Is "I am agnostic" a valid answer to "Do you beleive in god?"
 

This is most likely something that has been discussed before on this board, but I couldn't find an exact topic about. So anyway, I read an article that tried to differentiate between claims of faith, and claims of knowledge. It discussed how agnosticism is a claim of knowledge, and is not an acceptable answer to the question of "Do you beleive in god?" An agnostic is typically someone who claims not to *know* whether god exists, but the question is whether you *beleive* in god.

I think it's an interesting dilemma. For a long time, I would associate agnosticism as my belief system. But, after thinking through this article, I've changed my answer to agnostic/atheist for the question of "do you believe in god?" (not saying just 'atheist', because I get some cold stares if i do :p )

So I propose this: Say you had to bet a dollar on whether god exists. The decision you'd make for that bet determines how you should answer the question. Thoughts?

any answer regarding religion is valid.

"i like carrots" is just as valid as the question that precedes it. (can you tell i'm atheist?)

however, "i am agnostic" is the equivalent of saying "i don't know", and is a valid answer that actually makes sense.

Yep...this is a person who believes there's something more significant,
but at the same time is saying they are sure of the definitions.

This is totally legit to say,
better than defining it and then going around trying to force it on others or proving it.
IMHO

Sure it is, why wouldnt it be? They are saying, there might be, there might not, but it really doesnt matter. Sounds like a fair answer to me.

I agree that it isn't an acceptable answer. I don't think a lot of people realize that one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic Christian or an agnostic 'insert religion here". Just because one states he doesn't know whether or not god(s) exist(s) doesn't mean he is obligated to NOT believe in a higher power. In general though, there don't seem to be many people who believe in god but question his existence. This seems to be why agnosticism often wrongly becomes synonymous with atheism.

Heh, I remember from some book of useless knowledge, that the word was originally coined by some athiest that was sick of being called an athiest, so one day he came back by saying, "I'm agnostic" ;) But now it means you believe in something, but as to what it is? who knows. I think its acceptable. Simply because what you are looking for past that is what exactly do they think? Well if you believe in God, there are so many interpretations nowadays that you need more description from them. Even then you could get more description from an atheist, as "i don't believe in him" isn't always the reason either.

I think if you wish to be precise with your wording, the only acceptable answer to "Do you believe in God?" is "define your terms".

Isn't answering said question with "I am an agnostic" simply a way of answering the question without actually answering it. From the outset it appears to demand only a simple yes or no answer. If anomaly is correct to point out that agnostic christians do exist then it seems deceptive.

If someone asked you if you ate meat and your reply was simply, "I'm a vegetarian," well, you're not really saying anything definitively. There are many vegetarians who eat fish, and chicken too.

Vegetarian, like agnostic doesn't really mean much in the context of that question.

Besides, why can't you just say yes or no?

If you want to ask yes or no questions about God, there is not really an answer that can be given. Perhaps it will be an invitation to further conversation, but a one word affirmation or denial of such a complex idea is what i would doubt the validity of if it stands alone. my policy is to not usually answer that question unless i have the time to explain my answer, simply because saying "Yes" or "I am Christian" leaves so many things out. they probably will know more about me when i decline to say than if i just told them the one word.

To a yes or no question, being an agnostic is answering maybe.

When betting a dollar that God doesn't exist, being an agnostic is betting on both sides while secretly wondering if its possible for the coin to stand up on its side.

it is a valid answer because people do categorize themselves as agnostics. and if thats how you want to relate then so be it.

I'm Agnostic I guess. Since I don't recall asking to be born, I think I'll do what I want while treating people as humanely as possible. Then I'll see what happens when I die. If there is a God and he doesn't like it then he should talk to me in person right now.

If you want to get technical, you can draw a line between agnosticism and "weak" or "negative" atheism. Agnostics believe that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven, and live their life according to that. So-called "negative" atheists lack belief in a deity because there is no proof for one. (Contrast this to "positive" atheists, who believe definitively that there is no god.) It's a subtle difference, but it's there. I generally identify myself as a negative atheist and a secular humanist.

The terms have come to mean roughly the same thing anyway. I have no problem with people who say they're plain agnostic. "Agnostic Christian" or "Agnostic whatever," though, is a contradiction in terms to me.

ah-ha! I just found the article that got me thinking about it. Judge its credibility as you see fit: it's an interview by American Atheist of Douglas Adams, author of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

If a question is asked that only has the options of "yes" or "no", than any answer that is not "yes" or "no" does not answer the question!

