A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Sheldon]

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

Then he should have been more specific. As this:

Agnosticism is more honest, and does not assert what it cannot decide. Atheism goes one step further

Is clearly wrong. Strong atheism is a position some atheists take, it does not alter the definition of atheism. I apologise for the pedantry, but given the sophistry of the thread author, I think we need to take care such statements don't mislead.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, and atheism about the lack or absence of belief. They are not rationally or epistemologically mutually exclusive.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are not rationally or epistemologically mutually exclusive.

I agree...albeit with smaller words.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Unless one values knowledge. I am not interested in believing things, and I gain nothing from believing things that may or may not be true. But by following the evidence (even just the preponderance of evidence), I am led closer and closer to knowledge. Just making assumptions about what may be true leads one to stop asking questions about it.

 

[PureX]

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

Yes, and it remains a worthwhile challenge.

 

[PureX]

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.

But what do they gain that they would not gain by simply remaining agnostic: undecided? And why do so few atheists ever say they chose atheism because they like the benefits they get from maintaining the presumption that no gods exist?

 

[blü 2]

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!

You didn't address the points I made.

Each of which illustrates that you actually don't act in accordance with what you assert.

Did you or did you not have a real mother, for a start?

Are you responding to my post because you actually think I don't exist?

Are you doing so, in your opinion, with the aid of a keyboard that doesn't in fact exist?

 

[PureX]

Unless one values knowledge. I am not interested in believing things, and I gain nothing from believing things that may or may not be true. But by following the evidence (even just the preponderance of evidence), I am led closer and closer to knowledge. Just making assumptions about what may be true leads one to stop asking questions about it.

But we have to make assumptions, constantly, just to live. And what you are calling knowledge is mostly just presumption. So aren't you just fooling yourself into thinking that you're all about knowledge and evidence when really you live by your presumptions about what is real and true all the time, just like the rest of us. And when there is no conclusive evidence, what then? ANY choice you make, then, will be presumed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But what do they gain that they would not gain by simply remaining agnostic: undecided? And why do so few atheists ever say they chose atheism because they like the benefits they get from maintaining the presumption that no gods exist?

I can't answer for them since I can't honesty say there are no gods, given that I do know my knowledge is very limited - so essentially my let out from being simply an atheist. And as I see it, the benefits are basically the same for agnosticism and atheism so hardly much is lost in being agnostic as to there being God or gods.

 

[PureX]

You didn't address the points I made.

Until you can articulate it directly, I have no idea what your point is.

 

[PureX]

Atheists don't (necessarily) presume God goes not exist.

Then they aren't atheists.

 

[blü 2]

Until you can articulate it directly, I have no idea what your point is.

My point is very simple.

That it's your view that you never had a real mother, only an imaginary one; that you didn't type the words above on a real keyboard, only an imaginary one; and that they weren't in response to a post by a real person (me), only an imaginary one.

Why would you even bother to do that? Do you think your life is a work of fiction you're composing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and it remains a worthwhile challenge.

Then understand something. You can't apply logic on 2 different, but in both cases parts of what works as 2 different parts of the everyday world.

So no matter how absurd it may be, no matter how "wrong" in a non-moral sense something is, if it can be done, it is a part of the everyday world.
So here is where it ends:
You: It is illogical.
Me: That very well may be case, but it is possible to do it.

That is it. What follow is that you claim for a we, that you taken for granted, they must... But they don't have, because they don't have to.
And in the end that, it is worthwhile, is your subjective assessment and others are possible.
So that is the skeptic in me. I still check if it is possible and then I don't consider it "wrong". I consider it relative if you do it or something else.

 

[HonestJoe]

Then they aren't atheists.

I respectfully went to the trouble of explaining my position. Maybe you'd like to do me the credit of actually doing the same and responding to my post. If you were as serious as you claimed to be about your initial question, why would you be so dismissive of the answers you receive?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My point is very simple.

That it's your view that you never had a real mother, only an imaginary one; that you didn't type the words above on a real keyboard, only an imaginary one; and that they weren't in response to a post by a real person (me), only an imaginary one.

Yeah. There is how real reality is. It is real according to some people, that I am not reality and they keep telling me that it is real.
So as unreal as I can make it. I don't care for your real, because it is in your mind just as God and that is really real to me.
So I laugh at you for being unreal and not in reality. You are not the first one and you won't be the last one.
Real is no different that God. Both have no objective referent and they are imagery and mental constructs in the mind.

