| Player1x3 said: Atheism says higher power couldn't possibly exist based on NO EVIDENCE OR REASON THAT POINTS TOWARDS IT = IRRATIONAL Theism say higher power most certainly does exist based on NO EVIDENCE OR REASON THAT POINTS TOWARDS IT = IRRATIONAL Agnosticism says higher power could or couldn't exist, BASED ON LACK OF EVIDENCE OR REASON FOR BOTH IDEAS = RATIONAL |
Two points, here.
First of all, there's such a thing as "weak atheism", which is taking the position that a higher power doesn't exist purely due to lack of evidence otherwise. As I like to put it, it's absence of belief rather than belief in the absence. This could be called the scientific form of atheism, which posits that something shouldn't be expected to exist if there is no evidence supporting its existence. Should such evidence (strong enough to be convincing) be found, a "weak atheist" would have no problem accepting the existence.
Second of all, there are logical arguments that challenge the idea that a "higher power" of the descriptions given in pretty much every religion could exist. For instance, a common challenge is the challenge to omnipotence - can god create an item that even god cannot destroy? If so, then there is something that god cannot destroy, and thus god is not omnipotent. If not, then there is something that god cannot create, and thus god is not omnipotent.
This second point is best described by the classic argument, "think of the reason why you reject the existence of every other god of every other religion - for the same reason, I reject the existence of yours".
Oh, and it's also possible to rationally be a theist. Subjective evidence in favour of the existence of god is still valid for rational belief. Some people have experiences for which the best explanation that they can find is that it must be a higher power. That this evidence cannot possibly be shared with others in any sort of objective sense is irrelevant to that point.
And agnostics are as capable of being as irrational with their position as anybody else.
