A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Link]

It's fun to argue? I'm sick of it.

If anyone wants to discuss proofs I've presented about God (any of the arguments) shoot me a pm.

No one wants to learn, just argue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I agree, but on minor point. Even though there are countless dishonest responses here, heck I am sure that I make some of my own, the moderators do not like that term when applied to other members since it does tend not foster polite discourse. Trust me, when someone makes a dishonest reply most of us can see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's fun to argue? I'm sick of it.

If anyone wants to discuss proofs I've presented about God (any of the arguments) shoot me a pm.

No one wants to learn, just argue.

Arguing can be fun. The problem is that you are making countless errors. Your "proofs" are nonexistent. If you think that you have proofs you can rest assured that you are wrong. There is hardly any need to refute you. In fact like many theists you do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. Perhaps we could discuss the nature of evidence. You would be able to make a better argument if you understood the concept. As it is every time that you post just about anything here people are very quick to point out that you do not have "proof" and in most cases you do not even have evidence.


Do you want to improve on your ability to explain why you think that your beliefs are right? It gets rather boring repeatedly showing someone how their simplest concepts fail.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's fun to argue? I'm sick of it.

If anyone wants to discuss proofs I've presented about God (any of the arguments) shoot me a pm.

No one wants to learn, just argue.

Perhaps others don't see your "proofs" in the same way you do. In fact, I know that is the case, as I'm part of those others.

So it may also be the case that you have decided to ignore their views. That is not a good way to have a discussion (which is another word for argument).

And maybe it's also partly because you not working with a real definition of "proof." In many cases, what it should mean is something like "an argument that compels acceptance by a rational mind of truth or fact."

But you are not directing your "proofs" at rational minds -- you are trying to use fear (Pascal's Wager) or sophistry (Ontological Argument).

And you're tired because those aren't working, that's all.

Want to "prove" something to me? Show me. Easy.

 

[Koldo]

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)

First of all, I didn't choose to become an atheist. It just happened. I became convinced that God doesn't exist. What I did choose was to look into God's existence and check what evidence was available. I wanted my belief in God to stand in firm grounds back then. However, it simply collapsed once I checked the evidence.

Second, what I believe has nothing to do with whether I gain some sort of benefit from it. That's simply not how I think. That's also not how I thought back then when I was a theist. Let me put it this way: I do rather live in hell if that means knowing the truth than living on heavens if that means believing in falsehoods. That's how much I value truth. Whenever I am evaluating the truth behind something, I don't care how that truth will impact my life.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I don't think anyone chooses what it is that they believe. Not as far as religions and gods are concerned. I think it is more something that we are convinced of, rather than choose.

 

[Sheldon]

It's fun to argue? I'm sick of it.

Well losing arguments is a lot less fun of course.

If anyone wants to discuss proofs I've presented about God

I think you mean evidence, as proofs involve mathematics, but you've presented no evidence, your link was just a string of unevidenced assertions. So I can see why you'd want to run away, but that infers something to those who understand what evidence is, and how debate works.

No one wants to learn, just argue.

Wow, you seem to be trying to set some sort of record for no true Scotsman fallacies, I suppose it's impressive in its own way. Next you'll be falsely telling me again I don't know how fallacies are applied correctly because I'm an atheist, which of course is a no true Scotsman fallacy, so that was pretty ironic.

 

[F1fan]

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.

So you are asserting it's important that someone says "God is" but it's irrelevant what that "is" is?

This is what theists do, move to be as vague as possible to avoid being criticized for their belief in a God. If a theist is so indifferent to what they believe in that God is not defined then what point is the belief? This has nothing to do with atheists, but it does add to the pool of observations atheists make of theists and their tortured and confused thinking about their own belief in God.

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.

Atheists note the LACK of evidence, not evidence. It is the lack of evidence that is the dilemma for theists, and atheists merely observe this dilemma, and have no choice but to acknowledge claims of a God existing isn't justified. It's not a choice, it is being observant.

You can, however, choose to stop foolishly assuming that the lack of evidence has somehow becomes evidence of a lack.

LOL, I hope you didn't pull a muscle with that twist of language. This is more confused nonsense that is often seen when a theist is in trouble. Word salad is desperate.

All that requires is a little honest reasoning on your part.

I'm honest objectively. I'm not honest to your religious assumptions, which are dishonest elements in logic.

