Can Faith be a Reason for Agnosticism or Atheism?

[Devilry]

Here's an interesting idea.

As an Agnostic, I constantly maintain that I am hardly at a loss in not subscribing to any one religion, even after death. Of course, I do have multiple reasons for believing so.

I believe that, firstly, because we cannot know anything about God, no religion that describes a God to such specific detail without proper evidence is likely to be wrong by the sheer concept of probability. Therefore, if a certain religion deemed that I would go to hell after I died for being an Agnostic, there is a low chance that I would actually go to hell because I strongly believe that it is likely that the religion is wrong about God.

Secondly, even if religious revelation had some sort of worth in helping religion to be accurate, there are still so many religions to choose from. Even if I were to commit myself to one, there is still a low chance that the religion I were to commit myself to would be the right one, and I might still end up in hell anyway.

Thirdly, if God would truly make non-believers go to hell, then I believe that in all his benevolence, he would give us some way of believing in him. Because when all of my reasoning points to Agnosticism, then nothing is wrong with believing in it, because it's not as though I'm ignoring a God who might be there. Yet, if God did exist, he is then technically the one who created reason, and the one who made it so impossible to reason about his existence. I firmly believe that a benevolent God would not punish a person for not believing in him when there is so little logical reason to.

Yet, even so, my arguments do not dispute the fact that, for example, God could possibly exist and it is Christianity that is correct about God, therefore I am going to hell even though I could have avoided it by going to Christianity.

In fact, amidst all the uncertainty, the final step that allows me to become Agnostic is quite possibly faith. It might just be faith that if a God were to exist, he would not send me to hell for being an Agnostic. Reasoning helps to assure me 90% of the way, but the device that eradicates the last 10% of my fears is quite possibly faith.

It's just like how Christians can have reasons such as upbringing and the Bible to believe in God 50% of the way, and the last 50% is covered by faith.

So, do you think faith can be a reason to believe in Agnosticism, or maybe even Atheism?

[Furrowed Brow]

Atheists profess not to have a god,

Almost sounds like you think we might be pretending.

but they do have their own gods nonetheless,

Well call it what you will...some of us go to great pains to defer to the truth, some of us are just great pains.

but which they are not willing to acknowledge the right of others to have –

Some atheists acknowledge the right of others and note they cannot escape the Truth God without resorting to meaningless words that denote nothing.

or if they do, they treat the God of others as non-existent.

We’d not be atheists if we did otherwise.

So the Atheist seeks an advantage over others by ridiculing their God

Advantage like a nasty sense of humour is thrust upon some of us without seeking it.

whilst at the same time surreptiously advancing his own gods.

Sometimes truth is tricky. Especially when folk massage words to make superficial political points at the expense of cogency. Most times I try my best to sneak it in. Othertimes I can't resist cheap shots.

Hypocrisy? Certainly. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Mostly don't deny I am not a hypocrite. I can’t speak for other atheists.

[LiamOS]

You're not interested in debate, but in propaganda, which I highlighted in my previous post. I'm not here to listen your propaganda.

Right... And what would you call all this, then?:

Atheists profess not to have a god, but they do have their own gods nonetheless

they are not willing to acknowledge the right of others to have - or if they do, they treat the God of others as non-existent.

So the Atheist seeks an advantage over others by ridiculing their God whilst at the same time surreptiously advancing his own gods.

being a relativist, the atheist must necessarily consider his own standards to be better than those of all others

Most atheists do not examine the evidence.

they might look at problem areas, and upon their inability to understand those, reject the whole, without ever understanding the message itself

it means not that he has rejected the evidence, but that he had found an excuse...

Atheists can deny the God of judgment, but Christ said he came into the world for judgment.

All atheists in fact defer to a truth god and a moral god.

the atheist regards their own truth and moral gods as superior as otherwise they would not be an atheist.

they exalt themselves over others, and their own gods too.

The natural political end of atheism is state tyranny.

Everyone must be deeply concerned when an atheist comes to power.

Now, I apologise if my last post came across a little harsh; I usually try to avoid such arrogant certainty, but I don't think you can criticise me of spouting propaganda when you've made many adamant assertions without yet backing them up.


You're more than welcome to ignore my arguments and challenges, but I fail to see any reasonable justification for your doing so.

[Wood-Man]

Baron, you are making a logical error in your repeated assertion about atheists and God. To avoid distraction, let's use symbols rather than the specific concepts. Your statement, in logical terms, is that atheists believe "X" while deriding "Y", and this is hypocrisy because X = Y. However, in this case X and Y are not equivalent. They may share some attributes, but that does not make them equivalent. For example, cars and motorcycles are both vehicles (hence they share some attributes) but that does not make them equivalent. if I were to say "anti-motorcycle activists deride motorcycles but have their own motorcycles called 'cars', and this is hypocrisy because motorcycles and cars are equivalent, you would immediately identify the logical fallacy. You are failing to identify that same fallacy here. It is easy to make this error when you use the word "God" non-metaphorically on the one hand and en metaphorically on the other hand.

