Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Brian-M]

First, definitions: Both the positive and negative atheist lack a belief in the existence of any god. Where they differ is that the positive atheist takes it a step further and asserts that there is no god. Neither position is a claim of absolute certainty.

They're also known as either "hard" and "soft" atheism or "strong" and "weak" atheism, depending on who you're talking to.

If you accept negative atheism, you might as well go all the way to positive.

I don't see why, but it might depend on what definition of God is being used.

It's easy to show that it is only a baby step away. But before that, let me address the conversation itself.

90% of the time when a negative atheist defends his position (while distancing himself from positive atheism), his claim will look something like this:

Well, I can't completely, 100%, absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no possible, conceivable, imaginable way that a god of some vague, nebulous definition might exist, so... I'm just gonna withhold judgment for now.

I'm exaggerating, but only a little.

Forget about vague and nebulous definitions, how about a deistic god? The kind of god that sets everything in motion but never interferes.

It's impossible to know whether or not a god of that kind exists.

There's another attack on positive atheism you have probably heard before, this time from theists:

The only way you can know God doesn't exist is if you had knowledge of all existence, and then you would be like God.

Both of these are blatant examples of special pleading^WP.

That seems more of an attack on gnostic positive atheism. Very few atheists take that position.

I'm an agnostic positive atheist. I believe that no god(s) exist, but I don't claim to know that no god(s) exist. Yes, I agree it's hypothetically possible that a god of some kind might exist, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to consider the claim absurd.

Given all of that, showing God does not exist is quite simple. I will do this by use of a simple analogy to illustrate a rational thought process.

That's funny, I sometimes use a simple analogy to explain why you can't show that a god doesn't exist.

The analogy goes:

How could you demonstrate that magic pixies don't exist? Absence of evidence doesn't prove anything, because they could use their magic powers to conceal evidence.

The fact that people are known to invent stories about magic pixies doesn't mean that none of the stories are true, or that some of the stories aren't vaguely accurate by accident.

Even if you searched the entire world for them, that still wouldn't mean that they're not there. They could have moved from somewhere you hadn't searched to somewhere you already had while you were busy searching somewhere else.

So how could you possibly show that magical pixies don't exist?

God is no different than a magic pixie.​

 

[Leumas]

Existence is not a scientific question. It predates science. Science is an attempt to discover, categorize, and explain things that exist. But you have to start with things that exist to do science, not the other way around.

Would you have used the above illogic if the debate was about Vampires or Satyrs or Leprechauns or any other mythological or supernatural claptrap that have been invented by the credulous imagination of human infancy?

Why the tortured special pleading for God?

 

[Brian-M]

I don't for example think that if god(s) exist then they must necessarily be evil due to the nature of the universe, or more specifically the malevolent behavior of human beings.

Or they could just be indifferent instead of evil.

The difference being that an evil god would intentionally act to cause harm and suffering, while an indifferent god would simply not bother to prevent or lessen it.

 

[TofuFighter]

This infantile psychological condition was and is viciously and cynically and predatorily exploited by clever brigands and wily poltroons to huckster and bamboozle the quivering shivering sheep. Much like all the other cons, scams and hoaxes discovered or invented by numerous hoodwinkers and mountebanks throughout the ages and are still being utilized even today despite all available knowledge.

A) i think i found a new signature, and 2) kind of got a man-crush on Leumas

 

[marplots]

Would you think it is better to sit on the fence regarding the existence of Leprechauns? Would you call people who require evidence for Vampires incredulous and unimaginative?

In all of the above substitute the word God with Gremlins or Elves or Vampires or Satyrs or Leprechauns or Tooth Fairies.

Now read it again CAREFULLY....Now do you see how credulously imaginative you are being?

If I had direct, personal experience with vampires or Leprechauns, I might very well believe they existed. Wouldn't you?

But there's another strange thing. You are (I think) putting God's existence on par with the existence of those other things, but as far as I know, 80+ percent of the population doesn't believe in those other things. That, at least, ought to be a distinguishing feature, shouldn't it?

Would you be so adamant at debating the "middle ground" of dis/believing in Hobbits and Elves? Would you call people who require proof for Elves incredulous and unimaginative?

Not at all. But it's still a bad argument.

Do you think a person who is a non believer in Vampires who is also not a believer in the non existence of Vampires is a PRACTICALLY RATIONAL person with his feet firmly fixed in REALITY but yet also credulously imaginative?

Would you really... seriously... come to a forum and debate any people who say the claim of vampires is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof and try to show them how they are incredulous and unimaginative?

We've been over this. When the majority of people take something to exist as a matter of course, and without much question or debate, then it is very much an ordinary claim. Unless you are prepared to claim all the magical beings you list are ordinarily accepted by the general public, then all you have is a straw man and question begging: God doesn't exist because God is like these other things because these other things do not exist and God doesn't exist.

