A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Subduction Zone]

That's your decision. The life of this world may not be a learning ground, but really a test. Maybe God doesn't know the future and wants to come to know us and the only ones trying to set our fates as sorcerers and evil Jinn while he and his chosen and Angels have a way of breaking their fabrics of fate.

You want to gamble, it's up to you, Pascal's wager however is a sound argument.

`Not really. You are making the classic error of theists. You are assuming that you are worshiping the "right god". What if the right god is Cthulhu?

 

[Link]

`Not really. You are making the classic error of theists. You are assuming that you are worshiping the "right god". What if the right god is Cthulhu?

Pascal's wager is you live life to try to make to heaven and avoid hell, so you want to be truthful and search for truth. If there is no true religion, the harm is minimal compared to the potential harm of hell and missing heaven.

 

[PureX]

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)

But most people who "believe" don't accept that they might not be right. They SAY they do, but in actuality, they do not. It's what they mean when they say they "believe". It means they believe they are right. That's why I prefer to avoid the whole idea of "belief". And instead use more accurate terms like 'presume' or 'trust', or 'accept'. What I really want to avoid is people getting all caught up in self-identification. Once they and their atheism become one and the same, ego steps in and all rationality flies out the window. So I'm trying hard to keep the discussion strictly on the topic of the logic people use to rationalize their atheism instead of the personal feelings and experiences and group identifications involved.

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

Why would I? Why would I even think about it? What 'it' is, it is. That's all I can know. And that's more than enough to keep my thoroughly occupied. Why should I waste time speculating about the literally infinite number of things that may or may not exist? Especially when I can't possibly know the limitations of existence?

I am not a theist because I 'believe' God exists. I have no idea if God exists, or how. And I don't actually care, because I don't know what that would even mean, really. All I do know, from personal experience and from billions of other people's testimonies, is that trusting in the idea of a benevolent God helps me to live life a lot more positively then not trusting in that idea. I don't have to pretend the idea is right, or that I'm right in trusting it, even. Because the results are self-evident, for me. And that's all need to know. And I find this to be completely logical.

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.

And that's exactly what I'm asking for: the logical reasoning behind making that choice. If it's personal, as my choice is for me, then just say so. If it's not logical, then just say that, too. All I'm asking for is some honest self-reflection, and shared truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pascal's wager is you live life to try to make to heaven and avoid hell, so you want to be truthful and search for truth. If there is no true religion, the harm is minimal compared to the potential harm of hell and missing heaven.

No, that is not Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is to believe regardless. Searching for the truth is fine. But one should not believe until one finds sufficient evidence for a god. So far that evidence appears to be totally lacking.

 

[Link]

No, that is not Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is to believe regardless. Searching for the truth is fine. But one should not believe until one finds sufficient evidence for a god. So far that evidence appears to be totally lacking.

This is what people repeat about it. But if you read it, it's not saying that at all. The wager is to live life not risking hell and missing heaven so you say, say it exists, what do I have to do to get there. Part of that is not following a religion that is not proven to you. He explained that. Western Academia has taught a strawman version as they do with every argument.

Anyways, let's say he did all wrong and did that. I just made a version of a wager that makes sense.

 

[PureX]

It doesn't fail in that. There is two threads I've made in regards to it. You've misunderstood it.

Let's keep Pascals' Wager on those other two threads, shall we? I doubt there are any atheists here who justify their atheism using Pascal's Wager.

 

[Link]

He actually has chapters, how you must not let the fear of hell and want of heaven, deceive you into following a religion you don't know is true or even believe in God without knowing him to be true.

 

[Link]

Let's keep Pascals' Wager on those other two threads, shall we? I doubt there are any atheists here who justify their atheism using Pascal's Wager.

Oops sorry! Okay I'll stop!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what people repeat about it. But if you read it, it's not saying that at all. The wager is to live life not risking hell and missing heaven so you say, say it exists, what do I have to do to get there. Part of that is not following a religion that is not proven to you. He explained that. Western Academia has taught a strawman version as they do with every argument.

Anyways, let's say he did all wrong and did that. I just made a version of a wager that makes sense.

Sorry, but even that has a built in assumption that god exists. Why even assume that there is a heaven or a hell? That is another failure of the wager. There are countless "gods" out there. The only reason that the concept of eternal life exists is because we naturally do not want to die. Should the possibility of "no heaven or hell" be included? Or a heaven only no matter what you did or a hell only no matter what you did.

