# Where are the Agnostics at?



## Canucklehead

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many  ignorant men are sure.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

People who claim to know anything when it comes to that topic, bother me. I put atheist people and religious people into the same group.


----------



## chatikh

Maybe I'm completely wrong in saying this, but when it comes to stopping people from forcing their religions on others, I believe that has largely fallen on the shoulders of atheists.


----------



## TrcyMcgrdy1

HEYOOOOOO!!! Agnostic right here. I thinkt here si equal possiblitity that we either die and nothing happens, or there could be some sort of "afterlife" in whatever form or dimension. Who knows??? Only one way to find out!!!!!


----------



## chatikh

the cheat said:


> People who claim to know anything when it comes to that topic, bother me. I put atheist people and religious people into the same group.


Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is fact-based, religions are faith-based.

:doh


----------



## Canucklehead

chatikh said:


> Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is fact-based, religions are faith-based.
> 
> :doh


I don't pick sides based on plausibility.

I like to keep my options open.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

chatikh said:


> Atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is fact-based, religions are faith-based.
> 
> :doh


There are no facts for the non-existence of God. 
When religious people say they _know _God exists, it's on them to prove it. 
When atheists claim they _know_ God doesn't exist, it's on them to prove it.

Please show me your facts for God not existing, and you'll be the first person in history to prove God doesn't exist.

...and please don't show me some Bible quotes that science has dis-proven. I'm talking about the general possibility of God, not the Catholic religions dogmatic beliefs about God.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

Well, you hear a lot of atheists saying that the burden of proof lies with the person who says they believe in God. Then you hear a lot of them saying that their belief is not faith at all, rather the absence of an arbitrary belief. I do intellectually understand that, but I don't agree that the idea of a "higher power" is equatable to the *flying spaghetti monster*.

Agnosticism is a very wise viewpoint to hold. Like you said, cheat, there are no facts either way. You either strongly believe there is not a god, you strongly believe there is, or you simply say "I don't know"


----------



## jc22

I know that I can never know if there is a reason for our existence. 

I guess I believe that an 'ultimate reason' doesn't make sense. That's the only thing I believe as such. I am not sure if this means I am not agnostic.


----------



## jc22

the cheat said:


> There are no facts for the non-existence of God.
> When religious people say they _know _God exists, it's on them to prove it.
> When atheists claim they _know_ God doesn't exist, it's on them to prove it.


I think this is true, but can be misleading by equating them like that. All God is is the religious trying to answer why we are here. Athiests just say that its silly to answer that God is the reason why we are here. I mean we are all running around on the planet scared of whats out there and what the hell we are doing here. So why would you say, oh its a creator, thats the reason. It doesn't answer anything. If you want to believe in a creator thats okay, but it doesn't give an ultimate reason. I doubt most Athiests try to prove that God doesn't exist. Maybe an Abrahamic God, but not a creator in general. Just that it isn't really necessary.

You also often hear people equate; You can't prove God doesn't exist. You can't prove he does.

Well no you can't prove either. So what? That doesn't mean anything, or that the two are equally valid at all.

And then you get religious people say that athiests are stupid for believing this all came from nothing. They are just using the inherent wierdness of the universe against athiests. Believing a being created the universe is just as scary, and just as unsatisfying logically, as if it came from nothing. All answers about this ultimate question are puzzling and are rife with problems to us. Don't twist this fact to your advantage.

This was kind of off topic but I wanted to say all of this stuff so there.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

Well yeah but you're also assuming a lot when you say "all god is is the religious trying to answer why we are here"

I agree when you say that it doesn't answer anything, though. It usually doesn't. That's why you shouldn't settle for an answer that isn't an answer.

I do think that both the views are equally valid. I'm not gonna judge what's valid and what's not. Some people need to believe in God, and some people need to believe God doesn't exist. It's just what they need to believe or not believe. It's not up to me to say that either of the views is less valid, especially without proof.

I don't think either side should have a burden of proof. That's just an ignorant perception that it's some kind of competition. It's not a competition. It's life and who we are. 

So I agree that the universe is weird. I don't think anyone tries to use that against atheists, unless they are wrapped up in the competition that I mentioned before. It's not about using anything against anyone.. it's about figuring things out for yourself


----------



## jc22

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Well yeah but you're also assuming a lot when you say "all god is is the religious trying to answer why we are here"


Honestly this is the only way I can understand what the hell God is. Because otherwise it just doesn't make sense to me, so I have to equate God to 'a reason' and thats that. Maybe thats me not understanding.

I think it is wrong to equate them equally. One reason is that most athiests wouldn't really care if God turned out to be true, they just argue that it doesn't answer anything. Its not like they need to believe God doesn't exist and they have a whole belief system. If he did, thats great. Its not that strongly held a belief, its just a guess. I think the strength is that they believe that a creator wouldn't mean there is a reason. Or the lame question; who created the creator?

I think people get annoyed with athiests because of these Richard Dawkins clones walking around claiming they can prove God doesn't exist when these people are so stupid. They just quote some quantum mechanics rubbish that has nothing to do with it. These are the worst people because they think they are being scientific. Atleast religious people just go with the God thing and thats it.

I don't think Atheism and Belief in God should be a competition thats really one of my points. You can't compare them because Atheism is just a rejection that God solves our problems. It doesn't make assumptions about if there is a creator. Ofcourse there could be. If I had to guess, I would say no, but its not that big a deal, its not the important part.

And you just said yourself you don't think that God solves anything, doesn't that warrant an unbelief? Or at least an err on the side of that. That isn't ignorant in the slightest that's just using logic to come up with an answer, even if that cannot be proved.

Maybe I am not a proper Atheist I don't know really


----------



## GepardenK

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> but I don't agree that the idea of a "higher power" is equatable to the *flying spaghetti monster*.


Hmm, they are not far off IMO. Of course the story of the *flying spaghetti monster *would have to be universaly known and say something comforting about our lives that brings people together, but other than that they are pretty close.

