A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Sheldon]

Faith in God works for us whether God is there or not.

Well of course, that's because there is literally nothing one cannot believe using the vapid and useless notion of faith. The fact it's been championed for centuries by theists, and often over reason and evidence, should cause any rational or open minded person pause.

 

[Sheldon]

Belief is the enemy of faith.

Unsound belief is the inevitable outcome of blind faith.

You've predicated this entire thread on the dubious claim that atheists must rationally justify their disbelief, now you're championing blind faith, the hilarity of that irony is palpable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a good point, but I do think a person can be tentatively agnostic, or profoundly agnostic. I know it sounds odd, but agnosticism can have degrees, I think.

Agnosticism is a positive claim (that the existence of gods is unknowable). It can certainly be held or asserted with varying degrees of certainty.

There's also a distinction between weak agnosticism ("the existence of gods is unknowable by me specifically, at this point in time, given the information I have") and strong agnosticism ("the existence of gods is unknowable universally").

 

[RestlessSoul]

Obviously because believing something I can know nothing about is absurd. Though not all god claims are unfalsifiable of course, and you are an atheist about all the deities I don't believe exist, except one.

A more apropos question is why anyone would claim they can know nothing about the nature or existence of a deity, then assert they believe it exists?

Where do you stand on invisible unicorns?

Life is absurd, have you not noticed?

And where does all your logic, and your reason, and your post-enlightenment certainty get you? It has you spinning round in circles, angry and bewildered, making jibes about unicorns.

Where do you stand on insights of enduring value?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Life is absurd, have you not noticed?

And where does all your logic, and your reason, and your post-enlightenment certainty get you? It has you spinning round in circles, angry and bewildered, making jibes about unicorns.

Where do you stand on insights of enduring value?

In all the general absurdity of people who individually do subjectivity differently, the joke is that for the strong clams they are all doing in effect special pleading;
My subjectivity is special, because it is an objective standard, because I say so. All other subjectivity is wrong according to this standard and not objective.

 

[Sheldon]

Agnosticism is a positive claim (that the existence of gods is unknowable). It can certainly be held or asserted with varying degrees of certainty.

I agree, as not all god claims are unfalsifiable, and PureX of course believes in a specific deity and religion, and many of the core beliefs associated with it are falsifiable.

Indeed, some claims have been falsified, and adherents of those beliefs have been forced into either making desperate denials of scientific facts, or asserting the ludicrous notion that a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message and limitless power to communicate it, deals in demonstrably errant allegory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, as not all god claims are unfalsifiable, and PureX of course believes in a specific deity and religion, and many of the core beliefs associated with it are falsifiable.

I have no idea what @PureX believes.

He seems to use his own personal definitions for terms quite a bit, but tends to get upset if you call attention to the fact that he's using terms differently from everyone else.

By how he's described his own beliefs, I get the impression that he's an atheist who's adopted a theistic persona as some sort of aesthetic preference, but I can't say for sure, since half the time it's not clear what he's trying to express (because of that whole "personal definitions" thing).

 

[Sheldon]

He seems to use his own personal definitions for terms quite a bit, but tends to get upset if you call attention to the fact that he's using terms differently from everyone else.

That has been my impression from the start.

I have no idea what @PureX believes.

He has implied he is a Christian, and that he believes in Jesus. Though as you say, given how often he uses arbitrary definitions that differ from common usage or dictionary definitions, one can't be sure what he does or does not believe. Though he has claimed to be a theist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That has been my impression from the start.



He has implied he is a Christian, and that he believes in Jesus. Though as you say, given how often he uses arbitrary definitions that differ from common usage or dictionary definitions, one can't be sure what he does or does not believe. Though he has claimed to be a theist.

IIRC, he's said that he has "faith" in God, but there is no "belief" in his "faith."

... so I have no idea what he means by either term.

 

[Sheldon]

IIRC, he's said that he has "faith" in God, but there is no "belief" in his "faith."

... so I have no idea what he means by either term.

