44 13

Agnostic vs Atheist
Sorry to rake up this seemingly old one up again but there have been so many posts on this that one more won't do much harm.
Until I joined this site it was not a question that bothered me much. I don't believe in god and that's that. However, there are some points that have been brought up on the agnostic side of the debate that I take umbrage with.
1, You cannot know for sure
2, You cannot prove a negative
I deal with both of these with the "Where are the scissors Darling?" argument. We have all been there and it goes,
"They are in the draw"
"No, they are not, I've looked, twice"
The scene will continue till either the 2nd party coincides by looking in the draw or the 1st pulls out the draw and shows them. But both will know 100% that the draw is scissor-less (or not).
There are lots of other cases where a negative can be proven. Litmus paper can prove the absence of acid. Gieger counters radiation and a cheap mains testers' electrical current, to name a few.
Agnostics claim it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. But in practice, even that is provable. We could use x-rays, thermal imaging or even just listen to hear if the cat is alive or dead.
Okay but a diety is different. It has no mass or energy and cannot be subjected to the same tests. To this, I say that there used to be thought that there was a substance called the ether. It was what light was believed to travel in space though before we knew that light had a very tiny amount of mass. After that, the ether was dispensed to the realms of scientific history. No longer needed on voyage as it does not do anything, is not detectable, and if we never thought of it in the first place then we would not be talking about it now. Does that sound familiar? In other words, agnostics argue on behalf of the possibility of an intangible pair of scissors in the draw. I for one would not run with that.
Now there is another reason for this post and it goes to motive. Why leave the door open? Even if it is only a chink? Like a spurned lover, do you cling to a straw? Readers will recall the character in the movie "Dogma". Who when told by the hot chick that he has no chance, badgers her to admit that if the universe were about to end then she would have sex with him. Is that the real reason that agnosticism? That when you die there might be an afterlife after all? Why else would you give it any thought at all?

273kelvin 8 Aug 12

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.


The text that claim a deity can defy the laws of nature and physics should be enough to end the debate if such absurdity existed. Sex is a glandular thing and physical concepts, thought and contemplation of such things could never be compared.

There is a similarity in agnostic and sex, desire. It can only be the desire to have a chance of a big sky somewhere that would want to keep the embers alight.


I love these conversations. Sometimes I get into debates with church folk who fear that what I say will make them dissolve into dust if the listen to me. They adamantly push their opinions and beliefs on me as if being inn their presence is something that I should hold onto. I tell them the same thing that I tell both sides. Fact: "We don't know shit" Fact: For every possibility that we could ever think up we are left with nothing more than belief" Until I can extend my life long enough to see some form of truth, I am left with with more tangible things like living daily life and survival. I recognize that proof one way or another doesn't change life for me. I'm here on this site because it's a community that I feel very comfortable in and the knowledge that we all feel similarly helps me make it through the day. That's really all it's about, yes?

Well said! I agree.



Few thoughts from an agnostic:

  1. You cannot know for sure due to the very nature of the god claim. It's like the ontological equivalent of proving that "this sentence is not true" is valid or not.

  2. You can prove a negative. It is harder to prove than a positive but it can be done and is done all the time: do you have a dollar bill in your pocket? Easy to prove that you don't. Hence if you are going to claim "god doesn't exist" as an example of a form of an atheistic claim, you better darn tooting be able to prove it... no different than if you are going to claim "god does exist" as an example of a theist claim, you better darn tooting be able to prove it as well.

  3. Schrodingers cat is not provable. x-rays or thermal imaging are both what is meant by "opening the box" insofar as a measurement has been made.

  4. We emphatically do not argue for an intangible pair of scissors in the drawer. That is a theistic point of view. What we argue is if you don't know what a pair of scissors looks like, it makes no sense to claim that it is or is not in the drawer. We don't argue for is or isn't. We argue that we can't make either claim.

