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

[Sir Doom]

Well it's a philosophical position not a psychological condition. Taking it seriously or not is psychological, of course.

Each of us gets to decide how seriously we take atheism from inside or outside and subject to change of any type for any reason at any time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. I disagree.

Well either way you're hopelessly stuck with a deity that doesn't speak, doesn't talk, doesn't move , doesn't act, without requiring a person doing any of it on "behalf" of said deity. Basically a puppet that's only alive whenever someone is working the strings .

The psychological position is really applicable with theism which is well demonstrated.

 

[Milton Platt]

The question at hand is not whether atheism or theism is more rational. The question at hand is that atheism is a proposition and not a psychological state. I would say it is more rational to accept a position that presents reasoning and evidence, rather than stating they do not need to and only other positions do.



"God probably doesn't exist", is a proposition, it is identical to "the universe likely has zero gods". All such propositions needs to be defended, and if they cannot be they should not be seriously considered.



See, this is just claiming "It's a Fact". I can say "creationism is a fact," are you now a creationist? What evidence do you have of this? Why do the beliefs of an ignorant child define reality? I started life thinking when mom walked out she would never come back - wasn't true. I thought people lived forever - not true. I thought teachers lived in the school - not true. But of course you accept all these things since I was born thinking that way, correct?



The user seems to be talking about certain forms of atheism like materialism and anti-theism, or even LaVeyan Satanism.



You don't have to make a claim. When I theist says "I believe in gods" the atheists still jump down their throat screaming "PROOOOOVE IIIIITTT!!!" So it is only fair this works both ways. "I believe in god" implies "I believe there are 1+ gods in reality", and atheists are right to recognize. It doesn't magically change for you guy. Atheism is the position that "I believe there are zero gods in reality", and you need to have reasons to think so. It has nothing to do with claims of certainty.



Saying "I don't know" does not mean you cannot find one option more likely than another.



Seriously this is special pleading - what other position are you ok accepting without any defense of it? I am guessing none. If you believe there are zero gods in the universe you either need reasons and evidence to believe so like anyone else on any other proposition, or your position should not be considered.



This idea that "you have a different view so cannot be skeptic" is the perfect identifier of false modern skepticism. Unfortunately, "hardcore materialistic atheism" is not a skeptical position and not even a reasonable one. If you accept claims with reason to there's no reason to take you seriously. Here: "creationism is true and I dont need a reason to believe so like you said." Looks like you're a creationist now, sorry!



Well there are two problems here. First is that we know full well that theism can be a justified belief, so simply labeling it an "unsupported position" is about as fallacious as we can get. Why do we have to accept your unsupported claim that it is more likely no gods exist??



We've known each other a long time now, I know you're too smart to actually not understand the difference between something mind-dependent and something objectively existent.



It's always concerning when people refer to philosophy in such condescending terms. I think you misunderstood the entire point of the article - that both theism and atheism are a believe and proposition on whether or not gods exist, atheism is not some nonsense "lack of belief" as often claimed.



If that definition was something like "they believe in the divinity of christ" then that is perfectly fine, fair, and objectively true, It is a defining characteristic. Should Setians be insulted if you defined us as all honoring Set? I mean... that's part of the definition. Same with atheism and the belief in a godless universe.



It doesn't have to be a claim of certainty, it's the proposition that no gods are more likely to exist than 1+. You literally state this yourself in that last sentence.



I do not comprehend how this is so difficult for atheists to understand. If you don't believe the universe is godless you believe there are gods and are a theist. That's literally it, QED. If you believe the universe is godless or is with gods, either way you need reasons to believe so. If a position has no reasons to believe it then we should not seriously consider it.



Exactly, you are spot on! Atheism is the belief and proposition that there are no gods, that the universe is godless. And like all beliefs and propositions we should have reasons to believe them. What other positions do you accept which have no reason to be believed?



Pretending the arguments and evidence are not there does not make them magically disappear. Address those or defend your own position.



Wrong. If you believe the universe is godless, and have no reasons to believe so, then your proposition is worthless. Please share with the class what other positions you accept without reasons to do so? Will you believe any claim I make since I do not need reasons to believe them?

