So when you say athiest are you referring to:
1) Someone who says there is no god and there is no possibility of one
2) Someone who says there is no reason to believe in a god

When you say agnostic are you referring to:
1) Someone who says there is no reason to believe in a god
2) A half ass christian who doesnt want to go to church and isnt weird or committed enough to call themselves nondenominational

Agnosticism literally means "without knowledge".

It means you accept that nothing is certain.

Agnosticism means that you belive that you cannot know if a god exists, that you are "without knowledge". in agnosticism, you have 3 major sects.

Atheistic agnostics, who say that you cannot know if there is a god, and b/c of that, i dont belive in it

Theistic agnostics, who say that you cannot know if there is a god, but i chose to belive anyway.

Apathetic agnostics, who say you cannot know if there is a god or not, and as such, u shouldn't care if there is or isn't

Theism = Belief in god.

Atheism = The lack thereof. The prefix a- means "non-".

Atheism is not disbelieving, rather just not believing.

There's a retarded dogmatic concept people call "hardline atheism" or "strong atheism", which is the disbelief. A proper word would be "antitheism" or "untheism".

Agnosticism means that you belive that you cannot know if a god exists, that you are "without knowledge". in agnosticism, you have 3 major sects.

Atheistic agnostics, who say that you cannot know if there is a god, and b/c of that, i dont belive in it

Theistic agnostics, who say that you cannot know if there is a god, but i chose to belive anyway.

Apathetic agnostics, who say you cannot know if there is a god or not, and as such, u shouldn't care if there is or isn't

"Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—"


It's not limited to a belief in god.

So when you say athiest are you referring to:
1) Someone who says there is no god and there is no possibility of one
2) Someone who says there is no reason to believe in a god

When you say agnostic are you referring to:
1) Someone who says there is no reason to believe in a god
2) A half ass christian who doesnt want to go to church and isnt weird or committed enough to callhemselves nondenominational

Atheism just means you dont believe in god. It doesnt mean you believe there is no possibility of a god existing.

Yeah I didnt mean this one as far as the technical definition. I just meant how it usually gets interpreted when spoken. I would classify myself as possibly the apathetic agnostic or possibly the theist agnostic without any relation to traditional religion.

Agnostic - One who says they cannot tell whether or not there is a god, nor do they really care.

Atheist - One who does not believe in god at all.

I like the way Richard Dawkins put it in his book, The God Delusion.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

If someone truly believes there is no god, how do they explain everything? or does an ignorance of everything follow suit?

An agnostic MUST be either an atheist or a theist. There is no inbetween. Most agnostics are probably atheist, but some could theoretically believe in god based on pascal's wager.

If someone truly believes there is no god, how do they explain everything? or does an ignorance of everything follow suit?
Are you saying that if we simply believe in God/gods then we have explained everything? The universe seems to work according to scientific laws whether or not any gods exist and we have just as much searching for answers to do whether or not gods exist. Do you find yourself less ignorant than the non-believer because you can answer questions with "God did it"?

the only people i know who claim to be agnostic are message board trolls who use it as a debate shield.

Are you saying that if we simply believe in God/gods then we have explained everything? The universe seems to work according to scientific laws whether or not any gods exist and we have just as much searching for answers to do whether or not gods exist. Do you find yourself less ignorant than the non-believer because you can answer questions with "God did it"?

Im not saying anything at all like that, im just mearly asking what replaces god when you are atheist? I dont think you understand what i consider ignorant but i suppose thats my fault, its like there is no truth, only what is widely accepted as truth. To be more specific what i was asking, god is a way to explain certain things for those that believe in one, but how do those explain things that dont believe in a god?

An agnostic MUST be either an atheist or a theist. There is no inbetween. Most agnostics are probably atheist, but some could theoretically believe in god based on pascal's wager.

Agnosticism is accepting you don't know. Look it up if you must.

Im not saying anything at all like that, im just mearly asking what replaces god when you are atheist? I dont think you understand what i consider ignorant but i suppose thats my fault, its like there is no truth, only what is widely accepted as truth. To be more specific what i was asking, god is a way to explain certain things for those that believe in one, but how do those explain things that dont believe in a god?

Atheists accept that some things cannot be scientifically proven at this time. On other issues, they rely on what science has determined. They do no believe in god or believe that a god is the reason for a given unknown because there is no evidence to support it. This lead me to a point I forgot. The number 7 on the scale, Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.', is an illogical stance for any atheist. An educated atheist does not believe in god because there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of one. Therefore, it is not possible for an atheist to "know" that there is no god.

If someone truly believes there is no god, how do they explain everything?