  5. We leave the door open because there is no compelling reason to fully shut it out. In this regard, it is very much like string theory: no proof that it's true and yet we keep the door open on the chance that in the future we find a way to prove that it is true. It may be that string theory will be the god equivalent in science insofar as we will never find a way to prove it is negative... but then it will always benefit us to keep it just a smidge open on the chance we can prove it positive.

  6. The real reason for my agnosticism (can't speak for all, just mine) is my steadfast dedication to being scientific about the world. There are a ton of ideas in science that can't be proved for a time and are then negatively proven (like your aforementioned aether) or are then positively proven (like the higgs). Gods are in that same category: unproven but not disproven. IMO, a good scientist doesn't close the door on an idea until there is proof, evidence, actual reason to close the door... anymore than they fully open the door on the same, until there is proof, evidence, actual reason to open the door. This is not to say that I support any and all religious claims... when one person says their bible says gay marriage is wrong, in deference to my scientific mindset, to my agnosticism, I say "prove that it's wrong". If all they can say is "this book says it is", then I can point to many other books that say "all these books says it is not" and then ask "what else you go?"... if nothing else then the weight of evidence clearly goes to it not being wrong. Same with many religious claims. That is not to say that their god, or a god, doesn't exist. After all, to err is human and we may have completely mucked up the notion of god. Or we may have completely made it up. Unproven but not disproven... can't say it much better than that.

Pretty much where I'm at. Thanks for typing that so I didn't have to. 😁

My pleasure. 🙂

We can also use statistical analysis to disprove a theory. Like 45s statement "Wind turbines can cause cancer I hear". You can look and see if there are any significant differences in the figures and see if it warrants further investigation. Or Jordan Peterson's assertion that our morals are a result of religious teaching. Even if we agnostic/atheist, it is a residual or osmosis effect from other believers. A quick look at the crime figures around the world will show that there is no correlation between the two. In fact, it is often the reverse, as in Ethiopia, USA or Rwanda. All of which have a population of over 95% believers yet have amongst the highest crime rates and in Rwanda's case was responsible for one of the worst atrocities in living memory.

@CuNguyen ditto ditto and ditto

Well done. I always enjoy your posts/comments and this was one of the best - IMHO. I can argue these things in my head but never seem to get it right on paper 🙂.


Is there a fairy called Mehitabel living at the bottom of my garden?

Can I PROVE she's not there? No. Can I PROVE she is there? No. I therefore do not believe the case for, or against, the existence of Mehitabel the Fairy is provable - making me a 'Mehitabel Agnostic'.

That said, do I actually believe Mehitabel IS there? No - of course I don't. The whole concept of Mehitabel existing makes no sense. I therefore do not believe in the existence of Mehitabel - therefore making me a 'Mehitabel Atheist'.

Atheism and Agnosticism are descriptions of two DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT perceptions of reality. One about the existence of god himself, and the other about the possibility of proving the matter.

You can be an Atheist without being an Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, and I further believe the matter is provable".

You can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist - "I do not believe the existence of god can be proven, but I believe he exists".

You can be neither Atheist nor Agnostic - "I believe in the existence of god, and I believe that existence is provable".

Or you can be both Atheist and Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, but I believe the matter unprovable."

It's two entirely separate questions:-

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST ONE GOD? Answer 'Yes' and you're a THEIST, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe) and you're not a theist. The word for 'not a theist' is ATHEIST. There is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD IS PROVABLE? Answer 'Yes' and you're a GNOSTIC, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe the matter provable) and you're not a gnostic. The word for 'not a gnostic' is AGNOSTIC. Again, there is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

Personally I'm an Agnostic Atheist.


At this point in my life, I've had that debate so many times, I have no interest
in having it again.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be debated, just not by me.
There is no credible, verifiable evidence to prove the existence of gods.
Unless and until there is any, I will not be tempted to rethink my position.
I'm really good with not believing in any gods, and being fairly well convinced
that none have ever existed, nor ever will.

Ditto ditto ditto and ditto.


A deity has no mass or energy. How would we know this? I think pixies are living in my shoes. In fact, they are in there even when my feet are in there.


