25 21

know why you re an Agnostic because you re not afraid to think. you re not afraid of any god in the universe who would send you or any other man or woman to hell. If there were such a being, he would not be a god; he would be a devil.

tnlobbyythoyu 4 Feb 16

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.


No ifs, no buts, no devils no gods: I am a total Atheist.


Except there's no devils either ...


IMO, to be an Agnostic is fear of committing. Having the fear to take the next step of abandoning your previous paradigm and accepting that there is no God of any type, or any need for religion.

In my view, those who insist that they KNOW something are not much different than the christians who insist they know something.

@Archeus_Lore I am happy to state that I know the God of the Bible cannot exist. The same goes for the God of the Torah. I regard all othder gods as fictional.

@t1nick .Hogwash

Archeus that pic is getting old.

Good, I am glad to hear it has had an impact. I will post it some more.

As an atheist myself, I respect the agnostic viewpoint. There's some logic there, and I've never had the impression that fear was involved. Then again I tend to think in shades of gray rather than black-and-white. What I find more difficult to accept is the claim by some that they know for an absolute fact that there is no god. IMHO, we can't logically know that for certain. It's just that there's no evidence and therefore no good reason to believe.


It's still Pascal's wager. People tend to hate absolutes.

@t1nick What do you mean, it is still Pascal's wager? Not believing but not being willing to state an absolute? That's not the same thing... Or do you mean agnosticism?


Yes I mean agnosticism. Its true that nobody has incontrovertible evidence that absolutely no God exists. But better explanations abound for both existence and how the Umiverse operates. I am, without any doubt in my mind that no God figure exists now or ever did.

One of the shortcomings I see in many, not all, but many people is their unwillingness to commit to anything. People in general hate being held accountable. It means a risk that they are unwilling to take. What if they are wrong? That is the impression I get with many Agnostics on this site. So they play Pascal's wager. I'll just say perhaps, just in case I'm wrong.

I have no monopoly on knowledge, insight, or understanding regarding the inner workings of the Universe. But I have read, studied, discussed, and contemplated sufficiently to say what the evidence says to me.

I am certainly NOT playing Pascal's wager, I have nothing to fear, and, if you look at SCIENCE, you will find that any question that involves many different variables is never considered to ever be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Part of the problem is that Atheists get the notion in their head that when an Agnostic refused to be identified as an Atheist, that the Agnostic has some god akin to the bullshit god of the bible, which is usually very far from the truth. Even Einstein and Hawking both left the door open for possibilites . . . . . the universe is make up of the very same thing that people's brains are made up of . . . . energy. E = mc^2 . . . . . and just the fact that no one can prove one way or the other places the Atheists in the very same camp as the christians. That does not mean I do not debate the christians about the existence of god, I do, because their idea of god is completely absurd.


Not only have I looked at Science, I've been a scientist and a science instructor for over 40 years. People can be, and are influenced by their culture. It is hard to go against a culture that is pervasive and ever present in all aspects of the world around oneself.

Darwin could not divorce himself from the Church of England and the God paradigm. Even though in his writings there is ample proof of his skepticism. The age that Einstein lived and worked, the yolk of Christianity was pervasive enough to give pause to anyone who was skeptical or wavering. It was not a safe environment to proclaim atheism.

Its possible he did beleive in that potential for a bigger explanation, or it could be he just wasnt comfortable in declaring at a time when the world he lived in was not amenable to such a declaration. I cannot read their minds.

I do know what the evidence says to me. I have no reservations in not believing. I get tired of the same old arguments on here related to Christianity and Islam. I've studied multiple religions on my own and am aware of premises of most of the major religions. I also understand a persons need to find reinforcement when divorcing themselves from one paradigm and adjusting to a new paradigm.

I just have trouble with the dithering of many of the Agnostics. But that's my problem in the long run. I try not to enter into religious discussions on this sight as I find them tedious and generally superfluous. Unfortunately, many of the people I interact with engage, and then the discussion gets sent my way as a result of that connection. I generally do not respond, but occasionally get caught up.

