Can Atheists and Theists find common ground as Agnostics?

If only…(20 characters)

1 Like

Right on For example: Although there is no evidence to support the existence of God, unless you count all the pockets that have been emptied in her name, there is tangible evidence that the Easter Bunny is real including an actual miracle that you can actually pickup and eat. I am, of course, speaking about the Easter Egg which resembles, in all but one, albeit major detail, the eggs laid by chickens. The eggs laid by the Easter Bunny are colored whereas the chicken egg is not. So once a year children race into their backyards, or city parks gathering up these miraculous eggs. So is the Easter Bunny real YES.

Oh and as for the tooth fairy you are forgetting that she often leaves a coin under your pillow as an exchange for your tooth. When was the last time god gave you a quarter or even a dime.

1 Like

I know religious people sometime secretly answer the prayers of others. Unlike people pretending to be the easter bunny or tooth fairy, these are deluded enough to think they are actually acting for god. Sometimes prayers get’s answered by dumb luck. Confirmation bias will help reinforce their false beliefs.


I don’t see how.

An agnostic to me is basically a fence sitter that in their view , sees for one reason or another, that a possibility can be present for a God or a deity or whatever to exist in spite there isnt one that can be pointed out in support of it.

I don’t see any such possibilities myself, making me an atheist because there’s absolutely nothing at all that has been proven since the dawn of man, so I remain atheist because of that, as I don’t see any such possibilities that can be adequately and satisfactorily pointed out for which agnostics somehow cannot elaborate on exactly what that possibility is that makes them hesitant to state with confidence there is no god.

Um… 2 + 2 = 4. A proof is a sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. Proofs occur in math all the time.


This was previously posted. You are misusing agnosticism. It has little to do with atheism. There are many reasons people become atheists. A lack of knowledge (evidence) is one way. However, Christians can also be agnostic and believe in their God thing. without evidence. [

John 20:29

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe .” … Jesus said, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed . Those who believe without seeing are blessed .”

Pascals Wager is all about believing without seeing. An agnostic Christian who accepts belief in god without knowledge (knowing),

There are no fence-sitters. If I tell you that God exists, you either believe the statement to be true or you do not. You may fluctuate, sometimes believe and not believe other times. You can not both believe and not believe at the same time.

If I ask you. "Do you believe in a God or gods?’ and you reply “I’m agnostic.” you have not answered my question. I did not ask you what you know. I asked what you believe. When people say they are Agnostic in response to the question “What do you believe?” They are indeed attempting to avoid responding to the question.

However, possible responses include, “I am an agnostic Christian.” “I am an agnostic theist.” “I am an agnostic atheist.” “I’m an atheist.” "I’m an anti-theist (strong atheist),

I don’t think i misused the term agnosticism at all as agnostics are indeed fence sitters without a doubt for no other reason that they entertain that there could be a possibility of a God, or some sort of deity existing. I was in agnostic myself for a while after leaving Christianity, so I understand intimately and first hand as to what that particular definition means.

I can certainly use and employ scientific principles to show that theists just cannot adequately prove the object of their claims , even if the claim itself remains unfalsifiable, by simply pointing out the complete inability for people to actually show and or demonstrate the existence of God themselves, aside from what theists have going on inside their heads and imaginations where are the entire concept resides.

A great example to illustrate that would be the challenge that the late Amazing Randi put forward, using science-based conditions, that establishes the facts of the matter with 100% accuracy , when the challenge was active, that in fact nobody could produce anything supernatural , paranormal, or establish the proofs of any type of deity that could influence matter on any scale without cheating or employing any type of sleight of hand or deception for the desired effect.

I am an agnostic atheists, and I admit no such possibility, as I have never seen anyone demonstrate a deity is possible.


  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

If someone claims a deity is possible then they’re not an agnostic.

Emotions Are Pure Anarchy, Which Is Pure Atheism.

Two quick questions:

  1. What on earth does that mean?
  2. Why do so many religious apologists use random capital letters?

Oh, and welcome to AR.


What does this mean? Atheism is anarchy? Atheism is a response to exactly one proposition - god(s) exist. That’s it.

If it was only that simple.

If that was the case, then there would be no need to refer to a person as being agnostic and just had stuck with being an atheist based off its root meaning, as simply a person without gods.

