If you are truly being intellectually honest, there is no reason to believe in a god of any kind. The current evidence that we have for any religion is historical in nature. Historical evidence is fine if we are concerned with learning about our past in order to improve our future. But, those of religion are making very large claims that effect how we live, how we act, how we treat each other and live with each other. A universe with a god is a very different universe from one without a god. Since these claims are so great, they demand great evidence. The only reliable evidence that is acceptable is testable, scientific evidence. To date, there is no reliable scientific evidence that supports religious claims. Oh sure, the internet is full of articles that claim science supports any given religious belief, but these articles are riddled with logical fallacies and antic-dotes. The historic artifacts are of unknown or suggestive origin. Prophecies are self fulfilling or very ambiguous. Personal experiences are unreliable and generally explainable through other means, like delusions of extreme emotional states. Even if a personal experience is real to the person experiencing them, anyone else would be unjustified in believing anything based on someone else's experiences. Revelation is necessarily first person.
So, if you have true evidence of a supreme supernatural being, please present the evidence to a scientific journal so others may confirm your findings. Otherwise, please admit that you are not being intellectually honest in regards to your beliefs.
|
|
|
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2.
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
An agnostic is traditionally a person who doubts the existence of god. Religious supporters frequently write off agnostics as fence sitters who don't have a strong stance on one side of the fence or the other. In reality, all logical atheists are agnostics because we can't absolutely deny the existence of god. No one can say for certain if a god exists or not, so logically, we should all be agnostics. But it is not as simple as declaring yourself as atheist or agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive. Since no one can be certain that god doesn't exist, atheism is a belief that god doesn't exist. If you consider yourself agnostic, leaning towards the belief that there is no god, you are an atheist because you don't believe there is a god. Of course you don't know there is no god, none of us do.
|
|
Logical atheism requires one thing that those of religion cannot produce: Intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is a simple concept that requires one to openly admit when something is not known. As human beings, we start out with only the knowledge we acquire from observing our surroundings. As we gain information, we apply truthfulness tests to everything we process(at least we should). Then we decide whether we accept the claims of the information presented or not. This is the same process that the logical atheist utilizes when examining religious claims. From this point of view, anyone who accepts a religious claim of absolute certainty is not being intellectually honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m