If Atheism is a psychological position we don't need to seriously consider it

[Milton Platt]

Hello. That was my outlook for most of my life. And that seems to be the view espoused by many self-identifying atheists here on RF. In short, my experience. And note in my second post above I qualified my definition ('usually').

The take away here seems to be that we should agree on terminology/definitions up front.

Yes, there is more than one definition for the word atheist, just like there is more than one definition of most words. The definition in play in a discussion is the one actually used by the person using the word.

 

[Milton Platt]

In the rules of 'the game', the person can believe whatever the person wants to believe, but if the person wants to play, then the person has to abide by the rules.

The rules of debate are clear. You must have a proposition (a statement expressing a concept that can be true or false) that you are defending. Your psychological condition is generally not part of the rules of debate, although you are free to have a psychological condition.

Generally speaking, when a person sates, "I lack a belief in a God or gods," he is refusing to play the game. He is choosing not to engage in debate, because his lack of belief is a psychological condition instead of a relevant proposition that needs defending.

What would the opposition to "I lack a belief in a God or gods" be? It would be "You do not lack a belief in a God or gods." Can you imagine? You say, "I lack a belief in a God or gods" and the other person comes back and says, "Oh, but you do believe in a God or gods! And I'll prove it!" There are people who will do that by the way... they will come back and challenge you and enter that debate with you, but it's a completely different debate, a completely different field of play! The goal posts have been moved!

Most people simply aren't going to accept your proposal to shift the goal posts to a debate about your psychological condition.

The word atheist has more than one usage, as do most words.
The way is is used by most atheists is a lack in belief in a god or gods. You can erect straw men all day long if you wish. You need to ask the person using the word what he means by that word.

There is no game to be played. The person making the claim always has the burden of proof. If someone claims there is a god, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. You can find some atheists who make the claim that they know there are no gods, and that claim also has the burden of proof. You can debate them until you both are blue in the face, if you wish.

 

[Ponder This]

I assume, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, that my neighbor is not beating his wife. By your logic, I should come up with evidence for my assumption or drop it. Is it possible for you to really think that makes sense?

If you are going to enter a philosophical debate on the proposition, "Your neighbor is beating his wife," then you absolutely should be prepared to defend your side. This is the difference between a courtroom trial and a philosophical debate. A courtroom that presumes innocence until proven guilty relieves the accused of the burden of proving his innocence, but, in philosophy, it doesn't work that way. You can't say, "I'm right just because nobody proved me wrong," in a philosophical debate. You are going to get called out as committing a logical fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

 

[Ponder This]

There is no game to be played.

It's up to you if you want to play or not. It's perfectly reasonable not to play, but if you move the goal posts, don't be surprised when people stop trying to score a goal against you.

 

[Ponder This]

I am perfectly secure in my lack of belief that gods exist.

I agree with you that 'you lack a belief that gods exist'. Therefore, I have no burden of proof.

 

[Milton Platt]

It's up to you if you want to play or not. It's perfectly reasonable not to play, but if you move the goal posts, don't be surprised when people stop trying to score a goal against you.

I have no idea what you are going on about. I clearly explained that the word atheist has more than one usage. How is that a problem for you?

 

[Mock Turtle]

That pretty much hits the nail right on the head. And is one of the reasons that I give little credence to atheism as a philosophical position.

But there is another reason, and that is that atheism is a groundless and pointless rejection of a number of positive possibilities. Not the least of which is the power of faith to heal us psychologically, and to help us change our relationship to ourselves, each other, and our world for the better. And the fact that some expressions of religion have abused the human need for, and power of faith to their own ends does not mitigate the fact that BILLIONS of people currently and throughout history have used their faith in a god-ideal to help them be and become better human beings then they would otherwise have been, living in fear, confusion, and without any positive ideals. And yet the atheists among would us choose to throw all this away, based literally on nothing, and hope to see everyone else do the same.

You mean living a normal life like any other but without the divisive beliefs that so often promote conflict? Why wouldn't we want that? I might counter that religious beliefs are equally based on nothing - but supposition.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In any case, as I said, for purposes of understanding and being understood by people who call themselves atheists, I think it’s worse than useless to argue with them about the definition of “atheism,” or to insist on applying our own definition to what we say to each other.

Which is why you won't see me arguing about any such definitions. I couldn't care less.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean living a normal life like any other but without the divisive beliefs that so often promote conflict? Why wouldn't we want that? I might counter that religious beliefs are equally based on nothing - but supposition.

My my, look who finally showed up.... You must have read my mind. I was so worried about you I was going to see if I could find your e-mail address. I do not care what you believe, I only care that you are still with us... Now I am happy...

