Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymnophoria
One thing I want to question, though; As far as I'm aware Agnostic generally means that you don't believe or disbeileve in a deity, and should suitable evidence present itself, you'll be happy enough to believe it. (I might be wrong, so don't quote me on that.) I'm struggling to understand how you can follow a religion (which primarily means belief in some sort of deity since that's what religion is all about) and yet still be Agnostic. Maybe I misunderstood, can you explain it a little more?  |
I'll give it a shot although I'm not the
OP. Part of the confusion is because the
OP is using the word, "religion". I'll use the definition you provided to keep things simple. Agnosticism is not a religion, instead it is a philosophy. For example, agnostic theism follows the logic that someone can believe in a god(s), acknowledge that belief is true BUT it is "unknowable" as to whether it is factually true. Keep in mind, agnostic theism is just one branch of agnosticism, there are others so depending which one the
OP adheres to, their logic may be different. Thus, the definition you gave of agnosticism is not a fully-accepted one. However, regardless of which branch, agnosticism is not a religion (again using your definition), it is a philosophy. A type of agnosticism that would not fit with your definition is pragmatic agnosticism. Alternatively, fideism is a philosophy that some agnostics (as well as non-agnostics) may adhere to and it also does not fit with the definition you gave. I'm not sure if there are any such users on here that do.
In other words, philosophy and religion are different but the
OP is not recognizing the difference, which makes her logic confusing. Perhaps she has a different definition of religion, although the one you provided is probably the most dominant one. It lacks a few details but I'm over-looking that.