Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[*Deidre*]

But, that is true. No one knows. One way or the other. Logic tells us no. That's fine. But, we don't know everything. That isn't weak atheism.

[FreeTony]

Doesn't this seem problematic? You say you don't know whether God is knowable or not, at the same time, you say it's illogical to acknowledge he exists when admit you don't know whether he is knowable or not.

If he is knowable, then it can be that, you are irrational for not knowing him, while people are rational for knowing him.

So it's not necessarily that you are taking the rational stance. It can be you are taking the irrational stance.

At the same time, saying even if God exists, he would not be knowable, is a grand claim in itself.

Thus it seems weak atheism is not all that rational as it's holders like to make out.

Whether or not God is knowable, it is still irrational to believe it exists without some sort of evidence.

[Mystic]

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'.

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.

I might be able to believe in a Creator, but not God. God as is in the ultimate being.

But if God exists, and you aren't sure God doesn't exist, how do you know we don't have this sense? I say this, because to me, it sure feels like we do have this sense. I want to know does it feel like for you for sure you don't have this sense, or is it just the current state you feel about it but you give some space that it's possible we have a spiritual sense or link to God?

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

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.

I don't think a god, if it existed, would not be knowable.

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?

---

Whether or not God is knowable, it is still irrational to believe it exists without some sort of evidence.

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?

So this means, if God exists, this would be impossible way of knowing he exists?

---

But, that is true. No one knows. One way or the other. Logic tells us no. That's fine. But, we don't know everything. That isn't weak atheism.

Strong atheism is the belief a god doesn't exist.
Weak atheism is the absence of belief in a god but at the same time not believing a god/gods doesn't/don't exist.

[*Deidre*]

That is one definition, but agnosticism is believing either side of the fence is unknowable. And it is. lol I don't believe there is evidence of the existence of a god/gods, but I accept that in my human knowledge of the universe, the existence of a Deity can't be proven or disproven. And it can't.

[Mystic]

That is one definition, but agnosticism is believing either side of the fence is unknowable. And it is. lol I don't believe there is evidence of the existence of a god/gods, but I accept that in my human knowledge of the universe, the existence of a Deity can't be proven or disproven. And it can't.

How do you know it can't be proven?

[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".

[max-greece]

Strangely you describe yourself as a Deist and yet this is the argument one would expect from a theist.

None of the arguments appear to hold much water. There is no evidence of God, as you say. Morality, therefore is not evidence of God.

Now you could be an agnostic theist I suppose - based on that funny feeling that there has to be something out there but at best its a 50:50 shot and to describe yourself as an agnostic atheist just means you've chosen one option of two at that point.

And none of this addresses the key question (presumably) which is: Assuming a theist God - which one?

You could do it on the basis of popularity - unless you do have some morality left in which case its hard to imagine a less moral religion that Catholicism.
That is, until you look at Islam. Now they are really convinced Allah is the one true God and Mohamed is his prophet. They are so convinced they fly planes into buildings full of people. Peachy!
Protestantism? Too many versions to choose from (40,000 plus?)
Judaism? Unless you are born into it they politely tell you to fuck off.
Buddhism? Doesn't really have a God as such - may as well stick with agnostic atheism.
Hinduism? Why have one God - get loads of them.
Jainism? See Buddhism - and they won't so much as swat a mosquito which I do with abandon whenever possible.
Anything else(ism)? Actually less popular than atheism anyway.

[*Deidre*]

That is one definition, but agnosticism is believing either side of the fence is unknowable. And it is. lol I don't believe there is evidence of the existence of a god/gods, but I accept that in my human knowledge of the universe, the existence of a Deity can't be proven or disproven. And it can't.

How do you know it can't be proven?

Because I believe if a Creator exists, it would not need mere mortals to prove it. It would exist, and be made known. Like the moon. Like the sun. Ironically, people once worshipped the moon and sun as 'gods.' lol

It would stand to reason that a deity is little more than a made up version of what we as humans, wish or yearn for it to be. Which is why the definition of god is different depending on if you are speaking to a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or anyone who believes in a Deity of some kind.

If a Deity exists, he will not need to be proved by humans. Currently, his existence hinges on the degree of gulliblity and imagination of mankind.

[Mystic]

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.

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.

Things like leprechauns or loch ness monster are physical. They are of naturally nature, and require the same type of evidence.

When it comes to God, he doesn't simply get a free pass. It's the nature people feel he is.

It feels like this is a spiritual being that we are linked to. It feels like it's part of who we are. That this eternal force has link to all existence.

Furthermore as it's the origin of the universe and has some sort of identity, it is possible there would be a spiritual connection to him and beings would have a universal sense of this being.

Leprechauns are not a universal archetype or anything like that, and there is no humans reporting having faith by spiritual experience.

At least with God there is a human phenomenon where people feel there is a link between them and the Creator.

God being the origin of greatness, morality, justice, he would be more universal archetype to our own existence, and it's plausible we have some knowledge of this because it would be foundational to our existence.

The Creator putting some link and way of knowing of him and connecting with him is not farfetch if he is the ultimate being and humans benefit from connecting to him and knowing him.

While all these are feasible with the Creator, they are not feasible with other things in the universe.

If you are going to say we don't have a link or a way of knowing the God while saying he is possible. I would tell you to think about it. How do you know that?

Suppose he did exist, why does there not seem to be this connection or way of knowing him?

[Rahul]

Feelings are not evidence. Feelings and emotions are the opposite of analytical thought. Analytical thought has been proven to be the best way we have of understanding reality.

Right now I'm feeling like some spaghetti. Good thing the wife is making some for me.