majikstranger
New Member
I never said being agnostic restricted you in anyway, wich is why i say i am agnostic. I was born a catholic and chose being agnostic because of the freedom. Like i said, i choose to say im agnostic because it embodies my philosophies the best. I also say im not really just because like you said " you dont know", well "i dont know" the truth either. i am really not agnostic, not because i disagree with agnostics but because their are variables in that beleif such as stated below
I like the fact you challenged me, its always nice to have a debate though try not to do it in such a hostile manner as if i have no clue what im talking about. I respect your opinions and definately hope to hear more of them. So ill be waiting. Your move
as you can see depending on wich agnostic you are, their is a defined view point that you have to subscribe to. If you have freedom and dont beleive anything really because you dont know, then why do you have the title agnostic to describe whatyou dont believe? . It is my personal preference to not be defined by anything at all. But saying im agnostic does embody the spirit of my beleifs pretty well so to satisfy peoples curiosity i do say i am one. So once again im not knocking anyone who is agnostic nor do i knock anyone else who wants to beleive anything else. I believe we should all be free to beleive what we wish to beleive. I seriously dont see how you took offence to what i said but whatever it was plese explain. I feel that whenever you take on a title you have something to defend as you just did with me .You hold loyalty to that title and thats ok, i just personally rather not have a beleif system to defend. my loyalty is towards having an opinion and changing it at will and your right to do the same. In reality mostly everything i said in my previous post was not directed to agnostics at all. So by trying to disprove me you actually proved me right Q.E.D (Hitchhickers guide to the Galaxy humor, so dont take offence).
- Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
- Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.
- Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof either of God's existence or nonexistence, but since God (if there is one) appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
- Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.
- Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
- Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
- Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
- Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know if God does or does not exist, and who do not believe in God
I like the fact you challenged me, its always nice to have a debate though try not to do it in such a hostile manner as if i have no clue what im talking about. I respect your opinions and definately hope to hear more of them. So ill be waiting. Your move