A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Secret Chief]

Please allow me to correct this a little bit:

Theism/atheism is about presuming the reality of God.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about knowing or not knowing it to be so.

Hmmmm. @mikkel_the_dane stated correctly.

 

[PureX]

There are no meaning other than meaning in brains.
There is no meaning in this sentence as it happens in your brain and not in the signs.

Words have to be agreed upon, and that usually means they have to be logically relevant, to be of any use to us. We aren't communicating brain to brain. We are communicating through the use of words. And more precisely, through the use of their respective logical contexts. It's a complex process and it'll work best if we keep to the most logical context and commonly held definitions.

 

[viole]

But your feelings aren't much of a logical argument. I was kind of hoping for a logical reason for choosing atheism, not just your feelings about it.

Well, a difference is that there are many theists, while there are not so many fairiests, and that is probably why a special name was required. But apart from semantic, I would say an atheist, at least someone like me, has the same belief in God as she has in Mother Goose. And that is what counts. If you prefer to call me a God/Mother Goose agnostic, I don’t care.

However, in my experience, theists prefer agnosticism to atheism (wonder why, since being agnostic of God as for Superman, does not seem to provide any significant difference between the words). Maybe they believe that an agnostic increases the plausibility of their belief. Or gives them some level of intellectual respect, as if the jury on God were still out, even for unbelievers. It does not. What increases plausibility is evidence, for which there is zero.

ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

No, but now you have to show that logic is better than feelings with better being a case of in the end a feeling.

Fortunately I don't have to. All I have to point out is that THIS thread is about the logic

 

[PureX]

Why do you think atheists choose to be atheist?

Because I assume they are not mentally impaired.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Words have to be agreed upon, and that usually means they have to be logically relevant, to be of any use to us. We aren't communicating brain to brain. We are communicating through the use of words. And more precisely, through the use of their respective logical contexts. It's a complex process and it'll work best if we keep to the most logical context and commonly held definitions.

Yeah, there we go again with logic. You and I believe differently about that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fortunately I don't have to. All I have to point out is that THIS thread is about the logic

For which you used a feeling and an unfounded claim that logic works as you claim.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Why is believing something on balance of probabilities illogical? We all do this all the time.

Why is atheism a special case that necessitates a completely different logical framework?

Precisely. What I was attempting to convey.

 

[PureX]

There is no need to reconsider my position. You do not agree. That is fine. I am not interested in your agreement. You assert that my position is unreasonable. With no justification. However. It is clear to me that A. If a hypothesis is untestable, then it is next to worthless and B. If a hypothesis has no supporting evidence. Then it would be irrational to assign a significant probability of that hypothesis turning out to be true. In fact to assign a non zero probability at all, is generous. I will now withdraw from this particular thread.

You are actually debating philosophical materialism, here, not atheism. And I recognize that it probably is your reasoning for being atheist. But I'm already having a hard time keeping up with all the posts. I'm not sure I have to time to debate materialism, too.

Though I would suggest that you look it up, and read some about why it has long been considered a failed philosophical proposition. Here's a hint: reality encompasses far more than physicality, and the fact that we can debate this pretty much proves it. The fundamental problem with philosophical materialism is that it denies the reality of it's own reasoning.

 

[F1fan]

Because I assume they are not mentally impaired.

You dodged my question. You are asserting atheists choose to be atheists. From what atheists, including myself, testify to is that we have no choice. the evidence to support religious claims doesn't exist to a satisfactory level. that lack of evidence is not our choice. We have no choice but to accept the lack of evidence. Do you choose to not believe that Santa Claus exists?

What might be confusing you is that theists don't actually choose to believe either. It's not as if theists come to an objective and rational conclusion their beliefs are true or likely true. Theists have emotional influences that pressure their beliefs subconsciously.

 

[Nimos]

No, I made my own that worked for me based on what I already believe and just added a God, which was the creator of the universe. Well, sort off. I ended up in pandeism without the general theism, but still supernatural.

So what made you go away from it again? or are you still in doubt about it going back and forth between it or what to say?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You are actually debating philosophical materialism, here, not atheism. And I recognize that it probably is your reasoning for being atheist. But I'm already having a hard time keeping up with all the posts. I'm not sure I have to time to debate materialism, too.

