A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[PureX]

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

They could be, and most say they are. But it's not logical to claim one can't determine if God exists or not, and the presume that God exists, or does not. The theist overcomes this by using the logic of the personal value advantage gained from theistic practice. But atheism has no practice, and no discernible similar advantage. So what I'm asking about is how atheists logically justify the contradiction of claiming that they cannot determine if God exists or not, and then choosing to presume that God doesn't exist.

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.

As an atheist, you would be in exactly that same position. So why contradict your proclaimed atheism to presume that gods don't exist?

 

[PureX]

Bad premises afflict those who scorn dictionaries.

And yet to still fail to offer any logical argument against it. Why bother posting here at all?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet to still fail to offer any logical argument against it. Why bother posting here at all?

Here is the limit of logic.
If X is Y for a given local time, space and sense, then I can do X is not Y, but Z for a different time, space and sense.
That is it.

Or if you are logical and I am illogical, then that is both cases of how the world works in part.
PureX, I am skeptic! So I have checked if even logic has limits and it has.

 

[PureX]

No, and again no.

The claim is that God(s) exists.

Theism is the belief that the claim is true.

Repeating this foolishness over and over is not going to make it any less foolish. Especially when you and no one here can offer me any logical reasoning for why it should not be dismissed as foolishness. Why should "belief" have anything to do with this discussion? Why should a definition of atheism so heavily include agnosticism when theists are also agnostic? It makes no sense. And you all are SO busy auto-defending this nonsense that you aren't using your brains.

 

[PureX]

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."

I stated the premise that theism is not and cannot be proven. I also stated that theists gain value from presuming their truth claim is true, anyway. Which is how they logically get around their innate agnosticism of having now way to prove it. And what I am then asking, is how atheists logically get around their innate agnosticism, to then presume that no gods exist. Because the value that the theist can gain from presuming theism regardless, the atheist cannot gain from presuming atheism regardless.

 

[PureX]

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

You think imagination isn't fundamentally involved in all these concept, labels, and physical manipulations? You think "reality" isn't an imaginary paradigm created by your mind because it has such a limited and abstracted access to anything that exists beyond itself? Goodness! You really need to think again!

 

[PureX]

Here is the limit of logic.
If X is Y for a given local time, space and sense, then I can do X is not Y, but Z for a different time, space and sense.
That is it.

Or if you are logical and I am illogical, then that is both cases of how the world works in part.
PureX, I am skeptic! So I have checked if even logic has limits and it has.

Of course it has. I'm an artist, tell me about it! But we're dealing with people, here, who constantly proclaim how logical and evidence-based they are. Who so far seem to be having a great deal of difficulty coming up with either of these in defense of their chosen atheism. One would think that would give them pause for thought ... IF they could stop knee-jerk auto-defending themselves long enough to pause for thought. So far, some have already, some are, and quite a few are not. I guess what would be expected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it has. I'm an artist, tell me about it! But we're dealing with people, here, who constantly proclaim how logical and evidence-based they are. Who so far seem to be having a great deal of difficulty coming up with either of these in defense of their chosen atheism. One would think that would give them pause for thought ... IF they could stop knee-jerk auto-defending themselves long enough to pause for thought. So far, some have already, some are, and quite a few are not. I guess what would be expected.

This applies to us all and not just everybody else than you or I.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why should "belief" have anything to do with this discussion?

Because theism is defined as belief and atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief. This is basic English comprehension. You have to use the words that are available in the language. You started a thread about atheism, which is all about belief or the lack thereof.

You really can't just do a Humpty Dumpty on the language, if you want people to get what you're talking about.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

 

[Koldo]

I stated the premise that theism is not and cannot be proven. I also stated that theists gain value from presuming their truth claim is true, anyway. Which is how they logically get around their innate agnosticism of having now way to prove it. And what I am then asking, is how atheists logically get around their innate agnosticism, to then presume that no gods exist. Because the value that the theist can gain from presuming theism regardless, the atheist cannot gain from presuming atheism regardless.

I would say that what justifies hard atheism logically is the assessment of likelihood.

 

[AppieB]

They could be, and most say they are. But it's not logical to claim one can't determine if God exists or not, and the presume that God exists, or does not. The theist overcomes this by using the logic of the personal value advantage gained from theistic practice. But atheism has no practice, and no discernible similar advantage. So what I'm asking about is how atheists logically justify the contradiction of claiming that they cannot determine if God exists or not, and then choosing to presume that God doesn't exist.
As an atheist, you would be in exactly that same position. So why contradict your proclaimed atheism to presume that gods don't exist?

If you think you need to "overcome" logic, then you admit your position is illogical.
How does someone "overcome" logic? Either someting is logical or something is not logical. If something is not logical ... then that's it: It's not logical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because theism is defined as belief and atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief. This is basic English comprehension. You have to use the words that are available in the language. You started a thread about atheism, which is all about belief or the lack thereof.