That being said I'm an agnostic, we simply don't know; thats it. But I'm leaning more towards atheist when it comes to the whole god and religion thing. The chances of those human stories to be true is mircoscopical at best (but never completely impossible, as nothing is)



> Well, you hear a lot of atheists saying that the burden of proof lies with the person who says they believe in God.


Kind of yeah, what they say is that the burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim, regardless of what it is.

Many years ago, with the knowlege we had back then, there were actually a lot of proof in favour of God or some other creator. The burden of proof then laid on people who claimed there was no god. But with our current methods of observing and analysing events in nature the coin is flipped on that regard


----------



## wordscancutyoulikeglass

I''m an agnostic, only because I don't really have any evidence to choose a side. So yes, I keep my mind open to anything.


----------



## Billius

The grim truth is that there are no "facts" at all, everything we know is just the tip of a stranger and more complex iceberg. Reality is my the same. I am a nihilist which could almost be considered a from of agnostic, no?


----------



## wordtourmother

Ok, I think there's confusion in definitions here (well, at least I'm confused).

atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[Notice "or disbelieves"]

agnositc - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience

[That definition really confuses me, LOL]

Anyways I've always thought that if you didn't believe in gods, you were an atheist (which I am). Not believing in gods isn't the same as being absolutely certain that there aren't gods.

I've always thought that being agnostic means that you believe there are gods, but you aren't part of any sort of organized religion. The above definition seems to disagree with my assumption though. With the above definition, it seems that agnostic people wouldn't believe in things like theoretical physics, if I understand it correctly.


----------



## wordtourmother

GepardenK said:


> Kind of yeah, what they say is that the burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim, regardless of what it is.


The burden of proof lies with those making unfalsifiable claims. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

wordtourmother said:


> Ok, I think there's confusion in definitions here (well, at least I'm confused).
> 
> atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> [Notice "or disbelieves"]


Okay but saying that you disbelieve it after thinking about it is saying *"I believe there is no god" *



> Anyways I've always thought that if you didn't believe in gods, you were an atheist (which I am). Not believing in gods isn't the same as being absolutely certain that there aren't gods.


A belief is something that you hold to be true. So if you say you believe there is no God or higher power, you are saying that it is not true.. which means that *you* are certain about it, if nothing else.



> I've always thought that being agnostic means that you believe there are gods, but you aren't part of any sort of organized religion.


Agnosticism is broad but it can be summed up by saying that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a god/higher power. They take the stance that they *dont know*.



> Hmm, they are not far off IMO. Of course the story of the flying spaghetti monster would have to be universaly known and say something comforting about our lives that brings people together, but other than that they are pretty close.


I don't agree. There is more evidence for a higher consciousness and logical reason for it to exist than the flying spaghetti monster. Also, the things you list that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't have doesn't make it *not far off* but *very far off*. Also, the phrase "universally known" should be "widely believed"



> Kind of yeah, what they say is that the burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim, regardless of what it is.


If you're trying to prove it in a scientific or philosophical debate, yes the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Thats why I said it.

Yet saying that someone who is not engaged in such a debate needs to provide a burden of proof is assuming and ignorant.



> I think it is wrong to equate them equally. One reason is that most athiests wouldn't really care if God turned out to be true, they just argue that it doesn't answer anything. Its not like they need to believe God doesn't exist and they have a whole belief system. If he did, thats great. Its not that strongly held a belief, its just a guess. I think the strength is that they believe that a creator wouldn't mean there is a reason. Or the lame question; who created the creator?


I think the concept of god is an emotional one with which all people have an emotional stake whether they believe in it or not. Whether there is a god or not would affect everyone alive in deep profound ways. I think its assuming quite a bit to say *"atheists wouldnt really care if god turned out to be true"* or that *"they dont need to believe a god doesnt exist"*

We cant say why they hold the belief they do without knowing the whole picture



> I think people get annoyed with athiests because of these Richard Dawkins clones walking around claiming they can prove God doesn't exist when these people are so stupid. They just quote some quantum mechanics rubbish that has nothing to do with it. These are the worst people because they think they are being scientific. Atleast religious people just go with the God thing and thats it.


I completely agree. Its a perceptual problem. The thing is that people quit thinking for themselves and quote labels and scientific discoveries. Understanding how a mechanism of the universe works does not disprove a God whatsoever. Everything that happens in time and space is just that - *IN TIME AND SPACE. *



> And you just said yourself you don't think that God solves anything, doesn't that warrant an unbelief? Or at least an err on the side of that. That isn't ignorant in the slightest that's just using logic to come up with an answer, even if that cannot be proved.


Well, what I said was 
*I agree when you say that it doesn't answer anything, though. It usually doesn't. That's why you shouldn't settle for an answer that isn't an answer.*
in response to when you said
*So why would you say, oh its a creator, thats the reason. It doesn't answer anything.*

If you just say *"oh there is a creator, thats why we're here, etc."* It still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. That's why you shouldn't settle for an answer that leaves holes in your understanding. Most religious/spiritual people have no direct experience/knowledge of god, its more of a distant.. confused.. vague faith. It doesn't solve a thing.


----------



## wordtourmother

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Okay but saying that you disbelieve it after thinking about it is saying *"I believe there is no god" *
> 
> A belief is something that you hold to be true. So if you say you believe there is no God or higher power, you are saying that it is not true.. which means that *you* are certain about it, if nothing else.


I don't believe that's what "believe" means, LOL. I believe that nothing is certain, but I could be wrong 

Richard Dawkins, for instance, says that on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolutely certain there is a god, and 7 being absolutely certain there is not a god, he'd be at 6. I believe (LOL) most people would classify him as an atheist, and I think I'm in the same boat as him on that scale.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

well its just a matter of semantics, then. if you want to use the word believe how you want to use it then by all means do so. but the actual definition of belief is something that you hold to be true. 

there are no degrees or aspects in something you hold to be true. but again, its just semantics. doesnt really matter how you use a word to me.


