I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.
I realize this may not be entirely true, but if there are exceptions, they are very, very rare. In the same way that 'miracles' do appear to happen, but whatever they are, they are very, very rare. So although my baseline premise in not absolute, I believe it stands, logically and realistically. There is no significant information or evidence available to us that would logically move us off this baseline premise. "I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.
However, this leaves the proposal of God's existence to be a possibility, as agnosticism does not logically negate the existence of God/gods. It also leaves, by default, the possibility open that no gods exist since agnosticism does not negate that possibility, either.
The point I'm making, here, is that agnosticism does not preclude anyone from choosing to adopt a presumption that God/gods (of a metaphysical nature) exist, or that that they do not exist. What agnosticism does do, however, is remove the possibility of our logically proving either presumption to ourselves or to anyone else.
So why would anyone adopt the presumption that God/gods exists, or that God/gods do not exist, given this baseline premise of our lack of sufficient evidence or information to make a logical determination? Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).
I understand why theists choose to do so. And so do most of us, here. The reason is that they gain some personal value benefit from their choosing to trust in their particular idealization of 'God'. But I do not understand why people choose to presume that no gods exist, because that choice offers them no personal value or benefit. There is no idealization to inculcate or act on in adopting atheism, and therefor no benefit to be derived from such non-idealization and non-action.
I also understand taking a position of uninformed indifference as an agnostic. If one feels no particular need or desire for the benefits others seek through theism, then so be it. There would logically be no reason, then, for them to choose theism.
What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent. I've been trying to ask one or two self-proclaimed atheists, here, why they choose atheism as opposed to agnostic indifference and I cannot get an answer from them. I can't even get them to acknowledge the logic behind my question.
CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)
This is a great post, and it really gets to the confusion a lot of theists have regarding the position of most modern atheists. Namely, most modern atheists identify as
agnostic atheists. This is a two or maybe three-part label, specifically:
1. I don't think anyone can currently provide enough evidence to warrant belief that a god exists or that no gods exist (agnostic),
2. Therefore, I don't currently accept claims that any gods exist, because such claims don't warrant belief. (atheism)
3. Simultaneously, I accept that it's possible that gods do exist (an extension of agnosticism), because negating the god claims of surviving modern religions tend to be an unfalsifiable exercise, along with the infinite array of hypothetical, undetectable other gods that we could imagine. But it's still technically possible someday.
Of course there is tension between points 1 and 3. The balance between these two elements can vary depending on the specific god in question, and its properties. On balance, atheists see all evidence presented for all gods they are aware of as very weak and/or fallacious, and so we don't believe these claims, and we judge that on balance it is more likely that these beings don't exist. We don't hold the belief that they exist, and so we are atheists.
Could you make the mirrored argument that since we don't accept the claim that no gods exist, that we are agnostic theists? I guess you could, but it would be misleading because we still weigh the evidence in favor of no gods existing, while simply acknowledging our lack of absolute certainty. Along those lines, it might be useful to add a final element:
4. By default, positive claims should not be accepted until sufficient good evidence warrants belief (this establishes agnostic atheism as a rational position to hold until evidence either way is provided.)
Note that "no gods exist" is a negative claim, and negative metaphysical claims tend to be unfalsifiable and pretty useless to entertain for that reason. For example, give evidence against the proposition "I can fly using the power of my mind, but choose not to," or demonstrate that you're not a witch. Prove with good evidence that you didn't actually murder the woman whose body was found in the ditch the next town over.
Does this help to explain the logic of atheist? It's basically an application of good evidentiary standards, plus establishing burdens of proof according to the null hypothesis, plus acknowledging the concept of fallibilism.