A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[blü 2]

Yeah. There is how real reality is. It is real according to some people, that I am not reality and they keep telling me that it is real.

I assume there is a world external to the self. So do you.
I assume that our senses are capable of informing us of that world. So do you.
I assume that reason is a valid tool. I understand that's also your view.

I assume these things because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct.

The difference between the self and the world external to the self is subjective / conceptual / imaginative as against objectively real.

So as unreal as I can make it. I don't care for your real, because it is in your mind just as God and that is really real to me.

Clearly by 'real' you don't mean 'existing in the world external to the self' even though, like all who post here including me, like everyone I've ever personally met, you assume and act as if there is such a world, the place where your air, water, food, shelter, society come from.

So how do you define 'real'?

And what and where is your real God?

 

[Link]

Well sure, because YOU are the definer of what does and doesn't exist!

Exactly, where is the ADragonist forums by the way?

 

[Sheldon]

I can't recall a single nontrivial assertion you've made yet that wasn't rebutted by more than one of your audience.
[/QUOTE]

Good post, expansive, accurate, erudite, and methodically and constructed and well reasoned. He will ignore it of course, but kudos anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is a ton of evidence that they exist, just not in the way that you are demanding of 'existence'. Which if you thought about it for even a minute, should tell you that your criteria for existence is woefully inadequate.

As so often happens, the believer once again makes the claim that "there's a ton of evidence," and then presents ---- well, none actually. And while at it, claims that I don't know how to look at evidence.

I'll take that for what it's worth.

And I take "existence" to mean "having objective reality."

I can imagine a genie. But that genie has no objective reality -- it is 100% the subject of my imagination, and I have no practical way to reify it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm a vivid adragonist: till I see a dragon, I won't accept existence of dragons. I got to let the whole world know.

Well, me too! And in the same way, since I've never seen hide nor hair of God, I'm also an atheist.

 

[Sheldon]

Lacking belief in gods is also called theism, and called agnosticism.

Not according to the dictionary, it has become clear you are simply trolling now.

Theism
noun

1. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe,

a lack can be called anything you want, or called nothing at all, and it'll be equally meaningless either way. Because a lack is nothing.

Lack
noun

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

I am an agnostic atheist.

Why do you feel the need to be both?

Integrity, a sound rationale, a grasp of logic, and epistemology, and the ability to read and understand a dictionary. Things your posts suggest you don't understand at all.

 

[HonestJoe]

Of course it is. It claims that the theist claim is false.

Atheism still doesn't claim anything. There is no singular "theist claim" either. Theism is a belief in any god or gods. That covers multiple different (often contradictory) claims. Both atheism and theism are classes of things, not specific elements.

I am specifically asking those who claim themselves to be atheists why they have chosen to stand with the idea that no gods exist.

You've asserted what atheists believe and then asked why they believe that. You've not received any answers because nobody actually believes what you've asserted.

So you don't think most of the people claiming to be atheist actually are? I tend to agree.

I don't think anyone meets your definition of atheist. That could suggest it isn't quite right.

Yet again, if you're really interested in understanding people, drop the divisive labels and just ask individuals what they believe and why.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Naturally people can wonder. They will never find an answer unless...they recognize a supreme force enervating the universe and even then, there will always be things unknowable. That's where I leave it now for this conversation.

 

[F1fan]

I still don't see why this leads you to atheism, There is either enough "evidence" (by your questionable reckoning) to constitute proof, (for you) or there is not. You demand this of theism, and you reject theism without it. So why would you accept atheism without it?

Non-theism is the natural, intellectual default. If someone is exposed to theism/religious claims and the person isn't convinced by whatever is presented, they can't be "led" to theism. The result is the person defaults into the category of non-theist (atheist).

Atheism isn't some sort of 'ism to believe in. It is not believing in theism. Why is this fact so hard for you to understand?

Also, what is your "evidence"?

For atheists, the evidence is "the lack of evidence for religious claims." Therefore, not a theist (atheist).

Is it logical by the same standards you insist the theist's "evidence" must be logical? Or is it just bias, irrationality, and emotionalism pretending that it's logical?

Since theists make truth claims in debate forums then they enter into an informal agreement to provide evidence and use the process of logic and debate. When they can't honor this agreement then they can't cry foul when they fail to make convincing arguments due to poor evidence.

Also, if you have been sufficiently convinced that your atheism is valid, then you are no longer agnostic.

Everyone is agnostic since theism, and the debates of theism, don't deal with knowledge that is considered objective.

Yet nearly every atheist I've ever encountered immediately runs and hides behind agnosticism (or worse) the moment they are called upon to provide the proof that convinced them of the validity of their atheism. Do you do that?

Maybe it's because everyone is agnostic since there are no facts that religions are built on.

 

[rational experiences]

A spiritual human says O earth...heavens first....garden nature...animals with humans. Love live honour holy communion.

Pretty basic human wisdom.

 

[F1fan]

No, they are agnostic. That is the proper term for the condition you describe.

