• 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.
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Theism/atheism is about belief/lack off belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about positive knowledge/no knowledge.
Click to expand...
Yeah agree, but I don't think it makes much sense to split them in regards to this question, that is obviously just my own personal opinion.
But again the reason being that either God(s) exist or they don't. If we knew for certain which of these were true, there would be no reason for the terms theist or atheist, because everyone would be one or the other depending on which were true. So doubt or lack of certainty is automatically built into these terms, but regardless of what knowledge we have, we are either convinced of there being God(s) or not, and if we are not then we are atheists and vice versa. I really don't see how one could hold a middle ground on this question.

But I don't disagree with you on it, I again just personally find it a bit meaningless.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
PureX said:
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)
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not a self proclaimed atheist, I just happen to fit the (colloquial) definition. I proclaim to be an Agnostic (philosophical definition). (Colloquial) atheism is a very weak position (if it even can be called a position, it is basically only a statement about an inner state). Agnosticism is also a statement about an inner state "I don't know what a god is" but it is furthermore a position "and you don't know either".
I think the evidence supporting that position is overwhelming. Just look at how many religions and denomination there are.
So, since nobody even knows what a god is, the question about existence seems mute and a belief in something unknown outright ridiculous.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Theism/atheism is about belief/lack off belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about positive knowledge/no knowledge.
Click to expand...
Please allow me to correct this a little bit:

Theism/atheism is about presuming the reality of God.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about knowing or not knowing it to be so.

:)
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
ratiocinator said:
They do, and atheism means "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." So it's actually correct to say that if you're not a theist (you don't have an actual belief in any god or gods), you are within the scope of atheism.
Click to expand...
"Disbelief" is a meaningless (empty) term. That's why so many atheist are hiding behind it.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Nimos said:
Yeah agree, but I don't think it makes much sense to split them in regards to this question, that is obviously just my own personal opinion.
But again the reason being that either God(s) exist or they don't. If we knew for certain which of these were true, there would be no reason for the terms theist or atheist, because everyone would be one or the other depending on which were true. So doubt or lack of certainty is automatically built into these terms, but regardless of what knowledge we have, we are either convinced of there being God(s) or not, and if we are not then we are atheists and vice versa. I really don't see how one could hold a middle ground on this question.

But I don't disagree with you on it, I again just personally find it a bit meaningless.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced of there being a creator god or not. I just don't believe in one.
We are doing different kinds of psychology, both of us, as far as I get it.
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I am not convinced of there being a creator god or not. I just don't believe in one.
We are doing different kinds of psychology, both of us, as far as I get it.
Click to expand...
But if you are not convinced then you are an atheist, I would say. Im not convinced either, despite I don't know for certain.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
PureX said:
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)
Click to expand...
Simple, because I would feel silly to claim agnosticism about invisible fairies, for instance. Or whether the universe has been brought into existence by the fart of a spiritual tortoise, or by Mother Goose. And, since invisible fairies, and the rest, and God have the same exact evidence, i see no reason to downgrade my disbelief to agnosticism without feeling equally silly.

ciao

- viole
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
Well, I'm not a self proclaimed atheist, I just happen to fit the (colloquial) definition. I proclaim to be an Agnostic (philosophical definition). (Colloquial) atheism is a very weak position (if it even can be called a position, it is basically only a statement about an inner state). Agnosticism is also a statement about an inner state "I don't know what a god is" but it is furthermore a position "and you don't know either".
I think the evidence supporting that position is overwhelming. Just look at how many religions and denomination there are.
So, since nobody even knows what a god is, the question about existence seems mute and a belief in something unknown outright ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But I would point out that our internal convictions do not define the terms we are using. Nor do they automatically justify them. Theism is still theism. Atheism is still atheism, and agnosticism is still agnosticism. These terms have their own meaning, regardless of how we choose to apply them, or interpret them within ourselves. What we 'believe in' or 'disbelieve in' isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of logical reasoning in relation to the ideas these terms refer to..
 
Last edited:
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
viole said:
Simple, because I would feel silly to claim agnosticism about invisible fairies, for instance.
Click to expand...
But your feelings aren't much of a logical argument. I was kind of hoping for a logical reason for choosing atheism, not just your feelings about it.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
PureX said:
I agree.

But I would point out that our internal convictions do not define the terms we are using. Nor do they automatically justify them. Theism is still theism. Atheism is still atheism, and agnosticism is still agnosticism. These terms have their own meaning, regardless of how we choose to apply them, or interpret them within ourselves.
Click to expand...

There are no meaning other than meaning in brains.
There is no meaning in this sentence as it happens in your brain and not in the signs.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
PureX said:
But your feelings aren't much of a logical argument. I was kind of hoping for a logical reason for choosing atheism, not just your feelings about it.
Click to expand...

No, but now you have to show that logic is better than feelings with better being a case of in the end a feeling.
 
Azrael Antilla

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
PureX said:
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?
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.
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.
Click to expand...
There is no need to reconsider my position. You do not agree. That is fine. I am not interested in your agreement. You assert that my position is unreasonable. With no justification. However. It is clear to me that A. If a hypothesis is untestable, then it is next to worthless and B. If a hypothesis has no supporting evidence. Then it would be irrational to assign a significant probability of that hypothesis turning out to be true. In fact to assign a non zero probability at all, is generous. I will now withdraw from this particular thread.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
PureX said:
I'm not interested in "right" or "wrong", here. I am simply interested in the logical justification of going beyond agnosticism to presume atheism. The reason you just gave me is not logical.
Click to expand...

Why is believing something on balance of probabilities illogical? We all do this all the time.

Why is atheism a special case that necessitates a completely different logical framework?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Nimos said:
Just some random God or did you choose one? and why did you choose that?
Click to expand...

No, I made my own that worked for me based on what I already believe and just added a God, which was the creator of the universe. Well, sort off. I ended up in pandeism without the general theism, but still supernatural.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
PureX said:
Theism is still theism. Atheism is still atheism, and agnosticism is still agnosticism. These terms have their own meaning
Click to expand...
They have at least two meanings, a colloquial and a philosophical. While an agnostic can be described as a fence sitter, an Agnostic is anything but. Agnosticism is a more radical position than atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top