Are we all Agnostic?

[twocows]

Agnosticism/gnosticism is on a separate scale from atheism/theism. I don't think many people would consider themselves absolutely certain of their beliefs, though I'm sure there are a few.

 

[BadPokemon]

Do you think that everyone is Agnostic?
I, myself, label myself as Agnostic.

An Agnostic is someone who does not believe nor disbelieve in a deity. Most commonly, God.
I have a different view than the technical definition: Someone who simply doesn't know.

I don't know if there is a God or Afterlife, and I don't know how the universe was created. I can't understand any of that.

No one really knows for sure that there is a God. No one can be certain.

I do think that there is some sort of an Afterlife, but I don't want there to be. I wan't to just be dead, but that's another debate.

I do think that we are all Agnostic, to an extant. Here's why:
I'm just going to use Christians as an example, I have nothing against them, just keep that in mind.
Someone who will not admit that they don't know is a Christian.
Someone who still believes in the Christian teachings, but admits that they don't know if it's correct, is a Christian-Agnostic.
Someone who admits that they don't know, and accepts it that they don't know - whether they want there to be a God or not - is Agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It is how you think. It's you mentality about the whole thing. If you really want to label yourself after a religion, then you are then [Insert Religion Name Here]-Agnostic.

No one really knows that there is a God. No one can know. You'd have to experience it to know it. No one has experienced God, or comeback from death.

So, do you think that we are all Agnostic? At least to an extant. Debate. Nicely, calmly, respectfully, debate.

EDIT: Let me add something else to this, that I apparently left seem to have not made clear enough.
Even if you are Atheist, then you still don't know that there is no God. You believe that there isn't, but you don't know that there isn't. Believing and Knowing are two different things.

I don't think agnostic is Christian. A true Christian is one who believes Jesus does on the cross for our sins and rose three days later. They truly love God and have faith in Him. They admit their sins and ask for forgiveness. Your defenition of a Christian is slightly off. I don't think 34% of the world is Christian, it think it's more like 1-15%

 

[Neo Emolga]

A good analogy I've seen someone else use is the fish aquarium example. Some fish (atheists) believe the aquarium (Earth and observable space) is all that encompasses existence. These same fish will also feel that if they can't observe it, then it must not exist.

Philip Yancey goes into this analogy further:

Managing a saltwater aquarium, I discovered, is no easy task. I had to run a portable chemical laboratory to monitor nitrate levels and ammonia content. I pumped in vitamins and antibiotics and sulfa drugs and enzymes. I filtered the water through glass fibers and charcoal.

You would think my fish would be grateful. Not so. When my shadow loomed above the tank to feed them, they dove for cover into the nearest shell. I was too large for them; my actions incomprehensible. They did not know that my acts were merciful. To change their perceptions would require a form of incarnation. I would have to become a fish and "speak" to them in a language they could understand, which was impossible for me to do.

According to the Scriptures, God, the Creator of the universe, did something that seems impossible. He came to earth in human form as a baby. "The world was made through Him," says John, "and the world did not know Him" (John 1:10). So God, who created matter, took shape within it, as a playwright might become a character within his own play. God wrote a story, using real characters, on the pages of real history. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14).

The fact that Earth is so complex and is so fragile is a clear indication of God's intended creation and continued care.


The universe also had to have a start to it. Despite having the theory of the Big Bang, scientists can't explain the sudden explosion of light and matter. There's no basis for a cause and effect here. Even beyond the Big Bang, there would be no explanation for how water came to be on Earth.

The other matter is the uniform laws of nature. Why are their universal laws in the first place, and how could they have just come into action without cause and effect? Scientists today can't fully understand gravity.

And to keep going, as we all know, training, teaching, and instruction come with intention, very much like a person writing an instruction manual or coding a computer program. So, what coded DNA then if it wasn't God? Over three billion arrangements of this DNA coding exist in every human cell. Natural, biological causes (accidental and unintentional causes according to atheists) can't provide a logical basis for this to happen entirely by chance. You don't wake up to find something of this level just created itself out of nothing. The chances of that happening are even less than turning on your computer and finding out ten incredibly well programmed games that didn't exist yesterday are suddenly now installed on your hard drive.

