Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[Rahul]

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.

Well, it's kind of like that. Based on the current evidence I can find, there most likely isn't a god. If there is a god, it doesn't seem to be providing us with any real evidence that it exists. We just ain't got nothin'.

If we did find some kind of evidence though, I would be willing to examine the evidence and mull over the implications behind it.

Another thing it does, it denies arguments for the existence of God.

I just haven't found any argument very believable. Moreso it seems that all believers have are philosophical arguments (poor ones) but no evidence.

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.

Morality certainly does exist. It's a product of our evolution as a social species. Nothing more.

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?

I don't think a god, if it existed, would not be knowable. I simply can't find any evidence for it. I think intelligent life on another planet would be knowable, we just haven't progressed to the point where we can find it yet. The soul? Eh. Don't really know.

Morality definitely doesn't come from an eternal source because morality differs from culture to culture. A lot of it tends to be subjective.

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?

No, I don't think so. In the absence of evidence, the only rational position would be skepticism.

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)?

Wow, it's making my head hurt reading this.

No. If someone had evidence that god or souls existed, then they should provide it. Until someone does I think the only rational stance must be disbelief.