The wager is far too simple. And the one example that refutes it:

What if worshiping the "wrong God" has a greater penalty than any other? Some of the gods out there are pretty jealous and petty. The Abrahamic tribal war gods all appear to be that way.

 

[Link]

Sorry, but even that has a built in assumption that god exists.

It wages God existing, it doesn't assume it does. Last reply about this. I've changed the topic of the OP, which I never like doing or others doing it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

However, this is not the only argument I've made. This is just one argument.

Ahh... but the fact remains that it IS the type of argument you are WILLING to make. Which serves to expose the fact that you don't really have anything better. Just like in the case of anyone trying to make a case against the existence of God. They point to things that are only tangentially relevant, without an actual tie to God or tie to proof of non-existence of such (how could one make such a tie?). The best thing is not to make any of these types of positively prescribing statements, and only use your information to make sure the other side doesn't have an easy time moving forward with their positive prescribing statements of what one "should" believe.

If, of course, someone actually produces "the goods" someday, that make the direct link to either positive prescription of understanding, well then that would be the time to take note. No one has done that so far in the case of any particular brand of theism, and I, for one, will not be holding my breath in anticipation of such. That would be suicide.

 

[Link]

No one has done that so far in the case of any particular brand of theism, and I, for one, will not be holding my breath in anticipation of such. That would be suicide.

I disagree, I think Quran has been proven to be from God and many have proven it. You just have to do research..

 

[Segev Moran]

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'.

We cant understand God's nature, so we are in agreement in this regard.
I do think, however, that the only one who can determine if god exists or not is humans.

I realize this may not be entirely true, but if there are exceptions, they are very, very rare.

I disagree.
The vast majority of people are determined that god exists.

In the same way that 'miracles' do appear to happen, but whatever they are, they are very, very rare.

I guess it deepens what you call a miracle.
As I see it, miracles are happening by the thousands on a daily basis

So although my baseline premise in not absolute, I believe it stands, logically and realistically.

What are you basing it on?

There is no significant information or evidence available to us that would logically move us off this baseline premise.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for an intelligent creator, most people simply choose to ignore it (which makes sense).

"I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.

Not really.
In fact, most of human's history, the existence of godly creatures was a common ground.
Only these days, when science is advanced enough, we can change our thought and describe "god's way" in other words.

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.

Possibility has no value what so ever. Its probability that is important.
There is nothing that is impossible.
It is possible that you are a robot from the future that was sent back to our time in order to become a guardian humans, but you are not yet activated.
It is possible that there are green creatures in parallel dimensions.
Anything is possible.
The question is, how probable is it that there is a God.
Atheists think, it is very unlikely.

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.

Agnostics simply don't really care.
As far as they are concerned, we are far back and cannot really determine the probability of god.

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 we don't lack the evidence, rather the words to describe it.

Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).

I've been both

I understand why theists choose to do so.

I think its very subjective. I can't say I understand it as every person have his own reasons.
[/QUOTE]
And so do most of us, here.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you choose to believe in god?
(I don't really choose it, btw, I simply do).

The reason is that they gain some personal value benefit from their choosing to trust in their particular idealization of 'God'.

I've met many people who don't really benefit anything from it. I've also met some who actually are very annoyed by the idea of god even though they believe it exists.

But I do not understand why people choose to presume that no gods exist, because that choice offers them no personal value or benefit.

That is far from the truth.
When you stop looking for god as the answer, you start focusing on your self and what you can see.
This makes our regality a much more valuable thing.
As past atheist, I can assure you that the only reason I value life and our universe, is because I was an atheist.
I didn't have any excuse or someone to blame. Only me.
Later, I realized that this is exactly what god tells us.
Its all us.

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 am very confused.
It seems like you think people choose not believe in god.
This is not how it works.
You either believe, or you don't.
If you don't, it means there was nothing that convinced you it exists and not that you chose not to believe (those who claim that, are not really atheists ).

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.

Atheist -> Thinks there is not enough evidence to prove god, thus rendering the probability of god very low.
Agnostic -> Thinks there is no way of knowing thus there is no way of deciding if its probable or not.
Theist -> Thinks god exists regardless of probabily.

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.

Yes. Because one doesn't choose to believe or not.
If I told you I saw an alien... You either believe it or not. You can believe from different reasons... evidence, you trust my word, etc.
[/QUOTE]
CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)[/QUOTE]
Agnosticism is not the baseline.
The baseline is not knowing the idea of god at all.