Are you saying that if we simply believe in God/gods then we have explained everything?

Im not saying anything at all like that, im just mearly asking what replaces god when you are atheist?


It sure seemed like you were saying that. Let me ask you: If one does believe there is God, how does he explain everything?





Im not saying anything at all like that, im just mearly asking what replaces god when you are atheist?
Nothing replaces God. What replaced Santa Clause when you stopped believing in him?


I dont think you understand what i consider ignorant but i suppose thats my fault, its like there is no truth, only what is widely accepted as truth.
Do you have proof of that? What makes sense to me is that there is one truth to everything whether or not we know what the answer is. If it is widely accepted that eating lead is healthy, that does not make it truth.


To be more specific what i was asking, god is a way to explain certain things for those that believe in one, but how do those explain things that dont believe in a god?
You are asking the same question and it seems I understood you fine the first time. God once explained to people how the human race started. Scientific minded people not accepting such a simple explanation with no evidence to back it, gave us tons of proof for our beginnings being from simpler organisms that have evolved over time. What we don't know yet, we don't need to pretend we have the answer to through mythical beings who can poof things into existence.

Agnosticism is accepting you don't know. Look it up if you must.

Look up atheism and look up theism if you must. I stand by my previous statement as it is a matter of definition and thus true.

It sure seemed like you were saying that. Let me ask you: If one does believe there is God, how does he explain everything?






Nothing replaces God. What replaced Santa Clause when you stopped believing in him?


Do you have proof of that? What makes sense to me is that there is one truth to everything whether or not we know what the answer is. If it is widely accepted that eating lead is healthy, that does not make it truth.


You are asking the same question and it seems I understood you fine the first time. God once explained to people how the human race started. Scientific minded people not accepting such a simple explanation with no evidence to back it, gave us tons of proof for our beginnings being from simpler organisms that have evolved over time. What we don't know yet, we don't need to pretend we have the answer to through mythical beings who can poof things into existence.

No you still didnt understand me but you answered my question unless you want to follow up on it. When i was saying how do they explain everything, i meant the questions that we all ask. Although your questions may be different than mine. The point i was making is that those who belive in a god tend to use that as a reason and explanation for how or why things are the way they are. My question was when they dont belive in god, what do they use to answer their questions. From what i read your saying science is where they base their answers, and i can deff say i have this in common with them. Evidence of something existing doesnt always automatically make it "true" either though. Countless books have been written about blackholes and many people including some of our brightest minds today say they exist, but there is no proof at all, it is just an idea to explain something that we experience happening. I can see the contradiction here though because in science what we know to be true changes based on new technological advances that help us to measure, view, understand etc. things better and there really is nothing to go on when it comes to god.

No you still didnt understand me but you answered my question unless you want to follow up on it. When i was saying how do they explain everything, i meant the questions that we all ask.
FreedomHippie, I don't know why you keep insisting that I don't understand you. You keep saying, "what I mean to say is...", and then repeating the same thing.

Although your questions may be different than mine. The point i was making is that those who belive in a god tend to use that as a reason and explanation for how or why things are the way they are.
I understand that. If "God did it, he works in mysterious ways" is sufficient enough for believers that they have now have answers, then good for them, but it's not realistic nor a real answer.


My question was when they dont belive in god, what do they use to answer their questions. From what i read your saying science is where they base their answers, and i can deff say i have this in common with them. Evidence of something existing doesnt always automatically make it "true" either though.
So you think beliefs based on evidence aren't as good as beliefs based on God existing because humans don't always come to the correct conclusion? You don't see something wrong with this line of thinking?


Countless books have been written about blackholes and many people including some of our brightest minds today say they exist, but there is no proof at all, it is just an idea to explain something that we experience happening.
There is "no proof at all" for the existence of black holes? The evidence that black holes exist is rather strong. Do you not believe they exist? If you do believe they exist, I'd like to know why, since you say, "there is no proof at all.

FreedomHippie, I don't know why you keep insisting that I don't understand you. You keep saying, "what I mean to say is...", and then repeating the same thing.


I understand that. If "God did it, he works in mysterious ways" is sufficient enough for believers that they have now have answers, then good for them, but it's not realistic nor a real answer.



So you think beliefs based on evidence aren't as good as beliefs based on God existing because humans don't always come to the correct conclusion? You don't see something wrong with this line of thinking?



There is "no proof at all" for the existence of black holes? The evidence that black holes exist is rather strong. Do you not believe they exist? If you do believe they exist, I'd like to know why, since you say, "there is no proof at all.

