A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[AlexanderG]

So can I summarize this thread?

1. @PureX insisting that atheism is defined as being absolutely certain that there are no gods. (Or has he given some other definition and I missed it?)
2. Self-identifying atheists repeatedly telling him that this isn't how atheists define atheism, namely "the set of people who don't hold a belief that a god exists."
3. PureX responding that that set of people are basically all agnostics, then demanding why atheism could be logical.
4. Repeat 2-3 until hair is pulled out.

I agree his version of atheism isn't a logical position, because it is outside the bounds of reason and logic to hold beliefs that lack sufficient good evidence. It is therefore irrational to believe that no gods exist, because it's an unfalsifiable claim. We could never examine all of space-time, and outside space-time, to establish that every conceivable version of a god does not exist.

And so his version of atheism is almost as irrational as theism itself, and it's not what the vast majority of self-identifying atheists believe precisely because we value reason, logic, and evidence. And we still all don't believe that any gods exist, which is fundamentally different than believing that gods do not exist. Both are still versions of atheism, though, despite all the kicking and screaming that they're not.

PureX, if you simply can't accept the prevailing common usage of the word, then we can't help you. You can't strawman us into defending a position we don't hold. Go find one of the exceedingly rare people who fall under your definition and talk to them about it. Alternatively, we could talk about why I believe that the Christian god specifically does not and cannot exist due to multiple logical contradictions in the traditional definition of that god.

 

[firedragon]

The best currently available evidence says that it is 'physical energy". I

What evidence is there that Brahman exists, and its physical energy?

What is the empirical evidence since you are an empiricist?

 

[AlexanderG]

Pascal's wager is you live life to try to make to heaven and avoid hell, so you want to be truthful and search for truth. If there is no true religion, the harm is minimal compared to the potential harm of hell and missing heaven.

No? And why would be try to make it to heaven and avoid hell when we simply don't believe those are real things?

Please try to understand our perspective. Sit down and think about how worried you are about not dying in battle and then failing to supp with your ancestors in Valhalla. How much daily concern do you feel about potentially lacking coin for the Boatman to ferry you across the river Styx to the underworld? Do you feel any fear about being locked in a constant cycle of reincarnation because you never achieve enlightenment?

The utter lack of concern that I'll bet you feel about these scenarios is EXACTLY how we feel about your religion and its particular empty assertions. All of these options have equal emotional weight in our minds, and equal evidence in our minds (namely zero), and so we couldn't care less about the baseless threats, appeals to fear and emotion, and attempts to presuppose that one fantastical scenario should be taken more seriously than any of the others.

Can you understand this? Can you understand why Pascal's Wager is utterly flawed from a logical standpoint, and utterly ineffective from an emotional standpoint for someone who doesn't already believe? Like most apologetics, it is a paper-thin argument designed to shore up doubt in believers who are looking for superficial reassurance and who are not interested in delving into the merits of the argument.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What evidence is there that Brahman exists, and its physical energy?
What is the empirical evidence since you are an empiricist?

Brahman and its energy is wrong according to my Advaita view. It is theistic thinking.
Brahman IS 'physical energy', and the existence of things, atoms, molecules, living, non-living, is a proof of its existence.

 

[stvdv]

Why should I choose the path of theism in spite of there being no evidence?

you missed the point

 

[rational experiences]

Two human argumentative positions.

Natural human owning life human is supported by all natural conditions versus the machine civilization trade greed control man groups. Various groups.

Who historic advice as just humans said to family by group status.....all variations as groups..... I own control and prevent you from natural equal human life share.

Man with trade status machine invention stating I am rich today as machines made my life easier.

Everyone is first a natural human on earth with the garden nature's support as a human life in a human review.

The status says no argument allowed in human conscious self human presence.

As it is fact of natural human history.

Hence in science versus science human stated there is no argument first.

If you simplified the human natural teaching first. Then human behaviour to con and coerce by sophist conditions human maths science would be overcome.

Basic advice for an original basic human life and living conditions. Life's survival the theme.

 

[firedragon]

Brahman and its energy is wrong according to my Advaita view. It is theistic thinking.

I didnt say "Brahman and its energy". I said "evidence to prove brahman exists, and its energy" which means prove that "Brahman exists and that brahman = energy".

Brahman IS 'physical energy', and the existence of things, atoms, molecules, living, non-living, is a proof of its existence.

What is the empirical evidence?

 

[Aupmanyav]

you missed the point

Was there any point?

.. brahman exists, and its energy ..

According to my Advaita view (non-duality), Brahman IS 'physical energy'. Brahman and its energy is a duality. They are not two separate things.

What is the empirical evidence?

You yourself. Are you not composed of molecules?

 

[Heyo]

Except that theists are making a materialist claim. That theists might refer to their God as immaterial only hurts their claims because then they cannot explain how they, as material beings, can know about an immaterial being. Theists also don't claims any special abilities, so this leaves them with an irrational claim.

When a theist makes a claim, especially in debate, they are accepting the rules of logic and materialism, whether they like it or not. Theists are addressing an audience that values these rules of thought, and theists enter into this contract and offer no better additional rules.

Can you measure rights, laws or borders? There are things that exist purely in our collective imagination and we can (mostly) agree on their properties. If theists could agree on the conceptual nature of gods, we (at least I) could understand and accept their claims without demanding physical evidence. Alas, most theists don't want to limit their gods in such a way, hence the contradictory claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, atheists have a firm grasp of what objective reality is. If evidence arose that it was reality was different they would accept it. But there is such strong evidence for it and none against it, plus the consequences for ignoring reality can be extreme, it is wise to treat it as an absolute.