Could all this tortured neutrality and equivocating and appeal to majority be just another Cognitive Dissonance Alleviation Casuistry?

Lordy. Are we going to go through the whole zoo full of bad arguments? Try not to fall back on fallacy labeling and think it through instead.

Start with this: Is existence a scientific question? In other words, should we look to science to answer the question of God's existence?

 

[Leumas]

[snip]

God is no different than a magic pixie.

Exactly!

 

[Brian-M]

Still trying to re-define atheism as totally neutral?

If we define atheism as "a" + "theism", then atheism simply means "without theism".

From that perspective, the neutral position is atheism.
Although, that doesn't mean that all atheism is the neutral position.

(For the same reason that the fact that all dogs are mammals doesn't mean that all mammals are dogs.)

 

[Leumas]

If I had direct, personal experience with vampires or Leprechauns, I might very well believe they existed. Wouldn't you?

But there's another strange thing. You are (I think) putting God's existence on par with the existence of those other things, but as far as I know, 80+ percent of the population doesn't believe in those other things. That, at least, ought to be a distinguishing feature, shouldn't it?

See.... I told you that you will do that....

You might continue on with your CDAC and say that God is not on par with vampires or elves.

Well, that is just anther CDAC.... people have believed wholeheartedly and adamantly in all sorts of claptrap throughout the existence of humankind. Why are those ideas now relegated to the annals of human folly while the more pernicious folly of believing in gods is given special pleading?

 

[Leumas]

A) i think i found a new signature, and 2) kind of got a man-crush on Leumas

 

[marplots]

See.... I told you that you will do that....

You might continue on with your CDAC and say that God is not on par with vampires or elves.

Well, that is just anther CDAC.... people have believed wholeheartedly and adamantly in all sorts of claptrap throughout the existence of humankind. Why are those ideas now relegated to the annals of human folly while the more pernicious folly of believing in gods is given special pleading?

It's only special pleading if you already agree that God is on par with pixies and elves. Plainly, a great many people do not agree with that. They don't put God in the category of mythical being.

So again, it's begging the question. To prove God doesn't exist, you demand I agree God doesn't exist. Otherwise, your comparison doesn't make sense. Unless... are you prepared to throw out, wholesale, all the stuff the majority of people believe exists? Like the American flag on the moon? Nuclear energy? How about global warming? Throw all those out because people believe in them and well, people might believe in pixies too.

The truth is, most of us agree on most stuff, most of the time. Even the God bit. Except, for the God bit, you and I are in the minority - we disagree with the popular opinion. That doesn't mean they are right and we are wrong, but it certainly doesn't mean we are right and they are wrong. It's not enough to say I haven't had the experience, because I believe in plenty of things I haven't experienced directly but have just been told about by others.

Here's what you have to confront directly. A lot of people say they have experienced God in one form or another. You and I have not (I assume you haven't). Our burden is to explain why their experiences are wrong.

Alternatively, we can simply say we don't believe what they tell us. We can say we distrust them or they've made a mistake, or they suffer a mental illness. But those same arrows can be shot by believers at us, so there's no real advantage in that. It's just an endless cycle of "Is not," "Is too!" "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!!!"

 

[I Am The Scum]

I feel the need to point out that this is most certainly not a thread about what theists believe. There are about 500 other threads for that stuff. Please, let this be a thread about something different.

This was meant to be a criticism of the negative atheist position.

 

[Stee]

Start with this: Is existence a scientific question? In other words, should we look to science to answer the question of God's existence?

Yes it is, and yes we should if it will help a believer come to better conclusions about how life on earth got started. We shouldn't need to have to use science to give massive weight to the non-existence of a god or gods as there is no reason to believe they are there anyway, but apparently we do.

 

[marplots]

I feel the need to point out that this is most certainly not a thread about what theists believe. There are about 500 other threads for that stuff. Please, let this be a thread about something different.

This was meant to be a criticism of the negative atheist position.

I am arguing in the style of the negative atheist position against someone taking the positive atheist position. (At least that's the intent.)

It only appears to support theists because of the contrast.

Here's the two as I understand it.
1) There is no God. God doesn't exist. - the positive assertion
2) I don't believe in God, but that's more a fact about me than anything else. - the other side.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This was meant to be a criticism of the negative atheist position.

Why just the negative?

 

[Mister Agenda]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

If I say "There are no living ivory-billed woodpeckers," that's no more or less a statement of absolute certainty. Based on the evidence currently available, I think it's perfectly true. But if someone produces a living ivory-billed woodpecker tomorrow, I would change my statement. So was it an absolute certainty or not? It's the same when I say "There is no god."

It's the difference between a statement based on evidence and one based on faith. There is no rational way to change a statement based on faith without abandoning faith. But one can change a statement based on evidence when evidence changes, without abandoning the concept of relying on evidence.

