Anonymous wrote:Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God. I'm an atheist because although I can't know there isn't a god, I also can't know I won't come back as a snake or that this isn't all just a computer simulation. But all of those options seem so unlikely to me that I just have to admit I don't believe they are the truth.

I guess I would say that agnostics think the possibility of a god is plausible.

t
SOME agnostics feel the way you describe above. Others do not -- it's sort of a self-definition at this point. Some are comfortable with the moniker agnostic. Some are searching -- looking for the one bit of knowledge or insight that will swing them one way or the other, while others are well on the way to atheism, or already there, but are uncomfortable calling themselves that.

Anonymous wrote:Atheists don't believe in god; religious people do -- neither can prove it. Religion based on faith. Atheism is based on lack of evidence.

Not necessarily. My atheism is an accurate description of the fact that I lack belief and faith. Most of the religious people I know would say they believe because they do, not because they think they have evidence of God.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God. I'm an atheist because although I can't know there isn't a god, I also can't know I won't come back as a snake or that this isn't all just a computer simulation. But all of those options seem so unlikely to me that I just have to admit I don't believe they are the truth.

I guess I would say that agnostics think the possibility of a god is plausible.

Anonymous wrote:I think many agnostics eventually resolve their internal discussions and then call themselves atheists.

I agree. I know a good number of atheists but no agnostics. I only knew agnostics in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What, like guilt, shame, superstition? Yeah, super useful and helpful in leading a good life.

Any point in substituting those by anger, denial, resistance?

Substitution not needed One can simply reject the guilt, shame and superstition that is part of most religions. But it's understandable if some people's reaction to religion is anger that they were taught things that were not true, denial that its important to believe in them and resistance to being shamed into continuing to believe them.

But why not simply reject the anger, denial, and resistance? None of these things are positive or particularly useful? I hope you get the hint. Human life cannot be 100% rational by definition. No matter how much you think you resist this notion

People do reject these things -- some from the start and some after a while. It takes some time, first to realize you've been fooled, and then to come to terms with it and make changes in your life that often involve making changes in relationships with individuals or groups that have been very important in your life.

Atheists, like other normal people, are fully aware that life experiences are not 100% rational - you're showing your ignorance if you think they resist that notion. What they resist is believing in things that some of them were taught as gullible children that they now know to be untrue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What, like guilt, shame, superstition? Yeah, super useful and helpful in leading a good life.

Any point in substituting those by anger, denial, resistance?

Substitution not needed One can simply reject the guilt, shame and superstition that is part of most religions. But it's understandable if some people's reaction to religion is anger that they were taught things that were not true, denial that its important to believe in them and resistance to being shamed into continuing to believe them.

But why not simply reject the anger, denial, and resistance? None of these things are positive or particularly useful? I hope you get the hint. Human life cannot be 100% rational by definition. No matter how much you think you resist this notion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What, like guilt, shame, superstition? Yeah, super useful and helpful in leading a good life.

Any point in substituting those by anger, denial, resistance?

Substitution not needed One can simply reject the guilt, shame and superstition that is part of most religions. But it's understandable if some people's reaction to religion is anger that they were taught things that were not true, denial that its important to believe in them and resistance to being shamed into continuing to believe them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What, like guilt, shame, superstition? Yeah, super useful and helpful in leading a good life.

Any point in substituting those by anger, denial, resistance?

What is clear from everything here, and what has been said explicitly several times, is that different posters understand the terms differently. We could have a much clearer discussion if we just asked each other to explain how we view the world, especially with respect to religion.

I would explain that I think the universe is amazing, and the fact that life developed despite the apparent tendency of things to go from order to disorder (entropy is the term, if I recall) would be incredible to me if I did not see it all around me.

I can understand why many consider that proof of the existence of God. But to me, it's hubris to think that people, even with today's knowledge, let alone the level of knowledge that existed thousands of years ago, have any hope of doing any more than slowly chipping away at understanding, as scientists continually try to do.

As to the terms at issue here, I'd say that we all ought to be agnostics, in the sense of recognizing that this universe, whether at the scale of galaxies or the scale of electrons, defies our limited intellects, and that we cannot KNOW what it's all about. At the same time, it is human to try to make sense of things around us, whether through religion, through belief in human rationality, or through an acceptance of life as we find it without a meaning beyond what we see day to day.

So to me, a Catholic, for example, who says that through the grace of God s/he has faith is an agnostic who believes in God, while I, on the other hand, would call myself an agnostic atheist, because although I don't believe there is a god in any sense that most people use the term, I would not claim that I believe that for any reason other than that it seems totally obvious to me (with emphasis on "seems" and on "to me").

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What, like guilt, shame, superstition? Yeah, super useful and helpful in leading a good life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What is the value of letting useless things into your life?

LMAO No cash value, indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

What is the value of letting useless things into your life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Sorry, second pp, you're reading too much into this. Agnosticism is not "atheism lite," it's a different concept. There is nothing wrong with being atheist, but I'm not one. For me "No one can know about God" is a more exact and correct statement than "I KNOW there is no God." I think there's no God, but can't ever know this. Since I don't believe in intervention or hell, I'm fine where I am. FWIW I find it easier to say, "I'm not a believer" or "I don't believe" because hauling out the A-words usually ends with having to discuss all the semantics.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion. What I think is that there is no usefulness in agnosticism. If you take its true meaning, then we MUST therefore be agnostic on EVERYTHING. So yeah, the spaghetti monster argument resonates with me. I believe there is no proof of god's existence so I chose to live my life as though he does not exist. I'm not interested in the philosophical part of theism, I simply discard what is not useful to me (superstition and myth) and move on with my life. It doesn't do me any good on a day-to-day basis to live in doubt. I mean, should I go to church "what if?" Should I pray "what if"? Should I not take birth control or believe I'm going to hell "just in case"? What a miserable and timid way to live.

You sound defensive as if someone is twisting your arm to believe. I would argue that allowing only "useful" things, thoughts, and feelings into your life constitutes a rather miserable way to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is accepting other possibilities "chicken shit"? I don't get the argument. As it's oh so brave not to believe. Are you in kindergarten? LOL

I think most people aren't accepting other possibilities, I think they want to have a back up plan. I also think they think saying "I'm agnostic" isn't as grating or shocking as saying "I'm an atheist". Like it's so much easier to face a catholic and tell them, "I suppose you could be right", even when you know they aren't.

Why would you say "I suppose you could be right" to a Catholic or anybody else? Shocking as it may seem, neither Catholics, nor anybody else needs your agreement and validation. This is a very strange approach that has little to do with atheist convictions.

Anonymous wrote:The generally accepted definitions of atheist and agnostic are those in any good dictionary.

I get the impression that many "atheists" believe that God as defined by the major religions does not exist and don't give it must thought past that.

I would say that atheists don't believe in gods period -- irrespective of major religions, minor religions, spirituality, whatever.