A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

mikkel_the_dane said:

Well, we are doing philosophy now. So you can't just assume physicalism.

Click to expand...

Eh?

Azrael Antilla said:

Predictive success.

Click to expand...

So it is operational and can be used to kill humans better? Okay, it is natural and its usefulness is in the context of what is useful for a given human/ group of humans. I can accept that.

F1fan said:

Many, many theists claim god is immaterial, so that negates your claim above. Of course theists claims all sorts of contradictory things, and you are no exceptions.

Click to expand...

WHAT anyone claims God is, is not relevant to this conversation. THAT someone has claimed 'God is', is the issue. And more precisely, how the atheist logically rationalizes their chosen response to that claim.

F1fan said:

How do atheists chose to be atheist?

Click to expand...

They claim they do so based on "evidence" and on "logic". Yet even they agree that they have no evidence, so all I'm left with is the logic claim. And that's what I'm asking for in this thread: their logical reasoning for choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic.

F1fan said:

I can't choose to be an atheist because the lack of evidence supporting theism isn't under my control.

Click to expand...

You can, however, choose to stop foolishly assuming that the lack of evidence has somehow becomes evidence of a lack. All that requires is a little honest reasoning on your part.

F1fan said:

I can't pretend to believe in religious ideas that lack evidence.

Click to expand...

Then don't. Religion isn't really at issue, here. Neither is believing anything.

Azrael Antilla said:

There is only one objective for the gene. Survive until replication occurs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that can include killing and a lot of other stuff.

F1fan said:

I don't believe in that.

Materialism isn't metaphysical.

Click to expand...

Explain.

What I don't understand and probably won't ever, because, I believe it's irrationality out of hate or apathy. Is how people can doubt God but don't their best to discover if he exists. They wait for others to spoon feed them but don't even reflect over that spoon feeding and are caught in a web of irrational thoughts.

Sure argument of evil, can be potent, but holy books reply to that. Fallen world is yes part of the explanation.

Sure God can be more manifest, obvious, prove himself by writing in the sky and can prove his guidance beyond doubt, and not have Messengers, but there is an explanation to all that.

To not even look up counter arguments and to settle. I think it's all hate or apathy, not sure which one is worse.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Yeah, and that can include killing and a lot of other stuff.

Click to expand...

In the natural order, food is food. Morality ethics etc are abstract constructs. Created by neotenous brachiating social primates of the homo genus.

Link said:

What I don't understand and probably won't ever, because, I believe it's irrationality out of hate or apathy. Is how people can doubt God but don't their best to discover if he exists. They wait for others to spoon feed them but don't even reflect over that spoon feeding and are caught in a web of irrational thoughts.

Sure argument of evil, can be potent, but holy books reply to that. Fallen world is yes part of the explanation.

Sure God can be more manifest, obvious, prove himself by writing in the sky and can prove his guidance beyond doubt, and not have Messengers, but there is an explanation to all that.

To not even look up counter arguments and to settle. I think it's all hate or apathy, not sure which one is worse.

Click to expand...

I understand differently.

Azrael Antilla said:

In the natural order, food is food. Morality ethics etc are abstract constructs. Created by neotenous brachiating social primates of the homo genus.

Click to expand...

Religion is also natural. Everything is natural including that we disagree.

Azrael Antilla said:

How can 1 + 1 = 3 in a decimal base system?

Click to expand...

Numbers are representational. Like words. How they resolve themselves depends on what we choose to have them represent.

Azrael Antilla said:

In the natural order, food is food. Morality ethics etc are abstract constructs. Created by neotenous brachiating social primates of the homo genus.

Click to expand...

This is dangerous thoughts. It's better to say, everything acts according to it's nature, and should, and that human nature is created in the image of the infinite attributes of God (how is a mystery).

While a fish might eat it's same fish in circumstances, they been programmed to do so (paranas do it for example), we can't. While a Lion kills all the children of his new wives he has taken over, we must not do something similar.

Animals aren't created with all traits of God's lights nor his balance. We are.

PureX said:

Numbers are representational. Like words. How they resolve themselves depends on what we choose to have them represent.

Click to expand...

They are abstract symbols used to represent numerical values. Sure. Probably better to use different symbols, to avoid confusion.

F1fan said:

I don't believe in that.

Materialism isn't metaphysical.

Click to expand...

Hence, it's failure. Because 'reality', is.

Link said:

This is dangerous thoughts. It's better to say, everything acts according to it's nature, and should, and that human nature is created in the image of the infinite attributes of God (how is a mystery).

While a fish might eat it's same fish in circumstances, they been programmed to do so (paranas do it for example), we can't. While a Lion kills all the children of his new wives he has taken over, we must not do something similar.

Animals aren't created with all traits of God's lights nor his balance. We are.

Click to expand...

If you ingest food reproduce excrete respire and possess sensory apparatus etc. Then you satisfy the scientific definition of animal. No other definition could be relevant.