Yes that's correct, he has vacillated on those claims though. He also claims he is an agnostic, but makes assertions about the nature of a deity, so as you say his posts often contradict other posts he's made.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Belief is the enemy of faith.

Faith is a category of belief, namely, unjustified belief.

I'd say that reason and empiricism are the enemy of faith, and faith is the enemy of reason. Critical thinking teaches us that nothing should be believed without evidentiary support. Faith teaches to just believe, and calls doing that while suppressing cognitive dissonance a virtue.

And where does all your logic, and your reason, and your post-enlightenment certainty get you? It has you spinning round in circles, angry and bewildered, making jibes about unicorns.

"All of our logic and our reason" get's us to a worldview that one can use to more effectively navigate life. A set of beliefs ought to map onto the world out there like a literal road map does onto a set of roads and other surface features. Every road in the mental map ought to correlate with an actual road out there. That's what I mean by knowledge being that which allows one to predict outcomes, and such ideas are only arrived at empirically. There is only one way to construct such a literal map, and that is to survey the roads and draw a schematic of them, where they intersect, where they go, etc.. Not using faith. Not using prayer. Not consulting scripture. Empiricism. Nothing else works for drawing accurate maps.

We had a car GPS system with a mistake on its map of rural Mexico, and following its instructions, we ended up far from our intended destination. We were not able to successfully predict where we would be going to using that erroneous map.

How much does it matter to you not to have false beliefs? There are people that care about being correct, and not admitting false beliefs onto their map. By faith, people are refusing life-saving vaccines, and many are dead as a result of being wrong. That's where logic and reason get one - to his destination, whether literal or figurative. My desired outcome is to not be harmed by the coronavirus. Logic and reason will save many lives in this context, maybe mine.

And when the world wants to start applying them to the problem of global warming, the process will slow, stop, or reverse. Being wrong can be costly in this area, as well. Look at how many people are going to be losing their homes (not to mention their lives) in the next many years to fire or hurricane, because they were wrong about global warming, and didn't recognize early enough that they need to sell their homes now while there's still a market for them. Unfortunately, that market will be the people whose mental maps don't include global warming, and expect the future to be like the past. How long do you think it will be before a home on the gulf coast will be uninsurable, then blown down? If I had owned one there, it would already have been sold.

That's where reason and logic gets one.

And who's angry here? When critical thinkers reject fallacious logic and unevidenced claims on the threads like this one that theists start, you frame it as anger, spinning in circles, and bewilderment. There is no evidence of that. The people you are talking about are emotion-free as Spock in their capacity as rebutters.

It's the theists who have the emotional reaction, who are routinely offended at having their God compared to any other imaginary thing, for example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is why choose atheism when you've already admitted that you don't know it to be so, and when not knowing it to be so is the reason you've reject theism?

After all, there is no way to know either way.

Some of us, and apparently a very small number, have tried and experienced many different existential experiences. Ranging from the earliest and simplest, that Jesus is my Savior.

That was at at age 7. I saw God in the sky during a thunderstorm over the desert.

I experienced the cross in the sky.

I knew for a fact that Jesus and God were with me.

As I got older and more experiences were available to me, my beliefs changed.

No longer could I see Jesus as some Savior from Evil and Hell, born of some previously describe god in some previous culture and time made up by men who wanted their own beliefs to prevail.

Then on to serious Native American belief systems and finally to now.

I know I am on my own to make the difference needed to save the only thing worth worshipping in this real life. That is real nature. So what DID you experience, then, do you think? And was it 'natural', or 'supra-natural'? And if you don't know, why assume the negative?
When nature is often the hardship that needs overcoming, and we do not have the power to do so within ourselves, we seek a power greater than both.
That's because you believe your own 'opinions' now, instead. Belief is the enemy of faith. If you had fully accepted that you don't know what or if God is, you would still be free to choose to trust in the great mystery, and to conceptualize God in whatever way generates the most positive effect, for you (faith).
We don't need to know. Faith in God works for us whether God is there or not.

