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

FOREWORD

Agnostics dare to tell people who say they know God might exist but is very unlikely that they are wrong.  This is dismissing evidence against God assuming such evidence exists and is enough to overthrow belief.  They do the same thing to people who say it is likely there is a God.  Agnostics saying nobody can know or be sure there is a God or not are claiming to know that any evidence either way is invalid.  There is nothing humble about that.  How can they really know the universe well enough to say that?  They assume human perception and thinking powers cannot discern the existence of the divine and transcendental.  Or if they can they don't know what it is so it is back to square one.  Who are they to tell you what you know and don't know?  They don't know every person.  Or every argument.  Or every evidence.

Agnostics reject the idea that we can be reasonably and correctly sure enough that there is a creator who made all without using anything billions of years ago, before humans emerged.  What?  There are more scenarios than that!  What about the suggestion that our memories are implanted perhaps by some rebel angel and the whole universe was only created five minutes ago?  Are we all agnostics about that suggestion?  Nobody is actually.  We feel though it cannot be disproven that it is untrue and should be considered untrue.  Why a time limit?  Five minutes or five billion years who cares?  Agnostics are really assuming that this God billions of years ago is the one to be agnostic about as if they think they know what a God would be after all!  Agnosticism is confused and dishonest.

If there is a God, no matter how unlikely, agnosticism is trying to do him an injustice.  And do it to us too.

Agnosticism is not agnosticism but agnosticisms for there are loads of possible God variants to be doubtful about.  It is simpler to just assume there is nothing.  If it is the practical option that is all it needs. 

AGNOSTICISM

The person making a claim is the one who has to offer the evidence for why it should be considered to be true.

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.