Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[RickM]

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.

Some rational thoughts....well done!

 

[ynot]

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.

Why do only refer to only a single “God” and use a capital “G”? Are you a theist?

 

[marplots]

Some rational thoughts....well done!

I took a nap.

 

[ynot]

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.

Rational, reasonable conclusions based on what we currently know.

This is reflected in the ideas that God is paranormal or equivalent to unicorns or vampires (or any other thing that doesn't exist).

What special pleading do you have to offer that god(s) beliefs are any more normal than other paranormal beliefs? How do you know unicorns or vampires don't exist any more or less than god(s) don'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.

Don't think I've ever heard anyone claim “God(s) must not exist”. I think you just made that up.

 

[marplots]

Why do only refer to only a single “God” and use a capital “G”? Are you a theist?

No, I'm an atheist. Sorry if the singular is confusing. As to the capital, that's convention, isn't it? I write for a living, so I try to go with what I think is the correct form. Plainly, I have a monotheistic version in mind as a default, wherein "God" is a proper noun. But there's also the capital pronoun, such as "He" which is more a nod to the form used by theists as an honorific.

It doesn't have any deeper meaning in either case.

I thought this was interesting:

Question: "Should all pronouns referring to God be capitalized?"

Answer: Many people struggle with this question. Some, believing it shows reverence for God, capitalize all pronouns that refer to God. Others, believing the “rules” of English style should be followed, do not capitalize the deity pronouns. So, who is right? The answer is neither. It is neither right nor wrong to capitalize or not capitalize pronouns that refer to God. It is a matter of personal conviction, preference, and context. Some Bible translations capitalize pronouns referring to God, while others do not.

In the original languages of the Bible, capitalizing pronouns referring to God was not an issue. In Hebrew, there was no such thing as upper-case and lower-case letters. There was simply an alphabet, no capital letters at all. In Greek, there were capital (upper-case) letters and lower-case letters. However, in all of the earliest copies of the Greek New Testament, the text is written in all capital letters. When God inspired the human authors of Scripture to write His Word, He did not lead them to give any special attention to pronouns that refer to Him. With that in mind, it follows that God is not offended if we do not capitalize pronouns that refer to Him.

I sometimes capitalize the word "bible" too.

 

[RickM]

I took a nap.

I can imagine. It's not easy to stave off a herd of Mongolians with battle axes.

 

[marplots]

Rational, reasonable conclusions based on what we currently know.

We aren't arguing the conclusion - both are atheists. We are arguing the strength and extent of the conclusion.

What special pleading do you have to offer that god(s) are any more normal than other paranormal beliefs? How do you know unicorns or vampires don't exist any more than god(s) don't exist?

I don't have any special pleading for God, save to point out that unicorns and vampires are different things, which is why we have different words for them, so the existence of any isn't tied to the existence of any other. But I think that if vampires or unicorns turned out to exist, they wouldn't quite challenge the strong atheist worldview in quite the same way as if God existed.

Is it that all things that do not exist are the same? It seems like they ought to be, like all empty sets are the same. But then why the distinctions?

Don't think I've ever heard anyone claim “God(s) must not exist”. I think you just made that up.

I did make it up. It's an observation. Do you agree with me?
If God fits the role of the contradiction that destroys all of logic (as in the wiki link I cited), and logic is paramount, then God must not exist. Must be impossible.

 

[ynot]

No, I'm an atheist. Sorry if the singular is confusing. As to the capital, that's convention, isn't it? I write for a living, so I try to go with what I think is the correct form. Plainly, I have a monotheistic version in mind as a default, wherein "God" is a proper noun. But there's also the capital pronoun, such as "He" which is more a nod to the form used by theists as an honorific.

It doesn't have any deeper meaning in either case.

I thought this was interesting:

I sometimes capitalize the word "bible" too.

I didn't mean to nit-pick. I think it's important to remember that the debate isn't about a particular “God” belief. There are thousands of gods and the debate applies equally to them all. By using “God” it makes one god belief more “special” than the others.

I always capitalise “Bible”. Can't think of where it has any use other than as a name of a book.

 

[RickM]

I always capitalise “Bible”. Can't think of where it has any use other than as a name of a book.

Ahaaa, I knew it. A theist in denial.

 

[Pup]

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).

Huh? God is impossible is not at all claim I'd make. A god of the gaps for example is, by definition, possible, as are unicorns or vampires living on some undiscovered planet with carefully described attrbutes that also place their attributes in the gaps.

I say that gods do not exist because the odds of people wanting to make them up are far, far more likely than the odds of them existing in the gaps, similar to the above existence of unicorns or vampires. But gods are not impossible. You seem to be creating a straw-man idea to apply to every positive atheist whether it fits or not.

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.