If atheists are really just agnostics because they can't decide a God exists given the lack of evidence, do you think there are any theist who are NOT also agnostic just because they decided a God exists despite the lack of evidence?

 

[rational experiences]

Men said and told you exactly their personal claim was I am God the he him his theist.

Word user.

It was your owned scientist theist human confession that you had lied.

Why it is a written self contradiction of the human form by its gained sacrifice.

You do preach father is God. In teaching the human parent voice image was recorded in an act owned by God was our teaching.

An act dust converting owned the reason of image of man.

Why we saw image and why we heard recorded voice. Science to teach the reasons why. Man's sin was science as he caused life body to change by water removal.

An act. Not of a God changes to God by man himself.

 

[F1fan]

As so often happens, the believer once again makes the claim that "there's a ton of evidence," and then presents ---- well, none actually. And while at it, claims that I don't know how to look at evidence.

This is probably the biggest area of contention. The theist always has loads of evidence, but the non-believer just doesn't get it. Obviously this evidence isn't available to intellect, nor to the ordinary senses, so I ask theists if they have a special sensory ability to detect this evidence. i've asked dozens of theists over the years and none have claimed they have special ability.

It's a huge mistake IMO. They essentially admit they are ordinary humans, and whatever evidence works for them should work for anyone, yet their evidence is a catastrophe of inadequacy.

 

[F1fan]

... I am God ...

Cool.

 

[rational experiences]

Cool.

Really!

How come you quote a God was a rebelling sun in hell burning?

God used anywhere you want to preach it as God as just a human.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. they recognize a supreme force enervating the universe and even then, there will always be things unknowable. That's where I leave it now for this conversation.

You agree that recognizing 'a supreme force enervating the universe' is still not the complete answer. Then people will wonder as to where from this 'supreme force enervating the universe' sprang up? Only Quantum Mechanics provides the answer. Humans have a block against non-existence, it may not be so.

Maybe it's because everyone is agnostic since there are no facts that religions are built on.

Some religions (Advaita Hinduism and Buddhism) are based on facts, that is why they do not have Gods.

 

[YoursTrue]

You agree that recognizing 'a supreme force enervating the universe' is still not the complete answer. Then people will wonder as to where from this 'supreme force enervating the universe' sprang up? Only Quantum Mechanics provides the answer. Humans have a block against non-existence, it may not be so.Some religions (Advaita Hinduism and Buddhism) are based on facts, that is why they do not have Gods.

The question as to how did God come about is beyond imagination in any sense. Let me ask you something, as I reason similarly with myself -- I know for sure (yes, for sure, absolutely <g>) that I am finite. "I," me myself and I had a beginning. "I" was not before my mother and father got together and had me. "I" did not exist. Yes, I know that for sure. No question, no imagination, no extrasensory meanderings of the mind.
I also know for sure that when I die, I will not be. Although I do have faith that there is a God, He knows who I am, and can bring me back from the dead. Now, as for God's existence, not to go off the deep end, since I am finite, have a beginning and expect to have an end if I die, it is only logical to think that there is something, someone, greater than ourselves. I believe that absolutely now. I did not used to believe that, although the question of how does God exist is virtually a self-contained question. His Name in certain respects is linked to mean: He is. (Or "I am.") It's beyond my finite mind to understand this. I am sure even Einstein knew that it's impossible to know that also.
-

 

[YoursTrue]

You agree that recognizing 'a supreme force enervating the universe' is still not the complete answer. Then people will wonder as to where from this 'supreme force enervating the universe' sprang up? Only Quantum Mechanics provides the answer. Humans have a block against non-existence, it may not be so.Some religions (Advaita Hinduism and Buddhism) are based on facts, that is why they do not have Gods.

I was just reading a little about Buddhism. Seems that Siddartha was the founder of it. Based on facts? What facts? that he figured things out? (I don't think so -- but if you do -- that's what you think.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. it is only logical to think that there is something, someone, greater than ourselves. .. It's beyond my finite mind to understand this.

It may be beyond your superstitious, indoctrinated, unscientific finite mind, which believes on the much edited 3rd Century book of unevidenced fables; but that does not mean that every one has that kind of mind. Quantum Mechanics has opened a new world and science is working on that.

I was just reading a little about Buddhism. Seems that Siddartha was the founder of it. Based on facts? What facts? that he figured things out? (I don't think so -- but if you do -- that's what you think.)

Yeah, I think Buddha was much ahead of the philosophers of his time (around 500 BCE), was great about removal of chaff and point to what is important. I consider Buddha as one of my two gurus.

 

[YoursTrue]

It may be beyond your superstitious, indoctrinated, unscientific finite mind, which believes on the unevidenced sayings of a 19th Century Iranian who never attended any school; but that does not mean that every one has that kind of mind. Quantum Mechanics has opened a new world and science is working on that.

lol, ok. lol, no insult here intended, just logic -- you're educated, right? And you say for sure without doubt that "Quantum Mechanics" can demonstrate or prove that there is no God, right? (By the way, first good laugh I've had tonight. Thanks.)