Why aren't there more agnostics?

[shunyadragon]

It is not an assumption as it is based on my experience. That makes it anecdotal and biased but not unwarranted and not an assumption.

Your generalizing all atheists based on personal experience declaring most, fallacy big time. Does your experience include most atheists?

The distinctions are more defined than you understand. I wouldn't even call atheism a position, it is just a statement about an inner state. Agnosticism is also a statement about an inner state "I don't know what a god is" but it is also a position "and neither do you". I.e. the atheist doesn't make a falsifiable, objective claim, the Agnostic does.

Atheists dor not claim to make a falsifiable, objective claim, except that there is no objective evidence to believe, which is true. The limits of Methodological Naturalism are neutral as ro whether God(s0 exist or not. Statements of philosophical beliefs are not objectively based.

 

[Heyo]

Your generalizing all atheists based on personal experience declaring most, fallacy big time. Does your experience include most atheists?

It is a fallacy, we agree in that. But it isn't unwarranted and it isn't an unreasonable assumption. I should have said "most atheists I talked to" instead of "most atheists" and I should have made it clear that it is an opinion.

Atheists dor not claim to make a falsifiable, objective claim, except that there is no objective evidence to believe, which is true. The limits of Methodological Naturalism are neutral as ro whether God(s0 exist or not. Statements of philosophical beliefs are not objectively based.

Exactly. That's why Agnosticism is a stronger position than atheism.

Back to the topic: I have offered a hypothesis why there are more atheists than Agnostics (though it was a shot from the hip). What's your hypothesis?

 

[Kfox]

It is a fallacy, we agree in that. But it isn't unwarranted and it isn't an unreasonable assumption. I should have said "most atheists I talked to" instead of "most atheists" and I should have made it clear that it is an opinion.

Exactly. That's why Agnosticism is a stronger position than atheism.

Back to the topic: I have offered a hypothesis why there are more atheists than Agnostics (though it was a shot from the hip). What's your hypothesis?

May I offer a hypothesis? I think there are more atheists than agnostics because I see agnosticism as a very flawed position. The guy who coined the term (Thomas Huxley) claimed it is impossible to know either way whether God exists or not.
The problem with this claim is he seems to assume God equals the God of the Bible, ignoring all those other concepts of God that are known to exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I; there is a sect of Hindu that believe Kumari of Nepal as a God, there are Rastafarians who believe Hallie Selassie as an incarnate of God (Hallie Selassie died in 1972, but Kmuari is still alive today) Now wouldn’t it be foolish to claim it is impossible to know if these people existed simply because there are those who choose to call them God? You can’t make claims concerning the existence of God until it is established which God you are talking about. This is the mistake Huxley made when coining the term "Agnostic".
As an Atheist I recognize what some people call God do exist, but I don’t call them God; I call them something else; I call the Sun a star, nature our environment, Kuari and Hallie people like you and I. I am even willing to consider the possibility that Allah, or Yahweh may have existed as evolved beings from another planet visiting Earth at a time when mankind was primitive and over time the story evolved from visitors, to creators of the Universe.
Anyway that’s my hypothesis shooting from the hip

 

[shunyadragon]

It is a fallacy, we agree in that. But it isn't unwarranted and it isn't an unreasonable assumption. I should have said "most atheists I talked to" instead of "most atheists" and I should have made it clear that it is an opinion.

Opinions are not meaningful concerning those who believe differently.

Exactly. That's why Agnosticism is a stronger position than atheism.

Disagree, I believe this is a subjective judgement, and best described as two sides of the same coin.

Back to the topic: I have offered a hypothesis why there are more atheists than Agnostics (though it was a shot from the hip). What's your hypothesis?

Well ah . . . I am not certain there are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are most often more vocal in expressing their belief. Many if not most agnostics are more indifferent to the existence of God.

 

[Heyo]

May I offer a hypothesis? I think there are more atheists than agnostics because I see agnosticism as a very flawed position.

You may be onto something.