I didn't choose atheism. I'm just not convinced that gods exist and the label for that is "atheist."

 

[RestlessSoul]

Faith is a category of belief, namely, unjustified belief.

I'd say that reason and empiricism are the enemy of faith, and faith is the enemy of reason. Critical thinking teaches us that nothing should be believed without evidentiary support. Faith teaches to just believe, and calls doing that while suppressing cognitive dissonance a virtue.



"All of our logic and our reason" get's us to a worldview that one can use to more effectively navigate life. A set of beliefs ought to map onto the world out there like a literal road map does onto a set of roads and other surface features. Every road in the mental map ought to correlate with an actual road out there. That's what I mean by knowledge being that which allows one to predict outcomes, and such ideas are only arrived at empirically. There is only one way to construct such a literal map, and that is to survey the roads and draw a schematic of them, where they intersect, where they go, etc.. Not using faith. Not using prayer. Not consulting scripture. Empiricism. Nothing else works for drawing accurate maps.

We had a car GPS system with a mistake on its map of rural Mexico, and following its instructions, we ended up far from our intended destination. We were not able to successfully predict where we would be going to using that erroneous map.

How much does it matter to you not to have false beliefs? There are people that care about being correct, and not admitting false beliefs onto their map. By faith, people are refusing life-saving vaccines, and many are dead as a result of being wrong. That's where logic and reason get one - to his destination, whether literal or figurative. My desired outcome is to not be harmed by the coronavirus. Logic and reason will save many lives in this context, maybe mine.

And when the world wants to start applying them to the problem of global warming, the process will slow, stop, or reverse. Being wrong can be costly in this area, as well. Look at how many people are going to be losing their homes (not to mention their lives) in the next many years to fire or hurricane, because they were wrong about global warming, and didn't recognize early enough that they need to sell their homes now while there's still a market for them. Unfortunately, that market will be the people whose mental maps don't include global warming, and expect the future to be like the past. How long do you think it will be before a home on the gulf coast will be uninsurable, then blown down? If I had owned one there, it would already have been sold.

That's where reason and logic gets one.

And who's angry here? When critical thinkers reject fallacious logic and unevidenced claims on the threads like this one that theists start, you frame it as anger, spinning in circles, and bewilderment. There is no evidence of that. The people you are talking about are emotion-free as Spock in their capacity as rebutters.

It's the theists who have the emotional reaction, who are routinely offended at having their God compared to any other imaginary thing, for example.

So you got lost in Mexico because you trusted your GPS, and this parable is supposed to illustrate the primacy of your navigation skills over those of us who know how to read a map? How does that work again?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you got lost in Mexico because you trusted your GPS, and this parable is supposed to illustrate the primacy of your navigation skills over those of us who know how to read a map?

No. That's not even close.

You asked where reason and logic gets one, and I told you, but all you got from it was one incorrect, strawman idea unrelated to my thesis. Somehow, you understood that post to be a claim that it's better to use a GPS map than a paper map, when the post was about how to draw accurate maps, the cost of an inaccurate one.

I can see that no further progress should be expected here. I'd need you to be able to track my argument.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. That's not even close.

You asked where reason and logic gets one, and I told you, but all you got from it was one incorrect, strawman idea unrelated to my thesis. Somehow, you understood that post to be a claim that it's better to use a GPS map than a paper map, when the post was about how to draw accurate maps, the cost of an inaccurate one.

I can see that no further progress should be expected here. I'd need you to be able to track my argument.

There is nothing wrong with logic and reason, they are wonderful tools. But they have their limitations, and they are not the only tools. Follow only them, and follow them blindly, and you will end up lost in a field somewhere in the wrong part of Mexico.

Look up at the stars sometimes, learn to navigate the way the ancients navigated, and perhaps you will one day arrive at a destination you never dreamt existed. But with eyes and mind closed, you’ll just go round in the same old ever decreasing circles, driven by the same old circuitous rhetoric.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is why choose atheism when you've already admitted that you don't know it to be so, and when not knowing it to be so is the reason you've reject theism?

