Why aren't there more agnostics?

[shunyadragon]

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.

This is an extreme response that does not necessarily reflect the diverse views of atheists. Your missing the predominant view that many atheist justifiably claim "There is no reason to believe," based on many issues I have previously described.

Misuse of Hubristic. Extreme sarcasm?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Knowledge is acquired through experience. One definition of knowledge is, “familiarity with or experience of.”

You only know geometry works through putting it into practice. Yes, it is knowledge that is readily transferable, and not all knowledge meets that criterion; knowing how to live to good effect whatever our circumstances, for instance, is not so easily imparted. There are no formulas and no logarithms to help us with this.

Your hubris is in assuming that the limitations of your own knowledge must necessarily apply to all of humanity, and all of human experience.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is an extreme response that does not necessarily reflect the diverse views of atheists. Your missing the predominant view that many atheist justifiably claim "There is no reason to believe," based on many issues I have previously described.

Misuse of Hubristic. Extreme sarcasm?

You have a gift for missing the point. You’ve missed the part where I said “saying I don’t know, requires honesty and humility.”

Saying I don’t know, therefore nobody else can possibly know either, is to assume one’s own experience and understanding is universal. In making such a statement, I place myself at the centre of the universe, and claim to speak in behalf of all humanity. What could be more hubristic than that?

 

[Heyo]

Knowledge is acquired through experience. One definition of knowledge is, “familiarity with or experience of.”

Yep, that is the problem.

You only know geometry works through putting it into practice. Yes, it is knowledge that is readily transferable, and not all knowledge meets that criterion; knowing how to live to good effect whatever our circumstances, for instance, is not so easily imparted. There are no formulas and no logarithms to help us with this.

Your hubris is in assuming that the limitations of your own knowledge must necessarily apply to all of humanity, and all of human experience.

You aren't arguing my hubris, but my definition of knowledge.

Let me lead you through the steps to Agnosticism, and I think we may get to the conclusion that Agnosticism is a rational position.

Step one: look at the data. I see dozens of religions with thousands of denominations, each one with a different concept of god(s).
Do we agree about that fact?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yep, that is the problem.

You aren't arguing my hubris, but my definition of knowledge.

Let me lead you through the steps to Agnosticism, and I think we may get to the conclusion that Agnosticism is a rational position.

Step one: look at the data. I see dozens of religions with thousands of denominations, each one with a different concept of god(s).
Do we agree about that fact?

Agnosticism is a rational position, you don’t have to lead me to that.

However, when it comes to what we see and how we interpret it, here is where we perhaps differ; I see dozens, no hundreds of cultures, each manifesting in different ways, the profound human need to connect with some power which is infinite and transcendent.

And I see at the core of every religion, awe and wonder at the miracle of our existence. That each religion, and to some extent each individual, views the miracle through the prism of it’s own culture and traditions, is of no surprise at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

You have a gift for missing the point. You’ve missed the part where I said “saying I don’t know, requires honesty and humility.”

No I did not miss it. No gifts you failed to respond completely to my posts.

Saying I don’t know, therefore nobody else can possibly know either, is to assume one’s own experience and understanding is universal. In making such a statement, I place myself at the centre of the universe, and claim to speak in behalf of all humanity. What could be more hubristic than that?

Yes, agnosticism is probably the best choice, bit atheism remains a viable choice based on the previous reasons I gave, and you have failed to respond to.

Choices of traditional ancient tribal religions are by far the worst possible choices and potentially devastating to the future of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Knowledge is acquired through experience. One definition of knowledge is, “familiarity with or experience of.”

You only know geometry works through putting it into practice. Yes, it is knowledge that is readily transferable, and not all knowledge meets that criterion; knowing how to live to good effect whatever our circumstances, for instance, is not so easily imparted. There are no formulas and no logarithms to help us with this.

Your hubris is in assuming that the limitations of your own knowledge must necessarily apply to all of humanity, and all of human experience.

You mixing objective versus subjective 'knowledge.'

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

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 must say, I am particularly fond of your use of unicorns as a metaphor for the mysteries of existence. Who are we to say what wonders may lie beyond our small corner of the universe? And who are we to claim omniscience in matters of faith?

As a man of faith myself, I have always believed that doubt and uncertainty are essential components of a healthy spiritual life. It is in the spaces of uncertainty that we encounter the mystery of God, and it is in embracing our own limitations that we come to understand the vastness of His love.

I couldn't agree more with your desire to see more agnostics, my friend. For it is in the honest acknowledgment of our own ignorance that we open ourselves to the possibility of true wisdom. And it is in the willingness to say "I don't know" that we may come to discover the depths of our own faith.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I consider myself an Agnostic. I use it in the sense, in my belief, it's not possible to know whether anything supernatural, an afterlife or ultimately anything that could be called a "god," exist. I am not one of those who are essentially searching for the proof that god exists, many of those would consider themselves Agnostic.

I see convincing on both sides of claims that there aren't any gods, and also that there could be a god, or something equatable to such, in some capacity, even if it is not the god from any religion, which I find highly improbable.

I don't think it is known, or really even possible to know.
Sure, I kind of lean more towards an atheist in the sense that I don't really believe in any kind of personal god, that intervenes or controls the universe.

But, there are so many concepts of "god," or a higher power, who can know? Just because I don't believe in one specifically, doesn't mean I can rule them all out. So, for these reasons, is why I choose to self identify as an Agnostic, rather than an atheist or an Agnostic atheist.
I also don't really like to be lumped in with extremist, in your face atheists, who seem to be just as bad as proselytizing Christians in my opinon.
I take a much more Humanist approach to other people's beliefs, as long as they are respectful of my own.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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.

Not really. See below....

....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.

