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

[Willamena]

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?

I believe most do defend their atheism, with logic and reason, at least on these forums. Those who suggest they do not need to probably haven't tried.

​

 

[Sir Doom]

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

I am willing, and do accept that.

From outside, as a theist, like all possible different beliefs and changes in belief for any reason at any time,' are real serious choices.

There are no universal rules to how seriously one takes their theism either. Or any belief at all about any topic of any flavor, for that matter.

You do realize I'm defending atheism, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Let the absurdity settle in for a few minutes.

Your basic logic skills appear to be lacking. Tell me, do you believe in fairies? If not why not?

 

[Willamena]

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.

It really is the same, unless you allow "all gods" to include fiction. If you disallow fiction, though, and stick to fact, then believing in no gods is the same as not believing any of the currently proposed gods.

 

[syo]

There are roughly 4200 religions

Impossible. There are a few major religions and the major religions have denominations. And cults are not religion.

 

[syo]

Atheism is denying like not playing football is a game

Atheists deny. You ask ''who created you?'' and they say I deny it was God who created me.

 

[Regiomontanus]

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.

Hello. Interesting. We had different experiences. As a scientist, over decades, when a colleague (or anyone really) told me they were an atheist it almost always meant that they outright rejected the notion of God. That is the atheism I am saying is not rational. If you want to call that strong atheism, OK. Where do we draw the line then between weak atheism and strong agnosticism? Splitting hairs.

 

[syo]

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.

I don't understand what type of God you would accept.

Maybe you want a stranger appear in front of you and resurrect a dead guy or something.

 

[Sunstone]

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?

I assume, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, that my neighbor is not beating his wife. By your logic, I should come up with evidence for my assumption or drop it. Is it possible for you to really think that makes sense?

 

[ChristineM]

Impossible. There are a few major religions and the major religions have denominations. And cults are not religion.

You had better tell wikipedia
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia

 

[syo]

You had better tell wikipedia
List of religions and spiritual traditions - Wikipedia

this is a list of the major religions with their denominations. What are you saying? the catholics and orthodox are two different religions???

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists deny. You ask ''who created you?'' and they say I deny it was God who created me.

No they dont, they say "my parents"

Most atheists do not even consider god, those who do are simply responding to having the idea of a bronze age myth (or other similar myth) lorded as truth.

 

[Regiomontanus]

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.

Hello SZ. I knew you would be dropping by a thread with a title such as this one

Yes, some misunderstandings on terminology. It looks like I am talking about 'strong atheism'. I can only go by my experience which, mentioned above, was always that when someone claimed to be an atheist they were rejecting the notion of God. That was my world-view for a long time. I was for example an active member of American Atheists which were/are pretty hardcore. Someday before I die I need to write about my friendship with Robin Murray-O'hair, grandaughter of the founder of that organization ( "most hated woman in America"). Both of them were murdered as you might have heard (there is a recent movie on Netflix about it that I have on my list but have not been able to bring myself to watch it).

 

[syo]

No they dont, they say "my parents"

They should say ''my grandparents''

 

[ChristineM]

this is a list of the major religions with their denominations. What are you saying? the catholics and orthodox are two different religions???

I am saying Confucianism, Shinto, Falun Gong, Wicca, Sikhism, Voodoo, Hinduism etc, etc, etc are not abrahamic religions

I guess you only read the bit you wanted to read

 

[ChristineM]

They should say ''my grandparents''

Why? Grandparents created parents, parents created them. Sure they have no belief in woo but they are not stupid.

 

[syo]

I am saying Confucianism, Shinto, Falun Gong, Wicca, Sikhism, Voodoo, Hinduism etc, etc, etc are not abrahamic religions

did I say hinduism is abrahamic?

 

[Sunstone]

@1137 did you bother to read even a single article by a professional logician on burden of proof before running off with your opinions on it? If not, why not?

 

[ChristineM]

did I say hinduism is abrahamic?

You said

There are a few religions. All talk about the same god.

So yes,in essence you did say Hinduism is abrahamic

 

[Jim]

... even theists have anti-religious prejudices, as they can be prejudiced against all other religions but their own.

I agree. I was thinking that too.