Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you think you've established it, you should know that you haven't.
So agnostics can't help but abandon their agnosticism and end up theists? If I was an agnostic, I'd be inclined to be insulted by your insinuation that agnostics are such poor thinkers.
You misunderstood me. Far from faking it, they take those matters way too seriously for anyone's good.If you want to tell ISIL they are "faking" belief in Allah and obedience of his law to surrender to aesthetical urges you are more than welcome to do so. I don't think they will take it very well.
Oh, the perception is often misconstrued that way. The subject matter itself, though? Not at all.
Because atheism would not have to exist at all. Oh, to think of such a simpler, saner world... maybe someday.
I stand by what I said. Theism is not only not about truth or knowledge; it is, by design, powerless to approach either. At its worst it also has delusions of being greater than both, and therefore is an impediment to seeking either.
But atheism, too, is not and has no interest whatsoever in knowledge claims. It is in fact the opposite: an appeal away from empty, distracting claims.
I don't have a burden of proof; I'm saying that you haven't met yours.
You argued that people who believe that God is possible necessarily end up believing that God exists, just by virtue of believing that he's possible. This would be poor thinking.
Beats me. The atheism I know of is far less ambitious and far less motivated than that.
I suppose I can see how you might cast 'the impossible' into a realm beyond what perception allows for knowledge, but it's also not necessary. What I think you've accomplished, then, is to put a name/substance to it, and as I indicated earlier it can (or, at least, should) have no name. If it has substance, it's possible, not impossible.
I would like to apologise in advance for starting *yet another atheism* thread but I am going to try and demolish it in one go. Some of the arguments here are fairly obscure coming from the *cough* militant atheist rather than the theist side so it will be a little different than usual.
In order to defend the atheism of de Sade, Nietzsche and Stalin as the terrifying antagonist to religious belief, in which freedom from superstition and morality may proceed to its inevitable, malevolent and yet deeply satisfying conclusion, it is necessary to expose the pretenders as an insult to the intelligence of theists and atheists alike. So I will assert that there are no agnostic atheists: They are just agnostics. And now I will try to prove it. Muhahahaha!
By "agnostic atheism" I refer to those who say on the one hand there is no evidence for God whilst saying it is impossible to know that God can or cannot exist either way.
The problem with this is that by saying it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, this implies that God is "beyond" the realm of science. This tacitly implies that;
1) there is indeed some pheneomena which cannot be observed or studied
2) and therefore there are at least two realms of knowledge: knowledge of the physical world which can be known by science and knowledge of a non-physical world which cannot be known by science.
Both of these positions are necessary for a belief in God as something that is inferred as existing in a non physical realm accessible by methods other than science. In this agnostic atheism betrays it's true origins in religious belief.
Typically agnostics atheists will attack scientism as an over-evaluation of science whilst failing to grasp the contradiction in seeking to find evidence for the existence of God as a "scientific" approach whilst assuming that God is unknowable. In essence, they have set themselves a task which is by definition impossible. Agnostic atheism is a self contradictory and self refuting belief.
The agnosticism is not a product of science or even evidence, but of philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality and what can and cannot be known. By saying "we cannot know God" we have established a position that falls outside of the scope of the scientific method. It cannot by definition be based on evidence.
Agnostic atheists often go much further than this however and rewrite the history on the debate over the existence of God to suit the assumption that knowledge of God is impossible.
Very often, they will attack religious belief as dogmatic or irrational whilst failing to recognise that religious belief is not based on revelation alone. They will insist that religion is equivalent to blind faith in authority derived from relevation and will say that it is impossible for religious belief to be based on reason or evidence. This reductionist concept of religion means that they are often more literalist and fundamentalist in their interpretation of religious scriptures than many believers. For the agnostic-atheist, who understands religious experience purely in terms of revelation, it is enough to find a single line in a religious text to condemn that religion as immoral.
By doing so the agnostic atheists are taking another self-refuting position: they categorically fail to examine the history of religion or its theology or the scope for interpretation instead asserting that the burden of proof falls on the theist. An agnostic atheist can, from a position of ignorance, therefore condemn a religion without the use of evidence. The belief in the impossibility of knowledge of God quickly evolved into a belief that it is unnecessary for them to actually have knowledge about a religion. The reductionist treatment of religion is not only a slander against Christianity, Islam and Judaism as the dominant scriptural traditions but fails to examine the diversity of religious belief based on eliminating monotheistic religions as competitors to their "reason". Yet they utterly fail to recognise the existence of natural theology or deism as the use of reason to demonstrate the existence of God. For agnostic-atheists, reason must be the supreme authority, a stick with which to condemn others, accuse them of logical fallacy and otherwise "chose" which evidence they consider relevant to the discussion. they-and only they- may determine what is and is not evidence and what is the correct interpretation of that evidence without ever recognising the contradiction between believing knowledge of God is impossible and seeking evidence for the existence of God. It is inevitable in these such discussions, that they will defend their agnosticism by rejecting any and all evidence presented to them as the victims of their own assumptions.
Secondly, the very morality of which the agnostic atheist condemns religion is itself derived from religion; secular humanism did not have secular roots but developed out of Christianity. The view that morality derives from human nature is one with Christian roots in seeking morality through introspection into the soul. Secular humanist morality, enjoying the benefits of selective amnesia of its own origins, indulges in mysticism and rejects scientific approaches to ethics to subjective sources of moral feeling and projecting the "reason" of an individual to the status of an objectively existing and omniscient deity, in which "principles" and "ideas" objectively exist (again, without ever questioning or seeking evidence for the existence of "moral principles" independent of a thinking person). In very much a religious sense, the thoughts and feelings of the agnostic atheists are projected onto the world as if they were objectively moral without basis in evidence. In so far as morality is derived from introspection based on feelings and not evidence, the agnostic atheist will claim that ethics is therefore very often considered "beyond" the scope of science.
In short, agnostic atheism is a coherent ideology built on a series of assumptions which act as dogma. In its limitations, Agnostic atheism substitutes "pure" reason for evidence, condemns religion from a position ignorance, and invents morality on openly anti-scientific basis in which the agnostic atheist substitutes their own reason and feeling for God and seeks to impose them on others as an objective and universal "morality".
For this reason, agnostic atheists are the greatest allies of religion that religious people could ever wish for, as for all their infuriating insinuations that there is no evidence or that religious belief is a logical fallacy, they have simply raised themselves to the status of god by projecting the egotistical reason and feelings as an objective qualities. They therefore defend the "spiritual" roots of religion in philosophical introspection rather than scientific and historical evidence. Agnostic atheists simply continue religious mysticism by holding themselves, their reason and moral feelings to be the standards by which everyone should be judged. Of course, as the mind and the soul are part of the non physical realm their qualification to make such a judgement is not built on evidence but is assumed as a "natural" condition, still masking the belief that man was created in gods image and is endowed with reason by their creator.
My question therefore is Does the fact that agnostic atheists are ignorant of the religious roots of secular humanism as a source for reason and moral feeling mean they are actually atheists? Or should they be treated as the allies of religious superstitution that they are?
Commence Trolling.
Are you planning to troll me and quote every post I make with the word "god" in it?
