• 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.

PureX

Veteran Member
Since your logic axiomatic (self-referential due to your premise), it is impossible to answer.

In other words, an atheist would disagree with your premise.
Do atheists have evidence that can validate or invalidate the existence of God/gods? What is it???
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why negate them when you can simply ignore them? The universe is full of possibilities that you have no evidence for or against. Your lack of evidence doesn't mean they are not still possible. So why presume they are not possible based on no evidence? Why not just ignore them unless and until their possibility become evident to you?

What is your criteria to determine something is false or nonexistent?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
For me it wasn't a choice.

I don't see a problem with proclaiming one is atheist. They don't believe other people's perception of color exist. However, growing up they weren't blind. So they speak of color from the sighted view.

But what of those who do not?

We didn't choose atheism. We are who we are and can live just as sighted people.

And those who are actually blind do as well.

If you get my analogy.
But none of this logically justifies choosing atheism over agnosticism. The agnostic says, "I'm blind, and I can see that I'm blind". The theist says, "you are blind, and we can see that you are blind". The atheist says, "I am not blind, YOU are!" But cannot justify that counter-assertion.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
No, that would essentially be agnosticism. But to keep things honest and clear, let's leave "belief" out of it. And all the more so "unbelief". As that's clearly a deliberate obfuscation.

What I'm interested in, here, are the positions people take in relation to the theist proposal that God/gods exist. And especially in the LOGICAL justifications for their doing so. Logically speaking, we are all agnostic in that none of us have sufficient evidence or knowledge that can validate the proposition that God/gods exist. And yet most of us do not rest on that agnosticism. Most of us choose to presume that God/gods do exist, or that they do not exist. And I understand the logic behind theists choosing the presumption that God/gods do exist, but what I'm asking for, here, is the logic behind atheists choosing to presume that no gods
Except that in this instance there is none. What evidence for or against the existence of 'God' could there possibly be? So why are you not simply remaining undecided?
No, that would essentially be agnosticism. But to keep things honest and clear, let's leave "belief" out of it. And all the more so "unbelief". As that's clearly a deliberate obfuscation.

What I'm interested in, here, are the positions people take in relation to the theist proposal that God/gods exist. And especially in the LOGICAL justifications for their doing so. Logically speaking, we are all agnostic in that none of us have sufficient evidence or knowledge that can validate the proposition that God/gods exist. And yet most of us do not rest on that agnosticism. Most of us choose to presume that God/gods do exist, or that they do not exist. And I understand the logic behind theists choosing the presumption that God/gods do exist, but what I'm asking for, here, is the logic behind atheists choosing to presume that no gods exist.
Except that in this instance there is none. What evidence for or against the existence of 'God' could there possibly be? So why are you not simply remaining undecided?
As already mentioned. There is insufficient evidence to justify accepting that there is any real probability of gods existing, when it is barely above zero probability? Why entertain an untestable hypothesis?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
As already mentioned. There is insufficient evidence to justify accepting that there is any real probability of gods existing, when it is barely above zero probability? Why entertain an untestable hypothesis?
So you're basing a probability on it's insufficient evidence??? That's not very logical of you!
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
But none of this logically justifies choosing atheism over agnosticism. The agnostic says, "I'm blind, and I can see that I'm blind". The theist says, "you are blind, and we can see that you are blind". The atheist says, "I am not blind, YOU are!" But cannot justify that counter-assertion.

No. The blind agnostic does not agree or disagree with with the existence of color because sighted people talk about what they see often. Their view takes into account color may exist.

A blind atheist does not try to say color exists or not because that's not his reality. That's the sighted's. He can't be agnostic because he has no "personal" criteria to say otherwise. He doesn't deny other people have concepts of color but because he was born blind he can't see how they "could" be right.

Agnostic is going by the sighted. They have some experience and concept of color but won't claim it exists or not. Atheist just don't have that.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't make that determination. How could I? I can only deal what what is extant from my limited perspective.

