Are people who identify themselves as agnostic really atheists for all practical purposes? (priests, afterlife)

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

I thought agnostics weren't sure one way or the other if there is a god. I didn't know it involved questioning specific pieces of one religion's story/myths, like the previous poster and (I assume) Christianity.

If you don't know whether God exists, then that means you don't know whether there's such a thing as a "Son" of God, right? If that's the case, then it also follows that you don't know whether Christianity is true. Agnosticism questions specific religious stories and myths because the entire Judeo-Christian narrative is built on the assumption that God exists.

So where am I going wrong in this line of argument?

[mythunderstood]

Originally Posted by scme5

I believe the fundamental difference between Agnostics and Atheists is current circumstance and mental growth. I believe both believers and non believers are essentially Agnostic as well. Circumstance helps the mind clear and shift to either the right or left of that pivot. One can't ignore that death leads us to face the uncertain. The paradox of nonexistance I believe shakes both Theist and Athesst into a state of Agnostic thinking. Anyone honest about this would admit that "faith" is always in flux. The most steadfast logical scientist still has moments where they sway in the face of death and the most heartfelt believer still must experience doubt in the face of the darkness of death. I am a constantly wavering Agnostic, I identify as such because I have not settled into a comfort level with Atheism, however I believe likely there is no God. I might not "feel" the same way. This is probably due my own fears of death, my love of my family, and lingering hope. So I walk the middle path in conflict with what I know to be true, and what I hope to be true.

I think all humans with basic intellect go through this constantly.

So, if you do not consider yourself an atheist, what god do you believe in?

fyi: You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition.

[scme5]

Originally Posted by mythunderstood

So, if you do not consider yourself an atheist, what god do you believe in?

fyi: You don't have to choose to be an atheist, or purposely claim the title of atheist, to be one by definition.

I don't believe in a God... It's more a lingering doubt... I'm sure something developed by my Judeo-Christian heritage... So not really a God, it's more a fear and a way to cope at certain times.

So yes your right I am an atheist in my beliefs... But am I an unblinking unbreaking denier of the supernatural, NO... I have my moments, I really have to think we all do if we are honest, we all have to die.. and the concept really is a bit strange to accept, so I'm not ashamed to say I straddle a fence from time to time

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Ilene Wright

You can always tell when a Christian posts because it's always the same uninformed, ignorant response. How can an atheist be "angry" at a god when they don't even believe in one? And agnostics are "lazy" and "apathetic"?? You have NO clue what you are talking about....I'd even venture to say you have never even had any contact with either an atheist or an agnostic from your response.

I am an agnostic-atheist, so if you're so knowledgeable then explain that one. Or are you of the same ilk as so many other "christians" who say there cannot be such a thing? You don't even know what the meaning is for atheist or agnostic, much less an agnostic-atheist. Read some of the threads here and educate yourself before posting such nonsense.

Very true, for too often the debate goes something like this.

Theist: Why do you hate god?

Atheist: There is no god so how can I hate him.

Theist: Then you admit you hate god.

Atheist: <muttering to self> You just can't fix stupid.

[NateHevens]

It's very easy for me. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals with (the lack of) belief. Since belief and knowledge are not the same thing, I don't see why a person can't be both. I'm an agnostic atheist myself, because while I admit that I don't know for a fact that gods don't exist, I certainly don't believe in any gods.

Truth is, I really do think, when you look at it technically, that everyone is agnostic. Everyone who's ever lived is agnostic, because we simply don't know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang.

I do actually think the question of the existence of a god or gods is a scientific one because it is a question about the nature of reality, and science is how we answer those types of question. So I do think it answerable question... we're just no where near even knowing how to go about the preliminary research to study the question. And until the question is answered, the default answer to "do gods exist" is very simply "we don't know"... because the knowledge has not yet been gained.

However, I reject the idea that a lack of knowledge can somehow disqualify a person from holding or not holding a belief. So one can still call themselves an atheist or a theist while being an agnostic. Agnosticism is not, contrary to popular belief, a middle-ground between atheism and theism, because atheism and theism have nothing to do with knowledge.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by scme5

I believe the fundamental difference between Agnostics and Atheists is current circumstance and mental growth. I believe both believers and non believers are essentially Agnostic as well. Circumstance helps the mind clear and shift to either the right or left of that pivot. One can't ignore that death leads us to face the uncertain. The paradox of nonexistance I believe shakes both Theist and Athesst into a state of Agnostic thinking. Anyone honest about this would admit that "faith" is always in flux. The most steadfast logical scientist still has moments where they sway in the face of death and the most heartfelt believer still must experience doubt in the face of the darkness of death. I am a constantly wavering Agnostic, I identify as such because I have not settled into a comfort level with Atheism, however I believe likely there is no God. I might not "feel" the same way. This is probably due my own fears of death, my love of my family, and lingering hope. So I walk the middle path in conflict with what I know to be true, and what I hope to be true.

