Unfortunately, it seems to have become that. That isn't what it means at all though. It means simply "I don't know."

You CAN. It's hard not to. At the CORE of it all are the questions and answers;

"Why is it all here ?"

"It just IS."

"Why ?"

"Uhhh... because it is."

OR

"Why is it all here ?"

"Because God put it here for us to inhabit and live and grow in."

People have a hard time with EITHER. That's part of the human condition.

It's used in America. It's just undergoing an attempt at redefinition. As are MANY things related to basic core values.

Actually, if you find the quetion of God meaningless, that's not agnosticism. Ignosticism would be more appropriate I think.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Many agnostics do not want, nor desire - to be affiliated with anything simply for being on the fence. Their motivation is one of exclusion: 'dont include me in your regards to the existence , or lack thereof, of a god/gods'.

__________________

Probably so. Just like there are people who beleive in God and everything, but want NO involvement in any church or church activities.

That stuff turns a LOT of people off.

Mass gatherings of religious worshippers does nothing for ME either.

My problem with this is you act like it's either God or no God, but the truth is that once you get to the point where you accept there is a higher power, what that higher power is could be radically different from God in my sense. I don't think there are "sides." there are so many beliefs.

other than that though i doubt i will have much to say on this subject.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I think the central underlying theme is tolerance of ambiguity. This concept certainly isn't limited to the religious/spiritual/metaphysical/philosophical arena, though it is found in world 'religions' such as Taoism--which (among other things) embraces the notion that the way of ultimate reality is of an order beyond our ability to quantify with words.

Atheism and Theism both have one thing in common - they profess that we can know whether or not God exists. One side claims to know that he does, one side claims to know that he doesn't (whether it be due to intuition, or something else).

Agnosticism says that we can not know whether God exists. Andrewl's example of being asked about an event in a year span of time is a good one to apply here. Two people (atheist and theist) may give two completely different answers, both sure of their position, but the agnostic will not state a position, as he feels no confident forecast can be made.

Cogito Ergo Sum - We are all agnostic to everything. However,

Agnosticism say we can't know wheter God exists or not. How can you know that? I said all this in my opening post. And if you are to prove that we can't know about Gods existence, you'll have to prove that God can never be proven.

As I said, if there isn't a God, what kind of evidence do you want to have to disprove it? How can we disprove something that doesn't exist? When you want an answer for that, you're just being unreasonable...

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

If that’s the case, then this is incorrect.

An understanding of, or belief in, an afterlife is a central tenet of every religion I know of. By definition, greater knowledge of the afterlife can be gained after life. If God does, in fact, exist, a greater understanding of God’s existence and/or nature should come upon one’s death. If no such understanding is gained, then it’s much more likely that no such God exists. Moreover; if God doesn’t exist in any manner or fashion, it makes no difference what one believes.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Cap'n, me pal, you're a lot of groovy things. Humble ain't one of 'em.

Being a theist (and not a weak one, BTW), one CAN know God's voice. Look at creation. Nothing more, nothing less. No dogma needed. No ideology needed. No politics needed. No proselytizing needed. Just observation & common sense.

For a good synopsis, read Paine's Age of Reason. Hell, you can read it in its entirety for free here:

The Age of Reason

Call it the "Deist Holy Book" if you'd like. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Is it just me, or do the portions in bold contradict one another?

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I'm completely with Andrew on the first half of his post. And, for many years, was somewhat with him on the second half. But after a great deal of study, reflection, and honest introspection, I've come to be strong Deist. That, and I've had enough happen in my life to know better than to believe wholly in pure coincidence.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Ah yes, I can get with this concept. It's called relativism. Which would make you (and me) an enemy of the Bill Orally's of the world. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I can see the argument that agnosticism is perhaps the most honest position one could take in the face of what is actually provable (or not).

However, atheism can also seem very valid. In fact, I think an argument can be made that it's more valid. Since no one can offer up any valid proof whatsoever of the existence of any type of god, one is not really negating anything by proclaiming atheism. In fact, atheism is probably a horrible term, in that it has the word "theism" right in it (as if one could negate nothingness). It's akin to me saying, "I don't believe in Santa Claus." My 3-year-old son believes in Santa Claus. He's seen pictures of him. He's sat on his lap at the mall. He's seen the presents under the tree on Christmas morning. This seems definitive proof.

But when he's ten (or sooner) he'll catch on that the guy at the mall ain't real. He'll know I'm sticking the presents under the tree. He'll know that Santa is NOT real as a true physical manifestation.

In the same way, an atheist (for lack of a better term) can know that God is not real from the lack of any sort of metaphysical manifestation (or otherwise). None of us alive have ever seen the Red Sea parted. None of us have ever observed a talking burning bush, nor have any of us ever been propisitioned by a talking serpent. None of us have ever had a "revealed" religion revealed to us personally. Why? Because, at the most, God is an inactive participant in the world. At the least, he does not at all exist.

Now, being a strong Deist, I still have moments of doubt. Sometimes, that bit of revelation I have received (looking deep into the cosmos via my neighbor's kick-ass telescope, for example) begins to fade a bit. Then, along comes the birth of a child. Or the death of a loved one. Or an unexplainable (and almost unbelievable) coincidence. There is an order to the universe. But one must revel in it constantly to keep it fresh.

I think this explains weekly (or more) religious observances. It's how the faithful keep up their faith. I can respect that (though I cannot understand it). The only problem I have with religion at all (and I recognize that it's not the point of this thread, so I'll make the statement & move on quickly) is those who would intermingle their beliefs into secular governance.

Well, Rotten, this is a great thread. Well thought out premise. So rare on USPOL these days. Kudos to you for creating a thinking-man's thread.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Reading the Santa post from Mark, and thinking about a post I made earlier, gives me an idea for an atheist/agnostic distinction.

Consider the differences in the average adults "belief" (or lack thereof) in Santa verses his "belief" (or lack thereof) in extra-terrestrials.

I think most of us believe, with some definite conviction, that Santa Clause (meaning a "jolly old elf" who lives at the North Pole and delivers presents via reindeer to good little girls and boys) does NOT exist.
Not only do we lack suitable conviction that he is real, we have considerable conviction that he is not.
It is notable that, at some point, someone probably told us "Santa does not really exist". We came to accept that statement as being true.

On the other hand, most people I know have no definite convictions about the existence of aliens. Some think they "probably exist", others that they "probably don't", but few people feel anywhere near the level of certainty they feel about the existence of Santa Clause.
We lack suitable conviction that such aliens are real, but we also lack suitable conviction that they are not.
If someone told us, "Extra-terrestrials do not exist" we'd be unlikely merely to accept it as true, and more likely to ask "How can you possibly know that?"

Atheism, I think, takes a perspective on God much as we do on Santa. If absolutely pushed to the limit, we would admit that, technically, one cannot logically prove that something doesn't exist; so absolute certainty is out of the question. But, none-the-less, we feel generally certain that he isn't real.
Agnosticism takes the perspective on God much as we do on extra-terrestrials. No strong convictions one way or another, no certain agreement to either the statement "They exist" or to the statement "They do not exist." And perhaps also a general indifference and an acceptance that we may, or may not, one day figure it out.

Thoughts?