Agnosticism the best way to practice irreligion in absence of proof

The Nasadiya Sukta is the 129th hymn of the Rigveda it is concerned with cosmology and the origin of the universe it is known for its skepticism it ends with:

Who really knows? Who shall declare it here?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?
None knows when creation has arisen;
Whether He made it or did not make it,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not.

An Agnostic person is one who believes that”humans can not know if there god exists or not” .Till today there are not any strong proofs of existence of god.Hence anyone can say he is atheist but if an atheist is unable to prove the non existence of god then he’s also in the category of agnostic.Similarly if any theist who believes in god is unable to prove the existence of god is also in the category of agnostic.
I personally see Agnosticism as the middle way between atheism and theism.We can temporarily declare ourselves as agnostic till we have a strong proof about existence or non existence of god but a permanent agnosticism is not a right way to practice religion.
Similarly a permanent belief in atheism,theism or any other branch of religion is also not a correct way.
In our whole life we should first choose any logical religious belief and then if we get any reasonable proof about it then only we should believe in that particular branch of religion.And if you are not have any proof about any god or religion then simply declare your self as an Agnostic.


About the alchemist

Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I'll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase each other doesn't make any sense. ~Rumi
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Agnosticism the best way to practice irreligion in absence of proof

  1. How do you know you don’t have proof of the nonexistence or existence of a god? Perhaps you have tricked yourself. I’m kidding, of course, but it’s something else to think about. Good post!

    • arvind yadav says:

      personally i have a different idea but for a average person or a common man i have used the word proof of existence or non existence
      any one can question someones idea and when you will try to explain them your idea they do not understand that’s why leave them on their own level of understanding…

  2. dernachtwulf says:

    For myself gods, etc are “thought-forms” of energy created by the belief of people who believe in them. These thought-forms are strengthened by repeated works (ritual/prayer/magic/etc). I find them to be symbols, lenses with which to focus the energy of the universe to various ends. Thus, for me, gods do exist but it is we who create them. I avoid the religious aspect, religion in general, preferring instead to follow my Spirit, my instinct. If I acknowledge gods at all it is as symbols to be employed. I won’t worship, etc what I find are basically “imaginary friends” (for lack of another term). But that’s just me, I speak only for myself. Great post, I’ll be back to read more.

    • arvind yadav says:

      i am agree with you.Religion and the lots of images of gods are created by men just to concentrate their thoughts ans energy on a particular point because we humans cant concentrate on any thing with out it’s mental image.

  3. Hi – thanks for subscribing to my blog!
    About your post – I think you’re right in saying agnosticism is an appropriate “in-between” stage when someone is grappling with belief in God. However, you seem to allow all human beings to land wherever they want to concerning belief in God – as though sincerity of belief is what mattered. But I’m sure you would find that people who believe in God think that those who do not are foolish, and vice versa. What I mean is, because the concept of God is so significant, our beliefs about God are of the highest consequence.
    Additionally, the whole idea of reasonable proof is terribly difficult. Empirical proof relies on the trustworthiness of the five senses – and on our willingness to subjugate all of reality beneath them. In other words, we have to presuppose that all of reality exists within the sensible world (it can be smelled/tasted/touched/seen/heard). And concerning abstract logical proofs – well, they require the thinker to begin with a true statement, or presupposition. For example, “every action causes and opposite and equal reaction.” There is motion in the universe. Motion is caused by movers. There must, then, have ALWAYS been movers (which leaves a whole myriad of questions about the origin of the universe, time, and so on, unanswered and unanswerable), or there must have been a First Mover who caused all the motion that now exists. That’s Aristotle (who I can see you appreciate).
    Anyways, just some thoughts. But I just don’t think it’s consistent to hold everyone to the standard of thinking logically, and then allowing them to land wherever they want as it concerns belief in the existence of God. I don’t think logic allows for that. I also don’t think God allows for that.

  4. Page 28 says:

    It sounds a bit like I can empathize with the way you think. 🙂 I would, however, say that personally I find agnosticism dangerous, at least for those who hold its definition in exactitude. To me this is because agnosticism ironically holds an unnecessary certainty over our uncertainty, if that makes sense. Perhaps one day we can understand “God?” We do not yet know. So I would instead argue that “we don’t know, and we don’t know if we will ever know.” But there’s another reason to me–hope. God is crucial, heavy, important, and our belief or lack of belief in “God” effects everything we do. I fear that agnosticism is, in a sense, giving up on figuring out this important issue. If, indeed, something so divine does exist…well, it’s worth us not missing out on it even amidst the difficulty. 🙂

    • arvind yadav says:

      if some one thinks that there is a super human sitting outside this universe and he is the creator and destroyer then he is wrong(scientifically).
      For me (or my believe) god is that fundamental particle or energy or any thing else (but not any thing with a human body) whose everything is the manifestation.
      we come from nothing and we will go to that nothing only there no any other way its a cycle.
      atoms combine and make human body and after death this human body will again split in to atoms, and this atoms will again combine and form something incredible.
      its a cycle and we are the part of that cycle.