You leave open anything can exist even one day not having gravity or the sun one day turns?

No boundary between existence and nonexistence?
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
So you're basing a probability on it's insufficient evidence??? That's not very logical of you!
There is no testabl evidence for supernatural controlling entities. So the probability of their existence, is low. The more evidence for something that exists. The more likely it exists. This is the foundational reasoning. Again. Why entertain something that not only has no supporting evidence, but moreover, is unfalsifiable, untestable? That does not compute, my mind recoils in distaste and confusion.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You leave open anything can exist even one day not having gravity or the sun one day turns?
Yes. Fortunately, I don't have to concern myself with that possibility as it appears very remote. Nevertheless, from my limited perspective and understanding of existence, it is a possibility.
No boundary between existence and nonexistence?
Logically, there is no such state as "non-existence". There is only 'what is'. What "isn't" is an aberration created by how the human mind cognates information (compare/contrast/repeat).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
No. The blind agnostic does not agree or disagree with with the existence of color because sighted people talk about what they see often. Their view takes into account color may exist.

A blind atheist does not try to say color exists or not because that's not his reality. That's the sighted's. He can't be agnostic because he has no "personal" criteria to say otherwise. He doesn't deny other people have concepts of color but because he was born blind he can't see how they "could" be right.

Agnostic is going by the sighted. They have some experience and concept of color but won't claim it exists or not. Atheist just don't have that.
This analogy is turning into gibberish (as they so often do), let's stick to the actual issue.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Do atheists have evidence that can validate or invalidate the existence of God/gods? What is it???

They can invalidate your premise which need not be specifically about having evidence for the non-existence of god (which is illogical in and of itself).
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Do atheists have evidence that can validate or invalidate the existence of God/gods? What is it???
What makes you think this would be needed?

I mean, there are four possibilities:

1. God exists, and the conclusion of God is justified.
2. God exists, but the conclusion of God is not justified.
3. The conclusion of God is justified, but God does not exist anyway.
4. God does not exist and concluding God's existence is unjustified.

The thing you're focusing on is alternative 2: God exists even though we don't have justification for concluding that God exists.

Consider the implications of this:

- every theistic religion is necessarily wrong.

- every claim of an encounter with God is either wrong or so weak that it couldn't serve as justification of God even if true.

- if the God that exists bears any similarity to anyone's current beliefs, it's only by sheer "a stopped clock is right twice a day"-type coincidence.


... and you think there's something in this that ought to make an atheist say "hmm... maybe there is some merit to that 'God' idea"? Really?
 
CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)

It is a statement of belief, not knowledge. On balance of probabilities I believe there is no god.

I could be wrong on this, just as I could be wrong on any belief. We don't hold the impossibility of knowing 100% as being reason to avoid making probabilistic judgements on things in general though, so why would the existence of god be different?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)

This has probably already been mentioned but agnosticism and atheism aren't incompatible. The most common form of atheism is agnostic atheism; that is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity, thus the existence of such a being should be considered as null until evidence is found. There is also agnostic theism, the belief that though there is no evidence for the existence of a deity, that there should be some found at some point and thus consider a deity as existing or most probably existing. An agnostic atheist isn't certain there is no deity, but lives his or her life as if there were none because there is no evidence that there could even be one.

Of course, it's possible to be gnostic atheist; believing you have evidence of absence of a deity. That you can prove there is actually no God. Several arguments have been presented to that end. This is opposed to a gnostic theist who believe they have evidence of God and usually evidence for a particular deity. Christians, Hindu, Muslims, Jews and many others would be described as gnostic theists, having "proof" of the existence of their respective deity and specific knowledge about those deity's nature too.