Wow! You’re missing the point entirely. Everyone is agnostic. The term is meaningless. All Christians at their core are agnostic. That is what “Faith” means. All atheists are, in the end, agnostic and that means no matter how hard someone attempts to disprove the existence of a God, it can not be done.
(A specific god, yes. The idea of God, no.)

And I can employ the same principles to demonstrate you can not disprove their claims. (That is what unfalsifiable means).

Randy never did anything with 100% accuracy. You are confusing the lack of evidence with proof. Science does not ‘prove’ anything. It builds models. The only thing Randi could logically say about all the supernatural woo woo is, “There is no good evidence for it.” The only thing he could say to his contestants was: “You failed to demonstrate your hypothesis.”

Your perception of Atheism is off about as much as your perception of Science.

1 Like

That wasn’t “melted fudge” :smirk:



:laughing: it took me two days to pick “Athiest” or “Theist” when I joined this site.

I considered myself “agnostic”. When I first left the JWs I considered myself “non-religious but spiritual”.

Then after a few years I was less spiritual and what I thought was “agnostic”. Don’t know but couldn’t say god didn’t exist.

BUT when I had to choose after reading the difference between “knowing” and “believing” it was when I really scrutinized whether I had reason to believe. I did not, so I picked atheist.

BTW cog was one of the first to sling monkey poo my way.


Well it is that simple, since that is the definition of agnosticism, the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of god. So anyone claiming anything about a deity is not an agnostic, at least not in that instance.

That is the case, since that is the definition, and atheism and agnosticism are not the same, though neither are they mutually exclusive of course.


  1. The belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.


  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

One deals with belief, the other with the limits of knowledge.

1 Like

Yeah, the smell should have been an obvious indicator, but I was too distracted by the pygmy ponies in tutus to pay it much attention.

1 Like

There is no denying the fact that God cannot be proven or disproven hence unfalsifiable effectively making God itself a meaningless, useless, and unapplicable term negating any person’s claim that there in fact a god exists past the realm of a person’s imagination and fantasy.

Again, agnosticism refers to people who think there might be a possibility open somewhere that a God can exist , otherwise there is no other real reason why to keep that term at all when it’s clear that atheism remains completely 100% godless in it’s core definition.

Just look at the diagram posted. It’s in the thread twice. Gnosis is knowing. Knowing god exists. Knowing god does not exist. Agnostic= without knowing.

Theism = belief in god. Atheism is a lack of belief in god regardless of what you profess to know. If you think you know there are no gods… you are mistaken. I don’t happen to believe in God or gods. For all reasonable purposes, I happen to think no gods exist. No spirits, no demons, no angels, I don’t believe in evil. 'Believe" not 'Know." There are things I do know. I know I have never seen an argument for god that can stand against criticism. There are no arguments that I have yet heard, that demonstrate the existence of a god. That does not mean someone could not invent one tomorrow.

[Quote]:laughing: it took me two days to pick “Athiest” or “Theist” when I joined this site.

I considered myself “agnostic”. When I first left the JWs I considered myself “non-religious but spiritual”.

Then after a few years I was less spiritual and what I thought was “agnostic”. Don’t know but couldn’t say god didn’t exist.

BUT when I had to choose after reading the difference between “knowing” and “believing” it was when I really scrutinized whether I had reason to believe. I did not, so I picked atheist.

BTW cog was one of the first to sling monkey poo my way.

Oh I’m no stranger when it comes to debates and discussions between atheist and theists. grin

Like yourself , I went through an agnostic period where I couldn’t let go of the concept of God entirely until one day, I was able to drop the term of agnosticism all together, and settled in comfortably with the term atheist. Mostly due to its etymology, with it’s root term meaning simply someone without gods.

It’s suited me rather well, as I no longer need or require any concept of God to see me through things or require a need to believe in such things in order to feel comfortable or safe or whatever reason that may arise.


I feel some responsibility for this thread as I posed the question which probably wasn’t very well formed but in a nut shell was simply: since no religion could prove the existence of god could they, be considered agnostics and conversely could atheists, since they could not know whether a god exists, also be considered agnostic. And would that provide the common ground for ending conflict based on religion or its lack. Along the way I learned some things I didn’t know and gained some knowledge from the people who have participated in this discussion.
I left religion at a relatively young age first because it was boring and later because it was just beyond believe but mostly because I couldn’t understand how it could be relevant to me or how I lead my life. Good to meet you Coffeebean.