Comments on: Popular agnosticism versus proper agnosticism

By: JASON

JASON — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:49:56 +0000

I FEEL STUPID NOW FOR LABELING MYSELF AS AN AGNOSTIC ALL THIS TIME. I SEE NOW HOW I CANNOT BE AN AGNOSTIC JUST BECAUSE I DONT KNOW FOR SURE OR THERE MIGHT BE A POSSIBILLITY, WHEN THERE WAS NO EVEDENCE TO CONVINCE ME TO BE A THEIST IN THE FIRST PLACE . I AM NOT A THEIST. WHY ? BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN PROOF TO ME,THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. THEREFORE I MUST BE AN ATHEIST. BUT THATS JUST MY PERSONAL EXPERIANCE. THANK YOU FOR THIS INSIGHT.

By: exchangerates

exchangerates — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:13:50 +0000

I refer when asked, to myself as an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe and you can't know. Having said that most of the gods I've heard defined are clearly demonstrated to not exist based on their own claims.

By: fxgeorges

fxgeorges — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:39:50 +0000

I think agnostic is probably the more proper scientists viewpoint but when I say that I get people who think they can convert me or that I am "spiritual". So for me it is just way easier to say I'm an atheist so they'll leave me the heck alone.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:17:29 +0000

You keep getting hung up on the "theism" part. The problem is that to me there is no real equivalent word in the English language. Wikipedia has a good article about it. I do not like the fact that the word has "theism" in it, but there's little I can do about it unless I would start calling myself an atheist, which I won't. I use it in lack of a better phrasing without getting too longwinded. To me, pantheism is not about a sentient being (which we already discussed quite some), and I think that's counterintuitive to what pantheism attempts to express, so I am not quite sure why you keep getting hung up on it either. It is a linguistical issue, not necessarily related to my personal beliefs.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Sun, 30 May 2010 08:36:28 +0000

Well, replace Santa Clause with any other deity of your choosing, like Thor. The point I was making in the article was that "agnosticism" tells you something about knowledge, and that it can apply to more than just "god", but that it isn't used in that fashion.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Sat, 29 May 2010 21:58:50 +0000

So why tag "theism" onto it? What's theistic about your worldview, if it is nothing more than an equivalent to nature? Or do you attribute some kind of consciousness to it?

In other words: please elaborate on what "pantheism" means to you (other than "energy flow" because that's a bit weird if you replace it with any other natural phenomenon, like "electromagnetic fields" – unless there is a reason why "energy flow" is somehow special?)

By: xianagnostic

xianagnostic — Sat, 29 May 2010 21:25:27 +0000

To equate the existence of God (which you deny to undo creationism) with that of Santa Claus (a non-deity) is apples and oranges comparison. Inability to prove the existence of Santa Claus is no argument to disprove or prove God as existent. Sorry, your ammunition is blank bullets.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sat, 29 May 2010 17:18:36 +0000

Unfamiliar with the terminology, but it sounds about right.

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Sat, 29 May 2010 07:57:38 +0000

What is this "energy flow" you speak of? Of course, there is energy in the universe, and it traverses distance in the form of quanta. Quantum mechanics will tell you all about energy packets.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:54:56 +0000

How can you believe in something which you don't even think has any chance in remotely existing, then? When I claim that I am a pantheist, I do it because I do have a firm belief that the energy flow which I perceive to make up this world exists, not because I am unsure it doesn't. There is also a fine line admitting that you might be wrong and doubting you are right.