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

[paarsurrey]

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,

"the validity of agnosticism cuts both ways."

Does it really?
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Would you care to explain how you came to know what millions of people you do not know are thinking?

 

[shunyadragon]

"the validity of agnosticism cuts both ways."

Does it really?
Regards

Yes, it clearly challenges both the theist and atheist equally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

What make you think that others requiring you to support your beliefs is shifting the burden of proof? You need to look up the concept of the Null Hypothesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

How bizzaro! On what basis do you accuse others as lying!

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Point taken, Luis. I was trying to say that religious folks should not complain about an atheist that denigrates a religion when at the same time those who are religious do it to other religions.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Good for you, Jim....You stand out from the crowd.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am willing, and do accept that.

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.

There are no universal rules to justify any choice of belief. It is a very human thing, and the reasons are most often the desire for a sense of community, and a desire to belong.

You do realize I'm defending atheism, right?

Sort of indifferent in this context. I am defending atheism against unsound arguments motivated by theists that do not properly represent atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Youre challenging the logic behind burden of proof argument that many atheists say a believer should have?

If so, thats not a hard debate if the believer understood the logic behind making a statement and providing support to substaintiate that statement before arguing about the details.

The believer (or any person making a claim: I have bought groceries) is the one whose responsible for the proof (here is my receipt) to the person who asks of it. If there is no receipt, why expect the person who asks you to produce it for you....

thats the gist of what that means..

unless its just atheists way of putting it rather than the logic itself?

 

[Sir Doom]

There are no universal rules to justify any choice of belief. It is a very human thing, and the reasons are most often the desire for a sense of community, and a desire to belong.

I said nothing about justification. I believe there are psychological reasons behind desire, regardless of the desire. Other reasons, as well.

Sort of indifferent in this context. I am defending atheism against unsound arguments motivated by theists that do not properly represent atheism and agnosticism.

I'm not a theist.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

I'm an atheist and have been all of my life. I do not claim that there cannot possibly be a god, but I can say that none of the gods so far proposed seem to have any good evidence to support belief. So for me, it is simply a lack of belief in a proposition, or more accurately, a host of propositions, and that does not carry a burden of proof (although I can give reasons for not believing). There are certainly atheists who do declare that there is no god of any kind in the universe. I only disagree with them because I cannot prove the absence of any sort of god at all with absoluteness. However, I feel the existence of a god is about as likely as the existence of unicorns, or fairies, or any number of other such things. This avoids many endless, fruitless discussions with theists who will insist on absolute proof from me, while proclaiming the existence of their god without providing equivalent absolute evidence.

Yes, an atheist would believe anyone that believes in any of the thus-far proposed gods was incorrect. But he can do so without believing that there can be no sort of god at all.

Part of the problem with conversations like this is the theist will simply use the word "god" without providing any description of the god, or it's attributes, or what it does or does not do. So an atheist will have no idea of what god is being discussed. Even if one knows one is conversing with, say, a Christian, one cannot be certain of the nature of the god in question. It seems sometimes that there are as many versions of the Christian god as there are Christians. It is positively mind-boggling. An then at the end of the day, when one asks for a clarification to understand what sort of god is under consideration, the response is "god is unknowable". That is a show-stopper. But is is a dodge to avoid having to clearly define the god.

Well, I'm drifting off the mark, so I'll end here........

I very much agree with your comments about anti-theism, though.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said nothing about justification. I believe there are psychological reasons behind desire, regardless of the desire. Other reasons, as well.

I'm not a theist.

You need not say anything about justification, nor whether you are a theist, agnostic or one of the variety of many other choices. Justification is simply the reasons to believe, and there may be psychological? reasons for the justification of what one believes.. You entered the waters of justification of belief whether it was your intention or not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Yeah, it needs to be defended and it is defended thus, "I have found no evidence of God much less of a proof that some one was a son of God or carried a message from God. Whereas, science gives me a very plausible explanation of the creation of universe and evolution." I am not an anti-theist.

 

[shunyadragon]

But where is the knowledge? On what basis, the guess? Why guess, without any knowledge?

Its a bad guess. You think its a good guess. Why do you think its a good guess, when i just said, its a bad guess? You think im a guesser? No..

I delineate what i know, from what i dont know. I use logic, to surmise variables. But 'there are no gods', is a very bad guess.

Th elogic you use is 'begging the question' where what you believe justifies what you believe. Just guesses using your own word

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it clearly challenges both the theist and atheist equally.

That agnosticism does. However, the impact of the challenge is unavoidably unequal, since atheism has so little consequence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Th elogic you use is 'begging the question' where what you believe justifies what you believe. Just guesses using your own word

Beliefs are surmised from what we think we know, personal truths. There are religious people who lack faith, or knowledgie personal truth, i dont know how common that is. Not common enough to assume that, probably. Your usage of the words is wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

People who dont believe that they know, ie personal truth, would be agnostic, or atheist.

Why would they believe something, that they dont think they know.

 

[Desert Snake]

You do get into, the idea of belief without personal knowing.

This isnt what Believer, means.

The Believer, is using the word belief, in that they know. \personal truth.

That is traditional.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. 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.

No, God does not make anything clear. The only problem that science has is the relationship between existence and non-existence. Perhaps you balk at that point. People think that these are two completely different things. But Quantum Mechanics has made a start in this direction (virtual particles), that these two may not be different and one may pass into the other, just phases. We will know more about that in the coming years, but 3,000 years ago, RigVeda said:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought* discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

* 'Hearts' thought' is the equivalent of the Einstenian 'Thought Experiment'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Beliefs are surmised from what we think we know, personal truths. There are religious people who lack faith, or knowledgie personal truth, i dont know how common that is. Not common enough to assume that, probably. Your usage of the words is wrong.

. . . or your use of words you are using are justifying what you believe based on what you believe.