• 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.

F1fan

Veteran Member
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.
Which God DOES exist? What practice is valid enough to allow a fallible mortal sufficient authentic evidence that their presumed God exists outside of their imagination?

As an atheist, you would be in exactly that same position. So why contradict your proclaimed atheism to presume that gods don't exist?
One reason is many thousands of gods, and most being contradictory. Which ones should we presume exists, and the others by contrast not be presumed existing?

Does PureX presume ALL gods exist?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
you and no one here can offer me any logical reasoning for why it should not be dismissed as foolishness.

You keep posting that comment despite all of your questions having been answered by several different posters. That's your shortcoming, not theirs. How do I know? Because they articulate enough to be understood by one another, they are in agreement with one another, and their words seem to have no impact on you at all. You are arguing the same points you did 28 pages ago using the same words. There is zero evidence that you have understood anything you've read. Most things get no comment from you at all, and the rest gets answers like the one above - it's all foolishness to you. True, but once again, that's on you.

Furthermore, you never give reasons for calling things foolish. For example, you call it foolish for an agnostic to choose atheism, but use a private definition of atheist that I believe applies to none of the people you are debating with - maybe one. And you imagine them slipping from agnosticism to atheism. Yes, that's a foolish belief, and it's a mystery why you hold it, why you cannot conceive of a person being both an atheist and an agnostic. How can what you read not seem foolish to you with that map of those concepts? You don't understand your audience, and so they seem foolish to you. You've got it backwards.

Why should a definition of atheism so heavily include agnosticism when theists are also agnostic?

Neither your definition of atheist nor ours include agnosticism. You've been told this. You've seen the definition that the majority of atheists use to define themselves - one with no god belief, with no reference at all to whether they claim to know about gods or not. But here you are a couple dozen pages later still unable to assimilate that concept. You don't explain why you reject that self-definition. You just repeat that atheist means something else to you. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything else an atheist tells you about his atheist experience.

you all are SO busy auto-defending this nonsense that you aren't using your brains.

Yeah, everybody disagreeing with you is disagreeing with you in the same way, giving you the same answers, explaining the errors in your thinking to you in vain, and you not only frame that as defending themselves, but you fail to note the significance of that degree of consilience in your audience.

Critical thinking is a rigorous process. It follows rules, rules nobody is born knowing, and frankly, few people become proficient at it. But many do, and they can identify one another, and they can identify those that haven't learned to constrain their thinking to the rules of reason by the fallacies they post, and also for their failure to either understand what they read or to recognize that it is correct. Such people are careless in their reasoning, which is why they come to so many different positions. There is generally only one way to be correct in these matters, and uncounted ways of being wrong. If you knew that, and could recognize sound critical thinking in others, you would be concerned that so many such people disagree with you in exactly the same way. But as is the case with so many apologists in these threads, they simply aren't aware that there is a right and a wrong way to process information, and consider their own arguments just as valid. They don't recognize what others are doing or why it is a much better way to think.

Another poster on another thread told me I was arrogant to declare some ideas correct and some incorrect, some soundly reasoned and others fallaciously derived. To people that haven't learned the accepted and forbidden options to critical thinking, and generally are unaware that there even is such a thing as a method that reliably generates sound conclusions, all opinions are equal. Isn't that the problem the anti-vaxxers suffer from? They don't understand that when their opinions contradict the consensus of the experts and the data on the relative death rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that their opinions are wrong, and they resent being told that. They simply aren't aware that there is a correct way to evaluate evidence, and that theirs is not it.

I also stated that theists gain value from presuming their truth claim is true, anyway.

Not always. I didn't when I was a Christian, at least not toward the end when it was becoming apparent to me that it was time to abandon faith. The experiment with theism was a failure.

I've told you that at least twice before, but like everything else, there was never any evidence that you read those words. You just keep coming back saying that nobody can give you a logical answer for being atheist. You not only fail to acknowledge seeing an answer - you don't rebut it or even mention it - you overlook the obvious. Of course I got benefit from reverting to atheism. If that transition had left me with unfulfilled needs, as might occur when one breaks up with somebody only to discover that they were happier before, they try to correct the error and restore the relationship. And sometimes, we're happier after that transition, and never try to go back. When a person leaves Christianity for secular humanism, 35+ years ago in my case - and remains outside of that old relationship, he's telling you implicitly that he got benefit from his atheism.

