Should you be atheist or theist?  Why not be agnostic? That is saying you see no reason for taking one side or the other.

Agnostics see no reason to believe in God but there are different types.

Agnosticism may say that God could exist but it admits the God theory is not essential. It is really holding on to the two theories, Theism and Atheism, at the one time in a sense. How so? It is like you have one pole and the other and you are hanging around at the spot between them.  But instead of this messing, they should take a definite side.

Agnostics may say that belief in either is not possible meaning that one is as plausible as the other which is foolish. They cannot say which one is right.  They admit then the God theory is dispensable.  If we do not need the God theory it should be abandoned. One reason is that the theory asks us to commit to god when it is enough to commit to the service of others. You cannot help others in so far as you are bringing in distractions and extra unnecessary work.

Reason counsels us to stick to what is simple and what is necessary for to deny God outright allays the fear of hurting him or of receiving his vengeance.  Theism maximises the fear.  Agnosticism means you have half the fears that theists have. All needless fear is bad.

Agnosticism gives too much importance to the God theory. It is saying, "God is an important idea but we don't know if it is a true idea or not." But who says God is important? After all, God or no God, we have to judge what is right or wrong. We cannot even accept any theory of God unless we judge the God as worthy of worship and reverence. So it is goodness the Agnostic should care about.

Suppose we start a worldview like the following. Zoroaster was a minor prophet of a dying religion. Would it make sense to start a label, I-haven't-made-up-my-mind-if-Zoroaster-was-a-prophet-or-not-ism? No for he is not that important. Agnosticism is advertising God as important.

And agnostics which God are you thinking of?  There are different versions.  Allah is like a distant monarch.  The Christian God is a relationship God who is three persons while being one being.  And if you say God and morality are the same, it follows that if your God affirms capital punishment and mine does not, they are different Gods for they vary in a core matter.  Agnosticism seems to sneak ideas of what God should be right on in. This is not consistent with something that claims to be unbiased.

Agnosticism affirms Augustine too much.  Augustine said that evil is just good in the wrong place at time and evil is the absence of a good that should be there.  All believers in a loving God assume this too even if it is at the back of their heads. It is their faith position that God is not to blame for evil for evil is the misuse of good and God only makes good. Evil is not a power in this thinking.

But ...

Evil is a power - depression is a power. It is not merely an absence of good feelings. We cannot insult the depressed person by saying that is all that it is!

Evil and a perfectly good God cannot co-exist.  To say they can shows that, like too many people in the world, you lack empathy towards a lot of the suffering that goes on in the lives of others. Doing great good does not prove your empathy is up to scratch except maybe in relation to the people you help. There are certain things that should be rejected at face value. Augustine said you must believe in God because of evil and not in spite of it for evil is faulty good anyway. This doctrine needs to be rejected just like you would immediately reject any suggestion that a child should be molested. In fact it is all the suffering in the universe we are talking about so the doctrine should be rejected an infinity of times faster if possible.

Agnostics and theists are both guilty of failing in empathy. The agnostics are saying such a terrible doctrine is okay and maybe sacred while the theists make it sacred. Disgraceful. Atheism is the only option.
Agnosticism ignores the fact that the only thing that has any authority over you is your own conscience. Thus God is not important to our morals. By saying there could be a God it is saying that he might be the true ruler of your heart and mind. It would be odd if God is very important and we have no way to tell if he is there.
Agnosticism ignores the absurdity of a God who does the impossible and turns 0 into 1, that is creation out of nothing. God uses no power for nothing is used to make so it is not making at all.  He just orders the universe to exist and it appears.  This is occultism not religion.
Agnosticism ignores the fact that as we so often go along with and collude with evil (eg animal suffering in particular) we only insult people by suggesting that despite human suffering there could be an all-good and all-powerful God. We collude with evil and to suggest there is such a God is to ask to be suspected of colluding with him too and of pretending that his allowing evil is good.  If he asks us to affirm his handing or non-handling of harm and suffering then he is to blame too for he knows what we are like.
Agnosticism tolerates the intolerable aspects of belief. The agnostic after all is a kind of believer. He believes and he doesn't believe. The believer in God is asked by religion to trust God even when he suffers the pains of Job. The believer is asked to torment himself by trusting even to the extreme. As God comes first in the Christian scheme, it follows that this trust is to be exercised by the believer chiefly or totally for God's sake and not his own! This worsens the difficulty. The trust is not that that the believer will be delivered from the suffering but that the believer must be left to suffer forever if it is the will of God for God always does and sanctions the right thing.

Agnosticism tends to accuse atheism of arrogance. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is right. Atheists who say they know the existence of God is very unlikely are targeted. But surely it is arrogant for agnostics to tell them they don't as good as know there is no God when it could be that they do? Agnostics do not strenuously advocate for the legalization of rape, arguing that it might be moral in some other universe – yet they strenuously oppose atheists who deny the existence of God. Hypocrites.
Atheists are merely saying there is no supernatural power running the universe. The believer in God claims to know more - she knows that God became man and that God created all things etc. The believer then is definitely more arrogant than the atheist.

If neither the atheist or the believer can know, then they should realise they are agnostics. But suppose they are really atheist or believer. The atheist is less arrogant.

The atheist can say he merely has the absence of belief in God. Saying that you have no reason to believe in God is claiming to know a lot less than the person who says there is a God. Absence of belief in God is not the same thing as lacking belief in the man on the moon. The man on the moon doesn't claim to be the best moral force and the grounder and enforcer of morality. So it is a lack of belief in God yes but also more. It is a belief in an indirect way. Be atheist that way and forget about agnosticism.  Don't confuse this atheism with agnosticism.

Agnosticism should simply mean, "The power that protects people and lifts them up if they need it" by divinity or God. If you are agnostic about the trinitarian God of the Church or the Mormon God who is a polygamously married man it gets confusing. Christians are agnostics about the Mormon god. Mormons are agnostics about the trinity God.  So just take the step and become atheist. You agnostics may already be atheist and not realise in many cases.


No Copyright