First, OP, you really must clarify what you mean by, "Anyone else agnostic?". Weak agnosticism holds that we do not know, but that the knowledge isn't
(or necessarily) unknowable. Strong agnosticism holds that we do not know, and that the knowledge is
unknowable. Big difference.
Next, we must realize that one can be a theist, or an atheist, and also be agnostic. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, dealing with knowledge, whereas theism and atheism deal with belief. You can believe and claim you do not know, or believe and claim you do know. Belief and knowledge are not the same. Belief is however is a condition for
Asking what someone knows, or thinks they know, and asking someone what they believe, are different, so I just wanted to clarify what your intentions were.
I can tell you that I used to be Agnostic but have been a devout Christian theist for some 3 years. I somehow have the feeling that if there is a hell, it wouldn't make sense to avoid it. As of late, i've been feeling like an Agnostic again, so i'm open to throwing religion away for good. It occured to me that it wouldn't be logical for a subjective being to have objective views.
Why do you think that we cannot view the objective? If I see a stone, and you see a stone, do you think this intersubjectivity is by chance, or is it more reasonable that a stone actually exists?
I am not an agnostic, but I do not try to justify my beliefs in a God I cannot define...
I'm curious, are you saying you believe or do not believe in a God?
So in short, I don't believe there are any gods. I admit that this knowledge, like all knowledge, can't be proven with absolute certainty, but I don't find that distinction relevant enough to religion to stake a position on the fence about it.
Keep in mind that you do not have to be certain to know.
We can't really be certain of anything, including that our entire lives are just a delusion, including whether the abominable snowman exists, and so on. But when this agnostic expressed that yes, he is agnostic about whether the Easter bunny exists too then I realized it was just a definitional incompatibility.
Can you explain what you mean by "definitional incompatibility"?
I became, and am, a non-theist agnostic. When I use the word 'god,' I am using it in place of the better, and used more often word, 'nature.' Nature, further more, while not being nearly fully understood, and while being so mysterious (due to not understanding), has not shown us that it can be known that there is any center of intelligence behind its operations--not that we can say with absolute certainty that there is not, but simply and truthfully, cannot claim to know.
You can certainly claim to know. You may just be mistaken. One can know without being absolutely certain.
My problem is logic, it tells me one thing and my feelings tell me another. Reconciling those differences has made me a complex schizophrenic.
If you don't mind me asking, can you give me an example? I only ask because I've felt what you've felt, but I've found ways to reconcile it.
That evangelical agnostic almost made me ditch that choice of words, but I've held on to it because of the two meanings of atheist. Under the simple "without god" definition, I'm an atheist. (I really don't think there is one.)
However the word also has connotations of "anti-god," and I'm not that.
I think you would be what's called a weak atheist. A weak atheist does not believe in God, but does not denounce that God exists. A strong atheist does not believe in God, but does
denounce that God exists. The strong atheist is explicitly stating Gods do not exist, whereas the weak atheist is not; the weak atheist simply does not believe.
Dave Allen wrote:
By preference, no.
Sorry to pry, but can you expound on this? Very curious