No, it isn't. To claim you're an agnostic says nothing of your belief in god. It is only a statement about your knowledge of god. It is then very possible to be an agnostic Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever.

The question does not demand a yes or no answer. The person asking the question may, but that's different; isn't it?

I believe the agnostic has the better answer than yes or no.

The person that answer's "yes," has given up part of the capacity to learn, to grow. The person that says "yes" has said that they already know the answer, and don't need to know more.

The person that says "no," is stuck in the same bind as the "yes." Saying "no" means also presuming to know the answer to the unanswerable. Saying "no" closes the door to consideration.

The agnostic has left the door open. If god wishes to instruct the agnostic, he will. The agnostic is more willing to listen than the believer. The believer is listinening for what he wants to hear. Humans are very good at that. The person with his ears shut is screwed as well. The agnostic is the smart one.

The agnostic says, "Hey, I don't know if there is a god. I don't know if there isn't one. Let me see what I can learn. When I die, I'll know for sure."

That is interesting! Could you describe to me what an agnostic Christian, Muslim, or Jew would believe?

I can think of a very good example, I think. Take someone who is raised to be christian. They lead a christian life for many years, but then one day they begin to question their belief in christianity, or even god. They may stay in this state for an extened period of time, teetering between believing and not believing. I think that's what an agnostic christian would be.

moreover, someone who considers him or herself practicing or faithful on some tenets may profess agnosticism on others. i believe in God, and in the gospel proclaimed by Christ. I'm agnostic as to what ressurection means, and what the exact nature of God is. I care deeply about these questions, but i'm simply with out the answers at this time.

Embrace your inner atheist.

i am a agnostic is a very good answer to do i belive in god


it says i dont know and really who does know for sure wether or not god exist

the agnostic does not say that god out right does not exist simply that they dont know for sure


whats worng with that?

Your answer is exactly what I'm talking about. The question was about belief, and you answer with a claim regarding knowledge (you said "i don't know").

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I guess that's the point of this whole thread. Like I said in the first post, if you had to place a (inconsequential) bet on the existence of god, what would you bet on, yes or no? I understand that refraining from the bet altogether is a valid option, and I think that's what the definition agnostic is. But, if you're able to decide how you would bet in that situation, I think that would make you *not* agnostic. If you know you'd bet on god not existing, then you're atheist, and if you know you'd bet on god existing, then you're theistic.

I often joke that I am an agnostic becuase I am afraid of committment. Is that a valid answer to the question about god, depends on if the person asking me that question thinks so. *shrugs*

If you take the precept that you must give a yes or no answer, then saying, "I'm agnostic" does not suffice. Additionally, saying yes or no does not necessarily mean you are an atheist or theist. As a gambler will tell you, you may not always believe that a team is going to win, but you may play the odds and bet on them anyway. I realize this is a simplification of the concept, but this is not a black and white issue.

"I'm Agnostic" is an acceptable answer for the general question, "Do you believe in God?" You are simply stating, "I am unsure."

As far as the concept of an Agnostic/Christian or other denomination, I certainly think it is possible. My mother was raised an Epsicopalian and was devout for most of her life. In her later years, she began to have certain doubts about the actual concept of God. She was very spiritual, but was simply unsure about God. She still, however, loved the Church and enjoyed services and being part of the community. She lived as an Episcopalian, even discussing her doubts with her priest and lived happily that way.

I think that its an irresponcible answer to the question. Just my lowly opinion, but allow me to explain.

I was sitting in a sociology class a couple of semesters ago and the entire class was forced to answer the question of religious affiliation in a role-call manner. Most everyone claimed to be an agnostic, or atheist, or simple stated "I was raised Catholic." or "My Mother is Jewish, and my Father is Southern Baptist."

Personally, I look at my peers and see an entire generation of people who have rejected organized religion, and not without good reason. The crimes the 'Church' has perpetrated in the last few hundred years alone would make the average person quite turned off. The problem is that the fundamentalist's actions simply do not align with their own ideologies.

But I ask you this - Does that our excuse our generation from pondering the eternal questions? If you search your heart or soul or whatever you think you have you will find the answers that you seek.

