I Am Atheist (strong)

@helenS But, epistemologically speaking, that opens you up to the same demand for proof I would ask a theist for, right?

@RevolutionaryDoctor Ok. You are talking about proof. Like a lawyer. I am a [i]believer[/i]. I [i]believe[/i] that certain things are true although I can’t prove them. For example I believe that death is not the end. I could be wrong. Perhaps “I” am just a structure, composed of proteins, hydrocarbons and what not. I have no proof that you and I are more than that. I hope I am right and I hope you don’t see yourself as [i]something[/i] that can be explained [i]completely[/i] by physics (and everything that derives from physics, such as biochemistry).

@helenS I actually find it far more remarkable to consider that nature constructed the world, and especially the amazing things the human brain does and allows us to feel, purely from biochemistry and physics than from some sort of deus ex machina. The latter seems like a cop out explanation that doesn't honor the amazing complexity of nature.

@RevolutionaryDoctor Please let me say that I like your approach much more than that of those pietistic simpletons.

@RevolutionaryDoctor [quote]the same demand for proof I would ask a theist for[/quote]

Exactly. A gnostic atheist is making a claim, and thereby incurs a burden of proof.

On the other hand, an agnostic atheist incurs no such burden:

1. there's no proof that gods exist (or we'd all be gnostic theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might well be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, there is [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to make the postulation in the first place (and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away).
4. therefore, I have no gods

@newjaninev2 I think it all comes down to whether or not the human soul is just a brain activity.

@helenS Soul? Could you define that for me?

@helenS You might like to note that the first three of my four points above allow for agnostic atheism to be debunked at any moment.

It's hard to see that as being 'on the safe side of life'

@newjaninev2 I don't know whether I need to define that for you because "soul" is an ordinary language word. I would think that [i]all of your inner experiences [/i] are part of your soul. A trivial example may be experiencing the color "green". Neither a photon wavelength (533 nm) nor the electric signals that are transferred from your retina to your brain are green (a voltage spike is not green). Whatever brain activity you may measure using oscilloscopes and so on is not [c=#359E00]green[/c]. I would love to explain what I mean more clearly but I can't.

@newjaninev2 I would recommend that you read Dr. Nagels famous paper on "What is it like to be a bat?", here:

https://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

It's not that I want to criticise your informed opinion, but it may be interesting for you to compare your point of view to something completely different.

@helenS so 'soul' is just another word for a subjective experience of existence?

However, you also said:

[quote]all of your inner experiences are part of your soul[/quote]

So, are my subjective experiences my 'soul', or are they just a part of it... and what comprises the rest?

How is any of this something 'completely different' from the points I offered about agnostic atheism?

I cannot see the relevance

@newjaninev2 I wish I was more articulate Janine.

"and what comprises the rest?
— the rest is a mystery.

"I cannot see the relevance
— My reply did not address your points about [agnostic] atheism. I wanted to point out that [i]you[/i] and me and user "[i]RevolutionaryDoctor[/i]" exist on different levels, and only one of these levels is explained by science. (Not that I would believe scientific results are wrong!) "Either something can be accounted for by using laboratory equipment, or it does not exist" is [i]not[/i] a result of scientific research, but part of a narrow belief system.

@helenS and so we have subjective experience, and no compelling necessity to make postulations beyond that

We should not bounce back and forth between Epistemology and Ontology here. While terms such as 'belief system' may have relevance in Epistemology (I assume), science is inherently ontological, and comprises a set of methods (those methods being the best way we have to keep from fooling others and, more importantly, to keep from fooling ourselves... the easiest to fool).

As someone said to me, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts... and that is the distinction we perhaps need to maintain here.