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

[Ponder This]

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?

We are talking about the difference someone's psychological condition and the truth value of a proposition. Do you understand the difference?

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

Ah, but I lack a belief that gods do not exist.
Would you say that you ought to continue to try to convince me?
Would you affirm that I have no burden of proof in this matter?

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.

If there is no claim, then there is no debate.

Not only does she have nothing to defend, but I have nothing to prove.

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?

If I didn't 'grasp the essence of your statement', then perhaps you can enlighten as to your meaning.

This is what I got from your statement:

• You made an assumption and you gave a reason for that assumption and you implied that it was a matter of 'logic'.
• The assumption you made is that 'your neighbor is not beating his wife'.
• The reason you gave was that there is an 'absence of evidence' that your neighbor is beating his wife.

Do you understand what Argument from Ignorance is? Or did you just ignore my response to you completely?

Your 'logic':
There is no evidence to support Claim X.
Therefore, Claim X is false.

There is no evidence that my neighbor is beating his wife.
Therefore, my neighbor is not beating his wife.

There is no evidence that your neighbor is not beating his wife.
Therefore, your neighbor is beating his wife.

Now here's what I think of your response to my response:

Consider the following Propositions:

A. In the absence of evidence that my neighbor is beating his wife, I should believe that my neighbor is not beating his wife.
B. In the absence of evidence that my neighbor is not beating his wife, I should believe that my neighbor is beating his wife.
C. In the absence of evidence that my neighbor is beating his wife, I should not believe that my neighbor is not beating his wife.
D. In the absence of evidence that my neighbor is not beating his wife, I should not believe that my neighbor is beating his wife.
​

The negation of A is not B. The negation of A is C.
After I showed you why A was false. You asked me to show why B was true.
But my claim is that C is true. I do not claim that B is true! In fact, I'm willing to claim that B is false.
Edit: @Sunstone I think you were hunting for a default position.

 

[Valjean]

So somehow we are a product of the universe, but you don't believe we would not exist were the universe different? Or am I misunderstanding? Do you not see how if I dig holes of different sizes and in different locations it will effect the sizes and properties of the puddles ?

We might exist, we might not. As you say: different universes, different properties; some favorable for life, some not.

Oh, that's right, since there's no truth to the cosmological argument you must reject cause and effect. Believe what you will then!

I don't understand our disagreement. Where do you see it?

Philosophy of Religion » The Cosmological Argument

 

[Woberts]

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?

More like "I know there's no evidence " to "hmm, what's he going to try to pass off as evidence?"
And I felt like it was reasonable because there is no credible evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

No, and it is NOT a straw man. Your position has been consistent, that one needs no reason to believe in something, but if one claims NOT to believe in something, one ought to have a reason. This seems completely wrong to me, using the examples that I gave.
You: belief in God requires no reason, non-belief in God does
Me: quite the reverse, with no evidence at all of God, belief is unreasonable, non-belief is the only realist default position
You: belief in Sasquatch requires no reason, non-belief in Sasquatch does
Me: the reverse, same reasoning

And so on for unicorns, fairies, djinn and Ming teapots orbiting Tau Ceti VI.

 

[1137]

No, and it is NOT a straw man. Your position has been consistent, that one needs no reason to believe in something, but if one claims NOT to believe in something, one ought to have a reason. This seems completely wrong to me, using the examples that I gave.
You: belief in God requires no reason, non-belief in God does
Me: quite the reverse, with no evidence at all of God, belief is unreasonable, non-belief is the only realist default position
You: belief in Sasquatch requires no reason, non-belief in Sasquatch does
Me: the reverse, same reasoning

And so on for unicorns, fairies, djinn and Ming teapots orbiting Tau Ceti VI.

Ah so I did catch your straw man! Reported.

 

[1137]

More like "I know there's no evidence " to "hmm, what's he going to try to pass off as evidence?"
And I felt like it was reasonable because there is no credible evidence.

Ah gotcha. Waste of my time then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah so I did catch your straw man! Reported.

What rule do you think was broken? "Reported" for what?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't know why I assumed you'd be familiar with even basic Theistic arguments. My bad.

