Do you think agnostics exist?

Post Reply New Topic

I think they exist. Not everyone knows whether they believe in god or not. Some people don't even care about that. It seems like atheists don't believe those people exist. They think agnostics are actually atheists.

I'm agnostic. I don't believe that there is any way to know one way or the other whether a god exists or not.

Most atheists I speak to are agnostic. Are you getting your information from actual atheists or pulling it out of your backside?

Some people think that agnostics aren't real because the only known photo of one turned out to be a piece of driftwood ... but I suppose they could exist. Eyewitness accounts keep pouring in.

I am talking about actual atheists. I know they call themselves agnostic.

I just notice that they don't believe that some people haven't decided if they believe in god or not. Maybe I'll just call those people "pure agnostics" to avoid confusion.

The confusion is all yours. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I know agnostic atheists exist. I should have specified that I'm talking about pure agnosticism. People who don't know if god exists and don't know whether they believe in god or not.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. Rather, it is a position of knowledge. Your concept of 'pure agnosticism' is flawed.

You're basically suggesting there's such a thing as a 'pure' lack of knowledge. If such is what you seek, a newborn baby is the closest you'll get.

I'm one, and I seem to exist.

I am an agnostic about the existence of agnostics.

I think we are all agnostics to one degree or another. We can have our beliefs or lack thereof but still have our doubts. It's called being human.

Yes, many of them really do think that agnostics are actually atheists. That, if nothing else does, demonstrates how utterly clueless they are. I am an agnostic, not an atheist!

Atheism: the belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism: an absence of committment to either theism or atheism, due to an acknowledged insufficiency of relevant information that would settle the issue one way or the other.

Theism: the belief that there is a God (or gods).

What could be clearer?

Before I could decide to believe any kind of entity which is by definition outside the realm of empirical evidence exists or not, I'd have to know what it's meant by the existence of such an entity. I don't have this kind of concept, and it doesn't seem it would serve any purpose but to add needless complexity to my worldview, violating Ockham's razor.

It becomes much clearer when one uses the actual definition of atheism: the lack of belief in deities.

The prefix "A" means "without", "theism" means "belief in (one or more) deities". Hence, an atheist is one who is "without a belief in (one or more) deities".

Agnostic is the same, except replace "theism" with "gnosticism", pertaining to "knowledge". The agnostic is "without knowledge". No bearing on belief.

Theism, contrary to the two above categories, is the belief in one or more deities, simply.

What is important here is to distinguish knowledge claims from belief claims. I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't know, but I strongly suspect that deities do not exist. It is possible to be an agnostic theist; believing in deities without claiming that you know such exist.

The contention usually isn't that "agnostics aren't real, all agnostics are closeted atheists". It's more that many prominent people, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, will use the unqualified label of "agnostic" even when the term atheist does apply to them. While I can understand the reason for this; the man wants to avoid being dragged into a religious debate and instead get back to doing science, one might argue that such reluctance adds to the social stigma of being an atheist, and that calling oneself agnostic instead of atheist is a needless pandering to the religious, hence why I've more than once seen the humourous redefinition of agnostic as "polite atheist".

Some of the more angsty militant atheists would define atheism as 100% no belief in god to the point that they create religion around it almost, they're more of an extreme minority. I would describe myself as agnostic as it is impossible to know either way, it's all book learned nonsense from some wise old sage that we're suppose to respect, it's not your knowledge and you can't even scratch the surface of understanding it on your own, it's all faith science and religion. I think it's irresponsible to take a position on something that is impossible to know, if its impossible to know then maybe we aren't suppose to know? I consider myself an open minded person, I don't know the answers and I have no issue admitting that.

I am atheistic agnostic, meaning that if I really were to choose if I believe or not I would say the answer "Gods don't exist" is more possible than the other way around but I personally don't care.

There can be a God or not - no matter if I believe in one or not it won't change my life.

I think I live my life well enough to not end up in "hell" when I die if any religion is right (unless God is some kind of rowdy brat who sends to hell everyone who doesn't worship him - but I refuse to believe in that) and I am fine with the idea there is nothing after death or that there is some kind of reincarnation too. I just live my life right in my personal opinion and I am pretty sure that God or karma would be gentle with me if they exist because I don't really break any common moral rules, just some subjective ones that seem illogical to me.

And since there is no way for me to know what is true I don't think about God or afterlife or lack of them in my daily life. I did some research before but I couldn't find an answer so I don't bother anymore. I will know when the time comes - after death. Unless of course there is nothing after death because in that case there will be no "me" to know that atheists were right.