I tend to believe that all arguments for all ideas are circular in nature, especially when they are framed from the absolute (truth) point of view.
- Evidence (all of it) is always perceived & processed in the mind (or in rare cases, pure consciousness), yet nothing can prove that one is experiencing anything more than their own mind (or consciousness), since all proof, evidence, thoughts & ideas will always be perceived & processed in the mind (or consciousness).
Another way to say this is that a perception of something existing (existing in the manner we perceive it) and a perception of something being true, can never be proven as real or true in an absolute sense, since it is possible that all existence (our perceptions of existence) and evidence is nothing more than the mental projections of our own mind (or consciousness).
One example of this kind of circular reasoning in practice is the existence of atheists, who believe they have proved that there is "no God". Their reasoning is something along the lines of:
- My mind told my mind that it perceives substantial evidence that there is no God and that convinced my mind that there is no God - I now know that there is no God.
This type of reasoning obviously doesn't prove anything, but if we take a serious look at our own ideas, the nature of the mind, experience & consciousness, it becomes clear that circular reasoning, in the end, is the only type of reasoning we have (all arguments for all ideas are circular in nature, but it is not always obvious).
The idea that all of mankind's use of reasoning, in a broad sense, is circular in nature, doesn't necessarily address or negate relative truths (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2, common sense, etc.) from a relative point of view, but it does speak of the TRUTH / the absolute truth / the "God concept", etc. from the absolute point of view.
- The absolute truth (i.e. God) in an absolute sense, appears to be unknowable.
And I tend to think it is useful to believe that nothing, or nothing we imagine, is the absolute truth.
So it makes sense for atheists to indicate that their atheistic ideas are coherent (if they are), follow the scientific method (if they do), or something along the lines of their ideas being an evaluation of the truth, without them ever knowing for sure if they arrived at the truth, but it doesn't make sense for them, or anyone else, to state and believe with certainty, that they have proven that any of their ideas are absolutely true.
Believing to know the absolute truth (about anything), in most if not all cases, should be classified as religious, and I think atheists who absolutely (religiously) believe in the ideas of atheism, are religious, and if they are religious about atheism, Atheism is religion.
P.S. Agnosticism may not be a religion, but Atheism is.
DISCLAIMER: These words represent thoughts but I am not intending to imply that these thoughts, or any thoughts, are absolutely true. I tend to believe that all arguments for all ideas are circular in nature (argued with circular reasoning) and the arguments I make for my ideas are NOT immune from that.