Why aren't there more agnostics?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Interesting.

Personally, I'd say the same for atheism: it seems like it proves itself just by looking around.

The only thing that doesn't make this absolutely definitive is that what a thing "seems like" just by looking at it isn't a reliable way to figure out what's true.

 

[Kfox]

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.

I disagree! Atheism is not about what you believe, it's what you do not believe. It would be absurd to claim something does not exist before it has been established what it is you are claiming does not exist. There are countless things people call God; some of them do exist.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

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

I think there is a spark of the divine in humans.
Hmm, stop being practical.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I'm an agnostic. Just of the atheist variety.
Seems intellectually honest to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm an agnostic. Just of the atheist variety.
Seems intellectually honest to me.

I've stopped calling myself an agnostic.

I get that all knowledge is tentative, induction is never 100% certain, etc., etc.... but I think that when someone calls themselves an agnostic, most people will take this to mean that the person thinks there's a level of uncertainty around god-claims that we don't have for other knowledge claims.

I think there's more uncertainty in, say, the claim that the passenger pigeon is extinct than there is in the claim that no gods exist. I wouldn't get challenged about making that first claim with certainty, so I see no need to put caveats and qualifiers on the second claim. Edit: not in everyday conversation, anyway.

 

[McBell]

Even theists only go so far as to say they "believe" something exists or not.

I would go so far as to say MOST theists...
But certainly not all.
There have been a number of them right here on RF over the past decade and a half who claim to know for a fact that not only does their favourite deity exist, but that their favourite deity is the one and only really honestly true deity.

Will the really real deity please stand up
please stand up
please stand up

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've stopped calling myself an agnostic.

I get that all knowledge is tentative, induction is never 100% certain, etc., etc.... but I think that when someone calls themselves an agnostic, most people will take this to mean that the person thinks there's a level of uncertainty around god-claims that we don't have for other knowledge claims.

I think there's more uncertainty in, say, the claim that the passenger pigeon is extinct than there is in the claim that no gods exist. I wouldn't get challenged about making that first claim with certainty, so I see no need to put caveats and qualifiers on the second claim. Edit: not in everyday conversation, anyway.

Same.
I'd never refer to myself as an agnostic of any description unless in a place where the conversation allows for some nuance.

IRL I'm 'simply' an atheist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why aren't there more agnostics?: Sitting on a fence is not very comfortable.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree! Atheism is not about what you believe, it's what you do not believe.

Yeah, but what "you do not believe" is about "what you believe." The English language favours positive cases: the "not" is adjunctive.

When I say I don't believe in Sasquatch, it's more about what I do believe.

It would be absurd to claim something does not exist before it has been established what it is you are claiming does not exist. There are countless things people call God; some of them do exist.

It would be absurd to claim that something does exist without evidence. That's why there are atheists. Atheists have a firm belief in opposition to that belief.

 

[Willamena]

Why aren't there more agnostics?: Sitting on a fence is not very comfortable.

All those sticks up the butt...

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, but what "you do not believe" is about "what you believe."

.
To believe is to assert a position; to not believe is the default position. If I don’t believe “X” is true thus remain in the default position, that says nothing about what I believe.

When I say I don't believe in Sasquatch, it's more about what I do believe.

What does it mean to “believe in” something? How are you defining that term?

It would be absurd to claim that something does exist without evidence.

I disagree. Despite not having absolute proof, I would without hesitation deny the existence of Santa Clause, as would any reasonable person.

 

[Willamena]

.
To believe is to assert a position; to not believe is the default position. If I don’t believe “X” is true thus remain in the default position, that says nothing about what I believe.

That's no dictionary definition of "believe."

(It does, however, make a lot of other people's arguments make more sense.)

What does it mean to “believe in” something? How are you defining that term?

To "believe" means to accept something as true. For instance, I believe in truth. (The statement is self-referencing, so not rocket science.)

To "believe in" means to accept something as true in actuality or reality. If I state that I don't believe in Sasquatch, I mean that I don't believe that Sasquatch exists in actuality or reality. That's because I understand that I should only believe in things that are reasonably and demonstratably sound. To state that I don't believe in Sasquatch is, by inference, to state that I believe in the reasonably and demonstratably sound.

I disagree. Despite not having absolute proof, I would without hesitation deny the existence of Santa Clause, as would any reasonable person.

But I do have evidence that Santa Claus is an invention of 19th Century marketing. So I have good reason to not believe in it. I couldn't disbelive without good reason.

Sasquatch is the better example. My disbelieve lies in the many hoaxes that have been perpetrated about his footprints. There are a few examples that make me withhold disbelief, but by and all the evidence against weighs better.

 

[Kfox]

That's no dictionary definition of "believe."

(It does, however, make a lot of other people's arguments make more sense.)

So how are you defining “believe”?

To "believe" means to accept something as true. For instance, I believe in truth. (The statement is self-referencing, so not rocket science.)

To "believe in" means to accept something as true in actuality or reality. If I state that I don't believe in Sasquatch, I mean that I don't believe that Sasquatch exists in actuality or reality.

