Agnostic atheism

Originally posted by @fmf
My lack of belief in ghosts is based on a lack of evidence. Is that an "intellectual position" you object to? My lack of belief in reincarnation is based on a lack of evidence that there is any such thing. Is that an "intellectual position" you think suffers from a lack of reasoning?

My position about a god or gods is that they may well exist. You claim tha ...[text shortened]... rnated as Hindus tell me I will.

There is nothing wrong with these "intellectual positions".

Lacking belief in ghosts or reincarnation does not govern your world view and is thus not something you need to defend intellectually. Lack of belief in God does govern your world view and is therefore something you need to defend but can't. That is why you call yourself an agnostic atheist and not ghostandreincarnationdenier.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Lacking belief in ghosts or reincarnation does not govern your world view and is thus not something you need to defend intellectually. Lack of belief in God does govern your world view and is therefore something you need to defend but can't. That is why you call yourself an agnostic atheist and not ghostandreincarnationdenier.

What I lack belief in are the various claims made by humans that god or gods have revealed themselves to them.

I myself don't make any claim that there has been any divine revelation so I do have to defend the content and implications of that revelation in the way you do about the revelation you happen to subscribe to.

There is no onus on me to either subscribe to a religion or make one up and then defend whatever tenets it might have.

That's why I am not a theist religionist. Your religionism does not create any obligation for me, "intellectually" or otherwise.

As for my worldview, in terms of the human condition and morality - a view that is not wrapped up in a contrived theology because I have no reason to subscribe to any of them - I have described it and defended it in great detail in numerous conversations with you and others here.

Originally posted by @fmf
What I lack belief in are the various claims made by humans that god or gods have revealed themselves to them.

I myself don't make any claim that there has been any divine revelation so I do have to defend the content and implications of that revelation in the way you do about the revelation you happen to subscribe to.

There is no onus on me to either s ...[text shortened]... described it and defended it in great detail in numerous conversations with you and others here.

So if I have no reason to believe that you are speaking the truth I don't have to defend my claim that I lack belief in your claims about your own agnostic atheism?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if I have no reason to believe that you are speaking the truth I don't have to defend my claim that I lack belief in your claims about your own agnostic atheism?

What I have been saying about my beliefs creates no onus on you whatsoever. Whether or not you feel any reason to think I am speaking the truth about my beliefs is entirely a matter for you.

Originally posted by @fmf
I acknowledge that you've found some text on the internet about three people who were Christians and you have posted it here on this thread. Do you have a link from where you took it?

The reason I posted it is their qualifications for evaluating evidence which I think (maybe “hope” is a better word) you would acknowledge are far superior to yours.

As for a link, I’ve seen the way links appear in this forum (not clickable, at least on my iPhone) so didn’t bother with that. But Googling “Sir Lionel Luckhoo” will pull up the article as that’s how I found it.

Originally posted by @fmf
What I have been saying about my beliefs creates no onus on you whatsoever. Whether or not you feel any reason to think I am speaking the truth about my beliefs is entirely a matter for you.

So in your mind, which intellectual beliefs need to be intellectually defensible and which intellectual beliefs need no intellectual defense? How can you claim that agnostic atheism is an intellectual position if it requires no intellectual defense?

Originally posted by @romans1009
The reason I posted it is their qualifications for evaluating evidence which I think (maybe “hope” is a better word) you would acknowledge are far superior to yours.

This kind of thing doesn't work on me. I work with numerous devout Muslims who are smarter and more qualified than me and who are very sincere about their faith. It doesn't make me think being a Muslim like them is the right thing to do.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well if your religious beliefs give you purpose, make you feel your life has substance and you deem all these perceptions of yours to be "authentic" [as opposed to those of others], then that's fine. It's what your religion is for, I suppose, and the same goes for all the other religions.

I think one of your errors is in thinking people who believe in the Christian God do so because it “does something for them” or fulfills some sort of need, instead of their belief being based on evidence.

Don’t get me wrong - God does fulfill needs, but the initial belief, I think for many people, and certainly the experts in evaluating evidence I cited earlier, the fulfillment of needs comes after the belief and is not the cause of the belief.

Originally posted by @fmf
This kind of thing doesn't work on me. I work with numerous devout Muslims who are smarter and more qualified than me and who are very sincere about their faith. It doesn't make me think being a Muslim like them is the right thing to do.

I’m not trying to “work on you.” Just bringing a viewpoint to the thread from people who are far more learned and qualified in judging evidence than you or I are.

Originally posted by @dj2becker

How can you claim that agnostic atheism is an intellectual position if it requires no intellectual defense?

It's honest. It's true according to my beliefs. It accords with facts about manmade religions as I see them. It makes sense to me. I have been clear. I haven't omitted any important information. I haven't misrepresented anything. We are just swapping ideas related to conjecture about supernatural things, after all. What exactly do you think I have to defend?

So in your mind, which beliefs need to be intellectually defensible and which beliefs need no intellectual defense?

Moral beliefs that result in actions affecting other people need to be defensible. But we have talked about that at great length already.

Opinions about other issues that have no impact on others and moral stances that have no chance of being put into action don't really have to be defended.

Your superstitious beliefs about Jesus ~ which don't impinge upon me ~ don't need to be defended if you don't want to.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Just bringing a viewpoint to the thread from people who are far more learned and qualified in judging evidence than you or I are.

You may think simply throwing in a logical fallacy here in there moves the discussion along, but I beg to differ.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]How can you claim that agnostic atheism is an intellectual position if it requires no intellectual defense?

It's honest. It's true according to my beliefs. It accords with facts about manmade religions as I see them. It makes sense to me. I have been clear. I haven't omitted any important information. I haven't misrepresented anything. We are just swa ...[text shortened]... iefs about Jesus ~ which don't impinge upon me ~ don't need to be defended if you don't want to.[/b]

It accords with facts about manmade religions as I see them.

Which facts?

Originally posted by @romans1009
I think one of your errors is in thinking people who believe in the Christian God do so because it “does something for them” or fulfills some sort of need, instead of their belief being based on evidence.

I don't think it is an error.