Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[Rahul]

When people talk about faith, they talk about a mysterious direct way of feeling God's existence. They call it faith rather than knowledge because it differs with how we experience mundane things or come to know mathematical truths. We feel God is true directly, have a connection to him, but realize this is not like seeing a red ball and saying "here look there's a red ball" and everyone would acknowledge it. It's a more spiritual feeling that we all realize some people can ignore.

I believe this feeling can be upgraded or downgraded. It can reach higher levels and reach stages of certainty, or it can go to realms of severe doubt or even utmost denial, but it remains a sense we have.

This can be said to be unfalsifiable, but it my personal experience, I would not be able to acknowledge knowledge of God without this assumption.

Feelings and assumptions? This discussion isn't going very well for you.

Nothing more? What's that suppose to mean? It certainly seems something profound. Something that we have to measure up by and gives us measurement and value. It doesn't seem to be just a product of evolution but a measurement of a metaphysical reality, our reality.

It doesn't seem that way huh? Does it feel more profound?

So than my problem applies. If you don't deny God exists, and is possibly knowable, how do you know you aren't irrational for not knowing him? How do you know we aren't suppose to know he exists?

No one can say I'm being irrational because I don't believe in something that I have no evidence for. I can only live my life based on what I do know.

Not what somebody, somewhere, might, maybe, have evidence for.

Evidence usually is indirect ways of knowing something but sometimes is direct. I guess value, morality, justice, love, these things would indirect way of knowing God. However it's not necessary to have indirect evidence, when you have a direct way of knowing God. There is a direct way of knowing God, and people often refer to it as faith. Do you deny this as a possible way of knowing God?

Yes. Because I can just have faith in the Loch Ness monster, or leprechauns, or whatever.

That doesn't seem very logical. I can just decide to believe in anything without evidence. It would fuck with my head to do it for anything. But there's no reason why your concept of god should have a free pass with "evidence lacking" faith and not something else like the tooth fairy.

I had faith in the Christian god for over a quarter of a century. Never gave me one iota of knowing anything concrete about it.

And while we're at it, I don't like the term "knowing" in this discussion. We either have evidence or we don't. We either believe in something or we don't. I don't really understand by what you mean with "knowing".