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

[Jim]

Not to mention the anti-religious views of the religious that wage war against those of other religions than their own.

Yes, I was thinking that too.

 

[1137]

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?

Did you not say atheism wasn't a positive proposition? I'm sorry if I misunderstood but I thought you were disagreeing with my OP.

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?

Well wouldn't your evidence include her not having bruises, no screaming fights, no fear of her husband, etc? Plus ignoring the evidence for gods doesn't make it go away, you either have to deal with it or let go.

@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?

I have read several, I'm very involved with philosophy and philosophers, **** I do guest speaking! A position that can't defend it's is a useless position, and a position that won't defend itself is laughable.

 

[Jim]

A lot of believers think atheist are people who reject god of abraham.

Im sure there are atheist-hindu and atheist-Pagans etc. Just we dont know a lot about it to debate so we lean to abrahamics by default.

In online debates about religion, the people who are debating on the side of atheism are mostly people with feelings of animosity towards Abrahamic religions and their followers, and their position in the debates is opposition to those religions and their beliefs, including their belief in Abrahamic Gods.

 

[Jim]

Hmm. Yeah.I think I know who youre talking about. Ima read the link in a bit; but, it threw me off guard too that one can be an Hindu Atheist. I was more surprised over than a christian one. Urban Dictionary: Christian Atheist (Believe jesus existed and his morals but not his fathers existence)

Maybe you’ve never heard of the Clergy Project.

 

[Jim]

... if such a Creator exists, the founders of the world's most popular religious faiths knew no more about its true nature than I do.

I agree.

 

[Jim]

We have some regulars here who in addition to being atheists reduce all religion to a strawman of systems of belief and further make then built strawman into a scarecrow. Religion some claim is the cause of our social ills and to get rid of it all. I would not call that atheism but anti religion in addition to atheism.

Exactly. You’ve given me the exact words I was looking for, but couldn’t find.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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).

Yes, I am aware of what happened to the O'hare's. Atheists are a bit more inclusive today. Most of them say, as I do, that they do not believe because of a lack of evidence. If evidence was given we would change our minds. A willingness to change one's mind is the opposite of "dogmatic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It is pretty simple. If they say "I know there are not any gods" that would be a strong atheist. If a person says "I do not believe in any gods because I have not seen any evidence for gods" that would be a weak atheist. I thought this would help my prior post. I do know of both. Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience (a weekly internet call in TV show) would be weak atheist. Aron Ra would be a strong atheist.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Yes, I am aware of what happened to the O'hare's. Atheists are a bit more inclusive today. Most of them say, as I do, that they do not believe because of a lack of evidence. If evidence was given we would change our minds. A willingness to change one's mind is the opposite of "dogmatic".

Great, then there is hope for you yet. Hah!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great, then there is hope for you yet. Hah!

All that needs to be done is for someone to find reliable evidence. Until then to borrow an argument from Dillahunty, one might as well believe in Universe Farting Pixies. Though that seems a bit crass it gets rid of the prejudice that people have for the word "God". There is such a heavy emotional investment in that concept that people's cognitive dissonance quite often kicks in when defending the concept. By changing the name the weakness of one's position may become evident.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In online debates about religion, the people who are debating on the side of atheism are mostly people with feelings of animosity towards Abrahamic religions and their followers, and their position in the debates is opposition to those religions and their beliefs, including their belief in Abrahamic Gods.

It does make it hard to debate from an atheist point of view because of it. I think there is only two atheist on RF I remember speaking with who didnt express negativity or negative experiences of a former faith.

As a result, I dont see them converse in atheistic-topics. It kinda defeats the point unless the OP is talking about god as a concept or idea than its easier to talk of.

I cant really tell who is an atheist since I dont agree you can be a believer then all of the sudden grow into an atheist position. Maybe agnostic to atheist. It makes more sense that an atheist would become theist; because, if he or she has a revelation of god, then he may chose to believe. However, if god isnt part of your worldview, no amout of religion, faith, or spirituality can change that.

My issue is can abrahamics see thta. Well, actually, I only know that from evangalistic christians. I dont see Catholics do it here unless they are hidden and watching from afar.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe you’ve never heard of the Clergy Project.

