Why aren't there more agnostics?

[Frater Sisyphus]

Because people have a tendency to need a sense of authority with matters that are beyond them, else they have insecurity about it.



I myself am an agnostic when it comes to my own skepticism about everything in life (including the unknown) but am also a pantheist (in an intellectually abstract sense - that there is something kinetic about the universe/all matter/energy relating to consciousness, in a very "romantic" sense, but nothing supernatural or paranormal whatsoever).
And as Anton Wilson once said "I don't believe in anything but I have my suspicions"

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I suppose. Pantheist (or rather panentheist) here too.

Though, I am not sure how you can be agnostic and pantheist. It seems like it proves itself, just by looking around.

 

[JaimeZ]

I'm pretty sure there are much more agnostics, they just not coming forward.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're probably right....

Welcome!

 

[Kfox]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

The problem I tend to see with Agnostics is they seem to assume when you speak of God you are speaking of the God of Abraham. Not all Theists worship the God as described in the Bible, or Koran; there are those who worship other things as well, many of them that do exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I. Suppose someone from Egypt who worships the Sun asked you, are you gonna say there is no way of knowing if that bright light in the sky even exists because he calls it God? Of course not; of course it exists, you just don’t call it God.
The problem with comparing agnostic with God vs Unicorns, is everybody knows exactly what you are talking about when you speak of Unicorns, but that isn’t the case with God so I find the best answer to does God exist is to ask them to describe God. Upon description, you can then decide if you believe it exists, don’t know, or say it does not.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem I tend to see with Agnostics is they seem to assume when you speak of God you are speaking of the God of Abraham. Not all Theists worship the God as described in the Bible, or Koran; there are those who worship other things as well, many of them that do exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I. Suppose someone from Egypt who worships the Sun asked you, are you gonna say there is no way of knowing if that bright light in the sky even exists because he calls it God? Of course not; of course it exists, you just don’t call it God.
The problem with comparing agnostic with God vs Unicorns, is everybody knows exactly what you are talking about when you speak of Unicorns, but that isn’t the case with God so I find the best answer to does God exist is to ask them to describe God. Upon description, you can then decide if you believe it exists, don’t know, or say it does not.

I believe the agnosticism is more involved and complex than this, and diverse. Yes, underlying ancient beliefs in God?(s) are often very real manifestations of our physical existence such as the sun, but in reality they are described as manifestations of spiritual power beyond the physical.

I am a Baha'i theist, and philosophical agnostic, because in reality 'I do not know.' If it were not for the potential of a more universal concept of the ultimate spiritual 'Source' some call God(s), beyond the individual ancient religions, which believe their God is the only God, than the existence of God would be a paradox of severe contradictions of the possibility of the existence of God described in each religion. The different religions reflect a cultural human image of what is God and the relationship to Creation and humanity.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem I tend to see with Agnostics is they seem to assume when you speak of God you are speaking of the God of Abraham.

"God" with the capitalized letter is the name for
that particular god. Therein lies the assumption.

 

[Kfox]

I believe the agnosticism is more involved and complex than this, and diverse. Yes, underlying ancient beliefs in God?(s) are often very real manifestations of our physical existence such as the sun, but in reality they are described as manifestations of spiritual power beyond the physical..

Are you skeptical of any unsubstantiated claims a person might make, or do you feel obligated to remain agnostic on everything, giving the absurd the same credibility as the reasonable?

 

[Kfox]

"God" with the capitalized letter is the name for
that particular god. Therein lies the assumption.

Actually I think that particular God's name is Yahweh. Concerning how it is spelled whether it be GOD, god, or God, I capitalize the first letter for anything I consider a title thus I spell it God, regardless of the Deity discussed. If that causes confusion, I apologize.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually I think that particular God's name is Yahweh. Concerning how it is spelled whether it be GOD, god, or God, I capitalize the first letter for anything I consider a title thus I spell it God, regardless of the Deity discussed. If that causes confusion, I apologize.

No apologies needed.
We each merely offer a perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you skeptical of any unsubstantiated claims a person might make, or do you feel obligated to remain agnostic on everything, giving the absurd the same credibility as the reasonable?

This is not clear. I am skeptical of all subjective beliefs concerning worlds and the nature of our existence beyond the science of our physical existence including my own beliefs, because of the limits and fallibility of human abilities including my own beliefs. This does not mean that there are not reasons to believe.

I have reasons that I believe in a 'Source' called God in terms of a Universal perspective, but that is an involved discussion. It is the ancient religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam that are irrational, illogical, and with many contradictions in terms of the universal beyond their tribal and cultural perspective of thousands of years ago.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The problem I tend to see with Agnostics is they seem to assume when you speak of God you are speaking of the God of Abraham. Not all Theists worship the God as described in the Bible, or Koran; there are those who worship other things as well, many of them that do exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I. Suppose someone from Egypt who worships the Sun asked you, are you gonna say there is no way of knowing if that bright light in the sky even exists because he calls it God? Of course not; of course it exists, you just don’t call it God.
The problem with comparing agnostic with God vs Unicorns, is everybody knows exactly what you are talking about when you speak of Unicorns, but that isn’t the case with God so I find the best answer to does God exist is to ask them to describe God. Upon description, you can then decide if you believe it exists, don’t know, or say it does not.