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

We don't, and you don't like it. But I don't understand why you think posing religious belief is going to be a successful strategy in debate. All religious elements are relevant and related.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think anyone chooses what it is that they believe. Not as far as religions and gods are concerned. I think it is more something that we are convinced of, rather than choose.

Interesting, I've heard this argued many times, and I think it has a lot of merit. For example If I'd been born 2k years ago in ancient Palestine, or in Afghanistan anytime between then and now or in the bible belt in the USA, as some random examples, is it really credible I could choose, in the way random circumstances have allowed me currently, to disbelieve in the religions that are in vogue in those examples. So yes I think in that sense choose is at the very least a relative term.

 

[F1fan]

What anyone chooses to believe is their own business. What I am seeking is a logical rationale for choosing atheism over agnosticism.

It's a difference without distinction. Atheism is just not being a theist.

How is atheism not compatible with agnosticism that you insist it is two opposing categories?

 

[F1fan]

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.

If theists knew a God existed, or were confident that they had adequate evidence to convince smart, savvy thinkers, they wouldn't keep bringing up Pascal's Wager. That Pascal even invented it tells us he knew there wasn't good enough evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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)

Hmm...this is an interesting topic in my opinion (although clearly that's a somewhat subjective view based on some of the responses you're getting).
However, I did sort of create a thread trying to speak to this a while back.

I know this might not be the most convenient way to handle your question, so apologies on that, but if you're interested in my high level view on this, might be worth reading the OP from there.

I'm ignorant, hence I'm an atheist!!! | Religious Forums

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you believe in a Brahman with no evidence. You call it "energy". What evidence do you have?

The best currently available evidence says that it is 'physical energy". If the end result was atoms, how could it be anything other than 'physical energy'?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not many choose the path of "neti ... neti"...."not theism not atheism"

Why should I choose the path of theism in spite of there being no evidence?

 

[F1fan]

I've never seen an honest Atheist

Is that because where you live atheists are beheaded? And beheaded by God's authorities since God can't do it himself, yes?

 

[F1fan]

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".

But arguably both theists and atheists are agnostic since there is no actual knowledge on the table.

 

[YoursTrue]

The best currently available evidence says that it is 'physical energy". If the end result was atoms, how could it be anything other than 'physical energy'?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

But then the question --
Which is --
that mass, big or small - was there? it
was
just
there
?

 

[F1fan]

First of all, I didn't choose to become an atheist. It just happened.

For me it was just the category I happened to fall into. In fact I wasn't thrilled about being in a category that has such a bad reputation in the USA. That is just the way it is. It's easier to conform to the norms of a society, and that means there is pressure to adopt religious views. The pressure is not due to evidence and a coherent argument, but social pressure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But then the question --
Which is -- .. that mass, big or small - was there? it .. was .. just .. there ..?

Sure, that is the final question and science is aware of that. We have been thinking about it for thousands of years. Some 3000 years ago, RigVeda opined a relationship between existence and non-existence:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

"By realizing the two possibilities only: existence or not existence we facing the problem of two primitive models. If something 'is', then it could not. The superposition of a possibility does not resolve the problem, because appears in a combination of these two primitive models (exist and do not exist). {Taken thoughts from unknown person}"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all#Nothing_-_it_is_opposite_of_existing

"While ESR (epistemic structural realism) claims that only the structure of reality is knowable, ontic structural realism (OSR) goes further to claim that structure is all there is. In this view, reality has no "nature" underlying its observed structure. Rather, reality is fundamentally structural, though variants of OSR disagree on precisely which aspects of structure are primitive. OSR is strongly motivated by modern physics, particularly quantum field theory, which undermines intuitive notions of identifiable objects with intrinsic properties."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science)#Ontic_structural_realism

My 'layman' guess is that 'what exists' (Brahman, physical energy) is not bound by the primitive human models of existence or non-existence and transcends that - meaning 'what exists' can go into its non-existence phase.

 

[Stevicus]

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)

I can see choosing atheism when it comes to everyday life, along with matters of science, politics, law, and other aspects of society. I can see that there are practical reasons in operating under the assumption that "there is no god," even if one can't really know the ultimate answer. At least on a practical societal level, it doesn't really matter. It's only during those self-reflective moments late at night when one would rather be sleeping than pondering such cursed questions.