The guy who coined the term (Thomas Huxley) claimed it is impossible to know either way whether God exists or not.
The problem with this claim is he seems to assume God equals the God of the Bible, ignoring all those other concepts of God that are known to exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I; there is a sect of Hindu that believe Kumari of Nepal as a God, there are Rastafarians who believe Hallie Selassie as an incarnate of God (Hallie Selassie died in 1972, but Kmuari is still alive today) Now wouldn’t it be foolish to claim it is impossible to know if these people existed simply because there are those who choose to call them God? You can’t make claims concerning the existence of God until it is established which God you are talking about. This is the mistake Huxley made when coining the term "Agnostic".

Yes, it seems so. When Huxley coined the term "Agnosticism" and when later Agnostics defined it as "the belief that the existence or nature of god(s) isn't or can't be known" they didn't stress (and explain) the part "or nature" enough. Theists and atheists alike just skip over that.

As an Atheist I recognize what some people call God do exist, but I don’t call them God; I call them something else; I call the Sun a star, nature our environment, Kuari and Hallie people like you and I. I am even willing to consider the possibility that Allah, or Yahweh may have existed as evolved beings from another planet visiting Earth at a time when mankind was primitive and over time the story evolved from visitors, to creators of the Universe.
Anyway that’s my hypothesis shooting from the hip

It seems we agree on many levels, more than you would know. As I said above you deny divinity to the Sun, YHVH and Haile because you have an illusion of knowledge of "the nature of god" - just as the theists who claim their divinity. You agree in that you have that knowledge you just bicker over what it is. That's why Agnosticism is more radical than atheism (and, as it seems, so much harder to to grasp): we don't play your game of "god exists - nu uh" and say "you both don't know what (a) god is, so stop arguing about if it exists".

 

[Heyo]

Opinions are not meaningful concerning those who believe differently.

We aren't debating different beliefs, we are brainstorming the question why there are so few Agnostics.

Well ah . . . I am not certain there are more atheists than agnostics.

There are on RF.

Atheists are most often more vocal in expressing their belief. Many if not most agnostics are more indifferent to the existence of God.

Agnostics are beyond the question of the existence of God. We ask about the nature of god(s). And it seems to me that neither theists nor atheists even understand the question and they don't like to be interrupted in their familiar game. You both have the illusion of knowing what you are talking about and it seems damn hard to shatter that illusion - especially in atheists who don't even believe in the thing they know nothing about.

 

[shunyadragon]

We aren't debating different beliefs, we are brainstorming the question why there are so few Agnostics.
There are on RF.

It is not a matter of what we are debating or discussing, though you made the problematic assertion, Statements such as these are not meaningful nor productive to the discussion.

Agnostics are beyond the question of the existence of God. We ask about the nature of god(s). And it seems to me that neither theists nor atheists even understand the question and they don't like to be interrupted in their familiar game. You both have the illusion of knowing what you are talking about and it seems damn hard to shatter that illusion - especially in atheists who don't even believe in the thing they know nothing about.

Confusing at best Agnosticism is simpler common belief than you assert. It is simply a belief that there is not enough evidence to believe nor disbelieve in God, which is very true and a coherent logical position

 

[Joshua Pryce]

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.

Believing whether God exists or not is something basic. Its a poor mans package. Spirituality offers someone more opportunity and personal, spiritual and mental growth than just declaration of a belief. I could say i am a footballer because i play footballer with my friends twice a year. Does it make someone professional or even someone who practices the sport. Of course not. Faith is not just playing with friends but full engagement. It separates a footballer from someone who just plays with friends every now and then.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not a matter of what we are debating or discussing, though you made the problematic assertion, Statements such as these are not meaningful nor productive to the discussion.



Confusing at best Agnosticism is simpler common belief than you assert. It is simply a belief that there is not enough evidence to believe nor disbelieve in God, which is very true and a coherent logical position

I wanted to add that many, so to speak, agnostics are indifferent or apathetic to any belief in Gods and essentially do not care about Gods and religions. This is a very common approach to belief in Gods and religions in Japan, and likely the USA and Europe.

