A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

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.

...

Yeah, the problem with that, is that I came across an old dictionary where atheism was defined as evil. You can start with the common folk usage of a word and then you could e.g. find a site like this:
Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The game we are playing is that yes, common understandings of a word is important, but that means that the God is the creator of the universe.
So sometimes you can't win and neither can I, because we are playing cognitive relativism in the end. Off course for that we need the correct and proper definitions of the words involved including correct, proper and definition and the correct model of how words work in relationship to objective reality. Good luck with that.

 

[blü 2]

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'.

Are you admitting that (like me) you have no idea what a non-imaginary God, a real one, could actually be?

"I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.

Before you can say that, you need to know what real thing the word "God" is intended to denote, if by 'exists' you mean 'has objective existence, is real'.

Or otherwise, what specific thing existing purely as a concept / thing imagined you intend to denote.

If those questions lack clear answers, you can understand why igtheism is a reasoned position,

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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)

I tend to err on the side of a god led agnosticism. However I find it impossible to define that GOD.
From my point of view there might have been something with recognisable intelligence that caused the universe to come into being. In doing so It may or not have had a purpose in mind.
However I am fairly convinced that this creation was not for the benefit of man, because in the terms of the life of the universe we are ephemeral at best, and clearly insignificant.

On the question of Gods, it is less clear. because if there was this creator entity. it is equally likely or unlikely, that there could be other entities that have an interest in significant parts or happenings of the universe.

There is no logical reason to believe that the entity that caused the universe to come into being, also takes the roll of a local
Interested party. On the principal that if there is one there could be many.

However all such thoughts are purely speculative and total Agnosticism seems the preferred option.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Well, maybe there's a difference between pure, theoretical logic and a more practical logic that we have to deal with on a daily basis.

If I'm out driving my car, I do not have any faith that any "god" will take control if I throw up my hands, close my eyes, and let "Jesus take the wheel" (as the song goes).

In that kind of situation, my assumption would be "there is no god." On a practical level, one has to operate under that assumption, even if one might be more agnostic on a purely philosophical level.

If someone is bleeding or injured, then it would be my moral and civic duty to help, because I'm assuming "there is no god" to help that person. In such a circumstance, there wouldn't be any time to dither over whether there might be a god or whether anyone knows if there is a god to save this person.

So, in practical, real-life situations, I can see where one might find it preferable to operate under the assumption that "there is no god."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, maybe there's a difference between pure, theoretical logic and a more practical logic that we have to deal with on a daily basis.

If I'm out driving my car, I do not have any faith that any "god" will take control if I throw up my hands, close my eyes, and let "Jesus take the wheel" (as the song goes).

In that kind of situation, my assumption would be "there is no god." On a practical level, one has to operate under that assumption, even if one might be more agnostic on a purely philosophical level.

If someone is bleeding or injured, then it would be my moral and civic duty to help, because I'm assuming "there is no god" to help that person. In such an circumstance, there wouldn't be any time to dither over whether there might be a god or whether anyone knows if there is a god to save this person.

So, in practical, real-life situations, I can see where one might find it preferable to operate under the assumption that "there is no god."

Well, my Christian wife answers that God gives us the nuts, but He doesn't crack them for us. Yes, that is apologetics and so what? It works for her and she doesn't demand of me, that I must believe like her.

 

[Polymath257]

This why I made this thread. I worry that these new 'atheists' are rejecting insightful tools like intuition, and creativity, and spirituality in favor of an obsession with logic and reason and materialism that is not as positive and powerful as they assume it to be.

Intuition and creativity have their place. In fact, they are essential for the new ideas that are crucial for advancing understanding. But they need to be tested: they are often wrong and misguided.

I;ve never quite figured out what 'sprituality' means, so I can't say when it comes to that.

It isn't what we believe that really matters, it's what we become because of it.

I disagree. I think that what we believe or disbelieve also matters. it isn't an either/or situation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Intuition and creativity have their place. In fact, they are essential for the new ideas that are crucial for advancing understanding. But they need to be tested: they are often wrong and misguided.

I;ve never quite figured out what 'sprituality' means, so I can't say when it comes to that.



I disagree. I think that what we believe or disbelieve also matters. it isn't an either/or situation.

