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

[Jumi]

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.

In a deistic or "life force" sense?

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.

I think all religions prove they are man made. I don't think there's any way it could be otherwise. Even though I'm a theist, I've yet to meet any religion that has explanatory power worth considering them so far. They serve as inspirational material at best or inhibitory at their worse.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In a deistic or "life force" sense?
.

Mostly in my inability to understand the physics - of possible other universes and what we don't know about this universe (or its origin). All that dark matter and dark energy lurking about too. And I'm not that trusting that humans have the ability to find all the answers anyway.

 

[Jumi]

Mostly in my inability to understand the physics - of possible other universes and what we don't know about this universe (or its origin). All that dark matter and dark energy lurking about too. And I'm not that trusting that humans have the ability to find all the answers anyway.

Exactly, we're still working on the science and doing educated guesswork based on what we can measure so far. Even top minds with the education can only go so far with so many cards hidden. Dark matter and energy could be something, or it could be some law that we haven't grasped yet. One of my past physics teachers came out of retirement because of dark matter, to lecture about it. It was quite interesting...

 

[PureX]

How many atheists need to tell you that they don't define atheism in terms of the positive assertion that gods don't exist?

What they are describing is not atheism, but agnosticism. So, are you asking me how many "atheists" are going to have to lie to me to convince me that they are atheists? I already know most of them are atheists. Because most of them are NOT undecided due to a lack of sufficient information, as they are falsely claiming. They have clearly decided to assume that no gods exist, based on nothing but their desire to do so. And that's atheism. The whole "unbelief" nonsense is just an excuse they use to avoid having to admit that they are basing their atheism on nothing but their own biased desire to reject the theist's proposition.

We are atheists because we are not theists, that is, have no god belief.

That's not what makes one an atheist. Everyone that is not a theist in not an atheist because that ignores the possible options of agnosticism and of being unaware of the proposition all together. As such, this is a definition of atheism that deliberately denies definition.

This atheist is also agnostic since I make no claim that gods don't exist.

No one cares about what anyone "is" or "is not". The debate is not about what you think you know or or what you "believe in" or don't, or how strongly. The debate is about the proposition being posed, and it's value and validity or it's lack thereof, as it is being defined. "Beliefs" are a complicated, undefined, and ever changing subject, which is why there is no point in even trying to debate them. You can see for yourself what happens when two "believers" try to debate their respective beliefs. And especially when they attach their personal identities to them! It goes nowhere, fast.

 

[1137]

Went camping, can't catch up right now. Will try to respond to anyone who quoted or tagged me tonight.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Exactly, we're still working on the science and doing educated guesswork based on what we can measure so far. Even top minds with the education can only go so far with so many cards hidden. Dark matter and energy could be something, or it could be some law that we haven't grasped yet. One of my past physics teachers came out of retirement because of dark matter, to lecture about it. It was quite interesting...

I bet it was shocker for many scientists - the fact that it seems to be pushing the universe apart, if that is true. I'm more at home with technology than any of the basic sciences (physics, chemistry, or biology) even though I try to understand them.

 

[Valjean]

What they are describing is not atheism, but agnosticism. So, are you asking me how many "atheists" are going to have to lie to me to convince me that they are atheists? I already know most of them are atheists. Because most of them are NOT undecided due to a lack of sufficient information, as they are falsely claiming. They have clearly decided to assume that no gods exist, based on nothing but their desire to do so. And that's atheism. The whole "unbelief" nonsense is just an excuse they use to avoid having to admit that they are basing their atheism on nothing but their own biased desire to reject the theist's proposition.
That's not what makes one an atheist. Everyone that is not a theist in not an atheist because that ignores the possible options of agnosticism and of being unaware of the proposition all together. As such, this is a definition of atheism that deliberately denies definition.
No one cares about what anyone "is" or "is not". The debate is not about what you think you know or or what you "believe in" or don't, or how strongly. The debate is about the proposition being posed, and it's value and validity or it's lack thereof, as it is being defined. "Beliefs" are a complicated, undefined, and ever changing subject, which is why there is no point in even trying to debate them. You can see for yourself what happens when two "believers" try to debate their respective beliefs. And especially when they attach their personal identities to them! It goes nowhere, fast.

You seem to think using "agnostic" to mean what current atheists call atheism obviates atheism as a synonym.
You've made it clear that you take atheism to be some sort of militant, anti-religious, anti-God political position.

 

[Nakosis]

From SEP: Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not directanswers to this question."

This is a very clear explanation of why atheism is, indeed, a position. It's not simply a psychological state, it's a metaphysical view that the unvierse is absent gods, opposed to theism being 1+ existing god. Further, atheism doesn't exist in a vaccuum. The second you get to morality, epistemology, materialism, and so on the more defense the position needs.

In no other cases do we accept a position that does not need defense and support, so why do some do so with atheism? Even worse, why not just defend your atheism if you can?

