Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Lithrael]

OK I'm gonna be the hypocrite who comes right back into the thread.

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?

It can't be proven. And it can't be certain. It's provisional. But my point is that the provisional conclusion is strong enough that it seems ridiculous to me to hold the door open just in case of the possibility of gods. When new evidence shows up and knocks I'll open the door and have a look, but until then, that door is shut.

Just like my door is, and most people's doors are, shut against the possibility of unicorns.

Except nobody insists that it's more proper to say "I don't believe in unicorns" instead of "It seems pretty obvious at this point that there aren't any unicorns."

And I completely fail to see the relevant difference between gods and unicorns. I really do not at all see it. I don't understand the idea that it's OK to come to everyday (provisional, working, but still held as really unlikely to turn out to be wrong in the foreseeable future) conclusions about everything else but not about gods.

ETA: Does it help if I say that I don't have anything against the possibility of unknowable gods? We don't and may never have the ability to tell the difference between distant gods that never interact with the universe and no gods. It's just that at that point I feel I have defined the issue well outside of what anyone means when they talk about gods. And that way lies navel-gazing anyhows.

 

[ynot]

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

It's even more of a problem when some contradict their own argument.

 

[Navigator]

Tossing out links to fallacies isn't an argument.

Unless... is this a demonstration of how zealot atheists present themselves to believers? No wonder there's no communication.

.

I suspect so. I think the invention of wikipedia allowed positive athiests to store their coined phrases which have proved to work effectively as argument against their opposition and thus a recorded (and heavily guarded from marauding would be editors/saboteurs) storage compartment exists... then it is just a matter of giving the link to the appropriate authentic fallacy and saving a lot of time having to type the same argument over and over.

However, it is a pointless tool when the 'fallacies' are seen to be fallacies themselves. Tools designed to place barriers around actual communication.

Ah! The power of words!

 

[Navigator]

And here we go.... now everyone knows exactly where you really stand on the atheism spectrum.

[imgw=650]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282546bde3da4510.jpg[/imgw]

Dear oh dear. 'the atheism spectrum'. Sheesh! Poor old victim of the ideas of god(s).

"I have been crucified for using wiki fallacy links, and therefore you are an 'apologist'.

 

[Navigator]

That is the difference between an aspiring skeptic and an accomplished one.

An accomplished skeptic seeks the truths of reality no matter how unpalatable they may be.

The pretend skeptics call people who point out the truths of reality derogatory names and start throwing hissy fits and spewing epithets at them in a desperate attempt at assuaging their Cognitive Dissonance.

Hold on now. When did we switch from Atheism to Skepticism?

 

[ynot]

OK I'm gonna be the hypocrite who comes right back into the thread.



It can't be proven. And it can't be certain. It's provisional. But my point is that the provisional conclusion is strong enough that it seems ridiculous to me to hold the door open just in case of the possibility of gods. When new evidence shows up and knocks I'll open the door and have a look, but until then, that door is shut.

Just like my door is, and most people's doors are, shut against the possibility of unicorns.

Except nobody insists that it's more proper to say "I don't believe in unicorns" instead of "It seems pretty obvious at this point that there aren't any unicorns."

And I completely fail to see the relevant difference between gods and unicorns. I really do not at all see it. I don't understand the idea that it's OK to come to everyday (provisional, working, but still held as really unlikely to turn out to be wrong in the foreseeable future) conclusions about everything else but not about gods.

Well said. If new evidence isn't robust enough to knock then there's no need or reason to open the door.

 

[Navigator]

“ ‘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.”

I like that. It sounds far more honest! Dogmatic Atheism.

*thumbs up*

 

[Navigator]

Well, sure, but that's a completely different discussion.



Because I arrive at atheism for the exact same reasons I arrive at a-vampirism. At the end of the day they're all popular stories from damn near whole cloth, whether they're invented to explain something or to comfort (and/or control) someone. You might as well say that the genre of classical music is so much more than the genre of punk. They're both music and if I'm gonna trash music I'm gonna trash classical and punk for the exact same reasons.

Woah now steady on there Litherael. You did not 'arrive at atheism'. That is the default position. You were born that way right?

Now if you are saying you arrived at dogmatic atheism, then yes - you followed that path - one you decided was rational - but then in doing so you look at the default position as being irrational because it is 'weak' and does not think there is anything rational about leaving non belief to follow the path of belief.

that is really the problem right? the dogmatic atheist (aka 'positive') cannot stand to have atheists in their ranks which are weak and lack belief. The dogmatic wish to either convert the weak or otherwise expel them as 'apologists'. "There can be no middle ground. You are either for or against."

That surely is dogmatism. But it also is - I suspect - something else which has infiltrated atheism and seeks to turn it into something other than what it needs to be.

 

[Navigator]

Things that exist do not have to have their existence proven.

In relation to god ideas...what if there is such a god(s) who knows it does indeed exist?

