A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[PureX]

Since I'm in a definition mood (your doing), some nouns don't take modifiers like profoundly, or extremely, or very. Consider extremely mediocre, very lukewarm, and even very unique. Some use the word unique not to mean one-of-a-kind, but different, like a unique outlook, which can take a adjective like very.

That's a good point, but I do think a person can be tentatively agnostic, or profoundly agnostic. I know it sounds odd, but agnosticism can have degrees, I think.

Except that you don't see that it is logical to reject theism for its detriment to a life.

No more or less than atheism, no. So I fail to see any significance to this comment.

Did you reject their claim?

No. I thanked them for being both honest and thoughtful.

I made that claim, and gave strong evidence to back it up, namely that I left theism for atheism, preferred it, and have remained atheist since.

I see no claim of choosing value over proof, here. And no expressed value. A few people did express the value of atheism from their perspective, but in nearly every instance, these were not values that couldn't have been gained by simply remaining agnostic. So their proposed value gained did not support their choosing atheism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism is simple....not believing in gods.
Some people need to make things very complicated
in order to win some argument against simple things.

Right?

 

[Sheldon]

You seem to know as little about language as you do about logic.

I've been fighting the urge to say that, kudos.

Words change their meaning simply because people start using them in different, or additional, ways (which could be for any number of reasons).

Thank you, I'm always a little surprised to be honest when people don't appear to know this. I mean I don't expect everyone to be experts in etymology, but surely a basic fact like this would be well known, well you'd think anyway.

Your example of 'gay' is a prime example, trying to deny its new(er) meaning is what would be illogical. It had other, now obsolete, meanings too.

Exactly what I had pointed out, I'm not sure if much of PureX's errant nonsense about language and word definitions is ignorance, and how much is wilful sophistry tbh.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've been fighting the urge to say that, kudos.



Thank you, I'm always a little surprised to be honest when people don't appear to know this. I mean I don't expect everyone to be experts in etymology, but surely a basic fact like this would be well known, well you'd think anyway.



Exactly what I had pointed out, I'm not sure if much of PureX's errant nonsense about language and word definitions is ignorance, and how much is wilful sophistry tbh.

All of it correct. The problem is that it is not just religious words believed to have objective referents, but don't have it. It is common feature relevant to the following effect of how brains work:

If someone believes that their words have objective referents, they can get away with it as long as subsequent behaviour is in fact possible for how the everyday world works.
I learned that debating non-religious people who claimed different contradictory referents as objective, where not all could be that. Or different non-religious people claiming something objective or subjective, while both claiming correct knowledge.

So I learned something. It is not just religion that has the problem of what is objective and subjective.

 

[night912]

Hahaha.

This thread is still alive? It's funny how I see so many atheists are trying to explain to PureX by defining what "atheism" means. Repeating the definition of "atheism" won't do anything if that's not the word that's needs to be defined first.

 

[F1fan]

It's a counter claim by logical default.

No. Atheism is traditionally just not being a theist. It is a response to theists who claim various truths that can't be demonstrated true.

And if you can't defend it you shouldn't hold yourself to it. But that's your business.

Atheists can't defend the assertion that "no gods exist" any more than theists can defend the assertion that "gods exist". Very few atheists assert no gods exist.

But if a theist is very specific about their version of god then a thinker could determine it does not exist. But theists have gotten smart and are more and more vague about claiming what the god they believe in is.

Why not just remain agnostic (undecided)? What benefit is there to labeling yourself as claiming that no gods exist?

You seem to think that non-theists are as excited and fervent in their not accepting religious claims. We aren't. The only times religion comes up in our lives is when we engage is debate or theists who talk about their religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no "objective proof" of anything that's ever going to be available to us. There is only 'relative probable truthfulness' available to us, and that's always changing.

I agree to your first sentence. As for the second, change in is scientific theories is hardly ever wholesale. They don't turn head over heels. Sure, there always are refinements.

 

[rational experiences]

A human thinking first owns natural human body presence in supported living conditions.

If they want to think why they live supported in life then the advice natural is not in inference any theory.

The subject to theory for science is totally different.

Why natural life speaks correct observation as a natural science.

As the model to describe is only human Inferred. As each subject is thought chosen.

Basic human advice as a non coerced indoctrinated format is the only correct advice.

Factually science is now claiming they are to introduce transhumanism. By medication.

In nature transhumanism is already being expressed by natural human owned DNA variations. Consciousness includes body ownership.

Any condition Introduced equates instant change.

Human is used in the description.

The want to change the human life form becomes intentional.

The reasoning is human chosen evil. By defined human legality. Human self protection as a total subject.

