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?

[LiamOS]

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.

Can you show that my posts appeal to anything other than reason?

In other words, you claim that your god is better than mine

You've not shown how this logically follows, despite claiming it many times.

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.

Is this some weird version of an argument from ignorance?

[JoeyKnothead]

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

It just might end up being the striker-downer who gets struck down!

[Baron von Gailhard]

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.

Can you show that my posts appeal to anything other than reason?

In other words, you claim that your god is better than mine

You've not shown how this logically follows, despite claiming it many times.

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.

Is this some weird version of an argument from ignorance?

As I said before, you're not interested in debate. QED

[Baron von Gailhard]

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

It just might end up being the striker-downer who gets struck down!

The question was rhetorical and asked the avowed atheist poster what reason was there for retaining life intact? Avowed atheist tyrants have a habit of degenerating into mass murderers. The problem for the atheist is that ultimately there is no reason to preserve life, for the only gods are self-made. The atheist religion is ultimately the religion of death, even though it presents itself as championing truth.

[Baron von Gailhard]

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 emphatically disagree. Atheists advance real arguments and lay claim to real truth. They profess to a real morality. Or are we to suppose that all the pretensions of atheists are metaphors?

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?

Indeed. At the same time as atheists criticize the OT God, they conveniently forget that the nations opposing Israel practised ritual prostitution, and endeavored to entice the Israelites to worship their idols.

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.

You failed to understand me, although I don't blame you as I did not make myself clear. I was not equating sexual sin with failure to enter into the legal state of marriage. I was equating sin with promiscuity and marriage with unity with one person. Thus the atheist elite claim that promiscuity does not matter, whilst ensuring that they themselves are not seen to be personally promiscuous. They adopt a standard that they afford others license to deviate from. The theist must not be fooled by the sham personal morality of the atheist elite for there is no consistency, and ultimately, there are no sexual moral standards for the atheist. If the whole population consented to ritual prostitution, it would be OK. If the wife of the atheist wanted to prostitute herself, it too would be OK.

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.

I don't mean the order of how it was created. I mean the order what is created: i.e. for the theist it is God over Christ over Man over Woman. For the atheist it is Man and Woman equally over god.

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

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

Both lead to prostitution. Consider Germaine Greer.

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.

I am afraid not. There is no bottom line for the atheist. If the majority want the standards of Sodom, the atheist must consent. Not so the theist.

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?

Unfortunately most atheists are not willing to listen. You don't realize how incredibly dangerous your position is. In the New Testament, Israel had ceased to listen to the true God of revelation and had invented its own gods, on which it relied. Therefore it put Christ to death. Nothing will demonstrate anything to you until you relinquish your false man-made gods of straw that are powerless except to blind you to truth.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

[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 emphatically disagree. Atheists advance real arguments and lay claim to real truth. They profess to a real morality. Or are we to suppose that all the pretensions of atheists are metaphors?

Yes, real truth apart from any gods. A moral system based on our common humanity, not on some imagined spiritual being. Our gods are as much a metaphor as Mother Nature.

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?

Indeed. At the same time as atheists criticize the OT God, they conveniently forget that the nations opposing Israel practised ritual prostitution, and endeavored to entice the Israelites to worship their idols.

Is there something wrong with prostitution? How is worshiping idols (symbols really) different from worshiping an abstract god? Is it more moral to destroy the objects of worship of those you have a disagreement with or to find peaceful accommodation and mutual tolerance?

You failed to understand me, although I don't blame you as I did not make myself clear. I was not equating sexual sin with failure to enter into the legal state of marriage. I was equating sin with promiscuity and marriage with unity with one person. Thus the atheist elite claim that promiscuity does not matter, whilst ensuring that they themselves are not seen to be personally promiscuous. They adopt a standard that they afford others license to deviate from. The theist must not be fooled by the sham personal morality of the atheist elite for there is no consistency, and ultimately, there are no sexual moral standards for the atheist. If the whole population consented to ritual prostitution, it would be OK. If the wife of the atheist wanted to prostitute herself, it too would be OK.

If my wife wanted to make our living room into a chicken farm, I would object. Not because I believe that chicken farming is a bad thing, it just does not work for me. We have chosen, like many others, to live in a monogamous relationship, it works for us. Others have chosen careers helping out those who are sexually unfortunate. Yet we shun and vilify them for their choices. Why?

I don't mean the order of how it was created. I mean the order what is created: i.e. for the theist it is God over Christ over Man over Woman. For the atheist it is Man and Woman equally over god.

OK, I could not resist the deliberate misunderstanding of your position. By the way, not all theists believe that Man is the head over Woman as Christ is head over Man. That is a sexist position supported by a literalist reading of Paul.

Both lead to prostitution. Consider Germaine Greer.

She's a prostitute? What is particularly wrong with prostitution?

There is no bottom line for the atheist. If the majority want the standards of Sodom, the atheist must consent. Not so the theist.

Do you mean Sodom as in approving of adult homosexual acts or Sodom where the servant of God offered his daughters to a frenzied crowd?

[LiamOS]

As I said before, you're not interested in debate. QED

The post you quoted consisted of me challenging your claims, asking you to clarify them and pointing out a logical fallacy.

I also find your use of QED rather amusing; "that which was to be: Demonstrated." would infer that you have demonstrated something. To do that, you would've had to show how my post supports your point unless is explicitly said so.

Also, out of curiosity, how do you define 'debate'?

[Wood-Man]

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.