Oh, I am familiar with them... they just simply aren't acceptable, and have been refuted time and time again since their inception.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see atheist as a silly word when I first heard of it almost recently. It's like debating with my friend who thinks I have a blue couch without her being here. I insist I have a red couch.

It is silly for her to claim she knows about my couch when she never came to see it herself.

It's silly to claim my couch is red when she has nothing in her position and evidence to even argue against the claim

Leads us both at a standstill.

So you have to get pass that first; then, take a side and argue for or against it.

It's more like you saying that you have a red couch. Then when I ask to see your red couch, you tell me that I can't see it because it's invisible, but I should take your word for it that it's there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hello. Perhaps, though I have never encountered such a use of the term. What you describe I think of agnosticism. Big difference.

They're not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

Ah, but I lack a belief that gods do not exist.
Would you say that you ought to continue to try to convince me?
Would you affirm that I have no burden of proof in this matter?

It's entirely up to you what you believe or dont believe. I've made my case. No evidence exists for any gods existence. (But much circumstantial evidence contradicts claims of gods existing).

 

[Willamena]

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.

I, too, am wondering where this straw man came from. It's not a rational "implication." 1137 has claimed only that the burden of proof falls on the posit, and I agree.

 

[1137]

The great thing is if you could refute it you would, and so since you don't we know you cannot. But if you do decide to argue against them I'll be here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The great thing is if you could refute it you would, and so since you don't we know you cannot. But if you do decide to argue against them I'll be here.

You haven't even made the actual arguments. You proposed the highlights. And I am supposed to interpret how you would apply those highlights as arguments for theism? I'll take your ridiculous highlights one at a time:

"effects have causes"

So what? This supposedly proves that the "cause" in this case is the one YOU insist it must be? Please. Until you know the "cause" of a proposed "effect", you don't know. Slapping the name "god" on it is LAZINESS.

the universe could not host human life with different properties

Again, so what? The properties are what they are. You know for a fact that there needs to be a reason? How, may I ask? Besides this, the properties could be different and still host life of a different variety - non-human. There are bacteria on Earth that live out their lives in acid too strong for humans to handle - I think there is quite an array of circumstances that life can survive in. And I know you said, specifically, "human life" - but that assumes that humans MUST exist in some form, or that there was some "plan" that humans exist. You have no evidence of any such thing. All you have is supposition and assumption on that score. Or am I wrong? Do you have any evidence that the "plan" for the universe is that it contain human life specifically? Or is all you've got more thought experiment?

the mind can have power over the body

And this supposedly proves supernatural/godly forces are at work? Why? The mind of every living creature supports the body by way of emotional state triggering bodily effects. Its all connected... ALL of it. So what? It basically had to be for the organism to function properly. What does this PROVE?

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't know why I assumed you'd be familiar with even basic Theistic arguments. My bad.

I think the main problem with your... Uh... "Theistic arguments"(this made me laugh out loud, there's literally no correlation between theism and the arguments you made) is that they are a bit too basic.

And nonsensical.

 

[1137]

I think the main problem with your... Uh... "Theistic arguments"(this made me laugh out loud, there's literally no correlation between theism and the arguments you made) is that they are a bit too basic.

And nonsensical.

An atheist making logical claims with no support?! It... It must be a day!

 

[Darkstorn]

An atheist making logical claims with no support?! It... It must be a day!

Did you just assume my religion?

 

[Willamena]

The great thing is if you could refute it you would...

If you cared to.

 

[Woberts]

Ah gotcha. Waste of my time then.

Now that's mighty suspicious. Almost like you didn't have any at all!!!!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I, too, am wondering where this straw man came from. It's not a rational "implication." 1137 has claimed only that the burden of proof falls on the posit, and I agree.

Okay, point taken.

I have nothing worthwhile to say about what another person might believe. They are under no obligation to justify their beliefs to me. By the same token, I am under no obligation to justify my belief that such beliefs do not correspond to any reality.

So I have made the error of equating "believing in" something with "asserting the truth of" that something, though they look pretty similar.

Still and all, if I were to demand that my government remove the religious institutions in my community because they worship untruth, I would, at that point, be very much obliged to demonstrate my statement. And if a religious person says that God demands that gays not be married, I think that person would be under the same obligation, and if unable to do so, then to shut up and mind their own beliefs and business.