Is that not equally true, or untrue, of the negative atheist? If a particular god is a logical contradiction, the negative atheist must disbelieve in it if he/she wishes to rely on logic. This still leaves any god of the gaps open to question until presented to a negative atheist, at which time he/she must assess the evidence and decide not to believe (and remain an atheist) or decide to believe and become a theist.

A positive atheist can reject such gods of the gaps with the default assumption that they are all created by human imagination to help people cling to the notion of a god despite logical evidence against such a thing. If there is evidence to overturn that, the game changes.

 

[ynot]

I don't have any special pleading for God, save to point out that unicorns and vampires are different things, which is why we have different words for them, so the existence of any isn't tied to the existence of any other.

Gods, vampires, unicorns, fairies, spirits etc are all different paranormal BELIEFS (not things). History is littered with many different god beliefs, with many different god names, that have many different god powers. Belief in vampires, unicorns or other mythical creatures doesn't require belief that they were created by god(s). You still haven't explained why god beliefs are any different from any other paranormal beliefs.

But I think that if vampires or unicorns turned out to exist, they wouldn't quite challenge the strong atheist worldview in quite the same way as if God existed.

Atheism is exclusive to god beliefs. So what?

I did make it up. It's an observation. Do you agree with me?
If God fits the role of the contradiction that destroys all of logic (as in the wiki link I cited), and logic is paramount, then God must not exist. Must be impossible.

The only thing that creates the “must” is the extent of current knowledge. “The Earth must be flat” was once quite a credible conclusion. New knowledge might say god(s) are possible (don't hold your breath tho).

 

[Leumas]

[snip]

... 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?
....

No, we are only trying to make them stop shoving their world view down everyone's throat whenever they can get away with it.

We are only trying to demonstrate how their world view is wrong only because they think that it is so correct that they cannot resist the need to enforce it upon everyone by making it the laws of the land.

It is not positive atheists that are

• Persecuting Gays and denying them equal citizenship privileges.
• Targeting and killing abortion clinic staff and flying airplanes into buildings.
• Impeding scientific Research and Development because of their delusion.
• Obstructing education based upon rational realities and trying to shove their delusions into children's education.
• Machinating and supporting things that will cause world destruction because they want to hurry their delusion's long awaited consummation of his marriage to them behind closed doors.
• Hindering action to stem global worming because they believe those disasters are part of their delusion's plan
• Fomenting civil unrest in the defense of their delusion,

In this regard I fear the positive atheist can do more harm than good.

Please read some history to find out who are the ones that have done harm for millennia to the whole world.

While we are busy fending off allegations of being "scary nasty totalitarian fundamentalist atheists" hurled at us by self-admitted reformed hateful "fundamentalist atheists" this stuff is going on:

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.​

It is not positive atheists that are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.

It is not atheists that are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.

While we argue on forums whether negative atheism is nicer than the positive one they are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.

From Here

The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."​

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb207d719dc1.jpg[/imgw]

 

[ynot]

I've yet to hear of nasty atheists flying planes into buildings full of people or blowing themselves up in crowds of innocent bystanders shouting “I have no belief in gods” or the even nastier “There is no god”.

 

[Leumas]

I second Leumas.

I second that

 

[Leumas]

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

That is a long cherished theistic tradition starting right from the beginning with the Torah going on to the NT and Augustine, Aquinas and continuing on with the tradition even to the internet.

 

[marplots]

Gods, vampires, unicorns, fairies, spirits etc are all different paranormal BELIEFS (not things). History is littered with many different god beliefs, with many different god names, that have many different god powers. Belief in vampires, unicorns or other mythical creatures doesn't require belief that they were created by god(s). You still haven't explained why god beliefs are any different from any other paranormal beliefs.
Atheism is exclusive to god beliefs. So what?

Does that count as a difference?

 

[marplots]

I've yet to hear of nasty atheists flying planes into buildings full of people or blowing themselves up in crowds of innocent bystanders shouting “I have no belief in gods” or the even nastier “There is no god”.

And if they did, what would be the significance? Would atheism be less true?

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

Dude, did you even read the OP?

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.

 

[Leumas]

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.

Straw Man.

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.

Straw man o man.

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.

Seriously???

Yes... I can see how a person who commits illogical fallacies by the droves would love to convince himself of such an illogic.

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.

You must own staples or lots of horses.... you seem to have an ample supply of straw.

• Straw man
• Ad Hominem
• Proof by assertion
• Argumentum ad lapidem
• Poisoning the well
• Appeal to redicule

 

[marplots]

Straw Man.
Straw man o man.
Seriously???

Yes... I can see how a person who commits illogical fallacies by the droves would love to convince himself of such an illogic.

You must own staples or lots of horses.... you seem to have an ample supply of straw.

• Straw man
• Ad Hominem
• Proof by assertion
• Argumentum ad lapidem
• Poisoning the well
• Appeal to redicule

Excellent rebuttal. Top marks!