First, we need to be clear about the frame of reference, that we are talking about your use of the term in different ways. You use it literally in one case and metaphorically in the other. i can say your usage of it with regards to atheists is a metaphorical because your literal definition of the term is different. You've explained that in literal terms, you consider God to be judging, punishing, interventional and omnipotent. I have no doubt that you would say God has a plan. None of these are attributes of what you call (metaphorically) the "atheist's god". Clearly, you consider these to be important, non-trivial attributes of God, so it is disingenuous of you to say these two uses are not "radically different in conceptual terms.". You've even characterized much closer views of God as heresy, so that shows you view these as significant. Furthermore, it is not necessary to demonstrate that two views are "radically different" to dismiss the charge of hypocrisy.

You could perhaps claim hypocrisy if the atheist dismissed God because of objecting to the existence of any source of objective truth if that atheist then went on to claim the existence of natural rights, for example. However, almost no atheists dismiss the existence of God over that issue. Also, many atheists are moral relativists, so they aren't even claiming there is another source of absolute/objective truth.

You need to find another way to formulate your criticism. Let me offer one. Some atheists complain loudly that it is wrong for this or that religion to aggressively push their views on other people, while simultaneously aggressively pushing their own view that there is no God. You could claim hypocrisy there because they express a behavioral ideal (allow each person have their own beliefs) different from their own behavior. Evangelical Christians would not be guilty of this particular hypocrisy, because they don't claim to support such a "live and let live" behavioral ideal. On the other hand, there are plenty of atheists who similarly don't support that ideal, so we'd similarly need to issue a not-guilty verdict for them. Then, there are the atheists who respect and support each person in their own spiritual path and would never try to "convert" a person to atheism. You don't hear much from them, but there are a lot of them and they would also be "not guilty". Finally, even those who are sometimes guilty are not always so. Sometimes people just get caught up in a debate and fail to live up to their own ideals.

To be clear, you might come up with a nimbler of other grievances or criticisms against atheists. I'm just addressing the logic of your hypocrisy charge.

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.

Oh, they can get married for lots of reasons. Not necessarily an ethical concern. But, it is certainly possible for an atheist to have just about any moral view you want to throw out, except if it assumes the existence of God, of course.

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.

I think I addressed much of this before. We should however distinguish between "adopting" ethics and "adopting" historical knowledge. "Adopting" beliefs about what happened in the past has not generally worked very well in predicting the future. I could adopt the belief that gravity does not exist, but would that be wise when it comes to jumping off a building?

Now, here's a mind-bender for you. To me, many standards expressed in the old testament are unethical. That is, they don't match the values I've adopted. Regardless of where those standards came from, independent of whether the Bible is strictly the work of humans, a flawed attempt by humans to transmit the true message of God, or the absolute word of God, for me those standards are unethical. It's not jut a matter of rejecting an ethical standard, but of saying that standard violates my ethics.

[Wood-Man]

There is no bottom line for the atheist. If the majority want the standards of Sodom, the atheist must consent. Not so the theist.

I just want to point out that with this statement, you've moved off the hypocrisy issue and are now addressing practical concerns about how ethics could exist absent God. Personally, I think this is more fertile ground for discussion.

I don't mean to argue that ethics don't exist, but for clarity we should put this into logical context. We reason through syllogisms. Given certain premises, we can reach certain conclusions. A premise may be the conclusion of another syllogism, the result of an observation, or neither. If it is neither, then it is unsupportable - mere speculation. If we take the position, "there must be objective right and wrong" we should ask whether we know this because we've observed it, or whether it is a logical conclusion of a syllogism. If we cannot prove the existence of objective right and wrong, let's remember that arguments about the consequences of it not existing have no bearing on whether it does exist.

As for the specific point about the ethics of Sodom, this is simply not true. An atheist does not have to accept the ethics chosen by the majority any more than you do. This would be true if the atheist had no other possible source of ethics other than God or the prevailing opinion of the majority, but this is not the case. Ethics can come from within, through choices an individual makes about values. Those choices will likely be influenced by parents and others round them, but they are still choices. I'll call this the "third source" of ethics (along with God and Society). The choice to believe in God or to follow God's commands arises firm this third source. Only later are your choices governed by the Bible, etc. This is why Kierkegaard described this as the leap to faith, since the leaper does not leap out of faith - but too faith. It is an error in thinking to believe theists have not drawn on the "third source."

[Baron von Gailhard]

[Yes, real truth apart from any gods. A moral system based on our common humanity, not on some imagined spiritual being. Our gods are as much a metaphor as Mother Nature.

Metaphors are constructs of language and figures of speech. When you set yourself up against the theists, you invoke more than mere constructs of language to denigrate them. Therefore I reject your proposition that your gods are mere metaphors.

OK, I could not resist the deliberate misunderstanding of your position. By the way, not all theists believe that Man is the head over Woman as Christ is head over Man. That is a sexist position supported by a literalist reading of Paul.

The saying below is profound indeed:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Actually few trinitarians accept this proposition either. True Christianity is an extremely rare occurence these days. That is why you atheists should beware as much of your effort is not spent fighting true Christians, but waging war against fellow heretics. By the way, sexism is a meaningless term - just a vain atheist god used to justify prostitution.

What is particularly wrong with prostitution?

Even to ask that question is to show that the morals of atheists have not evolved since the days of the Canaanite atheists. Whereas in days of yore, the Canaanites set up their man-made gods in the form of idols, the atheists of today simply pretend that they don't exist at all. Well I suppose in one sense it is an advancement, in that atheists are no longer making stupid idols, but in another way it's not, as they're still worshipping the same licentious god.

There is no bottom line for the atheist. If the majority want the standards of Sodom, the atheist must consent. Not so the theist.

Do you mean Sodom as in approving of adult homosexual acts or Sodom where the servant of God offered his daughters to a frenzied crowd?

A frenzied crowd of atheists? Which is the lesser of two evils, natural rape or unnatural rape?