• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
There is no difference between "unknown" and a rejected claim that the claim is true.

If Jim claims claims he has some cookies that are magically delicious, and they are good because some very skilled elves made them in a hollow tree, it's unknown if Jim's claim is true. But given the fantastic nature of his claim we will reject it given the lack of evidence.

Now Jim might claim that he ate a ham sandwich for lunch. Now he already ate it and it is unknown whether he actually did, no one saw it. But we know ham sandwiches exist. We know people eat them for lunch. So since the details of Jim's claims are factual and thus plausible, and not controversial, we can accept his claim as being true even though it's unknown.

That is skepticism at work.

You use one form of skepticism. I use another.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
would say he's profoundly agnostic. Clearly he has heard of the idea of "God", and never felt compelled to investigate it. That's an example of that indifferent/disinterested agnosticism: "don't know, don't care". I can accept that. But that's not atheism. Atheism goes beyond this into the presumption that gods don't exist.

Exactly. Atheist have no concept so they can't claim either way. It's just not there.

Yes, but this is not a discussion about the nature of God. It's a simply discussion about the logic of choosing atheism rather than simply being agnostic, which I must presume has no 'god-nature' involved to discuss.

You need to know the nature of God to answer your question. Atheist do not have a nature of God so without that definition and basing your questions on that definition answers will be very sporadic.

All the more reason to remain agnostic.

This wouldn't apply to atheists. I can see why agnostic would remain as such especially if he or she had previously religious experienced he can't depart from.

Atheism is irrelevant in this.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's a simply discussion about the logic of choosing atheism rather than simply being agnostic, which I must presume has no 'god-nature' involved to discuss.
All the more reason to remain agnostic.

There’s your flawed premise again. Atheists don’t start agnostic then choose to be atheist. Atheism is simply the disbelief in something. Agnosticism is the belief that one can’t know one way or the other. Agnosticism is a belief while atheism is a lack of belief, such that, logically, atheism is the more likely starting point—not agnosticism.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say he's profoundly agnostic. Clearly he has heard of the idea of "God", and never felt compelled to investigate it. That's an example of that indifferent/disinterested agnosticism: "don't know, don't care". I can accept that. But that's not atheism. Atheism goes beyond this into the presumption that gods don't exist.

And if such a person is asked if they believe in God, what do you think they would say?

For *me*, the answer would be *no*.

Yes, but this is not a discussion about the nature of God. It's a simply discussion about the logic of choosing atheism rather than simply being agnostic, which I must presume has no 'god-nature' involved to discuss.
All the more reason to remain agnostic.

The logic is simply that a lack of evidence *can* be evidence of non-existence. And it is certainly enough to *withhold belief*.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
"Maybe you just don't understand the magic of astrology. How much time have you invested in astrology before you rejected it?

What caused you to reject astrology in the first place?"

I'll reply when you get back to the subject of the thread.
You brought up astrology. But it is an apt example of theism, and how both are not rational or fact-based.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You were doing well until this last sentence. :)

The lack of expected evidence for bigfoot can be considered evidence for the lack of bigfoot because it's a very narrow and closed set of evidence to look for. Fortunately, or unfortunately, this is clearly not so for the question of God's existence. And in fact the evidence that it's not so is in your opening two sentences. It's why those variations of response exist.

And I disagree here. Unless and until there is evidence of the existence (and a good enough definition for the existence to be meaningful), I think it most reasonable to default to *non-belief*.

I'm not interested in "right" or "wrong", here. I am simply interested in the logical justification of going beyond agnosticism to presume atheism. The reason you just gave me is not logical.

But it is *precisely* because I *am* interested in right or wrong that I make this leap. I do not want to have false beliefs. So, when the evidence is weak or non-existent, I tend to not believe. It really is that simple.

I can be intrigued by a possibility (say, WIMPS), but I do not have a belief until there is evidence. My default is non-existence until existence is proven.

If you read my opining post, you saw that the basic premise is agnosticism. That means that insufficient information/evidence results in a non-determination. UNLESS we find some logical reason to make a determination based on something other than our lack of sufficient information.