Dithering is being indecisive. I would not call it being indecisive, I would call it being willing to accept any new evidence were it to come along . . . . that is a progressive view, as opposed to a static view. The poor example that christians set, is mirrored by the poor example set by those who insist on claiming something they cannot prove.


You may not dither, but you are not the sole representative. I'm not being dogmatic as I am not claiming anything specific beyond my total disbelief. Accept, don't accept, that's on you. I know where I stand and why.

I may not represent every Agnostic, but your representation of Agnostics is certainly no representation of the vast majority of Agnostics.


The only subject I am agnostic about is ETs. I'm pretty sure they exist but not quite convinced.

God, on the other hand, is a hard "no".

I believe that ET's would have to exist somewhere. It's just that I do not feel we have sufficient evidence. Many try to delude and swindle in order to get you to believe. Hey, that sounds almost like religion.


Actually it has been shown agnosticism is a subset of atheism. I am first and foremost an anti-theist. I just learned another word that also works: secular-infidel.

@maturin1919 A couple of days ago I submitted an essay about the nones in this country. I don't have access on my laptop but can try to remember later. The author made a compelling argument in the issue being polarized into theist and nontheist (atheist). The degree of disbelief comes under the atheist heading.


I’m agnostic because I don’t give a shit if deities exist or not.

If they do they are no more special than me because we all come from the same place, wherever that may be!


When religions can't explain anything bad, they blame the scape goat devil.

lol that dude has suffered enough already . he has all the blame .


Actually I would be quite afraid if I believed there was one! 🙂

I just don't think there is one, so...not afraid.


I copied this and it is worth re-printing.

No ifs, no buts, no devils no gods: I am a total Atheist.

As a one time believer who saw error in his ways, that pretty much does it for me.


Agnostics have a lack any knowledge that any god or hell exist. As an atheist I have a lack of belief in any gods or hell. If a god existed, I doubt it would care what we did with are life.


none of those reasons are why i am not a believer. i was raised as a secular jew but even had i been raised religiously, judaism has no hell and no devil, so none of that could have been part of my realization, at the age of 15, that there are no gods, and my simultaneously realization that the first realization granted me a label (atheist). if you want to change your pronoun to "i" and speak of your own experience, that is fine, but when you say "you" then you are making an unsupported assumption and projecting your own situation onto others who may or may not share it. i do not.



At age 13, I became an atheist when I realized the Bible is just a book of stories written by men. Like Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I don't believe in an invisible deity that resides somewhere beyond the clouds.

I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

"I stopped having imaginary friends at age four," I tell Jehovah's Witnesses. "I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny or invisible gods." That shuts them up.


I think everyone should read "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari. He explains in easy to understand English how religions developed. Much more interesting than any holy book.


How gender specific peoples god fantasies are..what a being that created everything can't be female? It seems the male insecures need a compensative in complete reverse of nature... the only solo parent species are female.

But there are plenty of female gods, one of my favourites are Artemis/ Diana and of course there’s the many faceted Kali 🙂

@girlwithsmiles but it appears they have been pushed aside out of the linelight

@DavidRooney perhaps it depends who your friends are, some of mine refer to women as goddesses and have books about them. I brought my god daughter a book of positive female protagonist, ‘fairy stories’, because since the Grimms there’s been an onus on the men being rescuers. The female centric and respectful stuff is out there; you just have to look past the norm.

@girlwithsmiles i have been saved from sure doom by a pr3sent girl.. we were unaware of our predicament...and it only came clear to me much later....i doubt she made the connection.

@DavidRooney good stuff 😊


Maybe I would make him/her/it melt with my (furious) pointed questions!


I don't care to say what I believe or not believe to anyone who asks, and when they ask I always say I don't believe in any gods or religions. If they probe, depending on who is probing, I'd say because they're all bullshit, made up by the minds of ancient men who had no knowledge of anything really, as an easy explanation for those things like thunder, lightning, disease, death, birth, that they couldn't possibly know back then because science and knowledge were at best primitive and at worst inexistent.