At this point, I have to admit I don't understand what it is you are trying to understand.

I thought you wanted to know why an atheist would want to deny god beliefs when an atheist would also claim to not being able to know all there is to know about all existence.

I thought your view was that if we cannot know for sure about all there is to know, why would we choose to not believe in various god beliefs.

My only answer is that I no longer believe stories about gods because I understand why humans hold beliefs in gods. It is no longer possible to believe in them as something outside of human imagination, wishful thinking and desire to have an all powerful friend and caregiver always there no matter what horrible thing real life may bring.

There is just no evidence of any kind, anywhere that would point to a place in space for gods to exist or interact with humans. It is just implausible. Can you actually look at the stary night sky and say to yourself that a God did it? If so why? What would lead you to believe that a God created it? What would be the point of a god creating the universe and then not interacting with the supposed creatures it created in any physical way? The only way to discern and be one with this creature is through unquestionable faith and prayer?

No, it just doesn't work that way for some people. If it doesn't make sense or experience can be explained better by nature, the unverifiable and wishful ideas of the supernatural are likely not true. So I don't believe the claims.

It seems clear enough to me why humans desire gods. There is no doubt that many humans need to believe in a higher power. However, just because there is a need for and satisfaction from believing, does not make the beliefs real.

For the atheist, what matters is what is known about gods and not beliefs about what maybe real about gods.

You will never understand what it means to be a non-believer in gods until and unless there comes a day when you no longer believe in gods. There is no going back to believing once you no longer believe unless you are able to fool yourself. And that is just not honest.

Whatever, I've tried to explain as best I can with the English language I've grown up with.

 

[PureX]

At this point, I have to admit I don't understand what it is you are trying to understand.

Hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of saying; "I don't accept the theist claim that gods exist because theists can't prove their claim to be true using the evidence and logic that I demand. But I do accept atheist claim that no gods exist even though I cannot prove it to be so using the same evidence and logic that I demanded of theism."

And then when they these hypocrites are asked to explain this hypocrisy, they say; "even though I am calling myself an atheist, and I believe no gods exist, I am not making the atheist claim, so I don't have to defend it." So, ... even more hypocrisy in defense of the original hypocrisy.

And when I try to point this hypocrisy out, they just keep saying over and over and over that they aren't really atheists but they can call themselves atheists because they decided the word atheism doesn't mean atheism, it means whatever they say it means, but not that no gods exist except when someone else says it.

I thought you wanted to know why an atheist would want to deny god beliefs when an atheist would also claim to not being able to know all there is to know about all existence.

Denying someone else's belief is an empty absurdity. No one cares, because it's meaningless in and of itself. If one rejects the theist assertion that gods exist, one can do so on only two possible grounds: one lacks sufficient information to determine whether gods exist or not, or one accepts the counter-assertion that no gods exist. That's it. There are no other logical possibilities. So if one claims to lack sufficient information to determine whether gods exist or not, how can they logically then counter claim that no gods exist? And if they counter claim that no gods exist, how can they logically claim that they lacked sufficient information to make the determination? They either made the determination or they didn't. And if they made the determination, and they lack sufficient information, then upon what reasoning did they make their determination?

My only answer is that I no longer believe stories about gods because I understand why humans hold beliefs in gods. It is no longer possible to believe in them as something outside of human imagination, wishful thinking and desire to have an all powerful friend and caregiver always there no matter what horrible thing real life may bring.

None of this is about anyone's "stories about gods". Rejecting stories about gods is only rejecting religious depictions of the gods, it's not rejecting the existence of any gods. Being against religious depictions of gods does not make anyone an atheist. Plenty of theists also reject religious depictions of gods.

There is just no evidence of any kind, anywhere that would point to a place in space for gods to exist or interact with humans.

But the "evidence" you were looking for was being determined for you by religious depictions of the gods that you have already rejected. So what ACTUAL evidence for the existence of God/gods are you expecting to be able to find, if such gods exist? I mean, if you don't know what evidence should be expected, how can you know whether or not you've found it?

