved here masters, suma cum laude, has read literally 1200 novels! She is a genious. Nuf Said, she knows the establishment, so does my Dad. I am sure that my mother will agree, she lives in California with my Dad (also a master's grad in Business, also unnamed) so communication is hard from Arizona. But anyway, a novel will discuss how to approach the earth. The establishment then only knows how to approach the earth as a whole. So if you want my opinion, refer back to my post, what I think the answer to the establishment's problems are: http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...schools-5.html

could you please specify what this "establishment" is?

**SithLord** · 09-29-2006, 01:45 PM

What???

You sound like one of those actors on the HBO show deadwood minus the profanity...