 

[Mock Turtle]

My my, look who finally showed up.... You must have read my mind. I was so worried about you I was going to see if I could find your e-mail address. I do not care what you believe, I only care that you are still with us... Now I am happy...

I really don't like to argue concerning definitions. It's all a bit fruitless for me, but I will interject where I think necessary.

I must admit I've not been feeling exactly on top of the world recently. The ankle injuries are taking too long to heal so not exactly getting about much. All the work done in my garden has been wasted as I haven't been able to keep on top of it. And many of the books I've been reading are not exactly cheering me up.

I hope you have had some progress where you are?

 

[Trailblazer]

I really don't like to argue concerning definitions. It's all a bit fruitless for me, but I will interject where I think necessary.

I do not like to argue over this stuff either anymore. I have better things to do.

I must admit I've not been feeling exactly on top of the world recently. The ankle injuries are taking too long to heal so not exactly getting about much. All the work done in my garden has been wasted as I haven't been able to keep on top of it. And many of the books I've been reading are not exactly cheering me up.

I was kind of worried about those ankles. I do not even get out in the yard if you could call it that... I finally gave up on it, too many other things to worry about, serious things... I lost track of my mortgage and I am too afraid to look at what is left to pay, so I may never retire at the rate I am going, it is so depressing.
What books are those? I have a new book I am reading called Heaven and Hell that cheered me up, not light reading though.

I hope you have had some progress where you are?

I finally got the roof done about a week ago, so that is some progress, but we now have interior work to get done, so we need a contractor.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's not like there's a choice.


That's nothing I recognize as belief.

It's probably why people have problems with this.

I mean I don't need or require anything to believe the sun is there.

Beliefs are unsubstantiated and speculative in nature.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Things that are clearly true are undoubtedly believed.

Why would you need a belief for something that's clearly true?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hello.

Atheism is not rational. Agnosticism, yes, but not atheism. But an atheist (and I was one for most of my adult life) insists on a unsupportable dogmatic position; she is insisting on an absolute knowledge and that is not rational. I mean even in science we do not have 100% certainties.

Just my 2 cents.

Wait ..so you're slapping atheists for insisting on an absolute knowledge, and the OP is slapping them for refusing to?

Bahahahahaha!!!!

 

[PureX]

The utility of a proposition doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its truth.

And that's especially so when the truth cannot be determined.

 

[PureX]

There is indeed a burden of proof when people claim to have the authority to decide what others should believe in.

... Or what they should refuse to "believe in". But the whole thing is silly since no one can force anyone else to "believe in" anything, anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

... Or what they should refuse to "believe in". But the whole thing is silly since no one can force anyone else to "believe in" anything, anyway.

It is even more silly because the very idea of refusal to believe in is, at best, of questionable existence.

 

[PureX]

It is even more silly because the very idea of refusal to believe in is, at best, of questionable existence.

Then how do you explain the 'existence of' atheism? Isn't atheism an idealized refusal to "believe in" the existence of gods?

 

[ChristineM]

So human impact is your yardstick?
I could argue that humans are a planetary infection and that these flea bitten marmots were part of the planet's immune cascade.
Plus they're cute and fun to watch!

Mosquitoes are annoying, for sure, but what would happen to the planetary ecology if all the boreal forests and tundra died?
These regions receive very little energy input. Mosquitoes are part of the mechanism for moving solar energy and nutrients from mid-oceanic phytoplankton to northern regions and spreading it around.

One simplistic example: Sun feeds phytoplankton, feeds tiny fish, feed bigger fish, feed salmon which migrate thousands of KM into the nearly sterile boreal forests to directly fertilize streams and streamsides, as well as animals, large and small, which wander far afield fertilizing the whole area, large eating small, everyone pooping and the mosquitoes taking tiny amounts of energy/fertilizer from everyone as a final step in spreading it around evenly.

Even the annoying have their place.
especially if they're cute...

In the context of gods, yes human impact is the yardstick.

In the context if ecology almost everything is relevant, although that relevance can sometimes be hard to understand.

If the mosquito were eradicated other insects and/or animals would perform their tasks and the hundreds of thousands that die a miserable death would not die. So are mosquitoes a gods answer to population control?

 

[ChristineM]

My first post in this thread was in reply to the original post.


You've considered what was accessible to you and rejected it. You agree with me that it's your right and I applaud you for researching some alternative. We also both agree that the alternative you looked into isn't right.

Your first post on the thread was not important to me, i dont generally read entire threads, just the op, posts that catch my eye and those directly addressed to me. It was your post that i quoted that interested me.

I considered the facts and evidence. Whatever didnt measure up to the facts and evidence was rejected?