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]

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.

It would go someway to help an understanding what it is you believe atheists invoke by answering the next text five questions with yes/no

1] Is it physical?
2] Is it metaphysical?
3] Is it a universal principle or ideal?
4] Is it a concept?
5] It is a transcendent superbeing?

thank you

[Baron von Gailhard]

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.

It would go someway to help an understanding what it is you believe atheists invoke by answering the next text five questions with yes/no
thank you

1] Is it physical? - NO
2] Is it metaphysical? - YES
3] Is it a universal principle or ideal? - Often purports to be in that atheists purport to lay claim to higher truths than that of the theists. In fact frequently atheists defer to the truth principles of theism in their refutation of heretical or stupid Christians, because they know such arguments are the most powerful ones to invoke. Thus sometimes, atheists even invoke the truth of God himself albeit without acknowledging it. Other times, atheists resort to feeble things like "sexism" to rebut theists, which can hardly be called a universal principle or ideal. What about "animalist" to describe anyone who thinks that humans are superior to animals? Where does that kind of reasoning get you?

4] Is it a concept? n/a
5] It is a transcendent superbeing? Transcendental may be, but not transcendent.

As I have already pointed out, there is nothing to prevent the atheist making use of the truth principles of God himself, so sometimes atheists can be said to appeal to God, even though they don't acknowledge it. But often the god of the atheist is sheer fabrication or intellectual confusion, wherein he merely resorts to things taught by demons. Although demons are supernatural, they are not transcendent.

[Furrowed Brow]

OK getting somewhere. The atheists God as you are trying to characterise is not physical and is not a concept as this term is not applicable. You did not give a yes or no but I take your answer to mean it is not a universal principle. from 2 and 5 I get something like:

Proposition: Atheists invokes a metaphysical state of being.

Is this a fair formulation of your point.

[Wood-Man]

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.

It would go someway to help an understanding what it is you believe atheists invoke by answering the next text five questions with yes/no

1] Is it physical?
2] Is it metaphysical?
3] Is it a universal principle or ideal?
4] Is it a concept?
5] It is a transcendent superbeing?

thank you

Is it bigger than a bread basket?
Is it smaller than a car?
Is it... a plant?

[McCulloch]

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.

I disagree. I don't believe in any gods, if by god we mean some kind of personal spiritual being. If I have any gods, such as truth, it is only in the metaphoric sense. Saying that my god is truth, would be like saying that someone else's god it money or success. A metaphor. I do not attribute to truth those attributes, such as will, love, hate and so on usually ascribed to deity.

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.

You may think it is profound yet many Christians are embarrassed by this passage. I think it is merely sexist.

True Christianity is an extremely rare occurrence these days.

Are there any true Christians? How can you tell?

By the way, sexism is a meaningless term - just a vain atheist god used to justify prostitution.

Sexism - noun: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
It has a meaning. It has nothing to do with prostitution, even though apparently Germaine Greer is a prostitute.

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.

Thank you for evading and not answering the question.

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?

There is nothing in the text of the story of Sodom that indicates that the crowd was atheist. Which is the greater good, protecting your own family from harm or protecting a stranger?

[Furrowed Brow]

I disagree. I don't believe in any gods, if by god we mean some kind of personal spiritual being.

It certainly seems the Baron is claiming we believe in at least something metaphysical which is interesting because some of us during our stay here persistently state metaphysics is meaningless.

[Baron von Gailhard]

OK getting somewhere. The atheists God as you are trying to characterise is not physical and is not a concept as this term is not applicable. You did not give a yes or no but I take your answer to mean it is not a universal principle. from 2 and 5 I get something like:

Proposition: Atheists invokes a metaphysical state of being.

Is this a fair formulation of your point.

Implicitly that's what they do. They appeal to metaphysics to win their argument, but they deny that they do so. They claim that all they do is reason, but reason by its very nature makes an appeal to the metaphysical. It's implicit in the very idea of reason itself.

[Baron von Gailhard]

I don't believe in any gods, if by god we mean some kind of personal spiritual being. If I have any gods, such as truth, it is only in the metaphoric sense. Saying that my god is truth, would be like saying that someone else's god it money or success. A metaphor. I do not attribute to truth those attributes, such as will, love, hate and so on usually ascribed to deity.

Again you invoke obscurist language to try to make palatable what is inherently unpalatable about your position. "Personal being" does not denote God, because it implicitly denotes something that you can relate to, whereas all along I have said that God is outside your conception. You are simply stating that you cannot conceive of a god withing your conception. Neither can I.

Spiritual values are not metaphors. They are real and objective values. Something is true or false, love or hate. People can perceive these values. They are not metaphors.

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.

You may think it is profound yet many Christians are embarrassed by this passage. I think it is merely sexist.

You mean it conflicts with your god. Someone with no god would have no reason to attack it in the way that you do, apart from by reference to purely scientific evidence, which must include not only the physical but also the pscychological.

True Christianity is an extremely rare occurrence these days.

Are there any true Christians? How can you tell?

It takes one to know one.

By the way, sexism is a meaningless term - just a vain atheist god used to justify prostitution.

Sexism - noun: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
It has a meaning. It has nothing to do with prostitution, even though apparently Germaine Greer is a prostitute.

Sexism makes a deliberate confusion between value and order. Just because Christ is below God, does not infer that Christ is not inherently valuable. Just because woman is below man, does not infer that woman is not valuable. The very word aims to subvert the distinction between order and value. Therefore it is meaningless - in fact a doctrine of the theology of your god.

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.

Thank you for evading and not answering the question.

What is right with it? Do you really think that senusal pleasure is the be all and end all of M-F relatiions?

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?

There is nothing in the text of the story of Sodom that indicates that the crowd was atheist. Which is the greater good, protecting your own family from harm or protecting a stranger?

Of course they were atheists as they recognized no divine impediment to the fulfillment of their desires.

The greater good would be where the person protected was worth more than the person left to perish. Obviously Lot recogonized the worth of the stranger, who was an angel, as greater than that of his daughters.

[LiamOS]

Implicitly that's what they do. They appeal to metaphysics to win their argument, but they deny that they do so. They claim that all they do is reason, but reason by its very nature makes an appeal to the metaphysical. It's implicit in the very idea of reason itself.

Why does reason necessitate an appeal to the metaphysical?
To an extent, we do have to assume that reason and logic work, but I don't think that's an unreasonable or metaphysical assumption.

Can you provide any examples of Atheists appealing to metaphysics and then denying they have done so?

(Is this not debate, either?)

Just because woman is below man, does not infer that woman is not valuable.

Actually, I don't think anything can be 'below' another:
In order to determine that which is, one must set one point of value and a method to determine whether that which is being appraised is more or less valuable, and to do so quantitatively.

Can you show that women are objectively 'below' men?

[Furrowed Brow]

Implicitly that's what they do. They appeal to metaphysics to win their argument, but they deny that they do so. They claim that all they do is reason, but reason by its very nature makes an appeal to the metaphysical. It's implicit in the very idea of reason itself.

Ok: metaphysics is implicit to the idea of reason. Think I’ve got you. But this really depends what philosophy you sign up to does it not?. I’d say Platonic philosophy, Kant would probably agree. Logical positivists would disagree with you. Which arguments or school of philosophy are you using to come to that conclusion?