A great example is being told "you don't need to defend/support being an abigfootist." That's ... That's not true. If you think Bigfoot is fiction you need reason to think so or we shouldn't seriously consider your position. For instance - "I don't believe because the video evidence was shown to be a man in a monkey suit". That's a reason one can defend for holding their position. If you disagree, please share other positions outside of atheism that one can accept without reasons or evidence. Can anyone claim any position for any reason and it should be accepted, or is it special pleading?

Why do I think atheism has taken to this? Burden of proof games. The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous. There is no "burden of proof," anyone who has a position needs to defend it. Ask yourself: if you don't have evidence and arguments to believe something, and can't / aren't willing to defend it... Is it really a worthwhile position?

Sure, generally because of my own experience with the subconscious mind and what I've researched. The subconscious mind can create religions experiences. Experiences of God, feelings of divine presence. Provide conformation bias, all the ingredients necessary for faith and belief. There is no good reason to trust anecdotal experiences. I've seen this over and over again. I've read a number of studies that support this position. While I suppose most people trust their own experiences, I have had enough experience and information to cause me not to.

So I see atheism as a position of a skeptic to anecdotal religious experience. To accept a God, any God I would require much more than anecdotal experience. So really I negate claims of gods based on anecdotal experiences. In fact I don't really trust any claims based solely on anecdotal experience, the belief in God just happens to be among them.

 

[Quintessence]

Personally, I do not care about whether or not (a)theism is or isn't a position, is or isn't "default," or who has the so-called burden or proof. None of that matters to me. What matters to me is that the person can successfully articulate their perspective to me in a manner I can roughly follow and understand. I may not agree with their perspective - and I probably won't agree with their usage of terms - but the goal isn't agreement, it's communication and learning. I dislike the terms "theist" and "atheist" in no small part because they are far too nebulous and get in the way of such learning.

 

[1137]

All the atheist has to do to circumvent this is say that they require scientific proof to believe in a God and since none exists they have logically concluded that God doesnt exist.

Well at the very least the cosmological, teleological, and argument from consciousness all rely on scientific evidence for instance. Simply saying it does not exist is equivalent to a creationist saying "there's simply no evidence of evolution," and just as convincing. So do you have a refutation, or is it just "simple"?

How can anyone be so completely wrong, with such vigour? Let's start with your Bigfoot example, only let's change it to unicorns. You claim if you think Bigfoot (or unicorns) don't exist, you need a reason to think so, but by implication, you suggest that if you think Bigfoot (or unicorns) do exist, there's no onus on you to provide any reason why you would think so.

So to clarify, is your straw man that I do not believe one needs a reason to believe in things like bigfoot?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You start with a blank slate; a lack of belief, in leprechauns, giraffes, God, Cthulu and dinosaurs. When good evidence presents itself, then you accept the premise, in the meantime you neither believe nor deny.
You seem logically challenged. If by 'disbelieve' you mean lack belief, this is the only reasonable position. A lack of belief is the only reasonable position for anything until evidence for it appears.
True, but ordinary atheists make no such assertion. Only a small subset believe there definitely is no God. Unless you clarify 'atheism' with a modifier, like 'strong' atheism, the term means only a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not a belief.

Actually you start without and idea of Cthulhu, god, giraffes, etc. This is very different from a lack of belief in them. To lack belief you would have to consider the possibility which would require the ability to understand the possibility. Tell me, how can you lack a belief in gods without believing the most likely scenario to be "there are no gods"?

You've once again proven yourself willfully ignorant of what you denounce.
Congratulations.

Do you have any reason to support that the well respected SEP is willfully ignorant, or is it just another blind atheistic claim never to be supported?

"It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism"

Then "theism" is childish nonsense if the above is true, absolutely not related to anything but intellectual fantasizing. The sun rises and the sun sets independent of the observer, regardless of what it believes or does not believe..

The problem is here that it is irrelevant to the bible and most certainly irrelevant to the new testament yet often times its these texts that "theism" or aspergers slinks into to justify intellectualizing fantasy. Its total absolute garbage like atheism.

I am not sure what you mean? I'm also curious where the bible came into play here as we are not discussing any sort of christian-specific religion or belief? Why do you see the conclusions of logic and science as "childish nonsense", and do you feel the same way about your own logic and science as well? Or is it special pleading?

In the end, if you're going to posit any sort of "god" or supernatural entity or anything of the like that cannot be inter-subjectively verified with a high amount of confidence, then I am going to tell you that you are full of crap. If you then simply decide to "not seriously consider" my objections, I (and many others) am likely to take that as a sign of cowardice.

So if you posit evolution and I happen to feel evolution is wrong, I can write you off as full of crap cause I feel like it? Sounds about right!

If theism is a psychological position we don't need to seriously consider it either.

Well yeah, that's correct.

If you've read "several" scholarly articles on burden of proof, yet still display a remedial grasp of the concept, then may I suggest you spend some time reflecting on what you've read.

Well actually, if I was incorrect about the burden of proof and you had tons of support for your view you would share it. That's ok, just know we both know.

