• 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.

PureX

Veteran Member
That doesn't sound ... ehh ... very logical.
Can you show how logic defines atheism?
Theism - God/gods exist.
Atheism - the antithetical - either can't decide or don't exist.

Since the undecided option is already called agnosticism, that leaves the don't exist option alone to be called atheism.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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).

Your mistake is in that you think that "agnosticism" is some "third choice" to the binary question "do you believe".

It is not.

(a)gnoticism does not deal with the same subject matter as (a)theism does.

(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge. (a)theism pertains to belief.

They are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they are complementary.

Hi, I am an agnostic atheist.
I don't believe the claim that a god exists and I don't know if there is such a thing as gods.
Which incidently is exactly the reason why I don't believe one exists. I have no reason to.

I'm agnostic about unicorns and centaurs also for the same reason.

What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism,

I'ld say that it is the default. Always. On all matters.
The default answer to "do you believe X is true", will always be "no" unless there is sufficient reason to say "yes". What reasons would be sufficient, would off course depend on the definition of X.

But the point is that extra information is required to inform and justify believing the statement.

When it comes to the god question, it's not the case at all that I'm "choosing" to say "no". Instead, I have insufficient reason to say "yes". So, rather then "choosing", I am sticking to the default "no".

And if you don't agree that the default stance is always one of disbelief, then I promise to give you 100k worth in gold if you wire me only 1000 bucks first.


But the main point here.....
Atheism - theism is a binary position on a single issue. agnosticism is, at best, a qualifier of whatever position you find yourself in.

upload_2021-10-25_15-13-3.png


I can't even get them to acknowledge the logic behind my question.

Because your question isn't logical in that it is loaded with false assumptions.

CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)

In summary: atheism is the default. It's theism that requires you to do something extra, which is believing certain claims.

You have to actually do something to be a theist.
NOT doing that thing, means you are an atheist by default.

It's one or the other.
Agnosticism is not some third choice between them.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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?


Atheism is answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?"
Atheism is NOT the claim "there are no gods".
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yeah, the problem with that, is that I came across an old dictionary where atheism was defined as evil.
.

Since I quite specifically said I was using the primary dictionary definition, and not an old disused version, I can't see the problem sorry? When someone uses a word, if they don't state otherwise the assumption must be they are talking about the primary definition currently in the dictionary. The thread author seems to me to be trying to force all atheist into a definition that suits his own beliefs, and had little to do with how the dictionary defines the word atheism.

Since dictionaries reflect common usage, it's dishonest to assign definitions that don't reflect this as if they are the primary definition, rather than what you mean by it, or if you are using an archaic definition that no longer reflects what common usage of the words means. That's why we have dictionaries, and while etymology is fascinating, dishonest semantics is just tiresome.

It's clear the author is a theist, it's clear from his own posts he isn't an agnostic, unless he doesn't know what it means, as he has made assertions about what he believes the nature of a deity to be, which is negated by agnosticism.

So sometimes you can't win and neither can I, because we are playing cognitive relativism in the end.

I don't see this about winning or losing, but about using a reference tool like a dictionary correctly. We have common usage definitions in dictionaries for a reason, if you are deviating from that, which anyone is entitled to do, whether it is a secondary definitions or utilising etymology to make a point, then the honest thing to do is specify this. The author of the thread has not been honest here. IMHO.

Off course for that we need the correct and proper definitions of the words involved including correct, proper and definition

Indeed, and that is why we have dictionaries for reference, if we are deviating from those definitions, as the author has done repeatedly, then it is disingenuous of him to pretend he is speaking for an entire demographic, or even broadly for a significant number of atheists. As beyond my lack of belief in any deity or deities, which is what the primary dictionary definition of that word currently tells us, he can't know what I do or do not believe until I tell him, yet he has posted erroneous assumptions about atheists and atheism throughout this discourse. he has also dishonestly implied that agnosticism and atheism are somehow mutually exclusive, which they clearly are not.

Unfalsifiable claims are easy to create, but nothing can be asserted from not knowing something. This is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. i have seem many theists attempt to reverse the burden of proof using this fallacy.

If a claim is unfalsifiable I consider it to be meaningless, as I can know nothing about it, I must therefore remain agnostic, i cannot do otherwise. Now I can either believe all unfalsifiable claims, whish is impossible as it will inevitably lead to believing contradictory claims, or i can believe one or some of them, which is clearly biased as there is no objective difference. So I am left with rational and epistemologically consistent position of disbelieving them all. This then is my position.

So i am an atheist, as I do not believe in any deity or deities as no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence for any deity. if the deity being imagined is also an unfalsifiable concept, then I also must remain an agnostic.

The author keeps telling me I can't do this, and has yet to address the fact that I am both an agnostic, at least where deities imagined are unfalsifiable concepts, and an atheist.

