A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Revoltingest]

I am curious. How can an agnostic theist be classified as an atheist?

A way to see it....
Assume theism is a religion with a belief in gods.
(Set aside belief in supernatural beings without gods.)
If they don't really believe in their theism, & they don't
know if gods exist, they're agnostic. Agnosticism is
a sub-set of atheism (see dictionary.com).

Given the fuzziness of language & the bizarre variety
of beliefs, my logic is "fuzzy".

 

[Sheldon]

Agnosticism is a statement of what one claims to know.

I'm something of a pedant, so I apologise up front, but it's defined as a belief that nothing is known or can be known about a deity. I have yet to see anyone offer anything approaching objective evidence to suggest this isn't the case, and I have three choices if that is true...

1) I can believe all unfalsifiable claims. (A logical contradiction)
2) I can believe one or some of them (biased and so the definition of closed minded)
3. I can believe none of them, but keep an open mind.

Epistemologically and logically that isn't much of a choice.

If anyone ever demonstrates any objective evidence for any deity, then i will examine it, until then I treat the claim as i do all other unevidenced claims. NO I'M AFRAID I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU SAW A MERMAID, WHILE YOU WERE DEHYDRATED AND DROWNING AND ALONE ON THE OCEAN.

But thanks for playing....

 

[RestlessSoul]

Intuition and "spirituality" are not reliable tools. This is why they have never been accepted as evidence or as a method. None of this is new.

All tools serve a purpose in the right hands. And all tools, including logic and reason, can be clumsy and ineffective in the hands of one who hasn’t learned how to use them.

This knowledge is very, very old.

 

[PureX]

I think that a supernatural god is extremely unlikely. But I do allow for the vanishingly small chance that god(s) exist.

But mostly when I proclaim myself to be an atheist, I'm disagreeing with RELIGION. So I guess I'm more of an anti-religionist than I am an atheist. Hence the term under my avatar "anti-theist", I term I picked up from Hitchens.

I sincerely appreciate your honesty! Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm something of a pedant, so I apologise up front, but it's defined as a belief that nothing is known or can be known about a deity. I have yet to see anyone offer anything approaching objective evidence to suggest this isn't the case, and I have three choices if that is true...

1) I can believe all unfalsifiable claims. (A logical contradiction)
2) I can believe one or some of them (biased and so the definition of closed minded)
3. I can believe none of them, but keep an open mind.

Epistemologically and logically that isn't much of a choice.

If anyone ever demonstrates any objective evidence for any deity, then i will examine it, until then I treat the claim as i do all other unevidenced claims. NO I'M AFRAID I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU SAW A MERMAID, WHILE YOU WERE DEHYDRATED AND DROWNING AND ALONE ON THE OCEAN.

But thanks for playing....

Okay, I do not see any problems there. Of course like theists I am not afraid to redefine certain arguments. I have a new and improved Pascal's Wager. It might even work with your three statements of belief. One huge problem with Pascal's wager is that it assumes that God is not that bright. That he can be convinced by a false belief, since I cannot in any god without proper evidence any belief that I claim to have will be false. So what one has to do is to choose which God one is not going to believe in wisely. One should choose a God where it does not really matter if one believes or not. And it would help if that God had the best heaven. I cannot see a heaven where one is constantly singing the praises to God as heaven. It sounds more like hell to me. Let me introduce you to the God that fits the new and improved Pascal's wager:

 

[Sheldon]

I agree. But the logic by which we assign the label "evidence" to it ends up being subjective

Wow do you ever consult a dictionary?

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do

Lack of evidence results in your not knowing. Yet you are choosing (apparently) to presume the negative.

What a truly hilarious and asinine assertion, firstly atheism is the lack or absence of belief, not a contrary presumption to theism, secondly and more apropos, do you you normally presume a positive about beliefs you admit you can know nothing about, which is the definition of agnosticism?

Do you believe all unfalsifiable beliefs? Do you take a 50/50 position on invisible mermaids and unicorns? The mind boggles....

 

[Sheldon]

My experience is that Atheists don't know how to apply fallacies properly as well. Go figure.

Do you think using another no true Scotsman fallacy will make your first use any less irrational? Do you really think you can bluff your way out of such an obviously irrational claim, wow!

 

[Sheldon]

all tools, including logic and reason, can be clumsy and ineffective in the hands of one who hasn’t learned how to use them.

