4 ms·

That's not what agnostic means. Most people who believe in God wouldn't say they can prove God exists, and they aren't agnostic.

mjburgess 12y ago
No, that is exactly what it means. It doesnt take very long to look something up (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ). Agnosticism is not about being uncertain, it's the position that the answer is unknowable or unknown - which is much stronger than merely being uncertain.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  You have a point, but the person you're responding to makes a more important one - the colloquial definition of agnostic, in reference to religion, is a person who's not sure what they think about the existence of gods. When you call yourself an agnostic, that's what people typically understand by it.
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    That's the problem with surveys like this: the categories are political not philosophical. It would be better to ask, "Does a deity feature amongst your considerations when making a decision?" I take it that's what people are mainly interested in anyway. If this question was asked alongside the others in these questionnaires I think you'd see a high percentage of non-atheist responders agreeing.
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    I am not making a point about the colloquial definition. The wikipedia article he linked disagrees with him too.
- jasonkostempski 12y ago
  If that's the definition then it's useless as a distinguishing label since everyone on either side of faith can't know. If anyone could know, faith and belief wouldn't be necessary.
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    Many atheists and theists believe you can provide evidence one way or another. Most people are not agnostic.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  There is a difference between saying you can prove something and saying you know something. Your own Wikipedia article disagrees with you.
staticshock 12y ago
Sorry, but designNERD is right. Agnosticism has the greek root "gnosis", which means "knowledge". It's technically defined as a view that some things ("God" being a common, but not sole example) are unknowable. It's an epistemological concept. Theism has the greek root "theos", meaning "God". Its primary concern is with the actual existence of God, so it's an ontological concept. It's possible to think of agnosticism as side-stepping the theism debate by saying, "the nature of knowing matters more to me than the nature of being," but they're definitely compatible. You can say that the existence of God is unknowable (agnosticism,) but you believe that He's still out there (theism.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  Saying you know something and saying you can prove something are two different things.
designNERD 12y ago
Just because they wouldn't admit to it does not mean that the condition doesn't exist. And I have met Christians who have stated that they can't prove God one or another but that doesn't stop their belief.

mjburgess 12y ago

No, that is exactly what it means. It doesnt take very long to look something up (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ). Agnosticism is not about being uncertain, it's the position that the answer is unknowable or unknown - which is much stronger than merely being uncertain.

meepmorp 12y ago
You have a point, but the person you're responding to makes a more important one - the colloquial definition of agnostic, in reference to religion, is a person who's not sure what they think about the existence of gods. When you call yourself an agnostic, that's what people typically understand by it.
- mjburgess 12y ago
  That's the problem with surveys like this: the categories are political not philosophical. It would be better to ask, "Does a deity feature amongst your considerations when making a decision?" I take it that's what people are mainly interested in anyway. If this question was asked alongside the others in these questionnaires I think you'd see a high percentage of non-atheist responders agreeing.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  I am not making a point about the colloquial definition. The wikipedia article he linked disagrees with him too.
jasonkostempski 12y ago
If that's the definition then it's useless as a distinguishing label since everyone on either side of faith can't know. If anyone could know, faith and belief wouldn't be necessary.
- mjburgess 12y ago
  Many atheists and theists believe you can provide evidence one way or another. Most people are not agnostic.
SamReidHughes 12y ago
There is a difference between saying you can prove something and saying you know something. Your own Wikipedia article disagrees with you.

staticshock 12y ago

Sorry, but designNERD is right. Agnosticism has the greek root "gnosis", which means "knowledge". It's technically defined as a view that some things ("God" being a common, but not sole example) are unknowable. It's an epistemological concept. Theism has the greek root "theos", meaning "God". Its primary concern is with the actual existence of God, so it's an ontological concept. It's possible to think of agnosticism as side-stepping the theism debate by saying, "the nature of knowing matters more to me than the nature of being," but they're definitely compatible. You can say that the existence of God is unknowable (agnosticism,) but you believe that He's still out there (theism.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

SamReidHughes 12y ago
Saying you know something and saying you can prove something are two different things.

designNERD 12y ago

Just because they wouldn't admit to it does not mean that the condition doesn't exist. And I have met Christians who have stated that they can't prove God one or another but that doesn't stop their belief.