Difference between revisions of "Talk:Agnosticism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Timothy McVeigh?)
(Agnostics and Obesity?: new section)
Line 58: Line 58:
  
 
I completely agree with JZim. --[[User:CC|CC]] 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)
 
I completely agree with JZim. --[[User:CC|CC]] 19:42, 03 December 2008 (Est)
 +
 +
== Agnostics and Obesity?  ==
 +
 +
I'm not sure that this information is correct. You can type in "religious effects on obesity" on Google and get a number of articles that say the opposite of the Gallup poll cited in this article. Here is one: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html
 +
 +
I'm not saying that the information in this article is wrong, but I think it would be more helpful to include some contradicting articles.

Revision as of 21:46, 15 May 2011

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)

Actually it is possible to be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist). Agnostic atheism simply means that while you can't know for certain that there is a god (or gods), you choose not to believe in them. Agnostic theism is the opposite - you don't know if there are any deities out there, but you choose to believe in them.

"God's"

"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: "

I agree with Jjjones. Agnosticism says that the existence of any deity, whether it's Allah, the Christian god, or Zeus himself is not knowable. So please be more specific and say "god or gods".

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)

Agnostics and Obesity?

I'm not sure that this information is correct. You can type in "religious effects on obesity" on Google and get a number of articles that say the opposite of the Gallup poll cited in this article. Here is one: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html

I'm not saying that the information in this article is wrong, but I think it would be more helpful to include some contradicting articles.