For me, agnosticism is the position that knowledge isn't possible. Atheism is the position that I do not believe. Theism is the position that I do believe. Both atheism and theism are consistent with agnosticism. But, just like with Big Foot, the position of belief seems more extreme than withholding belief until there is evidence. That makes atheism the reasonable position, in my mind.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

F1fan

Veteran Member
A lot of atheists claim they are agnostic, especially when they are asked to logically defend their atheism (suddenly they are no longer atheists, but agnostics).
1) Agnostic only means that a person lacks knowledge. An atheist admits they lack knowledge that religious claims are supposedly based on, so atheists are honest in that they can't judge religious concepts true. Atheists defer to the logical default that unsupported claims are untrue.

THAT is how atheists think. They use logic properly and that precision of thought is a defense itself. That you and other theists want to ignore this precision of thought is your dilemma.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I would say he's profoundly agnostic. Clearly he has heard of the idea of "God", and never felt compelled to investigate it. That's an example of that indifferent/disinterested agnosticism: "don't know, don't care". I can accept that. But that's not atheism. Atheism goes beyond this into the presumption that gods don't exist.
Yes, but this is not a discussion about the nature of God. It's a simply discussion about the logic of choosing atheism rather than simply being agnostic, which I must presume has no 'god-nature' involved to discuss.
All the more reason to remain agnostic.
Do you honestly struggle with the idea that lack of knowledge may produce lack of belief, or is this just a rhetoric performance to make some tortured point about how atheism is really just another kind of religion, like we've seen countless times before?

I can give you a few pointers if you actually are looking for an explanation.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
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)
Late to the discussion...My vote is for the fact that most humans cannot stand ambiguity in anything, so that the agnostic position isn't acceptable cognitively because it is ambiguous.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Yeah, absolutely. I can't make a really convincing logical case for belief in God, other than to say it works for me. Faith satisfies a need - which may or may not be emotional.

So what need might atheism be fulfilling in the active as opposed to passive non-believer (if you'll allow the distinction)? That, presumably, is the purpose of this thread.
I'm not sure I can answer that, given that I just don't feel a need with respect to this. It is more down to the probabilities, as I see such existing, and hence why I am just not drawn to religious beliefs of any kind. Being slightly agnostic to any creator but not accepting that which is proposed by the religions, especially the monotheistic ones. We all have needs but mine seem to be satisfied to some extent by other knowledge, and that which is less likely to place me in opposition to others - as far as such is possible.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
In reality, after I had left fundamentalist Christianity, I had entered into much more of a no-man's-land of agnosticism, where for about 20 years I didn't really believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God. I just didn't really tackle the question and left it open ended.

But then came a moment where I took a stance and said, "I do not believe that," and took a hard stance. That happened at a specific moment for me, watching the PBS special, The Shape of Life, where I first really learned about how evolution worked. It was liberating. I no longer needed to hang onto the idea of God to explain the magic of nature. That was the birth of my atheism.

Now the motivation behind that, which I personally believe is what is behind most positive stances on the question of God which atheism proclaims, is to be able to grow beyond superstitions and ignorance in the pursuit of the truth and knowledge, and to move beyond this 'not knowing' position which left me stuck or not addressing the deeper question of existence, or the nature of Ultimate Reality, as Paul Tillich termed it well.

It specifically and deliberately cleared the table of distractions to dig in and address the question. It gets rid of the debris that clutters the landscape, deeming it as unfit to be considered seriously on the playing field of modern knowledge. "God did it" answers do no suffice when being honest, nor did just putting the question on the backburner of agnosticism suffice. Atheism empowered me to look at the question of Reality without fear.

I have now managed to move beyond that atheism now in much the same way I grew beyond theism, as well as agnosticism which itself centers around the same image of a mythic-literal deity question, where I now find no incompatibility between a spiritual faith and reason, doing no violence to either. I see theism, atheism, and agnosticism as all centered around the same thing, and doing the same 'this and not that' violence to each other in some fashion or another. They all view the question of God through the same lens.