The god(s) of the atheists and the God of your religious beliefs share some attributes (e.g., being a focus for organization of one's understanding of existence) but differ in other important attributes. It introduces confusion, therefore, to call them by the same name, just as it would to call a car a motorcycle. I may hear some criticism from others for saying God, as you've defined this term, and the organizing beliefs of atheists have anything in common. But, at one level I do agree with you on this. On the other hand, they are certainly different in other major aspects, so your claim of hypocrisy is incorrect, the result of this logical error.

Everyone considers his standards to be better than the alternatives, so this "criticism" of atheists does not distinguish them from anyone else.

The remainder of your comments rely on the Bible and the official positions of your religious authorities as authoritative sources. Those arguments are valid only if one accepts these assumptions. I do not accept those assumptions, but I'm happy for you to try to demonstrate that I should. Labeling something "heresy" just makes it more interesting to me!

[Baron von Gailhard]

You're not interested in debate, but in propaganda, which I highlighted in my previous post. I'm not here to listen your propaganda.

Right... And what would you call all this, then?:

Atheists profess not to have a god, but they do have their own gods nonetheless

they are not willing to acknowledge the right of others to have - or if they do, they treat the God of others as non-existent.

So the Atheist seeks an advantage over others by ridiculing their God whilst at the same time surreptiously advancing his own gods.

being a relativist, the atheist must necessarily consider his own standards to be better than those of all others

Most atheists do not examine the evidence.

they might look at problem areas, and upon their inability to understand those, reject the whole, without ever understanding the message itself

it means not that he has rejected the evidence, but that he had found an excuse...

Atheists can deny the God of judgment, but Christ said he came into the world for judgment.

All atheists in fact defer to a truth god and a moral god.

the atheist regards their own truth and moral gods as superior as otherwise they would not be an atheist.

they exalt themselves over others, and their own gods too.

The natural political end of atheism is state tyranny.

Everyone must be deeply concerned when an atheist comes to power.

Now, I apologise if my last post came across a little harsh; I usually try to avoid such arrogant certainty, but I don't think you can criticise me of spouting propaganda when you've made many adamant assertions without yet backing them up.

You're more than welcome to ignore my arguments and challenges, but I fail to see any reasonable justification for your doing so.

I cannot see how you can take issue with what I say. Your post appeals to a standard of right, morality, or truth, whereby you make out that I am speaking inconsistently, either by misdescrbing atheists, or by misdescribing the theist position. You purport to appeal to a higher god, an objective truth or morality that lies outside yourself. In other words, you claim that your god is better than mine, which only confirms everything that I have said. You yourself are evidence of the folly of maintaining that there is no evdience for God for everything you do and say makes out that there is.

[Baron von Gailhard]

Atheists profess not to have a god,

Almost sounds like you think we might be pretending.

but they do have their own gods nonetheless,

Well call it what you will...some of us go to great pains to defer to the truth, some of us are just great pains.

but which they are not willing to acknowledge the right of others to have –

Some atheists acknowledge the right of others and note they cannot escape the Truth God without resorting to meaningless words that denote nothing.

or if they do, they treat the God of others as non-existent.

We’d not be atheists if we did otherwise.

So the Atheist seeks an advantage over others by ridiculing their God

Advantage like a nasty sense of humour is thrust upon some of us without seeking it.

whilst at the same time surreptiously advancing his own gods.

Sometimes truth is tricky. Especially when folk massage words to make superficial political points at the expense of cogency. Most times I try my best to sneak it in. Othertimes I can't resist cheap shots.

Hypocrisy? Certainly. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Mostly don't deny I am not a hypocrite. I can’t speak for other atheists.

So you don't deny the truth God? Do you deny the love God? If you agree love is better than hate, and truth is better that lies, is it not presumptious of you to say that there is no God?

[Furrowed Brow]

So you don't deny the truth God? Do you deny the love God?

The problem with your use of the word God have been pointed out. Playing with words to score points can be fun. Enjoy.

If you agree love is better than hate, and truth is better that lies,

Ah....it is all relative to the situation. I do not subscribe to the notion that these concepts are universals. You have to look at everything in situ. It might be better to hate your paedophile abuser than love him.

is it not presumptuous of you to say that there is no God?

Yes. If you like. Strong atheists are allowed to be presumptuous. The rule is we don’t believe in the existence of any God.

