Why do atheists deny that they are just biorobots?

[Esquilax]

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?

Don't you have a book of attendant other beliefs that go along with your god conclusion that you're bound to follow? A B-something?

That's why. In your case, there really is a whole bunch of things your chosen religion entails, which atheism just does not have. Now, I don't think that's universal, since there are god conclusions that don't make any additional demands upon the person who accepts them, like deism, but in terms of organized religions there's certainly a lot of additional premises included that you're morally bound to follow, in accordance with the doctrine.

[Faith No More]

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?

But you don't have the same epistemological stance that we do, which is most apparent in your use of Aristotelian ideals.

Your belief in god is a worldview because your conclusion leads to philosophical consequences that affect your perspective on everything that exists, while the lack of belief in god simply entails that further information is needed to create a complete worldview.

[RobbyPants]

It is scientific and logical

If you were any other poster, I would say "I am a bio robot. I don't deny it".

However, it is, you, so instead I'll say "Shut up, you disingenuous fuck."

[Neo-Scholastic]

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?

But you don't have the same epistemological stance that we do, which is most apparent in your use of Aristotelian ideals.

I don’t see the difference. In the context of a previous post, the stance was defined as reason applied to experience. Aristotelian and Neo-Scholastic metaphysics come out of that approach just as much as any other metaphysical position.

Your belief in god is a worldview because your conclusion leads to philosophical consequences that affect your perspective on everything that exists, while the lack of belief in god simply entails that further information is needed to create a complete worldview.

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.

[abaris]

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.

There's a difference between ruling out and not believing in. One is gnostic, the other one agnostic.

[Esquilax]

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.

Of course it affects subsequent inquiry, but it doesn't make explicit demands of what one should believe, with the same level of asserted epistemological authority as organized religion does. Tell me, do you think every person reaches exactly the same conclusions about everything? If your answer is no- and really, why wouldn't it be?- then I have to ask why you think every atheist would come to precisely the same conclusions, just because they happen to have reached one conclusion in common? Do cultural, intellectual and other forms of context mean nothing in the determination of one's opinions? Is it only the belief in a god that affects that? If not, then what is stopping atheists from reaching vastly different conclusions about every other question, despite having common ground with regards to nonbelief in god? There are no mandates or commands that atheists should believe or adhere to this or that principle, there's nothing to guide them by fiat to any set of ideals, beyond the single conclusion they've come to regarding divinity. Hell, even the strength or stringency to which they hold that conclusion varies between atheists.

Contrast that with organized religion, where the god conclusion grants huge amounts of authority to a set of claims contained within scriptures or religious doctrines, that do impose upon the rest of your beliefs in a much more present and directed way. Surely you can see the difference now?

[Faith No More]

I don’t see the difference. In the context of a previous post, the stance was defined as reason applied to experience. Aristotelian and Neo-Scholastic metaphysics come out of that approach just as much as any other metaphysical position.

Stop being obtuse.

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.

Sure, it affects subsequent inquiry, but by a fraction of the amount that theism does. By believing in god you view everything through a specific lens, while not belieivng in god only entails that you won't be using that one lens.

[ManMachine]

It is scientific and logical

Here's the thing. Abstraction and decontextualisation of thought is important to our evolution and survival.

In order to form tribes (without which we would long since have disappeared) we must develop social abilities, these require sharing of abstract ideas. To contextualise these ideas we need a sense of past, present and future - memory, self-awareness and prediction. These are highly developed, very complex mechanisms that require a sense of self determination, autonomy from the environmental forces and biological imperatives that really drive us.

It is a shared delusion, but a necessary one.

We are bio-bots, but we can't let anyone know our dirty little secret otherwise it will all unravel... then where will we be, worshiping the sun again.

MM

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[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.