Religious people believe that God created humans. They can't prove it,it is a matter of faith. Atheists believe that humans created God. They can't prove it, it is just a belief like any other one. Are Agnosticists the really smart ones? ....

Comments

• I wouldn't so much call it smart, as socially savvy. There is rarely a conflict with an agnostic. There is also no reward for seeking out and eventually figuring out the truth.

  • Report
  

  by ----------- on January 4th, 2007

• I think Agnosticism is smart, because 'technically' it is the only truthful way to go: Humanity is ill-equipped to 'prove' anything with 100% confidence, so to say "I do not know which idea is correct" is the only honest way to go without declaring your beliefs a matter of faith rather than fact (ie. Religious people cannot claim what they believe 'is the truth', but merely that they 'believe' it to be true, etc)

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on January 4th, 2007

• Well, as you grow up you will, with any luck, understand that science can prove and disprove beliefs with 100% confidence. Faith can only disqualify other beliefs dogmatically.

  • Report
  

  by ----------- on January 4th, 2007

Comments

• You are eloquent thoughtful. Your answers are pure joy to read! Thanks for posting them.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on January 4th, 2007

• wow; thank you, tek! I'm blushing now...

  • Report
  

  by Jessicax23 on January 4th, 2007

• you deserve it!

  • Report
  

  by ----------- on January 4th, 2007

Comments

• Actually, knowledge is only attained by first admitting that you do not know something. If you don't start there, you already have the answers, so why bother progressing any further? I'm sorry, but your answer is quite backwards and incorrect. And as for scientific theories requiring "a lot of faith", perhaps you should read up on the scientific method. It pretty much forgoes any faith and subjects any hypothesis or theory to rigorous scrutiny. There simply is no faith involved in science. Only facts. You might want to rethink you position.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on January 4th, 2007

• mmm, I have to say this answer simply isn't the case... Science starts with a hypothesis (What you think will happen), then goes on to method (How will you definitively test if what you think is true?), then your results and conclusion (What happened, why?)... You start with what you believe will happen (Faith is belief not based off fact), in science your hypothesis is based off your knowledge (You don't hypothesise that when object a is heated, it will glow or fly since it is based off no evidence, you hypothesise that it will melt/boil, since this is observed to happen in any substance when heated enough)

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on January 4th, 2007

• Stop bickering about symantics of the word 'Faith'. It can be based off observations. Faith is when people dedicated their entire lives trying to prove new theories, not knowing if they'll ever be able to find that proof, or if it even exists. Belief in gods and the supernatural was born in the same way that science was, by observation of the world and attempting to rationalise it. Science was born as a way to refine this rationalisation by removing contradictions. Science isn't the one truth it constantly claims to be. It's constantly being changed and refined. Without those people who dare to leap ahead of what we can truly be thought as solid truth, we wouldn't have the knowledge we have today.

  • Report
  

  by MewseJuice on January 4th, 2007

• Alright, enough "bickering about semantics of the the word faith". How about a new one? Truth. While there are many subjective truths, science only looks for the objective. And the truth is that science doesn't change, just its understanding of the universe. And as for leaping ahead, you're right. Partly. While it may appear inspiration and invention are leaps and not look to be connected to what came before them, they actually are. There is a reason such leaps result in the advancement of understanding: the fact that they lead from something we already know to be true to something we find out to be true. If they don't, they are discarded as false. There is always logic and reason. Therein lies the truth of science. This is where truth is discovered, by first realizing that something is not known, then attempting to understand it. This is contrary to your initial statement, which seems to indicate that one cannot learn anything that one admits to not knowing already.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on January 4th, 2007

• I agree with teknimage's last comment: The ENTIRE reason science advances is because people start off admitting they don't know an answer, then moving on to discover what it is... Faith starts off with you believing an answer already, most people never move on from there :/

  • Report
  

  by Twhupfold on January 4th, 2007

• You seem to have taken my answer out of context of the original question of whether being agnostic inherently makes you smarter. I'd say the closer you are to the truth, the smarter you are. Science is a way of getting there but it's still a long way off. Don't get me wrong, I love science, but it's still just our best guesses based on our current understanding of the universe and every so often we'll disprove something that we've relied on. Once having a belief in something that has been proven wrong hasn't stopped us learning, and nor will a belief or disbelief in gods.