 

[Sheldon]

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'.

Or for any non existent thing, so that's an odd way to premise a challenge to disbelief in anything?.

So although my baseline premise in not absolute, I believe it stands, logically and realistically.

Your baseline assumption sounds like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me, so by definition it would be illogical, so no your conclusion is clearly wrong.

"I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.

Well that depends on the deity being imagined, but then the premise would also be a valid response to the claim "invisible pink unicorns are real", do you believe in invisible pink unicorns? Not knowing if a belief is true, does not negate withholding belief that it is true, again you are using a known common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam, though ludicrously you're asserting this makes your claim logical, when the opposite is true?

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,

Nor me as an atheist, but then that is not atheism, I suggest you look up the primary definition of the word.

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.

Wow, you've managed to say that you don't know if a deity is possible or impossible, which is the same ffs, logically you've said absolutely nothing as it is meaningless.

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 pink invisible unicorns exist, or that they don't, again MEANINGLESS.

Because a great many humans do choose to move past their agnosticism, and into one determination or the other (theism or atheism).

Wrong again, consult a dictionary.

Theism is defined as the belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity.

So while agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism, the exact opposite of your asinine claims here, one must ask oneself, why on earth would anyone believe a claim they can know nothing about? Invisible pink unicorns anyone?

I also understand taking a position of uninformed indifference as an agnostic.

That's not what the word means, do please consult a dictionary before making these absurdly errant claims.

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.

Wow, you don't seem to have the most basic understanding of what the word logic means, or agnostic. belief and knowledge are very different concepts.

What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism

What you don't understand is the definition of agnostic, or the definition of atheism, WHICH IS NOT A PRESUMPTION. Just look it up in any dictionary.

why they choose atheism as opposed to agnostic

It's not a choice, they're not mutually exclusive unless one is illiterate.

I cannot get an answer from them

Well now you can, I am an atheist, and as far as all unfalsifiable claims I am also an agnostic, as I must be, epistemologically and logically speaking.

CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM?

Yes, do you believe all unfalsifiable claims, like the claim an invisible mermaid is shadowing you? Can you present or demsonrate any evidence an invisible mermaid is not shadowing you?

The real hilarity here, is that you assert repeatedly that it is illogical to disbelieve a claim because it cannot be disproved, when it is a most basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains or is based on a known logical fallacy, and your assertion is the very definition of a known logical fallacy....it's called argumentum ad ignorantiam, Google it, and the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Theism is defined as the belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity.

So while agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism, the exact opposite of your asinine claims here, one must ask oneself, why on earth would anyone believe a claim they can know nothing about? Invisible pink unicorns anyone?

...

For my bold one. That is common in metaphysics and some claims about objective reality as being real independent of the mind. The problem is that we only know in the mind.
Hence: ... philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world objective reality ...
Definition of OBJECTIVE

So philosophical metaphysics anyone?

 

[Sheldon]

Whether you recall it or not, you once appreciated God

Whether you "appreciate" it or not, you don't get to claim what others "appreciate". Unevidenced assertions, don't evidence previous unevidenced assertions.

If you believe in a deity then please demsonrate some objective evidence for it, as all other theists have failed to do this despite thousands of years of claims.

 

[Link]

Whether you "appreciate" it or not, you don't get to claim what others "appreciate". Unevidenced assertions, don't evidence previous unevidenced assertions.

If you believe in a deity then please demsonrate some objective evidence for it, as all other theists have failed to do this despite thousands of years of claims.

I've proven God existing in many threads. See the argument from God's vision for example.

 

[Rival]

"Can we please have scientific evidence for something that is metaphysical."

You're obviously never going to get it. Science doesn't deal with that kind of thing by its very nature. Trying to explain G-d with science is like trying to explain what an apple tastes like with mechanical engineering.

 

[Sheldon]

Why negate them when you can simply ignore them?

Why ignore them when you can simply negate them?

Oh look, i can use meaningless tautologically redundant assertions as well.

Why negate them when you can simply ignore them? The universe is full of possibilities that you have no evidence for or against.

If you have no evidence for or against then you cannot logically claim they are possible. I don't think you understand logic at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree, I think Quran has been proven to be from God and many have proven it. You just have to do research..

And Christians believe the same about the Bible, Baha'i believe that about their holy writing etc. and so on. The burden of proof is of course on those that make this claim and they all seem to fail. In other words, they do tacitly admit to an irrational belief.