Skeptical atheists have a hard time believing the Bible because what happened then isn't something that happens on a usual basis. They also weren't there when these events did happen. Also, just because an event or occurrence cannot be repeated through mankind's own power does not mean it did not take place, but yet, some people refuse to believe anything unless these kinds of conditions are met.

 

[Sopheria]

A good analogy I've seen someone else use is the fish aquarium example. Some fish (atheists) believe the aquarium (Earth and observable space) is all that encompasses existence. These same fish will also feel that if they can't observe it, then it must not exist.

Neo Emolga, you're not a mind reader. You're claiming to know what every atheist believes, and claiming to know why they believe what they do. But as I said above: just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they disbelieve in anything immaterial or beyond the scope of their own understanding. An atheist can believe in ghosts, angels, or even an afterlife. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is not believing in deities.

Over three billion arrangements of this DNA coding exist in every human cell. Natural, biological causes (accidental and unintentional causes according to atheists) can't provide a logical basis for this to happen entirely by chance.

Also, I've never heard an atheist say that we're the result of "accidental" causes.

Skeptical atheists have a hard time believing the Bible because what happened then isn't something that happens on a usual basis. They also weren't there when these events did happen. Also, just because an event or occurrence cannot be repeated through mankind's own power does not mean it did not take place, but yet, some people refuse to believe anything unless these kinds of conditions are met.

And the reason skeptical atheists don't believe in the Bible isn't because things happen in it that don't happen every day. It's because they haven't seen any proof or evidence that the Bible is accurate and correct.

 

[Oryx]

A good analogy I've seen someone else use is the fish aquarium example. Some fish (atheists) believe the aquarium (Earth and observable space) is all that encompasses existence. These same fish will also feel that if they can't observe it, then it must not exist.

Philip Yancey goes into this analogy further:



The fact that Earth is so complex and is so fragile is a clear indication of God's intended creation and continued care.


The universe also had to have a start to it. Despite having the theory of the Big Bang, scientists can't explain the sudden explosion of light and matter. There's no basis for a cause and effect here. Even beyond the Big Bang, there would be no explanation for how water came to be on Earth.

This implies a god that is not the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, but just the being that started the universe. I find this version of god to be the most compelling and most interesting figure, but often feel like theists think they are arguing "someone had to create the world, therefore my omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient god must exist," when what they are really arguing is "someone had to create the world, therefore a god exists that could be anywhere from 'created the first particle and has no power beyond that' to my God."

The other matter is the uniform laws of nature. Why are their universal laws in the first place, and how could they have just come into action without cause and effect? Scientists today can't fully understand gravity.

And to keep going, as we all know, training, teaching, and instruction come with intention, very much like a person writing an instruction manual or coding a computer program. So, what coded DNA then if it wasn't God? Over three billion arrangements of this DNA coding exist in every human cell. Natural, biological causes (accidental and unintentional causes according to atheists) can't provide a logical basis for this to happen entirely by chance. You don't wake up to find something of this level just created itself out of nothing. The chances of that happening are even less than turning on your computer and finding out ten incredibly well programmed games that didn't exist yesterday are suddenly now installed on your hard drive.

The scientific explanation of how we came to be where we are is not the religious one, and I believe you're mixing the two here. No person of science would argue that we just woke up one day as fully formed humans; instead, they would argue that we evolved over millions of years to have the most advantageous DNA changes. For example, how the complex system of an eye may develop: first, there is an area on the head that is slightly sensitive to darkness and light. This allows the creature to avoid predators more effectively and take advantage of the benefits of day and night, giving them an advantage so it passes on. Then one person is born slightly different - their "eyes" can also see vague shapes. This has an obvious evolutionary advantage in being able to detect if something is about to attack you, so it's passed on. This continues through the years - we see in color because being colorblind and trying to forage for food would often result in pulling poisonous plants instead of safe ones, thinking snakes aren't dangerous when they are, etc., we see sharper images because it better allows us to avoid predators. This slowly develops through minor tweaks into the eyes that we have today.

Skeptical atheists have a hard time believing the Bible because what happened then isn't something that happens on a usual basis. They also weren't there when these events did happen. Also, just because an event or occurrence cannot be repeated through mankind's own power does not mean it did not take place, but yet, some people refuse to believe anything unless these kinds of conditions are met.

