From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Timothy McVeigh?

Surely we can agree that having a murderer as the single only example of a famous agnostic is uneccessarily perjorative?

If I could add to the page I would add some decent people who were agnostics. DenaChem 16:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Agnostics differ from regular atheists in that they do not deny God's existence

I hesitate to get involved in theological debate here; still less to make changes without agreement, but I should like to suggest that the word 'regular' be deleted from the above sentence. As written it suggests that Agnostics are not 'regular' atheists - ie, that they are some sort of (irregular) atheist. As an agnostic (type 2) myself I'd say that is not the case. The rest of the article makes it quite clear. Agnostics are not atheists, regular or otherwise. Alba 18:13, 23 May 2007 (EDT)


"Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence or non existence is unknowable."

Isn't agnosticism the belief that a God's existence is unknowable? This article, in my opinion, sounds like it's saying agnosticism is the belief that solely the existence of the Christian God is unknowable.

Could the "God's" be changed to "the existence of a diety" or something like that? --Funnny 21:49, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

God, with a capital 'G', refers to the real God. Christians aren't the only ones who write the name of God that way. It differs from, say, a belief that the 'golden calf' (a god) isn't knowable. Learn together 01:58, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
That is the normal way for monotheistic religions, but there is no specific singular deity for polytheistic religions. God should be changed to "god or god's" because this would incorporate religion as a whole and not divide it into the one type. Jjjones 21:41, 29 January 2008(EDT)

I think they were referring to any higher power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjac1103 (talk)

Why is this page locked??? Would like to add: "

See Also

Etcetera..." Acronym

The charity subject

Agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.

This can't be verified. There are lots of agnostics and atheists who donate to charity because its the right thing to do. I think this line is judgemental, presumptuous. and should be removed. JSJames 7:23pm 22 September 2008

It "can't" be verified? Why not? And did you look at the linked article to see that it is verified? Philip J. Rayment 10:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I should stop editing.

Because my edits will inevitably be reverted. Does nobody understand that an atheist is not an agnostic? It even says so in the article.I want to make constructive edits but I am thwarted every time.--JZim 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I am interested in the distinction between agnostic and atheist. And as a senior admin, I can protect you from being thwarted on this. Shall we work together? --Ed Poor Talk 16:35, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Actually he objects because the title of the linked article is atheism and whatever, however, I encourage everyone to read the first line of that article where clearly states it is about both atheists and agnostics. HenryS 16:41, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I would very much like that, Ed. The commonly accepted definition of atheist is "one who actively believes that there is no God". An agnostic is, in general, someone who is unsure of the existence of a God. To an atheist, God can never reveal himself because he does not exist. To an agnostic, God can reveal himself, but simply has not done so yet. Agnostics usually subscribe to agnosticism out of unwillingness to acknowledge the superiority of one religion over another. For example, an agnostic might find Christianity appealing, and express a desire to follow the Christian faith, but live among Sikhs and wonder if the Sikh faith is correct. Agnostics may well, and often do, follow the combined teachings of multiple religions and form a perhaps greater sense of morality than any single religion provides. This may also be associated with a greater tendency towards libertarianism, but depending on the circumstances it might also lead to strong conservatism, whereas an atheist is not very likely to subscribe to conservatism even when the circumstances are contradictory. More on this later, maybe, but I do await your reply.--JZim 16:45, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I completely agree with JZim. --CC 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)


So, would a professed or self acclaimed agnostic be somewhat akin to an undecided voter, also known as centrist, moderate, independent, non-aligned, not loyal to party name brand registered voter? Is an obese agnostic tottering on the abyss of being labeled an obese atheist if he were to ever make his mind up in modern secularized America? What does the polling data reveal about Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich's relative popularity and likelihood of registered obese agnostic voters favoring one of them in a general election vis-a-vis Barack Obama? Rob Smith 14:29, 25 February 2012 (EST)

"Weak Agnosticism" and "Strong Agnosticism"?

Is there a difference between people who are clearly religious and "think" there is a God, and live as if there is one, but admit they don't "know" if there is one, and agnostics who have the reverse idea - they doubt God exists, but feel they have no way of disproving it? And of course, those agnostics who are in the middle somewhere? Are they all the same category? Gregkochuconn 08:43, 8 March 2012 (EST)

This is interesting. Certainly, Richard Dawkins's brand of agnosticism, which involves arguing vociferously against the existence of God, seems very different from what a lot of people would understand by agnosticism - a kind of fence-sitting. I might call RiDaw's (apparent) beliefs "atheism with a footnote" rather than agnosticism.--CPalmer 09:17, 8 March 2012 (EST)
And what about the "opposite" of Dawkins - people who think there is a God, act as if there is a God, but feel you can't empirically prove there is a God? If Dawkins is agnostic, so are they, technically. Gregkochuconn 11:54, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Dawkins flip-flogs between atheism/agnosticism and perhaps deism/theism. Emotionally, he is very often an atheist/agnostic, but sometimes says positive things about King James Bible, Christmas, etc. Culturally, he is an agnostic/atheist/Anglican. Dawkins said that a good case could be made for deism. (“A serious case could be made for a deistic God” - Dawkins)[1].Conservative (talk)

Am I (technically) Agnostic?

I do personally believe in God, but I do not feel that we can prove that this is the case. Rather, I accept the existence of God based solely on faith and not on any proof. I do believe it is theoretically possible that there is not a God, but I do not believe this to be the case. Since I do not feel that we can meet the burden of proof of God's existence, does this technically make me agnostic even though I believe in God? Gregkochuconn 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

You are describing fideism which is the acceptance of the existence of God by faith alone.[2] Creation testifies to the existence of God. Even in atheistic Japan, children see the world as designed [3](see: Denials that atheists exist). Conservative (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2015 (EDT)

Agnosticism research