“Question, am I a candidate for pet rescuer being that I'm not atheist I'm an Orthodox Agnostic? Let me know.”
I don’t have anything against those calling themselves agnostic. I just don’t get this “I’m an agnostic, not an atheist” horse puckey.
Oh, I understand the definition of agnostic alright,”... the essential nature of (God) is unknown and unknowable,” therefore they won’t just say “I don’t have belief in God/gods,” they demur and say “it’s unknowable.”
Are they similarly "agnostic" about leprechauns, faeries, Bigfoot, zombies, vampires, gnomes, trolls, or any of the myriad fictional characters invented by man since the beginning of time? After all, the essential nature of them is unknown and unknowable. They can neither be proven nor disproven. Neither can Russell’s fictional teapot that floats in orbit somewhere, full of steaming Earl Grey tea. Agnostic about interstellar porcelain tableware?
The problem with agnosticism is that it places more credibility in the possibility of god/gods than it does on those other fictional characters. That’s why they are more likely to reject the other fictions out of hand. The only reason agnostics do so, and allow the agnostic position to survive, is directly attributable to the impact that the God Virus has had on civilization for thousands of years. Agnostics carry a recessive religion meme Vs the religionists’ dominant propensity toward belief. Atheists seem to have been born without that receptor, or if they were once theist, have learned to suppress and overcome it.
My educated guess is that had a book about the existence of wish granting, psychopathically inclined, vengeful Pixie been written 3,500 years ago, and updated 1700 years ago as a sequel, people would claim agnosticism about Pixies too.
Something worth thinking about.