Does the rule still apply?

 

[Lithrael]

Navigator, none of this reflects the situation as I see it at all. I've posted exactly what I mean and I'd welcome discussion of that.

 

[Navigator]

"Everything is connected with everything". OK . That was particularly helpful. I suppose that, say, the use of lead batteries is connected to the speed of deep sea ocean currents. Is this a sort of game we could play? Sort of like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

I thought we were taking about nature?

But then again, if all the lead batteries were placed in one particular place on the planet, it is possible that this could be investigated to see if there is any connection between the two things.

Anyway...how did this get into the discussion? I think I just commented on one of those drive by humor posts that often get thrown into threads and you took it up from there.

 

[Navigator]

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

Sweet.

 

[Butter!]

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.

Yes, you're right.

 

[Navigator]

I probably misunderstood your post then.

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

The 'on' should have been in the sentence.

It still puzzles me why people who clearly disbelieve in god(s) argue themselves blue in the face that it is merely "lack of belief".

Lack of belief is lack of belief. Believing that god(s) don't exist (positive/dogmatic atheism) is different.

Arguing it isn;t about anything other that making sure the distinction is seen for what it is so confusion doesn't arise. But also arguing for the position has to do with the implications which arise from the dogmatic position which point haughty fingers at the 'lessor' brethren like 'weak' atheists are somehow traitors to some ill defined irrational cause.

Should one assume 'couldn't care less what people think of me' position or get all blue-faced at the haughty sneers?

I say neither. No need for blue faces. it is interesting and a good practice not to allow others to walk all over you or call you names you don't actually deserve to be called, or imply things about you which are not true - all because those others have to argue their beliefs and that is the only way they seem to be able to do so.

 

[Navigator]

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

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


From Here

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

Or, was it for a completely different reason?

For example - a scientific reason...like proving that lightening was electricity.

 

[Navigator]

It's also impossible to not believe anything.

It is possible not to have beliefs which one holds onto.

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.

Ah but the topic is not about that. It is about dogmatic atheism vrs plain old atheism.

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

Which signifies that there is a need for resolution. It may never come and the argument may well have existed since ancient times, in which case it can be clearly seen to be the fault of dogmatism due to well held onto beliefs.

 

[Butter!]

OK I'm gonna be the hypocrite who comes right back into the thread.



It can't be proven. And it can't be certain. It's provisional. But my point is that the provisional conclusion is strong enough that it seems ridiculous to me to hold the door open just in case of the possibility of gods. When new evidence shows up and knocks I'll open the door and have a look, but until then, that door is shut.

Just like my door is, and most people's doors are, shut against the possibility of unicorns.

Except nobody insists that it's more proper to say "I don't believe in unicorns" instead of "It seems pretty obvious at this point that there aren't any unicorns."

And I completely fail to see the relevant difference between gods and unicorns. I really do not at all see it. I don't understand the idea that it's OK to come to everyday (provisional, working, but still held as really unlikely to turn out to be wrong in the foreseeable future) conclusions about everything else but not about gods.

ETA: Does it help if I say that I don't have anything against the possibility of unknowable gods? We don't and may never have the ability to tell the difference between distant gods that never interact with the universe and no gods. It's just that at that point I feel I have defined the issue well outside of what anyone means when they talk about gods. And that way lies navel-gazing anyhows.

Ah, in that case, I very much agree. I feel the same way.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, none of this reflects the situation as I see it at all. I've posted exactly what I mean and I'd welcome discussion of that.

Do you mean you welcome agreement but are not interested in something which disagrees with your own position Lithrael?

 

[Butter!]

Do you mean you welcome agreement but are not interested in something which disagrees with your own position Lithrael?

That's just about the opposite of what he said, in my view.

 

[marplots]

The positive atheist seems to be making a statement about the outside world akin to, "God doesn't exist, and cannot exist" with the notion that God is impossible. This is reflected in the ideas that God is paranormal or equivalent to unicorns or vampires (or any other thing that doesn't exist).

I don't think the negative atheist has this same burden to assert some universal truth. I can say that God doesn't exist without having to say that God must not exist.

The positive atheist is in the position of the logician who holds with the principle of explosion^WP. Anything can be proven by logic if even one false premise is allowed into the mix. If God is such a contradiction, then allowing God ruins all of logic and science.

I don't believe this is so. Logic, in my view, is a tool for reasoning and can have no authority above and beyond the reasoner.

At its worst, positive atheism is a type of toxic clarity. In service of this clarity, I don't think there is any evidence at all which would sway them from their viewpoint. For anything that appeared to fit the role of God would more likely be a delusion, a mistake, or trickery. It is a stance immune to attack, even with the weapon of reason itself. Anything that appears to have the slightest bit of evidential value must be rejected, not as insufficient evidence, or weak evidence, but as not really evidence at all. Hence the common refrain - there is no evidence for God. For there cannot be such a thing.