 

[PureX]

Personally, I do not care about whether or not (a)theism is or isn't a position, is or isn't "default," or who has the so-called burden or proof. None of that matters to me. What matters to me is that the person can successfully articulate their perspective to me in a manner I can roughly follow and understand. I may not agree with their perspective - and I probably won't agree with their usage of terms - but the goal isn't agreement, it's communication and learning. I dislike the terms "theist" and "atheist" in no small part because they are far too nebulous and get in the way of such learning.

They are nebulous only when they are tied to "beliefs", which are vague, contradictory, and ever changing. When the terms are allowed to designate a philosophical position, instead of a person's beliefs, they are no longer nebulous, as they demand reasoned articulation both for and against.

 

[Woberts]

Do you have any reason to support that the well respected SEP is willfully ignorant, or is it just another blind atheistic claim never to be supported?

I wasn't talkin' about the SEP, buddy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So if you posit evolution and I happen to feel evolution is wrong, I can write you off as full of crap cause I feel like it? Sounds about right!

Like it or not, evolution IS inter-subjectively verifiable. That you choose not to accept the evidence of verification is not my fault. Now... where is the evidence of your supernatural or after-life or godly ANYTHING? I can point you in the direction of loads of evidence for evolution that is tangible, relate-able, visual. Agriculturalists and animal breeders have been taking advantage of the principals of evolution for tens of thousands of years, for example. You have no such back-up for any theistic ideas you push. It is nowhere near the same. You have some books that also have no legitimate backing, some feelings, some hopes and dreams. You have other people who ALL THE TIME prove themselves to have been lying, unsure, taking advantage, or flip-flopping religions and belief systems as it suits them. You have wisps on the wind and a song.

 

[1137]

I wasn't talkin' about the SEP, buddy.

I'm honored you think I control the philosophy of SEP but that's reaching paranoid delusions. Do you have any refutations of Op or not?

Like it or not, evolution IS inter-subjectively verifiable. That you choose not to accept the evidence of verification is not my fault. Now... where is the evidence of your supernatural or after-life or godly ANYTHING? I can point you in the direction of loads of evidence for evolution that is tangible, relate-able, visual. Agriculturalists and animal breeders have been taking advantage of the principals of evolution for tens of thousands of years, for example. You have no such back-up for any theistic ideas you push. It is nowhere near the same. You have some books that also have no legitimate backing, some feelings, some hopes and dreams. You have other people who ALL THE TIME prove themselves to have been lying, unsure, taking advantage, or flip-flopping religions and belief systems as it suits them. You have wisps on the wind and a song.

Cool, we're going with "pretend theists have never presented evidence." You do you man!

 

[Woberts]

Cool, we're going with "pretend theists have never presented evidence."

Actually, we're going with "theists have never presented evidence."

 

[Quintessence]

They are nebulous only when they are tied to "beliefs", which are vague, contradictory, and ever changing. When the terms are allowed to designate a philosophical position, instead of a person's beliefs, they are no longer nebulous, as they demand reasoned articulation both for and against.

I don't quite follow the distinction you are making here between "beliefs" and "philosophical position." Isn't a philosophical position a type of belief?

 

[1137]

Actually, we're going with "theists have never presented evidence."

Fair enough, people believe objectively wrong things to hold to their faith all the time.

 

[Woberts]

Fair enough, people believe objectively wrong things to hold to their faith all the time.

Alright then.
What evidence do theists have?

 

[1137]

Alright then.
What evidence do theists have?

Interesting. We went from "I know there's no evidence" to "hmm, what's the evidence". I'll answer under one condition: can you explain why you felt it was reasonable to make that claim before asking that question?

 

[David T]

Well at the very least the cosmological, teleological, and argument from consciousness all rely on scientific evidence for instance. Simply saying it does not exist is equivalent to a creationist saying "there's simply no evidence of evolution," and just as convincing. So do you have a refutation, or is it just "simple"?



So to clarify, is your straw man that I do not believe one needs a reason to believe in things like bigfoot?



Actually you start without and idea of Cthulhu, god, giraffes, etc. This is very different from a lack of belief in them. To lack belief you would have to consider the possibility which would require the ability to understand the possibility. Tell me, how can you lack a belief in gods without believing the most likely scenario to be "there are no gods"?



Do you have any reason to support that the well respected SEP is willfully ignorant, or is it just another blind atheistic claim never to be supported?



I am not sure what you mean? I'm also curious where the bible came into play here as we are not discussing any sort of christian-specific religion or belief? Why do you see the conclusions of logic and science as "childish nonsense", and do you feel the same way about your own logic and science as well? Or is it special pleading?



So if you posit evolution and I happen to feel evolution is wrong, I can write you off as full of crap cause I feel like it? Sounds about right!



Well yeah, that's correct.



Well actually, if I was incorrect about the burden of proof and you had tons of support for your view you would share it. That's ok, just know we both know.

Belief non belief agnosticism is irrelevant to nature totally Its really intellectualizing fantasy. Sort of like highly educated idiocracy. Hey all three parties agree on the "truth" that what they think is primary they just disagree on the details is all.

So if i attack idiocracy i get "what i dont understand coming back" thats not my problem actually. Thats a symtom of an overly active intellect lost in space.