I gave you the analogy using corrective lenses, which was quite apt and deserved a response, but, as ever, crickets. The lenses represented theism, and I had you recommend that everybody wear a pair, because they fulfilled a need in you - the inability to read without them. I told you that I could be viewed as somebody with good vision who tried glasses to decide if they helped me see better, but found that I could see better without them, and so cast them aside. You would be the guy who continues insisting that it is foolish to choose no glasses when you could be wearing a pair, and failing to understand why it would actually be foolish to take your advice, since glasses not only fulfilled any unmet need, but actually made vision worse.

But you're still confused about why someone would make that choice when they can just as easily have gone on believing in gods or wearing glasses they don't need, and call the choice illogical. And you are probably unaware that you haven't made a logically sound argument in this thread yet. If you had, a whole host of people qualified to recognize that fact would be in agreement with you about it, but that hasn't happened yet, has it? I can't recall a single nontrivial assertion you've made yet that wasn't rebutted by more than one of your audience. But that is also of no significance to you. It doesn't tell you anything about yourself or those people disagreeing with you in exactly the same way

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.

LOL.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I'm discussing atheism, and asking for a logical reason to adopt it as a truth claim.
Atheism is not a "truth claim". It is not something a person does, it is something a person is. It's perfectly fine to ask why people make any particular "truth claim", but not to misattribute a generic label to that. All that does is serve as a distraction (or as a tool to attack and insult large generic groups).

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.
I'm not convinced anyone does. Some people might think they do but, if they allowed themselves to really think it though, would accept the possibility, however small, of some kind of god existing.

Those people are wrong and many of those people happen to also be atheists but that doesn't mean atheism is wrong.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
I still don't see why this leads you to atheism, There is either enough "evidence" (by your questionable reckoning) to constitute proof, (for you) or there is not. You demand this of theism, and you reject theism without it. So why would you accept atheism without it?

Also, what is your "evidence"? Is it logical by the same standards you insist the theist's "evidence" must be logical? Or is it just bias, irrationality, and emotionalism pretending that it's logical?

Also, if you have been sufficiently convinced that your atheism is valid, then you are no longer agnostic. Yet nearly every atheist I've ever encountered immediately runs and hides behind agnosticism (or worse) the moment they are called upon to provide the proof that convinced them of the validity of their atheism. Do you do that?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
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)

Being everyone is born not knowing or believing in a god, isn't everyone atheist until they are taught about a god and decide to believe in a god?
To me it isn't atheist that are self proclaimed, its believers.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Atheism is not a "truth claim".
Of course it is. It claims that the theist claim is false.
It is not something a person does, it is something a person is.
Actually, it's just an idea about the truth of existence. Same as theism. What we do with and about these ideas about the truth of existence is up to each of us as individuals. And I am asking each of us, as individuals, where we stand in relation to these propositions, and why. I am specifically asking those who claim themselves to be atheists why they have chosen to stand with the idea that no gods exist. As that is the atheist counter claim.
I'm not convinced anyone does. Some people might think they do but, if they allowed themselves to really think it though, would accept the possibility, however small, of some kind of god existing.
So you don't think most of the people claiming to be atheist actually are? I tend to agree. I think most of them are just confused about what atheism is and angry at what they perceive to be religion.
Those people are wrong and many of those people happen to also be atheists but that doesn't mean atheism is wrong.
You're right, it doesn't. Atheism may be the more accurate idea of the truth of existence.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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!!!
Wow! That's a whole mouthful in just a few words.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Wow! That's a whole mouthful in just a few words.

Okay, I will modify. As some other humans, you want to solve a problem and are looking for a solution. But there is only a problem, because you consider it a problem. You are a believer in that sense.
We are in part illogical. Fact. That is a problem. No, that is not a fact, that is your subjective assessment.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Of course it is. It claims that the theist claim is false.
No, it doesn't. It says "I don't believe your God claim(s)." That's not the same thing as declaring that the claim is false.

You really should have paid attention to the gum ball analogy that another poster was kind enough to provide.

Actually, it's just an idea about the truth of existence. Same as theism. What we do with and about these ideas about the truth of existence is up to each of us as individuals. And I am asking each of us, as individuals, where we stand in relation to these propositions, and why. I am specifically asking those who claim themselves to be atheists why they have chosen to stand with the idea that no gods exist. As that is the atheist counter claim.
I don't "stand with the idea that no gods exist." That is not the atheist "counterclaim." (Atheists aren't even making a claim to begin with, UNLESS they state "No gods exist.")
I say, "I am not convinced that God(s) exist, so I do not believe in God(s). If you've got good evidence for God(s), I'll have to change my mind accordingly." As many atheist posters have already pointed out to you.

Again, you should have spent more time reading atheists' posts so that you don't continually make this error over and over.

