• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why aren't there more agnostics?

Kfox

Well-Known Member
The word "belief" implies that they are investing in actual existence, informed by truth.
I don't think most people see belief as having anything to do with existence, belief is all about being convinced as true. I believe Jesus (as well as countless other religious figures) existed, as a person, but this belief is not enough to get me in the club as Christian, to be Christian I have to believe more about him than merely existing, I have to believe he is who the Bible says he is.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I don't think most people see belief as having anything to do with existence, belief is all about being convinced as true. I believe Jesus (as well as countless other religious figures) existed, as a person, but this belief is not enough to get me in the club as Christian, to be Christian I have to believe more about him than merely existing, I have to believe he is who the Bible says he is.
Then it would be the Bible that you were believing in, not Jesus.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Then it would be the Bible that you were believing in, not Jesus.
So are you suggesting if I believe Jesus existed, that alone makes me a Christian? Even if I believe he was just one of many religious leaders executed for crimes against the state; believing he had nothing to do with being God's son?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
So are you suggesting if I believe Jesus existed, that alone makes me a Christian? Even if I believe he was just one of many religious leaders executed for crimes against the state; believing he had nothing to do with being God's son?
I said that if the requirement is believing in a book, then that's what you're doing: believing in a book.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Do you understand the difference believing in a book vs believing what the book says?
My point is, to “believe in” can’t be about existence, it has to be about something else; like believing the claims made of whatever it is you claim to believe in. I’m not picking on you, I’ve asked these questions to other theists as well and it always end up the same way, we go round and round, for pages and weeks and eventually the subject changes without the original question being answered.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Do you understand the difference believing in a book vs believing what the book says?
A book is what it says.

My point is, to “believe in” can’t be about existence, it has to be about something else; like believing the claims made of whatever it is you claim to believe in. I’m not picking on you, I’ve asked these questions to other theists as well and it always end up the same way, we go round and round, for pages and weeks and eventually the subject changes without the original question being answered.
To “believe in” is about actuality, namely truth. It’s not just about a fixed existence. If I believe in my brother, I’m pointing at his ideas, his strength, his integrity, and his passion. I’m not pointing at a material thing, just an actual thing. Regarding Sasquatch, though, there is nothing more to point at than probably faked footprints and blurry photographs.

What was the original question, again? ;)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
A book is what it says.
No, a book is a pile of paper with words on them, all attached together.
To “believe in” is about actuality, namely truth. It’s not just about a fixed existence
My point has always been, to believe in is not about existence. Sounds like we sort agree
What was the original question, again? ;)
The original question was; how are you defining “to believe in” something.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Only if you've never read one. :)
A book will remain the same regardless of whether I choose to read it or not. My point is, a book is just paper and ink; yet some people act as if some books are sacred; like if you burn certain books you are an evil person.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
A book will remain the same regardless of whether I choose to read it or not. My point is, a book is just paper and ink; yet some people act as if some books are sacred; like if you burn certain books you are an evil person.
Ah. I didn't get that point from anything you'd said earlier.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am sorry. Sometimes, there are so many posts that it is impossible to keep up. (that just means that I am not going to read it all before I post an opinion.) It is my opinion that everyone and everything that was ever born might be truthful and say that we don't know!
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
ps. I am most definitely agnostic, though I believe in god. Of course, I do! I have an opinion. God bless God!
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
So why don't there seem to be as many agnostics as atheists?

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic
noun


1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
-----------------------------------------

They're not mutually exclusive. I don't know about other atheists, but I disbelieve claims that cannot be supported by any objective evidence. However if the deity being imagined is also an unfalsifiable concept, then I am also an agnostic, as I must be for all unfalsifiable claims.

For some reason a lot of theists get very annoyed when I explain my atheism is just a lack or absence of belief, and not a claim no deities exist, why is that? That's how the dictionary defines atheism after all.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
Why did I miss this when it started? Anyway ...

There is a common misunderstanding about agnosticism/Agnosticism.
The original definition is "lack of knowledge about the existence or nature of god(s)" - which somehow became "lack of knowledge about the existence of god(s)". (I call the first Agnosticism (philosophical definition) and the second agnosticism (colloquial definition).)
True Agnosticism is a much stronger position than simple atheism (if you want to call atheism a position at all) but it requires to realize (and to convince an interlocutor to realize) that one had an illusion of knowledge and was barking up the wrong tree.
Most atheists fear to upgrade to Agnosticism because they have to rethink their arguments and most theists don't even know how to respond to Agnosticism. The familiar game of "there is a god " - "nu uh" gets interrupted. No-one wants to play with you when you're an Agnostic.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why did I miss this when it started? Anyway ...

There is a common misunderstanding about agnosticism/Agnosticism.
The original definition is "lack of knowledge about the existence or nature of god(s)" - which somehow became "lack of knowledge about the existence of god(s)". (I call the first Agnosticism (philosophical definition) and the second agnosticism (colloquial definition).)
True Agnosticism is a much stronger position than simple atheism (if you want to call atheism a position at all) but it requires to realize (and to convince an interlocutor to realize) that one had an illusion of knowledge and was barking up the wrong tree.
Most atheists fear to upgrade to Agnosticism because they have to rethink their arguments and most theists don't even know how to respond to Agnosticism. The familiar game of "there is a god " - "nu uh" gets interrupted. No-one wants to play with you when you're an Agnostic.

The above bold is an unwarranted biased assumption of what atheists believe concerning agnosticism.

The distinctions are less defined as you assert. Calling one a stronger position of another is to a subjective claim.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The above bold is an unwarranted biased assumption of what atheists believe concerning agnosticism.

The distinctions are less defined as you assert. Calling one a stronger position of another is to a subjective claim.
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.

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.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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.
If I’ve stated this before, I apologize:

While agnosticism is a more reasonable stance than atheism,
I think I know why there seem to be more atheists than agnostics.

Their POV is similar to what Aldous Huxley expressed in “Ends and Means”:


“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

IMO, This concept is not limited to just sexual restraint. No one likes to be told what to do. Especially by an unseen Entity!
 
Top