A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[joelr]

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)

Are you agnostic on Thor, Romulus, Osirus, Zeus, Santa Clause, Roswell Aliens, Big Foot, the outer space race in Scientology, Heavens Gate alien ship that souls go to and Zoroastrianism? Or do you feel you simply don't believe them because of the lack of evidence?

 

[PureX]

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.

People call homosexuals "gay". But homosexuals are no more or less gay than anyone else. In a discussion that really demands as much clarity of thought as we can muster, I think it's important to use the terms that are the most succinct. Because it's too easy to hide our obfuscation and confusion behind inarticulate language. And to be clear, I think the desire to deliberately misapply terminology is disingenuous. And I'm not here to help people lie to themselves or others. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to give us all an opportunity to clarify for ourselves what and why we are making the choices that we are in relation to the god proposition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you agnostic on Thor, Romulus, Osirus, Zeus, Santa Clause, Roswell Aliens, Big Foot, the outer space race in Scientology, Heavens Gate alien ship that souls go to and Zoroastrianism? Or do you feel you simply don't believe them because of the lack of evidence?

There are testable gods and then there is what objective reality is.
We can agree on testable gods, but in practice we disagree on what objective reality is, despite both being atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People call homosexuals "gay". But homosexuals are no more or less gay than anyone else. In a discussion that really demands as much clarity of thought as we can muster, I think it's important to use the terms that are the most succinct. Because it's too easy to hide our obfuscation and confusion behind in inarticulate language. And to be clear, I think the desire to deliberately misapply terminology is disingenuous. And I'm not here to help people lie to themselves and others. In fact, the whole point of this thread is to give us all an opportunity to clarify for ourselves what and why we are making the choices that they are in relation to the god proposition.

You don't speak for a "we" and neither do I.

 

[AppieB]

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.
Self-identifying atheists do not define atheism. Again, you are confusing the idea with people. Why do you keep doing this?
Most people are agnostic, and most atheists admit to being agnostic. So the question is why don;t they simply remin agnostic.
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.

So, who defines atheism? Is there a cosmic definition of what atheism means?
Who defnines what a Christian or Buddhist is? The people who don't call themselves Christian or Buddhist. Or the people who do?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, who defines atheism? Is there a cosmic definition of what atheism means?
Who defnines what a Christian or Buddhist is? The people who don't call themselves Christian or Buddhist. Or the people who do?

Well, we can always play no true Scotsman. But I am with you in the case.

 

[PureX]

Are you agnostic on Thor, Romulus, Osirus, Zeus, Santa Clause, Roswell Aliens, Big Foot, the outer space race in Scientology, Heavens Gate alien ship that souls go to and Zoroastrianism? Or do you feel you simply don't believe them because of the lack of evidence?

I am agnostic about the existence of God/gods. I choose to trust in the idea that a God of my own understanding exists because I find that doing so works in a positive way for me whether God exists or not. So your question is being misapplied, here.

 

[PureX]

So, who defines atheism? Is there a cosmic definition of what atheism means?
Who defnines what a Christian or Buddhist is? The people who don't call themselves Christian or Buddhist. Or the people who do?

Logic defines atheism. I would think atheists, who are constantly touting the importance of logic, would appreciate that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic defines atheism. I would think atheists, who are constantly touting the importance of logic, would appreciate that.

No, because logic has a limit for the practical application of the LNC.

 

[Koldo]

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?

I don't need absolute certainty to be convinced of something though. God as a human creation simply makes much more sense to me than the other way around. And this is why I am an atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't need absolute certainty to be convinced of something though. God as a human creation simply makes much more sense to me than the other way around. And this is why I am an atheist.

Just as I see the different versions of what objective reality really is as human creations. And that is why I am more than just an atheist.

 

[ratiocinator]

Logic defines atheism.

Using logic to define words? This I've got to see! Okay, what are your premises, what are the logical steps you've taken, to what exact definition? I'm sure that lexicographers around the world will be thrilled that they can just use logic and not have to do all that bothersome research into to how a word is actually being used by people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Using logic to define words? This I've got to see! Okay, what are your premises, what are the logical steps you've taken, to what exact definition? I'm sure that lexicographers around the world will be thrilled that they can just use logic and not have to do all that bothersome research into to how a word is actually being used by people.

Yeah, but as long as rationality is not doubted, you will be fine.

 

[joelr]

I am agnostic about the existence of God/gods. I choose to trust in the idea that a God of my own understanding exists because I find that doing so works in a positive way for me whether God exists or not. So your question is being misapplied, here.