  5. I think agnosticism is a matter of theory, not usually of practise. I find it useful to ask those who claim agnosticism a simple question, do you pray? If they don’t they’re functionally atheist

    There is an endless discussion about that on one of my favourite blogs revealing that atheist vs agnostic is not a simple dichotomy

  6. neometheus says:

    An interesting post, agnosticism is the middle way of sorts, it is the only absolutely safe bet. Atheism is belief since by definition one cannot prove a negative, so one must step outside the realm of what is provable to call onself and atheist. On the other hand theism could potentially be proven, if a deity decided to reveal itself measurably and beyond all doubt. Personally I believe that deities are not material entities and as such cannot be measured or verified in any physical sense. The reality of the divine is however attested by millenia of mystical experience, which by its nature is subjective and as such not submissable (quite rightly) as proof of the divine. This does not mean that the truth of such statements cannot be proven, the problem is that such proof must be acquired by each person individually through the practice of mystical techniques. Through this reasoning I find myself being both a theist (through mystical experience) and a materialistic agnostic!
    Thank you Arvind for a great post and a great blog, blessings be )O(

    • arvind yadav says:

      i agree with you.
      i find myself in a different state when i am in meditation or practicing any mystical activity.
      There comes different feelings in different situations.
      thank you for showing me a similar mind set.

  7. Thank you for following my new blog fellow thinker, tinkler of the mind and spirit! How about the idea that we ourselves are Gods, sparkes of whatever created in the beginning – ‘though it’s said there is no beginning. As Gods (creators) we mold the energy that ‘just is’ consciously and unconsciously. When we accept the fact of our marvelous creating ability we’ll stop creating unconsciously through our negative thoughts that are creating havoc on ourselves, others and our earth.

  8. mystic1muse says:

    “Agnosticism,” the antechamber to “gnosticism.”

  9. Pingback: Proof of the Existence of God(s) Summary | ajrogersphilosophy

  10. K. Q. Duane says:

    I find agnostics annoying. They are too intellectually lazy to get off the fence. Their iffiness concerning the existence of God really galls me.They are too lazy to see how Jesus Christ profoundly changed the world. They are too lazy to consider that if He was not God, why would 10 of His 12 Apostles suffer horrific deaths (martyrdom) in His name. Do they actually believe that those men, Christ’s closest companions, chose to die in agony for a liar? Come on! They knew Christ, They were on earth with Him. They lived and ate with Him. I’ll take their word for Christ’s divinity any day of the week. Thanks for following my blog. Interesting site despite its obvious lack of faith in God.

  11. Paul Nichol says:

    It is impossible to half believe in God, you either do or you do not. The term agnostic is nothing more than convenient niche for people unwilling to publicly and spiritually deny a God. It is not for a God to prove himself to any of us, to perform simple tricks to receive adulation, for if a God did exist, he would have no need of those who demanded proof his existence or denied him or her.
    To have a religious belief is just that, a belief. It is more than consumerism for the soul. Belief in God can define the nature of an individual’s life, shape families, communities, countries and world history. To believe in God is to believe we are more than just a collection of transient atoms, that life has a deeper purpose other than propagation and death. God could be many things to many people, and take on many forms both real and imaginary, who is to say, which ones are right and which ones are wrong? People do not need permission to believe in a God, nor do they have to prove the validity of their belief.
    At this point in my life I do not believe in God, but neither do I have the sureness to proclaim there is no God. I have experience many strange and unexpected things in my life and know that each day I wake, I will discover something new about myself and the world in which we live. I know only what I know today, not what I will know tomorrow, this is my quote for life.
    As Confucius said “He who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions.”
    There are no definite answers only better questions yet to be asked………………..
    Great post by the way, your blog is very interesting. Thank you for following my own blog I am just about to click follow, myself.

  12. Pauline says:

    My name is Etta. I live in San Pietro Infine, Italy.
    I randomly stumble on I just want to say “Hi”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s