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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Atheism isn't a debatable position. You can argue for some form of theism if you like, but no return argument is needed from the atheist, who needs do no more that say that he isn't convinced.

I agree with you that 'you lack a belief that gods exist'.

And that makes her an atheist. What debate are you looking for? What claim do you think the atheist is making that needs defending? That he or she isn't convinced by any theistic argument? That's my position, and it isn't important to me that anybody believe me when I say that about myself. Therefore, I have no burden of proof regarding my unbelief.

Isn't atheism an idealized refusal to "believe in" the existence of gods?

Skepticism is the refusal to believe anything that is not adequately supported. Atheism is the result of skepticism applied to god claims.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

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 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.

One ankle is OK but the pinned one is taking quite a time. I'm having a scan for bone density next week - can't understand why they didn't do it while I was in hospital. Sounds like we both still have many problems.

The books I've read recently were - The Memory Illusion by Julia Shaw, The Knowledge Illusion by Sloman and Fernbach (these two books were OK), Seven Types of Atheism by John Gray (no atheism is any good apart from his own apparently arrogant ), and I'm struggling with From Bacteria to Bach and Back by Daniel Dennett, mostly because he is preaching to the choir here and it does require attention. And I have the same attitude to many other books I have regarding religion (usually against religions) - I tend to start them and find something more interesting to distract me.

Plus I need a new TV aerial - which currently is limiting the number of channels I can receive at the moment (perhaps a good thing ), so reading is the main option, and I still have plenty of unread books.

Anyway, life could be worse - like for this poor girl (public crucifixion in progress here in the UK):

Roxanne Pallett slammed by TWENTY of her ex-Emmerdale co-stars who back Ryan Thomas over 'punch' row
Roxanne Pallett 'VOMITED' immediately after 'PR stunt' apology | Daily Mail Online

(I haven't watched the show but I have watched some previous series)

 

[ChristineM]

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

disbelief or lack of belief as not refusal to believe

The refusal comes in when atheists are told to believe in god despite lack of evidence.

 

[Jumi]

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

And I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine in reply to the OP.

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

Well that misses my posts completely, so I'm sure you have misunderstood something.

 

[ChristineM]

Which false premise?

A false definition
Using semantics to falsely label atheism
Falsely assuming a god exists
Misrepresentation of atheism

 

[ChristineM]

And I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine in reply to the OP.


Well that misses my posts completely, so I'm sure you have misunderstood something.

Interesting that despite not reading my post you ran with it.

 

[Jumi]

Interesting that despite not reading my post you ran with it.

Interesting that you think so badly of me and are so quick to be so unfriendly based on your guesses.

 

[Jumi]

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

I was pretty strongly in the "lack of belief" atheism camp myself. If it wasn't part of atheism, then not believing gods would require a new term.

 

[PureX]

Atheism isn't a debatable position. You can argue for some form of theism if you like, but no return argument is needed from the atheist, who needs do no more that say that he isn't convinced.

What the atheist is not convinced of is completely irrelevant because being unconvinced does not make one an atheist. It makes one agnostic. What makes one an atheist is the rejection of the theist's proposition, which logically would suppose some sort of counter-reasoning (example: why rejection is the atheist's "default" position when confronted with the theist's proposition) that would also logically be expected to be offered and discussed as a part of the debate. And if all the "atheist" has to offer as his reasoning is "a total lack of convincing evidence", then he is basing his position on nothing, rather than on something, which then caries no logical weight in the debate.

Skepticism is the refusal to believe anything that is not adequately supported. Atheism is the result of skepticism applied to god claims.

Skepticism is not a philosophical position. It's just groundless negation for negation's sake, unless you can produce some further reasoning to support it.

Agnosticism is the position of reserving determination due to a lack of adequate information. Agnosticism is this "unbelief" that atheists are always trying to claim for themselves (dishonestly, in my opinion).

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting that you think so badly of me and are so quick to be so unfriendly based on your guesses.

Had you not run with your accusations then it wouldn't be a problem. Hiding behind ''wasnt me guv' doesn't help

Edit : what unfriendly, i simply responded in kind to your posts

 

[Jumi]

Had you not run with your accusations then it wouldn't be a problem. Hiding behind ''wasnt me guv' doesn't help

I didn't talk to you, you talked to me in an unfriendly tone from the start. You replied some things to my posts that didn't seem to be replies to my posts at all.

I tried to be friendly, but it's kind of hard to keep up with all your misunderstandings. Back to ignore you go. The first atheist I've put on ignore.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't talk to you, you talked to me in an unfriendly tone from the start. You replied some things to my posts that didn't seem to be replies to my posts at all.

I tried to be friendly, but it's kind of hard to keep up with all your misunderstandings. Back to ignore you go. The first atheist I've put on ignore.

Just because your post was not addressed does not mean the content was not contentious. You made presumption, i challenged, you ran with it when in fact you should, if your post was not aimed at me, been honest and said so.

Tried to be friendly by making accusations, disrespecting. Fair enough.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Mmmm.... could be...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing was pulled out of anyone's thoughts and written down in a book. It was revealed to the Messengers of God by God and then written down. That is not a fact because it cannot be proven, it is a belief. But it is a belief that can be true.

A belief that "can be true" is also a belief that "can be false!" Now, to test the likelihood of either, a thinking person might ask himself, "well, how many times has God 'seemed to have revealed Himself to Messengers,' who then wrote it all down" along with the corollary question, "and does God look the same each time?"

And frankly, given the number of wildly disparate revelations (Egyptian, Tibetan, Mayan, Aztec, Semitic -- all branches) and religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jain, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism) that the world is home to, it leans -- in my estimation -- to the "false" side. When you actually look at the map of religions around the world, it certainly does not appear to be so much the work of a single deity, but rather the work of a multiplicity of humans. (Picture courtesy of Wikipedia)

​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What the atheist is not convinced of is completely irrelevant because being unconvinced does not make one an atheist. It makes one agnostic. What makes one an atheist is the rejection of the theist's proposition

How many atheists need to tell you that they don't define atheism in terms of the positive assertion that gods don't exist? We are atheists because we are not theists, that is, have no god belief. This atheist is also agnostic since I make no claim that gods don't exist. That makes me identical to those atheist who do in all other areas, a fact that is much more relevant to unbelievers than if one makes such a claim or doesn't.

Skepticism is not a philosophical position.

It most assuredly is a philosophical position, or a fundamental part of one. Skepticism is why I am an atheist.

Agnosticism is the position of reserving determination due to a lack of adequate information.

Agreed, which is something most atheists do.

 

[Willamena]

A false definition
Using semantics to falsely label atheism
Falsely assuming a god exists
Misrepresentation of atheism

Can you be more specific?

 

[Willamena]

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.

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

That belief is substantiated.

 

[atanu]

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?

What false premise? Can you kindly specify?

 

[Sunstone]

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.

What suggests to you that in real life I should believe or suspect my neighbor is beating his wife unless I have positive proof that he is not -- or did you not grasp the essence of my statement?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was pretty strongly in the "lack of belief" atheism camp myself. If it wasn't part of atheism, then not believing gods would require a new term.

Well I'm mostly in the atheism camp with a foot in the door as to some creative force, so likely agnostic in this regard. My problem is with religions since I just see more likelihood of any coming from the minds of humans than any other derivation, hence not that interested in definitions - which are all mostly tied to religious beliefs.