I am not interested in "what works". I am interested in what is true. I believe the evidence for Zeus is such that I do not believe he is real. Atheism speaks to evidence. If there is some God out in reality not related to the fictional Gods in myths then great. When I see some evidence I'll consider it. I would love it if Thor was real. I'm not agnostic about Thor. Atheism is more of a statement about theism, which is equally as fantasy as Thor or Superman. I trust empirical and logical thinking and believe it should be taught, spread and encouraged. I find atheism works in a positive way because it encourages scientific thought.
This year we saw election fraud conspiracies and Trump as the world savior conspiracies because people lack critical thinking.

 

[AppieB]

Logic defines atheism. I would think atheists, who are constantly touting the importance of logic, would appreciate that.

That doesn't sound ... ehh ... very logical.
Can you show how logic defines atheism?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I'm often confused by atheists (amongst other groups).
Ultimately it's a hard position to defend in any sort of 'normal' way, since even the most ardent atheists aren't really saying you can prove its true. So instead you run the risk of attacking other positions to try and convince people they're wrong, leaving them with atheism.

I think arguments of utility are interesting though, and can stand somewhat separate from arguments of 'fact'.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheism is the counter-assertion that no gods exist.

No it isn't. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it makes no assertions.

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

No indeed, but your definition is not the one in the dictionary. I can't speak to how other atheists define their disbelief, but mine reflects the primary dictionary definition.

Atheism.
noun
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

However an atheist can hold contrary beliefs to theism, they would still be an atheist. So your claim they are confused seems to have this backwards.

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about nature or existence of god.

If the god concept being premised is unfalsifiable I would have to be agnostic about it, I would also have to withhold belief, as I do with all unfalsifiable claims as they are meaningless. It is however entirely incumbent upon theists to accurately define the deity they claim exists, and then demsonrate sufficient objective evidence for it, before I will believe their claim.

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

Why do you keep insisting I can't be both an agnostic and an atheist? It is epistemologically sound and rationally consistent to disbelieve a claim if we can know nothing about it. I'm not sure why this has to repeatedly explained.

 

[Sheldon]

Logic defines atheism. I would think atheists, who are constantly touting the importance of logic, would appreciate that.

No it doesn't, dictionaries define words, and those definition reflect common usage, This confusion your showing is at the heart of your errancy throughout this thread. Just Google the word atheism and type definition after it.

atheism definition - Google Search

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, I have no idea where you got the idea it defines words, that's just bizarre?

 

[HonestJoe]

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'.

You appreciate that is entirely a function of the definition of that kind of god? Believers unilaterally declared that their god can't be knows (which is convenient for them ).

However, this leaves the proposal of God's existence to be a possibility

Literally anything that isn't implicitly self-contradictory is possible. That in itself doesn't really mean anything.

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?

Exactly the same reason we do that for almost everything else. We very rarely have all of the information necessary to reach definitive conclusions so we typically reach "best guess" conclusions on the basis of the evidence that is available. We may even temper our responses to account for that uncertainty. Most of the time that is sufficient.

In the context of specific religions, there are various things we're told we must do (including actively believing in a particular god) so we're essentially forced in to reaching a conclusion on way or another. Lots of peoples "best guesses" lead them away from believing in any particular god or gods.

Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).

I think there is a risk of getting caught up with labels there, and in this context, they're often more trouble than they're worth, having ranges of definitions and meanings held by different people.

In practice, I don't think the complex picture of individual knowledge and belief can be legitimately pigeon-holed in to so few simplistic labels. In practice, I'd suggest you need about seven billion labels.

What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent.

Belief isn't a choice by definition. If someone doesn't believe in any particular god or gods, that is how they are. That position could certainly be changed by different information or experience but nobody can simply choose to believe or not believe. "We don't know" is indeed a valid (and IMO correct) statement but nobody can hold that statement in isolation.

 

[Sheldon]

I am agnostic about the existence of God/gods. I choose to trust in the idea that a God of my own understanding exists because I find that doing so works in a positive way for me whether God exists or not.

Then you're not an agnostic, as agnosticism negates the idea you can have any understanding of a deity, it is in the definition, seriously consult a dictionary.

I'm always surprised when people relentlessly and stridently express demonstrably errant views, that they could correct with a cursory look at a dictionary definition? Especially in this day and age, when you don't even need to pull a book or turn a page, and can Google the dictionary defection in seconds.

agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

agnosticism definition - Google Search