Personally I'm a Christian. I was raised Pentecostal, but I do not hold to their Puritanical Dogma. I enjoy Buddhism too, as a great philosophy, but in the end, its the Christ that answered those questions for me; I don't condone every action done in the name of Christ.

"Is "I am agnostic" a valid answer to "Do you beleive in god?"

Very much so. I believe the earnestness of anyone who says so.

It has nothing to do with earnestness though. It's a non-answer to a question about belief because your response is only concerned with knowledge. I apologize for sounding like a droning, broken record but I don't think most posts are rationally responding to Moskie's question.

Of course it is. They way I see it being agnostic is a belief just like being aethiest or believing in god. It may not be as supported as either one or even as clear but that doesn't make it valid.

yes it is, its just a validification that you've never given any thought to the subject, but are a pussy and would'nt want to offend a god if there were one, and you've been completley manipulated by society.

Okay that was harsh, but there is a god get used to it. I dunno if there is a heaven or hell, but there is a god.

Ouch! Crushed by your convincing and logically thought out argument. You really put us atheists/agnostics in our place!

I agree with Anomaly_ on this one. I know plenty of agnostic christians. These are people that may believe in god, but not be able to define him/her/it, or they follow the traditions of a religion in a secular way, but aren't sure if they believe in the more supernatural concepts of it.

I've read that this is not uncommon in Jewish communities although I don't know first hand. Judaism involves racial and cultural traditions as well though.

Interesting that you should say that agnostics are completely manipulated by society. The same could be said about religious groups, especially since they comprise the majority.

But as for the original question, yes, I believe it is. I tell people that I'm agnostic. I lean more towards being an atheist, but I won't rule out the possibility that a god exists. I don't claim to know everything. I feel that there is very little evidence that suggests that a god does exist, but nevertheless, there is SOME evidence. Therefore, I won't claim that I am completely atheist, because hey, I could be wrong.

of course its an answer but you explain by reasoning that god can neither be proven nor disproven

I'd bet more than a dollar that God exists. I KNOW he exists because I believe absoluely he exists. I don't need facts. Dyou see?

Being agnostic is accepting that you may or may not be wrong about there being a God. :)

So, if you think there is a 51% chance of there being a god, you believe in god?

If you are risk adverse, you are agnostic?

If you refuse to put any thought into an event that has a trivial impact, you are agnostic?

Hell, I'd make that bet, either way. I mean, you are going to tell me what the answer is, beyond all possible doubt? For 1$, find out for certain, have the proof at your fingertips!

Prove it? You have just made a huge assertion, that you can find the answer to a huge question by introspection. Not everyone works that way.

How about "I believe I do not know what I believe."
Or "I believe that belief in god, or belief there is no god, are both unresonable beliefs. I hold neither."
Or "I think the question isn't worth thinking about, or argueing about why it isn't worth thinking about."

There are many interpritations of the answer "I am agnostic" that make it a valid response to "Do you believe in god?"

The fact that you can find one interpritation for both the question and the answer that makes it make no sense is a completely useless piece of information. This is true of basically every question and every answer for those questions, it is not anything special or profound.

i think ythat is a valid answer... i am agnostic and i dont know if their is a god or anythign like that.... and when people ask me i just reply wiht that same line im agnostic or i dont know....

Just to be punny, because i can, if you said "I am a gnostic," then, yes, it would indeed be a valid answer. Here's why, gnosticism originally came forth about the same time Christianity did. It was an alternate interpretation of what was going on with creation, jesus, and all of that. After dying out it was recently revitalized though I don't feel like looking up by whom. My beliefs are fairly gnostic, and here is what that means. Gnostics believe that some sort of divinity (often referred to as the demiurge) created the universe, some say successfully with intentional problems like "evil" others say that was accidental. Either way, what makes Gnosticism special is that they believe in something called Gnosis. By accident or by design, some humans, or all, depending who you ask, ended up with a little spark of something divine. This god within is a source of great wisdom and understanding for those who can spend a lifetime meditating upon it. Somewhat akin to the knowing body of chakra lore.

I honestly don't see the necessity of declaring belief or disbelief in a god or gods. Personally, my beliefs are more pantheistic, and don't accomodate the existence of some sort of separate guiding power. I can't really answer the question "Do you believe in God?" without the inquirer defining God.