To the general public - if I'm going to state my position at all - I identify as an atheist. It's just simpler, and I'm doing my part thereby to erode the demonization of atheists as baby-eating monsters. 😉 The general public doesn't understand the meaning of the word "agnostic" anyway, and it's very time-consuming to explain. So I stick with "I'm an atheist."

But I'm both. I'm an atheist - I don't believe in any gods - and I'm an agnostic - humans are not in a position to know for absolute certain about the existence or non-existence of gods. The latter position isn't about hedging my bets for the afterlife. As @UpsideDownAgain so aptly said, "since I worship no gods, I'm screwed either way." Rather, it's about intellectual honesty. I was once so sure that the Christian God existed; now I'm equally convinced that it doesn't - but I've wisened up to recognize that nobody can know anything about intangible god things to the degree that I once "knew" the opposite.

How useful is this? Not at all. I'm also agnostic about the existence of green flying unicorns on some other planet. I don't believe in them. It's just about intellectual honesty. I'd also love to be able to bring a few Christians to the recognition that they don't know what they imagine that they know.


Yes, negatives can be proven. In fact, ten of the fifteen valid forms of the classical syllogism have negative conclusions. For example, premises “All A are B” and “No B are C” prove the universal negative, “No A are C”; and premises “Some A are not B” and “All C are B” prove the particular negative, “Some A are not C.” Likewise, in propositional logic, the premises “If A then B” and “It is not the case the B” prove the negative proposition, “It is not the case that A.” What holds in each case it that you can’t prove a negative conclusion without having a negative premise. And the same is the case with the scissors example. That is, from “There are stamps [paper clips, etc., etc.] in the drawer in cannot be concluded that “There are no scissors in the drawer” without the negative understanding that “There is no other place in the drawer where the scissors could be.”


There is no knowing the unknowable non sequitur should make no difference here just enjoy the people and ideas I think that is truly this place and people


I think many agnostics are for the most part atheists who want to avoid the negative connotations associated with the word "atheist".

Probably true. I really don't fucking care about the difference tho. Neither do most of us. As Sticks, said, how much longer will this dead horse be beat on these boards?

This site is called but it's debatable whether the atheists outnumber the agnostics here. My point is, most people don't distinguish between agnostic and atheist, even the agnostics and atheists. Believers look down on both. There's no social benefit to being an agnostic over an atheist.

@UpsideDownAgain I agree that most atheists and agnostics don't distinguish between themselves, and for good reason: many of us are both, and there's precious little difference between those who don't consider themselves both.

However, last I checked, there was still a social benefit to being an agnostic over an atheist, mostly bc the average person doesn't know what an agnostic actually is. Christians typically find agnostics less offensive to their sensibilities bc they misconstrue the non-knowledge aspect of the agnostic position to mean that they are still slightly open to conversion and less "hostile to God" in their view. You can see this misunderstanding of agnostics even among some atheists, including in @273kelvin's suspicion that we are hedging our bets in hopes of an afterlife, a typical misunderstanding of the agnostic position.

Because I don't want to have a social benefit that my fellow atheists don't enjoy, I identify to average people as an atheist, forcing them to think about their prejudices. I'd like to see the greater social stigma still associated w atheism be erased and then the erasure of the stigma associated with both positions.

(I do the exact opposite of what you were describing, @believeinlove. That doesn't mean that you are wrong. I suspect that you are correct - that many atheists hide behind the more socially acceptable identity of "agnostic." )

@vertrauen Perhaps there is a cultural difference where you are at. Here in Utah, the rhetoric is exactly the same whether you are atheist or agnostic. I have told almost no one that I'm agnostic because I am just unwilling to go through what I know would happen.

@UpsideDownAgain I'm just speaking my opinion in general. In my opinion being agnostic projects the idea that you are at least opened minded to the possibility of a creator/intelligent design. Its really not a thing. If someone said hey your an atheist, I would probably respond yeah, pretty much. Being agnostic has nothing to do with me trying to get into heaven just in case because in no way do I feel that the scriptures are anything but man made folk lore.