I think all humans with basic intellect go through this constantly.

That's a thoughtful post. I'm not sure that I quite equate the supposed unease about death and what I recall as being a belief -position based on thinking things through. In that respect, I would say my agnosticism about the sort of god one needs to be afraid of meeting is vanishingly small.

I am prepared within the ambit of agnosticism to give a lot more possibility to a 'god' of some sort, but that one doesn't bother me and in fact, if there some slight qualms about dying they are purely atheist ones at the possible unpleasantness that so often accompanies dying and regrets at the extinction of the self. Nothing to do with 'god'.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

If you don't know whether God exists, then that means you don't know whether there's such a thing as a "Son" of God, right? If that's the case, then it also follows that you don't know whether Christianity is true. Agnosticism questions specific religious stories and myths because the entire Judeo-Christian narrative is built on the assumption that God exists.

So where am I going wrong in this line of argument?

You are both on the right lines. The disagreement may be cause because of the Christian habit of equating a possible god who might exist with a very specific Biblegod. The evidence (or argument) for those different gods is very different, though the agnosticism is the same - if you don't know that either exists, then you logically don't believe in either of them.

But in one case you are looking at 'Who made everything then?' arguments and in the other you are looking at 'The Bible describes real people and places' arguments.

The Christians rather illegitimately conflate the two arguments by assuming that the cosmos creator HAS to be Biblegod and ALSO that the only feasible Biblegod sent Jesus. Those are two big, fat assumptions and tend to be 'proven' by citing miracles, prayer, OOB experiences and faith - healings.

It takes a while to understand that the arguments about 'god' and "God" are really about quite different things.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by NateHevens

It's very easy for me. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism deals with (the lack of) belief. Since belief and knowledge are not the same thing, I don't see why a person can't be both. I'm an agnostic atheist myself, because while I admit that I don't know for a fact that gods don't exist, I certainly don't believe in any gods.

Truth is, I really do think, when you look at it technically, that everyone is agnostic. Everyone who's ever lived is agnostic, because we simply don't know what, if anything, caused the Big Bang.

I do actually think the question of the existence of a god or gods is a scientific one because it is a question about the nature of reality, and science is how we answer those types of question. So I do think it answerable question... we're just no where near even knowing how to go about the preliminary research to study the question. And until the question is answered, the default answer to "do gods exist" is very simply "we don't know"... because the knowledge has not yet been gained.

However, I reject the idea that a lack of knowledge can somehow disqualify a person from holding or not holding a belief. So one can still call themselves an atheist or a theist while being an agnostic. Agnosticism is not, contrary to popular belief, a middle-ground between atheism and theism, because atheism and theism have nothing to do with knowledge.

You are right. In fact everyone is agnostic since nobody actually knows whether any kind of god exists, though many are sure that they do or are least strongly convinced of it. In that respect we can say that nobody knows anything for sure, since all our supposed 'reality' could possibly be in our imagination or somebody's cosmic computer - game.

We don't let such remote and speculative possibilities bother us in our normal life though and it only pops up in abstruse philosophy and the confused rhetoric of Theist apologetics.

You are also right that one does not have to have much knowledge about anything to have a belief about it. In fact, that is the more common method of human thinking . What I do maintain is that we ought to try to base our beliefs on some sound information, or at least on the conclusions of credible authorities.

That of course brings up the 'How do we know what we know?' argument and the curiously persistent skepticism about scientific orthodoxy and its supposed closed- minded refusal to accept anything that doesn't fit in with its materialistic creed.

One of the toughest jobs we have is to show that while scientists (being human) can sometimes display closed - minded dissmissiveness (1) science itself produces reliable results and in fact the only really reliable results.

(1) I am thinking about some of the 'explanations' of UFO sightings which were so far-fetched and unlike what was actually seen that they seemed less likely than an actual alien craft

[SeekerSA]

[AREQUIPA]

That puts it very graphically, SA.