Or indeed those who use the term logic as rhetoric, without even the most basic grasp of informal logic. better if you cite failures in logic with compelling argument, like the obvious use of or inclusion of a known logical fallacy, rather than generic platitudes.

 

[Sheldon]

This is an obvious fact to me

That's a contradiction, if it's an obvious fact, then the words "to me" are redundant.

You don't seem to understand you are making subjective claims, nor that your belief, like all beliefs, are the affirmation of a claim, and thus carry a burden of proof, so to speak. Disbelieving claims carry no burden of proof, thus atheism needn't be asserted, so logically and epistemologically it need prove nor evidence nothing.

However if you prefer unevidenced assertions used as absolutes, then one could simply retort that "it's an obvious fact to me you are wrong."

Check mate...

 

[wandering peacefully]

What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent

And you will never understand no matter how many actual atheists explain their position and understanding on the matter of the theist's claims that an all powerful, existential, unproven, mysterious, invisible entity who is beholden to no human to follow the physical properties of existence the god of one's choice, supposedly created and set the rules for such an existence.

Where exactly are you claiming knowledge in this god given everything?

All atheists are saying is we don't believe the stories about God(s) you all are proclaiming.

We feel you are unable to discern known facts from make believe of your choosing.

We cannot in Any Way, take your or any other believers opions or experienced god thoughts as being factual.

Most atheists, and certainly every single one you personally have attempted to converse with here on RF, have not claimed there is no god. We only claim we do not know that is the case that there is one or there is not one because there is zero physical evidence of such an entity or non physical plane somewhere out there.

We ALWAYS SAY, show us the evidence of this idea you have that some type of ultra super above nature creature you claim is real. No? Well, sorry, we do not believe those ideas with faith.



Stop trolling. You don't care one iota about listening to or understanding people who do not believe nor need in gods or claiming knowege about unknowable things. Especially about unknowable, evil, warrior invisible Gods.

Or whatever you choose to think of them as because that's all you got.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You aren't addressing the question I asked. Lack of evidence results in your not knowing. Yet you are choosing (apparently) to presume the negative. Why? Why not simply accept ad remain agnostic?

And I think that you are getting this quite backwards.

On every other subject under the sun, we typically take a complete lack of evidence to mean that something does not exist.

There's a huge lack of evidence for fire-breathing dragons -- so we don't fear them, and we don't have to pay to keep knights on standby to kill them for us.

If there were evidence that magic happens, and can be used by malicious people, we would have to hunt down those who can wield those powers to prevent them doing so -- before they use their powers against us. We humans used to believe that -- and we did murder lots of slightly batty but essentially innocent people because of it.

You say that miracles are "very, very rare." In my 73 years, I've never seen a single one, nor heard of one for which there were not reasonably plausible explanations. On the other hand, I've been shown the evidence for a bunch of phony ones -- especially among phony "faith healers" like Benny Hinn and others.

And in fact, most people who are genuinely ill go first to their doctor, and seek a science-based cure. And why would they finally resort to someone like Hinn? Because the sad truth is that science is a human product, and we can't do everything. We have no cure for death. But the vast majority of people -- even believers -- choose doctor first, rather than faith-healer first. Why?

The truth of the matter is, on most things -- at least things that we can understand -- we tend to go with the evidence. We tend not to accept that which is not evidenced. We do not believe we can fly unaided, because there's no evidence (and such evidence that there is tends toward rather unpleasant consequences for even making the attempt).

It seems, really, that God is just about the only thing that we humans tend to believe in total despite of the lack of evidence. And that would seem to suggest that the so-called "benefits" attached to belief are pretty likely to be false-hope scenarios -- that we are fooling ourselves, and doing it deliberately.

And that seems really peculiar to me.

 

[Sheldon]

God then and now has always been the 'hidden motivation' within the natural realm. Science has not changed that, though it has forced us to recognize the abstraction of it.

Science is the study and observation of the natural world and universe, thus what you are describing is outside it's methods, as of course would be all non existent things. So your assertion that science can't comment on deities, is not different than science being unable to comment on "invisible mermaids". So this tells us nothing about the concept of invisible mermaids, or deities, if you see what I mean. Why should anyone objectively accept that any god concept or claim should be treated any differently to invisible mermaids?

 

[Sheldon]

On every other subject under the sun, we typically take a complete lack of evidence to mean that something does not exist.