@believeinlove Gotcha. I agree.


Because your mind should be open to any new evidence that may come in.

So you think that after hiding for millions of years, god is just going to all of a sudden pop up and say "Hey, here I am!"

i don't think so. i forget who said it, but, to paraphrase whoever it was, some people's minds are so open that thoughts enter and exit without stopping anywhere in between. a completely open mind is a mind that has not learned anything. discrimination is not a bad thing in and of itself. it is if you're discriminating against a race of people, or people of a religion, violating their rights, for example. it is a good thing if you discriminate between a nice slice of pie and a big pile of poop. don't eat the latter. i wouldn't call upon an open mind regarding that choice, either.


@creative51 Until we know everything we can know nothing for certain.

@genessa Until we know everything we can know nothing for certain. Until then, you are going with the preponderance of evidence and your best guess based on all the evidence at hand..

@dare2dream yep. and it's sufficiently compelling that i am not worried about it, nor looking over my shoulder all the time for that mysterious new evidence.


@dare2dream We can say "There are no f*cking scissors in the draw. I have looked".

@dare2dream Does it really make any fucking difference IF we know nothing for certain? Humans are a plague on this planet. We are on the way to poisoning our species out of existence. And you fucking think somewhere, someplace there might be a god? Nawww. It makes no difference that we do not know anything for certain, cause sooner than later humankind will all be dead from our poisoning and polluting this planet. The plague will end of its own accord.

The universe is infinite. Have you checked the infinite amount of drawers?
My guess is no.

I know what a set of scissors looks like; I've seen one before. Do you know what god(s) look like; have you seen one before?
My guess is no.

Two reasons why said analogy is not a very good one... which is not to say god(s) exist in the universe or they look like something... just that said analogy isn't a very good way with which to dismiss the idea/concept/existence of god(s)


i've answered this question before. i consider myself an atheist b/c i don't believe in a personal god but i don't totally discount the possibility of superior beings out there which would compare to us as we compare to a protozoa.

I wouldn't call them superior. Just "other"


I agree that negative assertions can be proven, but IMO no proof is absolute. If a person is interested in whether or not God exists he should concentrate, not on proof or disproof but on searching. Belief, disbelief and proofs are for people who just want to argue—muddy the water so they don’t have to look at something.

The God concept does not lend itself to proof because we are talking about ultimate reality. Existence at that higher level is beyond our puny little intellects, which are mired in the sensory dreamworld of illusion. The very concept of time is an illusion according to quantum gravity theory, and therefore any question about existence, creation, immortality or selfhood as a body is meaningless.

Besides atheism and agnosticism, someone here has pointed out a third option: ignosticism. Ignostics claim that it is meaningless to argue for or against God because the word can not be defined in a clear and acceptable way.


Great comments and I have nothing to add that has not already been said. TY for posting and providing an enjoyable morning with coffee read. 🙂

I will say it is more likely just an individual thing. My Dad was raised Catholic, stopped 'believing' at an early age and claim to be atheist. Then decided agnostic was a better way to define things.
Sadly I never really got to sit down and talk with him about all this before he passed as I moved away when I was 20 and well many know how it is when relationships with one or both parents is strained. I think that is my greatest regret, the missed time chatting with a very intelligent human.


A negative can be proven if the affirmation is falsifiable or if there is no intern consistency in the proposition.
3 different cases here
If it is falsifiable all you need is to perform the experiment.
If it lacks internal consistency, the proposition is proving itself wrong
BUT it it is internally consistent and NON falsifiable then you can't prove or disprove (but also is a meaningless proposition in terms of logical knowledge).

There is a 4th where the experiment is impossible like mathematical formulas that work with all numbers you tested, but there is no prof that will work forever, or the case of the black swam that can always be hidden somewhere you haven't looked yet.