You really can't just do a Humpty Dumpty on the language, if you want people to get what you're talking about.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”​

Well, yes. But there is a difference between the meaning of a word and its referent. So you can't just assume meaning means actual reference. That is so for all words and not just some.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I stated the premise that theism is not and cannot be proven. I also stated that theists gain value from presuming their truth claim is true, anyway. Which is how they logically get around their innate agnosticism of having no way to prove it. And what I am then asking, is how atheists logically get around their innate agnosticism, to then presume that no gods exist. Because the value that the theist can gain from presuming theism regardless, the atheist cannot gain from presuming atheism regardless.

But many atheists do gain from their 'presumption' of there being no such gods - in lessening conflict, for example. Given that such decisions often lead to other things - like religions. And given the propensity for so many to believe whatever they see as 'fitting'. We all seem to gain something from whatever we believe - until perhaps it conflicts with the beliefs of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet to still fail to offer any logical argument against it. Why bother posting here at all?

I prefer to not argue when your argument is based
largely upon personal definitions of words.
Moreover, "logic" is unnecessary to the simple
rational view that without evidence for gods &
the supernatural, tis wise to not believe in them.

 

[HonestJoe]

They could be, and most say they are. But it's not logical to claim one can't determine if God exists or not, and the presume that God exists, or does not.

Atheists don't (necessarily) presume God goes not exist. As I said earlier, atheism and theism identify characteristics rather than specific actions. They only describe the status of an individual regarding whether they believe in any god or gods. There is nothing fundamental to atheism or theism that requires those beliefs to be in any way logical or rational - we all believe irrational things all the time. The terms are entirely limited to describing the belief, nothing about any reasons behind them.

The fundamental problem with this kind of debate is that those labels are commonly misused to define groups of people, and then to attribute a whole load of invalid assumptions to every single individual within those massive and diverse groups of people (in all directions).

I would suggest you stopped talking about labels, groups and what you presume about them all, and instead start listening to what individual human beings actually believe, think, say and do. Not only is that generally more interesting, it reveals how much more we all have in common that so many seem to want to imagine.

 

[Sheldon]

Agnosticism is more honest, and does not assert what it cannot decide.

More honest than what? Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about any deity, so atheism doesn't go any further than that, as atheism makes no knowledge claims at all, it is defined as a lack or absence of belief, nothing more.

 

[Revoltingest]

More honest than what? Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about any deity, so atheism doesn't go any further than that, as atheism makes no knowledge claims at all, it is defined as a lack or absence of belief, nothing more.

In the atheism spectrum, some do go farther by
explicitly denying the existence of gods. This
is "strong atheism".

 

[Sheldon]

we're dealing with people, here, who constantly proclaim how logical and evidence-based they are.

That strikes me as ridiculously dishonest piece of hyperbole. Whenever I see a sweeping generalisation about a massive demographic, it sets off my sceptic alarm.

I am an atheist, and I have literally never ever said anything like that. I have conversed with many other atheists, and read many more, and I literally can't call to mind an atheist ever using such a ludicrous piece of bombast as that?

I think you're presenting a straw man stereotype you know is untrue, in order to fit with your agenda here. The fact you have littered this thread with obvious misrepresentations about basic word definitions, suggest you're being less than honest.

However it doesn't matter, as what any atheist does or does not claim, a) doesn't change the definition of atheism, which is a lack or absence of belief, and makes no claims or assertions, and b) no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity when they're asked. Now while that does not disprove the existence of a deity, it is a sufficient epistemological reason to disbelief the claim. If the deity imagined is an unfalsifiable concept I would also remain an agnostic about it, as I must about all unfalsifiable claims, If you don't understand that, then you clearly don't know what agnosticism means, or what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is.

Who so far seem to be having a great deal of difficulty coming up with either of these in defense of their chosen atheism. One would think that would give them pause for thought

I will assume you mean defence? Though with your track record of illiteracy I may be wrong. However insisting someone disproves a claim is an argumentum ad igorantiam fallacy. That should give you pause for thought, given the irony of your demands that other must be rational.

I don't, nor have I ever claimed a deity does not exist, but I do disbelieved claims a deity or deities exist. I no longer expect a candid response, as it has become quite clear that you have something of a chip on your shoulder about atheism and atheists.

IF they could stop knee-jerk auto-defending themselves long enough to pause for thought.

Try honestly addressing those defences, instead of blindly and dishonestly repeating your own prejudices against atheism and atheists, and of course consult a dictionary.

 

[Sheldon]

it's not logical to claim one can't determine if God exists or not, and the presume that God exists, or does not.

An hilarious claim given you assert you are both a theist and an agnostic?

I'm glad you see now though that my position as an agnostic atheist is not illogical, and I do not presume anything about the existence of any deity, I just don't believe the claim (theism) that a deity exists.

You seem to have scored another own goal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An hilarious claim given you assert you are both a theist and an agnostic?

I'm glad you see now though that my position as an agnostic atheist is not illogical, and I do not presume anything about the existence of any deity, I just don't believe the claim (theism) that a deity exists.

You seem to have scored another own goal.

Yeah, we agree. But this is empty for the rest of world and if there are any other limits to knowledge. Thus I learned to doubt some claims of knowledge as an atheist and then I became a global skeptic.
That is in effect the story of some non-religious people. We are all skeptics, but do it with some variance.