No, you are incorrect. As I have stated numerous times, I lack a belief in a god, not a belief that there are no gods. I know what I think about these things, and it is incredibly arrogant for you to think you can know better what another person thinks than they do.

 

[1137]

No, you are incorrect. As I have stated numerous times, I lack a belief in a god, not a belief that there are no gods. I know what I think about these things, and it is incredibly arrogant for you to think you can know better what another person thinks than they do.

Lol ok, so you don't believe gods exist and also don't believe they don't. Not atheism first of all, not logical second of all, even if you say it a hundred times .

 

[Milton Platt]

Lol ok, so you don't believe gods exist and also don't believe they don't. Not atheism first of all, not logical second of all, even if you say it a hundred times .

No, it is you are not understanding at all. Believing no gods exist is not the same as not believing in any of the currently proposed gods. The first is a positive declaration and should rest upon evidence, just like the proposition that gods do exist. Both those propositions need evidence. the second is simply a lack of belief in the currently proposed gods. If there is a god that is discovered and the evidence substantiates it beyond a reasonable doubt, then I will no longer be an atheist. In the meantime,. I remain an atheist because evidence is lacking.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Presenting the absurd extremes is as is what the choice of atheism means to those that believe is illogical and foolishly relying of stereotyping generalizations, and Theists are faced with the same problem of the question: Does God exist? Would most Theists acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist?

By far most atheists believe in Methodological Naturalism to support there belief and do not think their belief is based absolute knowledge. Many are scientists, and fully realize that science is not the result of absolute knowledge of conclusions. Most make the assumption of philosophical naturalism based on the belief 'there is no reason to believe.'

Actually there is a point you make, which is valid, but the validity of agnosticism cuts both ways. The problem would would apply both theism and atheism. Even though I am a Theist, I acknowledge that agnosticism is a sound logical position, and consider myself a philosophical agnostic questioning all beliefs including those who claim to believe nothing,

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Actually, not necessarily atheist. You appear to only accept the extreme absolute denial of the possibility of the existence of no God(s) is atheism, and I believe this extreme view is not the only choice for claiming to be an atheist.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Presenting the absurd extremes is as is what the choice of atheism means to those that believe is illogical and foolishly relying of stereotyping generalizations, and Theists are faced with the same problem of the question: Does God exist? Would most Theists acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist?

By far most atheists believe in Methodological Naturalism to support there belief and do not think their belief is based absolute knowledge. Many are scientists, and fully realize that science is not the result of absolute knowledge of conclusions. Most make the assumption of philosophical naturalism based on the belief 'there is no reason to believe.'

Actually there is a point you make, which is valid, but the validity of agnosticism cuts both ways. The problem would would apply both theism and atheism. Even though I am a Theist, I acknowledge that agnosticism is a sound logical position, and consider myself a philosophical agnostic questioning all beliefs including those who claim to believe nothing,

"By far most atheists..."

And you are basing that on..?

 

[ChristineM]

@1137 @It Aint Necessarily So @ChristineM



If you're not interested in playing football, then you don't have to play and we can all agree that you are being perfectly reasonable. You can spectate on the sidelines as the players compete.
But if you want to play football, then you have to pick a side.

That's how debate works. Debaters debate the truth or falsity of a positional claim. Debaters don't walk onto the field of debate and say, "You must defend your position, but I do not have to defend mine."

So the question would be what turns your psychological condition of 'lacking belief' into a positional claim?
What proposition are you affirming to be true? Once you answer that question, we can know what fields you are playing on and what fields you are merely spectating.

So you think not plating football is a game that requires sides?

Personally i think just about as much of the great god gf football as i do the great god(s) of religion... Nothing... So no, i dont have to pick a side, but you guys are welcome to your game.

My position is defended 100% with thousands of years of failure to provide evidence of a god. I am perfectly secure in my lack of belief that gods exist. You want to prove me wrong please feel free to offer your evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. I may address further.

It is far more rational and logical than the belief systems clinging to ancient mythology, and ancient scripture of questionable provenance

Exactly.

 

[shunyadragon]

"By far most atheists..."

And you are basing that on..?