The non falsifiable and the impossibility to complete the test are the cases where a negative can't be proved.
But in the case that there are no positive evidences the logical way is act as if do not exist because you can say an infinitude of swam colors exist, we just haven't met it yet, and for practical purposes this kind of proposition has no meaning.
And THAT is the agnostic position, something that can't be tested and at the same time can be proposed with an infinitude of variations (colors of exotic swams or gods) have no meaning in the objective world and can be ignored or treated as non existent.

I agree with this. It is both true and more useful to call myself an atheist, so I do. I don't understand, though, why gnostic atheists spend such energy arguing with agnostic atheists. It's a waste of both our times. The agnostic position isn't a backdoor to any religion. It's just about a theory of the nature of knowledge.

@vertrauen problem here is that most people that have doubts call themselves agnostics...
Agnostic is not a doubt, it is a strong and firm position that the question is meaningless if no evidence is presented...
IS saying that I do not need to choose or believe in the non existence to act as if does not exist.
A god that does not interact with the reality and give no evidence of itself is for al purposes the same as a non existent god, this is the Agnostic position.
I do not have to evaluate all the propositions of god, the proponent needs to give me an evidence for me even start to consider...

Good to see you back, Pedro. Long time no see, at least for me.

I don't follow that view of agnosticism,not exactly. For me, with no evidence of itself I cannot in good conscience then go on to make the ontological claim of non-existence. I can, however, base my actions on non-existence insofar as I don't pray or perform rituals that one, or every, religion asks me to do. Again I point to my favorite scientific "god-like" idea: string theory. I don't dismiss that it as wrong because there is no evidence... but neither do I use it as a foundation for further scientific inquiry on the possibility that it's right. After all, it's bad scientific form to prove something using an unproven as a basis. But likewise, as my reply below, it's also bad scientific form (to me) to disprove something using an unproven as a basis.

@TheMiddleWay the proble is that you can make an infinite number of non-falsifiable claims of a god-like entity, they all have the same weight if the definition is at least internally consistent, the garage dragon is a perfect example of it.
So is not about deciding it do not exist, it is acting as if it does not, because for logic or you take into account infinite amount of non falsifiable beings or none of them, and most of them do not admit the existence of the other.
In the end it will be arbitrary to choose your favorite imaginary friend and randomly pointing a finger and say that that specific version of one exists.

It is different from string theory (actually string hypothesis to be scientifically correct), we do not have the technology to test it yet, but there are ways to test it, we are developing theoretical knowledge and technology to be able to test it, we already know that the current standard model fails in some places and we will need a new one at some point.


I've pointed out that an alibi proves a negative at least to the degree a positive is proven. Demonstrating someone was somewhere else during the time of a crime also demonstrates they did not commit that crime (if we all accept time travel is not possible, yada yada yada).

But then people say, "What about twins?" or "What about mistaken identity?", etc., which are all problems with positive claims also. If those are all problems with proving a negative, they are equally problems in proving a positive...and thus a "problem" in proving anything at all.

You can also prove a negative by demonstrating it is logically contradictory in some way.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot be proven false. That means they are the weakest possible claims, and on a very, very long list of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims. And thus entirely pointless as claims (except to remain on that pointless list until someone figures out how to test them, at which point they are not unfalsifiable anymore anyway).

All these go on the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, society is populated by people that have the presumption of existence, with nothing except faith to back it up.

@273kelvin I find god innocent of existing until the prosecution proves its case.


I hate to be a downer, but I really do not feel this is worth arguing about. If some want to be agnostics, fine, if some want to be atheists, fine. The fate of the world does not rest on resolving this.

Why not argue about something really important like are Chevy Trucks or Ford Trucks better?

I agree and for the most part, I prefer to talk about music or other such subjects. It is only that there have been so many posts on this that I thought I might as well add my twopennys worth


You would think. I'm aware every time one of these come up that I'm resentful of being marginalized by atheists and can't seem to help responding. I'm sure eventually I'll get to the point where I'm tired of the merry-go-round and I'll get off but for the time being, I'm still taking the bait.

