• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
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?
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I think this is all semantics. When the discussion gets to this level of precision, it's common to describe "hard atheists" as distinct from other atheists. I would say that your argument might hold some water of you're referring to "hard atheists". In my experience, there are not many hard atheists, we're mostly in the "a god probably doesn't exist" camp.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
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.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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.

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

lukethethird

unknown member
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.

Doubting the claims of believers is an unsupportable dogmatic position?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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

That's not a useful definition of atheism. It excludes all of the people who make no claim either way about the existence or nonexistence of gods, and who live like those that claim that no gods exist. If your definition of atheist doesn't include such people, it is an inadequate definition. It only includes a subset of those with no god belief, and probably a minority of such people. Why place so much emphasis on whether an unbeliever is willing to claim to know that gods don't exist or not? It's irrelevant.The two groups are otherwise indistinguishable. Neither believes in gods or participates in religions.

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."

I don't know is the only logically sound position to take about an unresolved issue. Why would one answer yes or no to a question that he has no answer to?

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?

Atheism needs no defense. It is merely the position that one does not believe in any god or gods. No other claim is being made apart from the implication that one should have a reason to believe anything, and that the atheist hasn't found that reason.

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

You don't seem to understand skepticism. No reason is needed to not accept claims that Bigfoot exists. The opposite is true. A reason is needed to believe, and that reason must be convincing evidence. Absent that, such belief is unjustified, that is, faith.

The idea that any position can be accepted without needing to support it is absurd and dangerous.

Agreed.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
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.

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 see atheist as a silly word when I first heard of it almost recently. It's like debating with my friend who thinks I have a blue couch without her being here. I insist I have a red couch.

It is silly for her to claim she knows about my couch when she never came to see it herself.

It's silly to claim my couch is red when she has nothing in her position and evidence to even argue against the claim

Leads us both at a standstill.

So you have to get pass that first; then, take a side and argue for or against it.
 
Last edited:

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Doubting the claims of believers is an unsupportable dogmatic position?

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.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
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.

"I am an atheist" can simply be saying that one does not share in the same unsupported beliefs as the claimant that believes in what there is no evidence for, so who is it that is being dogmatic about their claims here?
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
"I am an atheist" can simply be saying that one does not share in the same unsupported beliefs as the claimant that believes in what there is no evidence for, so who is it that is being dogmatic about their claims here?

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

lukethethird

unknown member
Hello. Perhaps, though I have never encountered such a use of the term. What you describe I think of agnosticism. Big difference.
Agnosticism refers to not being able to know due to the nature of the claim and therefore not able to share in the same beliefs as the believer, not much difference.
 
Top