  • Report
  

  by MewseJuice on January 4th, 2007

• I better understand what you're saying now. I still have a problem with what you claim science to be. Science is not a religion or a belief system. It is not an end to itself so cannot be looked at as "being a long way off" from anything. It is a means through which man can understand his world, not the understanding itself. It is a vehicle, not the destination. Science cannot be exalted nor disregarded beyond this, as it in itself is inherently neutral and passive. The knowledge of the entirety of all knowable things in the universe, however, IS quite a long way off from being complete, and most assuredly is subject to much change beyond which we now know. In this, I think we completely agree. :)

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on January 4th, 2007

• I have to disagree with teknimage on at least one point-science is changing all the time. They are discovering new things all the time that change how they 'knew' something worked. Many scientific facts have changed in my life time and I'm 48 years old. <:))))<><

  • Report
  

  by sleeppro on January 9th, 2007

• sleeppro: I agree with you that science constantly comes across new things and greater and deeper understandings of our world. But science is nothing more than a route to seek understanding. Routes don't necessarily change, just the scenery. ;)

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on January 9th, 2007

Comments

• and also, there is agnosticism in other areas besides theism. there are fairy agnostics, leprechaun agnostics, flying pesasus agnostics, etc. Are they "undecided" too? Or do they still generally understand that there is no such thing, but won't make the arrogant statement that they know for sure?

  • Report
  

  by Jessicax23 on January 4th, 2007

• For a fairy agnostic, the proposed evidence isn't enough to convince him of the existence of fairies, nor of the non existence of fairies. So he declares he is not convinced either way. True, this is different from being undecided, and in my inappropriate wording I may have offended you, in which case I regress.

  • Report
  

  by ----------- on January 4th, 2007

• no; I was agreeing with you... but just clarifying (I hope). Even the undecided can be leaning off the fence in one direction, as most agnostics seem to be. It doesn't mean they think the odds are the same, just that they don't have a horse in that race.

  • Report
  

  by Jessicax23 on January 4th, 2007

Comments

• So athiests get to make up the rules that apply to them just like the xtians? Sweet deal. Agnostics don't have to justify either stance, we just watch both sides keep crawling in the dark. If either of you find anything credible, do let us know.

  • Report
  

  by SanityClause on April 29th, 2009

• Well we are all born Agnostic and either remain so (I think the majority of the worlds population could be rightly described as Agnostic) or we choose another world view. We either become one of the faithful or a Humanist, theistic or atheistic.
  
  As an Atheist I don't make up my own rules, but I do get a choice in which rules make sense to me.

  • Report
  

  by Life Not Faith on April 29th, 2009

Comments

• Well...a balanced person will not fall to either side. Being able to keep a clear mind will keep you on the right track.

  • Report
  

  by Starmaster on September 9th, 2007

• Only if the balance is on the fence?

  • Report
  

  by peterpam on September 9th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Agnostics comment. Third sentence . . . if that is true, then believers are the same--'they believe what they are taught by others,' and they, therefore, 'aren't the smart ones' either. Atheists cannot either 'prove' or 'disprove' that god exists and neither can believers or agnostics.
  Courteous comments would be appreciated, but only without 'bible'
  rhetoric as neither agnostics or atheists use it. Only fair.

  • Report
  

  by oldielocks on February 28th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• You are answering this question assuming that there is a God, that there is a Creator, that the Creator has some kind of human mind, that Jesus is some kind of God, etc. You can't prove any of that.
  The only reason you believe in all of that is because a Roman Emperor declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. It was a political decision. That's the foundation of our Christian Western Society. If that wouldn't have happened, we would be living in a completely different world. Think about it: When you were a little kid, if you had been adopted by a family of a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other Faith, you would not be writing those 100% affirmative Christian statements. It is just a matter of Faith. Religious affiliation is just a cultural aspect that you absorb as you are socializing in our world. Is there a Creator of this Universe? Maybe, but think about it: If it was created, there was a beginning. What was there before the beginning?

  • Report
  

  by Starmaster on September 9th, 2007

• God was there before time began. Jesus Christ, God Himself, created time and space. By the way, Constantine is not the founder of Christianity. Whenever he started to rule and make tolerence towards Christians, all seemed good for awhile, but then he began to corrupt Christianity with Paganism and thus formed Roman Catholicism by mixing some elements and figures of Christianity with Babylonian Paganism.

  • Report
  

  by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on September 9th, 2007

• I am an agnostic. You are telling me what I must believe.
  I believe in a higher power just by seeing the beauty in the world and the evil in the world.
  I do not believe in YOUR personal god. I do not believe in YOUR personal hell. I do not believe in YOUR personal heaven. I do not believe in YOUR personal jesus. I do not believe in YOUR personal bible's word, nor another's personal koran, talmud, sun god, rain god. I do not fear eternal damnation from YOUR personal god because . . .
  So, I don't really care about YOUR personal opinions concerning MY personal opinions. Enough said.

  • Report
  

  by oldielocks on February 28th, 2009