Ohhhh, I have to disagree, but you're close. We cannot logically make any assertions based on a lack of evidence, to do otherwise would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. However disbelief is not an assertion, thus atheism is not an assertion that no deity or deities exist, it is the lack or absence of belief that any deity or deities exist.

 

[Sheldon]

I think the reality of a God is hard for a lot of people to cognate. Which is why a lot of people's responses to that question are so ... unintelligible.

You seem to have used an argument from authority fallacy, with yourself as an authority. I wonder what objective evidence you can demonstrate for your implied assertion that you understand the "reality of god" but others cannot?

 

[Sheldon]

Your self is evidence.

You can't support an unevidenced assertion with another unevidenced assertion. I, like all living things evolved, this is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, by a method that sets the most rigorous and objective standards for claims, and in over 162 years since Darwin published his seminal work, all the objective evidence supports species evolution, natural selection shared or common ancestry. So no, my (human) existence alone, does not evidence any deity, that is axiomatic.

How? I proven in the video, you can only exist in God's vision.

No you haven't..... quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur....

My experience is that Atheists don't know how to apply fallacies properly as well. Go figure.

That's hilarious, you used a no true Scotsman fallacy several times, and when I point it out you use it again to defend your previous use, irony I hope?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, that's just false. I almost never see anyone call anyone ELSE an atheist. It's always self-proclaimed. Ad nauseam, sometimes. And then defended tooth and nail, as I am sure this thread will soon attest.

That's just plain silly.

Imagine atheism before theism. How does that even work?

I'm not talking about lack of belief because that's how everyone naturally starts, but the term atheism itself came later as a response.

It's theists that invented God and first announced that mental concept. Atheism was the response to such an announcement. Certainly not the other way around. lol.

 

[Sheldon]

The video has one argument for God. I've made threads about it in form of premises and elaboration as well.

So do videos for mermaids, are they rea; then? Only I am as dubious about mermaids as I am about deities. I also don't believe anyone can argue something into existence without demonstrating any objective evidence.

Your video did not demonstrate any objective evidence.

You aren't gonna to believe with your attitude.

That's true, I demand that all claims and beliefs demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support them, and since no theists appears able to do this, then I will withhold belief. Though at least I set an objective standard as it is the same for all claims / beliefs.

Because you don't want to believe and submit to God and his Authorities (peace be upon them), I know exactly why.

Nope, you clearly don't know why, not to worry though, I have just said so in my previous paragraph. However since you're being a little disingenuous I will spell it out again, there is no objective evidence demonstrated in that video, which uses bare assertions, known logical fallacies, and subjective assumptions.

However I will give you another chance, demonstrate here the best piece of evidence you think exists for any deity, either from that video or elsewhere, that seems more than fair.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ohhhh, I have to disagree, but you're close. We cannot logically make any assertions based on a lack of evidence, to do otherwise would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. However disbelief is not an assertion, thus atheism is not an assertion that no deity or deities exist, it is the lack or absence of belief that any deity or deities exist.

But however we'd like to phrase it, my beliefs, my disbeliefs, and my absences of belief all inform my behaviours.

In an example that might make us recall Pascal's Wager, why is that the vast majority of people do not invest huge sums of money looking for the presumed fabulous treasure of Oak Island? Certainly, the rumours that the treasure is real and there have been around for a long time. Just as certainly, I have no sure evidence that it is not. And if the rumours are correct, the return on my investment -- should I make the investment -- would be very well worth it.

Yet, I do not. In fact, most people do not. Why?

 

[Sheldon]

making false claims about others.

He has used several different no true Scotsman fallacies, the nature of such claims is to create a subset or group and assign attributes to them arbitrarily, hence the name of the fallacy.

No true Scotsman would etc etc etc...

Or in his case no atheist is ever honest, or no atheist "uses" fallacies properly etc etc.

He did this when I pointed out he'd used a not true Scotsman fallacy, by using the same fallacy to pretend it hadn't happened, like my granddaughter thinking she's invisible if she hides her face and averts her gaze, except she's cute when she does it, but his denial was just embarrassing and dishonest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I think that you are getting this quite backwards.

On every other subject under the sun, we typically take a complete lack of evidence to mean that something does not exist.

I'm still trying to decide if @PureX is opposed to inductive reasoning generally, or if his angle is some "you can't use inductive reasoning on God" special pleading nonsense.