A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[sojourner]

Likewise, I have no memory of ever thinking that there is "something else out there" or "some greater purpose".
Maybe "developmental science" isn't saying what you think it is saying?

Then you weren’t paying attention. Or are being willfully provocative.

 

[sojourner]

If you claim that all colds are accompanied by nasal congestion, this can be disproved by a case of a cold that did not experience nasal congestion.
If you were simply saying that some people feel that there is "something else" and "more to it than this", well congratulations on winning this months Stating The Bleedin' Obvious Award.

As for your claim that "we are born with the capacity to sense that we are one with the world", that is just nonsense. A newborn is not even aware that there is a world.

1) That is what I’m saying.
2) we’re not aware because we’re not self aware on a cognitive level.

 

[sojourner]

Are you claiming that an article on a specific issue in a specialist publication is "common knowledge"?

Psychology Today isn’t a “specialist magazine.” It’s a popular magazine.

 

[sojourner]

I have zero interest in a straw man version of what I said, your claim, you evidence it, or else I disbelieve it. Humans have a propensity for superstition, and creating imaginary deities, that much is self evident from the sheer number that humans have created.

Such disinterest sucks for you, I suppose.

 

[sojourner]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Wrong. You’re simply not going to accept whatever I provide. You’re being deliberately provocative. We’re done.

 

[sojourner]

What do you believe we are aware of at birth, and what leads you to that conclusion?

Cognitively, not much. But I believe infants are highly intuitive.

 

[Sheldon]

Then you weren’t paying attention. Or are being willfully provocative.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

It’s an observation of your post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m implying that we are born with the capacity to sense that we are one with the world, and that later we naturally self-differentiate to sense that there is more than just “us.” Both the experience of oneness, combined with the sense of a larger world, serve to say that there is an innate predilection to spiritual experience.

We have a tendency to favour Type II errors (false positives) over Type I errors (false negatives). We also tend to be a bit over-eager to attribute agency to inanimate objects and unintelligent phenomena.

Seems like you're talking about these phenomena, only with unwarranted spin.

 

[Sheldon]

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

It’s an observation of your post.

Your observation of my post is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

We have a tendency to favour Type II errors (false positives) over Type I errors (false negatives). We also tend to be a bit over-eager to attribute agency to inanimate objects and unintelligent phenomena.

Seems like you're talking about these phenomena, only with unwarranted spin.

We also have a tendency to dismiss what we don’t want to see. Seems like some here are dismissing possibilities that lie outside the rational mind, which dismisses whole segments of valid human experience. It’s funny that many believe humanity is more advanced than other life forms. They do so based on our ability to be creative and think outside predetermined boxes. Yet when it comes to spiritual experience, they throw that creative capacity down the drain.

 

[sojourner]

Your observation of my post is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You’re mistaken. Your argument is anecdotal.

 

[Nakosis]

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)

You expressed the logic for atheism in the very first line of the OP.
"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'."

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.
Atheism is a statement about belief.

An Agnostic claims they have no knowledge of a God.
An Atheist claims that since we have no knowledge of a God there is no reason to have any belief about a God.

 

[PureX]

You expressed the logic for atheism in the very first line of the OP.
"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'."

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.
Atheism is a statement about belief.

Yes, and it's the antithetical belief to theism, which is the belief that no gods exist. "Unbelief" is not a belief. In fact, it's not even a statement. It's just meaningless gibberish that requires no label, and offers no information. Which is exactly why the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are so desperate to hide from their own absurd hypocrisy, behind it.

An Agnostic claims they have no knowledge of a God.
An Atheist claims that since we have no knowledge of a God there is no reason to have any belief about a God.

Claiming "no reason" as one's reasoning is the logic of either an idiot or a liar.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and it's the antithetical belief to theism, which is the belief that no gods exist. "Unbelief" is not a belief. In fact, it's not even a statement. It's just meaningless gibberish that requires no label, and offers no information. Which is exactly why the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are so desperate to hide from their own absurd hypocrisy, behind it.

Do you think that other similar terms like "civilian", "vegetarian", or "non-smoker" (which all, like "atheist", describe someone based on something they don't do) are gibberish?

 

[ratiocinator]

Claiming "no reason" as one's reasoning is the logic of either an idiot or a liar.

I refer you to my post #746. Perhaps you would be an idiot or a liar if you ignored my warning about the demon...?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, and it's the antithetical belief to theism,

Yes

which is the belief that no gods exist. "Unbelief" is not a belief.

No

In fact, it's not even a statement. It's just meaningless gibberish that requires no label, and offers no information

Then maybe you ought to stop making it.

Which is exactly why the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are so desperate to hide from their own absurd hypocrisy, behind it.
Claiming "no reason" as one's reasoning is the logic of either an idiot or a liar.

So you think ignorance is a darn fine foundation for belief.

 

[PureX]

Do you think that other similar terms like "civilian", "vegetarian", or "non-smoker" (which all, like "atheist", describe someone based on something they don't do) are gibberish?

Do you think that the fact that you had to change the subject from "unbelief" to inaction because you couldn't address the point I made about "unbelief" being meaningless gibberish could be an indication that maybe you should be rethinking your position?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that the fact that you had to change the subject from "unbelief" to inaction because you couldn't address the point I made about "unbelief" being meaningless gibberish could be an indication that maybe you should be rethinking your position?

You don't get it. I don't have any motivation to educate you, especially when you aren't willing to listen to reason.

As you were.

 

[Sheldon]

We also have a tendency to dismiss what we don’t want to see. Seems like some here are dismissing possibilities that lie outside the rational mind, which dismisses whole segments of valid human experience.

Anything that does not adhere to the principles of logic would be by definition irrational, that's what the word means. So I'm not sure why anyone wants to base beliefs or claims on the irrational, but yes I choose not to, as I care that what I believe is true, and know that irrational beliefs or claims are less likely to be true.

It’s funny that many believe humanity is more advanced than other life forms. They do so based on our ability to be creative and think outside predetermined boxes. Yet when it comes to spiritual experience, they throw that creative capacity down the drain.

Well I don't believe we are "more advanced than other life forms" for a start, I find that notion ludicrous and at odds with evolutionary science. However our ability to be creative is measurable and can be evidenced without any recourse to unevidenced subjective claims, I know of no objective evidence that can demsonrate or measure anything spiritual.