[Baron von Gailhard]

Baron, you are making a logical error in your repeated assertion about atheists and God. To avoid distraction, let's use symbols rather than the specific concepts. Your statement, in logical terms, is that atheists believe "X" while deriding "Y", and this is hypocrisy because X = Y. However, in this case X and Y are not equivalent. They may share some attributes, but that does not make them equivalent. For example, cars and motorcycles are both vehicles (hence they share some attributes) but that does not make them equivalent. if I were to say "anti-motorcycle activists deride motorcycles but have their own motorcycles called 'cars', and this is hypocrisy because motorcycles and cars are equivalent, you would immediately identify the logical fallacy. You are failing to identify that same fallacy here. It is easy to make this error when you use the word "God" non-metaphorically on the one hand and en metaphorically on the other hand.

The god(s) of the atheists and the God of your religious beliefs share some attributes (e.g., being a focus for organization of one's understanding of existence) but differ in other important attributes. It introduces confusion, therefore, to call them by the same name, just as it would to call a car a motorcycle. I may hear some criticism from others for saying God, as you've defined this term, and the organizing beliefs of atheists have anything in common. But, at one level I do agree with you on this. On the other hand, they are certainly different in other major aspects, so your claim of hypocrisy is incorrect, the result of this logical error.

Everyone considers his standards to be better than the alternatives, so this "criticism" of atheists does not distinguish them from anyone else.

The remainder of your comments rely on the Bible and the official positions of your religious authorities as authoritative sources. Those arguments are valid only if one accepts these assumptions. I do not accept those assumptions, but I'm happy for you to try to demonstrate that I should. Labeling something "heresy" just makes it more interesting to me!

I cannot see how you have shown that the gods of atheists and the God of theists are radically different in conceptual terms. Atheists retain power over their own gods, whilst the theist acknowledges that God has power over them. Clearly they both share a love of truth, and have many shared morals.

I concede that atheists do object to the morality of the Christian God, particularly in the Old Testament, and that springs from their failure to elevate morality sufficiently. Thus to live in sexual sin for the atheists is not intrinsically worse than living in a state of marriage. This is bizarre for despite what they say, most atheists do tend to get married, which shows their double standards.

I will concede that a significant difference is that atheists do not acknowledge the same God-given order of creation as theists do. This is seen in their support for feminism and liberal politics. They are not willing to adopt biblical standards for sin, or at least, only when it suits them. But all this comes back to making oneself god. The atheists does have gods, but he will only allow those as determined by him. That does lead to man-made gods, but not conceptually different gods from the God of theists.

[Baron von Gailhard]

The rule is we don’t believe in the existence of any God.

Well stick to your rule, stop purporting to lecture others that their version of the truth is inferior to yours. For only god can defeat god, and if you have no god, you are without any power. Any reason why someone should not strike you down on the spot?

[Furrowed Brow]

The rule is we don’t believe in the existence of any God.

Well stick to your rule, stop purporting to lecture others that their version of the truth is inferior to yours.

Care to provide specfic examples where my superori version of the truth is the lecture.

For only god can defeat god,

True. Fortunately there are no gods.

and if you have no god, you are without any power.

Nope. Lights are on.

Any reason why someone should not strike you down on the spot?

I am black belt in origami. I wear glasses. I cry easily.

[McCulloch]

I cannot see how you have shown that the gods of atheists and the God of theists are radically different in conceptual terms.

The so called gods of the atheists are entirely metaphoric. The God of many theists is considered to be real. That, to me is a radical conceptual difference. You may disagree.

I concede that atheists do object to the morality of the Christian God, particularly in the Old Testament, and that springs from their failure to elevate morality sufficiently.

You mean to say that if I were to elevate morality sufficiently, I would understand the apparent moral failings of the bible god?

Thus to live in sexual sin for the atheists is not intrinsically worse than living in a state of marriage. This is bizarre for despite what they say, most atheists do tend to get married, which shows their double standards.

Your use of prejudicial language is noted. To many atheists, consensual sexual activity between adults who are not in a marriage is not considered to be morally wrong. However, many of us do get married. The only reason to infer that there is a double standard being applied would be to assert that the only valid reason for marriage is to avoid sexual sin. Even for a Christian that would be an incredibly shallow viewpoint.

I will concede that a significant difference is that atheists do not acknowledge the same God-given order of creation as theists do.

Yes, we actually believe that birds came after land creatures and that the sun and moon came before the plants.

This is seen in their support for feminism and liberal politics.

You say that like feminism and liberal politics are bad things.

They are not willing to adopt biblical standards for sin, or at least, only when it suits them.

We are not willing to adopt the biblical standards for sin, yes. However, a moral position based on humanistic values will at times coincide with the morals as expressed by various biblical writers. Same conclusions, different paths.

But all this comes back to making oneself god. The atheists does have gods, but he will only allow those as determined by him. That does lead to man-made gods, but not conceptually different gods from the God of theists.

That is only one way of looking at it. My view is that all of the gods are man-made. Can you demonstrate otherwise?