Agnosticismball or Discoverism is a hypothetical religion that is not really a religion. He doesn't believe in god but he believes that there may be some sort of essence or something.

Agnosticism is characterized by a neutral or uncertain position towards the existance of God.

The word comes from Ancient Greek and means 'without knowledge'. John Snow might be an agnostic.

He is open to discussion but he always finds that both the Theists and the Atheists lack sufficient rational grounds to support their belief or disbelief in God. He generally believes in rational thinking and science. He waits (and sometimes looks) for evidence from both Theists and Atheists.

He values the scientific method, but believes that Atheism's claim that "because a religion is bad or because religion did bad things then there is no God" as unscientific and an impression rather than scientific evidence.

According to him if Theists say "There is God!" and turns out there isn't then they were wrong; he also says: "If there is a God, how can we know without assuming, having faith ?".

If Atheists say "There is no God!" and turns out there is then they were wrong; he also says "If there is a God, and he is smarter than you you may be unable to understand his reasoning, as you often say 'if there is a God then why is this and why is that' and looking for God's reasoning." or "Causality is an axiom, we can't prove it, we just assume it." or "You say 'if science hasn't proved God yet then it's logical to conclude that there is no God thus atheism makes sense.', then on the same logic, if geography hasn't proved America to Europeans until Columb discovered it would it be logical to conclude that there is no America ? or it just suddenly came to existance when Columb discovered it ?".

He simply does not rush to conclusions and finds that the most rational conclusion lacking any prejudice is that one cannot know whether there is a God or not.

Unlike Atheism, he doesn't have a hateful attitude towards religions. But a curious one, "I'm open to converting if you can prove/disprove me that there is a God" but so far your "Look how wrong the Bible is!" or "This must be a sign from God" arguments don't suit me.

Esentially, it's borderline between Theism and Atheism. Whether the Theist says "There is a God!" and the Atheist says "There is no God!", the Agnostic says "I can't know!".

He is not a doctrine. Every Agnostic may have their own particular set of beliefs and reasons for their neutral or uncertain position towards the existance of God.


Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology.

On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence.

And that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

Agnosticism is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration.

And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.