And I don't believe in your: "If we agree, we can do science and so on..." So we don't agree on agreeing for all cases of what makes science science.

You are of natural science, and you only agree with your understanding of what science is. The problem is that if we agree differently, science changes, but of course you subjectively decide for us all, what is useful in what reality really is? Or have you become more of a skeptic?

 

[Polymath257]

"Disbelief" is a meaningless (empty) term. That's why so many atheist are hiding behind it.

I strongly disagree.

For example, I don't have a belief in life on other planets. The evidence is simply not there. If I had to *bet*, I would bet that there is other single-celled life in our galaxy, but that isn't knowledge. So I disbelieve at this point.

I do not believe that dark matter is made from axions. It very well may, but I do not have evidence of this, although it is possible. I lack this belief. if new evidence comes in, I may change my mind.

I do not believe there is a supernatural. The evidence is simply not there. it is possible, but less likely than other life in our galaxy. If I had to *bet*, I would bet that there is no supernatural. But that is not knowledge: it is belief/disbelief.

So, think of it like this: atheists say about God(s) that the evidence is lacking to the point that if they had to bet, they would bet against existence of God(s). I, personally, find the whole idea rather bizarre and can't understand why anyone would want to believe in such. it seems like a very strange fantasy to me.

 

[Polymath257]

"Belief" is illogical and unnecessary in relation to effecting probability. Also, you have no logical method of establishing the probability of God's existence. I respect that you THINK you do (just as theists also often think they do). But it's not logically possible. We humans don't have the cognitive scope for it.

And, in the metaphysics that I have adopted, that is a perfectly good reason for rejecting the idea. if it makes no difference, it is irrelevant.

Atheist are constantly claiming themselves to be operating on "evidence and logic", while the claim theists are not. Since there is no evidence to support choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic, I am asking for the logic of it.

And, when told, you reject that logic. The logic is that we don't believe without evidence. it really is that simple.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I strongly disagree.

For example, I don't have a belief in life on other planets. The evidence is simply not there. If I had to *bet*, I would bet that there is other single-celled life in our galaxy, but that isn't knowledge. So I disbelieve at this point.

I do not believe that dark matter is made from axions. It very well may, but I do not have evidence of this, although it is possible. I lack this belief. if new evidence comes in, I may change my mind.

I do not believe there is a supernatural. The evidence is simply not there. it is possible, but less likely than other life in our galaxy. If I had to *bet*, I would bet that there is no supernatural. But that is not knowledge: it is belief/disbelief.

So, think of it like this: atheists say about God(s) that the evidence is lacking to the point that if they had to bet, they would bet against existence of God(s). I, personally, find the whole idea rather bizarre and can't understand why anyone would want to believe in such. it seems like a very strange fantasy to me.

From the bold doesn't follow an universal we for all humanity.

 

[Revoltingest]

But arguably both theists and atheists are agnostic since there is no actual knowledge on the table.

Theists are theists because they have claim knowledge of the supernatural.

 

[Polymath257]

WHAT anyone claims God is, is not relevant to this conversation. THAT someone has claimed 'God is', is the issue. And more precisely, how the atheist logically rationalizes their chosen response to that claim.

And you have been told that logic.

They claim they do so based on "evidence" and on "logic". Yet even they agree that they have no evidence, so all I'm left with is the logic claim. And that's what I'm asking for in this thread: their logical reasoning for choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic.

A claim was made: that God exists. The evidence for this claim is lacking, in spite of attempts over thousands of years. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. So, the claim is not supported and I do not believe it.

It really is that simple.

You can, however, choose to stop foolishly assuming that the lack of evidence has somehow becomes evidence of a lack. All that requires is a little honest reasoning on your part.

There are many times that lack of evidence means evidence of a lack.

The fact that I have a lack of evidence for an elephant in my room is *very* good evidence that there is no elephant in my room.

So the question is whether the existence would lead one to believe evidence would be available. For the elephant in the room, the answer is that evidence would be expected if such a thing existed. And so the lack of evidence is good enough to conclude no elephant exists in my room.

In the case of God(s), many people have attempted to provide evidence or reason to believe in such an entity. Every single example has failed to do so, over the course of thousands of years. Furthermore, some are NOW claiming there can *be* no such evidence.