To get back to the point of this thread and to address your overall point, the logical conclusion of "we can't be 100% sure that what we think happened is right" isn't "God must exist." You seem to be arguing the same point that the agnostic OP is arguing - that we have no way of knowing, so atheists can't exist. However, you're arguing it from the opposite end and sideways.

 

[T The Manager]

I'm a Christian but as I stated in another thread I'm not religious. Just like in the other post I also stated I had things happen to me that are explainable so it's enough to convince me that God may exist but me or nobody is 100% sure that God does exist. I may be wrong about God's existence just like atheist may be wrong about not believing in any higher power.

As in heaven and hell and the afterlife, I'm not sure what I could possibly say about this because there's so many things that could possibly happen after we die. This may sound crazy but I believe that there is heaven and hell on earth and I have self incriminating evidence that there is an afterlife as in ghost but I don't go too much into it.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

I think, ultimately, a major problem with trying to figure out god and the supernatural is that everyone's already reached their conclusions about it and have set up their arguments so that they basically can't be beaten. For instance,

Believers in the supernatural after evidence appears in their favor: "There. See? Told you it was real, you heathens."
Believers after unfavorable evidence shows up: "Well, clearly they were using the wrong methods, techniques, and/or equipment to try and find evidence." or "You're trying to test god/forces you don't understand. You should know better."

Nonbelievers after evidence disproving something supernatural appears: "There. Told you it wasn't real, you superstitious fools."
Nonbelievers after evidence that shows the phenomena is real: "The evidence is clearly getting cherry-picked, or it's just outright lies." or "Well, see, that's not supernatural, that's just something natural we had no previous explanation for in science."

Slight exaggeration made on a couple of these hypothetical statements, but hopefully you get my point. Both sides have just set themselves up in their own little forts, hiding from anything that might prove them wrong. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is exactly what is preventing us from getting anywhere meaningful on some fronts.

 

[twocows]

So, what coded DNA then if it wasn't God? Over three billion arrangements of this DNA coding exist in every human cell. Natural, biological causes (accidental and unintentional causes according to atheists) can't provide a logical basis for this to happen entirely by chance. You don't wake up to find something of this level just created itself out of nothing. The chances of that happening are even less than turning on your computer and finding out ten incredibly well programmed games that didn't exist yesterday are suddenly now installed on your hard drive.

This isn't particularly topical to the thread, but you're grossly misunderstanding current scientific theory regarding the origin of life. Read. As for how life developed from that point on, the most popular theory is evolution resultant from natural selection, which is sufficient to explain how life has developed once it was created. Most theists acknowledge that scientific theories as to the origin of species are the most likely while still maintaining that it does not contradict their beliefs.

If you want to ignore science for whatever reason, that's fine. Don't use your misunderstanding as a supporting argument for your beliefs, though.

 

[Neo Emolga]

This isn't particularly topical to the thread, but you're grossly misunderstanding current scientific theory regarding the origin of life. As for how life developed from that point on, the most popular theory is evolution resultant from natural selection, which is sufficient to explain how life has developed once it was created. Most theists acknowledge that scientific theories as to the origin of species are the most likely while still maintaining that it does not contradict their beliefs.

If you want to ignore science for whatever reason, that's fine. Don't use your misunderstanding as a supporting argument for your beliefs, though.

From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

The earliest physical evidence for life on Earth is biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentry rocks discovered in Western Greenland and microbial mat fossiles found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.

And so...

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:5-7

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Genesis 2:19-20

 

[twocows]

From Wikipedia:
And so...

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:5-7

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. Genesis 2:19-20

I don't get what point you're trying to make. Perhaps you should clarify?

 

[Shapshu]

I think there are some questions of definition here. What are we counting as knowledge? People who have had mystical experiences claim to have definite knowledge of the divine. (In fact, iirc, that certainty is one of the defining characteristics of a mystical experience.) That type of experience isn't evidence: if you tell me you saw a God with twenty legs, that doesn't mean I have to believe such a being exists. But because it provides certainty for the person experiencing it, I would not say anyone who has had such an experience could be called agnostic.

 

[Neo Emolga]

I don't get what point you're trying to make. Perhaps you should clarify?

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."

See the bold.

 

[Deleted member 211486]

I don't get what point you're trying to make. Perhaps you should clarify?

I think the guy's trying to justify creationism using abiogenesis.

 

[PkmnTrainerElio]

I believe in God and Jesus, and the Bible, however, I don't have any specific religion.

