Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Navigator]

Love the OP! \i agree with all of it!



Having only seen the topic this morning, I'm afraid I missed out pages 2-5. What I would really like to do is to send a link to the topic to AofC
plus all the other Bishops, plus church leaders worldwide, but it wouldn't do any good, would it, because it would be just their secretaries who would read it, and they would not consider the possibility that there is no God. The move to ;atheism is going to be so slow and I can't live for long enough to see that time when finally, those who do not believe outnumber those who do.

What kind of a world do you imagine that will be?

 

[Navigator]

Sure it is. Science can be (and is) used to explore the idea of god(s) as a sociological concept, as an evolutionary trait, as a function of the human brain, and so forth.

To say that science can't deal with the ideas of gods is like saying science can't deal with Santa Claus. If he's real, well, no--he's magical and imaginary and violates the second law of thermodynamics, among other things. But that requires starting with the premise of believing that Santa Claus is real. If one starts with the broader premise of investigating the whole Santa story, one can point out that Santa himself must be imaginary but explore why the myth got started, how it's passed on, if children act as if they actually believe at various ages and in various circumstances, how thinking about Santa Claus affects brain waves and compares to other categories, and so forth.

The exception, of course, are carefully crafted gods of the gaps, whose actual attributes cannot be explored because they're like the invisible dragon in the garage. But they can still be examined as human psycho-social constructs.

I am not saying that you can;t be scientific about things. I am saying you can't use science as an argument that all ideas of god(s) are false.

But you knew that.
The gods of the gaps are still ideas of god(s).

They are not even necessarily 'carefully crafted' or even thought about at all.


But really, if the argument is just about 'atheism is only about being positively against all known ideas of god(s) and supporting an end to all theism' then how are you and everyone who believes this, going to actually make it so?

Because - quite frankly I think it is pretty much a big noise of nothing in particular. I think it is foolish to believe that theism is the problem with the world, and that if only it no longer existed, everything would be peachy.

That is not only wishful thinking, it is really bad logic.

 

[Navigator]

A very monotonous one.

Wanting all people to be of the same mind is a baaaaad idea invented by monotheists.

Yet you are sounding off as if the world needs to think like you.

 

[Leumas]

Yet you are sounding off as if the world needs to think like you.

Only in your mind.... you see often one attributes intentions to others that are more a reflection upon one's own mindset than it is the actual intention of the others.

Your mirror neurons are fogged up and are therefore not reflecting as well as they should.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Here's the fallacy:
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."

It cannot apply unless there is a generally accepted rule in play. To rely on such a rule, when there isn't one, negates the basis for the fallacy.

Mary has created a rule that cars need radiator fluid. A Tesla is an electric car and does not fall under the rule. It is not an exception to the rule, no more than my dog is an exception to the rule. The rule itself is bad, because it creates a category that is too broad. The correct, and more specific, generally accepted rule is that cars with internal combustion engines need radiator fluid, and the Tesla is not in that category.

You're being way too strict with the idea of a "generally accepted rule." Of course such a rule cannot possibly account for every single example. When we use words like generally, we leave room for exceptions here and there. Even the more specific version you gave has exceptions.

It is not special pleading to point out an error in the construction of a rule or to deny that it is generally accepted.

I agree. The problem is, nobody has done this to my argument. Seriously, look back in the thread. Has anyone disagreed that we have ample experience with minds, and that such minds are always tied to a physical substrate, and that these minds are not capable of creating universes with mere thought? No. Nobody can point out a single counterexample.

(To be absolutely clear, this does not mean a counterexample is impossible, only that it is remarkably different from what we know and understand, and is therefore safely discarded in the absence of evidence)

Like it or not, God is the generally accepted default, and creates a rule thereby. We may disagree with the rule, but it's up to us to justify ourselves, not the other way around. (At least as far as special pleading is concerned.)

Now, it certainly may be that what is generally accepted isn't correct, but, as you point out, that has no effect on whether it's a fallacy or not.

All of this still applies. Let's put it this way:

I walk up to Theo the theist and ask him why he believes in God. He cites an inference from design he perceives in the universe. I respond thus:

Well, that's different though. You see, God is imaginary. We can't infer design when we are talking about imaginary things.