In my experience when a debate starts with someone dishonestly misrepresenting a basic word definition, there is little hope they will be diverted from their agenda with facts or reason.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Theism - God/gods exist.
Atheism - the antithetical - either can't decide or don't exist.

Wrong.

Theism
noun
  1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Atheism
noun
  1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Again consult a dictionary.
Since the undecided option is already called agnosticism,
Sigh, wrong...

Agnostic
noun
plural noun: agnostics
  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
that leaves the don't exist option alone to be called atheism.
Atheism has a definition that is derived from common usage, it's just dishonest semantics you are using here to pursue your own agenda as a theist, and I am starting to wonder how much of this refusal on your part to acknowledge obvious facts is trolling?

You also keep making assertions about the nature and existence of a deity you believe exists, that means you are not an agnostic.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
But that's a very subjective reason, not a logical one. So what, no individual has to adhere to principles of logic. Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in a deity, the assumptions you're making about atheists are facile, as an atheist can believe whatever they wish, just not in any deity or deities.

And although you will claim that by "making sense to you", you mean it's logical, that doesn't mean it's logical. That's clearly a straw man fallacy, which is pretty hilarious given you're insisting others must not violate principles of logic.

Which is why I'm asking for the logic. While using known common logical fallacy yourself, like the straw man fallacy you used above. Pretty ironic.

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'? Firstly he is free to assume whatever he wishes, why does he have to adhere to logic? I've seen countless theists violate logical principles, including you here? Secondly just because an atheist chooses to make an irrational assumption, this doesn't in any way validate your unevidenced assertion that atheism is irrational. Atheism and atheist are not the same thing

For the record, I disbelieve in all deities for the same reason I disbelieve in mermaids and unicorns, because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence to support their existence.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
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.

So really, this entire thread is about how to define a word, and your complete evasion of the reasons why people don't believe in gods. You ask for reasons, and then you refuse all the reasons we give as not relevant.

Do you think redefining atheism will let you win, because now there are fewer atheists?
Do you think the accelerating rate of deconversions from Christianity to a non-belief in the Western world and particularly in the US, will slow down or stop because you narrowly redefine a word?
Do you think there is a functional difference in how people behave, if one group believes there are no theistic gods, versus another group who tentatively believes it 99.999% likely that there are no theistic gods, but are open to new evidence changing their mind?
Do you think we should only believe claims once there is enough good evidence, or that we should believe all claims until enough good evidence proves it wrong?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Since I quite specifically said I was using the primary dictionary definition, and not an old disused version, I can't see the problem sorry? When someone uses a word, if they don't state otherwise the assumption must be they are talking about the primary definition currently in the dictionary. The thread author seems to me to be trying to force all atheist into a definition that suits his own beliefs, and had little to do with how the dictionary defines the word atheism.

Since dictionaries reflect common usage, it's dishonest to assign definitions that don't reflect this as if they are the primary definition, rather than what you mean by it, or if you are using an archaic definition that no longer reflects what common usage of the words means. That's why we have dictionaries, and while etymology is fascinating, dishonest semantics is just tiresome.

It's clear the author is a theist, it's clear from his own posts he isn't an agnostic, unless he doesn't know what it means, as he has made assertions about what he believes the nature of a deity to be, which is negated by agnosticism.



I don't see this about winning or losing, but about using a reference tool like a dictionary correctly. We have common usage definitions in dictionaries for a reason, if you are deviating from that, which anyone is entitled to do, whether it is a secondary definitions or utilising etymology to make a point, then the honest thing to do is specify this. The author of the thread has not been honest here. IMHO.



Indeed, and that is why we have dictionaries for reference, if we are deviating from those definitions, as the author has done repeatedly, then it is disingenuous of him to pretend he is speaking for an entire demographic, or even broadly for a significant number of atheists. As beyond my lack of belief in any deity or deities, which is what the primary dictionary definition of that word currently tells us, he can't know what I do or do not believe until I tell him, yet he has posted erroneous assumptions about atheists and atheism throughout this discourse. he has also dishonestly implied that agnosticism and atheism are somehow mutually exclusive, which they clearly are not.

Unfalsifiable claims are easy to create, but nothing can be asserted from not knowing something. This is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. i have seem many theists attempt to reverse the burden of proof using this fallacy.

If a claim is unfalsifiable I consider it to be meaningless, as I can know nothing about it, I must therefore remain agnostic, i cannot do otherwise. Now I can either believe all unfalsifiable claims, whish is impossible as it will inevitably lead to believing contradictory claims, or i can believe one or some of them, which is clearly biased as there is no objective difference. So I am left with rational and epistemologically consistent position of disbelieving them all. This then is my position.

So i am an atheist, as I do not believe in any deity or deities as no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence for any deity. if the deity being imagined is also an unfalsifiable concept, then I also must remain an agnostic.

