A case for positive atheism

[fr0d0]

1. theists aren't claiming existence - atheists are claiming the opposite and trying to hang the accusation where it wasn't claimed. It's nothing more than a distraction.

You conclude that God exists.

I am of the position that there is no logical way to reach that conclusion, nor the conclusion that he does not exist, and the only rational position is that of withholding judgement.

((This is the part where you try to demonstrate why my position is wrong))

Existence in your terms means strictly observable, where God cannot be observable. Therefore God cannot exist.

I am also of the position that there is no logical way to reach that conclusion either way, except via faith. (faith = trust in information I accept to be true and act upon).

So your judgement of my position relies on a non philosophical position. If you weren't making a philosophical statement I'd have no issue with this. My worldview works logically, in that I assume positivity in God. You have no solid reasoning to the contrary, only a spurious insistence on the observable.

2. agnostic atheism may be strictly rational - given 'rational' is then defined as strictly observable. To be comprehensively correct you can only say that agnosticism is actually rational. Atheism alone has no convincing argument, as theism doesn't.

1. Rational is not and never has been defined as "strictly observable".

2. One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Agnostic Theism, as stated in your "religious views" is an oxymoron as it by it's very definition concludes the existence of a God (theism). Your individual case is even more innacurate as you have concluded that not only is there in fact a god, but that he has a son called Jesus. Can you please explain where the agnosticism is in that conclusion?

1. Good. then we are in agreement.
2. A believer doesn't believe in the existence of God, they just believe in God. You are adding the existence bit. That's a scientific consideration which never ever applies. To science God doesn't exist. Period. You can't argue with that. Theology should never attempt to.

The only way I conclude 'God' is via faith. Any other way would be dishonest. This is an explicit condition of Christianity.... not knowing.