I lean towards the non-existance of god. I am not an athiest, because I accept the possibility that a god-type being could exist, whether it be an old guy in heaven or a pulse of electricity that is running through all beings on earth. I have been a self-proclaimed agnostic for a few years, but I think I may have the exact definition wrong. I do believe that there is a common knowledge... some type of spiritual oneness between everything, so could I still be concidered agnostic? Give me some insight. Zach
maybe you're a Buddhist. The akashic record may be the oneness you refer to. Or the Jungian archetypes is what you mean. I think agnostic still fits. I always heard that if God appeared to an agnostic, he would then believe, while an atheist still would not.
lol - well, whoever told you that was pretty off the mark. I'm as atheist as you can get - but if God appeared to me, I'd be a believer. As for where ZBChrist stands - I'd say he fits as an agnostic atheist just fine. If you feel at least somewhat confidently that god does *not* exist, then you're a Strong-Atheist. Many Strong-Atheists don't deny that a god "could" exist, it's just that he doesn't. Spiritualism is not affected at all by atheism. There are many atheistic, spiritual religions - e.g. Jainism. - Laz
... agnostic atheist? There is no such thing. You are either agnostic or atheist; you cannot be both. Philosophically speaking, there are three choices you can make when faced with the decision whether or not to believe in a god: You can be a theist; a believer in some way, shape, or form, You can be an atheist; a person who believes God does not exist, Or you can suspend judgement and say "I don't know," because you are unsure of either path being correct; that title is called agnostic. You cannot be an agnostic atheist simply because that implies that you are leaning more towards one side than the other, but are still unsure. Every person has a certain amount of evidence (be it general or personal) that suggests to them whether or not God exists. Rational people, by the philosophical definition of such, base their decision on that evidence. If the evidence is more in favour of God not existing, then you cannot still be agnostic while being a rational person, by definition. If the evidence is just too close to call or if someone doesn't have enough evidence to make a judgement, then being agnostic is a rational choice. But a person can't be two of them. You COULD say that the evidence is too close to call, but is just BARELY leaning towards the atheist side. But then you would have just called exactly what the evidence shows; it wouldn't be "too close to call" because you just CALLED it "leaning towards the atheist side." Which means if you are indeed an "agnostic atheist," then you cannot possibly be a rational person, by definition. ===== Regardless, there ARE many atheists who, if they saw God (or something equivalent, to convince them that God exists), would become believers; there aren't too many dogmatists like that anymore, which is a good thing. =)
*sigh* In the philosophy of religion, agnosticism is not a third option as concerned with the god-question. People on boards such as these have that common misconception. Atheism = a (without) theism (belief in god) Atheism is to be without a belief in god - or, rather, as more commonly defined - atheism is "a lack of belief in a god or gods" Strong-Atheism (or Positive Atheism) is the rejection of the existence of god. Weak-Atheism (or Negative Atheism) is simply a lack of belief. Strong-Atheism builds on Negative, or Basic, Atheism. Agnostic = a (without) gnosis (knowledge) Agnosticism is to be without the knowledge of whether or not a god exists. But that has no bearing on whether or not you actually believe that one does, or if you have a lack of belief in such a thing. If you lack a belief in the actual existence of god - but do not exclude that a god *might* exist, then you are an agnostic atheist. If you have a belief in the actual existence of a god, but feel you can never really know for sure whether your belief is true or not - you are an agnostic theist. George Smith writes about this extensively in his book, "Atheism: The Case Against God". What is called the Weak-Strong Atheistic Distinction is recognized almost universally, including in such famous works as Michael Martin's, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" and introductory works such as Francois Tremblay's "The Handbook Of Atheistic Apologetics". You'll also find these definitions in places such as Encarta Encyclopedia - or even go to the two top atheistic websites on the Internet: www.infidels.org and www.infidelguy.com. The owner of the latter, Reginald Finley, refers to himself as an Agnostic (or Weak) Atheist. Again, this is a common misconception that people have picked up from who knows where. But it is common knowledge in the philosophy of religion that agnosticism is not a third alternative - you are either an atheist or a theist - an agnostic simply fits into one of those categories. - Laz
I am not sure why I seek this title. I know that I have been asked about my religious affiliation several times and have used the term "agnostic". I am just making sure that I am not giving people the wrong idea. I have heard several tests on this theory of oneness that we have. One story that I remember is about an island inhabited by monkeys. Scientists would put coconuts in the sand, and the monkeys would not eat them because they were covered in sand. One day a monkey picked one up and washed it off in the water so he could eat it. The rest of the monkeys on the island saw this and followed. Around the same time, another island of monkeys involved in the same tests started washing the coconuts in the same way. It is like once a solution has been reached, a general world-wide knowledge develops in everything. There is another example of this involving crossword puzzles explained in a movie called Waking Life (very good, I recommend it).
i know, Laz, I mentioned it lightheartedly, and it was told to me as humour. sorry I was not clear on that.
lol - whoops, my bad. It's just that so many people have so many misconceptions about atheism, I can't tell anymore. Sorry about that. - Laz
I used to have many doubts about the spiritual world, now I have faith, but still know next to nothing about the nature or purpose of it all. You know what is funny about my faith lately, is that I have now seen enough paranormal phenomena that it has made me unable to ignore the existence of an unseen force that defies our present scientific theories. It makes the idea of free will kind of obsolete for me, as I can no longer imagine ever going back to being an atheist. Though I have no clue about Spirit, I am totally convinced that it is out there, and even more surprising to me, that my life, and the lives of those around me are being ever so subtley nudged and shielded every now and then. It took many many instances of logic defying phenomena to finally make me think this way. I guess I still have the free will to choose a particular faith, but I won't.
