(FWIW I would include some kind of atheism or principled agnosticism as beliefs or convictions about the nature of reality as much as any particular religious viewpoint.
Yes, traditionally agnostic are of the opinion that part of reality is that humans do not currently and may not ever have the capacity to rationally define the Divine or supernatural of the universe - it's nature or its lack within nature - in an appropriate manner. It isn't a religion though as a religion requires a system of devotion and, while it seems the popular insult against agnostics that we are the 'maybe' 'open-minded', 'at least' position, many of us have very firm worldviews even without making any claims on the nature of the Divine.
Agnostics and atheists may have a wide range of beliefs about the nature of reality beyond those concepts - just as people of faith do - but those labels in themselves do not define them. I am a monist, I find societies attachment to dualism - the 'I think therefore I am' model that separates who we are from our bodies and the rest of physical reality - something that hinders and too often used as an excuse for corruption, but there are religious monist and there are atheist monists, there are religious dualists (most large faiths now have dualist tendencies to them with the whole good/evil) and atheist dualists and agnostic dualists, same with pluralists. My agnostism is not the entirety of my worldview and choosing that label does not mean I fit into any other philosophies. Many people's worldview fits into multiple philosophies. Going on at atheists for not mentioning every philosophy but not at any of the religious people who will have multiple philosophies within their faith ignores that their religious labels and definitions are not all of their perception of reality either, no matter how devout.
I’m always confused by how people base their disbelief in God by judging him/her by how we think he should be by our standards. What makes people think our time on earth should be idyllic . Do we really think that God should be intervening in all our sufferings. What would be the point in us being on earth. We’re here for a speck in time.......Why are we presuming we should have a perfect life. Something goes wrong.....there can’t be a God, he wouldn’t allow that to happen. It’s a strange mindset imo. What about the miracle of making a baby? Such huge things that are a miracle in itself taken for granted as if it’s nothing.
And I'm always confused why - even if we take nature as evidence of something beyond we can currently perceive - why assume any divine force is an individual at all?
Any deity that exists that has a will (as opposed to a supernatural divine pantheistic force with no individual will but is a creative and/or maintaining force within the universe) then it allows everything to happen as by definition they would the capacity to change it. Choosing not to do something for some 'greater good' is still a choice for someone who has the capacity to change it and much as most of us frown on adults who do so when vulnerable people are harmed, it is seen that if the divine has a will, it's existence does not mean it is worthy of worship.
And no, I do not view making a baby as a miracle anymore than a fly laying eggs - humans have one of the most invasive and dangerous pregnancies and childbirths around, any deity that purposefully did that (rather than evolution which has many examples of terrible things that are just not quite bad enough to impact reproduction) is not one I cannot think has my best intentions at heart, it reminds me more of authors who think their role is to make their creations suffer the most. I'm not a miracle - I'm the simple result of two people having sex and, according to my mother, religious communities that made abortion unavailable and unacceptable - I view what happened to her as something I will never be able to make right just as what she did to me is nothing she can make right. That does not mean I take my life for granted, far from it, I've survived a murder attempt but I do not think it is a miracle. I do not think there is any reason I survived when others in a similar position didn't beyond chance.
I agree with the idea of questioning: why think any human, with our limited capacity, would be able to, in any meaningful way, define the true nature of divinity? Why assume there is just one or that that deity is an individual? Why assume any human or anything made by humans can accurate describe them and their wants from us? Why assume they have wants at all? Why assume they want worship or that their status or part in our creation means they should be worshipped? We do not ask children to worship up - it rightly said they had no choice in the matter - why worship those involved in our creation even if it is beyond chance? If throwing Pascal's wager into the mix, I would question the risks of hubris for any organization that thinks it can define the divine to the point of making social rules on their behalf.
While certain religions are incentivised in many communities and some people's preference, there is no reason even if thinking that the nature of our universe as evidence of the Divine beyond our current comprehension, that that would be evidence for any deity currently 'known' to humans or that any of those deities wish to be worshipped in the way religions give. Those are humans made for human benefits, we can see that in how the texts have been edited over time, chosen over time, how rituals change over time.
Yes there is some evidence for resilience given by religion -- but none of factors involved are given solely by a religious belief in an individual deity. A chosen meaning, purpose, connection & community, active interest in the world, positive sense of the future as a possibility, rituals - some get these from religions, just as some get them elsewhere as faith in a deity or deities is not required for any of these. Whether a chosen purpose brings benefits or harm depends on what they do with it.
I strongly dislike when harm is not only protected by promoted by a religious organization often in God's name, that it ends up being "just people". No, it is the organization that used the concepts of a deity and said deity's will as defined by those people to the masses to shield perpetrators and incentivize the delays or lack of justice. It was allowed to happen because people were incentivised through faith to allow those 'doing good' to do so without appropriate challenge. That challenging may happen more these days in some countries, but that's come after a secularisation process where religious leaders were no longer in control enough to be viewed as capable of policing their own.
tangerinelollipop Calling acts of violence and corruption within any institution, religious or otherwise, "bad press" is disgusting, and people react in kind. Whether everyone did it is as irrelevant as if everyone today benefits from international slavery, the powers within the institutions that supported those actions either directly in the cause of the laundries or indirectly by shuffling around abusive clergy and pushing against moves for outside involvement in these issues which still exist is not something we can dismiss as a press issue.
There are people within all institutions that are trying to do good, that doesn't mean their worldview is something to emulate. I have family that are American Evangelical Republicans that do things of benefit for others -- that doesn't mean I have to agree that they're right about God, social behaviours, and how governments should function. I live in an area with 3 former UKIP councillors who do a lot of good - it's very frustrating to me how often they're the only visible politicians doing anything in my area - I can support what they're doing while disagreeing with their worldview.
Someone challenging an institution does not mean we're saying every single person within it is evil, personally I think it is vital that every institution has vigilant challenges. I actually volunteer within a religious school trust, which is well aware of my views, as part of the governing and oversight process because I do think they can do good, but such power within our community has to be monitored and evidence gathered on how their actions make an impact and I - and they - think this is better when a mix of people of different backgrounds and beliefs are part of the process.
Where does consciousness come from?
While there is still a lot of research to do into consciousness, I think it has to do with brain formation as brain damage alters consciousness and there is evidence of changes throughout our lifespan. I'm open to the idea that some part of that is from a divine source as I said, but I do not think what part of it in us is an individual that survives intact at death.
A thousand years ago we did not know where disease comes from and it was often attributed to the supernatural or divine will, it still is in some communities. I do not see why a lack of known answers on anything should lead me to thinking an individual deity with a divine will should be involved anymore than my not knowing who did something in my home should lead me to think invisible people did it.