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

[ChristineM]

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

How many times???

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Atheism is the default state, the state that human beings are born to, i.e. all newborn lack belief in god or gods. Only indoctrination implants the idea of deity

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe so. I don’t remember saying or thinking that most of them do. Mostly what I see them doing is denouncing some religions and their followers.


Exactly.

So misrepresentation is your god. Ok

 

[ChristineM]

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

Up to you, if no evidence for gods exists and no one is willing to even try producing evidence then my position is logical and secure, thanks for the agreement

 

[PureX]

Atheism is the default state, the state...

No, that would be agnosticism that you're referring to.

 

[Willamena]

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

Because belief is generally defined as an acceptance that something is true. Things that are clearly true will automatically be accepted. Things that are rejected as true have engendered doubt.

 

[PureX]

Because belief is generally defined as an acceptance that something is true. Things that are clearly true will automatically be accepted. Things that are not clearly true engender doubt.

That isn't really the issue at hand, however. For two reasons. One is that nothing can be deemed absolutely true, no matter how "clearly" we claim to be seeing it's truthfulness. We are not omniscient, after all. And the second reason is that truthfulness is a value assessment that must be based in some sort of criteria. And we do not all hold to the same criteria in assessing truthfulness. So that not only is truthfulness relative (to our unknowing), it's also subjective (subject to our chosen criteria for determining truth). Which is why it ALWAYS ends up being something we choose to "believe" is true, or we choose to "believe" is not true. And the only other option, here, is to choose not to believe anything at all based on our circumstantial ignorance. So this claim of "unbelief" can only logically (and therefor honestly) apply to an agnostic. Not to an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

That isn't really the issue at hand, however. For two reasons. One is that nothing can be deemed absolutely true, no matter how "clearly" we claim to be seeing it's truthfulness. We are not omniscient, after all. And the second reason is that truthfulness is a value assessment that must be based in some sort of criteria. And we do not all hold to the same criteria in assessing truthfulness. So that not only is truthfulness relative (to our unknowing), it's also subjective (subject to our chosen criteria for determining truth). Which is why it ALWAYS ends up being something we choose to "believe" is true, or we choose to "believe" is not true. And the only other option, here, is to choose not to believe anything at all based on our circumstantial ignorance. So this claim of "unbelief" can only logically (and therefor honestly) apply to an agnostic. Not to an atheist.

It's just the question that was asked me.

 

[ChristineM]

No, that would be agnosticism that you're referring to. But there will be no enlightening you, I am sure.

Sheesh, sarcasm failure...

Agnostic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Atheist : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Please provide your reasoning as to how a newborn can have knowledge that enables it to decide it believes nothing is know or can be known.

I am sure definitions are not too difficult you to learn.... See where this goes?

 

[Willamena]

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.

That sounds more like a rail against naturalism. Naturalism is what rejects possibilities beyond the evidence of one's own senses and reasoning.

 

[Jumi]

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.

The meaning of the post changes if it's addressed to your post or the OP, which is why I mentioned it. You reacted in a way that didn't seem addressed to what I said.

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

Do you think I'm trying to convince you of something?

 

[Willamena]

Sheesh, sarcasm failure...

Agnostic : a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Close. "...who believes that the nature and existence of god is unknown or unknowable…" would be less presumptuous and more correct.

Please provide your reasoning as to how a newborn can have knowledge that enables it to decide it believes nothing is know or can be known.

I am sure definitions are not too difficult you to learn.... See where this goes?

This relates to the OP by treating belief as "psychological position" (a state of mind) rather than a relation to the "propositional content of belief." Do you have an argument that supports it?

 

[PureX]

It's just the question that was asked me.

I meant no offense. And I would add that it is entirely possible for someone to be 'relatively' atheistic. That is, we are logically capable of being only somewhat convinced that gods exist, or do not exist. In fact, I suspect that technically, we are ALL agnostic to some degree, even if it's considered negligible.

This is another reason, however, that debating what we "believe in" (or "disbelieve in"), rather than the merits of the actual proposition, is nearly always a foolish waste of time.

 

[ChristineM]

The meaning of the post changes if it's addressed to your post or the OP, which is why I mentioned it. You reacted in a way that didn't seem addressed to what I said.


Do you think I'm trying to convince you of something?

Your post directly followed my post and appeared to address what i had. I replied in that context.

No, you are giving your opinion what in no way reflects my reality

 

[ChristineM]

Close. "...who believes that the nature and existence of god is unknown or unknowable…" would be less presumptuous and more correct.

This relates to the OP by treating belief as "psychological position" (a state of mind) rather than a relation to the "propositional content of belief." Do you have an argument that supports it?

I provided the primary dictionary definition as defined by the OED .

I was not the one implying babies were born with knowledge of god belief. Surely you should be asking the question of @PureX.

There are many un peer reviewed claims, mostly made by religious groups that we are born with god belief wired into their brain, however no evidence is provided to back the claims

Research by phycologist Silvan Tomkins suggests babies are born with 9 innate effects which appear to be the source of all emotions.

Interest/excitement
Enjoyment/joy
Surprise/startle
Fear/terror
Anger/rage
Distress/anguish
Shame/humiliation
Disgust
Repulsion

You could also read this on early childhood development.

Social cognition | The Development of Theory of Mind in Early Childhood | Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development

 

[Willamena]

I was not the one implying babies were born with knowledge of god belief. Surely you should be asking the question of @PureX.

Either of you.

Edit: As one who can't accept a "default state" for something that isn't a "state of mind" at all (per the OP), I'm asking for an argument that might make sense of it.

 

[Willamena]

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

No, refusing to believe in something is stubborn and childish.

 

[ChristineM]

No, refusing to believe in something is stubborn and childish.

Except of course if the refusal is the result of total lack of evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Either of you.

Edit: As one who can't accept a "default state" for something that isn't a "state of mind" at all (per the OP), I'm asking for an argument that might make sense of it.

There are many default states not related to mind in any way.

A default state is a starting state or a reset state when no other option is provided

A newborn childs mind has no knowledge of anything (including gods).

Edit : the op introduces a false premise to reinforce the religious ego. How does one argue against incorrect assumptions when arguments of fact are ignored, manipulated and/misrepresented?

 

[Willamena]

Except of course if the refusal is the result of total lack of evidence.

There is no necessity to refuse something that hasn't been given to you.

 

[Willamena]

There are many default states not related to mind in any way.

A default state is a starting state or a reset state when no other option is provided

A newborn childs mind has no knowledge of anything (including gods).

Edit : the op introduces a false premise to reinforce the religious ego. How does one argue against incorrect assumptions when arguments of fact are ignored, manipulated and/misrepresented?

Which false premise?