A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[PureX]

Sounds a bit like an agnostic to me.

Yup. An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.

So you don't really care if what you believe is true.

I don't "believe" so why would I care about what I don't believe?

You are just faking it because you thinks it's valuable.

I'm not faking anything, and I know it's valuable; I'm the evaluator.

Hey, whatever rocks your boat. But I find it peculiar you call atheists "illogical".

You should go back and reread the opening post until you understand it, then. It asks for the logical reasoning for choosing atheism even though one is agnostic. Theists do it because they gain from the possibility of there being a God. But what's to be gained from negating a possibility? Nothing, really.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

This illustrates your confusion. You were asked to justify the claim: "Logic defines atheism." and yet you use a definition of atheism as a premiss, which would make it circular, except that your conclusion re-defines it and hence contradicts one of your premisses. Well done on the logic front.

A valid (it can't be sound because your premisses are false) conclusion from your premisses would be that agnosticism is a subset of atheism (which it isn't because you can have agnostic theists too).

 

[Koldo]

God is first and foremost an ideal (the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is). Whether or not we choose to imagine God as a "discrete entity" doesn't change that. I could choose to imagine justice as a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales, but that doesn't change the fact that justice is an ideal.

I disagree. God is first and foremost a discrete entity and it is never an ideal.
Being the source of something, or even everything, is not an ideal.
Being the sustenance of something, or even everything, is not an ideal.
Being the purpose of all that is, however, is indeed an ideal. But saying that God is the purpose of everything is a meaningless assertion. It is devoid of meaning. Therefore, God is not the purpose of all that is.

 

[Sheldon]

An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.

An agnostic who's not an agnostic then. or maybe an agnostic who doesn't know what agnostic means.

For those who are interested in why that is a contradiction, I've emboldened a clue.

 

[HonestJoe]

Theism proposes that God/gods exist (and that this existence effects humanity, or the proposal is moot). It does not propose any kind of God.

Theism doesn't do anything; it's an abstract concept. It's a label identifying a characteristic. As a general label, it doesn't define anything about the god a theist believes in itself but any given theist will believe in a specifically defined god (or set of gods).

However, a common universal definition of "God" would be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Ultimately, however, it leaves the definition up to each of us.

A common definition of God maybe, not necessarily common (certainly not universal) definition of god though.

Why do you feel the need to establish and offer your "best guess" regarding the existence of God/gods when there is insufficient evidence available for you to make such a determination? Since the evidence cannot support your choice, I am asking for the logical support of it.

It's a best guess is because there is insufficient evidence available. Some kind of conclusion is necessary because the existence of specific gods is proposed with sets of specific beliefs and actions associated with them. If someone says "You should do X because Y exists", the first thing you need to reach a conclusion about whether Y does actually exist or not (which could well be some level of "maybe").

And, of course, I didn't believe in any gods before the first person told me about them (or at least one of them).

 

[Sheldon]

It asks for the logical reasoning for choosing atheism even though one is agnostic.

Because it is absurdly irrational to believe a claim, if you admit you can know nothing about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

It asks for the logical reasoning for choosing atheism even though one is agnostic.

It's logical not to accept a proposition for which no evidence or sound reasoning has been offered (philosophical burden of proof).

Theists do it because they gain from the possibility of there being a God.

You seem to want to speak for all theists, or think you are doing. Many do so because they actually think one particular god(s)-claim is absolutely, literally true and they may also absolutely believe they will go to a literal heaven for eternity and be spared from a literal hell, provided they do as their told, that is. Do all theists gain something? Do you imagine that this applies to theist suicide bombers, for example? Faith is a loose cannon, it can lead to virtually any conclusion because it's not based on rationality and logic.

But what's to be gained from negating a possibility?

By not accepting (rather than negating) baseless propositions, you gain a set of beliefs that are based on evidence and sound reasoning.

 

[PureX]

This illustrates your confusion. You were asked to justify the claim: "Logic defines atheism." and yet you use a definition of atheism as a premiss, which would make it circular, except that your conclusion re-defines it and hence contradicts one of your premisses. Well done on the logic front.

A valid (it can't be sound because your premisses are false) conclusion from your premisses would be that agnosticism is a subset of atheism (which it isn't because you can have agnostic theists too).

Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism. The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist. So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism. Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.

 

[AppieB]

Yup. An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.

If it's ok (or logical) for you (a theist) to be agnostic, why couldn't an atheist be agnostic?

In your OP you say: "What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent."

But you yourself are choosing the presumption of theism. You say the reason is: "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. "

Wouldn't the benefit for atheists be that we don't have to worry about God, heaven or hell, spend (read: loose) time in church/praying/whatever. Dealing with reality as it is. Sounds to me like a better life.

 

[Kooky]

Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism.

Logic "dictates" nothing, and since you haven't even declared what your premises are, I have to surmise that all logic-this and that is little more than puffing up what are essentially arbitrary claims with no basis in anything but self-assured, blind faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism. The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist. So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism. Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.

Bad premises afflict those who scorn dictionaries.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Well it is pure assumption an immaterial deity exists, and defining a deity in a way that makes evidencing it impossible doesn't make the belief more credible, quite the opposite.




Sorry but that is wrong, all claims carry an epistemological "burden of proof." Why would a bare assertion get a pass, just because it created to be unfalsifiable?



again I'd have to disagree, as without objective evidence that is just a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.



I'm not clear whether this was something you argued for or against, however I see flaws in the reason anyway.

