1. 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!

Featured A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by PureX, Oct 24, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,594
    Ratings:
    +11,223
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Yup. An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.
    I don't "believe" so why would I care about what I don't believe?
    I'm not faking anything, and I know it's valuable; I'm the evaluator.
    You should go back and reread the opening post until you understand it, then. It asks for the logical reasoning for choosing atheism even though one is agnostic. Theists do it because they gain from the possibility of there being a God. But what's to be gained from negating a possibility? Nothing, really.
     
  2. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Religion:
    none
    This illustrates your confusion. You were asked to justify the claim: "Logic defines atheism." and yet you use a definition of atheism as a premiss, which would make it circular, except that your conclusion re-defines it and hence contradicts one of your premisses. Well done on the logic front. :rolleyes:

    A valid (it can't be sound because your premisses are false) conclusion from your premisses would be that agnosticism is a subset of atheism (which it isn't because you can have agnostic theists too).
     
  3. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    12,423
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    I disagree. God is first and foremost a discrete entity and it is never an ideal.
    Being the source of something, or even everything, is not an ideal.
    Being the sustenance of something, or even everything, is not an ideal.
    Being the purpose of all that is, however, is indeed an ideal. But saying that God is the purpose of everything is a meaningless assertion. It is devoid of meaning. Therefore, God is not the purpose of all that is.
     
  4. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None

    An agnostic who's not an agnostic then. or maybe an agnostic who doesn't know what agnostic means.

    For those who are interested in why that is a contradiction, I've emboldened a clue.
     
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,788
    Ratings:
    +3,082
    Religion:
    None
    Theism doesn't do anything; it's an abstract concept. It's a label identifying a characteristic. As a general label, it doesn't define anything about the god a theist believes in itself but any given theist will believe in a specifically defined god (or set of gods).

    A common definition of God maybe, not necessarily common (certainly not universal) definition of god though.

    It's a best guess is because there is insufficient evidence available. Some kind of conclusion is necessary because the existence of specific gods is proposed with sets of specific beliefs and actions associated with them. If someone says "You should do X because Y exists", the first thing you need to reach a conclusion about whether Y does actually exist or not (which could well be some level of "maybe").

    And, of course, I didn't believe in any gods before the first person told me about them (or at least one of them).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None

    Because it is absurdly irrational to believe a claim, if you admit you can know nothing about it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    5,075
    Ratings:
    +3,894
    Religion:
    none
    It's logical not to accept a proposition for which no evidence or sound reasoning has been offered (philosophical burden of proof).
    You seem to want to speak for all theists, or think you are doing. Many do so because they actually think one particular god(s)-claim is absolutely, literally true and they may also absolutely believe they will go to a literal heaven for eternity and be spared from a literal hell, provided they do as their told, that is. Do all theists gain something? Do you imagine that this applies to theist suicide bombers, for example? Faith is a loose cannon, it can lead to virtually any conclusion because it's not based on rationality and logic.
    By not accepting (rather than negating) baseless propositions, you gain a set of beliefs that are based on evidence and sound reasoning.
     
  8. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,594
    Ratings:
    +11,223
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism. The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist. So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism. Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.
     
  9. AppieB

    AppieB Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2021
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +140
    Religion:
    None
    If it's ok (or logical) for you (a theist) to be agnostic, why couldn't an atheist be agnostic?

    In your OP you say: "What I don't understand is choosing the presumption of atheism, as opposed to simply remaining agnostic and indifferent."

    But you yourself are choosing the presumption of theism. You say the reason is: "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. "

    Wouldn't the benefit for atheists be that we don't have to worry about God, heaven or hell, spend (read: loose) time in church/praying/whatever. Dealing with reality as it is. Sounds to me like a better life.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    6,899
    Ratings:
    +4,055
    Logic "dictates" nothing, and since you haven't even declared what your premises are, I have to surmise that all logic-this and that is little more than puffing up what are essentially arbitrary claims with no basis in anything but self-assured, blind faith.
     