----------



## rawrguy

I am an agnostic and I am in the "I don't know or really care if God exists" category.


----------



## wordtourmother

Ah, read some more about the definitions of these categories: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic atheists are people who do not believe in god, but don't claim they *know* god doesn't exist.

Agnostic theists are what I previously thought "agnostic" meant, which is you believe in god, but don't claim to know he exists.

Similarly, gnostic theists and gnostic atheists claim they know god does or doesn't exist, respectively.

Learn something new everyday.


----------



## jc22

To be fair, I think we have pretty much the same beliefs. 

Also, I think most Atheists just reject that God can be the reason we exist. Its not like they hold a dogmatic belief that a creator could not have started the world.


----------



## ugh1979

GepardenK said:


> That being said I'm an agnostic, we simply don't know; thats it. But I'm leaning more towards atheist when it comes to the whole god and religion thing. The chances of those human stories to be true is mircoscopical at best (but never completely impossible, as nothing is)


You think it's possible that all the definitions of gods that people have given can potentially all be correct despite contradicting each other so therefore being logically impossible?


----------



## Adversary

Canucklehead said:


> I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure.


I agree, but the same exact thing can be said if you replaced agnostic with atheist.



the cheat said:


> People who claim to know anything when it comes to that topic, bother me. I put atheist people and religious people into the same group.


Atheist don't claim to know anything. They just have a lack of belief in god(s). Technically everyone is atheistic about at least one god.



Canucklehead said:


> I don't pick sides based on plausibility.
> 
> I like to keep my options open.


I don't either and I am an Atheist, so whats your point? Surely you don't think this way of thinking is exclusive to people who are just agnostic? Right?



the cheat said:


> There are no facts for the non-existence of God.
> When religious people say they _know _God exists, it's on them to prove it.
> When atheists claim they _know_ God doesn't exist, it's on them to prove it.
> 
> Please show me your facts for God not existing, and you'll be the first person in history to prove God doesn't exist.
> 
> ...and please don't show me some Bible quotes that science has dis-proven. I'm talking about the general possibility of God, not the Catholic religions dogmatic beliefs about God.


Once again, most atheist do not claim to know that a god does not exist. Your definition of atheism is a common misconception started by theist. What you are talking about is actually called a "hard atheist". Most Atheist are actually open to religion, but they just don't have a reason to believe it without any evidence.



Quinn the Eskimo said:


> Okay but saying that you disbelieve it after thinking about it is saying *"I believe there is no god" *


Not the same. A disbelief can simply mean you doubt that something is true or that you lack a belief.



> A belief is something that you hold to be true. So if you say you believe there is no God or higher power, you are saying that it is not true.. which means that *you* are certain about it, if nothing else.


A belief is asserting that a statement is true or that something exist. It is not the same as holding it to be true. Just because you believe something does not mean you are certain it is true. A theist for example can have belief in a higher power, but he can also be agnostic if he admits to not knowing if a higher power really does exist or not.



> Agnosticism is broad but it can be summed up by saying that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a god/higher power. They take the stance that they *dont know*.


Wrong. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It is based on admitting that you have no knowledge regarding the existence of God. This is why both Theist and Atheist can be agnostic as well. It is equivalent to just saying "I Don't Know" when asked if a belief is true.



> I don't agree. There is more evidence for a higher consciousness and logical reason for it to exist than the flying spaghetti monster. Also, the things you list that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't have doesn't make it *not far off* but *very far off*. Also, the phrase "universally known" should be "widely believed"


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Although I wouldn't make the comparison myself, I would say a higher power is definitely more of an extraordinary claim than a flying spaghetti monster. I'd like to see this "evidence" and "logical reasoning" you claim to have on a higher power because currently have yet to see any for one.


----------



## ugh1979

jc22 said:


> One reason is that most athiests wouldn't really care if God turned out to be true,


Indeed, as a belief in god would turn from faith to fact, and god would then become scientific fact.



> ...they just argue that it doesn't answer anything.


Why wouldn't it answer anything? To the contrary it would answer a lot!



> Its not like they need to believe God doesn't exist and they have a whole belief system. If he did, thats great. Its not that strongly held a belief, its just a guess. I think the strength is that they believe that a creator wouldn't mean there is a reason.


What reason are you talking about? :?



> Or the lame question; who created the creator?


What's lame about it?



> I think people get annoyed with athiests because of these Richard Dawkins clones walking around claiming they can prove God doesn't exist when these people are so stupid. They just quote some quantum mechanics rubbish that has nothing to do with it. These are the worst people because they think they are being scientific. Atleast religious people just go with the God thing and thats it.


The term 'god' is too ambiguous to be proven wrong. It could just equate to nature.



> I don't think Atheism and Belief in God should be a competition thats really one of my points. You can't compare them because Atheism is just a rejection that God solves our problems. It doesn't make assumptions about if there is a creator. Ofcourse there could be. If I had to guess, I would say no, but its not that big a deal, its not the important part.


Indeed. We are all athiests about most the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. That however says nothing about a deistic god that potentially actually exists. I'm very much just atheistic about the thousands of gods that man has defined, as I don't accept that any man knows, and that we have so much still to learn, so technically i'm agnostic about something that could be called god by some, but as I said above, others would just call nature.

Athiest rather than adeist.


----------



## jc22

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, as a belief in god would turn from faith to fact, and god would then become scientific fact.
> 
> Why wouldn't it answer anything? To the contrary it would answer a lot!
> 
> What reason are you talking about? :?
> 
> What's lame about it?
> 
> The term 'god' is too ambiguous to be proven wrong. It could just equate to nature.
> 
> Indeed. We are all athiests about most the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. That however says nothing about a deistic god that potentially actually exists. I'm very much just atheistic about the thousands of gods that man has defined, as I don't accept that any man knows, and that we have so much still to learn, so technically i'm agnostic about something that could be called god by some, but as I said above, others would just call nature.
> 
> Athiest rather than adeist.