I found this quote from reading Sri Aurobindo years ago that really struck me, and largely speaks my thoughts on this today:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it imagines the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."

~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13​
FINALLY! Someone honestly and succinctly answered the question! I thank you for this! And I find that there is real logic and wisdom in your reasoning.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
And what limits of reason and logic are you referring to in regards to your kind of skepticism?

Give us examples.

That the LNC only applies to a given limited time, space and sense and thus doesn't apply in general to some forms of individuality.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
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)
Agnosticism is a bit of a weird position in my opinion. Because atheism doesn't mean that we are 100% certain that God(s) doesn't exists, however given the evidence provided to us, we see no reason to assume that they do. Whereas agnostics is the position that we can't know for certain if such beings exists, yet they take no position whether they believe in them or not.

As I see it, either God(s) exists or they don't regardless of whether we can ever know it or not for certain, one can't hold both positions at the same time. So were you to ask an agnostic whether they believe a God exist or not. The answer must be either a yes or no, simply replying maybe will either make them a believer in a deity or an atheist.

Also an agnostic will most likely have different views on which God/gods they are more inclined to believe might exist compare to others. My guess is that most agnostics will outright decline the old Greek, Norse or Roman gods, whereas they will be less inclined to deny one of Biblical versions of God. As an atheist we see no difference between these God(s), as the evidence for these are equally poor in our view.

If an agnostic hold the position that some sort of God or creator could exist, that is no different from most atheists, a God(s) might very well do so. But, again if such God(s) doesn't intervene or provide us with any evidence, there are no reason to assume such being or even care about it. Which again makes the agnostic position slightly weird, because either a person is convinced by such God(s) or they are not, which again makes them either a believer or an atheist.

So why one would take the position of an atheist, is because we see no evidence of an intervening God(s) and therefore no reason to treat both positions (believing and not believing) as equal, even based on the fact that we might never know, nothing so far in regards to evidence have been presented to us, for why we should care or even consider these positions as equal.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
As I said, I will change my views if I get any evidence. I believe in relativity, Quantum Mechanics and uncertainty because there is some evidence. I have not found any for God, soul, prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis, heaven or hell; so I do not believe in them.

You aren't addressing the question I asked. Lack of evidence results in your not knowing. Yet you are choosing (apparently) to presume the negative. Why? Why not simply accept ad remain agnostic?
Not many choose the path of "neti ... neti"...."not theism not atheism"
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Agnosticism is a bit of a weird position in my opinion. Because atheism doesn't mean that we are 100% certain that God(s) doesn't exists, however given the evidence provided to us, we see no reason to assume that they do. Whereas agnostics is the position that we can't know for certain if such beings exists, yet they take no position whether they believe in them or not.

As I see it, either God(s) exists or they don't regardless of whether we can ever know it or not for certain, one can't hold both positions at the same time. So were you to ask an agnostic whether they believe a God exist or not. The answer must be either a yes or no, simply replying maybe will either make them a believer in a deity or an atheist.

Also an agnostic will most likely have different views on which God/gods they are more inclined to believe might exist compare to others. My guess is that most agnostics will outright decline the old Greek, Norse or Roman gods, whereas they will be less inclined to deny one of Biblical versions of God. As an atheist we see no difference between these God(s), as the evidence for these are equally poor in our view.

If an agnostic hold the position that some sort of God or creator could exist, that is no different from most atheists, a God(s) might very well do so. But, again if such God(s) doesn't intervene or provide us with any evidence, there are no reason to assume such being or even care about it. Which again makes the agnostic position slightly weird, because either a person is convinced by such God(s) or they are not, which again makes them either a believer or an atheist.

So why one would take the position of an atheist, is because we see no evidence of an intervening God(s) and therefore no reason to treat both positions (believing and not believing) as equal, even based on the fact that we might never know, nothing so far in regards to evidence have been presented to us, for why we should care or even consider these positions as equal.

You have differents definitions of atheism and agnosticism than I use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top