agnostic...whether there is a 'god' / 'omnipotent entity' / 'etc', is not my concern when we know so little about our own existence.. but I at least have a brain, so I do not choose atheism.. they just choose to ignore the big picture and focus on the now.
Nobody with a brain would choose atheism? ok... http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinGodReligionScience.htm http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/a/GodConflict.htm And there's lots more of the sort. But my favorite scientist said it on video and added a few comments on the idea of knowing vs not knowing, not just about religion but everything. It's ok to say "we don't know", really, but we don't have to credit the existence of things without evidence just to be "open minded". That's just silly. For anyone who doesn't know who Richard Feynman is, look him up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0 It's ok to be atheist, it's ok to be theist, brains nor insults/assumptions about them doesn't have to come into the question at all. The question was one of belief, not knowledge. If you're unclear on the difference watch the following video in full, not just the first part but all of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BQVmvulmQ
Agnosticism is not really a stance on belief, it's a stance on knowledge. You can't really ask is someone is one or the other.. There are 2 kinds of atheists, gnostic atheists who believe God isn't real.. and agnostic atheist who don't believe in God but don't claim he isn't real. Technically I am an atheist, but since I am an agnostic atheist I can't claim to know if God is real or not, but I still lack the belief. Think you need to redo your poll for accuracy.
I'd say an agnostic believes God can't be proven or disproven. Is that not a belief? Also do you think all agnostics are agnostic atheist? What should the poll options be in your opinion?
Yes, but it's a belief about their state of knowledge or our ability to test the supernatural rather than simply about if they personally think it's true or not. Theism/atheism asks about your belief, gnostic/agnostic in this sense asks about knowledge though that's confused somewhat by religious orders who use it in a different sense. A decent article that goes over some of the basics is at the following link. I'm not really sure how it would format into a poll without having way too many options. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/distinguishing-the-atheist-agnostic-the-theist-gnostic-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/
You can also be an agnostic theist/deist. That would be a person who believes, but doesn't claim to know if their belief is real or not. Personally, I would go with this for a more accurate representation of the people you'd like to learn from: Agnostic atheist: doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim he is real or not. Gnostic atheist: believes God isn't real, claims God isn't real. Agnostic theist: believes in God, but doesn't claim he is real or not. Gnostic theist: believes in God, claims God is real. An agnostic theist, to me, would be a deist.
No. They actually go well together. In Buddhism there is no creator or need for one. It focus on the subject of ones self. Science and Buddhism also go very well together.
Hmm, seems like the article is suggesting most atheist and most agnostics are agnostic-atheist. So why are the single terms "agnostic" and "atheist" far more popular than the term "agnostic-atheist"?
Honest opinion, because it's easier, Same reason that we think crime is high when it's at or near decades long lows, we think we're living in an increasingly dangerous world when in fact worldwide terrorism and war death rates are down from decades or centuries long averages, same reason for a lot of stuff. It's just easier. The main reason this stuff ever came up in the first place as far as I can tell was that too many of us got tired of others trying to tell us what we believed so looked for ways to clarify that. If it wasn't for the need to do that we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Like Yana said, it's quick and easy. There is also a lot of stigma around the word atheist. The majority of atheists who believe God isn't real and claim he isn't real don't mind being called an atheist.. but a lot of people associate atheist with asshole and those who don't believe in God don't want to be lumped in with that, so they avoid using the term and only go with agnostic.
I like your poll but I personally wanted to differentiate the unique stances on religion itself. Plus many deist very much believe God is real but they abhor organized religion. I guess all I have to do is add "deist: believes fully in God but not religion" to your suggested poll options but I still have no clue how to edit an established poll.
I would think the term agnostic-atheist would de-stigmatize the term atheist to some extent. The problem is saying you're agnostic-atheist is almost a self-admission that you can't completely discredit religion which is something self-described atheist seem to live for.
Not so much. I'm a self described atheist and I couldn't care less what others believe, as long as they are willing to have the same respect for me and not force belief into schools and politics. To me there's a real difference between I think, I believe, and I know and too often that's a difference that gets lost or confused in the shuffle. Religion and other philosophies are about belief, keep it in church or philosophy class with a wide array of other choices and we should keep our hands off of it. Science and history is about what we can show, belief has nothing to do with it and they should keep their hands off of it. As long as everyone respects the difference between I think, I believe and I know I can live with them fine. That aside there's a phenomena sometimes called "God on the brain" or other things of the sort but for whatever reasons some people just seem inclined toward faith. If the phenomena bears out they are just being what they are in the same sense that others of us are just born gay or straight and trying to force them to change what they are might be just as destructive as the attempts by the church to change orientation has been. Personally I'm a lot more interested in attacking blind and aggressive faith than I am in attacking faith itself. Deal with the blind and aggressive parts and the rest isn't any of my business.
I don't think faith can be aggressive or oppressive without religious dogma attached. As a deist I often find myself siding with atheist who attack religious dogma and institutions which infringe on the rights of others. The only time I lock horns with atheist is when they seem like the gnostic atheist type who suggest the entire concept of God or spirituality is laughable. Judging based on how often I encounter these types, I'm not sure how agnostic most vocal atheist are.
I am an atheist, I consider myself an agnostic atheist cause I can't claim that God is real or not.. but that doesn't mean I can't personally think it's a laughable concept. If I had to pick only one label to go by, it'd be a humanist.. and as one, I believe people should be free to believe whatever they want, just to not spread their belief without knowledge if their belief is real or not. It's like the fabrication of unicorns that speak Old English and shoot lasers from their eyes.. I don't believe they are real, I don't believe they are not real. There is a possibility that somewhere in this infinite universe they exist, but until knowledge can actually be gained, it is laughable to believe in the concept either way. Spirituality is different though, as it is just an emotional connection. You can connect your emotions to whatever you want, feel like it is apart of you.. and you can connect to a concept even if it is a fabrication of your imagination. Being spiritual doesn't bother me, just when they connect their spirit, their emotions to something that is supernatural.. beyond explanation through natural laws, and then believe said supernatural concept is real because they feel as if it were real through their emotions.