 God wouldn't answer anything. In terms of why we are here... Thats my main belief.

And ive said already a few times in this thread that if God is meant as the ultimate reason for us being here, then no I dont believe. Because I dont believe a reason makes sense. If God is meant as just a creator, I couldn't care less. Thats not got anything to do with it for me. Or for people who debate religion.

And "who created the creator" I don't think it is lame. I dont know what I was talking about there. I think its totally relevant.

I dont know what you were picking from my posts to be honest. You either agreed, or asked me a question?

Ah I hate all this, God is love, God is nature, God is this and that. He isn't. God is God.


----------



## ugh1979

jc22 said:


> God wouldn't answer anything. In terms of why we are here... Thats my main belief.
> 
> And ive said already a few times in this thread that if God is meant as the ultimate reason for us being here, then no I dont believe. Because I dont believe a reason makes sense. If God is meant as just a creator, I couldn't care less. Thats not got anything to do with it for me. Or for people who debate religion.


OK so it was the question of 'Why are we here?'. I wasn't sure what you meant as I must have forgotten your other posts. Yeah I agree it doesn't really make sense, unless you are talking about physical reasons, but even then it only extends so far.



> And "who created the creator" I don't think it is lame. I dont know what I was talking about there. I think its totally relevant.


Indeed. 



> I dont know what you were picking from my posts to be honest. You either agreed, or asked me a question?


Both. 



> Ah I hate all this, God is love, God is nature, God is this and that. He isn't. God is God.


So what is god?


----------



## jc22

ugh1979 said:


> So what is god?


I have no idea. haha. I was just getting at the ambiguity of God, it gets on my nerves a little.

I wan't to make a new religion for people with SA. Its dogma is the worship of positive thought.


----------



## ugh1979

jc22 said:


> I have no idea. haha.


That's why it can be attributed to so many things, as it's so ambiguous.


----------



## jc22

ugh1979 said:


> That's why it can be attributed to so many things, as it's so ambiguous.


Yes, that's right


----------



## Emanresu

God, or our creator, probably did exist at one point in time. We probably killed him.


----------



## Fruitcake

*Ignosticism* or *igtheism* is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:


The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the _question_ of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the _concept_ of God is not considered meaningless; the _term_ "God" is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
 Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct.


----------



## jc22

Fruitcake said:


> *Ignosticism* or *igtheism* is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
> It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
> 
> 
> The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the _question_ of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the _concept_ of God is not considered meaningless; the _term_ "God" is considered meaningless.
> The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
> Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether they are a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.


This is great. Cheers


----------



## Emanresu

Fruitcake said:


> *Ignosticism* or *igtheism* is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
> It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
> 
> 
> The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the _question_ of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the _concept_ of God is not considered meaningless; the _term_ "God" is considered meaningless.
> The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
> Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct.


Solid posting.


----------



## Fruitcake

Adversary said:


> Atheist don't claim to know anything. They just have a lack of belief in god(s). Technically everyone is atheistic about at least one god.


People are not technically atheistic about at least one god. Atheism is about not believing in any deities; disbelieving in a specific god is not the same.


----------



## jc22

Is it weird that this turns me on


----------



## Adversary

Fruitcake said:


> People are not technically atheistic about at least one god. Atheism is about not believing in any deities; disbelieving in a specific god is not the same.


I choose to believe the definition for atheism is just having a lack of belief or disbelief in any deities. Back when the word first originated, believers in the greek gods of Olympus would use the word to describe anyone who didn't believe in the Olympian pantheon, despite having other theistic beliefs. Atheism being the belief that there is no God. may be 'commonly used' definition, but it was all created by various religious groups in order to position atheism as an opposition to their religion. I have chosen to use the most fundamental, superior, etymologically accurate definition of the word.


----------



## dismiss

wordtourmother said:


> I don't believe that's what "believe" means, LOL. I believe that nothing is certain, but I could be wrong
> 
> Richard Dawkins, for instance, says that on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolutely certain there is a god, and 7 being absolutely certain there is not a god, he'd be at 6. I believe (LOL) most people would classify him as an atheist, and I think I'm in the same boat as him on that scale.


Well said! 

I like Adversary's post above also.

_For some_, being an atheist is simply saying definitively that _I do not believe_ there is one. 
I cannot make myself just say that I don't know. It would be a lie. No, I honestly do not believe there is one.
I am not claiming I can prove that there isn't one. I am simply stating that I do not believe there is one.

Does that make me, as stated by others, like a theist? 
No. In stark contrast to many theists, I do not attempt to convert or force this disbelief on anyone. 
In fact, I rarely talk about it at all.

I like Fruitcake's posting on the definition of *Ignosticism. *
I would maybe call myself that... Except practically nobody I know has ever heard of it... & There is no option for that in the menu when you fill out your profile.


----------



## Fruitcake

The definition you gave is no longer the accepted definition. It was only the definition to those people because those people believed in those specific gods and did not recognise followers of other religions as being different to disbelievers. If you decide that that's the definition you want to use when that definition is not in use, your point is as valid as my point would be if I decided that the definition of "******" is a bundle of sticks, and told someone they'd been handling ******s.
And if that is your definition of the word "atheist," how are the following statements true?


Adversary said:


> I agree, but the same exact thing can be said if you replaced agnostic with atheist.
> 
> Most Atheist are actually open to religion, but they just don't have a reason to believe it without any evidence.


 If theists were all atheists, the majority of atheists would claim that a god was true and would have a reason to believe it without evidence. You're using two different definitions of the word atheist and change them when it supports your ideas.


----------



## Adversary

Fruitcake said:


> The definition you gave is no longer the accepted definition. It was only the definition to those people because those people believed in those specific gods and did not recognise followers of other religions as being different to disbelievers. If you decide that that's the definition you want to use when that definition is not in use, your point is as valid as my point would be if I decided that the definition of "******" is a bundle of sticks, and told someone they'd been handling ******s.
> And if that is your definition of the word "atheist," how are the following statements true?


