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

[syo]

How else do you think God can be described?

Maybe atheists have their own descriptions.

 

[stvdv]

Maybe atheists have their own descriptions.

Even I have my own description as a theist. "LOVE is all I need". "Beatles song" + "First/Second Commandment in short"
No need for Jesus/Muhammad for me. But I love Gurus as Jesus/Muhammad; especially the part "LOVE is all I need"

 

[Valjean]

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 .

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You start with a blank slate; a lack of belief, in leprechauns, giraffes, God, Cthulu and dinosaurs. When good evidence presents itself, then you accept the premise, in the meantime you neither believe nor deny.

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

Let the absurdity settle in for a few minutes.

You seem logically challenged. If by 'disbelieve' you mean lack belief, this is the only reasonable position. A lack of belief is the only reasonable position for anything until evidence for it appears.

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

True, but ordinary atheists make no such assertion. Only a small subset believe there definitely is no God. Unless you clarify 'atheism' with a modifier, like 'strong' atheism, the term means only a lack of belief. A lack of belief is not a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe atheists have their own descriptions.

How can atheists know anything about God?

 

[syo]

How can atheists know anything about God?

They have their opinion.

 

[Jim]

You are saying that you dont like when the disbelief in god is a coverup for anti-theism and the excuse that believers should hold the burden of proof?

...cause many believers (and atheists) objections and arguments target the believer or atheist not the facts and beliefs of both parties statements. So, right there, theres confusion and divide starts.

That pretty well covers it.

What I’ve seen sometimes is people calling themselves atheists, continually denouncing and trying to discredit everything that anyone calls “belief in God,” parading and celebrating the inability of believers to satisfy their evidence tests, and claiming that they don’t have to satisfy any evidence tests themselves because atheism is not a belief system. That is all intertwined with insinuations and sometimes explicit claims that belief in God is proof of some kind of character defect and/or moral deficiency. The whole system is customized for people to excuse and camouflage defaming the character and mental capacities of people who believe in God, and to use lack of evidence as an argument without having to produce any evidence themselves.

 

[Mindmaster]

If you start in life with no God, there is no God. Atheism is not a position. It's a fact.

But, even a fact such as this can be erroneous. People don't realize facts aren't undeniable and unassailable positions -- they are simply what seems right based on evidence. In essence, they are subjectively judged and agreed upon. Whether you know of whether a deity exists or not doesn't affect whether it actually does. Anyone asserting that on that basis is irrational.

Secondly, history plainly refutes your argument on the basis that nearly all cultures embraced some sort of spiritual understanding of the world. They did this in isolation in most cases which means even if they didn't have these beliefs they came up with them.

 

[Woberts]

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?

You've once again proven yourself willfully ignorant of what you denounce.
Congratulations.

 

[Woberts]

Secondly, history plainly refutes your argument

It doesn't. Think about it a little harder.

 

[Mindmaster]

It doesn't. Think about it a little harder.

Please name any culture in the past that is atheist given that they could have just as easily have picked that worldview over any other. It's not like someone would have stopped them. The diverse cultures believing in some higher power or spiritual concept lends more 'evidence' than a few post modern pseudo-intellectuals.

Mind you, I don't think agnosticism is an irrational position. To not honestly know is the only rational claim one can make if such things are not in their awareness.

 

[Woberts]

The diverse cultures believing in some higher power or spiritual concept lends more 'evidence' than a few post modern pseudo-intellectuals.

Funny how they didn't have science to determine how the things they attributed to their god(s) worked, huh?
Also, "Everyone did it, so it must be true!" isn't a valid argument. Nor does it provide any evidence.

 

[Mindmaster]

Funny how they didn't have science to determine how the things they attributed to their god(s) worked, huh?
Also, "Everyone did it, so it must be true!" isn't a valid argument. Nor does it provide any evidence.

It does provide evidence for what I stated, which was simply that differing cultures all came to a similar line of thought for absolutely no reason. That doesn't mean they were devoid of reason or the prospect of atheism. Likewise, because we understand the material world more doesn't address spiritual experiences at all. That's just a right out invalid comparison. The fact that we know X or Y doesn't invalidate Z, though it may invalidate features we attributed to Z. Z can still exist independently of our ability to understand it.

 

[ChristineM]

!

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.

No i didn't day any such thing so it seems that to cover you misrepresentation you use misrepresentation. Sheesh.

 

[ChristineM]

Only if Abrahamic were somehow the default god.

@syo was making that implication.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

I am quite happy to say "I know there are no gods," and my psychiatrist tells me i am perfectly sane.

On the contrary to say "i know there is (at least) one god" without a trace of evidence often leaves me wondering about the sanity of some of the more "devout" religious

 

[Jumi]

If you don't want to consider it, that's your right. I didn't even need to consider theism, before I became a monotheist.

 

[ChristineM]

If you don't want to consider it, that's your right. I didn't even need to consider theism, before I became a monotheist.

Oh i have considered it, i was a devout believer in god until i began to understand and research the reason christians (those i knew at least) were such evil minded and petty individuals. The answers to that question are in the bible of course. Since then i have done enough research to convince me not to take heed of mythology.

 

[David T]

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?

"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"

Then "theism" is childish nonsense if the above is true, absolutely not related to anything but intellectual fantasizing. The sun rises and the sun sets independent of the observer, regardless of what it believes or does not believe..

The problem is here that it is irrelevant to the bible and most certainly irrelevant to the new testament yet often times its these texts that "theism" or aspergers slinks into to justify intellectualizing fantasy. Its total absolute garbage like atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh i have considered it, i was a devout believer in god until i began to understand and research the reason christians (those i knew at least) were such evil minded and petty individuals. The answers to that question are in the bible of course. Since then i have done enough research to convince me not to take heed of mythology.

That is the problem with holy books. They are a mixture of good and bad. It can make decent people nicer. But it also makes hate filled people far worse. They use the Bible, Koran, whatever as a reason to hate.

 

[shunyadragon]

@Subduction Zone @Unveiled Artist

I’m not talking about all atheists. I’m talking about a belligerent kind of anti-theism that takes cover under a smokescreen of “lack of belief,” to excuse itself from substantiating or even qualifying its sweeping defamatory allegations against some religions and their followers, while insisting that no one has any right to believe in any god without passing its evidence tests.

I, of course am a Baha'i, and not an atheist, but I believe that by far most athesits do not do what you claim above. Those that claim this is a, 'lack of belief,' should be accepted for their description of their belief and not a projection of our view of what is wrong with the claim of being atheist.