@maturin1919 I live in Michigan, the auto state, those are fighting words dude, LOL

@creative51 Perhaps American automakers should build better vehicles...

@creative51 Did you ever see the UK "Top gear" show where they tried to kill a Toyota truck?


i know for sure there are no gods, i am 100% sure about this, why? because all gods that ever existed were and are all man made, and as i have said many times before, i do not give a flying fuck about who chooses to believe in what or not, not my business ergo I don't care


My agnosticism is all but imaginary at this point. I claim to be one as a way of throwing a bone to those believers I like and respect (close friends, family) and to avoid arguments. At one point in my journey from believer to atheist I considered myself agnostic, but I truly can't see how a deity could exist when the only "evidence" comes from an ancient texts heavily edited by men to support the status quo. If a deity (all knowing creator who has a plan for our lives) does in fact exist, it has demonstrated that it's unworthy of worship or anything but contempt.


I am really rather tired of this somewhat artificial division between the two words. I was always of the opinion that the arguments between the two were similar to dancing on the head of a pin. However, since joining this site I have revised my view of those who are adamantly agnostic, a group I hitherto though of as less certain of their disbelief than those like me who are atheist. I use the word “adamant” deliberately...because I have only discovered these more militant agnostics here on this site. I find their arguments to be uncompelling, as they use the same arguments for their agnosticism as the religious do for their beliefs.

Thank you, Marionville. Which is why I question their motives

@273kelvin I find them tiresome....some I believe are still indecisive on whether they do or don’t believe in god, as they can’t let the idea go completely despite no evidence. The ones who say they are scientists baffle me most,

Adamant agnostic, huh? That's new. Not seen any. But I did take a prolonged break from this site (January 2018 - June 2019), so quite possibly stuff went down while I was away.

For me - both atheist and agnostic, and someone who prefers to call myself an atheist bc it's simpler - the debate can be tiresome, and it's usually initiated, as in this case, by a gnostic atheist, seldom if ever by an "adamant agnostic" (what is that? It sounds like an oxymoron).

I participated in this debate, however, and thought it went rather well, by which I simply mean "civilly." So your comment about adamant or militant agnostics took me by surprise. Are you sure you're not simply talking about tired or frustrated agnostics weary of explaining to gnostic atheists that the two axes address completely different questions?

(I'm mostly kidding. I believe you. I just find the idea of a militant agnostic utterly weird, and I wanted to make sure you weren't talking about any of us on this thread.)

@vertrauen I have been on this site for 14 months and have run into quite a few whom I would consider to be “adamant “, perhaps even aggressive in their agnostic views. There are some here on the site at present whom I would describe as such, but that is from a purely personal viewpoint and others may not agree with me, but feel sure some do.

I'm a scientist and an agnostic. As per my comment below, one feeds into the other for the simple reason that agnosticism (as I practice it) is a steadfast commitment to making no judgement without evidence one way or the other. By that logic, the type of atheist that claims there is no god and the type of theist that claims there is a god are both guilty making judgement about existence without evidence one way or the other in support of said existence or non-existence.

This is why when asked about my agnosticism, I say "I neither believe nor unbelieve".... I say "I don't know".... I say "god(s) are unproven but not disproven". And as a scientist, I would say the same thing about many science theories such as String Theory, Multiverse Theory, and many more.... I don't know... I neither believe nor unbelieve... they are unproven but not disproven. So if those positions are good enough for science, they are good enough for god(s).

But it's all good: as you find our arguments for agnosticism to be unconvincing, so to do we agnostics find your atheistic and their theistic arguments compelling... which is the main reason we call ourselves agnostics in the first place!

I’m with you. It’s weird to be straight up insulted by militant agnostics for having a different definition to the term than they do... particularly as vanishingly few few really adopt their version.