It is just implausible. Can you actually look at the stary night sky and say to yourself that a God did it? If so why? What would lead you to believe that a God created it? What would be the point of a god creating the universe and then not interacting with the supposed creatures it created in any physical way? The only way to discern and be one with this creature is through unquestionable faith and prayer?

Are you claiming that because you can't understand the existence of any gods, they must not exist? Because that would be an argument from ignorance. Which is traditionally considered an illogical argument.

No, it just doesn't work that way for some people. If it doesn't make sense or experience can be explained better by nature, the unverifiable and wishful ideas of the supernatural are likely not true. So I don't believe the claims.

What makes you presume that as a mere human, you should be able to understand and verify the nature and existence of the gods? I fail to see how you think you would be able to do that. I know I would not be able to do that, even if "God" were hovering in a blaze of glory, right in front of me. I still would be able to determine, logically, that it really was God, as opposed to some mental aberration, or some clever magic trick, or some advanced alien species, or simply something else that I am as yet unaware of. So if I cannot even validate such apparent evidence, how could I possibly validate the less obvious or abstract evidence that my fellow humans are offering?

It seems clear enough to me why humans desire gods. There is no doubt that many humans need to believe in a higher power. However, just because there is a need for and satisfaction from believing, does not make the beliefs real.

"Real" compared to what? Why aren't our needs considered "real" to you? Why aren't those needs being met even more real to you? They certainly seem to be real to me, and to pretty much every human being, everywhere. I mean we are all living our lives in response to those needs, and in pursuit of meeting them. So what makes these particular needs "unreal" compared to the ones you consider "real"?

For the atheist, what matters is what is known about gods and not beliefs about what maybe real about gods.

What is known about gods that isn't just "belief"? And if the answer is that nothing is known, then why are they atheists?

 

[ratiocinator]

Hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of saying; "I don't accept the theist claim that gods exist because theists can't prove their claim to be true using the evidence and logic that I demand. But I do accept atheist claim that no gods exist even though I cannot prove it to be so using the same evidence and logic that I demanded of theism."

And then when they these hypocrites are asked to explain this hypocrisy, they say; "even though I am calling myself an atheist, and I believe no gods exist, I am not making the atheist claim, so I don't have to defend it." So, ... even more hypocrisy in defense of the original hypocrisy.

This is pure fiction. You're arguing with a position that you've just made up. One huge straw man.

And when I try to point this hypocrisy out, they just keep saying over and over and over that they aren't really atheists but they can call themselves atheists because they decided the word atheism doesn't mean atheism, it means whatever they say it means, but not that no gods exist except when someone else says it.

More fiction. Atheists say atheism means what it says in the dictionary and what almost everybody but yourself in this discussion accepts that it means.

 

[Sheldon]

Hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of saying; "I don't accept the theist claim that gods exist because theists can't prove their claim to be true using the evidence and logic that I demand. But I do accept atheist claim that no gods exist even though I cannot prove it to be so using the same evidence and logic that I demanded of theism."

That's because atheism is not a claim no deity exists, and my atheism is not a claim no deity exists. What evidence and logic do you have for your disbelief in invisible unicorns, or are you saying you believe all unfalsifiable claims?

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheist
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

The only hypocrisy I see are your continuing sophistry in misrepresenting basic word definitions, and your risible attempts to tell others what they do or do not believe, even after they have explained exhaustively to you that you're wrong. The real irony is even were your sophistry true, it wouldn't remotely evidence your own superstitious beliefs in a deity, or tackle the oxymoron innate in your many assertions about the existence and nature of a deity, you have repeatedly claimed to be agnostic about, hence your dishonest attempts to peddle this smokescreen, which no one is buying into.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's because atheism is not a claim no deity exists, and my atheism is not a claim no deity exists. What evidence and logic do you have for your disbelief in invisible unicorns, or are you saying you believe all unfalsifiable claims?

No, atheism as you define it. And I do, He is incapable of understanding that we are talking past each other. But that is not unique in this case.