Since we do not know if (any) God exists, the belief about its existence or non-existence is a matter of faith (religion). Therefore, both theism and atheism are religions since they base their belief in faith. I think that the best thing is to attend to reason as much as possible. The faith above reason can cloud it. Therefore the most reasonable position would be agnosticism.
In this respect Blaise Pascal said that the most reasonable position would be to believe in God as a hypothetical bet on game theory for the greatest gain:
- You can believe in God; If it exists, then you will go to heaven.
- You can believe in God; If it does not exist, then you will not win anything.
- You can not believe in God; If it does not exist, then you will not earn anything either.
- You can not believe in God; If it exists, then you will not go to heaven.
To which responded the atheist Richard Dawkins that if you believe in God only as a goal of gain, assuming that it existed, would be penalized. God would most appreciate an unbeliever, for his greater honesty.
Nietzsche advocated "the death" of God. In the sense of atheism, that is to say, to remove the barrier of religious morality to man so that, without attachment, he reaches his fullness. To me personally, this scares me. The human being must have ethical or religious barriers. Not everything is valid. As an example I would propose the continuous degradation of the world by humanity or the "advances" in genetic engineering at the expense of the unborn.
If atheism, like any religion, has its own vicious tendencies such as imposition, etc. is added the elimination of any ethical barrier, I do not like it.
I like the idea of Blaise Pascal, but even more the supremacy of reason. Therefore I would say that I would like to believe in the existence of God. What is a point to the right of agnosticism.
Atheism Agnosticism Theism
-+------------------+-X----------------+-
the most reasonable position
