"Why I'm Agnostic" (Good read for believers and non-believers)

[Andrespetmonkey]

Jumpin said:

Andrespetmonkey said:

Mr Khan said:
Agnostic is the properly rational route. Given the compelling teleological arguments made by theists of all faiths, deists, and philosophers, one can understand the vast subtleties that could entail an unobservable, spiritual world, but at the same time it is indisputable that these intangible concepts are empirically unverifiable.

At the end of the day, it's a catch between the fact that any god, gods, or some other divine pantheon are neither empirically verifiable nor empirically unverifiable

I think atheism is just as rational. My reasons being:
- The idea of a god is man-made
- No reason to believe, default position is disbelief until given reason.

I understand the points most agnostics will make but I'm confident that my atheism came from rational reasons.

You only half quoted his point. With what we know about physics and astrophysics now, the teleological argument introduces a mortal blow against atheism with the knowledge we have today. Even the late and great Carl Sagan recognized that.  "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan

In light of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments, combined with modern day accepted astrophysics and the Big Bang Theory - it looks highly likely that the universe was fine tuned for the existence of matter and life.

Of course, the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments get Deism or agnosticism (since the arguments create a wide range of doubt that exists, and that it appears today that intelligent design was involved - but 2000 years from now scientific breakthroughs might explain this - however, there is currently no way of knowing, and there may never be a way of knowing) -  But you do not get Atheism from these arguments:

* Atheism comes from the Greek atheos - "No Gods" the assertation that no God(s) exist. This is not rational as the evidence seems to indicate that there is a sort of a God.
* Agnosticism comes from Thomas Huxley - it means without knowledge of the universe's creation - which still allows the thinker to be open to all possibilities; and not the assertion that atheism has.

Agnosticism is highly rational, but atheism is not. 

About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural.

To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people:

* Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US.

* Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love.

* Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good.

Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

@Jumpi:

About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural.

Due to it's connotations the word 'maker' is probably inappropriate. The term 'genius' is probably also inappropriate.

To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people:

 

* Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US.

But it's the most common worldwide, and best characterizes the overwhelming majority of religious people.

* Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love.

This is a minority.

* Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good.

Another minority.

Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

Ummm, you are aware that the Crusades and the Jihad were conflicts fueled by religion, no? (and from one POV, Hitler's movement had religious roots too) Christians were the ones who led the Crusades, and they certainly didn't see them as immoral when they led them (not to mention it's generally atheists who stress the immorality of the Crusades; other than the looting of Constantinopole, I've never heard any christian refer to the Crusades as being 'immoral'). The Catholic Church wouldn't have found someone like Hitler to be too terrible in the past (heck, they did things far worse than Hitler to non-christians and non-catholics). As for the morality issue, read some philosophy books. Plus, since religion is false, it certainly makes a poor foundation for 'objective morality'. Religion is bad because it's immoral, because it results in immoral actions.

This wasn't my post, but just incase you didn't read this because he didn't post it as a reply, here you go.