"I'm Agnostic": Belief vs Knowledge

[Vulpini]

Honestly, idgas if god exists or not, it won't change anything anyways.

 

[Onii Chan]

This is completely false, agnosticism is the belief that we simply do not know whats real or fake. The belief that there could be something out there or not which is a logical assumption of belief in the modern era seeing how we simply dont know. Some scientists are actually agnostic as well, so to say agnosticism isnt real is quite naive.

So, coming from a ACTUAL agnostic, i believe that we can't possibly know the truth of our existence but we could someday if our technological prowess increases to the point of understanding time travel or space hyper speed. The universe is very large, infinite dimensions and infinite timelines, infinite.. us, you, me, and everything is infinite... So, in a logical conclusion i'd say no, we can't know at least right now what is truth or false.

Agnosticism isn't the belief of confusion nor disbelief, its a belief founded on the sole ideology that we cannot know or we don't know.

 

[Chikombo]

Some people believe in "something" and some people are just "nothing".

 

[Caliburn]

You're approached with the question, "do you believe in God?" There are mainly only two responses that can given, either response placing you in one of two categories based on belief. If you answer yes, you are a theist -- if you answer no, your an atheist.

From there, you're approached with another question , "Do you know if God exists?". Based your response, you can be placed into one of two different categories based on knowledge. If you answer yes, you are gnostic -- if you answer no, you are agnostic. This can then be broken into four subcategories when you overlap belief and knowledge;

Do you believe in God?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist

Do you know if God exists?
[Atheist] yes = Gnostic Atheist
[Atheist] no = Agnostic Atheist
[Theist] yes = Gnostic Theist
[Theist] no =Agnostic Theist

If someone asks you if you believe in God, responding by claiming you're "agnostic" fails to answer the question. To do so would be to express that "you dont know whether or not you believe in God". Agnoticism and Gnosticism are positions of knowledge whereas Atheism and Theism are a postitions of belief. You are never just an agnostic/gnostic.

TL;DR You're an atheist/theist first and an agnostic second. Stop just saying you're agnostic, as if it's a moderate and neutral position.

The most common element between agnosticism and gnosticism, is that they have a similar name. When it comes to their meaning, they don't really are mentioned closely to one another and certainly not in a dualistic way. So there's something wrong in this reasoning of yours.

Secondly the fact that there were even religions centered around the combination of beliefs and knowledge, makes your two-step questioning here not very credible. The two are in practice very difficult to separate and that's the key here: in practice. What you wrote sounds nice and all in theory, but when you put it into practice, it means little to nothing. For example almost any theist by default would be a gnostic theist as when you believe in a god, that's the same thing as saying you know there is a god. There wouldn't be something like an agnostic theist. The only persons who ever would give that answer, would be philosophers and that's because they do what they are supposed to be doing: philosophizing. The main reason why there is such an obsolete option here, is because you were kinda forced to add it.

And truthfully it's contradictory. Saying that you believe in god, but don't know if he exists is somehow a valid answer, but saying you're agnostic is not? The meaning of agnosticism is much more complicated than those of theism and atheism exactly due it's relative nature, still you kinda forced it into a strict scheme that suits you. Case and point there is something called apathetic agnosticism, which means you don't give a damn about whether there is a god or not as it wouldn't make any difference. This is something that covers my views much better than anything you listed up.

You say that answering with "agnostic" is failing to answer the question, but who says the answer is the problem? Did it occur to you that it's simply your question that failed? It's very well a valid answer. It doesn't necessarily make it an elaborate or clear answer, but it's not because you don't like it, it's not valid. Frankly your last sentence made it quite clear that you are forcing answers onto people that you want. When someone replies he's a theist, you know he believes in a god, but that doesn't mean you know which one. Similarly you don't know exactly what someone's beliefs are when he tells you he's agnostic, as it covers a multitude of different ideas, but they all have in common that they don't want to be categorized as either a theist or an atheist, which is a 100% valid answer.

That's like saying you're either black or white. By classifying yourself as A or B you're basically setting up a boundary. Not to mention how people can also be one thing one day and another the next. It is inconsistent.

I concur

Yes or no questions and yes or no answers are questions and answers purely for the sake of convenience, but ones that rarely cover the reality of the situation. We say and answer them like that simply because it's easy, but in reality in the majority of the situations they aren't that particularly accurate. The world isn't black and white, but we often like to present it as such because it would be quite a hassle to give a lengthy, in depth explanation on every question we get.

And by forcing us to choose from only a selective amount of answers, the OP is drawing up subjective borders. This is like choosing a political party: it's not like that you agree with every single point they have on the agenda, it's just that they are the party that's closest to your interests. Similarly none of the answers given here are covering my views completely, but I could pick out the one that's the closest to it. That however would not be an accurate answer, that's the OP having forced me to pick a single answer from a set of subjective, limited answers he provided.

 

[Donald J Trump]

The most common element between agnosticism and gnosticism, is that they have a similar name. When it comes to their meaning, they don't really are mentioned closely to one another and certainly not in a dualistic way. So there's something wrong in this reasoning of yours.

Secondly the fact that there were even religions centered around the combination of beliefs and knowledge, makes your two-step questioning here not very credible. The two are in practice very difficult to separate and that's the key here: in practice. What you wrote sounds nice and all in theory, but when you put it into practice, it means little to nothing. For example almost any theist by default would be a gnostic theist as when you believe in a god, that's the same thing as saying you know there is a god. There wouldn't be something like an agnostic theist. The only persons who ever would give that answer, would be philosophers and that's because they do what they are supposed to be doing: philosophizing. The main reason why there is such an obsolete option here, is because you were kinda forced to add it.

And truthfully it's contradictory. Saying that you believe in god, but don't know if he exists is somehow a valid answer, but saying you're agnostic is not? The meaning of agnosticism is much more complicated than those of theism and atheism exactly due it's relative nature, still you kinda forced it into a strict scheme that suits you. Case and point there is something called apathetic agnosticism, which means you don't give a damn about whether there is a god or not as it wouldn't make any difference. This is something that covers my views much better than anything you listed up.

You say that answering with "agnostic" is failing to answer the question, but who says the answer is the problem? Did it occur to you that it's simply your question that failed? It's very well a valid answer. It doesn't necessarily make it an elaborate or clear answer, but it's not because you don't like it, it's not valid. Frankly your last sentence made it quite clear that you are forcing answers onto people that you want. When someone replies he's a theist, you know he believes in a god, but that doesn't mean you know which one. Similarly you don't know exactly what someone's beliefs are when he tells you he's agnostic, as it covers a multitude of different ideas, but they all have in common that they don't want to be categorized as either a theist or an atheist, which is a 100% valid answer.



I concur

Yes or no questions and yes or no answers are questions and answers purely for the sake of convenience, but ones that rarely cover the reality of the situation. We say and answer them like that simply because it's easy, but in reality in the majority of the situations they aren't that particularly accurate. The world isn't black and white, but we often like to present it as such because it would be quite a hassle to give a lengthy, in depth explanation on every question we get.

And by forcing us to choose from only a selective amount of answers, the OP is drawing up subjective borders. This is like choosing a political party: it's not like that you agree with every single point they have on the agenda, it's just that they are the party that's closest to your interests. Similarly none of the answers given here are covering my views completely, but I could pick out the one that's the closest to it. That however would not be an accurate answer, that's the OP having forced me to pick a single answer from a set of subjective, limited answers he provided.

Careful, if you use logic, you're going to confuse him.

 

[kimb]

The most common element between agnosticism and gnosticism, is that they have a similar name. When it comes to their meaning, they don't really are mentioned closely to one another and certainly not in a dualistic way. So there's something wrong in this reasoning of yours.

Let me start off by saying the syntax in your reponse was a little off. I'm interpreting your arguments the way I believe you intended them, so correct me if there are any misinterpretations. Now that that's been said, gnosticism and agnosticism in terms of their meaning do in fact exist in a dualistic way. The root of both words "gnosis" is latin for "knowledge"-- place the prefix "a" and it becomes "without knowledge", and placed in the context in a discussion on the knowledge of God, those two terms exist in absolute duality. So, I don't see what you could ever mean when you say "they arent mentioned closely and certainly not in a dualistic way".

