RE: The Case for Theism
March 5, 2013 at 7:42 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 9:00 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
When I answer "no" I very reasonably mean "no, I have no reason to believe that", not "I believe the opposite to be true". My answer would be exactly the same if you substituted the pink elephant, unicorn and other nonsense you mentioned earlier and I would mean exactly the same thing "no, I have no reason to believe that". There is no way and no reason for me to manufacture believe (including disbelief) in things I have no experience of. There is no inconsistency in the agnostic atheist's position. The agnosticism is primary. The atheism is only elaboration.
That does not mean I have some consistent standard for what I will and won't believe. I believe many unsupportable propositions about other people's mental states for one thing. I admit to having faith in things without evidence, gods for me just isn't one of them.
I have no problem with others having faith in gods for reasons they can't justify to me. I understand that. It is only when someone tries to insist that others believe without justification that which they accept for personal reasons that I object.
So are you an agnostic theist as was suggested or do you think that is just as untenable as you seem to think true of agnostic atheism?
Another question I have is whether your argument is intended to show that belief in any system of religion whatsoever is justified or only belief in one of them?