No. But it does look helpful I guess depending on the person situation and environment preasures. Interesting.

 

[paarsurrey]

@Regiomontanus @lukethethird
“Atheism,” like all the other labels for people in public debates, means different things to different people, including people who wear the label, but it looks to me like people who call themselves “atheists” in Internet debates are sometimes actually promoting anti-religious views. It may or may not be true for some of them that their atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, but that isn’t what I would challenge if I wanted to challenge what they’re saying. What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices.

"What I would challenge would be their anti-religious prejudices."

That is reasonable.
Regards

 

[Jim]

Right. Most atheists will simply claim a lack of belief in a god, not a belief that there is no god.
I am one of the former. I do not say there is no god, only that I do not believe there is one. Belief or lack of belief is subject to change based upon sufficient good evidence.
One does not have to offer evidence for a lack of belief in any proposition, whether it be a god, a unicorn, or anything else. Stating a lack of belief is not a proposition, it is a declaration of a mental state.

I think I understand that definition. An atheist is someone whose belief system does not include any belief in anything they call “God” or “god.” By that definition atheism is not a position that needs to be defended. Actually now that I think of it, I disagree that it doesn’t need to be defended, but I’ll come back to that. Letting that stand for now, that atheism is not a position that needs to be defended, when people are maligning and scolding people for their belief in Gods, that is not atheism, that is anti-theism, and carries as much burden of proof as any theist position.

I realized as I was writing that, that even defined as lack of belief, identifying as an atheist can be position that carries a burden of proof as much as any other. Sometimes means that a person has decided that anyone who has any belief in any god or gods is wrong, and that is in fact the position that atheists are arguing from most of the time in online debates. Again, if I wanted to challenge what atheists say in online debates, I would not be challenging their lack of belief. I would be challenging the belief of some of them that any belief in any god is always wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hello. Yes, I had a pleasant exchange here a few weeks ago (ack my memory - I forget his name) who is a 'Hindu - strong atheist' - he is a regular here. Anyway that was a new one for me. And that is a great thing about this forum, being exposed to new points of view.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

It is friend @Aupmanyav who describes his religion as "I am an advaitist Hindu and a strong atheist.".

Regards

 

[Jim]

I would hope you would also then challenge anti-religious views of religious people who hold anti-religious views towards others who are of a different faith?

Everywhere, all the time, all my life, including in my own religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

That would be helpful as a start.

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

“Why do we have to accept your unsupported claim that it is more likely no gods exist??”
“If you believe the universe is godless or is with gods, either way you need reasons to believe so”
“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.”
“Wrong. If you believe the universe is godless, and have no reasons to believe so, then your proposition is worthless.”


Wonderful arguments from one indeed.

Regards

 

[Regiomontanus]

All that needs to be done is for someone to find reliable evidence. Until then to borrow an argument from Dillahunty, one might as well believe in Universe Farting Pixies. Though that seems a bit crass it gets rid of the prejudice that people have for the word "God". There is such a heavy emotional investment in that concept that people's cognitive dissonance quite often kicks in when defending the concept. By changing the name the weakness of one's position may become evident.

Let's hope the pixies have not been eating at Taco Bell.

I have the grandkids tonight so all I have time for right now is to say that it eventually became clear to me as a scientist that the universe only really made sense if there was a Creator. That is, I think the evidence is there. No not a flashing neon sign next to M31 saying "God was here." It is much more subtle than that but on balance I think it is convincing. I recognize the encrustations that build up around formal religion which is why my views are considered pretty unorthodox (by most Christians). Anyway, for now though I would say that a fairly good review of some of the things that brought me around are summarized in that book by Collins I mentioned earlier today in that other thread (though the book is pretty weak too in some parts).

 

[Jim]

@1137 What you’re trying to say might be true in most cases. It might be true that most of the time when people are demanding evidence for believing in God, they’re doing it from an anti-theism position, which carries a burden of proof as much as any theist position. In those cases their atheism, as they define it, is actually irrelevant. That might not apply though, to everyone in these discussions who call themselves atheists.