Do Agnostics exist?

[Defiant47]

This better?

Theist: Believes God exists.
Agnostic: Impossible to know whether God exists.
Atheist: Does not believe God exists.

Bingo.

The agnosticism described does indeed fail to cover weak agnostics, but their stance isn't much more different from atheism, so you can just bundle them there. (though, as I remind you, even strong agnostics are a subset of atheists)

The "right now" agnostic is a variation that could easily fit in weak agnostics or just plain atheism. After all, saying "I don't have the proof to believe in God right now and thus don't know" agnosticism is no different than "I lack belief in God because of lack of proof" atheism. It's a much more useful term to assign agnostics the absolute impossibility of knowing divinity.

 

[Steph]

I consider myself an agnostic, and here is my view on this issue.

1) There is no evidence that God exists or doesn't exist, and to my current knowledge there can't be one. It's a matter of personnal belief. And I'm inclined to say God doesn't exist.

2) If God exists, and truly created the Universe in all its immensity and complexity, his powers are way beyond the capacity of understanding of the little worms the human beings are, despsite all our claim of being at the top of creation, and God is very different from what we could imagine.

3) As we wan't fathom the complexity of this hypothetical God, claiming the will of God can be contained in the few pages of a holy book is futile. And prophets claiming they speak for God are, well, arrogant. If you consider that the Bible of the Quran, or one hour in a Church every Sunday can contains the knowledge of a God, the limited scope of this book/religious practice contradict the supposed omnipotence of God.
Therefore, religion is irrelevent toward God if it exist. Although it could be relevent for the humans who practice it.

To sum up:
- The existence of God cannot be proven or disprove.
- If God exists, we cannot really understand what he is or what he wants
- Religions and religious people are irrelevent.

 

[Hygro]

I was on a forum and all the atheists were informing me that I was an agnostic for believing in God purely on faith without any evidence, for I believed without "knowing". These titles are useless.

 

[onedreamer]

I was on a forum and all the atheists were informing me that I was an agnostic for believing in God purely on faith without any evidence, for I believed without "knowing". These titles are useless.

they are useless because people contest the meaning of words that are explained without doubts on vocabulary ? No, communication with such people is useless, not words.

 

[onedreamer]

Riiiiight

All I'm saying is that the above definition of agnosticism doesn't cover all agnostics, only ones of the strong variety.

water covers hot water and cold water, cool water, warm water, dense water, clear water, dirty water, polluted water... should I go on ?
Agnosticism has a clear definition, you either are agnostic or you are not, there is no such thing as "the definition of agnosticism does not cover my feelings", this can only mean that you are not agnostic, period.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was on a forum and all the atheists were informing me that I was an agnostic for believing in God purely on faith without any evidence, for I believed without "knowing". These titles are useless.

Well, if you believe in God, you still can be an agnostic, but most theist have a conviction that God does exist, and the evidence for this is not scientific but personal. But it's evidence none the less. The 'knowing' that God exists is usually a emotional one.

 

[El_Machinae]

Our resident, Eran of Arcadia, is an agnostic theist. He believes that God exists, despite believing that such things are unprovable.

 

[Camikaze]

Agnosticism has a clear definition, you either are agnostic or you are not, there is no such thing as "the definition of agnosticism does not cover my feelings", this can only mean that you are not agnostic, period.

I disagree. I am agnostic-ish. I am a Christian. I am therefore not an agnostic. But I am also not not an agnostic, as I am agnostic-ish.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are there more, non-resident, Eran of Arcadias around?

But how does that relate to knowledge gained by for instance feeling the presence of God, knowing by heart he exists and those sort of emotions. Is acknowledging the fact that God's existence is scientifically unprovable enough to make one an agnostic while still being convinced God exists?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why not? He just acknowledges that God's voice could be a natural biological process that he's not fully aware of. "It's natural" is a reasonable assumption for most phenomena.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't mean a theist who acknowledges some biological process that makes him 'feel the presence, I mean a theist that actually believes that they do feel the presence of God. But at the same time admits that God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, only on a personal level. "God has proven his existence by revealing himself to me". That sort of thing.

 

[Camikaze]

I thought most religious people acknowledged that God's existence cannot be scientifically proven. It's just that a lot don't care so much about that lack of scientific proof. I wouldn't think you'd find too many theists attempting to use science to prove God's existence, so much as using it to show that it does not contradict God's existence. So if that is the qualification for agnosticism, then there are an awful lot of agnostic theists in the world.

 

[Snorrius]

I think we should first define what the term "god" means.

 

[onedreamer]

I disagree. I am agnostic-ish. I am a Christian. I am therefore not an agnostic. But I am also not not an agnostic, as I am agnostic-ish.

this is what I said, how can you disagree while agreeing ? You said you aren't agnostic, didn't you ?

Are there more, non-resident, Eran of Arcadias around?

But how does that relate to knowledge gained by for instance feeling the presence of God, knowing by heart he exists and those sort of emotions. Is acknowledging the fact that God's existence is scientifically unprovable enough to make one an agnostic while still being convinced God exists?

I don't know why everyone is trying to complicate things. It's clear that what you described isn't an agnostic. It's written in the definition of agnostic that one such person has suspended any opinion on the matter until and if more certain data is unveiled , the definition has nothing unclear, really. If you have a set opinion on the existance or non existance of "God" (= supernatural entity), you are not agnostic. You are theist if you know by heart of its existance, then you can classify in a lot of definitions, the most common being "deist": someone who believes in his own conception of "God".

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't mean a theist who acknowledges some biological process that makes him 'feel the presence, I mean a theist that actually believes that they do feel the presence of God. But at the same time admits that God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, only on a personal level. "God has proven his existence by revealing himself to me". That sort of thing.

That's me. I don't think it is simply biological processes, just that the possibility exists that it could be. I freely admit that I cannot be certain of God's existence - but I feel, based on personal experiences, that the chance that He does (and furthermore, that He has particular attributes, a not-unimportant distinction) is worth acting as though He does. But such belief does not come through the normal human process of gaining knowledge. Left to our own devices, humans cannot come up with anything definite about God. Thus, although in practical terms I am a believer, I can call myself an agnostic and feel the term is appropriate.

 

[onedreamer]

did you just mean that intuition is not part of the normal human process of gaining knowledge ? O_o

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, I mean that some things cannot be determined by the normal human process of gaining knowledge.

 

[onedreamer]

how can they be determined then ?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Either an entity with certain knowledge of them (eg God) reveals them to humans, or we live with uncertainty.

 

[El_Machinae]

how can they be determined then ?

There's lots of information we cannot access, even if we know such information likely exists. And we know we can't access it. Everything outside of our light bubble, for example.