Though I would suggest that you look it up, and read some about why it has long been considered a failed philosophical proposition. Here's a hint: reality encompasses far more than physicality, and the fact that we can debate this pretty much proves it. The fundamental problem with philosophical materialism is that it denies the reality of it's own reasoning.

Physical reality is that which can be measured observed or inferred. From wind to gravity waves to the higgs field to spacetime itself. If something cannot be measured, posses no measurable property variables, unlike
mass or position or velocity, then it is non physical. It is non reducible. It is untested or untestable hypothesis. Opinion. Even.

 

[PureX]

Why is believing something on balance of probabilities illogical? We all do this all the time.

"Belief" is illogical and unnecessary in relation to effecting probability. Also, you have no logical method of establishing the probability of God's existence. I respect that you THINK you do (just as theists also often think they do). But it's not logically possible. We humans don't have the cognitive scope for it.

Why is atheism a special case that necessitates a completely different logical framework?

Atheist are constantly claiming themselves to be operating on "evidence and logic", while the claim theists are not. Since there is no evidence to support choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic, I am asking for the logic of it.

So far ya'll aren't doing very well at presenting it.

 

[F1fan]

You are actually debating philosophical materialism, here, not atheism.

Except that theists are making a materialist claim. That theists might refer to their God as immaterial only hurts their claims because then they cannot explain how they, as material beings, can know about an immaterial being. Theists also don't claims any special abilities, so this leaves them with an irrational claim.

When a theist makes a claim, especially in debate, they are accepting the rules of logic and materialism, whether they like it or not. Theists are addressing an audience that values these rules of thought, and theists enter into this contract and offer no better additional rules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what made you go away from it again? or are you still in doubt about it going back and forth between it or what to say?

I didn't need a belief in God. I coped well without.

 

[PureX]

Physical reality is that which can be measured observed or inferred.

... And a whole lot more. It's leaving this part last out that fails materialism as a philosophical paradigm. Also, that little addendum of "inferred" really tosses a grenade into the soup. All kinds of things can be logically "inferred". Including God, intelligent design, and universal morality just to name a few that I suspect you would really like not to be included.

And the "testing" thing is rife with bias and limitation from start to finish; from what we choose to test, to how we choose to test it, to how we interpret the results.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that theists are making a materialist claim. That theists might refer to their God as immaterial only hurts their claims because then they cannot explain how they, as material beings, can know about an immaterial being. Theists also don't claims any special abilities, so this leaves them with an irrational claim.

When a theist makes a claim, especially in debate, they are accepting the rules of logic and materialism, whether they like it or not. Theists are addressing an audience that values these rules of thought, and theists enter into this contract and offer no better additional rules.

Well, better is subjective as per this as far as I can tell:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
Or in other wording - man decides what subjectively matter or not.

So if you can do better as not feelings or opinions or not expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations, then I will listen. In the end objectively better please.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physical reality is that which can be measured observed or inferred. ...

Yes, but that is not the whole everyday world. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that theists are making a materialist claim. That theists might refer to their God as immaterial only hurts their claims because then they cannot explain how they, as material beings, can know about an immaterial being. Theists also don't claims any special abilities, so this leaves them with an irrational claim.

When a theist makes a claim, especially in debate, they are accepting the rules of logic and materialism, whether they like it or not. Theists are addressing an audience that values these rules of thought, and theists enter into this contract and offer no better additional rules.

Take #2:
I am an atheist and not materialist. What now?

 

[PureX]

Except that theists are making a materialist claim.

You are confusing theism with religion. Theism proposes that God/gods exist (in a way that effects humanity, or the claim would be moot). Atheism counter-proposes that God/gods don't exist (same criteria). The proposed God's' relationship with/to physical matter is an individual theological issue to be debated with individual theists/religionists. Theism does not propose that God exists as a material/immaterial phenomena, but as a philosophical ideal. Same goes for the counter-proposition of atheism.

That theists might refer to their God as immaterial only hurts their claims because then they cannot explain how they, as material beings, can know about an immaterial being. Theists also don't claims any special abilities, so this leaves them with an irrational claim.

Yes, it's a favorite pastime of 'atheists' to attack individual theist's conceptualizations of God and pretend that they are attacking (and defeating) theism, itself. We see it all the time. But what's the point, really?