And the claim that there can be no evidence is quite enough for me to consider the position as untenable. So I don't believe it.

This is precisely the same logic I would use when considering unicorns, Big Foot, axions, dark matter, or *any* other existence claim. Look at the evidence and make a conclusion is the burden of proof has been met. It not, then don't believe it.

Then don't. Religion isn't really at issue, here. Neither is believing anything.

I disagree. Belief is the central issue here. An atheist does not believe in God(s). Theists do.

 

[Polymath257]

From the bold doesn't follow an universal we for all humanity.

So? Nobody claimed it did. I am giving the logic I use.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheist are constantly claiming themselves to be operating on "evidence and logic", while the claim theists are not. Since there is no evidence to support choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic, I am asking for the logic of it.

That is an odd post.
In other threads, you've repeatedly castigated me for
disbelieving in gods. My reason, ie, that there's no
evidence for their existence, was insufficient to not
believe in them.
Now it appears that you might accept weak atheism.
So.....which is it....disbelief in gods is rational or not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So? Nobody claimed it did. I am giving the logic I use.

Okay, then just remember that when we play: If just we agreed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I disagree, I think Quran has been proven to be from God and many have proven it. You just have to do research..

If this were true, there would be a lot more people accepting of it and a lot more people promoting it by now in my estimation. I mean, look at the track record of items of knowledge of particular import that have been discovered to be true (from both a productive and predictive standpoint) throughout history. Let's take the germ theory of disease, for example. Here's an excerpt of a brief historical description:

A transitional period began in the late 1850s with the work of Louis Pasteur. This work was later extended by Robert Koch in the 1880s. By the end of that decade, the miasma theory was struggling to compete with the germ theory of disease. Viruses were initially discovered in the 1890s.

So, within half a century start-to-finish, one theory was toppled by another due to the sheer weight of evidence and the productivity of the methods being employed based on the knowledge of how germs function. And now, even children are aware of germs, how they should wash their hands, etc. At least a basic form of the knowledge is ubiquitous. In fact, just try to escape it and you will have a pretty hard time. Not to mention that any opponents to the theory could be quickly and easily shot down as you show them what's under a microscope, and then introduce to them methods by which they can carry out care and medicine that see marked results toward helping healing processes and keeping people alive and well. Results, in other words, that cannot easily be denied.

Islam and the Quran are NOT LIKE THIS. Not by a long shot. You've had over a thousand years now to get people on-board, and yet what do you have to show them as evidence? Items that are far more easily dismissed than anything being shown to anyone as evidence of germs. And yet you would likely claim that the "reality" of God is even more fundamental and more easily accessible than the reality of germs. Do you not understand how strange that is?

You're shooting blanks with the Quran. There is really, really good reason that this is the case, but you refuse to hear it. Keep looking for the correct evidence though. The more you waste your time doing so, the less you will be out there actually convincing people who are gullible enough to be convinced - and I estimate that a very, very good thing.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Actually the original argument, says, you must not believe in something for fear of hell. This how he solves the problem of other religions that have hell, like Islam, which Pascal sees as false. So part of the toolkit is to search for truth and not accept something while not knowing to be true.

Eh? Sorry, didn't understand your comments.

 

[PureX]

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.

But that's a very subjective reason, not a logical one. And although you will claim that by "making sense to you", you mean it's logical, that doesn't mean it's logical. Which is why I'm asking for the logic.

For example, justice is a "human creation", yet I assume you aren't presuming that justice does't exist. Or that it's existence has no effect in and on reality. So why have you chosen to assume so with 'God'?

 

[Stevicus]

Well, my Christian wife answers that God gives us the nuts, but He doesn't crack them for us. Yes, that is apologetics and so what? It works for her and she doesn't demand of me, that I must believe like her.

For those who want to believe that God gave us nuts, then so be it. People can believe whatever they want to believe, and it's no skin off me.

 

[PureX]

I am not interested in "what works". I am interested in what is true.

As a limited human, you can't have the truth of God because even if you had it, you couldn't know it was the truth of God. How could you? What possible evidence could there be that you could not logically doubt?