Hi
I can understand how you came to that conclusion, but as expected no doubt, i can't agree.
I would argue that i was strong enough to make that decision, and thus live my life with absolute certainty; and that to not make the choice would point to the inability to decide for yourself what is going on.
Indeed, this is of course a viewpoint, and I have no doubt that had i a belief (agnostic) much like your own, my opinion would almost certainly mirror yours.
Although thanks for giving me something to think about
I've read your last few posts. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
Firstly, you need to define "weakness". Is it weakness of spirit-that without God Christians would be too "afraid" to act? Is it a lack of intelligence? Is it that Christians pass on the responsibility for their actions to God?
If the first, you must ask if this fear of acting and the belief in God always come together. Everybody experiences fear and has coping strategies. Some, for example, may repeat mantras to themselves; they may tell themself that they are the strongest, best and most intelligent person in the world. Very few people, if any, do not rely on some form of delusion to strengthen themself. What, therefore, is wrong with using God as this delusion?
If it is a lack of intelligence, that strikes me as hugely dogmatic. Look at the ancient Greeks. The massive majority of them believed in Greek Gods-Plato, Archimedes and Aristotle are acknowledged as some of the greatest thinkers that the world has ever seen, and all believe in religion. Look at Descartes, at Kant, and a whole host of others. If you say that this is merely a tiny minority, then I would have to flat out disagree with you. If you look at all of the greatest minds of our past, I would be surprised if at least half of them did not believe in God.
If this weakness is that they pass their responsibility on to God, and therefore do not blame themselves when something goes wrong, you are opening a huge can of worms. You must define responsibility to start with. If responsibility consists in our actions being free, then this is questionable as it merely leads to indeterminism; that our actions result out of chance. It is hard to see how we can be responsible in your sense, whether or not you believe in God, and as such holding somebody as weak due to their belief in God again appears to be unfair.
Agnostic here, To flat out not believe in God is narrow minded, Also to flat out believe in God without admitting the alternative possibility of him not existing, Is also Narrow Minded.
That isn't technically agnosticism. The agnostic does not say that he does not know whether God exists; he says that we
cannot know whether God exists. His position is much stronger than the position that you have proposed and would also be classed as narrow minded (if we take narrow mindedness to mean what you imply).