Okay, please give the evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And you will never understand no matter how many actual atheists explain their position and understanding on the matter of the theist's claims that an all powerful, existential, unproven, mysterious, invisible entity who is beholden to no human to follow the physical properties of existence the god of one's choice, supposedly created and set the rules for such an existence.

Where exactly are you claiming knowledge in this god given everything?

All atheists are saying is we don't believe the stories about God(s) you all are proclaiming.

We feel you are unable to discern known facts from make believe of your choosing.

We cannot in Any Way, take your or any other believers opions or experienced god thoughts as being factual.

Most atheists, and certainly every single one you personally have attempted to converse with here on RF, have not claimed there is no god. We only claim we do not know that is the case that there is one or there is not one because there is zero physical evidence of such an entity or non physical plane somewhere out there.

We ALWAYS SAY, show us the evidence of this idea you have that some type of ultra super above nature creature you claim is real. No? Well, sorry, we do not believe those ideas with faith.



Stop trolling. You don't care one iota about listening to or understanding people who do not believe nor need in gods or claiming knowege about unknowable things. Especially about unknowable, evil, warrior invisible Gods.

Or whatever you choose to think of them as because that's all you got.

I think we know what you ALWAYS SAY, and were hoping for something different this time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well your position is a reasonable one, I can't argue that it isn't. But most importantly, you do not appear to claim, as many do, that atheists have a monopoly on logic and reason.

No, I wouldn't do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, please give the evidence.

Why? What good would it do? You appear to be in the class of people that have lost the right to ask for evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why? What good would it do? You appear to be in the class of people that have lost the right to ask for evidence.

Well, this is not science. We are in politics at least, so it is all about opinions.

 

[PureX]

So can I summarize this thread?

1. @PureX insisting that atheism is defined as being absolutely certain that there are no gods. (Or has he given some other definition and I missed it?)

Atheism is the counter-assertion that no gods exist. It has nothing to do with anyone's certainty or lack of it. You are confusing the idea with a personality.

2. Self-identifying atheists repeatedly telling him that this isn't how atheists define atheism, namely "the set of people who don't hold a belief that a god exists."

Self-identifying atheists do not define atheism. Again, you are confusing the idea with people. Why do you keep doing this?

3. PureX responding that that set of people are basically all agnostics, then demanding why atheism could be logical.

Most people are agnostic, and most atheists admit to being agnostic. So the question is why don;t they simply remin agnostic.

4. Repeat 2-3 until hair is pulled out.

If you had understood the opening post, you'd still have your hair. But instead of trying to understand it, you decided to rewrite it to mean something other than what it said. Too bad for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism is the counter-assertion that no gods exist. ...

That is your understanding of how to use the word. There are others. As long as you claim you are the authoritative source of all understanding relevant to what is the correct understanding, I will use this absurd answer:

Sure, you are right and I am wrong, yet I am still in the everyday world.

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheism is the counter-assertion that no gods exist.

No, it is not. The full Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." (temporary link to get past paywall). You don't get to redefine the English language to suit yourself, neither do you get to dictate to other groups of people what they believe.

 

[PureX]

I can see choosing atheism when it comes to everyday life, along with matters of science, politics, law, and other aspects of society. I can see that there are practical reasons in operating under the assumption that "there is no god," even if one can't really know the ultimate answer. At least on a practical societal level, it doesn't really matter. It's only during those self-reflective moments late at night when one would rather be sleeping than pondering such cursed questions.

How does one operate under the assumption that there is no God as opposed to operating under the realization that they don't know if there is a God or not? What would be the actual difference? And if one has already accepted that they do not know if God exists or not, why would they then choose to presume that there is not? Laziness? They want a reason not to think about it anymore? But they could have done that without assuming that no gods exist, couldn't they? This is the question: why do atheist go beyond agnosticism to presuming that no gods exist when they have already determined that they can't know if gods exist or not?

I understand why theists do it. I am asking why atheists do it, logically. So far the only answer I'm getting is "lack of evidence" which is not at all logical. Yet atheists claim they are all and only about logic. This is a long thread and so far it appears that atheists are not nearly as logical as they think they are. They are also intently defensive which makes no sense to me. What are they defending?

 

[PureX]

Hmm...this is an interesting topic in my opinion (although clearly that's a somewhat subjective view based on some of the responses you're getting).
However, I did sort of create a thread trying to speak to this a while back.

I know this might not be the most convenient way to handle your question, so apologies on that, but if you're interested in my high level view on this, might be worth reading the OP from there.

I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!! | Religious Forums

I was unaware of this thread, but I will check it out.

What do you think of the responses, here, so far? I have seen a couple of excellent responses here, but most are very confused and auto-defensive. I am surprised by how many proclaimed atheists cannot separate atheism as an idea, from themselves as people. I would expect that from theists, but not from atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was unaware of this thread, but I will check it out.

What do you think of the responses, here, so far? I have seen a couple of excellent responses here, but most are very confused and auto-defensive. I am surprised by how many proclaimed atheists cannot separate atheism as an idea, from themselves as people. I would expect that from theists, but not from atheists.

Well, the short answer is that all atheists are not skeptics about their own nature and nurture.