Some people are more precise in their claims than others. I would not say there are no living ivory-billed woodpeckers because it's possible that there still are. I don't have an issue with you stating it the way you do as long as you don't have a problem with me stating it as 'there are probably no living ivory-billed woodpeckers'.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I am arguing in the style of the negative atheist position against someone taking the positive atheist position. (At least that's the intent.)

It only appears to support theists because of the contrast.

Here's the two as I understand it.
1) There is no God. God doesn't exist. - the positive assertion
2) I don't believe in God, but that's more a fact about me than anything else. - the other side.

I'm a negative atheist, but that's not just a fact about me. I think it is not rationally justifiable to maintain that a god or God exists. I have a certain amount of respect for the rationality of 'negative theists' who admit their belief is not rationally justified and acknowledge that they believe for emotional or psychological reasons.

 

[Mister Agenda]

If we define atheism as "a" + "theism", then atheism simply means "without theism".

From that perspective, the neutral position is atheism.
Although, that doesn't mean that all atheism is the neutral position.

(For the same reason that the fact that all dogs are mammals doesn't mean that all mammals are dogs.)

However, the actual construction of atheism is 'athe+ism'. 'Without god/God' plus 'person with an interest in the preceding thing'. Nontheism might be the word you're looking for, the definition that would include babies, dogs, and rocks.

 

[marplots]

I'm a negative atheist, but that's not just a fact about me. I think it is not rationally justifiable to maintain that a god or God exists. I have a certain amount of respect for the rationality of 'negative theists' who admit their belief is not rationally justified and acknowledge that they believe for emotional or psychological reasons.

Your description is much better than mine.

 

[Leumas]

It's only special pleading if you already agree that God is on par with pixies and elves. Plainly, a great many people do not agree with that. They don't put God in the category of mythical being.

Argumentum ad populum.

So again, it's begging the question. To prove God doesn't exist, you demand I agree God doesn't exist.

If only you understood logic and science and what the Scientific Method is about and you appreciated what Burden of Proof means then you wouldn't have said the above.

Otherwise, your comparison doesn't make sense. Unless... are you prepared to throw out, wholesale, all the stuff the majority of people believe exists? Like the American flag on the moon? Nuclear energy? How about global warming? Throw all those out because people believe in them and well, people might believe in pixies too.

Wow... you have just managed to jam THREE illogical fallacies in one paragraph of argument.

• Straw Man
• False Equivalence
• Slippery Slope

The truth is, most of us agree on most stuff, most of the time. Even the God Noaferatu the Vampire bit. Except, for the God Noaferatu the Vampire bit, you and I are in the minority - we disagree with the popular opinion. That doesn't mean they are right and we are wrong, but it certainly doesn't mean we are right and they are wrong. It's not enough to say I haven't had the experience, because I believe in plenty of things I haven't experienced directly but have just been told about by others.

So you think that people who believe in Vampires and that they have been visited by Vampires are just as justified in believing in Vampires as the ones who say Vampires are a myth and vampire visitations are a delusion?

Here's what you have to confront directly. A lot of people say they have experienced God in one form or another. You and I have not (I assume you haven't). Our burden is to explain why their experiences are wrong.

If only you understood logic and science and the Scientific Method and the Burden of Proof you would have not said the above.

Alternatively, we can simply say we don't believe what they tell us. We can say we distrust them or they've made a mistake, or they suffer a mental illness. But those same arrows can be shot by believers at us, so there's no real advantage in that. It's just an endless cycle of "Is not," "Is too!" "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!!!"

So you think that it would be unreasonable to doubt a person who claims to have just witnessed a dragon fly through the sky and sweep the moon with his tail and bring it crashing down on China?

Is it the doubter of the claim who has to disprove it?

And is the claimer of the above event just as rational as the disputer of the claim?

It's just an endless cycle of "Is not," "Is too!" "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!!!"

It is only that ridiculous because there are people like you who think that the god deluded deserve more consideration than the vampire deluded and are willing to bend over backwards in their accommodations of delusions which had they not been God related would have been deservedly ridiculed and laughed out of any grown up and sane debates.

Nothing but special pleading for the God Delusion!

 

[I Am The Scum]

I am arguing in the style of the negative atheist position against someone taking the positive atheist position. (At least that's the intent.)

But both positive and negative atheists will take it as a given that the theist position is unjustified. How we theistic beliefs beyond that (such as extraordinary or unusual) is really beside the point.

In other words, stuff like this...

For the theist, there is direct experience with God. Or so they claim. There can be no argument to overcome this. Any argument which attempts it must be false, for it gives the wrong answer.

The only approach with any hope is to attack the believer herself - claiming it's the perception which is in error and the measuring device is flawed. But that method leads to a general dismissal of all similar perceptions, and suddenly, I must doubt the tree too.

What can be usefully challenged isn't the existence of God, but the attributes believers attach. There's still a tree, but it's not responsible for creating wind by moving its branches.

... belongs in a separate thread.