|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 16, 2018 20:39:16 GMT
I didn't write this below. What are your thoughts on it?
Are agnostics atheists? No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece.
|
|
FireFoxAssassin
Full Member
Posts: 268
Likes: 151
Country: United Kingdom
Region: Wales
Religion: N/A (Atheism)
Age: 17
|
Post by FireFoxAssassin on Nov 16, 2018 21:46:12 GMT
since i cant be bothered to read that, ill just say what my definitions are: agnostics are people who are unsure if there is a god or not atheists are people who believes that god doesnt exist
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 16, 2018 22:18:13 GMT
Reading that made me think...isn't an agnostic just neutral or 0 on the number line? 0 isn't a positive number in case people didn't know. 0 is just neutral. And atheists would be negative and believers would be postive.
But when it comes to the jury people. A neutral person causes a stir. People are choosing guilty or innocent and he's like idk. Well, no court ever gives an idk verdict. What judge would be needed if he can't give a guilty or innocent answer?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 16, 2018 22:47:34 GMT
Reading that made me think...isn't an agnostic just neutral or 0 on the number line? 0 isn't a positive number in case people didn't know. 0 is just neutral. And atheists would be negative and believers would be postive. But when it comes to the jury people. A neutral person causes a stir. People are choosing guilty or innocent and he's like idk. Well, no court ever gives an idk verdict. What judge would be needed if he can't give a guilty or innocent answer? Maybe those who can't give an answer shouldn't be on the jury shrug Or maybe they should pursue an answer
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Nov 17, 2018 0:40:31 GMT
Reading that made me think...isn't an agnostic just neutral or 0 on the number line? 0 isn't a positive number in case people didn't know. 0 is just neutral. And atheists would be negative and believers would be postive. But when it comes to the jury people. A neutral person causes a stir. People are choosing guilty or innocent and he's like idk. Well, no court ever gives an idk verdict. What judge would be needed if he can't give a guilty or innocent answer? Maybe those who can't give an answer shouldn't be on the jury shrug Or maybe they should pursue an answer True. But jury duty is also assigned to you so you can't always skip it. I can use religion though to try to skip it
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Nov 17, 2018 7:20:11 GMT
There are some similarities between agnostics and atheists but the big difference is most atheists are against any entity named god. They try to reject existence of god as much as deists and theists believe in god or gods. However, there are other atheists who think while religious version of god does not exist, there could be superior entities in the universe. To understand agnostics, their thoughts and philosophy, you should study their works. Studying Robert G. Ingersoll's works is recommended.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Nov 17, 2018 11:16:47 GMT
Theism is a statement about belief of existence. Where as Gnosticism is a statement about belief of certainty or knowledge.
Gnosticism is not a religious belief it concerns itself with knowledge. So you can have a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. However, identifying yourself simply as a gnostic or an agnostic says nothing about your theistic beliefs or lack thereof.
Think of gnostic as a claim to know for a fact. Agnostic as an I don't know. There are gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. As well as agnostic for both. Most atheists are agnostic.
An agnostic atheist is similar to a “soft atheist” and a gnostic atheist is a hard one. Most atheists seem to be agnostic atheists, and most theists seem to be gnostic theists. There are exceptions. There are some atheists who claim to know there is no god and there are some religious people who, when asked, will admit there's no way of knowing god for certain and are going on faith.
Agnostic Atheist- These people do not claim to know whether gods exist that is what makes them agnostic. They are also atheists because they do not believe that a god exists, they are of the opinion that belief in a god isn't warranted. Most likely do to lack of proof or evidence. Another way to explain this opinion is they cannot demonstrate that no gods exist, therefore they can’t claim to know for certain that no gods exist. However even though they can't know that no gods exist, they have no reason to expect any exist, therefore they don't believe that they do.
Gnostic Atheist- These are “hardcore" atheists meaning no religion, no god, and they believe they have sufficient have proof. Much of the time they believe science debunks religion and that is the proof they need to be certain there is no higher power at all.
Gnostic Theist- These are hardcore believers, meaning they have religion, believe in a God or many Gods or the supernatural, and have believe they have proof. They’ll take the word of their holy books over scientific explanations or theories.
Agnostic Theist- These are moderate religious individuals who follow something, but are not certain of a god or the supernatural but believe there is something out there greater than us.
Gnostic Theist Adeist- These are unique religious people like Native Americans or indigenous Australians who believe in "Nature" or "Spirits" not necessarily a divine being.
|
|
|
Post by prophettom on Nov 28, 2018 22:49:31 GMT
Reading that made me think...isn't an agnostic just neutral or 0 on the number line? 0 isn't a positive number in case people didn't know. 0 is just neutral. And atheists would be negative and believers would be postive. But when it comes to the jury people. A neutral person causes a stir. People are choosing guilty or innocent and he's like idk. Well, no court ever gives an idk verdict. What judge would be needed if he can't give a guilty or innocent answer? Maybe those who can't give an answer shouldn't be on the jury Or maybe they should pursue an answer If you can not be certain of guilt or lack of guilt than you must vote not guilty. For the each side has presented their case. Now it is time to judge. If the prosecution has failed to provide enough evidence to prove guilt, Than you must assume not guilty. Sure wish we had a better way but we do not. It is the best we can do with what we have. You can assume justice is only done when with certainty. In the end its a crap shoot! (pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Nov 28, 2018 23:37:26 GMT
Maybe those who can't give an answer shouldn't be on the jury Or maybe they should pursue an answer If you can not be certain of guilt or lack of guilt than you must vote not guilty. For the each side has presented their case. Now it is time to judge. If the prosecution has failed to provide enough evidence to prove guilt, Than you must assume not guilty. Sure wish we had a better way but we do not. It is the best we can do with what we have. You can assume justice is only done when with certainty. In the end its a crap shoot! (pun intended) Then you’re making a judgment. I’m simply saying you can’t say “I don’t know” as an answer for judgment. Hence those who say “I don’t know” shouldn’t be on the jury because they cannot discern.
|
|
|
Post by prophettom on Nov 29, 2018 0:37:00 GMT
If you can not be certain of guilt or lack of guilt than you must vote not guilty. For the each side has presented their case. Now it is time to judge. If the prosecution has failed to provide enough evidence to prove guilt, Than you must assume not guilty. Sure wish we had a better way but we do not. It is the best we can do with what we have. You can assume justice is only done when with certainty. In the end its a crap shoot! (pun intended) Then you’re making a judgment. I’m simply saying you can’t say “I don’t know” as an answer for judgment. Hence those who say “I don’t know” shouldn’t be on the jury because they cannot discern. Okay
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 21, 2019 8:39:07 GMT
Atheists are people who don't know whether God exists. Agnostics are people who know they don't know whether God exists.
|
|
|
Post by fishnchips on May 1, 2020 21:38:13 GMT
No, I would say that agnostics and atheists are different.
An agnostic is essentially defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god". I feel that I fall into this category, even though I tend to believe that there is some kind of higher power in or outside the universe (which some people may refer to as a god, while others may not), because I don't believe the human brain is, at least presently, capable of comprehending it.
Now, that higher power could be an all-powerful deity. Or it could be some kind of non-corporeal alien. It could even be a computer programmer who's running what we call the universe on a server in a lab. It could be the creator of the universe, or it could be something that was created along with the universe.
No matter what I believe, I can't know – that's the foundation for agnosticism.
|
|