You've complicated so much what my simple question was. I didnt say i thought anything or stand on a specific belief or idea, that wasnt the purpose of my post but you'v answered my question so its fine. Maybe I have been repeating the same thing over and over, but you would rather debate than answer my question.

FreedomHippie, you just CANNOT comprehend what you are being told. Atheists explain things that you believe your religion explains through logic. If you can't see how a non believer explains "the questions we all ask," you are truly not intelligent enough to carry on a discussion about religion.

I completly comprehend it. Never did i once say i believed in a specific religion, and for the record i dont follow or practice a specific one. All sumone had to say was that atheists turn to science and what can be proven. People need to stop putting words in others mouths.

Maybe I have been repeating the same thing over and over, but you would rather debate than answer my question.
What haven't I answered? I have answered more than once that we don't have an answer to everything and we have answered much with evidence. Now how about answering my questions?

Look up atheism and look up theism if you must. I stand by my previous statement as it is a matter of definition and thus true.

"Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnostic = Without Knowledge.

Different types of Agnosticism.

* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say "I don't know, and neither do you."
* Weak agnosticism (also called mild agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."
* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of god(s), but since any god(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
* Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of "God" must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless. It should be noted that A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism, on the grounds that they accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.
* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of god(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[6]

That supports what I have been saying. Even the strong agnostic is an atheist. He's not a strong atheist, but still an atheist.

Agnosticism is accepting you don't know. Look it up if you must.

Sure thing...

Agnosticism, according to Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the word:

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

-- Agnosticism and Christianity. 1889. (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html)

Agnostics can know, and thus can "accept they know", at least that's how it was initially defined.

Moreover, Real.PUA likely refers to agnosticism within the context of the existence or non-existence of a god.

An agnostic (on the issue of the existence or non-existence of a god) would not "know" whether a god exists or not. Real.PUA is correct in saying that he could therefore be a theist or an atheist.

If someone truly believes there is no god, how do they explain everything? or does an ignorance of everything follow suit?

We(I) do not explain this, everything, because it is impossible. I 'believe' in what I know.

Since there is nothing that supports the existance of a God, I have no reason to believe that there is one.

There is, however, tons of evidence against all the popular and mainstream believes such as Christianity.


It is pointless and ignorant to believe in things which is not backed up by fact.
(By this I do not mean the belief in a higher existance/God, but believing in religions which claims to know the truth and all the details.)

Double post.

We(I) do not explain this, everything, because it is impossible. I 'believe' in what I know.
So do i

Since there is nothing that supports the existance of a God, I have no reason to believe that there is one.

There is, however, tons of evidence against all the popular and mainstream believes such as Christianity.


It is pointless and ignorant to believe in things which is not backed up by fact.
(By this I do not mean the belief in a higher existance/God, but believing in religions which claims to know the truth and all the details.)

I deff agree with you, but god doesn't have to be tied to religion. Also, if there is nothing that brings you to believe that there is a God thats fine. Is that to say that someone who does believe in god(in any form) is wrong?

It is pointless and ignorant to believe in things which is not backed up by fact.
(By this I do not mean the belief in a higher existance/God)

Why doesn't this apply to the belief in a god? It seems just as applicable as why not to believe in specific religions.

Reply to KikoSanchez and FreedomHippie.


Believing that their might be something else than what we can see, touch or feel is in my book acceptable. Believing that there is something, that the universe might not be a product of sheer coincidence, that there might be a meaning of all this.

Believing in an old book and everything it says is however not. Believing that you know all of the small details about how god created the earth, life and whatnot.
Trying to deny FACTS.


The truth is: We do not know. Believing that you know is idiotic.

Reply to KikoSanchez and FreedomHippie.


Believing that their might be something else than what we can see, touch or feel is in my book acceptable. Believing that there is something, that the universe might not be a product of sheer coincidence, that there might be a meaning of all this.

Believing in an old book and everything it says is however not. Believing that you know all of the small details about how god created the earth, life and whatnot.
Trying to deny FACTS.


The truth is: We do not know. Believing that you know is idiotic.

I deff agee. I can see how alot of people would automatically think your a religious person when you say you believe in god and that we cant really get around. Religion tend to tell you how things are whether they make sense or not. I think if you do believe in god, it should be based on your own observations and feelings rather than someone forcing it down your throat. The belief in god in any form doesnt really have to be picked apart, unless you are so inclined to do so.

LoL, I wonder how many people are Gnostic on this forum... Not Agnostic just Gnostic... Its a funny feeling I get like I always get this feeling like People just think Agnosticism is a word when like atheism its two... "A" - Without/No/Non and "Theism" - God...

Its hard to explain but I feel like know one take the time to understand what it would mean to be Gnostic.