First, a long history of knowing atheists as a scientist, and twenty years on the web dialoging with those who claim to be atheist or agnostic.

. . . and the definition . . .

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=ath...7j35i39j0l4.5908j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
a·the·ist ˈāTHēəst/ noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
   "he is a committed atheist"
   synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic;
   nihilist
   "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"

The 'lack of the belief in God' is more in line with those that see 'no reason to believe in God(s).

Strong atheists do exist who are absolutely certain that no Gods exist, but most definitely nothe majority.

 

[1137]

No, it is you are not understanding at all. Believing no gods exist is not the same as not believing in any of the currently proposed gods. The first is a positive declaration and should rest upon evidence, just like the proposition that gods do exist. Both those propositions need evidence. the second is simply a lack of belief in the currently proposed gods. If there is a god that is discovered and the evidence substantiates it beyond a reasonable doubt, then I will no longer be an atheist. In the meantime,. I remain an atheist because evidence is lacking.

Sigh, belief is not a claim of certainty. Atheism believes it's more likely we have a godless universe. Even one of the definitional sources on philosophy agrees here. Do you know what we call someone who believes their faith over actual philosophy?

But fine. If you don't want your position seriously considered, I emplor our theists here to grant your request.

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly, you are spot on! Atheism is the belief and proposition that there are no gods, that the universe is godless. And like all beliefs and propositions we should have reasons to believe them. What other positions do you accept which have no reason to be believed?

I shall repeat with relevant words emboldened
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

How is disbelief or lack of belief suddenly transformed into belief to suit your argument.

In thousands of years of god worship literally billions of people have failed to show a god or gods exist. Using that criteria gods are the most failed concept in human history, that is enough to justify my lack of beliefs in woo.

 

[1137]

I shall repeat with relevant words emboldened
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

How is disbelief or lack of belief suddenly transformed into belief to suit your argument.

In thousands of years of god worship literally billions of people have failed to show a god or gods exist. Using that criteria gods are the most failed concept in human history, that is enough to justify my lack of beliefs in woo.

So you disbelieve in gods but don't believe the universe is godless?

Let the absurdity settle in for a few minutes.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Atheism is a belief, rather than knowledge. When I say, "there are no gods," it's a statement of belief.

 

[icehorse]

"God probably doesn't exist", is a proposition, it is identical to "the universe likely has zero gods". All such propositions needs to be defended, and if they cannot be they should not be seriously considered.

This defense is similar to others on this thread: "Some people claim that a supernatural being they call 'god' created the universe. Because this claim is so pervasive, I sometimes find it necessary to say that I disagree with the god claim. I disagree, because I have seen no evidence to support the god claim."

Having said that, was anything in what I just said not inferable with a strong likelihood of accuracy?

 

[viole]

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.

Well, I tried to be agnostic. For instance, at cocktail parties I was claiming agnosticism about things like the blue fairy, Xenu the evil emperor of the galaxy, the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its connections with string/nudel theory, and a whole lot of things that I could not disprove. until I noticed people were looking at me funny.

If I say I am agnostic about God people seem to respect that. If I say I am agnostic about garden fairies messing around with my carrots, people think I am crazy.

But why, since God and garden fairies have the same plausibility, given their evidence (zero)?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

So you disbelieve in gods but don't believe the universe is godless?

Let the absurdity settle in for a few minutes.

Please dont misrepresent my posts just to massage your own ego.

Where did i say i "don't believe the universe is godless"

Let your ignorance settle for a few moments... See where this goes?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well it's a philosophical position not a psychological condition. Taking it seriously or not is psychological, of course.

Disagree, unless you are willing to accept that all human beliefs choices 'when taken seriously or not,' are psychological.

Each of us gets to decide how seriously we take atheism from inside or outside and subject to change of any type for any reason at any time.

From outside, as a theist, like all possible different beliefs and changes in belief for any reason at any time,' are real serious choices no less nor more real than atheism..

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But that is as much of a strawman of atheism as calling all Christians "Bible literalists deniers of science" would be. Most agnostics are atheists. You might disagree with what is called "hard atheism" but that is only one flavor out of many.