Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Assume God exists, so dismiss atheism and agnosticism, in case you do him an injustice

It may seem unfair to risk offending a good God by assuming he does not exist or either way we do not know if he exists.  But the risk of hurting somebody is not a reason to say they exist.

It is easier for an agnostic to assume God than an atheist for the agnostic at least thinks she or he should be open to belief.

Some say that if God exists he deserves our worship. They say that even if there is no evidence or if it is not much help that we must still believe and worship him just to be sure we are being fair to him. But that would be worshipping your assumption. You cannot have a real relationship with a person if you only assume they are good and that you know them. Instead of assuming you know them you must know them. Assuming you know them only means you do not know them. If God exists the evidence for his existence will be adequate.

The thinking that we should presume God just in case we do him an injustice if he doesn't exist or in case we are wrong to think he is non-existent would forbid us to believe in revelation. How?

It could only be permissible to assume God exists if you won’t let that assumption be grounds for dotty doctrines and harmful ethics.

Revelation would be superfluous if God is an assumption. When God is an assumption so would accepting any alleged revelation from him be. You cannot take a revelation as true in this case unless you assume that God exists first. A revelation that is all assumptions is not a revelation.

The assumption of God is behind the acceptance of the assumptions dressed up as revelation. God would just have to understand that we are not sure enough of him and that we give him all the reverence we can. This won't be much for we cannot make him the reason we do everything we do or put him first when we are only assuming his existence. But religion claims his wishes must be taken very seriously and if he wants us to let a mother-to-be die rather than let her abort he must be obeyed. If God is good he will understand why we cannot assume he exists. When God is good and understanding he will not hurt or punish us or be hurt – he is almighty – if we don’t believe in him so we don’t need to presume theism at all. Also, atheism makes more sense than belief in God so if you are going to assume then assume atheism. 

The agnostic definitely has no feeling or passion for God. Believers who are unemotional about God clearly just have God as an idea not a God or friend.

Tony is a young boy and he believes eating white cheese brings bad luck. What if he decides he is as sure of this as he is unsure? Inconsistency has to creep in. He is agnostic and will have to act on the “It’s true” side or the “It’s untrue” side. An agnostic is a pretender and a liar. If such deception would be a sin if there is a God, then the agnostic not neutral about God. He is anti-God while pretending to be on a level where he is neither anti or pro.

Julian Baggini “claims we cannot know whether God exists and so the only rational option is to reserve judgment.” The article says that is a humble position but it is not if there is clear proof one way or the other or at least the possibility that there is no rational doubt.  And what if God has given clear evidence and you are not letting yourself see it in the name of being open-minded and humble?  The evidence has to point one way or the other period so agnosticism is really lazier than it pretends. Also, we have atheists today who say they do not positively deny the existence of God but see no reason to assert it. They call themselves negative atheists. This seems to be agnosticism under a different name but it is not. While it is the mere absence of belief it indirectly does deny the existence of God. "I see no reason for believing there is a God. I see no need in me for believing or God." The latter shows that while it is different from direct outright denial it is implied denial. God by definition is all good and puts a need for him in you. If it is not there then there is no God. Your experience is telling you not to believe.

Agnosticism is arrogant and lazy and judgemental when it says nobody knows something just because you don't know it. That's very solipsistic.