If a human identified first intention in human life is a chosen topic to discuss relate then to invent then it is intentional.

An example i.e....If a human said before but now I want you human to be Satan. By intent topic of discussion chosen. Then they would theory how to try to convert a bio life into the substance of a cloud only.

By intent what was before.

Where Satan the angel is seen imaged in the substance.

Natural history man life owned genesis is known to humans only by humans as a chosen topic.

DNA of a human is DNA owned by the hu man created in baby sex.

Innocent human baby lawfully legally innocent. No legal adult argument ever existed against human innocence about its creator baby human rights.

Science hence cannot claim what human DNA was before as the intention in the subject says it never existed before.

If you change a human by intent then science does.

 

[AppieB]

Based on the logic of benefit, as opposed to "objective proof" that we cannot have.

If something is logical impossible, how do you "overcome" this logical impossibility? How do you "overcome" a square circle or p = not p ?

Actually, all I've done is ask atheists to share their logical reasoning as I have done. I don;t see why you think that's "scorning" you. Unless you're caught up in some sort of blind auro-defense mode.

You are not defending your position at all. Please explain the above.

Actually, I defend it based on it's functional value, as opposed to it's meeting some otherwise impossible criteria. Any atheist could do the same. They would just have to give us some idea of what atheism's functional value, is. Several here have done so.

I have done as well. The functional values opposed to the values to be a theist. And in your evaluation you presuppose the benefits and disregard all the possible cons. You presuppose a good God, whilst admitting you (can) know nothing about God at all. A logic fallacy.

Now you're just whining and punching at the wind because you feel "attacked". But no one is attacking you.

I don't feel attacked. I'm pointing to your illogical statements. You have stated that it is logically impossible to be an agnostic theist. Yet, you say you are what you claim is logically impossible. Please defend this by using real logic.

 

[rational experiences]

Life's light support advice.

O faces the sun.

12 hours the earth where you live in half D faces the sun. Rotates away.

D to D life support itself natural.
D AVI meaning Sanskrit sun and air D.
AVI...an icon.

Holy advice of life by a man statement philosophical.

So science natural says light travelling in a vacuum between cold night gas to natural light voiding as it does not come in is by 24 hours a count.

As he is travelling with God as a man on earth.

Notice how light is not 24!

Men said O and letter and angle equates a numbered factor. Bible uses alphabetalphabeta. Alphabet to equate a story.

24 letters. Light 12. Natural.

Why the theme is non sensical.

O English letter. Number to english letter.

Language used 24 letters.

Hence if science today uses an English letter in its symbolism modern. Owned past status old science owned the meaning first. It would instantly be fake.

As compared to mans invention theory of science as first ownership men in science.

 

[PureX]

I agree to your first sentence. As for the second, change in is scientific theories is hardly ever wholesale. They don't turn head over heels. Sure, there are always refinements.

Science does not pursue truth. It pursues functionality. And even that only in a physical way. Functionality is a part of truth, but it is not truth in and of itself. It would be a mistake to credit science with being more than it is or doing more than it can.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science does not pursue truth. It pursues functionality. And even that only in a physical way. Functionality is a part of truth, but it is not truth in and of itself. It would be a mistake to credit science with being more than it is or doing more than it can.

OK, tell me why did they create CERN if not to find truth. And they are now building an even bigger one (100 km tunnel as compared to 27 km tunnel at CERN). Is there any purpose other than finding truth about the working of universe?

"The document offers several preliminary designs for a Future Circular Collider (FCC) — which would be the most powerful particle smasher ever built — with different types of collider ranging in cost from around €9 billion (US$10.2 billion) to €21 billion (US$ 24.3 billion). It is the lab’s opening bid in a priority-setting process called the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update, which will take place over the next two years and will affect the field’s future well into the second half of the century.

It’s a huge leap, like planning a trip not to Mars, but to Uranus,” says Gian Francesco Giudice, who heads CERN’s theory department and represents the laboratory in the Physics Preparatory Group of the strategy update process."
Next-generation LHC: CERN lays out plans for €21-billion supercollider

 

[F1fan]

Ya'll are just blindly auto-defending, now.

What you mean is that many members are in a familiar pattern of correcting your errors.

It's been a good thread, with some excellent comments and responses. And I much appreciate everyone's participation. I think I will have a question for the theists, next.

So you don't feel able or confident in defending your misuse of certain terms?

 

[F1fan]

All the more reason why we need to mind the logic and intention with which we use words.

Like the word "irony".

 

[Sheldon]

Science does not pursue truth. It pursues functionality.

