Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[Mystic]

Want to take a poll on the forums asking how many of us have a feeling to god?

I seriously doubt it would be universal that everyone said that they did.

I know Atheists tend to disbelieve we have this feeling. But I'm asking if you say we don't have that feeling. Notice one is just absence of belief that we have any sort of link to God and way of knowing him. The other is a stance that we don't have it.

And if you take the latter, is it based on faith God doesn't exist or is based on both being possible, God existing and God not existing, and in the case of God existing, we still don't have any link or way of feeling him.

[Rahul]

We don't have that feeling. Which means that a god (creator of the universe) either doesn't exist; does exist but doesn't even notice us; or does exists, knows we exist, and doesn't give a shit.

[Mystic]

With the evidence that exists, you could easily argue that the agnostic point of view is the most rational. Trying to construct the way you talk about it wont belittle that view.

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.

---

We don't have that feeling. Which means that a god (creator of the universe) either doesn't exist; does exist but doesn't even notice us; or does exists, knows we exist, and doesn't give a shit.

So you dismiss the possibility of a caring God?

[Assimilate]

With the evidence that exists, you could easily argue that the agnostic point of view is the most rational. Trying to construct the way you talk about it wont belittle that view.

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?

[Rahul]

So you dismiss the possibility of a caring God?

Seems really hard to imagine that.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[Mystic]

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

Because we know that as a species we sense more things than are actually there. If all the things we "sensed" existed, it would be a busy world indeed.