Insights are not enough. To know (really KNOW) the presence of The God (Singular, capital 'G'), then one must BE God. Again, see below.....

Your hubris is in assuming that the limitations of your own knowledge must necessarily apply to all of humanity, and all of human experience.

I only assume the limitations of being a finite organism (which I guess I DO assume all humans are).

To know God....
Given the unimaginably staggering size of the infinitesimal sliver of the Universe that we humans are aware of, it is no problem for me to assume that life exists somewhere out there, beyond our little star system. Furthermore, it's no big leap to assume that intelligent life exists elsewhere too. Some of these alien intellects may be VASTLY more advanced than our own; and they may have technology or even 'mental powers' beyond our imagination. These latter beings, we might consider to be gods (plural, lower case 'g'), for their powers would be fantastical.


If a being appeared out of thin air in the center of a multinational UN meeting, and told humanity they were 'God', many people, even in these modern times, would fall to their knees and believe.

​

Others would demand proof. And after walking on water, then turning it into wine, and replicating a few hundred dead fish, many more humans would accept the presence of divinity.

​

Still others would want a fuller accounting. So the Entity takes them on a tour of the entire universe, and visits Christmas past and future, and brings into existence a star, with life-bearing-garden-planets in orbit around it. And these doubters would yield.

​

But some of us would question further. Saying, "Nice tricks." "But who is YOUR God?" To which the great being would claim that they have no God, for they are The One God. And we would inquire, "What are the limits of your realm, and the limits of your powers?". And they would say that there are none.

"Prove it", would be our reply.

In order to reasonably prove that the great entity was all-knowing (omniscient) and all-powerful (omnipotent), it would have to grant us a full use of it's own powers and knowledge (i.e. make us equal to them). For only by knowing all that they know, we could look into their own personal questionings. Only with that knowledge and power, could we tell if they had doubts; any gaps or weaknesses in its own summations of the multiverse, throughout all ages of existence, and all subatomic to universe-spanning laws of physics that apply to this multiverse and all other multiverses.
And if we found even one gap; we would know, then and there, that this great and powerful being was merely 'a god' (lower case 'g'). An alien intellect with immense yet finite powers.
But if we found that truly the span of all things, real and imagined, were contained as less than this one great entity, then.... AND ONLY THEN....could we be fairly assured that this was in fact 'The One God'.

Unfortunately, we would never be able to return to our meager finite human shell of existence, and yet retain all of the knowledge that would be necessary to comprehend the slightest, all-encompassing IDEA of what The One God is. And all that we could conclude is that we had been "convinced" that this being was God. Of course we might have been 'brain-washed' to believe the same; or drugged; or otherwise had our neurochemistry altered; or etc...or etc...
So without remaining as a truly infinite, omniscient and omnipotent God, we would be left still not fully KNOWING even the existence of God.

​

Many of the human religions and religious beliefs hold to the idea that once you truly die; you will become one with The One God; and they claim that you cannot come back from that omniscient state of existence.

And that's just spiffy.

But none of these living folks around us (or any with philosophical musings in old books) will know, or ever have known for sure, until they are dead and gone.
Just like you.
Just like me.

Death is PERHAPS the last answer.... ..... or perhaps it's just the end.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I still like Professor Dawkins assessment on agnosticism that the possibility of God reflects the same possibility that there are actually garden gnomes living in one's backyard.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Here I am!

 

[wellwisher]

Honestly, I think that there are a lot more agnostic people than is obvious. I think that zillions of people who belong to some religion or another don't really believe in everything taught about God or the afterlife or whatever. But the community means more to them than strict intellectual honesty. So they say what they are expected to say, live according to the ethical code, and don't bother with deep unanswerable questions.

Because life is short and whatever is gonna happen is what's gonna happen.

Tom

An Agnostic is more of an individual pilgrimage, since you have to think and live outside the big boxes. You cannot just follow the big boxes of science or religion, but have to find you own way; one singer versus part of a chorus. The proof and analysis of Agnosticism comes from inside data, which can be esoteric and is often better experienced than explained.

You cannot fully depend on science, since the philosophy of science does not deal well with inside data, but is designed only for external and sensory data. A dream is a real and natural brain output, but science by its own philosophy cannot do this justice, since it can only be observed by one from within. Still you can apply the methods of science and discovery to this data. While being an agnostic, you travel alone, anyway, so who cares if the big boxes are stuck in their big boxes and not open inner reality, which can also be examined.

What the Agnostic does or tries to achieve, consciously or not, is to learn to make more use of the right brain. The right brain is more spatial and integral, which is how all concepts of God are organized. This what it has in common with religion. Instinct allows an animal to integrate with nature is also from the right brain. The ego is more differential; left brain. The right brain is the pathway to the inner self. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are integral forms. Add some time potential and we have living organic AI, for various occasions; 3+-D thought forms. This where you start to experience the divine.

The left brain, and cause and effect are 2-D thought. A rational plane is flat with an x and y axis, that we call cause and effect. Spatial thought is 3-D (x,y,z). The z-axis that is harder to out into words. If you ever read writings from Agnostics from 500-1000 years ago, it is hard to follow since they are trying use 2-D language to explain a 3-D concept.

Geometrically, we can approximate a 3-D sphere with a large number of rational 2-D planes, all with a common center, but at a wide range of angles. The Agnostic writing often jumps around to fill in the sphere. This is easier to do intuitively, which is like a faster block data language that can fill in the 3-D faster. Religion people of faith tend to do this without even knowing it. But to exploit this natural integration feature of the brain, you need to learn the spatial language. That is the nature of the Agnostic and in doing so, one can commune with God.

 

[LuisDantas]

The way I see it, agnosticism is a necessary component of all reasonable stances of creed or belief.

It just isn't often emphasized or very meaningful.