Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[Mystic]

Although agnostic Atheism position is merely the stance that one doesn't know if a god exists and doesn't believe one does, in reality it usually takes more affirmations.

Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if God exists, he is not knowable in direct way. The same being true of the soul.

Another thing it does, it denies arguments for the existence of God. For example, take the moral argument. Many Theists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral being that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.

Agnostics Atheists tend to want believe in morality and hence don't deny it, at least affirm it on relative scale, at the same time, don't acknowledge God so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.

At the same time, since Atheists don't tend deny God being a possibility, doesn't it seem illogical then to say if he exists, he would not directly be knowable or that if a soul exists, we cannot know we have a soul or can't sense, or that if morality is based on a eternal source, we cannot know that as a feature? And if this is possible, and Agnostic Atheists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while Theism would be the rational stance as a possibility? Otherwise, they would have to go into denial of these possibilities being possible? And if they admit it's possible they are wrong, doesn't it mean it's possible they are being irrational in the case they are known to others, and if it's the case, that's it's not knowable, then they are being irrational for not stating it's not knowable but merely taking the stance that it's not known to them (ie. while acknowledge it's possibility)?

[FreeTony]

I would say I take the rational stance in disbelieving. If God popped out from under a cloud tomorrow and was plain to see then I'd say now the rational stance is belief. However my inital stance of disbelief was still rational, as at that time I had no evidence.

I've no idea what a God is supposed to be, and whether it is knowable or not if it existed. I'd have to have evidence of a God existing before I attributed morality to it.

Given the unfalsifiable/untestable nature of the God claim, I would say it is irrational to believe that this God definitely does not exist. It is also irrational to believe that it does. This all depends on the nature of the claim.

[LastPoet]

Google the null hyphothesis.

[Mystic]

Google the null hyphothesis.

The argument would suggest strong atheism rather than weak atheism would be a more logical stance along with the stances I mentioned like denying certain arguments for God or soul sense we have. My argument was directed on weak atheism.

---

I've no idea what a God is supposed to be, and whether it is knowable or not if it existed.

Given the unfalsifiable/untestable nature of the God claim, I would say it is irrational to believe that this God definitely does not exist. It is also irrational to believe that it does. This all depends on the nature of the claim.

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.

[LastPoet]

Soul sense?! You give yourself way too much importance. As to atheim is the disbelief in god claims as there was no evidence for any gods ever presented, only pseudo philosophical mumbo-jumbo or bullshit as most commonly explained. Sense, you are not making [/yoda]

[Mystic]

LastPoet, I'm trying to make out on how you are addressing my argument. Are you suggesting it's irrational for example, if we had souls, to have a sense that we have a soul, to be able to sense we have a soul or spiritual existence beyond physical and to know that? Why would it be irrational if that's the case? It seems like weak Atheism depends on strong Atheism to be held rational. Instead of clinging to both stances as possibilities, it seems to rely on the assumption God doesn't exist, therefore is not knowable, or that a soul doesn't exist, thus we have no sense of a soul.

[*Deidre*]

I'd say that for me personally, I sum it up as...if God exists, he isn't what I've been taught. For all religions are subjective at best. If he doesn't exist, so be it. But, taking it a step further...I don't need to know. My peace came in letting go of my desire to prove the existence of a Deity, or not.

No one can prove if a Creator exists or does not. It is a bit more than a belief that he does or does not, OP. It is that no one can prove it one way or the other. And I have no desire to try, on either side of the coin, anymore.

That's what set me free, personally. I live my life as best I can...pretending God exists or professing and trying to educate others that he does not, doesn't change my life one iota. In other words, I have grown indifferent to it all. On forums like these, I will state my position, but in my offline life, I'm pretty much...just live life, and not 'worry' over it one way or the other.

If God exists, I'll find out some day...just like you.
If God doesn't exist...I'll find out some day...just like you.

[Rahul]

Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if God exists, he is not knowable in direct way. The same being true of the soul.

Well, it's kind of like that. Based on the current evidence I can find, there most likely isn't a god. 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'.

If we did find some kind of evidence though, I would be willing to examine the evidence and mull over the implications behind it.

Another thing it does, it denies arguments for the existence of God.

I just haven't found any argument very believable. Moreso it seems that all believers have are philosophical arguments (poor ones) but no evidence.

For example, take the moral argument. Many Theists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral being that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.

Agnostics Atheists tend to want believe in morality and hence don't deny it, at least affirm it on relative scale, at the same time, don't acknowledge God so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.

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

At the same time, since Atheists don't tend deny God being a possibility, doesn't it seem illogical then to say if he exists, he would not directly be knowable or that if a soul exists, we cannot know we have a soul or can't sense, or that if morality is based on a eternal source, we cannot know that as a feature?

I don't think a god, if it existed, would not be knowable. I simply can't find any evidence for it. I think intelligent life on another planet would be knowable, we just haven't progressed to the point where we can find it yet. The soul? Eh. Don't really know.

Morality definitely doesn't come from an eternal source because morality differs from culture to culture. A lot of it tends to be subjective.

And if this is possible, and Agnostic Atheists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while Theism would be the rational stance as a possibility?

No, I don't think so. In the absence of evidence, the only rational position would be skepticism.

Otherwise, they would have to go into denial of these possibilities being possible? And if they admit it's possible they are wrong, doesn't it mean it's possible they are being irrational in the case they are known to others, and if it's the case, that's it's not knowable, then they are being irrational for not stating it's not knowable but merely taking the stance that it's not known to them (ie. while acknowledge it's possibility)?

Wow, it's making my head hurt reading this.

No. If someone had evidence that god or souls existed, then they should provide it. Until someone does I think the only rational stance must be disbelief.

[LastPoet]

LastPoet, I'm trying to make out on how you are addressing my argument. Are you suggesting it's irrational for example, if we had souls, to have a sense that we have a soul, to be able to sense we have a soul or spiritual existence beyond physical and to know that? Why would it be irrational if that's the case? It seems like weak Atheism depends on strong Atheism to be held rational. Instead of clinging to both stances as possibilities, it seems to rely on the assumption God doesn't exist, therefore is not knowable, or that a soul doesn't exist, thus we have no sense of a soul.

I'm saying that it is irrational to muse on an pop-folk-culture idea of a soul when you cannot truly demonstrate to others what is this soul you talk about. If its about the sense of self, try looking into psychiatric and psychologist's work.

It's trying to cling to a magical mysterious world when the reality is much more awesome. There is no assumptions in that. If god (whatever that means) exists, then it should be easily reached and demonstrated to all people. It should be as evident as gravity. Otherwise its just wishfull thinking

[Mystic]

As I said LastPoet, my argument is against Weak Atheism. Not strong Atheism. You said if God existed he would be as evident as gravity. That's taking stance of strong Atheism. Weak Atheism is the stance we simply don't believe in it, but don't say he doesn't exist either.