FINALLY!!!
someone with some sense around here.

By bob on Apr 7, 2008

The assumption that “we are not in a position to know…” are just words and have no more evidence behind them as any other faith based belief. We were never in a position of having irrefutable methodologies for getting any of the knowledge we have. If everyone were agnostics, we would still be back in caves, hiding behind our fear of being wrong, and never progressing because we couldn’t be 100% sure we were right. Grow a pair agnostics, following the evidence, and make your best decision.

By Kevin on Apr 8, 2008

Sounds like atheism to me. Atheism makes no claim about ultimate causes of existence, it’s simply the non-belief that God was the cause, if there was one.

Besides, agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not belief. Both theists and atheists (mostly) agree that nobody KNOWS for certain if God exists. 99% of people are by definition agnostic (whether they call themselves that or not), so it’s a pretty meaningless position to take. It’s only the wackos who claim to have proof either way who aren’t agnostic about God. Atheism is a statement about belief. I’m an agnostic atheist because I don’t claim to KNOW if God exists but I don’t BELIEVE that he does. In practice I usually drop the agnostic part because I think it’s inconsequential.

By Stutz on Apr 10, 2008

Agnostics believe that there is no way to know anything for sure about God, life, or the universe except that we cannot not know anything about God, life or the universe.

I was also under the impression that an atheist was somebody who that thought there was not God. It does not make sense to me for you to say that you do not know whether or not there is a God, but you do not believe in him.

By Mike on Jun 29, 2008

sorry stutz -
atheism is the belief that there IS NO GOD.
agnosticism is the belief that there may, or may not be a God…but we just can’t know.
your statement about most of the world being agnostic is not true - because believers in most of the world’s religions swear that they “know God” or “have a relationship with God” or “have professions” to the extent that they “know” that God is the maker of heaven and earth. Any of these clearly imply that they have an unerring knowledge that there is a God.

To call a christian an agnostic is giving him too much credit. If christianity or islamism could admit that there “might not be a God” we would be on the road toward world peace at last. Such an admission is the undoing of religion itself in my opinion. Because admitting in your heart that there might not be a God - begs you to ask what the point of staring at the ceiling and praying is.

By pb on Jun 29, 2008

sorry pb.

Atheism is, by definition, not a belief, but a lack of belief. It asserts nothing, but indicates only the absence of a belief in god.

By nick on Nov 5, 2008

There are two types of atheism. “Strong atheist” which is the belief that there is no god and “weak atheism” which is the lack of belief that there is a god. Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive. Strong atheism and agnosticism are but if you just say “While I can’t logically be 100% positive I do not believe there is a god” You would be both an atheist and an agnostic. I personally am a strong atheist, I believe that there is no god of any type and to say I can’t know for certain is as ridiculous as saying we should be agnostic as to whether or not mushrooms are evil alien spaceships sent down to spy on us because you can’t prove they aren’t.

By Eric on Nov 5, 2008

To everyone still taking the side of agnosticism vs. atheism: Do you know for a fact, beyond any sort of doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Of course not, and any moderately intelligent human can tell you that no one event is going to happen 100%. Everyone is agnostic on that issue, but due to evidence and past historical records of the sun rising, we can make a pretty good guess that this event will occur.

Take this the same way with belief in a god. Do I know for a fact that god exists? No. Do I know he doesn’t exist? Not necessarily, but I do have evidence the universe and life as we know it could have been created without a god, as well as an innumerable amount of logical paradoxes that arise with an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing super being, as well as common sense. With all this I can determine that there’s probably not a god. Apply Occam’s Razor and you’re an atheist.

Enjoy your life without some asshole watching you all the time. I know I am.

By Kyle on Nov 10, 2008

“Enjoy your life without believing some asshole is watching you all the time. I know I am.”

Fixed.

By dave on Nov 16, 2008

I find being agnostic is a great way to avoid militant Atheists, Christians or any other religious organizations. Whats the point in violently arguing opinions and beliefs and trying to force another to your way of thinking. There is a serious lack of genuine debate between people like this and that’s why I say leave well enough alone, keep to your own convictions and respect those of others around you. It goes the same for political violence the conservatives need to stop screaming out against “liberal pussies” and those with a liberal mindset need to practice the tolerance they preach. If everyone just listened a little bit more and talked a little bit less things would be a whole lot different.

By Gareth on Dec 8, 2008

You simply can not have a decent debate between two parties who have no chance whatsoever of finding out the answer. The question “is there a god” is indeed irrelevant. Instead, just pose yourself the question “do I believe in god?” , make your own conclusion about that, and stop harassing other people by trying to convince them. (that goes for both militant atheists and religious god-believers)

By Jak on Dec 23, 2008

You know who else was agnostic?

“The only thing I know is that I know nothing”
-Socrates

By Cody on Apr 17, 2009

This is a stupid argument when used against atheists. “You can’t prove it wrong, so you have to assume it is right!”

Enjoy your doubt in the nonexistence of faeries and the like.

By youarestupid on Apr 21, 2009

This is not quite right. Pure agnostisism is actually the above WITHOUT the ‘(at least for now)’ i.e. the assertion that we CAN NOT EVER know that God exists or not. It sort of actually makes sense:

Theists believe that you have to have faith in a God to accept you to obtain ‘the good outcome’ (e.g. heaven), therefore the lack of absolute proof is necessary in order for there to be freewill in order to choose. However, if there is no absolute proof, it means that atheists can also come to the conclusion that there is no God on the premises that all natural explainations/ theories are prefered (regardless of probability) due to the possibility of being testable and/or provable.

In other words, pure agnostics believe that if God existed, he wouldn’t prove himself anyway, so therefore the evidence suggests both possibilities and we can’t make a solid conclusion for either case. They don’t say that ‘nobody can know anything for sure’, they say ‘nobody can know that God exists because God chooses not to show himself; therefore we perceive the exact same situation we would get if there was no God’

I myself am an atheist; an open-minded one that would accept God on the grounds that no other option is PROVED to be possible; hey, extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.

By Andybeano on Apr 27, 2009

EDIT: (last paragraph)…
I myself am an atheist; an open-minded one that would accept God exists on the grounds that all other natural explainations are proved to be impossible; hey - extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.

By Andybeano on Apr 27, 2009