Although agnostic Atheism position is merely the stance that one doesn't know if a god exists and doesn't believe one does, in reality it usually takes more affirmations.
Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if God 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 God. For example, take the moral argument. Many Theists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral being that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.
Agnostics Atheists 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 God so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.
At the same time, since Atheists don't tend deny God 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 Atheists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while Theism 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)?
Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if God 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 God. For example, take the moral argument. Many Theists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral being that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.
Agnostics Atheists 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 God so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.
At the same time, since Atheists don't tend deny God 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 Atheists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while Theism 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)?
