Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[ynot]

I honestly don't think about religion much at all. I think it's nonsense, and it mostly just annoys me if anything. In its worst incarnations, it's very damaging. In its "best," it's still infantilizing and somewhat contrary to logic.

Beyond that, I don't care if there's a creator. I really don't think there is. If it turned out I was wrong, I still wouldn't pray to him/her/it. I can't personally imagine a scenario in which he/she/it would want me to. (I've heard that called an "apatheist," don't know how widely-used the term is.)

Now, here's the rub. I wouldn't say all that to a theist unless they really probed me. I don't like being rude to people or upsetting them or crapping on their life-statutes unnecessarily. I also don't think theists are stupid. I think religion is stupid, but I think I probably believe a lot of stupid things too. So I try to avoid high-horsing about the subject. In general, I prefer to just avoid it.

So am I a True Atheist^TM? I don't know. I don't particularly care.

ETA - Plus it's all subjective, and as unlikely as it seems to my mind, I could be totally wrong about all my beliefs.

If you're not a theist you're an atheist by default. What sub-category of atheist you may be and whether you care about the whole issue or not is irrelevant.

 

[Butter!]

If you're not a theist you're an atheist by default. What sub-category of atheist you may be and whether you care about the whole issue or not is irrelevant.

That's what I always basically thought.

All this semantic quibbling surprised me a bit.

 

[Navigator]

Extraordinary does not mean by what people think...

Crazy just how many terms there are which don't signify there generally understood meaning.

 

[Navigator]

Putting aside the illogical fallacies, we also know that the majority of people used to think that lightening used to be a physical manifestation of their god's anger until Benjamin Franklin counteracted all that awesome anger with a simple iron rod... it seems gods are helpless against iron including YHWH.

Crap. I hope he wasn't holding on to it at the time! *Laughter*

Are you saying that Ben was doing this to show people that 'the god of thunder' wasn't real?

 

[Butter!]

Crap. I hope he wasn't holding on to it at the time! *Laughter*

Are you saying that Ben was doing this to show people that 'the god of thunder' wasn't real?

I can't imagine that's what he was saying, no.

 

[Navigator]

it could be very mundane and obvious, or completely fantastical and impossible.

I think that about the universe every day. Well not that it is 'impossible' (it is right here after-all) but that its existing is illogical and irrational.

The idea of god(s) though, are naturally fantastical and non mundane. But not necessarily impossible. The more story book god ideas are most obviously penned by human beings projecting their own self into the positions. Thrones and ardent admirers are often associated with such type ideas.

 

[Leumas]

It's getting hard to know if some posters here are atheists in denial or theists in denial. Regardless, being in denial isn't a position between theism and atheism.

Any self proclaimed atheist that claims a belief in a magical, invisible sky-daddy isn't a paranormal belief is either a theist in denial, or an atheist that's more interested in not offending theists than speaking the truth.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

[Navigator]

Have you heard of the Scientific Method?

How is that relevant to god ideas? Science deals with what science is able to deal with. Atheism deals with what isn't able to be deal with scientifically.
Pleading science as a basis for your beliefs is fallacy. Science deals with actual things, not beliefs.

Atheism doesn't say 'science hasn't found god(s), therefore god (s) do not exist.'

Positive atheists decide that, and while they are free to do so, to think or otherwise proclaim their position is supreme is nothing science can verify.

It is just haughty opinion. Fuindies do it all the time. Positive atheists are no different in that regard.

 

[Navigator]

In my opinion, words serve people, not the other way around. So if a word "doesn't mean what people think," then we ought to find a more accurate word for what we mean.

This is a very difficult thing to achieve. We are all brought up under the influence of words and there general meanings. We think with words, and our actions are stimulated by words. We self identify with words. We are words. Well no not really, but sometimes it is worth pondering if that is basically what we are. Things which words tell us we are.

Mighty god-like words.

Every battle starts with the battle of words - word s - s words - swords.

But atheism isn't arguing against any particular God, it's a position against all Gods simultaneously. For that reason, it is appropriate to have an atheist camp and a theist camp, regardless of further nuances. We could, if we wanted to, distinguish ourselves into different brands of atheist: anti-Christian, or anti-Islam, but we generally don't.

No. We don't use the word 'anti'. that doesn't go down well. So we use another word... 'positive' ah that sounds so much better. Dressing the mutton to appear like lamb.
But actions speak louder than words.
I Think – Therefore – Who Do I Think I Am?

 

[Leumas]

Crap. I hope he wasn't holding on to it at the time! *Laughter*

Are you saying that Ben was doing this to show people that 'the god of thunder' wasn't real?

You do know what a lightning rod is ...right?

You do know who invented the lightning rod... don't you?


From Here

Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, demons and witches....Christian churches tried to ward off the damaging effects of storms and lightning by saying prayers, consecrating church bells, sprinkling holy water and burning witches....

.....

The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.
In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

 

[Lithrael]

Ah, yes, the famously resisted lightning rod. I thought I remembered something like that. Thanks Leumas.

I was hoping to see if there were any arguments against throwing 'no gods' in with 'sun will rise tomorrow' levels of certainty, that weren't based in either politics or semantics. I enjoyed most of the posts, even if they didn't show me any such arguments. But now I have sustained an eyerolling related injury and will be unable to participate further in the thread.

 

[Leumas]

Crazy just how many terms there are which don't signify there generally understood meaning.

To theists it seems to be the ENTIRE DICTIONARY.

Especially when it suits their purposes in obfuscating while using casuistry to assuage their cognitive dissonance.

Any messy or embarrassingly stupid or vile or heinous bits in their scriptures become open to interpretation as metaphors to god knows what and allegories to no one knows what except of course the one who is claiming allegories and metaphors since he, as a theist who spoke to god in one of his sessions with god obviously knows how to interpret those metaphors and allegories and mistranslated bits that ought to be taken in the paleo-sociological and paleo-geographical and paleo-anthropological and paleo-theological context which he of course knows how to do better than any mere atheist could ever do.

 

[Butter!]

Ah, yes, the famously resisted lightning rod. I thought I remembered something like that. Thanks Leumas.

I was hoping to see if there were any arguments against throwing 'no gods' in with 'sun will rise tomorrow' levels of certainty, that weren't based in either politics or semantics. I enjoyed most of the posts, even if they didn't show me any such arguments. But now I have sustained an eyerolling related injury and will be unable to participate further in the thread.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wouldn't presume to offer any. I've got nothing but a lack of observation and a biased dislike of organized religion. I admit that freely.

I don't believe because I don't believe. If I'm wrong, guess I'll have an eternity to regret that whilst I burn. Or, you know, not. Depending on the deity's nature. Which is, I guess, another can of worms altogether.

But I gotta say, I'm personally not too worried about it.

I don't see how anyone could support the certainty about which you're inquiring. It's a negative, right? Atheism? So how could it be proven?

 

[Navigator]

"that is exactly what the God-did-it hypotheses are.... nothing more than lack of imagination of the power of NATURAL REALITY and utter incredulity of REALITY."

Am I the only one who sees the symmetry on offer in these arguments? It's question begging. Something is extraordinary and requires better evidence because it doesn't have enough evidence because it's extraordinary. And I can accept ordinary things without much evidence because they are ordinary, which means I already accept them.

Personally I think what Lemus said is clearly significant as to why god ideas have to exist.

Consciousness is forced to include them otherwise the power of nature as well as the utter incredulity of reality become barriers to consciousness in relation to its existence within what is really nothing more or less than an illogical situation.

God ideas give meaning and purpose to an otherwise illogical situation.

That is one reason why consciousness has to include them.

Science isn't about giving logical meaning and purpose to existence. It is about consciousness making use of existence, which carries with it the necessity to have to understand existence from the purely physical reality of it.

Dumping god ideas is simply deciding that logic and reason are pointless in relation to consciousness and the physical universe.

Consciousness can then be used just like any other aspect of the physical universe - as a tool for whatever purpose. Strangely though, the only thing which can use consciousness is consciousness itself. Therefore, by casting aside reason and logic, a more forceful - less idealistic type of consciousness can override and overrun and subjugate and direct and manipulate a less forceful type of consciousness.

Ultimately..."For what rational purpose?" (logical would ask) "Who cares!" say the forceful types.

Strangely enough (or not) the forceful types have always been within both atheist and theist camps and are generally in leadership positions. And words are their weapons of choice - especially Latin ones, which goes to show how far back into ancient history this subterfuge has been going on.

One the one side...the position "there is no reason for existence"
and on the other - the position "God says so"

And from those positions, the battle for converting individual consciousnesses continues. Meanwhile the universe goes on, unconcerned as only a mindless thing can be.

So while god ideas are a natural consequence of consciousness being within an illogical irrational position of existence (the physical universe) they are capitalized upon and enforceable owned by those who see advantage in using such natural conscious tenancy as yet another way to direct and control individuals for (always for) the betterment of general lifestyle of those in controlling positions. So no - these don't have to be seen as 'Reptilian Overlords' just because it seems such an inhuman thing to do. It is what certain types of consciousness do in an irrational situation. Take advantage wherever possible. It is their way of rationalizing the irrational.

 

[Navigator]

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.

And then we could go on the merry-go-argument of 'what is evil'

 

[ehcks]

How is that relevant to god ideas? Science deals with what science is able to deal with. Atheism deals with what isn't able to be deal with scientifically.

No.

Science deals with everything that actually exists. Atheism doesn't "deal" with anything. Atheism is simply a word for people who don't believe in a god.

 

[Navigator]

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.

Rubbish. Science is not at all useful for answering such questions.

Indeed, do you not realize that there are more ides about god(s) than the particular one you have mentioned?

Apart from that, what does it matter how we got here? We are here. Why are we here?

Science cannot answer that. It is unreasonable to expect science to answer that.

God ideas which allow humans the right to kill each other can't answer that either.

Throw those out, and will humans stop killing each other?

Science can probably answer that.

But really. Educating people to throw aside all god ideas isn't going to solve the worlds problems. Sorry but that is the truth of it.

 

[Navigator]

It seems to be mostly about absurd semantic games, which are easy to play with ambiguous words like 'belief'. For example, Navigator has said that he has no, or he prefers not to have, beliefs. One can legitimately wonder whether he really believes this.

No.

One cannot legitimately wonder whether I really believe this.

While that is a nice play on words, it is not a case my of believing that I have no beliefs, but of knowing that i have no beliefs.
(And by golly if I discover any that I do still have, I will be dumping them as soon as)

(lets not get on the merry-go-round' arguing what is meant by 'belief' - I mean held onto beliefs, such as those which positive atheists have).

 

[ehcks]

No.

One cannot legitimately wonder whether I really believe this.

While that is a nice play on words, it is not a case my of believing that I have no beliefs, but of knowing that i have no beliefs.
(And by golly if I discover any that I do still have, I will be dumping them as soon as)

(lets not get on the merry-go-round' arguing what is meant by 'belief' - I mean held onto beliefs, such as those which positive atheists have).

One can wonder whatever their mind wanders upon.

It's also impossible to not believe anything. But if you're saying you have no belief in a god, which I'm only assuming because of the thread we're in, then you'd be an atheist and we could move on the the next topic.

The problem is, we never seem to get anywhere in these threads. It's always the same people making the same arguments.

 

[ynot]

I don't believe because I don't believe.

Sorry, but no you don't.

I assume if there was credible evidence of god(s) actual existence then you would believe god(s) actually exist? (I would).

The reason you don't believe therefore is the complete lack of reason why you should believe. You don't believe with credible reason.