Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[jesus_wept]

I'm not really sure what the point the op is trying to make is, is he saying that it's more logical and rational to believe there is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage than it is not to believe because there is a possibility that there really is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage?

Although the agnostic adragism position is merely the stance that one doesn't know if an invisible and undetectable dragon exists and doesn't believe one does, in reality it usually takes more affirmations.

Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if an invisible and undetectable dragon exists, he is not knowable in direct way. The same being true of the soul.

Another thing it does, it denies arguments for the existence of an invisible and undetectable dragon. For example, take the moral argument. Many dragists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral invisible and undetectable dragon that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.

Agnostic adragists tend to want believe in morality and hence don't deny it, at least affirm it on relative scale, at the same time, don't acknowledge the invisible and undetectable dragon so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.

At the same time, since adragists don't tend deny the invisible and undetectable dragon being a possibility, doesn't it seem illogical then to say if he exists, he would not directly be knowable or that if a soul exists, we cannot know we have a soul or can't sense, or that if morality is based on a eternal source, we cannot know that as a feature? And if this is possible, and agnostic adragists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while dragism would be the rational stance as a possibility? Otherwise, they would have to go into denial of these possibilities being possible? And if they admit it's possible they are wrong, doesn't it mean it's possible they are being irrational in the case they are known to others, and if it's the case, that's it's not knowable, then they are being irrational for not stating it's not knowable but merely taking the stance that it's not known to them (ie. while acknowledge it's possibility)?

[Mystic]

I'm not really sure what the point the op is trying to make is, is he saying that it's more logical and rational to believe there is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage than it is not to believe because there is a possibility that there really is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage?

I already dealt with this sort of argument. In the case of God existing, there is a possibility there is a way of knowing he exists. In the case of your undetectable dragon, there is none.

Anyways, read in the argument I am making instead of making your own version of what I'm saying. I don't see the need of repeating myself.

My argument also never states which one is the most logical stance. I'm stating it's not necessarily that agnostic atheism is the most logical stance, and from the agnostic atheism (weak atheism) perspective, that shouldn't be hard to admit. That it's possible it's not the rational stance out of all of them.

[Rahul]

I already dealt with this sort of argument. In the case of God existing, there is a possibility there is a way of knowing he exists. In the case of your undetectable dragon, there is none.

What?

I don't understand what the difference is. Why would you be able to know god exists if it does exist, but you couldn't know the invisible dragon exists if it does exist?

What extra quality does the hypothetical god have that the dragon is lacking?

[Assimilate]

[Mystic]

I already dealt with this sort of argument. In the case of God existing, there is a possibility there is a way of knowing he exists. In the case of your undetectable dragon, there is none.

What?

I don't understand what the difference is. Why would you be able to know god exists if it does exist, but you couldn't know the invisible dragon exists if it does exist?

What extra quality does the hypothetical god have that the dragon is lacking?

I explained this in the reply to the leprechauns.

Also, note, my argument never says it's more logical to believe in God because of this. All I'm stating, give the agnostic stance, and the possibility God exists and is also knowable, it maybe that agnostic atheism is not the most rational position to hold, and this possibility should be admitted from the agnostic atheist perspective.

[jesus_wept]

I'm not really sure what the point the op is trying to make is, is he saying that it's more logical and rational to believe there is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage than it is not to believe because there is a possibility that there really is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage?

I already dealt with this sort of argument. In the case of God existing, there is a possibility there is a way of knowing he exists. In the case of your undetectable dragon, there is none.

Anyways, read in the argument I am making instead of making your own version of what I'm saying. I don't see the need of repeating myself.

I think there is as much chance of the unknowable (invisible and undetectable) dragon existing as there is your unknowable god. In much they same way that there is also a slim chance that fairies exist because it's impossible to know for certain they dont, perhaps there is a hedgerow or fairy ring somebody hasn't examined thoroughly and they live there?

And it's not my dragon.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

I read the argument btw and it didn't make much sense to me, still doesn't if I'm honest, hence the reason I asked for clarification.

[Rahul]

This?

Things like leprechauns or loch ness monster are physical. They are of naturally nature, and require the same type of evidence.

When it comes to God, he doesn't simply get a free pass. It's the nature people feel he is.

It feels like this is a spiritual being that we are linked to. It feels like it's part of who we are. That this eternal force has link to all existence.

But it's an invisible dragon that cannot be detected directly. Didn't you say that god also couldn't be detected directly? I'm pretty sure you posted that earlier. I'm too lazy to go look it up.

Maybe I feel like there's a spiritual dragon in my garage that I am linked to. It feels like part of me. So I'm going to go on that assumption.

Like you do with god.

[Mystic]

Well if you felt that way, the best person to determine the truth of your feeling would be yourself. What is certain is that people don't universally have this feeling to your dragon in the garage and don't have this way of knowing it exists. Do you claim the same is true of God?

[Assimilate]

I explained this in the reply to the leprechauns.

Also, note, my argument never says it's more logical to believe in God because of this. All I'm stating, give the agnostic stance, and the possibility God exists and is also knowable, it maybe that agnostic atheism is not the most rational position to hold, and this possibility should be admitted from the agnostic atheist perspective.

With the evidence that exists, you could easily argue that the agnostic point of view is the most rational. Trying to construct the way you talk about it wont belittle that view.

[Rahul]

Well if you felt that way, the best person to determine the truth of your feeling would be yourself. What is certain is that people don't universally have this feeling to your dragon in the garage and don't have this way of knowing it exists. Do you claim the same is true of God?

Want to take a poll on the forums asking how many of us have a feeling to god?

I seriously doubt it would be universal that everyone said that they did.