No longer in use? This same definition is used in pretty much any major dictionary or encyclopedia. Its nothing like the comparison with F***** because most people today accept both definitions to be true. The disbelief in deities just happens to be a more broad definition.

- *Dictionary.com says* "_disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings._"
- *Webster says* "_a disbelief in the existence of deity_"
- *Oxford says* "_disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods._"

I could go on and on....



> If theists were all atheists, the majority of atheists would claim that a god was true and would have a reason to believe it without evidence. You're using two different definitions of the word atheist and change them when it supports your ideas


I did not say all theists were atheist. I am saying that most Atheist are agnostic as well. It does not contradict with any statements I made before.


----------



## Fruitcake

Adversary said:


> No longer in use? This same definition is used in pretty much any major dictionary or encyclopedia. Its nothing like the comparison with F***** because most people today accept both definitions to be true. The disbelief in deities just happens to be a more broad definition.
> 
> - *Dictionary.com says* "_disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings._"
> - *Webster says* "_a disbelief in the existence of deity_"
> - *Oxford says* "_disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods._"
> 
> I could go on and on....
> 
> I did not say all theists were atheist. I am saying that most Atheist are agnostic as well. It does not contradict with any statements I made before.


That's not the same definition. All of those definitions are referring to atheism - disbelief in the existence of deities, not about rejecting one specific deity but accepting another. Accepting another means that the person does not have disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
You said "Technically everyone is atheistic about at least one god." That would make all theists atheist.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

> A belief is asserting that a statement is true or that something exist. It is not the same as holding it to be true.


ok.. so those arent the same things?



> Quote:
> Agnosticism is broad but it can be summed up by saying that they neither believe nor disbelieve in a god/higher power. They take the stance that they *dont know*.





> Wrong. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It is based on admitting that you have no knowledge regarding the existence of God. This is why both Theist and Atheist can be agnostic as well. It is equivalent to just saying "I Don't Know" when asked if a belief is true.


Im sorry but isn't that exactly what I just said? Sure you can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. Its called agnostic atheism. But enough with all the labels, you can think however you want, I was just giving a quick summary of what agnosticism basically is. Here are actually some quotes describing agnosticism.

In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. In short, Agnosticism means to believe or disbelieve in the presence of a deity but no specific way or rules of worship, since nothing can be proven or dis-proven, Agnosticism becomes a discipline between belief and non belief depending on every individual.



> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Although I wouldn't make the comparison myself, I would say a higher power is definitely more of an extraordinary claim than a flying spaghetti monster. I'd like to see this "evidence" and "logical reasoning" you claim to have on a higher power because currently have yet to see any for one.


Haha, really, you think a higher power is a more extraordinary claim than the flying spaghetti monster? Well then so be it. You have the freedom to believe what you want. And Im not going to give you evidence and logical reasoning, whether you take it as a cop out or not.


----------



## restinfish

i just wish that as a society we could all live in harmony and accept different points of view even if they are not scientifically proven
i think you can see things favoring your rational or your emotional side
it doesn't really matter if you are the most devoted Christian or a skeptic atheist as long you are in peace with others and yourself
i kind of live to see a world where Creationism and Evolutionism coexist


----------



## jc22

I agree. Accept the creationism part. But I agree with everything else.


----------



## Adversary

Fruitcake said:


> That's not the same definition. All of those definitions are referring to atheism - disbelief in the existence of deities, not about rejecting one specific deity but accepting another. Accepting another means that the person does not have disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


I wasn't ever looking for a definition that talks about rejecting one specific deity, but accepting another. Atheism does not refer to specific deities or at least it doesn't anymore. I was just relating atheism with theism. Its no different than the famous quote by Richard Dawkins.

_"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"_



> You said "Technically everyone is atheistic about at least one god." That would make all theists atheist.


Yes I did say that all theist are atheistic. I don't see how this statement would be the same as saying that all theist are atheist. Atheistic and atheism are two different words. Atheistic just refers to having characteristics relating to atheism.


----------



## Fruitcake

Adversary said:


> I wasn't ever looking for a definition that talks about rejecting one specific deity, but accepting another. Atheism does not refer to specific deities or at least it doesn't anymore. I was just relating atheism with theism. Its no different than the famous quote by Richard Dawkins.
> 
> _"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"_
> 
> Yes I did say that all theist are atheistic. I don't see how this statement would be the same as saying that all theist are atheist. Atheistic and atheism are two different words. Atheistic just refers to having characteristics relating to atheism.


You said that you were choosing to use the definition of atheism being disbelief in a specific god/religion (which is the disbelief that all theists have about at least one god). That would make theists atheists. That is the definition that I said is no longer in use, so that would be the definition you would need to look for if you wanted to show that that is the correct definition.
I've heard the quote before and it's a nice play on words that demonstrates a good point, but it's not accurate. You can't be an atheist about specific gods because that is not the definition of atheist. An atheist disbelieves in all gods, not just most.


----------



## SoWrongItsRight

the cheat said:


> There are no facts for the non-existence of God.
> When religious people say they _know _God exists, it's on them to prove it.
> When atheists claim they _know_ God doesn't exist, it's on them to prove it.
> 
> Please show me your facts for God not existing, and you'll be the first person in history to prove God doesn't exist.
> 
> ...and please don't show me some Bible quotes that science has dis-proven. I'm talking about the general possibility of God, not the Catholic religions dogmatic beliefs about God.


Yessssssss!! Thank you, you're my new best friend.

I believe god exists, yes. Can I say "yes I know he exist", absolutely not. If that makes sense


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

haha everyone time we talk about god or atheism it ends up coming down to a $hitstorm of semantics..


