RE: Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.
March 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2014 at 9:01 pm by Mystic.)
(March 1, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Asimm Wrote:(March 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Actually you can't. In the case God is real and there is a link to him (a way of sensing him), then it definitely is not the most rational.
What I'm stating, is from the agnostic weak atheistic perspective, that possibility should remain open, and hence, it be admitted, that it's not necessarily the most rational position one is necessarily taking.
Note, it can be the most rational position the person feels they are taking, but it won't necessarily most rational possible position to take.
I can agree to what you said at the end. More of playing the middle ground when it's either one side or the other that is true. That said, how is picking either side with 100 percent certainty any more rational?
A state of neutrality is fine. It can be the most rational. But from the perspective of neutrality, one has to admit, it can also be not the most rational.
Also I think strong Atheism can possibly be more rational if the argument of evil was sound and proven to the person. That is if the argument that suffering and evil as it exists in this world, contradicts a caring or good creator existing, if is a rational argument and is of the utmost convincing quality...then why wouldn't strong atheism be most rational.
In the case of there being a spiritual link between humans and God, why wouldn't belief in God be most rational, if we can sense him.
From this thread perspective, I'm not arguing any stance is more rational then the other.
Just that from neutral perspective, the neutral perspective also maybe not the most rational one.