Simple...some people ponder, others simply earn some money to live on and never care...unless somewhere in the past, they got exposed to ‘god’ talk. If their life has been empty, they may think that they have missed out somehow and start a search for god!
On the other hand the people who ‘ponder life,’ draw from what they see, hear and experience and through this evolution they end up without an entity outside themselves! They learn that it is all up to them, their DNA, and some luck! Even as they are in ah of the heavens and the great earth! Nature rules! Just my take...


As our knowledge has grown, we've eliminated the concept of ether but there are far more things that we recognize now that we didn't have the ability to before, like radiation. Radiation always existed but we didn't always have the tools to recognize and measure it. Yes, now we can demonstrate the absense of it but we couldn't always.

I'm open to the possibility that more things exist which we don't have the capacity to recognize or measure at present, including perhaps gods. I'm comfortable rejecting the existence of specific gods, like the abrahamic god but feel no need to conclude definitively that there is no such being at all. It's not out of concern over the possibility of an afterlife because since I worship no gods I'm screwed either way. It's more related to the fact that I was so sure before that there was a god and I've recognized how foolish that was. I feel no need to go the reverse direction and say I'm sure there is no god when I really am not.


i don't run with scissors either! it's dangerous!

i also don't worry much about the ag vs ath thingie, though i do occasionally explain why i am the latter rather than the former, meaning and hopefully showing no disrespect to the former. i do mean and show disrespect to those who think it's a fight worth attacking the "enemy" over. i don't even attack christians for believing what they do; i attack people who try to legislate, adjudicate or execute their religion into my life or into anyone's life who doesn't want it there. that's different, right? so someone who says "you atheists are so egotistical!" or "you agnostics are so wimpy" might make me a bit snappish but those who make their case without attacking anyone are not offensive to me. why should they be, right?

as for an afterlife, if there is a heaven i don't want to go unless i can control the music and the menu. since that might make it a less heavenly place for others than it would be for me, i just don't see the logistics of it. so much for an afterlife.


You beat me to the running with intangible scissors joke!

@vertrauen i'm naughty that way.



Be that it's painfully obvious, given a little thought...not all approach this question at the same level. So it remains useful for some, and unhelpful to put any nascent thinker down.


For me I believe there is a spiritual element to us, creativity and love. I make some assumptions

  1. spiritual is also non physical
  2. spiritual (non physical) is the opposite of physical
  3. physical things may be defined, observed and measured. Therefore non physical (spiritual) cannot.

Conclusion: Creativity and love in humans is undetectable, unmeasurable and infinite therefore spiritual.
I therefore reject all belief doctrine eg how can rules and laws be defined for the infinite? The truth is it is unknown, which is why we refer to it as belief where faith is needed. It will never be knowledge.

So you see, I acknowledge there is something "spiritual" about us yet totally reject all belief/ spiritual doctrine as unknown. Deities a croc of shit, especially judgemental ones. So I am definitely atheist yet recognise the spiritual, the proof being the arts (creativity) which have no biological or practical purpose. This does many atheists heads in but their problem, not mine.
If I must be labeled, agnostic atheist kinda describes me.


I think we have to acknowledge that we are (born) all partly agnostic/ignorant, but we should have the freedom to improve our knowledge by a life-long moral, non-toxic Education. We also can admit that Humans and all Terrians can be called Gods, Deities, that is Superior Beings. All Terrian Life, small and big, is Superior in some way, able to learn benefic things, and should participate to the necessary TerraProtectivity. #terriantimelimitedtime #allhumanodeityforterraprotectivity

tipi Level 7 Aug 17, 2019

I would like to disagree with the use of Superior while considering one form of life over another. That, in my opinion, is egocentric for us to think this as we have no idea how any other critter thinks and they have been here, for the most part, longer than we have. They have not tried to ruin where they live. Just a thought.

@dalefvictor All gods and goddesses are simply magnifications of human faults and vices.

@dalefvictor @Lizard_of_Ahaz In the sense that any Terrian Life can be somewhat superior to death.

@Noemi I read the post again and I misread the intent. I totally agree with your argument.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:388059
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.