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

People presume/believe a specific god exists can be because:
- indoctrination make them believe in god
- they believe they had met with convincing evidence for god, which make them believe in god

People believe a specific god doesn't exist can be because:
- they believe they had met with convincing evidence against god, which make them believe god doesn't exist

It's your baseline premise, not everyone's premise. People who don't share your baseline premise can be turns out to be believe god exists or not exists.

To some extent different people have different standard for evidence. Some people have very low standard, means that insufficient and/or unconvincing evidence is enough to make them believe in something; some other people have very high standard, only sufficient and/or convincing evidence can make them believe in something.

Whether or not an evidence is convincing and how many evidence is sufficient is another story. To some extent different people have different opinions about that.

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.

Click to expand...

The idea that "people should choose to presume/believe god or anything else exists or not exists because they can get benefit from doing so" in my opinion is flaw.

For example, i can tell John i'll give him 100 dollars if he choose to believe Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of this universe, so why wouldn't he choose to believe so? So John choose to believe so.

5 minutes Later, i tell John i'll give him another 100 dollars if he choose to believe Leprechaun is his father, John accept my offer.

10 minutes Later, i tell John i'll give him 200 dollars if he choose to believe Holy Unicorn is his Grandma, John accept my offer too.

6 minutes Later, i tell John he'll live happily for eternity in afterlife, if he give me all of his money, John accept my offer too.

That's how flaw that idea is. John believe Holy Unicorn is his Grandma not because in reality Holy Unicorn really is his Grandma, instead because he can get benefit if he believe so.

And what is it about choose to presume/believe?
I can't choose to presume/believe. Either i believe in something because i met/found sufficient convincing evidence proving that something; or i remain unconvinced in something because i haven't met/found sufficient convincing evidence.

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...

List of god: Yahweh, Paluga, Shangdi, Odin, Athena, Zeus...etc.

Definition of god:
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Any being which fit with the description of either one of the above definition gets include into the list of god.

Theist: A person who believe at least one god exists.
Atheist: A person who don't have the belief that at least one god exists.

I am an atheist because i'm not a theist.

I am not a theist because i haven't met with sufficient convincing evidence to support the existence of at least one god.

PS: There's a subcategory in atheism which implies a person who believe every god do not exist. I do not belong to this subcategory of atheism.

Azrael Antilla said:

If you ingest food reproduce excrete respire and possess sensory apparatus. Then you satisfy the scientific definition of animal. No other definition could be relevant.

Click to expand...

You are not the Objective Authority of humans.

PureX said:

Yes, but belief in not required, only a choice to trust in our established probability is required to act on it. That's not belief (the invalid presumption that we are right), that's faith (the willingness to act on our hope that we are right even though we know we may not be).

Click to expand...

The problem here is that you are using your own personal definition of the term belief that likely differs from most other people's

Belief is simply what you hold to be true or correct (even accepting that it might not be)

PureX said:

No, you don't. All you need is sufficient hubris, and the ability to ignore the truth.

Click to expand...

Are you really claiming you never assume things don't exist simply because you have no evidence that they do exist?

If a child told you there was a monster under her bed, would operate under the assumption that there might well be one and pick up a weapon before going to investigate? Or would you assume there was no monster under her bed and tell her to stop worrying?

PureX said:

Actually, I don't. We all have to live by faith, it's true. We don't all presume we're right while doing it.

Click to expand...

Atheism has nothing to do with "presuming you are right", it is a personal philosophical stance taken on a single issue for whatever personal reason is pertinent to you.

Link said:

This is dangerous thoughts. It's better to say, everything acts according to it's nature, and should, and that human nature is created in the image of the infinite attributes of God (how is a mystery).

While a fish might eat it's same fish in circumstances, they been programmed to do so (paranas do it for example), we can't. While a Lion kills all the children of his new wives he has taken over, we must not do something similar.

Animals aren't created with all traits of God's lights nor his balance. We are.

Click to expand...

Lions kill cubs for sound evolutionary reasons. No point wasting time defending offspring that are not his. Genetically speaking. No point waiting until the females are fertile again.

Augustus said:

...
Atheism has nothing to do with "presuming you are right", it is a personal philosophical stance taken on a single issue for whatever personal reason is pertinent to you.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I am right or wrong in this context, yet I am an atheist.

Azrael Antilla said:

If you ingest food reproduce excrete respire and possess sensory apparatus. Then you satisfy the scientific definition of animal. No other definition could be relevant.

Click to expand...

Native Americans have a deep sense of the spirituality of animals. I have a book called "animals speak". We can learn from animals and their traits in that we can unite all positive traits of animals (spiritually), but all animals are created with some features of God's Image, not all. They glorify God through a praise that doesn't contain a unity of all glory and beauty, but that's okay, because they see the Guide to the best of their ability and glorify God through his light with them. Because God is also everything in particular in ultimate form, they also return to God and ascend to God and pray to God.

Animals and plants, etc, the earth, all these are creatures created to worship God.