1. The claim a deity is immaterial is meaningless without ant evidence to support it.
2. Creating an unfalsifiable concept doesn't mean the concept has no burden of proof, otherwise we can simply imagine things into existence as and when we please.
3. A consensus is only significant if it based on evidence and knowledge, a bare appeal to numbers is a known logical fallacy, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. So whether there is a consensus or not on the claim, it is meaningless without evidence to support it, and also irrational of course, as is any claim based on a known logical fallacy.

Do you agree that the US of A exist? (Or any other country for that matter.)
And can you prove it without resorting to an argumentum ad populum?
You can't. It only exists by agreement - like all constructs.
If some theists were able to construct a god that had the same agreement behind it as the US, it would exist in the same way a country exists, or a law or a right.

 

[Sheldon]

Theists do it because they gain from the possibility of there being a God. i don't believe your claim.

But what's to be gained from negating a possibility? Nothing, really. Atheism does not negate the possibility of a deity, it merely donates a lack of belief, as does my own atheism. What I gain is not believing in unevidenced superstition, which I find irrational, and I gain from not adhering to archaic and bigoted dogma and doctrine, much of which I find morally repulsive, and of course, since I care whether what I believe is true, I gain the satisfaction of setting a stringent but objective standard for what I believe.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you agree that the US of A exist? (Or any other country for that matter.)
And can you prove it without resorting to an argumentum ad populum?

Yes, and yes.

You can't. It only exists by agreement - like all constructs.

Thus it does exist, as you have just admitted, you can't ask if a country exists, then set an arbitrary standard for existence that negates the existence of a country, that is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There is also objective evidence countries exist, boarders, passports, etc that can be tested.

If some theists were able to construct a god that had the same agreement behind it as the US, it would exist in the same way a country exists, or a law or a right.

You mean as an imaginary concept? Ok, I'll grant you that the imaginary concept of a deity "exists".

However I was not making any claims that a deity didn't exist, imagined or otherwise, I only commented that the claim an immaterial deity existed was pure assumption, and while one can use unevidenced assumptions to create imagined characteristics for a deity they've imagined, those imagined characteristics don't represent evidence that the deity is real.

 

[Sheldon]

Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism.

The dictionary amply demonstrates this. Whoever implied they were the same thing anyway?

So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism.

Naturally, but again this is a straw man fallacy as nobody has claimed otherwise.

Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.

Nonsense, it is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Thus it is not the same as agnosticism, but neither are they mutually exclusive. In fact since agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known, about the nature or existence of a deity, it would be irrational not to withhold belief, unless of course you generally believe claims you admit you can know nothing about, which would inevitably mean you would end up holding contradictory beliefs. that doesn't strike me as a rational position.

It's bizarre you think repetition will lend any credence to your sophistry and semantics, one wonders what it is you hope to achieve?

 

[Heyo]

You mean as an imaginary concept? Ok, I'll grant you that the imaginary concept of a deity "exists".

However I was not making any claims that a deity didn't exist, imagined or otherwise, I only commented that the claim an immaterial deity existed was pure assumption, and while one can use unevidenced assumptions to create imagined characteristics for a deity they've imagined, those imagined characteristics don't represent evidence that the deity is real.

I think you got it. You are new here so first, welcome to RF and second, I started a thread some time ago which I keep referencing (5 Planes of Existence) which might explain better what my position is about.

Btw: I don't think the imaginary concept of a deity exists. I think it could exist if it had enough support among the theists.

 

[Sheldon]

You are new here so first, welcome to RF

Thank you.

 

[Polymath257]

Language does not determine logic. In fact, the way people use words is often very illogical, and even meant to be. Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that. Theism is a truth claim. Atheism is the counter claim. And agnosticism is the state or condition of non-determination.

No, and again no.

The claim is that God(s) exists.

Theism is the belief that the claim is true.

Atheism is the lack of belief that this claim is true.

Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about this claim is impossible.

We humans, on the other hand, are all over the place and often in ten places at once. We cannot use ourselves to define these terms or we will not be able to communicate at all.

Maybe if you listen to how people use the language, better communication would be possible.

MOST atheists do NOT make the claim that no God(s) exists. They simply do not believe that one does.

You are, in essence, fighting against *hard atheism*.

Now, there *are* good reasons to support hard atheism, including metaphysical positions on what it means for something to exist. In particular, the position that if there *cannot be* evidence for or against, then the existence claim is simply meaningless and should be rejected. If that is the metaphysical position, then the existence question for God(s) may be meaningless and the whole issue would be rejected based on that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted. The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted. The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefor to make any assertion. There is no need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.

I think this shows where your argument is failing for so many of us.

Let's being with the "content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted." Note, not demonstrated, not shown, not proved -- merely asserted. Let's follow that with "the content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefore make any assertion."

But you see, the theist "assertion" was made without the ability to make a determination -- it simply decides (which is equivalent to believes) that it is true, and asserts same.

Agnosticism is more honest, and does not assert what it cannot decide. Atheism goes one step further and attempts to judge the amount of evidence that can be brought to bear on how to decide, and because it notes that there is next to none for the existence of the God of the great religions, and quite a lot against, simply does what most of us do in every other case where there's a lot of evidence on one side and very little on the other -- we decide to go where the preponderance of evidence takes us.

 

[blü 2]

I don't know what a non-imaginary ANYTHING could be.

You didn't have a real mother? Goodness!

You're not typing your posts here on a real keyboard? Goodness!

You don't think I have objective existence? Goodness!

Everything I experience gets defined by my imagination.

The good side of that is you can never cut yourself on a knife, never have a car accident, and live totally free from disease! Admirable albeit not exactly credible!

But to answer your question, I have no idea in what way 'God' would exist. How does the source of all that is exist before existence exists? It's beyond the ability of my mind to comprehend.

Then as I said, your question is meaningless. It may as well be about floupxnozelb as God.