----------



## restinfish

my question is: why does it matter so much

i think it's wrong have to base our moral views on a simple belief/disbelief. it should all be based upon your personal experiences.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

because people are so emotionally invested in these beliefs and disbeliefs.. you see so many atheists saying "I dont care" yet they spend a lot of their time talking about god and trying to disprove it

then their next excuse is that believing in god has a negative impact on the world, and its their moral responsibility to disprove it

1.) you alone are never gonna have any impact on that
2.) the world is negative by nature, religion has nothing to do with it.

i agree with you though, people need to just let others believe what they want. it all comes down to your personal experiences, not objective proof. live and let live.


----------



## Fruitcake

I get off on ****storms of semantics.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

lmao gotta get your kicks somewhere I guess


----------



## restinfish

you know what i don't really know if i'm an agnostic or an atheist
the only reason why i like to identify myself as an agnostic is because i feel that between religious and non religious people there are really bad cases of extremism
what i mean is you don't have to have the Christopher Hitchens mentality to be an atheist yet some people feel like they do


----------



## jc22

I am an Atheist, or Agnostic, I don't know, and my time of speaking about God is 12pm at night on a forum with strangers when I should be worrying about my crippling anxiety. So yeah


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

I usually think of an atheist as someone who believes there *is no god*

But semantics is a bytch, and since I've started talking to atheists on SAS a lot have came forward and disagreed with my definition. If that's true then I don't really see why there is a separate term for agnostic and atheist. There is agnostic atheism.

Maybe it would be easier if we just explained our exact beliefs and didnt label them with umbrella terms which are open to interpretation =p


----------



## Fruitcake

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> because people are so emotionally invested in these beliefs and disbeliefs.. you see so many atheists saying "I dont care" yet they spend a lot of their time talking about god and trying to disprove it
> 
> then their next excuse is that believing in god has a negative impact on the world, and its their moral responsibility to disprove it
> 
> 1.) you alone are never gonna have any impact on that
> 2.) the world is negative by nature, religion has nothing to do with it.
> 
> i agree with you though, people need to just let others believe what they want. it all comes down to your personal experiences, not objective proof. live and let live.


I am an atheist and agnostic and I don't claim not to care. I don't think it's my moral responsibility to "disprove" it either, though I think it's important to question and discuss it. Atheists and agnostics discussing religion does have an impact on religion. If everyone decided that they alone would make no difference, atheism and agnosticism would still be taboo and religion would be respected no question.
I also think that the world would be negative without religion, but that religion has definitely had a negative impact on the world. I also think it's inherently harmful.
If people's beliefs are harmful then I think they should be questioned and discussed, and not shown respect. It's still letting them live and believe what they want. If they don't want to talk about it they are not forced to.


----------



## jc22

Haha. Yeah true that. 

By the way I love Christopher Hitchens, much more than Richard Dawkins. I like Sam Harris too.


----------



## restinfish

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I usually think of an atheist as someone who believes there *is no god*
> 
> But semantics is a bytch, and since I've started talking to atheists on SAS a lot have came forward and disagreed with my definition. If that's true then I don't really see why there is a separate term for agnostic and atheist. There is agnostic atheism.
> 
> Maybe it would be easier if we just explained our exact beliefs and didnt label them with umbrella terms which are open to interpretation =p


yes and start worrying less about judging things by their definitions, specially when it comes to something as personal as religious beliefs


----------



## Fruitcake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
There's the explanation of different kinds of atheism and how they can also be agnostic.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

I don't see how believing in a god is harmful at all. Sure, you have the extremists that have been violent about it all through out history. But how is discussing that on an internet forum going to change anything?

But no, Im not saying that every time anyone discusses it its because they are ignorant or have an emotional investment in it, all though it is usually the case. There are a lot of "bad things" going on in the world, but you don't go around debating them.

But nah I see what you're saying and hope you don't take what i'm saying the wrong way


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

to add on to the violent thing.. people are violent.. with or without religion.. and religion isnt the only ideal that people use to support violence


----------



## Fruitcake

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I don't see how believing in a god is harmful at all. Sure, you have the extremists that have been violent about it all through out history. But how is discussing that on an internet forum going to change anything?
> 
> But no, Im not saying that every time anyone discusses it its because they are ignorant or have an emotional investment in it, all though it is usually the case. There are a lot of "bad things" going on in the world, but you don't go around debating them.
> 
> But nah I see what you're saying and hope you don't take what i'm saying the wrong way


I'm not talking about believing in a general god, but believing in a specific god/subscribing to religion. If you are interested you could look up the negative effects of religion on the world and on individuals who are brought up with it.
Discussion informs people and allows them to learn of others' viewpoints and see their own beliefs in a different light. One person discussing it doesn't change much but a lot of people discussing it does.
I don't get how it's ignorant of most people.
There's nothing wrong with having an emotional investment in it. If someone thinks it's harmful then they are likely to have an emotional investment in it. I do. I also just enjoy discussing it and would do so even if it made absolutely no difference.
People do go around debating a lot of bad things that happen in the world.


----------



## restinfish

discussing anywhere is important because it can change people's minds and that's a powerful thing
yeah people can be violent with or without religion but they shouldn't use of their beliefs/disbeliefs as means of justification for being violent


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

Fruitcake said:


> I'm not talking about believing in a general god, but believing in a specific god/subscribing to religion. If you are interested you could look up the negative effects of religion on the world and on individuals who are brought up with it.


just because i look it up, doesnt make it true



> Discussion informs people and allows them to learn of others' viewpoints and see their own beliefs in a different light. One person discussing it doesn't change much but a lot of people discussing it does.
> I don't get how it's ignorant of most people.


sure, but you are assuming they dont all ready know others' viewpoints on the subject. and that was more my point, one person debating it doesnt change anything. if youre debating it, its probably because youre interested in the subject matter. i was saying that most have an emotional investment in it, not that most are ignorant. when I said ignorant it was to let you know Im not calling everyone who does it ignorant.



> There's nothing wrong with having an emotional investment in it. If someone thinks it's harmful then they are likely to have an emotional investment in it. I do. I also just enjoy discussing it and would do so even if it made absolutely no difference.
> People do go around debating a lot of bad things that happen in the world.


right, well i never said anything was wrong with it. I just said thats how it is. that some atheists claim they dont care yet spend a lot of time talking about it.

the fact that you are admitting you are interested in discussing it just supports what i said. im not saying its wrong or ignorant.