I am agnostic but I was previously a Christian, so I know that the tendency to think of Yahweh when seeing the word "god." There are no gods named "God," so I try to use the correct name for the god. The OP mentioned not being able to be pantheist and agnostic, and the way I look at it, I think there is spirituality imbued in nature, but I don't necessarily think of nature as a god. It's not a real concrete set of beliefs. I figure if I see evidence of any deities, I will take notice.

 

[Kfox]

the way I look at it, I think there is spirituality imbued in nature,

What does that mean?

 

[Sand Dancer]

What does that mean?

I think there is something divine in all of creation, but I am not sure what it is. A higher power is what I call it, not really a god or goddess.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Agnosticism is a paradox, as if you didn’t know you can’t say your definition of God is right, on top of that YOU DONT KNOW, so you can’t say you do know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Agnosticism is a paradox, as if you didn’t know you can’t say your definition of God is right, on top of that YOU DONT KNOW, so you can’t say you do know.

The bigger paradox is why you tend to believe one particular religious belief out of a whole spectrum of such, unless such just appeals to you, in which case no paradox, just choice - and as likely to be wrong as right.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The bigger paradox is why you tend to believe one particular religious belief out of a whole spectrum of such, unless such just appeals to you, in which case no paradox, just choice - and as likely to be wrong as right.

i follow all religions, in more of a spiritualist.

 

[Kfox]

I think there is something divine in all of creation, but I am not sure what it is.

Does this include mankind? Do you believe people are divine also?

A higher power is what I call it,

Higher than what? When everything that exists is divine, nothing is divine.

 

[Willamena]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

Atheism is not, "I don't know." And it's especially not, "I know a not."

Atheism is, "There is no God." It is a firm belief, not imagination. It is, essentially, "I believe that God does not exist." **

Atheism is a firm belief.

Firm atheists are with you, in that they deny those people who claim to know that God doesn't exist. Claiming to know a nonexistent isn't ... intellecutally satisfying. If you're sane. (Unless it's your best friend, then it's okay.)

And it's so. God tapped me on the shoulder, from behind*, and let me know that it doesn't exist. It is pretty hard to deny such a testament. (*metaphor)

That said, I have no idea what you think "agnostic" means.

PS, science has no opinion on unicorns. Or, at least, it shouldn't, else it's not science.

PPS, you're not a theoretical person. You're real. Your claim may be theoretical, but you shouldn't be.

PPPS, while animals may grow horns on their heads, there is no evidence that horses have done so.

**I know people will dispute this, but I'm firm in my argument.

PPPPS, people will tell you that "I don't know" is agnosticism, but it really isn't. It's just indecision.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm pantheist. I've arrived at that, after growing up theist, going through periods of agnosticism, back into theism, and then seeing "Jesus" through the universe, nature, and everyday people. It isn't for everyone. But the idea of atheism always felt like a con, and now that I understand my own faith, saying "I don't know" seems to me like a very intellectually honest position. "I don't know" may become "I don't care" which is still honest. It may also come to belief, but honestly, I don't care about belief or not, I care about honesty.

Suppose I were to proclaim, "I know there are no unicorns because I haven't seen them, and science says they shouldn't exist." This is very intellectually dishonest because firstly, I the theoretical person making this claim, has not been to other areas outside New Jersey. Not to remote regions of the Earth, not to hidden underground areas inside the Earth's crust with a gooey center where unicorns are just hanging out chilling, and not to different planets also capable of bearing life. And there is also the idea that unicorns exist but in a different time (long ago, or perhaps what horses will one day evolve into), are able to conceal themselves. And there are some who believe that the reason writers came up with such an idea is because they are attuned to alternate dimensions. Further, while pegasus is definitely out, because of laws of aerodynamics, there isn't a single law of science restricting animals from growing horns from their head. So the idea that science disproves it is also wrong. There also isn't a law of science disproving God, but there are rules of causality enough that a random uncaused universe is untenable as an idea. "I don't know" is a fine answer, since whatever did cause such order could be literally anything.

Why unicorns, btw? Because I'm a fan of the movie The Last Unicorn, of course.

"I don't know if unicorns exist," is honest. Just as "I don't know if God exists" is honest. But once you start getting into "I know that... isn't so" you get into a weird situation where you are expected to be omniscient yourself. That is, the only way you could disprove unicorns did not exist beyond all doubt, is if you were God yourself, and if we extended that idea to God, we'd run into a paradox.

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not. So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists? I'd like to see far more of you guys.

There needs to be something factual established first so that a person can have a proper foundation for which a substantiated belief can be built on.
.
Unsubstantiated belief out of the blue without any factual foundation is no good, and completly worthless.

Agnostism is worthless unless something is actually there to substantiate a possibility of a deity or God existing, so untill that actually happens, atheism is the natural default position to take.