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?

[Wood-Man]

"God" or "god" primarily denotes power. Thus whenever you appeal to some principle, argument, matter or thing, you implicitly invoke your god. Whenever you justify your conduct or beahvio(u)r you invoke your god, even if only implicitly. Your god is deduced from what you say and do.

With this definition of "god", most atheists would say they are not then atheists. Generally, they don't deny the existence of "god" or "gods" when defined this way. It's the attributes you assign to the god you worship that they challenge.

At this point, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse in my efforts to convince you that the hypocrisy charge is in error. Enough said.

[otseng]

The gods of atheists are demons.

Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

Moderator formal warning.

These would be considered flamebait statements and has the intention to incite rather than to promote any meaningful discourse. Please make sure you fully understand the rules and the consequences of breaking the them.

[McCulloch]

A spiritually dead persons acts as though he was only made of atoms. He imparts only movement and necessary bodily functions. A spiritually alive person can make other alive too. Literally, spirit breeds spirit, and gives life itself.

So because I don't believe in any living god, I must be a zombie, with no sense of morals, no appreciation of the arts, no love for humanity. Yeah, right!

It is perfectly fair to discriminate between men and women provided the discrimination is not senseless and arbitrary. Men and women do not have the same bodies and therefore discrimination may be justified and right.

Yes, you are correct, it would be acceptable to discriminate for rational and supportable reasons. However it is not correct to assume that a person is more susceptible to deceit because she has a female body.

One objective test [of who is a true Christian] is whether or not you can accept the doctrine of the NT without gainsaying it. Unfortunately there many who whilst owning themselves Christians, cannot even accept the basic principles of Christianity. One such basic principle is God's order of creation.

Another is to sell all you have and help the poor.

Those churches that allow women elders are amongst the most ignorant and heretical churches. Yet the converse does not hold. It does not imply that all men are fit to lead.

But it does imply that no women are fit to lead.

[Jacob Simonsky]

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?

No. But it can be a substitute for either.

[Curious]

Here's an interesting idea.

As an Agnostic, I constantly maintain that ...
...I believe that, firstly, because we cannot know anything about God...
... Therefore...
... there is a low chance that I would actually go to hell because I strongly believe...
...I believe that in all his benevolence, he would give us some way of believing in him...
... 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...
So, do you think faith can be a reason to believe in Agnosticism, or maybe even Atheism?

A lot of assertions for an agnostic. Where do you get the idea of a benevolent god? How do you know that God is benevolent. If you can ascertain one fact about the nature of God you disprove agnosticism.

[dusk]

I read about 80% of this discussion mostly because I never have read anything comparable. I think rather than trying to talk about where a position/view/concept may be wrong it might help to just state what that position is why it is so very much different in its core. Maybe I can take a shot at it.

@Baron von Gailhard after reading most of the thread I think I mostly understand your view of the world or to put it differently, where it is so vastly different from all others in this thread.

From your broad definition of the word god, and what you think is the most important idea behind it, which in turn makes you think that one can indeed rightfully call all that god, seems to stem from how meaning and value comes into the world.
I understand that the world, the objective reality as some would call it, the science, the atoms, the matter all the stuff science can talk about is inherently worthless/meaningless/without "true" value. Only through god there can be any value. It is a dualistic view of the world in a way. God is a 5th dimension. Without god there is no moral that holds true and no value in human life.
This is why everything an Atheist attributes value too such as Truth, Love, Compassion, Fairness, his own life ... can be called god. Simply because if he actually has faith or believes in this value he introduced a 5th dimension, a god dimension, a god into his/her life.

Correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation. In case I am not you might want to phrase it in a similar way if you care for people to understand your arguments.

In order to not blindly believe no matter how rational or logical something is one needs to understand what he/she assumes. In Math you always have to have some axioms. You can not start at null. If the assumption is in question so is everything based on it. Taking some things for granted, having faith in them isn't wrong but if you don't know what those axioms are or that they even exist you can never truly understand it.
The basic assumptions in your case obviously is that
a) the material world can not hold any meaning/value
b) only god can and does
If these don't hold everything you believe, even if there is absolutely no flaw in your thinking from this point on, becomes well meaningless. If you opponent won't agree on them to be true in a godly way in the first place, no argument on your part will convince him/her.

After that one can discuss or not how reasonable it is to assume that "the" god is the Christian one. If you would grow up to be a Muslim many of your so called knowledge of god you'd attribute to the God of Islam and not the Christian one thus at one point you always have to assume that your God is the right one. If not at the very least you have to assume your subjective feeling of knowledge and certainty about your God being the one you know is a reliable feeling and not simply influenced by external forces other than god (parents, preachers, location of birth, friends, politics, media..)

The failure to think through the logical consequences of the statement that there is no god is common to all atheists, but the motives vary.

I disagree. Many Atheist may not care at all and only fail to even try but most Atheist are very much aware of the "consequences" but it is simply not a problem. An often heard argument is "How can life just end, that is unimaginable". It is actually extremely easy to imagine it is just the arrogance of the human mind to not like the idea very much. You may not like to clean the toilet but you cannot say it is an extremely hard job to do.
Same is it with morals if you set aside your assumptions of this world for a moment and imagine a different one you should be able to understand what a relativistic view on the subject might be like. You wrote about relativists and absolutists earlier while it seems the only thing you can comprehend is the absolutists view on morality.

Atheists could have no right to live if they were as they maintain no more than an assemblage of atoms.

Maybe you should read up on Ethics and philosophy related to it because this sentence means you don't understand an Atheist's position. It is very much possible to understand both positions while still believing in (a)god.

The denial of existence of a god is inherently bound up with the denial of the validity of one's god. The atheist does not like to admit that he has gods, because he knows that they are worthless, and absurd, and preposterous.

That just makes no sense. If it was known to be worthless (I will overlook the preposterous) why call it god in the first place. In which case we would be back where we started. Atheists have no god and therefore cannot admit their existence.

Contradictorily the atheist will often insinuate that his god is the true God, even though he denies Him outwardly.

Which should mean? If an Atheist says your logic is wrong, he elevates his god of the Greek logic as the only true god and denies that he dutifully worships the Greek logic god at the same time. Bad Atheist.

quot;] It would of course be more truthful for the atheist to concede that his gods are demons, but that is not going to win him any friends or the sort of reputation that he craves from his profession of atheism.

The word demon in the common every day usage of the word refers to something that you don't like about yourself, you'd rather get rid of. Much like Christians call them self sinners. The Demon of Alcohol for an Alcoholic. I cannot really follow your argument as to why an Atheist should call a value of fairness which you refer to as a god now a demon at least let them call it an angel. If called angels it would not drive away any friends or create a bad rep.

[DiabeetusJesus]

A lot of people get definitions of Atheism mixed up. The true definition is the lack of belief in a deity or deities. Lacking belief does not require faith. Atheism works on logical and critical thinking. No one can show us evidence that God(s) exist, therefore we lack belief in them.

Sometimes people claim Atheists "deny" God(s) existence. This is also wrong. Denying something would imply that the said thing, in this case God(s), exit yet Atheists refuse to believe in them. There is no evidence for the existence of God(s) so there is no way Atheists can be in denial of their existence.

[Burninglight]

I would not say faith can lead to Atheism, but I believe faith still keeps the hopes of Agnostics alive.

The Bible states that faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen