Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[marplots]

Marplots, I really do not understand your argument.



Well, yes? Extremely clearly and practically definitionally?

That's the essence of my objection. Defining something to be in a category with other things isn't an argument to justify the placement in that category. It's simply repeating the claim.

If the question is whether God exists or not, then saying God is like {these things we agree don't exist} is merely an assertion of God's nonexistence. So my counter-example was simply another bad argument by assertion, e.g. God exists because He exists like {these other things we agree exist}. That was my objection.

Even if I agree that God doesn't exist, it would still be disingenuous to accept a bad argument just because I like the outcome.

 

[Navigator]

Would you say the same about people who say that positive a-Medusaism is the more rational stance?

Would you think it is better to sit on the fence regarding the existence of Leprechauns?

What have either of those things got to do with being an atheist?

What has forming beliefs and holding fast to those beliefs (like positive atheists do) have to do with rationality?

 

[marplots]

Do you also lump fairies, dragons and bigfoot in this catagory? Wouldn't we need something to actually measure before starting to talk about how to catagorize it?

Yes, and I suggested as much. Something is ordinary to the extent it is common. With over 80% of people believing in God, the claim is quite ordinary.

They may have no problem with it but it does not make it right, gravity is testable, I can drop my pencil right now and I know it is going to fall. There is no evidence for 'god' being around. Having things that are not yet explained by science is not the same as asserting that an all powerful being is in control of everything then now and evermore. Or anything in between for that matter.

Quite correct. It doesn't make the claim true, it just makes it ordinary.

These arguments still feel like they are giving a free pass to the idea of there being a god which is something I do not understand or agree with. The argument that lots of people believe it therefore it must have some grain of truth does not work.

I agree with this as well. But what it does is place the burden on the minority opinion. We are put in the position of explaining why it is that so many people believe the falsehood. And, it's somewhat more difficult because we don't really have a counter proposal. We aren't going to replace God with some other entity, we want to throw out the whole divine being bit altogether.

It's a lot like trying to fight any other hard to test myth. UFOs are debunked one incident at a time for this reason. Alternative explanations are custom scripted to fit individual claims. "I saw an alien spaceship" becomes, "You think you saw an alien spaceship, and here's a better explanation..." So too with God claims. It's almost as if you have to go one believer at a time because wholesale doesn't seem to work very well.

 

[Navigator]

Still trying to re-define atheism as totally neutral?

No at all. It isn't totally neutral. Something called 'positive atheism' takes the belief based non neutral ground'.

Of course we are dealing with ancient labels and accompanying prejudice. The fathers handing down to the children their 'this is how it is' propaganda. Arise and think for yourself.

 

[Leumas]

[snip]

All I was getting at was that the existence of God is a claim so prevalent that the "that's just nuts" burden falls on atheists, not theists. We have a minority opinion on the matter. No amount of yelling at each other is going to change that.

If we truly are in the "the world is round" camp, while our fellow men are in the "the world is flat" camp, then the duty is on us to show why/how they are mistaken. It's silly to expect them to spontaneously agree with us.

And, in light of that, the negative atheist has an advantage over the positive atheist.

Again.... here is a list of your illogical fallacies in the above and that is on top of not appreciating or understanding the Scientific Method

• Argumentum ad populum
• Burden of Proof
• Special pleading

And yes... officially the term is "logical fallacies".... but I disagree with the terminology.... either it should be "fallacies in logic" or as I call it.

You cannot have fallacies that are logical as the phrase "logical fallacies" might imply.

It is not a double negative to say "illogical fallacies" since they are fallacies in logic and therefore are illogical and thus they are illogical fallacies and no double negative here applies. It is an adjectival description of a noun.

 

[Leumas]

That's the essence of my objection. Defining something to be in a category with other things isn't an argument to justify the placement in that category. It's simply repeating the claim.

If the question is whether God exists or not, then saying God is like {these things we agree don't exist} is merely an assertion of God's nonexistence. So my counter-example was simply another bad argument by assertion, e.g. God exists because He exists like {these other things we agree exist}. That was my objection.

Even if I agree that God doesn't exist, it would still be disingenuous to accept a bad argument just because I like the outcome.

Straw Man.


No one is saying what you are saying they are saying.

The analogy was drawn to clarify the ridiculous Special Pleading that is being snuck into the debate.

No one is saying that God is similar to other delusions therefore it is a delusion.

What is being said is that the god claims were subjected to the Scientific Method of analysis and burden of proof and were found to be lacking much like those other claims of supernatural creatures which were also subjected to the same process and found to be false.

Thus by employing the scientific taxonomy systems, the God claim bears many similarities to other claims that we could classify under the heading of supernatural claims.

And thus when an atheist tries to employ special pleading for the god delusion it is only appropriate to point out the failure in logic by pointing out the general class of delusions of which the god delusion is but one example and then point out that as these so called atheists do not go to such extents of defending the other delusions they are committing a fallacy in logic by singling out the case of the god delusion.

 

[marplots]

Again.... here is a list of your illogical fallacies in the above and that is on top of not appreciating or understanding the Scientific Method

• Argumentum ad populum
• Burden of Proof
• Special pleading

Yeah. I'm waiting to get a second opinion on that.

 

[marplots]

.....

.....

 

[Stee]

I agree with this as well. But what it does is place the burden on the minority opinion. We are put in the position of explaining why it is that so many people believe the falsehood. And, it's somewhat more difficult because we don't really have a counter proposal. We aren't going to replace God with some other entity, we want to throw out the whole divine being bit altogether.

It's a lot like trying to fight any other hard to test myth. UFOs are debunked one incident at a time for this reason. Alternative explanations are custom scripted to fit individual claims. "I saw an alien spaceship" becomes, "You think you saw an alien spaceship, and here's a better explanation..." So too with God claims. It's almost as if you have to go one believer at a time because wholesale doesn't seem to work very well.

I think I see where you are coming from though I do not agree with all of the examples you use. The more I think about it the more my head hurts.

The idea of god does deserve to be put in the same catagory as pixies dragons etc because there is as much evidence for him/her/it as any of the others. I agree that attempting to explain this to the average believer is difficult and it seems no wholesale method is available. It is parents teaching their kids this stuff that propagates it over and over again in my view. It is saddening to me.

We are getting away from poor old I Am The Scum's opening post though I think

I guess my position, as I think I wrote earlier is that I do not see the need to make statements that assert a negative. The good old burden of proof as you wrote above, it can never lie with those people who are saying they do not believe what they believe. You make a claim, you need to back it up. God has been given a free pass on this critical point. People are willing to take the claim on face value.

It is not our burden of proof, rather it is our burden of education and enlightenment. The more people we can strike awe and wonder into with the power of science the better. When I re-read that I see what you meant earlier about the 'elitest' comment. Is that part of the problem with the tone that is set? That we are trying to make theists see the world as we see it in the wrong ways? In this regard I fear the positive atheist can do more harm than good.

 

[Navigator]

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

Again - you are confusing atheism as something to do with things which are not god(s).

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

I am being exactly practical in relation the the idea of god(s) and atheism.

Would you be so adamant at debating the "middle ground" of dis/believing in Hobbits and Elves?

Again - you are confusing atheism as something to do with things which are not god(s).

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?

This is not about vampires. I see no connection between the idea of vampires and the idea of god(s). Furthermore, I am not interested in the idea of vampires and if I was I would join the relevant message board forum and argue there.

Would you really... seriously... come to a forum and debate any people who say that they are positive a-vampirists trying to show them how they are wrong?

Nope. I would argue that their well held onto beliefs are causing conflict and that such as is the case, are irrational and are potentially causing damage with their associated judgement

Could all this tortured neutrality be just another Cognitive Dissonance Alleviation Casuistry?

Judgement such as this.

You might continue on with your CDAC and say that god(s) are not on par with vampires or elves.

And this.

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?

The idea of god(s) are so much more than the idea of vampires. that is not 'special pleading' that is just the way it is.

 

[Pup]

But what it does is place the burden on the minority opinion. We are put in the position of explaining why it is that so many people believe the falsehood. And, it's somewhat more difficult because we don't really have a counter proposal. We aren't going to replace God with some other entity, we want to throw out the whole divine being bit altogether.

It's a lot like trying to fight any other hard to test myth. UFOs are debunked one incident at a time for this reason. Alternative explanations are custom scripted to fit individual claims. "I saw an alien spaceship" becomes, "You think you saw an alien spaceship, and here's a better explanation..." So too with God claims. It's almost as if you have to go one believer at a time because wholesale doesn't seem to work very well.

That gets to the heart of the difference been positive and negative atheism, I think.

The negative atheist looks at each god-proposal one at a time and concludes not to believe it.

The positive atheist looks at all the god-proposals and does try to explain why so many people do believe in such things. There are natural human attributes like attributing agency to non-sentient things (thunder gods, volcano gods), like wanting to retain a sense of having a parent who's in control even when that stage of life has passed, like remembering the hits and explaining away or forgetting the misses to explain why prayer has worked, like following cultural norms rather than be ostracized, like a successful leadership/message-bringing tactic of claiming I'm not ordering you to do this, it's [insert god, king, your country, whatever] so you can't argue about it with me...

All those things together explain how god-beliefs have flourished, without needing to tackle each individual god.

 

[Leumas]

.....

I pushed the enter button before the post was ready and it posted ... so to avoid exactly what you did, I just put a place holder until I finished composing the post go back to the post and read it again.

 

[marplots]

That gets to the heart of the difference been positive and negative atheism, I think.

The negative atheist looks at each god-proposal one at a time and concludes not to believe it.

The positive atheist looks at all the god-proposals and does try to explain why so many people do believe in such things. There are natural human attributes like attributing agency to non-sentient things (thunder gods, volcano gods), like wanting to retain a sense of having a parent who's in control even when that stage of life has passed, like remembering the hits and explaining away or forgetting the misses to explain why prayer has worked, like following cultural norms rather than be ostracized, like a successful leadership/message-bringing tactic of claiming I'm not ordering you to do this, it's [insert god, king, your country, whatever] so you can't argue about it with me...

All those things together explain how god-beliefs have flourished, without needing to tackle each individual god.

I agree with all that, but I don't think it helps. I don't think it helps because, while it is applicable to belief in God, it's so broad, you've captured too much of human psychology in the mix. If we dismiss their beliefs on that basis, and ask them to agree, we are simultaneously throwing out a bunch of other things people treasure to get through their day-to-day lives.

I don't think a skeptical mindset is natural. Cultural norms are valuable to us. Things like patriotism, gender roles, and a host of other matters are taught and accepted without much question, and I'd claim they serve their purpose well - creating a fiction we can all live with and understand.

In that light, truth isn't always as valuable as agreement is. I don't think we can escape our natures entirely. Which is why an untestable God is so handy to have around. We can mold the idea to fit our current "best practices" and move along to other, important things.

"God's in His heaven and all's right with the world." As wrong as that may be.

 

[RickM]

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.

Ok, back on point:

<snip>

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.

How can you have a discussion of “Positive vs. Negative Atheism” if you can’t get the definition right? Is the above highlighted an opinion or is it predicated on something written by a notable author, philosopher, or other luminary?

Your contention is contrary to the authors referenced in the Wikipedia article, Negative and Positive Atheism. “Positive” atheism is synonymous with the other atheistic terms “strong,” “hard,” “explicit,” and “dogmatic.” It leaves no wiggle room, and is based on the firm and unwavering “belief” that no God exists. The following quotation by Robert Flint in 1903 also supports this argument, in addition to the point that a "positive" atheist may be as rare as C14 in the atmosphere (attr. Dinwar):

“ ‘There is no God.’ What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. It has often been questioned whether there is any such thing.”

In essence, you are all negative atheist, so deal with it!

 

[I Am The Scum]

Can someone else explain this to me? I'm willing to learn. Why do the two named fallacies fit the quoted portion?

We don't get to apply different rules to different ideas just because somebody, somewhere decided to arbitrarily declare them mythical. Just think of something you accept as not existing (Bigfoot, a hollow Earth, etc.). If I say, "No, that thing is mythical," does your belief transform into an irrational one? What if five thousand people say it is mythical?

This type of categorical declaration (in the absence of justification) is special pleading. Look at the wiki link and check the other examples.

I'm not going to comment on the burden of proof because I find that it typically bogs down the discussion.

 

[marplots]

We don't get to apply different rules to different ideas just because somebody, somewhere decided to arbitrarily declare them mythical. Just think of something you accept as not existing (Bigfoot, a hollow Earth, etc.). If I say, "No, that thing is mythical," does your belief transform into an irrational one? What if five thousand people say it is mythical?

This type of categorical declaration (in the absence of justification) is special pleading. Look at the wiki link and check the other examples.

So when it was declared that God was in the same category as elves and whatnot, without justification, that was special pleading?

I'm lost.

 

[Pup]

If we dismiss their beliefs on that basis, and ask them to agree, we are simultaneously throwing out a bunch of other things people treasure to get through their day-to-day lives.

What I offered are simply pieces of evidence. That response seems as strange to me as someone explaining the scientific evidence for the earth orbiting the sun and being told it's not practical because it asks people to throw out other things they treasure. So what? It's evidence, not a sales presentation.

 

[Lithrael]

That's the essence of my objection. Defining something to be in a category with other things isn't an argument to justify the placement in that category. It's simply repeating the claim.

If the question is whether God exists or not, then saying God is like {these things we agree don't exist} is merely an assertion of God's nonexistence. So my counter-example was simply another bad argument by assertion, e.g. God exists because He exists like {these other things we agree exist}. That was my objection.

Yeah but God didn't get into the category of {mythical things} by not existing. God got into the category of {mythical things} by sharing all the properties of mythical things that are the properties that make them mythical. A unicorn isn't mythical because it's a one horned creature with magical properties or because it doesn't exist. It's mythical because it's an idea that a bunch of people thought sounded good and passed along in some kind of tradition, and because it doesn't reach any standards of evidence if you really try to look into it. The most you'll ever get is tracks that could be a unicorn's or a deer's, hair that could be a unicorn's or a goat's, a horn that could be a unicorn's or a narwhal's.

You'll need a different definition for mythical than {things we agree don't exist} for me to feel like you aren't shoehorning the whole idea into the wrong shoe entirely. There are lots of things that we agree don't exist that are not mythical.

 

[marplots]

What I offered are simply pieces of evidence. That response seems as strange to me as someone explaining the scientific evidence for the earth orbiting the sun and being told it's not practical because it asks people to throw out other things they treasure. So what? It's evidence, not a sales presentation.

But that's part of the problem. It is a sales presentation.

There's this idea in the air that Truth, with a capital T, triumphs. Not only that, but it's valuable for its own sake. And, to make the case, we point to the scientific method and modern technological advances.

Simultaneously, we live in a world that's largely fiction, or, if not fiction, certainly not constantly verified to be as we believe it to be. We cut corners, accept without checking, lie to ourselves and each other. On and on.

So we pick our battles and push for those few things we deem most important to get right. God's a tough nut to crack in this landscape. And it does no good to decry the stupidity of our fellow men, for they remain our fellow men despite our baying.

As it stands now, I don't think no-God is as sexy as God. More salesmanship please. We could make God an extraordinary, uncommon idea. Other countries have.

 

[Leumas]

I agree with all that, but I don't think it helps. I don't think it helps because, while it is applicable to belief in God, it's so broad, you've captured too much of human psychology in the mix. If we dismiss their beliefs on that basis, and ask them to agree, we are simultaneously throwing out a bunch of other things people treasure to get through their day-to-day lives.

I don't think a skeptical mindset is natural. Cultural norms are valuable to us. Things like patriotism, gender roles, and a host of other matters are taught and accepted without much question, and I'd claim they serve their purpose well - creating a fiction we can all live with and understand.

In that light, truth isn't always as valuable as agreement is. I don't think we can escape our natures entirely. Which is why an untestable God is so handy to have around. We can mold the idea to fit our current "best practices" and move along to other, important things.

"God's in His heaven and all's right with the world." As wrong as that may be.

So in essence you are saying the majority of people are children and to let them have their imaginary friends or comfort blankets or teddy bears if it helps them psychologically.

In other words you are saying that YOU KNOW BETTER as an adult atheist but those childish theists need their imaginary things to stay happy and so why not let these childish cuties just keep their imaginary soothers.

So now who is the one being

.... I find it elitist, militant, polarizing, and a kind of zealotry....

The problem however is if someone usurped the imaginary friend of a child to convince him of things harmful to his family or to himself.

Would you then advocate maybe talking the child out of this imaginary friend stage and to grow up so as to not be fooled again into doing detrimental things at least using that avenue?

What you are doing here is similar to the theists who are awe struck by all the beauty in nature and point at the hand of the all loving creator who out of love for humanity created all this beauty for them to be awed by and thus know him.

What those theists fail to logically consider is all the terrible and horrific ugliness of nature as well. And when someone points these out to them they start a special pleading trying to acquit their imaginary creator of all things from having in fact created those terrible things.

And in their Cognitive Dissonance Assuaging Casuistry they run rampant with all sorts of ad hominems at the person pointing out their failures in logic as well as all the other familiar red herrings and straw men and slippery slopes and so on and so forth from an all but inexhaustible supply of trite and hackneyed illogical fallacies long ago employed numerous times throughout millennia of casuistry and apologetics.

Rather than admitting their error or that they have been foiled, they quickly unsheathe any possible sophisms and sleights of tongue to parry and goad their debaters to divert any attention away from their arrant failures in reason and rational thinking.