Nonsense, right? I can't just declare God imaginary and then nullify all arguments in support of him just because I have decided to place him in a special little category.

That's special pleading. It is also special pleading when anyone tries to render the idea of God immune to criticism by declaring it "special" or "mythical."

 

[marplots]

Your mirror neurons are fogged up and are therefore not reflecting as well as they should.

Now that's gotta be a falsifiable hypothesis for sure. Off to the lab!

 

[Navigator]

Only in your mind.... you see often one attributes intentions to others that are more a reflection upon one's own mindset than it is the actual intention of the others.

Your mirror neurons are fogged up and are therefore not reflecting as well as they should.

So you do not agree with the OP?

You do not think everyone should be a positive/dogmatic atheist?

You do not think that if everyone held the position of positive/dogmatic atheist, that the world would be a better place?

You do no think that if theism ceased to exist, the the world would be a wonderful truly far better off thing?

You do not think that if ideas of god(s) were banned from the consciousness of human beings, that everything would be so very positively different?

Because if you are saying that there would be no really noticeable difference in human behavior if ideas of god(s) somehow magically (or perhaps scientifically) were removed from the human consciousness, then why waste space arguing otherwise?

 

[Leumas]

Strictly I should say I am a NON-Hirohitoist but I think that I can go all the way and say that I am a strong or positive a-Hirohitoist.


Strictly I should say I am a NON-Bekkaist but I think that I can go all the way and say that I am a strong or positive a-Bekkaist.

Now repeat this exercise for the more than a million Theos that the fecund but yet benighted imagination of people from the epochs of human infancy and adolescence have dreamt up.

I think that mono-theists will find that they are strong/positive a-X where X is every other god that is not the one they have been inculcated and indoctrinated into (sometimes even auto-inculcated).

The difference between the weak/negative atheist and the monotheist is that the weak atheist is in the final throes of his Cognitive Dissonance and cannot quite yet make that extra tiny step of becoming like the monotheists who are positive/strong a-every-other-god-but-theirs.

The difference between a naught-theist and a mono-theist is just that one last Theo for which they have become strong/positive a-Theo.

The weak/negative a-this-one-final-theo is basically in his final pangs of Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[Leumas]

I don't understand the above exercise. I will have to give up.

I often found myself having to try hard and numerous times to even begin to understand some things.... e.g. The General Theory Of Relativity.... some other things I've never even managed to understand and just gave up.... e.g. Quantum Physics.

There is absolutely no shame in giving up provided one has given it his best attempts… one has to come to terms with one's limitation and just admit it when some things are beyond one's comprehension and abilities… not all of us can run a 4-minute mile. Not everyone can become a Salvador Dali.

But before you give up have a look at this post for a final try.

 

[Leumas]

You missed my point. It is easy to name call and to say 'so and so did it'. That is what we were making comment on. Just because something is done 'in the name of god' does not mean that theist are the ones doing it. People can and do call themselves whatever it takes to get into positions of power and influence over the mob. You know this to be the case so stop hiding behind those silly whatever-they-are-collectively-called labeling links.

Not a True Scotsman.

 

[Navigator]

Now that's gotta be a falsifiable hypothesis for sure. Off to the lab!

Good article and comments here.

 

[Leumas]

Again you are ignoring the fact that science is not in the business of proving god(s) do not exist.

Certainly some ideas of god(s) can and have been placed in the no longer relevant box (or burned at the stake - whatever your preference) but you have been ignoring my brilliant arguments throughout this thread.

The more knowledge we gather regarding our human position, the more logical it is to have idea of god(s). Science isn't in the business of providing evidence that god(s) exist either, but it isn't about science - it is about what consciousness does with the knowledge it is finding.

The greater the complexity of the knowledge been obtained, the great the complexity the ideas of god(s) become. Actually it could be argued that the reason the idea of god (singular) came along also has to do with this complexity, but whatever.

You want to engage in past imagery to show horrors of what alleged theists have done to poor innocents as if somehow this is relevant to theists of today, as if somehow there is a point to your argument.