No, that is technology, which is entirely based on the ideas science helps us understand and evidence.

even that only in a physical way.

It can't study mermaids or unicorns either, oddly enough, though I'm dubious when theists imply this inability to study the unfalsifiable claims of religions and theists is somehow indicative of a failure or limitation of the method.

Functionality is a part of truth, but it is not truth in and of itself.

Straw man fallacy.

It would be a mistake to credit science with being more than it is or doing more than it can.

Another straw man fallacy, remind us again how atheists must be logical...

 

[F1fan]

Science does not pursue truth.

It doesn't pursue philosophical or religious truth. It does reveal truth about how things are.

Both "truth" and "theory" have two major definitions that are used by theists, and often they use the definitions out of context to try to make what they think is a valid argument.

 

[wandering peacefully]

@PureX

Just wanted to let you know, I do understand what you are asking

Why choose not to believe when believing is so much more comforting?

After all, there is no way to know either way.


Some of us, and apparently a very small number, have tried and experienced many different existential experiences. Ranging from the earliest and simplest, that Jesus is my Savior.

That was at at age 7. I saw God in the sky during a thunderstorm over the desert.

I experienced the cross in the sky.

I knew for a fact that Jesus and God were with me.

As I got older and more experiences were available to me, my beliefs changed.

No longer could I see Jesus as some Savior from Evil and Hell, born of some previously describe god in some previous culture and time made up by men who wanted their own beliefs to prevail.

Then on to serious Native American belief systems and finally to now.

I know I am on my own to make the difference needed to save the only thing worth worshipping in this real life. That is real nature.

Can I please ask you why you find anything greater than nature to help you overcome hardship?

And also, I know very well the comfortable feeling that God is with me. I just am unable to believe that is true any.

Hence the "atheists ". But how am I to know for sure there is not something out there beyond what we do know? Hence the agnostic stance.

Hope this helps explain.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Ok, a little bit more. I think there comes a time for a few people, that what we have seen and heard enough about history, science, other's experiences and our own experiences, which leads us to no longer believe in any of these experiences is beyond nature.

Nature is enough to explain the many experiences humans have had over the eons. Nature is real and nature has allowed us to live and thrive.

I don't know what more of a realistic, higher power, life giving force any human could ever hope to experience, live in, believe in wonder about , or worship.

Once all you believe in is nature, gods and imaginations of the unknown seem to become irrelevant. The reality of the natural becomes enough to sustain and invigorate life and gods just are no longer believable.

 

[PureX]

@PureX

Just wanted to let you know, I do understand what you are asking

Why choose not to believe when believing is so much more comforting?

That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is why choose atheism when you've already admitted that you don't know it to be so, and when not knowing it to be so is the reason you've reject theism?

After all, there is no way to know either way.

Some of us, and apparently a very small number, have tried and experienced many different existential experiences. Ranging from the earliest and simplest, that Jesus is my Savior.

That was at at age 7. I saw God in the sky during a thunderstorm over the desert.

I experienced the cross in the sky.

I knew for a fact that Jesus and God were with me.

As I got older and more experiences were available to me, my beliefs changed.

No longer could I see Jesus as some Savior from Evil and Hell, born of some previously describe god in some previous culture and time made up by men who wanted their own beliefs to prevail.

Then on to serious Native American belief systems and finally to now.

I know I am on my own to make the difference needed to save the only thing worth worshipping in this real life. That is real nature.[/QUOTE]So what DID you experience, then, do you think? And was it 'natural', or 'supra-natural'? And if you don't know, why assume the negative?

Can I please ask you why you find anything greater than nature to help you overcome hardship?

When nature is often the hardship that needs overcoming, and we do not have the power to do so within ourselves, we seek a power greater than both.

And also, I know very well the comfortable feeling that God is with me. I just am unable to believe that is true any.

That's because you believe your own 'opinions' now, instead. Belief is the enemy of faith. If you had fully accepted that you don't know what or if God is, you would still be free to choose to trust in the great mystery, and to conceptualize God in whatever way generates the most positive effect, for you (faith).

But how am I to know for sure there is not something out there beyond what we do know? Hence the agnostic stance.

We don't need to know. Faith in God works for us whether God is there or not.

 

[Sheldon]

What I'm asking is why choose atheism when you've already admitted that you don't know it to be so,

Obviously because believing something I can know nothing about is absurd. Though not all god claims are unfalsifiable of course, and you are an atheist about all the deities I don't believe exist, except one.

A more apropos question is why anyone would claim they can know nothing about the nature or existence of a deity, then assert they believe it exists?

Where do you stand on invisible unicorns?