I still battle back and forth with what I believe and don't believe. My belief's are based on my feelings and I think that doing that is somewhat wrong. If there is a god, I don't think that god is vengeful. I have no idea what god is. For all I know we can all be god because we can be a manifestation of god and see through god's eyes. it's just too confusing. I don't really think I can ever believe in hell. I think that we shouldn't really decide whether god exists or not. We can ponder and ask questions, but why ask. You have a lifetime to figure things out instead of being subjugated by religion. I'm not saying religion is bad but it does separate humans, which I guess is inevitable. But why not just find out when you die. Why not just enjoy life and it's experiences even if we may exist only once. I don't really believe there is a purpose in life. I only think that we create purposes. If so, let it be that these purposes make us happy. Once again, if there is a god, I don't believe god is vengeful. If god stands for love, he wouldn't hurt us.

oh might i add....since i'm not sure whether i believe in god or not, i don't think it's a bad idea to question about god. if there is a god, maybe we can begin to discover god in this life whether god is life, us, an entity, a part of us, or not. questions and experiences with different people is the best way to find out i think.

A real agnostic believes that it as there is no information to go by, it's stupid to make a decision in relation to God. The other definition is just a synonym for indecisive.

There's a major difference between "It's unknowable" and "I don't know...maybe..."

There's no such thing as an Agnostic Christian, Muslim, or Jew. There IS such a thing as an uncertain Christian, a confused Muslim, and a wavering Jew. But if you're really agnostic then you drop the Christian, Muslim, and Jew parts. How can you be a non-believing believer?

You most certainly can be an agnostic theist. All agnostic means is that you believe that knowledge and proof of god aren't attainable. An example of a christian agnostic would be someone who follows one of the apologetic lines of thought that go "Knowledge of God may be impossible, but faith requires me to believe anyway, so I believe".

What I can't believe is that there are still so many idiots in the 21st century.

There's a long story written back when people thought thunder was god getting angry.
Why does blind faith in this story and all it's associated bullshit matter so much to so many?

Some people are saying "ok you don't *know* whether god exists, but do you *believe*?".
A better question would be:
If you don't (and can't) know about the existence of a god, what's the point in wasting your time on it, especially with ridiculous specifics like "you must face mecca" "you must wear such-and-such a garment"?

There are two types of agnostics:

Agnostic fideists and agnostic atheists. If someone says "I'm an agnostic", they pretty much mean they are an atheist.

As an agnostic, my answer would be, no I don't believe there is a god, but I also am not certain there is not a god.

And the reason I decided not to call myself an atheist is because many, if not most, atheists seem to be god-haters, which implies there is still a belief in god hidden somewhere in their psyche.

I think most atheists don't fully appreciate their own position is as much a matter of belief as a theist, albeit a slightly less arbitrary one.

I would class myself as agnostic, my reason being that I can't possibly make a meaningful decision. The question was just pulled out of thin air by people.

If I asked "Do you believe that somewhere out there there is a rock shaped like two giraffes humping?" and the only allowed answers are yes and no, what would your answer be?

Regarding the "rock shaped like two giraffes humping."

Not to be argumentative, but I took the initial question to mean, do you believe in a supreme being, which of course doesn't specify exactly what qualities you then believe that being to have. So that's not quite the same as asking if you believe, in effect, that the one you have put your faith in looks like some sort of beast with two backs. Although perhaps you have described something that represents a form of animal heaven - which begins to make more and more sense. Perhaps the rock represents the supreme being's logo?

Maaan, there's no need to take the piss :|

To me - god if he/she exists does very little. Does not affect my morals, does not affect my science, and I'm not interested in he/she/it. Hence I usually tag myself agnostic.

I've been through this with others before. Apparently this is an usual position to take on the matter.

Of course it's a valid answer. How would it not be?

It's more valid than "Yes" or "No", IMO. No one knows for sure whether god exists or not.

Everything exists for a reason. I have a hard time believing this omniscient being, bored off his ass, decides to create a universe... or however it's defined in common religion. Then it begs the question, "Where did god come from?" and then things get all jacked up, or you end up with some kind of half-assed thoughtless cop-out such as, "he's always existed".

Saying "I'm agnostic" is on par with, "I don't really care to waste my time on it all since no one will ever know, so quit asking me stupid questions."

The answer, "I am agnostic", while surely valid, is about as wishy-washy as it gets and as such suggests that you do believe but just can't commit.

IF there is a God, he's going to be *very* pissed at the agnostics when he gets around to meeting them.