 

[Sir Codin]

To me, there is no such thing as "agnosticism."

If you find yourself questioning God's existence, you don't believe. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Sorry if it seems sort of black-and-white, but that's the attitude I found myself taking when deciding how I felt about religion and spirituality.

I questioned, which meant I had doubts. Once I realized this, I realized this means I don't believe. I then realized this means I'm an atheist. End of story.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I suppose you could take that approach. Religions, by nature, are a belief system. Something you take on faith.

Knowing doesn't really fall into the equation.

I more inclined to believe, but I don't know or pretend to know

Similarly, if I were an atheist, I don't think I would profess to know that there isn't some kind of higher power. I think I would just merely not believe.

 

[BadPokemon]

Neo Emolga, you're not a mind reader. You're claiming to know what every atheist believes, and claiming to know why they believe what they do. But as I said above: just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they disbelieve in anything immaterial or beyond the scope of their own understanding. An atheist can believe in ghosts, angels, or even an afterlife. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is not believing in deities.



Also, I've never heard an atheist say that we're the result of "accidental" causes.




And the reason skeptical atheists don't believe in the Bible isn't because things happen in it that don't happen every day. It's because they haven't seen any proof or evidence that the Bible is accurate and correct.

I would tend to disagree. I have debated numerous people on other social media and most of them(all atheist) say they don't believe it because they can't see God and that they didn't witness the Bible. No offense, but atheists do believe that we are a result of an accident. The universe didn't think, I'm going to create myself today and make a planet say humans can evolve from non-living matter that's not even possible! It was an accident.

Neo something was right.

 

[Sopheria]

I would tend to disagree. I have debated numerous people on other social media and most of them(all atheist) say they don't believe it because they can't see God and that they didn't witness the Bible.

Neo Emolga didn't say "most atheists that I've met think this way". He said "atheists think this way". Those people don't speak for all atheists though, is my point. To argue against the validity of that reason for not believing in gods is not an argument against atheism, but rather an argument against philosophical materialism, which is a position that personally I as an atheist don't hold.

No offense, but atheists do believe that we are a result of an accident. The universe didn't think, I'm going to create myself today and make a planet say humans can evolve from non-living matter that's not even possible! It was an accident.

Neo something was right.

You're creating a false choice here. You're saying that either the universe must be the result of a sentient creator, or it must be an accident. The reason I say this is a false choice is for two reasons.

1. If the events that took place from the time of the Big Bang to now which resulted in the present state of the universe were guided by predictable, consistent, natural phenomena (e.g. the laws of general relativity, the rate of expansion of the universe, the rate of decay of radiation, the life cycle and accretion of stars, etc), then they're not "accidents" so to speak, but they're also not necessarily the result of a supernatural intelligence.
2. An atheist could also claim not to have any knowledge about how the universe came to be, meaning they don't believe it was the result of a god, nor do they believe it was an accident. They just don't believe either way.

 

[twocows]

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."

See the bold.

I think the guy's trying to justify creationism using abiogenesis.

Like I said, many theists don't see a conflict between scientific theories of the origin of species and their own beliefs. From my perspective, if it means people are more receptive to science and what we uncover, I'm all for it.

 

[BadPokemon]

Neo Emolga didn't say "most atheists that I've met think this way". He said "atheists think this way". Those people don't speak for all atheists though, is my point. To argue against the validity of that reason for not believing in gods is not an argument against atheism, but rather an argument against philosophical materialism, which is a position that personally I as an atheist don't hold.



You're creating a false choice here. You're saying that either the universe must be the result of a sentient creator, or it must be an accident. The reason I say this is a false choice is for two reasons.

1. If the events that took place from the time of the Big Bang to now which resulted in the present state of the universe were guided by predictable, consistent, natural phenomena (e.g. the laws of general relativity, the rate of expansion of the universe, the rate of decay of radiation, the life cycle and accretion of stars, etc), then they're not "accidents" so to speak, but they're also not necessarily the result of a supernatural intelligence.
2. An atheist could also claim not to have any knowledge about how the universe came to be, meaning they don't believe it was the result of a god, nor do they believe it was an accident. They just don't believe either way.

Ok, I see. Are you saying that based in your scientific reasoning of the universe, the outcome of the event is the same? Is it a purposeful, but coincidental at the same time? I would like to see your perspective on it.