The author keeps telling me I can't do this, and has yet to address the fact that I am both an agnostic, at least where deities imagined are unfalsifiable concepts, and an atheist.

In my experience when a debate starts with someone dishonestly misrepresenting a basic word definition, there is little hope they will be diverted from their agenda with facts or reason.

Well written.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Can you measure rights, laws or borders?
This is not a good analogy for theists who believe their god exists outside of human imagination. Rights, laws, borders are all human constructs that don't do anything independently of humans.

There are things that exist purely in our collective imagination and we can (mostly) agree on their properties.
Right, we are very consistent in what we think Santa Claus is. We are probably more consistent in what we think Santa is than Christians think their god is. Christians can't agree if Jesus is God, if the Trinity is three properties of one God, if it hates gays or not, if it allows slavery, etc.

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.
Even wars couldn't settle the disagreements of what the one true God is.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
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.
Atheism or non-theism is just not believing in any god or gods.

Self-identifying atheists do not define atheism. Again, you are confusing the idea with people. Why do you keep doing this?
Atheism is already defined. It's not believing in a god or gods.

Most people are agnostic, and most atheists admit to being agnostic. So the question is why don't they simply remin agnostic.
Everyone is agnostic about gods because no one has any evidence or knowledge of any gods.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is not a good analogy for theists who believe their god exists outside of human imagination.
It wasn't meant as such. It is just a counterargument to demanding physical evidence for an immaterial god.
If a theist claims an immaterial god, no evidence is necessary. Prove of consensus about the construct would suffice.
It is just so that almost all theists I debated claim an immaterial god to avoid the burden of proof and claimed physical interaction in the next paragraph. (And of course prove of consensus couldn't be given either.)
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Theists are theists because they have claim knowledge of the supernatural.
Some, if not most, do. But it's apparent they are confusing their tradition of religious dogma as knowledge of God. That would be more like a literary class has knowledge of Hobbits if they focus on the TLOTR series of books.

This is the blurry line that theists and atheists dispute. Theists believe what they learn from religion is evidence of their God while atheists observe what is happening is that theists learn about the characterization of any given God (depending on the religion, or even sects). Hindus don't learn about the God Muslims believe in. Theists learn about characterizations, and this belief is confused as knowledge of an actual God, because that is part of what they learn.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Some, if not most, do. But it's apparent they are confusing their tradition of religious dogma as knowledge of God. That would be more like a literary class has knowledge of Hobbits if they focus on the TLOTR series of books.

This is the blurry line that theists and atheists dispute. Theists believe what they learn from religion is evidence of their God while atheists observe what is happening is that theists learn about the characterization of any given God (depending on the religion, or even sects). Hindus don't learn about the God Muslims believe in. Theists learn about characterizations, and this belief is confused as knowledge of an actual God, because that is part of what they learn.
It seems that you agree with my view that theists
"claim" rather than "have" knowledge of their gods.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It wasn't meant as such. It is just a counterargument to demanding physical evidence for an immaterial god.
It still doesn't work.

a theist claims an immaterial god, no evidence is necessary.
No evidence is possible. But then the next question is: how does a material being (human) claim to know an immaterial God exists at all? Are they lying? Bluffing? Confused? Just adopted an absurd belief without thinking? Have special abilities or powers?

For the theist to be correct they need to answer HOW they know.

Prove of consensus about the construct would suffice.
Consensus of a set of believers means nothing if there still isn't any rational basis for what they believe.

It is just so that almost all theists I debated claim an immaterial god to avoid the burden of proof and claimed physical interaction in the next paragraph. (And of course prove of consensus couldn't be given either.)
Right. Theses claimants are in over their heads and fail to understand what it is they are claiming. They trap themselves. All their opponent has to do is point out the errors.
 

AppieB

Active Member
Theism - God/gods exist.
Atheism - the antithetical - either can't decide or don't exist.

Since the undecided option is already called agnosticism, that leaves the don't exist option alone to be called atheism.
Ehh... No.

Theism is not: God/gods exist
Theism is: The belief God/gods exist

Logically it is either p or not p (p or -p)

The negation of Theism is: Not Theism
or: Not belief God/gods exist

Logic doesn't really help your case.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It still doesn't work.


No evidence is possible. But then the next question is: how does a material being (human) claim to know an immaterial God exists at all? Are they lying? Bluffing? Confused? Just adopted an absurd belief without thinking? Have special abilities or powers?

For the theist to be correct they need to answer HOW they know.


Consensus of a set of believers means nothing if there still isn't any rational basis for what they believe.


Right. Theses claimants are in over their heads and fail to understand what it is they are claiming. They trap themselves. All their opponent has to do is point out the errors.

Yes, all well and fair.
Fact - religion is wrong in a certain non-moral sense. What ought we do about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top