It's even possible to be both gnostic atheist toward certain definition or version of God and agnostic atheist towards others. There are myriads version of God, some which have more falsifiable traits then others.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There is no testabl evidence for supernatural controlling entities. So the probability of their existence, is low.
Why do you assume that test-ability and probability are related? I see not logical reason to make such an assumption. Can you give me one?
The more evidence for something that exists. The more likely it exists.
But in this case little or no evidence exists. It is not "foundational" to assume that a lack of evidence equals anything but ignorance. A lack of evidence could become valid evidence in a 'closed field of inquiry', but all of existence is hardly a closed field of inquiry. So there is no logical expectation of discernible evidence in this case.
This is the foundational reasoning. Again. Why entertain something that not only has no supporting evidence, but moreover, is unfalsifiable, untestable? That does not compute, my mind recoils in distaste and confusion.
You really need to reconsider what you are presuming to be "foundational reasoning". Because so far what you are presenting as such is quite unreasoned.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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)

Note about atheism and agnosticism. I am both in one sense and only one in another. So to me you are asking strong atheism, the position that no gods exist.

And no, I can explain the logic of that position, because I know that they don't accept the logic you use, so could you do it differently?
I know you believe you can do it logically, but let us forget that for a moment.
You and strong atheists think/feel differently, so you have to forget how you think/feel and try to get an idea of how they think/feel. Whether that is logical or not. Or if you like, you have to make a model of their world view as theirs.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
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)

This is a great post, and it really gets to the confusion a lot of theists have regarding the position of most modern atheists. Namely, most modern atheists identify as agnostic atheists. This is a two or maybe three-part label, specifically:

1. I don't think anyone can currently provide enough evidence to warrant belief that a god exists or that no gods exist (agnostic),
2. Therefore, I don't currently accept claims that any gods exist, because such claims don't warrant belief. (atheism)
3. Simultaneously, I accept that it's possible that gods do exist (an extension of agnosticism), because negating the god claims of surviving modern religions tend to be an unfalsifiable exercise, along with the infinite array of hypothetical, undetectable other gods that we could imagine. But it's still technically possible someday.

Of course there is tension between points 1 and 3. The balance between these two elements can vary depending on the specific god in question, and its properties. On balance, atheists see all evidence presented for all gods they are aware of as very weak and/or fallacious, and so we don't believe these claims, and we judge that on balance it is more likely that these beings don't exist. We don't hold the belief that they exist, and so we are atheists.

Could you make the mirrored argument that since we don't accept the claim that no gods exist, that we are agnostic theists? I guess you could, but it would be misleading because we still weigh the evidence in favor of no gods existing, while simply acknowledging our lack of absolute certainty. Along those lines, it might be useful to add a final element:

4. By default, positive claims should not be accepted until sufficient good evidence warrants belief (this establishes agnostic atheism as a rational position to hold until evidence either way is provided.)

Note that "no gods exist" is a negative claim, and negative metaphysical claims tend to be unfalsifiable and pretty useless to entertain for that reason. For example, give evidence against the proposition "I can fly using the power of my mind, but choose not to," or demonstrate that you're not a witch. Prove with good evidence that you didn't actually murder the woman whose body was found in the ditch the next town over.

Does this help to explain the logic of atheist? It's basically an application of good evidentiary standards, plus establishing burdens of proof according to the null hypothesis, plus acknowledging the concept of fallibilism.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
But none of this logically justifies choosing atheism over agnosticism. The agnostic says, "I'm blind, and I can see that I'm blind". The theist says, "you are blind, and we can see that you are blind". The atheist says, "I am not blind, YOU are!" But cannot justify that counter-assertion.


I will be very surprised if, by way of response to your question, you get anything other than repeated counter-assertions. Well rehearsed ones at that.

This is because the decision either to believe or not to believe in God cannot be - and I think you've illustrated this in your OP - a choice entirely driven by reason. It can be justified by reason, up to a point; but to go the last yard in either direction, intuition or emotion must come in to play. And a person who prizes reason above all other human qualities, is unlikely to admit to being driven either by emotion or intuition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top