    #490 Kooky, Oct 25, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    213,298
    Ratings:
    +81,129
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Bad premises afflict those who scorn dictionaries.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Heyo

    Heyo Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    11,004
    Ratings:
    +10,092
    Religion:
    none
    Do you agree that the US of A exist? (Or any other country for that matter.)
    And can you prove it without resorting to an argumentum ad populum?
    You can't. It only exists by agreement - like all constructs.
    If some theists were able to construct a god that had the same agreement behind it as the US, it would exist in the same way a country exists, or a law or a right.
     
  13. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None
    Yes, and yes.

    Thus it does exist, as you have just admitted, you can't ask if a country exists, then set an arbitrary standard for existence that negates the existence of a country, that is a no true Scotsman fallacy. There is also objective evidence countries exist, boarders, passports, etc that can be tested.


    You mean as an imaginary concept? Ok, I'll grant you that the imaginary concept of a deity "exists".

    However I was not making any claims that a deity didn't exist, imagined or otherwise, I only commented that the claim an immaterial deity existed was pure assumption, and while one can use unevidenced assumptions to create imagined characteristics for a deity they've imagined, those imagined characteristics don't represent evidence that the deity is real.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None
    The dictionary amply demonstrates this. Whoever implied they were the same thing anyway?

    Naturally, but again this is a straw man fallacy as nobody has claimed otherwise.

    Nonsense, it is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Thus it is not the same as agnosticism, but neither are they mutually exclusive. In fact since agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known, about the nature or existence of a deity, it would be irrational not to withhold belief, unless of course you generally believe claims you admit you can know nothing about, which would inevitably mean you would end up holding contradictory beliefs. that doesn't strike me as a rational position.

    It's bizarre you think repetition will lend any credence to your sophistry and semantics, one wonders what it is you hope to achieve?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Heyo

    Heyo Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    11,004
    Ratings:
    +10,092
    Religion:
    none
    I think you got it. You are new here so first, welcome to RF and second, I started a thread some time ago which I keep referencing (5 Planes of Existence) which might explain better what my position is about.

    Btw: I don't think the imaginary concept of a deity exists. I think it could exist if it had enough support among the theists.
     
  17. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    9,761
    Ratings:
    +6,351
    Religion:
    None
    Thank you.
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    24,438
    Ratings:
    +30,888
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    No, and again no.

    The claim is that God(s) exists.

    Theism is the belief that the claim is true.

    Atheism is the lack of belief that this claim is true.

    Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about this claim is impossible.


    Maybe if you listen to how people use the language, better communication would be possible.

    MOST atheists do NOT make the claim that no God(s) exists. They simply do not believe that one does.

    You are, in essence, fighting against *hard atheism*.

    Now, there *are* good reasons to support hard atheism, including metaphysical positions on what it means for something to exist. In particular, the position that if there *cannot be* evidence for or against, then the existence claim is simply meaningless and should be rejected. If that is the metaphysical position, then the existence question for God(s) may be meaningless and the whole issue would be rejected based on that.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  19. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    13,068
    Ratings:
    +15,560
    Religion:
    None.
    I think this shows where your argument is failing for so many of us.

    Let's being with the "content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted." Note, not demonstrated, not shown, not proved -- merely asserted. Let's follow that with "the content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefore make any assertion."

    But you see, the theist "assertion" was made without the ability to make a determination -- it simply decides (which is equivalent to believes) that it is true, and asserts same.

    Agnosticism is more honest, and does not assert what it cannot decide. Atheism goes one step further and attempts to judge the amount of evidence that can be brought to bear on how to decide, and because it notes that there is next to none for the existence of the God of the great religions, and quite a lot against, simply does what most of us do in every other case where there's a lot of evidence on one side and very little on the other -- we decide to go where the preponderance of evidence takes us.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,878
    Ratings:
    +7,159
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    You didn't have a real mother? Goodness!

    You're not typing your posts here on a real keyboard? Goodness!

    You don't think I have objective existence? Goodness!
    The good side of that is you can never cut yourself on a knife, never have a car accident, and live totally free from disease! Admirable albeit not exactly credible!
    Then as I said, your question is meaningless. It may as well be about floupxnozelb as God.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...