19 3

I have a question for people who describe themselves as agnostic. Are you agnostic about the existence of potential godS or just one god? What kind of god or gods do you believe may exist? The theist god that is actively involved in our world? The deist “creator” god? God(s) of some other faith system?

A2Jennifer 8 Jan 21

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Agnostic about any/all god(s). I am functionally an atheist, but you can't know, so I leave the door open.

If you graphed it, I'm an asymptote of agnosticism approaching the atheist line closer and closer.


Strictly speaking I am an agnostic atheist, but I generally just describe myself as an atheist.
Atheist describes what I believe about god. I believe that the claims by theists do not meet their burden of proof. I see no evidence that leads me to believe that a god/s exists. Do I know that a god/s cannot exist in any form in any universe? No - hence the agnostic bit of the label.

As for deist gods, for me, they are a non-starter and just a god of the gaps. 'Something' that creates then has no other action, cannot be detected and has no effect on the universe once it's created. In reality is indeterminate from something that doesn't exist. So why not just say "I don't know what created the universe"?


"Are you agnostic about the existence of potential godS or just one god?"

All of the above. The very nature of a singular or plural being is what being theistically agnostic is all about.

The reasons is that being agnostic hinges on not accepting a truth unless you have demonstrable evidence.

Thus we don't accept any of the following hypothesis "There is a god", "There is no gods", "There is no god", "There is no gods" as there is no demonstrable evidence to support any of those claims.... we must remain agnostic, "without knowledge" on these issues.


I'm an agnostic deist. I believe there might be a god who creates and just never stops creating and expanding the universe, but I don't believe god is involved beyond that. I also see god as more of an energy than an actual physical deity.


I base my life on science and the scientific method I believe God, gods and religion was made up by people. The more intelligent people used religion and God , gods to control the less intelligent people or their own benefit. This seems like the only logical answer to me. But science cannot prove God does not exist or exist. So just let people go on your merry way.

dc65 Level 7 Jan 22, 2018

none zero


All of the above. The whole impetus for being an agnostic is fully grasping that until something can be seen, felt or touched, it can be neither proven nor disproven.

An agnostic does not cling to the notion of there being absolutely nothing beyond sentient, organic life with the same furvor in which a gnostic clings to the opposing viewpoint. An agnostic is open to possibility, but only possibility until such time as clear sensory evidence is presented.



You're asking two (or three?) questions. I'll answer them all tomorrow after I get some sleep.


I'm not an agnostic or an atheist because I don't believe there's a god for me to not believe in.

skado Level 8 Jan 22, 2018

Doesn't that make you an atheist, despite the double negative? I'm confused.

@David1955 I guess I'm just saying that the fact that some people choose to believe crazy things doesn't obligate me to take a stand on it.

or like me, you don't like being pigeonholed and this is as close as it gets to your feelings on the matter @skado maybe.

@LeighShelton Yes, that's a good way to say it.


I do not believe in any gods until I see solid evidence of its was not needed to start the universe and one was not needed to start life on earth,energy matter and chemistry was all that was needed to start life .

That doesn’t mean it has to be a god, though, @Megjewel . And if energy, matter and chemistry have to “originate from something,” wouldn’t the thing that they came from also have to originate from something?


I go with atheist as I don't have a good definition of agnostic. I can find no evidence of god, so atheist.


Anything less than the Spinozian definition isn’t worth calling god. Thor, Odin, Baal... can easily be dealt with logically. It’s the spinozian definition that complicates things. You can divorce god from Christianity, Hinduism, Islam.... and still talk about it as a logical possibility. But that’s it. You can’t know that or approach it logically. So, since you can’t disprove it or prove it, the question becomes moot. Agnosticism is the acknowledgement of that logical dilemma.

Why is Spinoza's definition of god any more valid than any other?
Logic doesn't enter into most definitions of gods - including Spinoza's as no god definition has any logical basis.

Agnosticism is purely the acknowledgement that you cannot prove a null hypothesis.
Do you believe a god/s exists? No, then you are an atheist.
Do you know that a god/s cannot exist in any form in any universe? No, then you are an agnostic atheist.

No atheism is the belief that god does not exist. End. @Uncorrugated

No logical basis? Perhaps not, but that’s neither here or there. The spinozian definition is at least consistent with a creator of the universe. That’s the pont. Odin is predicated upon a anthropomorphic model. Therefore, it can be discounted out of hand. Spinozas definition cannot. That’s why it’s been adopted by Christian apologists.

As for a null hypothesis, what does that have anything to do with philosophic inquiry? An alternate hypothesis would make sense in finite terms not infinite terms. @Uncorrugated

The christian god is also anthropomorphic and not all religions are monotheistic or have a creator god. Hindus would disagree that their gods could be dismissed out of hand as not being gods.

I'm not sure what a hilosophic (philosophic?) inquiry is, but I know that it is not possible to prove that a god/s does not exist. However, I am not the one claiming that something does exist. If you tell me that you have a dragon in your garden shed I would need evidence that you in fact do. If you open your shed and say there it is, then tell me it is invisible, I will not believe you have a dragon. Same with god. Show me evidence of god - not a philosophical argument - then I will believe there is a god. Until then, I will remain an atheist and not believe you. There is a big difference between not believing a god exists and believing that no god exists.

You’re right . That’s why Christian theologians turned to a more evolved definition.

As an atheist, you’re claiming that god doesn’t exist. @Uncorrugated

Please do not state what I have not said. I have clearly stated that as an atheist I do not believe that god/s does exist. Atheism is purely a response to theist claims. Nowhere have I claimed that there is no god, nor that a god could not exist in some universe somewhere.

The only time to believe a claim (of any sort) is when there is evidence to support that claim.

But that’s what atheism purports to assert. You’re position is more akin to agnosticism. @Uncorrugated

Gnosticism relates to knowledge.
Theism to belief.

They are two prongs of the same question.

A gnostic theist believes that they know a god exists.
An agnostic theist believes a god exists, but does not know for certain.

An agnostic atheist does not believe that a god exists, but does not know that a god cannot exist.

A gnostic atheist (or anti-theist) claims to know that no gods exist.

The difficulty with the subject is that there is no consistent definition even amongst the agnostic/atheist community as to what each word means. Hence theists often trying to shift the burden of proof and expecting us to prove god doesn't exist.


I need to see some proof before I'll "believe" anything: this God, that god, those gods, no gods. Anything. Everything.

Show me proof, and then we'll talk.

A b s o l u t e l y


I am an agnostic not an atheist. I don't know if there is a higher being or not. I am anti religions. If there is a creator he is not involved in our world. We are on our own.


Any, all or in any combination of the above? Those and a few others yet unmentioned.

I'm an apathetic agnostic though...I don't care if any are "real" or not. I do play with them in my art, some examples on my wall.


I always thought that agnostic was just not knowing..
So, that would be "whatever" ?????


For me, it is a matter of accepting "best evidence". There is no convincing evidence of any god so therefore, I accept that as most likely.

But then you've not accepted "best evidence", but rather the absence of evidence, have you not?


I just like the word as a description over atheist because the original term atheist was anyone that was not christians were atheist. Unless someone drags a dead god body and drops it at my feet I will not accept a magical all controlling being(s)


The universe if infinite. Thus there are an infinite number of explanations for it's coming into being .
. All of which are wrong.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:17289
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.