Why do atheists deny that they are just biorobots?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I believe the point is that their theism is the source of those beliefs, whereas atheism is one result among many that is arrived to through investigation of the world.

My point is that a belief can be both the conclusion of prior reasoning and the premise of continued inquiry. My detractors refuse to acknowledge the first in my position and the second in their own.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...my views on the nonexistence of gods and my views on the relativity of morality, for instance, are both rooted in my epistemology of rational consideration of evidence and phenomena.

A very laudable approach to epistemology although you know i disagree with your conclusion. So in your mind atheism is something to which you reason, not something from which you reason.

Exactly. I am not loyal to any one idea, but I am convinced that approaching reality through the lens of reason is likely to give me the sharpest picture.

And if we disagree on conclusions, that's fine, too. I need not march in lockstep with someone in order to call them "friend".

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe the point is that their theism is the source of those beliefs, whereas atheism is one result among many that is arrived to through investigation of the world.

My point is that a belief can be both the conclusion of prior reasoning and the premise of continued inquiry. My detractors refuse to acknowledge the first in my position and the second in their own.

I can see that, but I don't think atheism quite has enough...substance? to fit that sort of premise. There simply isn't any sort of method in atheism that suggests a way of investigation. It's true that I might be more likely to reject theistic or supernatural claims out of hand than a theist might, but I would chalk that up to the skeptical and empirical methods that I employ (or attempt to employ, anyway), not to my atheism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's what we've been trying to tell you. Atheism isn't a worldview. It's the result of an epistemological stance.

Here's what confuses me. I have exactly the same epidemiological stance, apply reason to experience, and yet I reach a different conclusion, i.e. God exists. Why then, is my belief in God a worldview and your opposite conclusion not one? Moreover, having reached that conclusion I can carry that over as the premise of further inquiry. Why are atheists incapable of doing the same?

I would be willing to bet that we have differing evidentiary standards.

I don't see the world, or the human body, or the complexity of the galactic dance, as evidence of deity, for the simple reason that there are other reasons which do not beggar belief and are at the same time sufficient to explain our observations. Occam's Razor, as I'm sure you've figured out by now.

Additionally, while I've got a hell of a lot of respect for your knowledge of philosophy (a field I don't know very well, and still distrust), I don't think that you can reason something into existence as easily as you can reason something out of existence. For that reason, before I change the switches on my control board, I want to see better evidence, supported by reasoning which explains those observations.

I have yet to come across a theistic worldview that doesn't beggar our understanding of the world as we know it. And in that event, I prefer to be circumspect, and accord credence to that which makes sense. And a creator god makes no sense.

[Esquilax]

Exlax, its called logic. I know its difficult for you but anyone can see that on the one hand you say theism is a worldview because believers have many and various beliefs and on the other hand you say atheism isn't a worldview because atheists have many and various beliefs.

So, have you been reading my posts at all? I specifically said that theism is not a worldview, but that christianity and organized religions like it are. And my justification for this, as I said in my last post, has nothing to do with "many and varied beliefs," but rather that, in accepting the god claims of a given organized religion, you are then presented with a list of other beliefs in the form of scripture, which are lent automatic credence as coming from the all knowing creator god that was accepted with the initial claim.

What I said, in fact, had nothing to do with varied beliefs at all, but rather the larger set of beliefs that specific organized religions require you to accept, as contrasted with the single belief that atheism or theism require you to accept.

This would be the point in the post, by the way, where if I was you, I would put in some almost-veiled jab at your intelligence. Instead, I'll simply recommend that you read back over my last few posts in this thread.

[Mister Agenda]

That's what we've been trying to tell you. Atheism isn't a worldview. It's the result of an epistemological stance.

Here's what confuses me. I have exactly the same epidemiological stance, apply reason to experience, and yet I reach a different conclusion, i.e. God exists. Why then, is my belief in God a worldview and your opposite conclusion not one? Moreover, having reached that conclusion I can carry that over as the premise of further inquiry. Why are atheists incapable of doing the same?

We're capable of it, but the rational skeptics among the atheists don't think making it a premise is a good idea. We try to minimize our premises, not add to them. The conclusion 'atheism' for almost every rational skeptic is not that no gods exist but that the proposition that at least one god exists is insufficiently justified to warrant belief. That's not much to build on, even if you were so inclined.

---

Truly, I believe you’re reaching. You cannot honestly believe that atheism doesn’t affect subsequent inquiry. Ruling out options, like divine influence over physical reality, is one such philosophical consequence.

Damn, you were almost there. So close....

---

Exlax, its called logic. I know its difficult for you but anyone can see that on the one hand you say theism is a worldview because believers have many and various beliefs and on the other hand you say atheism isn't a worldview because atheists have many and various beliefs.

Theism isn't a worldview. I'm pretty sure Esquilax said as much, explicitly.

---

I believe the point is that their theism is the source of those beliefs, whereas atheism is one result among many that is arrived to through investigation of the world.

I disagree. Theism isn't a worldview, and it isn't a source of beliefs. Mere theism doesn't entail anything but the opinion that at least one god is real. Everything else is added, and doesn't come from theism, but from culture and tradition.

[genkaus]

Atheism does not deny the possibility of a god, the divine (whatever that is) or anything else. So it is not shutting out any possibilities. It does not logically lead to any other position.

So, likewise you are of the opinion that atheism something to which you reason and not a position from which you reason, i.e. a conclusion only.

Excellent - you finally seem to be getting it.

[robvalue]

Indeed, atheism is a conclusion. It's not a presumption or a premise. We understand each other now

[genkaus]

Here's what confuses me. I have exactly the same epidemiological stance, apply reason to experience, and yet I reach a different conclusion, i.e. God exists. Why then, is my belief in God a worldview and your opposite conclusion not one? Moreover, having reached that conclusion I can carry that over as the premise of further inquiry. Why are atheists incapable of doing the same?

Your "belief in god" - whether as a conclusion or a premise - is not sufficient to be a worldview. Its a simple belief.

And certainly you can carry over the premise for further inquiry and that is how you build the rest of your worldview. However, the atheistic premise of "no god" isn't at all helpful when it comes to other conclusions. Simply put, a worldview is made of ideas about "what is" and a belief about "what isn't" isn't very helpful in determining things about that.

[Well Rounded Rectangle]

It is scientific and logical

Found them out holding out for something more I suppose.
Malingerers