Secondly the fact that there were even religions centered around the combination of beliefs and knowledge, makes your two-step questioning here not very credible. The two are in practice very difficult to separate and that's the key here: in practice. What you wrote sounds nice and all in theory, but when you put it into practice, it means little to nothing. For example almost any theist by default would be a gnostic theist as when you believe in a god, that's the same thing as saying you know there is a god. There wouldn't be something like an agnostic theist. The only persons who ever would give that answer, would be philosophers and that's because they do what they are supposed to be doing: philosophizing. The main reason why there is such an obsolete option here, is because you were kinda forced to add it.

All you've done is placed my post in a different context and claimed "it means little to nothing in this context". We are in fact dicussing God in a descriptive and theoretical sense, not in a prescriptive or specific sense; it makes no sense to attempt to discredit my post on the basis of religious practicality when the thread was never about prescriptive belief. And the discussion of agnosticism and gnosticism are based in philosophy, not religion.

You also make agnostic theism out to be a "thing of philosophers" when in fact a large quanitity of westerners, mainly Christians, fall into the category of agnostic theist. So, I believe you set yourself up for error when you attempted to put this conversation in the context of religion because belief in God(s) does occur outside of religions and religious practicality. For example, a notable portion of western Christians believe in the Abrahamic God and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. They believe in a sense of "faith based belief", but they believe their faith is independent from evidence and reason. They do not know to what extent God exists or if obtaining knowledge of God is truly possible. In practice, they tend to loosely follow Christian tenents such as the 10 commandments and uphold "Christian values", but they are in no way Gnostic.

You're right when you say it's a logical contradiction to claim you believe in God while simultaneously claiming to be unsure of God's existence, but faith exists outside of the realm of logic.

And truthfully it's contradictory. Saying that you believe in god, but don't know if he exists is somehow a valid answer, but saying you're agnostic is not? The meaning of agnosticism is much more complicated than those of theism and atheism exactly due it's relative nature, still you kinda forced it into a strict scheme that suits you. Case and point there is something called apathetic agnosticism, which means you don't give a damn about whether there is a god or not as it wouldn't make any difference. This is something that covers my views much better than anything you listed up.

"Apathetic agnosticism" only expresses your attitude towards and your feeling towards the belief in God, and your "rootin-tootin, no ****s given" attitude does not add or take away anything critical from my post. Before your apathy, you currently either do or do not believe in God, and you either are sure or unsure of Gods existence. Any other nuances like apathy can be stacked upon those two foundational axioms, but the nuances do not discredit the foundation.

You say that answering with "agnostic" is failing to answer the question, but who says the answer is the problem? Did it occur to you that it's simply your question that failed? It's very well a valid answer. It doesn't necessarily make it an elaborate or clear answer, but it's not because you don't like it, it's not valid. Frankly your last sentence made it quite clear that you are forcing answers onto people that you want. When someone replies he's a theist, you know he believes in a god, but that doesn't mean you know which one. Similarly you don't know exactly what someone's beliefs are when he tells you he's agnostic, as it covers a multitude of different ideas, but they all have in common that they don't want to be categorized as either a theist or an atheist, which is a 100% valid answer.

No one is "forcing" anyone into answers. When someone claims that they do not believe in God, and I say they're an atheist, in what way am I forcing them into the answer "atheist"? If you ask me (a man) who I'm sexually attracted to, I say "exclusively women", and you respond by saying, "oh, so you're heterosexual", did you force me into an answer? No. You came to the logical conclusion based on the information you were presented with in my answer. I cannot, then, come back and say "I'm not heterosexual, stop forcing answers on me". Unless I misunderstood the definition of heterosexual or I did not give an answer that correctly reflected my sexual preferences, I am without a doubt heterosexual. No answer forcing involved.

If I'm wrongfully labeling someone, please correct me, but I'd imagine you'd be quite peeved if I or anyoned attempted to claim that they do not believe in God, and are simultaneously not atheists. In the case of Fountain, all the nuances of his belief or lack of belief in God are irrelevant to the question of whether or not he believes or does not believe.

You can't express nuance on something that is not first established, otherwise it's nonsense.

Careful, if you use logic, you're going to confuse him.

Lick the bottom of his boots harder...I think he's almost noticed you.