A hoax by any other name is still a hoax


Hysteria on a grand scale


The Devil would not have his sorry ass.


There is good and ad(evil)!

Unspeakable good!!!

Unspeakable bad or evil!!!

These are all personal beliefs learn from our parents, peers, our culture, and society!!!

Morality is an inner and learned process!

Ethics are a learned process!

Life is experimental in which we learn as individuals what to interpret as good and bad(evil) within your culture and society!!!

It is really that simple, individuals make it so much more complicated than it really is!!!


Depending on who I'm talking to at any given time, I often say I'm an agnostic because I usually don't want to be arrogant enough to claim absolute knowledge that there is a God or that there is not a God (depending on the context of the discussion at that moment).

That seems to be the point-of-view a lot of people are most comfortable with and I don't generally care to spend the effort to try to change their beliefs.
If they're knowledgeable, then I'd rather listen to them than argue.
If they're ignorant, then they're almost never worth my time and energy.

But in practice I'm an atheist.
I believe that there are no 'gods'.
And there is no 'supernatural' -- if something exists, it's natural.

There are many things in the world that we used to think were supernatural -- sunlight, thunder, luck, love, to name a few. But the more we learn, the less we need supernatural explanation crutches.

Going the other way... How many things are there that we used to have secular explanations for but now we know they happen because of that God over there, or that rabbit's foot in my pocket, or that magic spell, or that I prayed really hard -- exactly zero.

We often may not understand how and why. But that's our problem, not reality's.
The world can be complicated, but it's never supernatural.

Just for myself, I'm comfortable describing myself as an atheist even though I don't claim absolute, 100% certainty, and am willing to explain why. But people who are not familiar with the concepts may well view it as arrogance on its face, so yours is a safe approach.

Well said on the difference between supernatural-to-natural versus natural-to-supernatural. I've read the former many times, but not the latter, and it's good.


I agree; and--contrary to what others here may profess--I accept by faith that there does not exist a "devil on the throne."


I laugh at those who claim that their particular god or gods exist.


I am an agnostic because I can control my anxiety and not choose to believe in an answer if that answer is not verifiable. even if the answer agrees with my feelings and make me feel good.

Not quite sure what you are saying but if you are having a dig at "atheists" I think you are a bit of the mark

@Moravian I am talking about believing, in any form it may presents.
I don't believe in any god or supernatural, but i don't define me by what I believe. but by what I know. That is why I am agnostic.
Not because the god of the culture I was born is immoral, not because church does bad things, not fecause fanatics are ridiculous and dangerous. Or because having no god makes me superior.
I am agnostic simply because 1) there is no evidence of supernatural and it is impossible to discard a non falsifiable hypothesis (thus this hypothesis is useless).
For me the word agnostic is a critic to teism, because it does not say what I believe, it says that claiming to know is impossible.

@Pedrohbds So are also agnostic re Bertrand Russel's teapot circling the earth ?. I am a total non believer in any supernatural forces or entities and believe the science can explain evefrything although we have much to discover yet and the human mind is still a mystery. If believers want to label me as an atjheist so be it .

@Moravian Yep, for short term I say I am an atheist, because for all practical purposes I am.
Agnostic is just to be very precise and specific.
The tea Pot argument is valid, and the point is. What is the point of debating, investigating or take a stank in something that is not possible to prove or disprove? For all practical purposes, something that can't be demonstrated to exist or work is indistinguishable of a not existent/not working thing. So saying that "i can't know about it" says more than "I don't believe" or "I believe it don't exist".

Agnostic is not "i don't know" or "I can't decide". it is "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW". And it is a stronger argument because for the real world and day to day life it does not matter if there is no god or if gods hides itself perfectly, on both cases scenarios the result is the same, you deal with the reality you can know about.


Right you are.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:460743
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.