Anyone who knows me knows that I consider myself an “Agnostic Atheist” because, as Wikipedia states
“Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
I am an atheist because I do not believe that god exists yet I do not claim to be an “Gnostic Atheist” because I have no evidence to completely disprove the existence of god. I do believe that almost everything that has been attributed to god.. science is showing us there is no divine hand in it but I have seen no evidence that would completely disprove the existence of the deity… I simply do not believe a deity exists.
For some they believe incorrectly that agnosticism is a “middle ground” between atheist and theist, it is not, agnosticism simply states that given the current information had there is no conclusive proof either way [with respect to the deity] that a god exists or does not exists.. Some take a side of “atheist” as in Agnostic atheist who.. do not claim to have empirical evidence that a deity does not exist yet simply do not believe in a deity given the evidence, others take the side of agnostic theist because they say they do not have empiric evidence that a deity exists but have faith that it does…
Then you have some people who consider themselves “gnostic” which means “learned knowledge” which claim they either do not believe or believe in the deity and some [not all] claim evidence of such.. While I do not believe a deity exists, and while I see most of the things attributed to the deity to have been dis-proven by science, I have seen no evidence that would empirically disprove 100% the existence of the deity…
Though.. since the concept of God is devolving … from hundreds of gods… to dozens of gods.. to a handful of gods… to [in general] one god… so … this can go two ways… we would gain such knowledge to disprove the existence of a deity… or prove the existence of a deity OR….. god will evolve and start going the way… 4
Though many do not actually say I am an GNOSTIC ATHEIST, GNOSTIC THEIST, AGNOSTIC ATHEIST, OR AGNOSTIC THEIST… they simply say atheist or theist to tell whether or not they have a belief in the deity or some higher power.
I also made a “Gnostic Theist” “Gnostic Atheist” “Agnostic Atheist” which will be uploaded right after this one
All of them: Including this one linked below:
Agnostic Theist: [link]
Gnostic Theist: [link]
Agnostic Atheist: [link]
Gnostic Atheist: [link]
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
"Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism
The primary reason atheists are thought to be closed-minded seems to be the belief that atheism requires a dogmatic, unthinking denial of the . In contrast, agnostics appear to be open-minded because they admit to not knowing for sure if any gods exist or not. This is a mistake because atheism is not defined in that manner; on the contrary, an atheist may not necessarily deny any gods and may in fact be an atheist precisely because they do not know for sure if any gods exist — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well as an atheist.
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes clear that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism.
The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not, not to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.
It should therefore be clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. A person who believes in a god while insisting that they know for sure that their god exists would be a gnostic theist. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. A person who denies that any gods exists while insisting that they know for sure that gods either don't or can't exist would be a gnostic atheist.
In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.
Just checking before I use this.
If one believe in this higher power or god and does not claim to have conclusive evidence to affirm such.. as such they are an agnostic theist [I have a stamp in my gallery for that as well in my gallery]
But alas, that will not change my view on being an agnostic atheist.. it works for me
I live my life by a quote often cited to Marcus Aurelius but I say as a fan of his, I have yet to find the words in any of his known text
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
To quote Dawkins, "I am agnostic about god the same way I am agnostic about fairies in the backyard."
haha yes Dawkins, I have no evidence of the fairies either
And for some reason, people think him admitting to be agnostic is some sort of great stepdown (mostly people who have not read the god delusion).
most people believe agnostic is a middle ground between atheism or theism, which it is not at all.. Carl Sagan, Agnostic yet no belief in the personal god, Neil Degrasse Tyson, agnostic, yet no belief in an actual god etc etc
.. it should be pointed out that many of the people you find on "atheist" list never claimed to be atheist but when they claim agnostic for someone reason people put them on atheist list even though they can be agnostic theist
There is a common perception that that is the case, yes. Which is misleading, and has also caused many an anti-religious figure to call himself agnostic rather than atheist... like Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Tyson like Sagan, said he does not call himself an atheist because for him, like theist, it seems to be a "sure" position but he has said if someone calls him an atheist he simply says "I don't know, I'm agnostic" ... He said one day when we find proof either way he will claim one.
Sagan's definition of atheism was actually erroneous. Atheism isn't defined as "the certainty there is a lack of deities", it's defined as "lack of belief in a deity or deities", a label that fits both him and Tyson.
Check my new upload, I Was a bit surprised I agreed with Jill Stein so much, I will certainly give her more of a look than I previously have.
Yes,but to take into consideration when Sagan was born and the atheist movements of the 30s, 40s in America that sought to have religion removed from public life... and things often attributed to atheism particularly communism and the assuring of disbelief.