I would consider these non-believers as not caring about Gods and religion, and do not express any opinion..

 

[sew.excited73]

Part of the issue here is one of terminology.

There are several levels of atheism and also several levels of agnosticism.

First, agnosticism:

The term agnostic literally means (and was coined to mean) no-knowledge. So an agnostic is someone who does not have knowledge about the existence of a deity or deities. This can happen in several ways:

1. Weak agnostic: I do not have knowledge, but maybe someone does.
2. Medium agnostic: At this point nobody knows, but perhaps knowledge is possible.
3. Strong agnostic: No knowledge about this subject is possible, even in theory.

Similarly, Atheist literally means 'no deity'. And atheist is someone who does not have a belief in any deity. This can also happen for several reasons.

1. Weak atheist: I do not believe because I have not been convinced by the arguments for the existence of a deity. Such evidence may exist one way or the other, but I haven't seen it.
2. Medium atheism: I do not have a belief in any deity and don't think there is any evidence to support such.
3. Strong atheist: I believe no deities exist.

And don't forget variants like
apatheism: I don't care if deities exist.
ignostic: the term 'deity' is to ill-defined to be meaningful

And, don't forget, you can be an agnostic (don't think knowledge is possible), but still have beliefs (either theistic or atheistic).

And, of course, there are all the variants of pantheism and panentheism, along with polytheisms, and simple non-theisms.

Don't be upset if I have left out a favorite variant: this is all off the top of my head.

Just for the sake of completion… my belief falls somewhere in between both of those and deism. In fact, in my search for truth I often landed on agnosticism, but it just doesn’t quite describe my situation.

 

[sew.excited73]

Raise your hand if you're unsure?

 

[endlessvoid2018]

"Ietsism," is a sort of Agnosticism evidently

 

[Daemon Sophic]

….
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.

Sorry I’m late. Here I am.

I’m agnostic, and no, I don’t go in for that meddling micro-management of my beliefs like “strong agnostic” or ”weak atheist”, or blah, blah, blah….

And like my Sig says, you (and everyone else here) doesn’t really know. Never did. ‘Belief‘ don’t cut it. Y’all just don’t know. Just like me.

 

[shunyadragon]

"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.

Why do traditional Theists and other deeply rooted ancient religions persist in dominance despite the ancient mythical contradictory nature of their beliefs instead of the more rational and logical atheists and agnostics?

Simple answer is humanity is very tribal, and ancient religions have many generations tribal devotions beyond reason, and without science. Many Theists make conditional compromises to justify these unresolvable conflicts, but the glue of tribalism holds.

Atheists and agnostics do not have a tribe as such, and mostly arrive at there beliefs through an independent search without a well defined tribe.

I am a Theist, but realize the atheists and agnostics of various forms have a more rational positive view of the world, reality and the nature of humanity than traditional anchored in an ancient tribal worlds out of touch with reality.

Maybe more to follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is a fallacy, we agree in that. But it isn't unwarranted and it isn't an unreasonable assumption. I should have said "most atheists I talked to" instead of "most atheists" and I should have made it clear that it is an opinion.

That is a difficult generalization to separate form most or all atheists.

Exactly. That's why Agnosticism is a stronger position than atheism.

Yes, logically, because of the objective uncertainty of the existence of Gods. I believe their arguments are often similar, and there are to many shades of agnosticism and atheism as personal and not tribal beliefs as traditional Theism religions.

Back to the topic: I have offered a hypothesis why there are more atheists than Agnostics (though it was a shot from the hip). What's your hypothesis?

Traditional tribalism bonds most Theists to the generations of their ancestors and traditional family and peer heritage.

I do not believe this is valid. most atheists have made a conscientious effort in their search and yes, find no reason to believe. On the other hand with agnostics it is more veritable with many it is indifference to the existence of with some the same justification as from the perspective of atheist,. Even though I am a Theist given the options of a belief in the God or Gods of traditional religions I would be a strong agnostic or even an atheist and could not believe in the ancient Gods of traditional religions.

