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

[Willamena]

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.

A person is unlikely to say, "I know there are no gods," and remain sane.

On the contrary, they are far more likely to say, "There are no gods," and remain sane.

 

[Willamena]

@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.

Irrelevant, how?

 

[Desert Snake]

A person is unlikely to say, "I know there are no gods," and remain sane.

On the contrary, they are far more likely to say, "There are no gods," and remain sane.

Those seem pretty similar.

But, where does one get the idea, that there are no gods, anyway.

I f you don't have personal beliefs of god or gods, why are you even saying there aren't gods?

 

[Willamena]

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?

But why has the issue arisen at all?

 

[sealchan]

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?

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.

An atheist might go further and detail how any particular phenomenon that someone has ascribed to a God could be explained apart from a God. If they dont then they are not required to do so. To require an atheist to do so is like requiring anyone with any belief to master and/or represent all knowledge in that area which is prohibitively impractical for anyone.

Also the above argument would keep the courtroom of judgment perpetually full of the need to make a detailed case against the existence of anything outside of ones beliefs. Christian's would have to prove that the Tao doesnt exist. Satanists that the moon landing was fake or wasn't, etc...

The argument sound logical but ignores the fact that no belief system or epistemology is formulated without recourse to an entropic process and the infinity of effort required to meet such a standard of truth basically proves that nothing can ever be proven to be true at all.

The argument makes the fallacy of reduction ad absurdum.

 

[Willamena]

Those seem pretty similar.

But, where does one get the idea, that there are no gods, anyway.

I f you don't have personal beliefs of god or gods, why are you even saying there aren't gods?

They are not similar. To reference one's own knowledge is to specify a truth value. To share one's knowledge is to indulge a truth value.

 

[Willamena]

You said




So yes,in essence you did say Hinduism is abrahamic

Only if Abrahamic were somehow the default god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

You know, I was thinking if you debate, try another approach. For example, I am an atheist but I am definitely not an anti-theist. So, instead of debating my disbelief in god (that doesnt sound logical to do so, honestly), challenge more about my disbelief from my (atheist) perspective rather than your own.

For example, I disagree that deities exist regardless if its Hindu, Pagan, Abrahamic, whatever. God has so many definitions that I dont even bother using metaphysical terms to say thank you for my existence. It. just. is.

But can you challenge that view of an atheist or is it not atheism youre challenging just the view some people have religions and pespectives that dont involve the abrahamic god?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person is unlikely to say, "I know there are no gods," and remain sane.

On the contrary, they are far more likely to say, "There are no gods," and remain sane.

On a sanity level I see no difference between saying "There are no gods" and saying "There is a God".

 

[Jim]

Irrelevant, how?

I’m talking about people belligerently demanding evidence for believing in God, and then saying they don’t need to provide any evidence for their own position, because their atheism is not a position. However true that may be, it’s a red herring. Even if their atheism is not a position, their anti-theism is, and it carries a burden of proof as much as any theist position.

 

[Willamena]

On a sanity level I see no difference between saying "There are no gods" and saying "There is a God".

I could joke, and say, "Case in point!" But I won't.

 

[GODbeMERCIFULtoMEaSINNER]

Athiests don't exist! When a person says they are an athiest, they are lying!

 

[LuisDantas]

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

One must be careful there. It is all too easy to use the word "prejudice" without due reason.

Religions often claim exception, but they are not entitled to it. Their validity and reputation is subject to judgement like any other movement with ideological components. And it turns out that some need a lot of judgement indeed.

We do not expect, say, economic ideologies to feel a lot of sympathy towards each other, or to be protected from criticism. Religion should be no different in that regard.

If anything, seeing how it deals directly with motivation and statements of appropriateness, it should be scrutinized with better attention and criterium.

 

[LuisDantas]

Athiests don't exist! When a person says they are an athiest, they are lying!

Do you mean that in jest? We definitely exist. Unless I owe you money, that is.

 

[Valjean]

I'm amazed such a poorly reasoned, misinformed, article made it into the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. The problems are glaring.

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.

How is withholding belief in something there is no evidence for not rational?
How does agnosticism -- the position that the existence of God is unknowable -- more rational than either strong or weak atheism?
I think you're painting all of atheism as strong atheism -- a minor subset. Most atheists, at least in the West, define atheism, per se, as simply a lack of belief. As such, it holds no positions, dogmatic or not.

There is only one feature common to all varieties of athism: lack of belief. This, then is definitive of the unmodified term.

atheism is denying.

Hello. No, not at all. But when someone says "I am an atheist" they are (usually) saying that they subscribe to a strict materialism, that there is no god/Gods/Creator. My point is that such a claim is not rational and insisting on a certainty when certainty is not possible is a dogmatic position.

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

Lack of belief is the preferred definition. Google an atheist organization like American Atheists and look at their definition.

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

ROFL! Seriously?

atheism is denying.

No! Atheism is withholding belief pending evidence. Atheism, per se, denies nothing but evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

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 by the very same reason, there should be a strong requirement to provide reasons for not believing that the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli required human sacrifices on a regular basis, but if you believe that, you're probably right. Do you see the nonsense?

 

[Jim]

But why has the issue arisen at all?

It has a long and complicated history, but currently hostile atheism is one reaction among others to religions being used to excuse and camouflage crimes against humanity. Some people see beliefs in Abrahamic Gods at the heart of the problem, and they’re on a warpath against those. Also, some people have been oppressed and even traumatized by a stigma on atheism where they came from, and they’re using people who believe in Abrahamic Gods as effigies and Voodoo dolls.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could joke, and say, "Case in point!" But I won't.

Except I am not a hard atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Athiests don't exist! When a person says they are an athiest, they are lying!

Christians don't exist! When a person says they are a Christian,they are lying!!

I think my version must be an even more convincing argument. I slipped in an extra exclamation point.

 

[Jim]

For example, I disagree that deities exist regardless if its Hindu, Pagan, Abrahamic, whatever. God has so many definitions that I dont even bother using metaphysical terms to say thank you for my existence. It. just. is.

But can you challenge that view of an atheist or is it not atheism youre challenging just the view some people have religions and pespectives that dont involve the abrahamic god?

I’m not challenging either of those. In general, I’m challenging religious and anti-religious prejudices and hostilities. In the specific case of prejudices and hostilities against Abrahmic religions and their followers, under an umbrella of atheism, I’m challenging the use of the “lack of belief” definition of atheism as a way of shifting the burden of proof.