And here is the test. We can disagree and I am death. I died 25 years ago, when I the first time violated this belief in real and thus I am the death proof of that God exists. You will prove it, next time you answer me. Remember if you violate reality you die and you die, even if you just say no. How, only the objective is really real, because objective reality is the only real existence.

You are just one of those believers, who believe that you are not a believer, because you are special. You haved solve over 2000 years of failed attempts at doing so and find the perfect methodology that eliminates relativism. Now publish your work and get your nobel prize!!!

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't care for your real, because it is in your mind just as God and that is really real to me.

Oh do give up on this posting this nonsense on every thread, please! You can't ignore 'my' real because it's shared and inescapable. Anybody can ignore your god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I disagree. Speaking basically for myself, when I examine what is presented or appears to be evidence for the existence of deities, I find that there is so very little -- and so very much against -- that rather than say "I can't decide," I do make a decision. I decide, based on what I just said, that it is extremely unlikely that deities exist.

In the same way, I cannot say for a certainty that I won't find treasure if I spend a bunch of money digging on Oak Island, but I think it is unlikely enough that I don't bother with the question any more -- and I don't dig.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh do give up on this posting this nonsense on every thread, please! You can't ignore 'my' real because it's shared and inescapable. Anybody can ignore your god.

Yeah, since I am not religious in any standard sense. My God is actual meaningless, because She is totally unknown and I don't believe in Her myself. She is just my pet name for objective reality as independent of the mind.
And yes, there are 4 versions of solipsism and I only fit 2.

But, here is the problem. If I am nothing but nonsense, how come you can answer me and know that it is nothing but nonsense. If you know it is nonsense, it is a part of the world, right?

Or am I the proof that non-existence actually is real and exists? So this is a part of the world or there is a world of makes sense and a world of nonsense, that doesn't real exist and that is evidence as knowledge, that there really are two worlds: The real one and the unreal one.

BTW Just put me on ignore,

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But we have to make assumptions, constantly, just to live. And what you are calling knowledge is mostly just presumption. So aren't you just fooling yourself into thinking that you're all about knowledge and evidence when really you live by your presumptions about what is real and true all the time, just like the rest of us. And when there is no conclusive evidence, what then? ANY choice you make, then, will be presumed.

I have never said otherwise.

You seem to be locked into this notion of "conclusive," and unable to deal with the concept of "weight." Yes, I must make assumptions, but a very great deal of the time, I am able to at least assume based on what I perceive to be the weight of evidence. If more points right, I'll lean right. If more points left, I'll lean left.

So, describe the deity you believe in -- in as much detail as you can -- and I will show you how I weigh the evidence that I perceive in THIS world does not weigh in favour of guidance or interference from some OTHER world.

 

[PureX]

I respectfully went to the trouble of explaining my position. Maybe you'd like to do me the credit of actually doing the same and responding to my post. If you were as serious as you claimed to be about your initial question, why would you be so dismissive of the answers you receive?

What you explained was some of the extraneous feelings and opinions and bias that people get up to that aren't atheism, but often get tossed at the label, anyway. I know all about that stuff, but it's not atheism. It's people. I'm discussing atheism, and asking for a logical reason to adopt it as a truth claim. I know a lot of people adopt it as a truth claim illogically, irrationally, emotionally, and so on. But I'm not asking about that.

When confronted with the claim that God/gods exist, one can respond 'no they don't', or one can leave it undetermined due to a lack of sufficient proof either way. I am asking why one would choose to claim that gods don't exist, LOGICALLY, when they already realize that there is insufficient proof to make that determination.

 

[PureX]

I have never said otherwise.

You seem to be locked into this notion of "conclusive," and unable to deal with the concept of "weight." Yes, I must make assumptions, but a very great deal of the time, I am able to at least assume based on what I perceive to be the weight of evidence. If more points right, I'll lean right. If more points left, I'll lean left.

So, describe the deity you believe in -- in as much detail as you can -- and I will show you how I weigh the evidence that I perceive in THIS world does not weigh in favour of guidance or interference from some OTHER world.

You've either concluded that gods don't exist, or you are still undecided. Why are you trying so hard to claim both positions?