For some less learned people, the ones who give you that look of "huh?" when you say "I'm agnostic", simply saying "I believe that one or many could possibly exist" might be a more full response.

I reckon there are more agnostics edging on the atheist side than theist.
What I don't get is that there are so many people who just don't understand the agnostic viewpoint. The phrase "seeing is believing" is a simplified summary for all of you still struggling.
To be honest I'm siding with Stompy on this, religion is a waste of time.

I'd be embarassed to say I believed in God, modern-day educated folk believing unwaiveringly in God is like believing in Santa Claus.

I had this question come up just the other day and my answer was "I'm agnostic. I believe in a higher power but do not have faith in organized religion."

So my 2cents is you should clarify on weather or not you believe in a higher power or not. I don't think you can be a agnostic/christian.

This seems to suggest that you do believe in God but not any Church's definition of Him.

In saying you believe in a higher power you are saying you believe in God, you just don't choose to define what God is.

This isn't agnostic. An agnostic is not willing to say there is or isn't a God (or higher power).

Well, I'm not really saying it's a waste of time as much as I'm saying "We don't know."

And if you think about it... we don't. Look at ALL the various religions.

If a god is to get pissed at agnostics, then he will be pissed at Buddhists as well. Is that fair to them? Is it wrong to sit there and say to Buddhists, "Your religion is wrong. You don't worship my god, so you're gonna go to hell"?

You have a plethora of beliefs and religions, each with a completely different "Theme", I guess you'd call it... but the underlying ideas are the same: be kind to others.

If there was a god, there's no way he could be pissed at people for thinking about this. We are human. If there was a god.. he created us. He created our free will. Why would we get punished for it?

So basically you're put on this earth with various religions left and right, and if you don't pick the right one, you're fucked?

If that's how god works... then I don't want to be a part of him!

Personally, I'm aware about all these choices, and I've looked into various religions... I believe that there's *something*, whether or not it's an actual being is beyond me. If I get punished for my choices, then god will get my middle finger.

But I certainly don't believe in the stupid rules that they set.. such as "If you have sex before marriage you're committing a sin." Please.. why would I get punished for something natural? It's just a ridiculous form of control.

Interesting that you chose Buddhism as your example. I don't really see Buddhism as a religion per se. Buddhists do not worship any divine being. They follow the path laid down by a mortal.

It is the only "religion" for lack of a better word that holds any interest for me and even then, I have a lot of issues with the Buddhist understanding of what happens before and after death...

Yeah, I just realized I put "religion" as opposed to "philosophy" when speaking about the Buddhists :D

But I think the idea holds true. Since they don't worship any deity, are they going to suffer the same consequences as atheists and agnostics, especially if the aforementioned lead a wholesome life?

That's the thing about religion that irks me... it just reeks of man, and that's personally why I chose to be agnostic, or at least something other than what man has defined over the years.

[edit]

To explain further.. all the restrictions and rules that are defined in most religions are things that MAN is concerned about, not something a GOD would be concerned about.

"reeks of man"... When I examine organized religion this is exactly what I come up with as well.

For me, once all the morality and rules are stripped away the true purpose of any religion is to answer the two questions to which we have no answer... where do we come from and what happens when we die.

The fear of death, or the unease that we feel when we think on death is universal. Religions provide answers and more importantly comfort in the face of this great unknown.

I am content in my faith that when I die, there will be nothing. Sure it's scary but it just makes a lot more sense to me than some concept of heaven, shoel (the Jewish afterlife), reincarnation, etc. Why make it more complicated than it need be?

Why make it more complicated than it need be? Probably because that's what we do.
Our brains evolved to solve problems, and made more problems for us at the same time. In a sense, humans are more complicated than they need be. As a group, we have great difficulty living with uncertainty. We're a lot happier with myths as answers than with no answers at all, it seems. Anything to dampen those "scary" feelings.

Here's what one of the most famous (or notorious?) agnostic/atheists had to say about that:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx

Yup...

The question itself is open to so many different interpretations that if somebody doesn't like the answer, make them tell you their definitions of the terms "believe" and "god."

As far as the OP, I agree that is not a sufficient answer as agnosticism usually has to do with knowing if there's a god, not belief in one. For instance, I believe we've been to the moon in rocketships, however, I don't KNOW we've been there, I can't know that as I've never even been to NASA or anywhere near it.