 

[Edogawa]

There is a thing called neutral; the foundation of agnostic lies in being neutral, because you don't know or not sure if God exists or not. The OP is an idiot. It's like saying you're either this or not, even though there options of opinion.

 

[Cornson]

There is a thing called neutral; the foundation of agnostic lies in being neutral, because you don't know or not sure if God exists or not. The OP is an idiot. It's like saying you're either this or not, even though there options of opinion.

what is the neutral answer to this then.

do you believe that: 2 + 2 = 4 ?

im not asking if you already know the answer, nor am i telling you to do the math in your head, im asking if you believe the answer is 4.

granted this is by far one of the most mocking ways i could have put it, however it doesn't really change anything... it's basic critical thinking.

 

[kimb]

There is a thing called neutral; the foundation of agnostic lies in being neutral, because you don't know or not sure if God exists or not. The OP is an idiot. It's like saying you're either this or not, even though there options of opinion.

You can believe in God while not knowing or being unsure of the existence in God. If I ask you, "do you believe in God", by responding with "I'm agnostic", do not answer whether you believe or not, only that you do not know or are unsure if a God exists. Agnostic theism is a thing that is very much practiced.

It's a common misconception that agnosticism is the neutral position when it comes to belief in God itself, when in fact agnosticism has primarily nothing to do with that.

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

God can exist. Explain mountain creation and himalaya river cream otherwise. God can be explained in equations.

Equation is god. Equation exists in Maths. Maths is a game. Isaac told ezac to hunt game for him. Game is god. Isaac told ezac to hunt god and let him eat god.

Mountain + game + lion silk hair + man ego + zebra stripes + why do we pe e + hair dandruff = came from whom? From the being who exists in chronological accentuated symplisitic-grantloirin logic of Alexander graham bell who invented telephone.

 

[Cornson]

God can exist. Explain mountain creation and himalaya river cream otherwise. God can be explained in equations.

Tectonic plates...

natural erotion of the envioroment do to the weather...

so are you saying 2 + 2 = 4 is proof that god exist?

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

Tectonic plates...

natural erotion of the envioroment do to the weather...

so are you saying 2 + 2 = 4 is proof that god exist?

Ofcourse. What is 3 + 3? = 6. Who made mountain? Who made clouds? Who made water. God. What is god made of? Nothingness. Which exists all around us. Gravity is an example. Vacuum is an example. What is space? Its the state of nothingness. What is time? The illusion created by space. Space time is tied like a rubber band. How can you change your destiny? By running faster than light. Why so? Spacetime has the authority to destiny. Why? Because god is spacetime. How can you see god? By running faster than light and distorting it. The distortion is God.

 

[Edogawa]

You can believe in God while not knowing or being unsure of the existence in God. If I ask you, "do you believe in God", by responding with "I'm agnostic", do not answer whether you believe or not, only that you do not know or are unsure if a God exists. Agnostic theism is a thing that is very much practiced.

It's a common misconception that agnosticism is the neutral position when it comes to belief in God itself, when in fact agnosticism has primarily nothing to do with that.

What you said is neutrality. It's not a matter of yes or no, but I don't know.

what is the neutral answer to this then.

do you believe that: 2 + 2 = 4 ?

im not asking if you already know the answer, nor am i telling you to do the math in your head, im asking if you believe the answer is 4.

granted this is by far one of the most mocking ways i could have put it, however it doesn't really change anything... it's basic critical thinking.

Mathematic neutrality is nothing like the question op raised.

 

[kimb]

What you said is neutrality. It's not a matter of yes or no, but I don't know

Then you agree that agnosticism deals with what you know or dont know, not what you believe. The point of my thread is to get people to realize that answering a question in regards to their belief in god with "agnosticism", which is a term regarding to knowledge, is not a proper response.

Responding to "Do you believe in God?" With "I'm agnostic", does not tell me if you believe in God or not, it only tells me you are unsure of God's existence. Both atheists and theists can be agnostic, so by responding with agnostic, you do not answer the question.

I think you'll understand what I'm expressing here since you understand agnosticism does not deal with belief, but knowledge

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

For once, this is interesting. But to answer, I'm a Theist.


I had an Anthropology professor who said he is an Agnostic Mystic.