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

*in my opinion, most people come to agnosticism or atheism of their own volition.. not because of debating with someone else.. especially if they are asserting their own opinions in a debate.. its not like they're suddenly going to see reason and change their beliefs.. thats just how people are.. they have to want to believe something to believe it

if they dont want to not believe in their religion, no amount of sense or reason or debate is going to change that. they have to want something else.*


----------



## restinfish

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> *in my opinion, most people come to agnosticism or atheism of their own volition.. not because of debating with someone else.. especially if they are asserting their own opinions in a debate.. its not like they're suddenly going to see reason and change their beliefs.. thats just how people are.. they have to want to believe something to believe it
> 
> if they dont want to not believe in their religion, no amount of sense or reason or debate is going to change that. they have to want something else.*


it's not about changing their beliefs it's about changing how they act upon them


----------



## Adversary

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> ok.. so those arent the same things?


Not really. I believe holding something to be true means you will accept it as true no matter what. I'd say an assertion or assumption would better describe belief.



> Im sorry but isn't that exactly what I just said? Sure you can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. Its called agnostic atheism. But enough with all the labels, you can think however you want, I was just giving a quick summary of what agnosticism basically is. Here are actually some quotes describing agnosticism.
> 
> In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. In short, Agnosticism means to believe or disbelieve in the presence of a deity but no specific way or rules of worship, since nothing can be proven or dis-proven, Agnosticism becomes a discipline between belief and non belief depending on every individual.


Yea, your right. I misread what you said at first. Sorry about that.



Fruitcake said:


> You said that you were choosing to use the definition of atheism being disbelief in a specific god/religion (which is the disbelief that all theists have about at least one god). That would make theists atheists. That is the definition that I said is no longer in use, so that would be the definition you would need to look for if you wanted to show that that is the correct definition.
> 
> I've heard the quote before and it's a nice play on words that demonstrates a good point, but it's not accurate. You can't be an atheist about specific gods because that is not the definition of atheist. An atheist disbelieves in all gods, not just most.


Its obvious we misunderstood ourselves somewhere. I wasn't providing the definition for atheism to support that it means it can refer to a specific deity. I already know it doesn't, which is why I used the word "atheistic" in my original post. I was trying to disprove your claim that "Atheism is about not believing in any deities; disbelieving in a specific god is not the same." which was directed at my original statement with the word atheistic in it.



> I've heard the quote before and it's a nice play on words that demonstrates a good point, but it's not accurate. You can't be an atheist about specific gods because that is not the definition of atheist. An atheist disbelieves in all gods, not just most.


Which is why I was careful not to use the word atheist or atheism.


----------



## Fruitcake

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> just because i look it up, doesnt make it true
> 
> sure, but you are assuming they dont all ready know others' viewpoints on the subject. and that was more my point, one person debating it doesnt change anything. if youre debating it, its probably because youre interested in the subject matter. i was saying that most have an emotional investment in it, not that most are ignorant. when I said ignorant it was to let you know Im not calling everyone who does it ignorant.
> 
> right, well i never said anything was wrong with it. I just said thats how it is. that some atheists claim they dont care yet spend a lot of time talking about it.
> 
> the fact that you are admitting you are interested in discussing it just supports what i said. im not saying its wrong or ignorant.


I know it doesn't make it true, but if you can't think of how it's harmful then you would need to look it up to find out the ways other people think it's harmful.
It's not assuming that, just thinking that in general it's good to put one's view out there for that purpose, and if it's been said before that person can let you know.
Yeah, it's not really admitting because I don't disagree that a lot of people discuss it because they're interested in it, and that that's partly why I discuss it.
Is that why you discuss it?


----------



## Quinn the Eskimo

fair enough. and yeah you're probably right, I discuss it for the same reasons. Im not any different from the people I was pointing out. 

I was just responding to what someone said and what I said was in that context


----------



## Fruitcake

Adversary said:


> I was trying to disprove your claim that "Atheism is about not believing in any deities; disbelieving in a specific god is not the same." which was directed at my original statement with the word atheistic in it.


I'm confused about how you tried to disprove that. :sus
Atheistic means pertaining to atheism and using it about a person means that they are an atheist.


----------



## Fruitcake

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> *in my opinion, most people come to agnosticism or atheism of their own volition.. not because of debating with someone else.. especially if they are asserting their own opinions in a debate.. its not like they're suddenly going to see reason and change their beliefs.. thats just how people are.. they have to want to believe something to believe it
> 
> if they dont want to not believe in their religion, no amount of sense or reason or debate is going to change that. they have to want something else.*


I agree with this for the most part. I do still think it's good for religious people to realise that their religion is not viewed as a positive thing by everyone. And for them to realise that they don't know how to back up their own claims, and to understand what they think, since a lot of them just think it without evaluating it the way you do in a debate.
I think a lot of agnostics and atheists would not have become so if they didn't see that religion isn't blindly accepted and respected. Or maybe they would have, but more slowly.


----------



## Adversary

Fruitcake said:


> I'm confused about how you tried to disprove that. :sus
> Atheistic means pertaining to atheism and using it about a person means that they are an atheist.


Definition of Atheistic.
1. involving, advocating, or spreading atheism
2. concerning, relating to, or characteristic of atheists or atheism

A disbelief in specific deities is related to atheism.


----------



## Fruitcake

Adversary said:


> Definition of Atheistic.
> 1. involving, advocating, or spreading atheism
> 2. concerning, relating to, or characteristic of atheists or atheism
> 
> A disbelief in specific deities is related to atheism.


How is it relating to atheism? Atheism is the rejection of the belief that any gods exist. So rejection of a specific god is not directly related to atheism. They are related on the same level that theism and atheism are related, which is not what the definition is.


