Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: or agnostic?

re: or agnostic?
gbaikie — (archived)

Raoul says: "I don't know exactly. "

Well you don't know because of this stuff:

"To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief."

I do agree that everyone should be agnostic- it's the rational view. But it require some thought- more than "Do you believe in god? Yes or No.
Btw, most people who believe in God, don't regard God as a "creature".

For a quick and dirty distinction between atheist and agnostic- an atheist would generally think most that is knowable is known. An atheist would think that all the great religions were a waste of time at best- a danger or threat, mostly. Agnostics would generally not think that everything was known and does not regard the great religions in a negative manner.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (68 posts)