• 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?

Frater Sisyphus

Contradiction, irrationality and disorder
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"
 
Last edited:

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
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.
 

Kfox

Well-Known 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.
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

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
"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

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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

Crazy Cat Lady
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.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
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

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
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. :oops:
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
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. :oops:

i follow all religions, in more of a spiritualist.
 

Willamena

Just me
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.
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

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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.
 
Top