So you don't think most of the people claiming to be atheist actually are? I tend to agree. I think most of them are just confused about what atheism is and angry at what they perceive to be religion.
You're right, it doesn't. Atheism may be the more accurate idea of the truth of existence.
I think you're confused about what atheism is, despite the fact that multiple different atheist posters have tried to explain our/their position to you. You've got your fingers in your ears, for some reason.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
No, it doesn't. It says "I don't believe your God claim(s)." That's not the same thing as declaring that the claim is false.
Being undecided is called agnosticism, not atheism. If you are agnostic, then be agnostic and stop claiming to be atheist. If you are atheist, be atheist and stop pretending to be agnostic. If you claim to be both, then please explain why, because I can't see any logical reason for it. I can see a logical reason for theists to claim both theism and agnosticism, but I cannot see any logical reason for an agnostic to proclaim atheism.
 

AppieB

Active Member
Being undecided is called agnosticism, not atheism. If you are agnostic, then be agnostic and stop claiming to be atheist. If you are atheist, be atheist and stop pretending to be agnostic. If you claim to be both, then please explain why, because I can't see any logical reason for it. I can see a logical reason for theists to claim both theism and agnosticism, but I cannot see any logical reason for an agnostic to proclaim atheism.
That's because of your lack of understanding definitions and logic. Just becasue you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
All you are doing is redefining words so it suits your argument, which is lacking logic as well. It's clear for everybody else, but you seem to want to wander in the dark.
There is a big contradiction in your statement that I have adressed in which you didn't respond to:
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Being undecided is called agnosticism, not atheism. If you are agnostic, then be agnostic and stop claiming to be atheist. If you are atheist, be atheist and stop pretending to be agnostic. If you claim to be both, then please explain why, because I can't see any logical reason for it. I can see a logical reason for theists to claim both theism and agnosticism, but I cannot see any logical reason for an agnostic to proclaim atheism.
Lacking belief in god(s) is called atheism.

This is been explained to you umpteen different times on this thread. Perhaps atheists know what atheism is, you think?

I am an agnostic atheist.

Thanks for completely ignoring the rest of my post.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I still don't see why this leads you to atheism, There is either enough "evidence" (by your questionable reckoning) to constitute proof, (for you) or there is not. You demand this of theism, and you reject theism without it. So why would you accept atheism without it?

Also, what is your "evidence"? Is it logical by the same standards you insist the theist's "evidence" must be logical? Or is it just bias, irrationality, and emotionalism pretending that it's logical?

Also, if you have been sufficiently convinced that your atheism is valid, then you are no longer agnostic. Yet nearly every atheist I've ever encountered immediately runs and hides behind agnosticism (or worse) the moment they are called upon to provide the proof that convinced them of the validity of their atheism. Do you do that?
There's your answer. "Proof" has a very specific meaning for me. But for very, very many things in life, proof is not necessary, and enough evidence (for or against) will suffice very nicely, thank you.

I cannot prove (in the sense that I use the word) that fairies, elves, goblins, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist. That notwithstanding, the world presents no evidence whatever for their existence, and so I do not suppose that they exist, and I move on with my life.

The God of the Abrahamic religions likewise presents no evidence that I find plausible for existence, and I've given many, many arguments in these pages about what I find totally incoherent about such a thing. And I take that where it leads me -- the supposition that there is no such thing.

And by the way, for a contrary example, I do not have the no-how or science background to prove the Theory of Evolution, and yet there is such an immense amount of evidence that I accept without the slightest qualm that it is essentially correct in describing how species come to be. Once again, in light of all the evidence that there is, I discount "Intelligent Design" completely, because it is incompatible with the evidence.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Lacking belief in god(s) is called atheism.
Lacking belief in gods is also called theism, and called agnosticism. Because a lack can be called anything you want, or called nothing at all, and it'll be equally meaningless either way. Because a lack is nothing.
This is been explained to you umpteen different times on this thread
And it's both idiotic and silly every time.
I am an agnostic atheist.
Why do you feel the need to be both?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm a vivid adragonist: till I see a dragon, I won't accept existence of dragons. I got to let the whole world know.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There's your answer. "Proof" has a very specific meaning for me. But for very, very many things in life, proof is not necessary, and enough evidence (for or against) will suffice very nicely, thank you.

I cannot prove (in the sense that I use the word) that fairies, elves, goblins, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist. That notwithstanding, the world presents no evidence whatever for their existence, and so I do not suppose that they exist, and I move on with my life.
There is a ton of evidence that they exist, just not in the way that you are demanding of 'existence'. Which if you thought about it for even a minute, should tell you that your criteria for existence is woefully inadequate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top