I've always searched for a term that describes what I am, but I have yet to find one. I am not agnostic, theist, deist, or atheist. Am I missing anything?

I'd say agnosticism involves not knowing and therefor not believing. If you say you believe, but don't really know, you may be like many who have faith based on hope rather than certainty. In fact they may be in the majority of those who profess a belief. And many of those have serious doubts but are hedging their bets - in case there is a God after all who might be a bit pissed at having been disbelieved. So I don't know either what you would call them. Closet agnostics, perhaps.

Saying "I am agnostic." makes the exchange something to the effect of:
"Do you believe in god?"
"I believe knowledge of gods' existance is impossible."

It doesn't really answer the question being asked.
It's unlikely that someone who believed in some deity or another would answer "I'm an agnostic."
Even a Christian could claim to be agnostic since they have faith (not knowledge) that their god exists... but they'd probably just answer "Yes".

Ya that's what I'm saying, like so many words agnostic is misused. Belief or faith =\= knowledge.

So...why did you quote me? Are you agreeing?

Just to clarify the discussion, I'd like to give a few formal definitions. Some people seem to be mixing up definitions, particularly those of 'agnosticism' and 'skepticism':

Agnostic - An agnostic is one who believes there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God or gods. Agnostics criticize the theist and the atheist for their dogmatism and their presumption of such knowledge.

Athiest - An atheist is one who believes that there exists positive evidence that there is no God. To the atheist, all of existence can be explained naturally rather than supernaturally. An atheist is convinced that all religious belief, evidence, and faith are false.

Skeptic - The skeptic neither affirms nor denies God's existence. And in contrast to the (hard) agnostic, the skeptic does not say it is impossible to know. For (hard) agnosticism too is a form of dogmatism -negative dogmatism. The skeptic claims to take a much more tentative attitude toward knowledge. He is not sure whether a man can or cannot know God. In fact, the complete skeptic is not sure of anything.

Read more here:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/ha...01/default.htm

BTW, believing that a particular type of knowledge is impossible (i.e., agnosticism) isn't that strange. Physicists do it all the time when they deal with the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Not knowing what to believe (i.e., skepticism) is also not that strange. Do you know anyone who is on the fence about global warming?

It's a habit. As I read throgh a thread, I'll Ctrl-Click on any posts that interest me to load the quote/reply in a background tab. When I finish the thread I go through the tabs an see if I still want to make my comment (I.E. did someone else already cover whatever it is I want to say?) and consolidate the relavant bits from all the tabs into one post. It's mostly there for context.... not because I necessarily disagree (or agree) with the quoted text; just because that's what prompted my comment.

There is a new religion that is like skepticism. It's called Universism.

But I'm glad people (not just the person quoted) did put actual definitions. It means we can have an informed debate.

I think that it is a valid answer. Just look at the definition.

Saying that one is agnostic is most definitely an answer to the question "Do You Believe in God?" There's another question that's equally important, which is "Do you believe there is NO God?". Let's examine how three groups of people, namely atheists, theists, and agnostics would respond to these two questions.

Firstly theists - You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Yes I beleive in God, no I don't believe that there isn't a God.

Atheists - No I don't believe in God, yes I do believe there isn't a God.

Agnostics - This is where it gets tricky, because an agnostic is actually answering NO to BOTH questions. Do you believe in God? Well no, because I don't see any avidence that proves that such a being exists. Do you believe there is NO God? Well no, because I see no evidence that leads me to believe that there is certainly NO God in one sense or another.

A more "sitting on the fence" answer that agnostics will give is their answer to the question "Does God exist?" An agnostic will simply say I don't know. I threw this in to illustrate the difference between "Believing in God" and saying firmly that he "Exists". There is certainly a difference here. If I'm not sure that god exists, surely I won't believe in him if I'm coming from a simply rational perspective. But that's where faith comes in for both theists and atheists, in my opinion - If you can prove to me that God either exists or doesn't exist then I will hop camp with you, and commit to being either an atheist or a theist - until then, you've got to have faith that he either does or doesn't exist! I'll be over here on the fence if anyone needs me :)

"Do you believe it's possible to know if gods exist?"
Agnostic: No.
Atheist: (answer depends on whether they acknowledge being agnostic)
Theist: (answer depends on whether they acknowledge being agnostic)

"Do you believe in god?"
Agnostic: (answer depends on whether they believe in god or not)
Atheist: No
Theist: Yes.

