I just dont get Agnosticism

[Drunken Cat]

People have to agree with common definitions first before they argue. What I see here are people arguing on how things should be defined.

But, people will never agree. And they will play semantical games to try to discredit other people.

This was sort of my point, though. People who insist on a certain definition use religion as the default position, or the reference point for a definition. I reject this.

[Tom Cruise]

People have to agree with common definitions first before they argue. What I see here are people arguing on how things should be defined.

Agreed, thats were ive lost the thread of this i think.

[Mud]

Lacking belief and not believing are not the same thing. Lack of belief is what agnostics, babies, fish, plants and rocks have.

Lacking a belief in gods is different from not having the ability to believe in anything. We are talking about a specific belief, not belief as an ability.

[Mud]

People have to agree with common definitions first before they argue. What I see here are people arguing on how things should be defined.

The OP did ask whether or not he misunderstood agnosticism. Which is about definition.

[Fury]

But, people will never agree. And they will play semantical games to try to discredit other people.

This was sort of my point, though. People who insist on a certain definition use religion as the default position, or the reference point for a definition. I reject this.

What are you talking about? 'religion as the default position' You've completely lost me.

[Canelo Phresh]

The common broader definition of atheism is a disbelief in a deity. There are degrees of this disbelief.



Id say its become popular to be an outspoken argumentative atheist.

Yeah it is very much so.

[Drunken Cat]

What are you talking about? 'religion as the default position' You've completely lost me.

Agnosticism is generally defined as the position of holding neither the belief, nor disbelief, in a 'god' (specifically, the Judea-Christian-Islamic 'god').

Such a designation assumes that it must be such a 'choice', with respect to what to 'believe'.

I reject this entire premise.

[-Lowkey-]

“To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.”*

[I Love Jesus!]

There is no such thing as a true agnostic. The overwhelming majority of people who identify themselves as 'agnostic' are in fact 'agnostic atheists', which most atheists are, as well.

An absolute agnostic is a person who, after reviewing the physical evidence and philosophical arguments for and against the existence of gods comes to the conclusion that it is equally probable that deities do exist as it is that they do not.

Even a person who has never heard of the existence of any religion cannot be categorized in this position because in order to arrive at it one must first be aware of the concept of god and then consider it.

Therefore, in practical reality, an absolute agnostic most likely doesn't exist.

People who claim to be an out-and-out agnostic are either exceedingly ignorant of the English language or they simply claim to be agnostic so as not to offend either the religious or the non-religious, and I have nothing but contempt for them.

Still, there are worse groups.

Like those trendy assh*les who claim to be "spiritual, not religious" while taking a break from sniffing their own farts.

That's rich seeing as you are the definition of someone who loves the smell of their own farts. You could use a healthy dose of getting over yourself......

[Spray_resistant]

Agnostics enjoy the delicious position of neutral apathy towards the whole subject, its a good thing.