To me ancient tribal religions are totally irrational, illogical, and without science, which makes it difficult to justify belief from an independent detached perspective.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sorry I’m late. Here I am.

I’m agnostic, and no, I don’t go in for that meddling micro-management of my beliefs like “strong agnostic” or ”weak atheist”, or blah, blah, blah….

And like my Sig says, you (and everyone else here) doesn’t really know. Never did. ‘Belief‘ don’t cut it. Y’all just don’t know. Just like me.

To say “I don’t know’ requires both honesty and humility. To extrapolate from this assertion, that no one else can possibly know either, is hubristic in the extreme.

 

[Heyo]

To say “I don’t know’ requires both honesty and humility. To extrapolate from this assertion, that no one else can possibly know either, is hubristic in the extreme.

While @Daemon Sophic doesn't make the distinction between "weak" and "strong" Agnosticism, I do. I haven't found a way to conclude that knowledge about the divine is impossible (yet), but I do know that nobody else does know. Knowledge is transferable. If somebody knew, they could have spread that knowledge. And I see that nobody did.
You could argue that mystics, who refuse to share their knowledge, may know, but they will never be able to convince me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

While @Daemon Sophic doesn't make the distinction between "weak" and "strong" Agnosticism, I do. I haven't found a way to conclude that knowledge about the divine is impossible (yet), but I do know that nobody else does know. Knowledge is transferable. If somebody knew, they could have spread that knowledge. And I see that nobody did.
You could argue that mystics, who refuse to share their knowledge, may know, but they will never be able to convince me.

You know what everyone else knows? You can evaluate the experience of people who spent a lifetime in prayer and meditation, or those who have perhaps been gifted a moment of unearned grace, even though you do not share those experiences? And you don’t consider your position hubristic?

Mystics don’t refuse to share their knowledge btw. From Julian of Norwich to William Blake, Gautama Buddha to Rumi and Attar, they have tried to impart their insights and experiences to those who would share them. But no one else can open your eyes, your mind or your heart for you.

 

[Heyo]

You know what everyone else knows? You can evaluate the experience of people who spent a lifetime in prayer and meditation, or those who have perhaps been gifted a moment of unearned grace, even though you do not share those experiences? And you don’t consider your position hubristic?

Experience is not knowledge. Knowledge is "in a right triangle, the square over the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares over the other sides". I know this, and I can explain why it has to be that way. And since that is transferable knowledge, everyone, who has listened in maths class, agrees. There is no agreement about the properties of a god, so there is no knowledge about the properties of the gods.
Many people are under the illusion to have that knowledge (including atheists), but the moment they try to teach their "knowledge" to others, they fail. Christianity alone has thousands of denominations who don't agree.
In conclusion, my position is not hubristic, as it is based on observable facts and logical conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

You know what everyone else knows? You can evaluate the experience of people who spent a lifetime in prayer and meditation, or those who have perhaps been gifted a moment of unearned grace, even though you do not share those experiences? And you don’t consider your position hubristic?

Mystics don’t refuse to share their knowledge btw. From Julian of Norwich to William Blake, Gautama Buddha to Rumi and Attar, they have tried to impart their insights and experiences to those who would share them. But no one else can open your eyes, your mind or your heart for you.

I agree with @Heyo what you describe is is not consistent objective knowledge, what you describe is very subjective, and among believers terribly inconsistent and variable without objective verification. These beliefs are most often ground in ancient texts without provenance and without science. It is even difficult among mystics and believers to agree on the consistence of the their claims of "knowledge," which must be believed on faith of any one of the many conflicting beliefs.

IT is questionable to depend ones lifetime in prayer and meditation justifying what one believes based on the beliefs of their ancestors,

Actually Buddha on careful consideration of his sayings and actions was not as much a mystic as the layers of cultural trappings, mythology, ritual. statues and temples added since, The same may likely be said for Jesus.

I do believe in a Universal Source some call "Gods, but do not argue as you do for belief. In fact I argue against that ancient tribal religions burdened by layers of culture that obscure their universal message,