Going by your above definition, to not believe in Sasquatch would mean you don’t believe Sasquatch is truth; it would have nothing to do with whether he exists or not. For existence you would have to claim you don’t believe in Sasquatch’s existence. Agree?

But I do have evidence that Santa Claus is an invention of 19th Century marketing. So I have good reason to not believe in it. I couldn't disbelive without good reason.

Santa Clause is described as a human being who lives at the North Pole and rides around on a magic sleigh; not a marketing tool. I’m saying as such a human being he does not exist.

 

[Willamena]

Going by your above definition, to not believe in Sasquatch would mean you don’t believe Sasquatch is truth; it would have nothing to do with whether he exists or not. For existence you would have to claim you don’t believe in Sasquatch’s existence. Agree?

Existence isn't in question, because it's just about being. Sasquatch exists as a proposed being, as a theory, as a product of imagination, as a marketing tool, as a movie character, etc.

But I don't believe it is actual. Not believing in Sasquatch says that it's not actual.

It's actuality that relates to truth.

Santa Clause is described as a human being who lives at the North Pole and rides around on a magic sleigh; not a marketing tool. I’m saying as such a human being he does not exist.

That's the marketing, yes.

As such, I'm saying that such a being isn't actual.

 

[Kfox]

Existence isn't in question, because it's just about being.

What’s the difference between existing and being?

But I don't believe it is actual. Not believing in Sasquatch says that it's not actual.

It's actuality that relates to truth..

What’s the difference between existing and actual?

 

[Willamena]

What’s the difference between existing and being?

One word is used with an object, one without, i.e. the existence of a thing is its being.

What’s the difference between existing and actual?

Actuality, or reality, is a condition applied to existence.

Many conditions can be applied to existence that are not actuality or reality. Imaginative beings, for example.

 

[Kfox]

One word is used with an object, one without, i.e. the existence of a thing is its being.

That sounds like the same thing. If the existence of “X” is it’s being, that would mean if “X” did not exist, it would not have a being, and if it didn’t have a being, it wouldn’t exist! If you disagree, give an example of something being that does not exist.

Actuality, or reality, is a condition applied to existence.

Many conditions can be applied to existence that are not actuality or reality. Imaginative beings, for example.

I said existing, not existence. If something is not real, but imaginative; it is not existing. Again; existing, actuality and reality sounds like the same thing to me. If not, tell me how are they different.

 

[Willamena]

That sounds like the same thing. If the existence of “X” is it’s being, that would mean if “X” did not exist, it would not have a being, and if it didn’t have a being, it wouldn’t exist! If you disagree, give an example of something being that does not exist.

I do not disagree. To exist is to be.

I said existing, not existence. If something is not real, but imaginative; it is not existing. Again; existing, actuality and reality sounds like the same thing to me. If not, tell me how are they different.

Imagine a canvas on which all things are painted. In one corner, you might have an actual thing painted there, and in another corner, an imagined thing. In the middle, there might be a possible thing, and beside it something probable.

Existing (existence) is being a thing painted there. Everything exists. Only some of them are actual.

Existence isn't the canvas itself. If you want a word for the canvas itself, a good one might be "god."

 

[Kfox]

Imagine a canvas on which all things are painted. In one corner, you might have an actual thing painted there,

Yes! That actual thing exists; same thing.

and in another corner, an imagined thing.

No, you can’t paint an imagined thing, in order to paint something it has to physically exist

In the middle, there might be a possible thing,

No; possible things can’t be painted, it has to exist to be painted.

and beside it something probable.

You can’t paint something that is probable

Existing (existence) is being a thing painted there. Everything exists. Only some of them are actual.

If it doesn’t have an actual existence, it only exists in your imagination. The only thing I can see here is something can exist within your thoughts, but in order to be actual or be a part of reality, they must physically exist. So going back to your Sasquatch scenario, Sasquatch may exist in someone’s imagination, but because he doesn’t have a physical existence, he doesn’t exist actually or in reality. Do you agree?

 

[Willamena]

Yes! That actual thing exists; same thing.

No, you can’t paint an imagined thing, in order to paint something it has to physically exist

No; possible things can’t be painted, it has to exist to be painted.

You can’t paint something that is probable

If it doesn’t have an actual existence, it only exists in your imagination. The only thing I can see here is something can exist within your thoughts, but in order to be actual or be a part of reality, they must physically exist. So going back to your Sasquatch scenario, Sasquatch may exist in someone’s imagination, but because he doesn’t have a physical existence, he doesn’t exist actually or in reality. Do you agree?

We differ in some parts. I agree that in order for Sasquatch to be believable, it must be actual, not imagined. That's what I said earlier, that I don't believe in Sasquatch's actuality.

Where we differ is here: in order for things to exist, they must be. There are no other requirements for that word. To exist is to be. Actual things are. Imagined things are. Phyiscal things are. Theoretical things are. Each adjective doesn't create a whole new thing--they all exemplify "being." The canvas is wide.

If you want evidence, it's right there in our language. You claim that imagined things don't exist, but things exist in our imagination. One of those has it right, the other is distorted by materialism.