Should I show some imagery of a past Vietnam to show how positive atheists deal with things?

No!

 

[Navigator]

Not a True Scotsman.

You missed my point. It is easy to name call and to say 'so and so did it'. That is what we were making comment on.


Just because something is done 'in the name of anything' does not mean that theists are the only ones doing it. People can and do call themselves whatever it takes to get into positions of power and influence over the mob. You know this to be the case so stop hiding behind those silly whatever-they-are-collectively-called labeling links.

 

[Navigator]

No!

Yes!

(your turn)



ETA:
At least I gave my brilliant reasons for why this is the case.

 

[psionl0]

Possibly, but that's more of a comprehension problem than a flaw in the description of the position.

But who's fault would it be if you choose words that a listener might interpret differently than you?

Okay, we can use different terms for these things in specific discussions.

Negative atheist = nonbeliever
Positive atheist = disbeliever
​

But when talking generally there are lots of different definitions of atheist floating around, so there's no reason we shouldn't use the word in the sense we think it should mean, as long as we're willing to clarify which definition we're using.

I notice that you snipped my comments about strong/weak or positive/negative atheism.

You are free to create and define any categories of atheism that you like - even to the extent of including the neutral position in one or more of those categories. However, you have no right to complain if you are misunderstood.

 

[Dani]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

My conclusion, simply put, is that there is no God. If that makes me dogmatic, then saying that there's no dragon in your garage makes me dogmatic too.

By the way, I can declare myself an ignostic in some more nuanced discussions, but if I want to get my point accross in general, I say atheist.

And then there's the strategy. You can either start with the negative position (the default skeptic position) or adopt a more proactive attitude along the lines of positive atheism. I think both strategies are valid in different contexts. Whenever I debate with a theist (not very often) I choose the skeptical strategy, but in more nuanced discussions such as this one, in which most people self describe as either agnostics or atheists, the differences between positive and negative atheism are precisely what's interesting.

 

[Navigator]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

My conclusion, simply put, is that there is no God. If that makes me dogmatic, then saying that there's no dragon in your garage makes me dogmatic too.

By the way, I can declare myself an ignostic in some more nuanced discussions, but if I want to get my point accross in general, I say atheist.

And then there's the strategy. You can either start with the negative position (the default skeptic position) or adopt a more proactive attitude along the lines of positive atheism. I think both strategies are valid in different contexts. Whenever I debate with a theist (not very often) I choose the skeptical strategy, but in more nuanced discussions such as this one, in which most people self describe as either agnostics or atheists, the differences between positive and negative atheism are precisely what's interesting.

Precisely. But is the OP not saying more that that?

 

[marplots]

I often found myself having to try hard and numerous times to even begin to understand some things.... e.g. The General Theory Of Relativity.... some other things I've never even managed to understand and just gave up.... e.g. Quantum Physics.

There is absolutely no shame in giving up provided one has given it his best attempts… one has to come to terms with one's limitation and just admit it when some things are beyond one's comprehension and abilities… not all of us can run a 4-minute mile. Not everyone can become a Salvador Dali.

But before you give up have a look at this post for a final try.

I think I get your point there (at the linked post). If I do, would you then say that the position of negative atheist is what? Transitional, untenable?

 

[Navigator]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

I don't think so. You have different approaches for different circumstances. The OP seems to be saying that there is only one relative position for every circumstance.

My conclusion, simply put, is that there is no God. If that makes me dogmatic, then saying that there's no dragon in your garage makes me dogmatic too.

Apart from the fact that Atheism is not about the lack of belief in dragons, I bet if I asked you to draw a dragon, you would be able to do so? Or if not, find a picture of one which represents 'what a dragon is'?

Now can you do the same in relation to all ideas of god(s)?

 

[marplots]

Good article and comments here.

That is interesting. He makes a good case.

And in a bit of synchronicity, at the end of the article he says this (my highlight):
"Can someone from the mirror neuron camp come forward and provide us with an example of what kind of empirical result would falsify the theory? Because if you can't falsify it, it's no longer a scientific theory, it's religion."

Which, as I understand it, is the reason God is the purview of religion and not science.