----------



## Adversary

Fruitcake said:


> How is it relating to atheism? Atheism is the rejection of the belief that any gods exist. So rejection of a specific god is not directly related to atheism. They are related on the same level that theism and atheism are related, which is not what the definition is.


Both ideas depend on the rejection of the belief in deities outside of theism. They share the same characteristics. It does not matter what the definition of atheism is as long as it shares some similarities. All beliefs of deities that are outside of the term "theist" are by default atheistic. Its a specific set of beliefs. If a monotheist believes in less than 1 god for any reason that person is an atheist.


----------



## ugh1979

Quinn the Eskimo said:


> I don't see how believing in a god is harmful at all. Sure, you have the extremists that have been violent about it all through out history. But how is discussing that on an internet forum going to change anything?


As others have said, yes one person discussing it doesn't really change anything, but when you get tens of thousands of people discussing it all over the world it it's inevitable that some people are influenced.

It's never going to sway the die hards but there are plenty people who are in the process of change, or doubt their religion, who can be swayed by whatever information they absorb from any relevant source.

A lot can be learned from debates, so they are good practice.



> There are a lot of "bad things" going on in the world, but you don't go around debating them.


Yeah nobody ever talks about anything "bad". :roll

There are thousands of forums for debating such things, never mind the millions of times they will be debated everywhere else.

We have a forum on this very board where many "bad things" are debated. http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f32/


----------



## lonerider

I'm an agnostic. Some people might see it as sitting on the fence but why should I be either religious or aetheist when there are no facts to prove either. I lean more towards aetheism though because I think the idea of an almighty being controlling everything quite ridiculous and I tend to follow science which gives me proper explanations to how the universe started and how we evolved (as well as evidence). But I can't say for sure that there is no creator and I think people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. So I think being agnostic is the sensible option.


----------



## HarryStanluv25

I'd just like to say, speaking for me, I don't think atheism is like a religion in which I'm trying to prove or disprove something. Like religious people try to find why god exists, I don't sit there and say 'this is why he _doesn't_ exist.' It's all a matter of faith and what I believe in. Since I don't believe there is a Higher Power, then that's that. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just speaking for me and me alone. Every atheist is different, just like every person from religions are different and do things their own way. I'm not an agnostic because there is no part of me that thinks there may be a god. But again, it doesn't mean I'm right. Nobody is right when it comes to religion. It all comes down to each individual person. I'll give you my reasons why I don't believe but they are not set-in-stone fact. It's just my beliefs.


----------



## restinfish

yeah neither atheists or religious people are pretending to know anything, they are just living their lives as they think it should be lived
how i see is that everything that will ever happen ever is up for interpretation
so i believe and don't believe in religion, to me it's all about the two coexisting
i can't see one without the other, and i don't think that's a problem


----------



## Millais

We're all agnostics aren't we?


----------



## olga

Hi, I believe that there is a mystery to our origins. I don't believe in religion, but I do respect those that do, if what you believe brings harm to no one why should I be bothered by it.


----------



## jc22

Millais said:


> We're all agnostics aren't we?


Yeh in a way I think we are, apart from the ones who claim for certain. Belief has become pretty diluted anyway, its meant to guide you through your life.


----------



## StoryLover

I'm agnostic because I tend to bounce between theories every few months. I spend a lot of time thinking about the universe and my place in it. I feel like we're just not a smart enough species to understand what's going on. Then again, I am a staunch pessimist.


----------



## BKrakow

I call myself an atheist because I think the existence of a god, as defined by western religions, is extremely, extremely unlikely (though I'll admit, not impossible...but let's just say I've rejected pascal's wager and I'm pretty comfortable with my odds). I think it's quite possible that there is some kind of non-physical, powerful, "godlike" entity out there in the universe...but if so, it's so removed from my everyday reality that it doesn't affect me at all, and I'm certainly not going to engage in any sort of rituals to appease it. so, I feel comfortable calling myself an atheist, although some might say I'm more agnostic. I don't really care that much about the label.


----------



## Mlochail

Right here dude


----------



## fredbloggs02

I wouldn't reduce my belief to these precise categories if I were trying to speak truthfully of myself. Of the individual, I hold what Goethe said about God to be true: "If our standing is high, God is all; if low, then God is a supplement to our wretchedness". God is a healthy or unhealthy proposition depending on how happy or unhappy the individual is.

Of organized religion as a movement, I feel you are generally only speaking of how the mob belief in a God affects the world, in politicians who always have and will continue to justify their actions with sentiments they don't take to heart and in parents who in their ignorance scare their children with their own abject impressions of the world. He watches over them the day they met their child's eye, as he watched over their parents, impressing the parents' greatness or limitations onto the child. If the parent/s(whether they accept the theistic category or not) have allowed God to strangle the life out of them and used him as a crutch, accepted harsh judgement rather than their loneliness to grow as individuals, God will judge the child as long as it remains their child with all it's soul.


----------



## PopulationOfZero

here i am


----------



## colder

.


----------



## FranzKafka

I am agnostic too, although i am slightly leaning towards the view that an afterlife of some sort exists. I base that on my own experience with the immense complexity of the human mind. Would be a horrible waste for it to end after a few years...


----------



## rawrguy

I'm Agnostic. This means I don't believe in: fairies, ghosts, fairy tales, magic, voodoo, religion, poltergeists, the flying spaghetti monster, or anything of that nature.


----------



## Sharrow

I just love how this site has a support group for Agnostics! I feel that we kinda get left out of things. There's no social gatherings that I am aware of that just caters Agnostics.


----------



## soupbasket

I am Agnostic.


----------



## pointlesslife

I'm a hardcore Agnostic.


----------



## Foh_Teej

pointlesslife said:


> I'm a hardcore Agnostic.


What does this even mean?


----------



## mario8

"Agnostic". Oh what a funny little title!
Sure count me in! :yes


----------



## pointlesslife

Foh_Teej said:


> What does this even mean?


it means I strongly believe there is no way too know if there is or is not a god...


----------