"Does god exist?"
Agnostic: I'm agnostic.
Atheist: (answer depends on whether they acknowledge being agnostic)
Theist: (answer depends on whether they acknowledge being agnostic)

How can we be so arrogant to even consider that we may be able to answer the question "Is there a God" much less to form an opinion as to whether we believe in he/she/it. Our lack of knowledge about the nature of the universe almost demands that we remain open-minded. Saying that we are too ignorant to form a belief is not just hedging our bets, it is recognizing our reality.

In the case of your dollar wager, If I was forced to make it, I would flip a coin and let the chips fall where they may. Since so many that have come before have believed in some deity or another it seems like it is in our nature to want to invent a creator to explain away the unknown. I find it easy to imagine a universe with a god or without one but not strongly enough to form a belief one way or another. I am too ignorant and have little faith.

1010011010 has a point, People seem to think the 3 questions he just asked/answered are the same question. I'd even say that "Do you believe in God?" and "Do you believe God exist?" are two different questions.

To 'believe in' is to "have a firm conviction as to the goodness of something(Dictionary.com)," One would have to believe in the existence before he could believe in the goodness. So, to both of the questions; "I am agnostic." is not a truely valid answer because you don't have to know to believe.

It's strange, I've been a lurker for quite sometime, but did not decide to register until today and navigated my way to this particularly topic. I say strange because somewhere between my daily cup of ambition and barbed-wired biscuit soundbites, I was queried about my religion. I loathe to call myself an agnostic, though it is how people usually place me. Well...I don't have a belief system per se. I know that's hard for some people to accept or understand, but the word "belief" probably needs to be expanded here. Most, if not all, belief systems are very static and unchanging. Moreover, we are born with them; we begin to learn about them before we become conscious; they are, no matter what we think of them now, an intimate belonging of our being; they inform our consciousness, our language, and our dreams. We can turn away from them or against them, but that would only bind us tightly to a reduced version of them.

With that said, I find that most organized religions are bureaucracies that place a distance between humans and their creator(s), if there is such a thing. I accept all possibilities, but I am also skeptical of all of them, even my own reduced versions of them. I try to understand the world through critical analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and skepticism. Once I achieve a certain understanding and agreement with a given tenet, I practice that. If, for instance, I understand that love is the answer, as cliché and trite as that sounds, then I practice love. Equally important, I am completely comfortable with the ironic, meaning that I accept the notion that uncertainty is the only certainty. Most people cannot accept that and thus cling to some form of certainty, which most religions provide.

I am simply not an evangelist. I am not concerned with corrupting people with my ideologies. I am far too skeptical of my own thinking to market my ideas. If anything, I believe in infinite possibilities, while remaining skeptical of those very possibilities. I am also not concerned with what is before me or what is behind me, but rather with what is within me. I am intimately concerned with growing and learning. I am retroactively introspective, so my ideas vacillate on a daily, if not, hourly basis. My religion is change, and the only thing I am afraid of is losing that potential. I don't want to arrive at 50 with the same ideas I had at 25, for I would have wasted half my life. Besides, if I am concerned with progress, I cannot achieve that without change, and if I cannot change my mind then I cannot change anything.

In my opinion and experience, agnostic means that you believe in some power 'out there' not so much in a daily life, but that something else happens to you when you die instead of just pushing up daisies... it's the idea that 'something' is out there, but you are not convinced that it is anything like the religious concept of 'god.'

i would consider myself agnostic. I think it's possible that there is something out there, some higher meaning to the universe, i'm just not sure what it is.

Sweetpea

May i say WELCOME diskors! :)

Sweetpea

Thanks. It's good to be here--so far, so good, and good just keeps getting better.

If there was a "God" and presumably a heaven, I would hope that I could bet more than a dollar. I’m just concerned that there's an IRS in the afterlife and since I kept a receipt for every reality check I've gotten, I'd like to put down more on this bet. Seriously, though, beyond the obvious history and social conditioning, I find that people have a hard time accepting the notion that uncertainty is the only certainty. Plus, humans are to some degree intrinsically self-absorbed with their own reality and do not realize that philosophy (of which religion is just another strand) is a prison and undermines some of the customary things about us. There is dreadful desire in us to teach and not to learn. I find that religion is often a tool of teaching, not only of learning. Sure we learn what we are taught, but often without questioning the very foundation of our teaching or the motivating begin that teaching.