Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Brian-M]

'God' who?

Yahweh of the Elohim.

How many theists have you actually converted using this argument?

Who's trying to convert anyone?

 

[psionl0]

I actually think we are pretty far along in falsifying God. Not in the mathematical sense, but in the courtroom, "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense. The more of the world we explore and do not find God (nor a use for the idea), the more we can come to doubt there's any God to find. There's just no place to put Him anymore.

It is not scientifically possible to distinguish between a world where no gods exist and one where there are god(s) who choose to remain hidden.

 

[marplots]

It is not scientifically possible to distinguish between a world where no gods exist and one where there are god(s) who choose to remain hidden.

Only if those gods have the power to hide effectively. Is that a property of God? How would we know?

 

[psionl0]

Only if those gods have the power to hide effectively. Is that a property of God? How would we know?

You don't.

 

[Leumas]

I actually think we are pretty far along in falsifying God. Not in the mathematical sense, but in the courtroom, "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense. The more of the world we explore and do not find God (nor a use for the idea), the more we can come to doubt there's any God to find. There's just no place to put Him anymore.

 

[Pup]

Correct me if I am wrong here. Are all ideas of god(s) falsifiable?

Are all ideas of mermaids falsifiable? Of course not, in the sense that we can't search all the seas of all the planets and declare them empty of mermaids.

But we can falsify mermaids in the sense that we can see why the specific myths about them were typical of human imagination and false perception, how the myths spread, why people gave them attributes that made them undetectable, and so forth.

There might certainly be mermaid-like creatures on some undiscovered planet, but until we find them, I'm pretty confident in saying that mermaids don't exist. The idea was created not because it was a reasonable hypothesis for other forms of life, but because of how humans create myths.

Same situation with the gods of the gaps that aren't obviously falsifiable, such as a god that created the universe then never interacted with it again.

We're hard-wired to want to believe in gods.

This seems to be contradictory to the default position of atheism.

I think that children/babies may start out as negative atheists--they haven't heard of any god they believe in because they haven't heard of any god--but magical thinking is already hardwired because a search for cause-and-effect is hardwired for survival.

If a child touches a hot stove, she'll notice that stove-like objects are hot and not touch one again, hopefully. But that already opens the door to magical thinking. What if a child notices bullies leave her alone more often when she's carrying her lucky pebble (by coincidence)?

It takes maturity to start separating out real cause-and-effect from magical cause-and-effect. We want to find cause-and-effect, because it gives us control, so we have a tendency toward magical thinking, and gods/prayer/supernatural-beings-who-can-be-appeased are just a step further.

Nonetheless, whether its a hard wire or simply the way consciousness reacts to being in an irrational environment (the physical universe) the ideas of god(s) are natural enough.

I agree, and I think that's the strongest argument for positive atheism rather than negative atheism. Gods as a category are a human response to an irrational (or apparently irrational) environment.

Tell me how the god(s) of the gaps preserve belief. Or maybe not...this is after all a thread dedicated to dogmatic atheism vs rational atheism.

Real briefly: a god of the gaps can't be falsified, so a person can claim it's real without fear of being shown evidence otherwise, while I god outside the gaps might be falsified by the scientific evidence at any time.

Though I disagree that this is a thread about dogmatic vs rational atheism. A negative atheist can be dogmatic (stick to his position at all costs despite all evidence), and a positive atheist can be rational (have a logical reason for his position).

What is there to sell? The idea that explicit atheism is somehow a more rational position than implicit atheism?

Yes.

Are you saying that you are a positive atheist who doesn't mind theists?

As long as they don't hassle you - which is quite acceptable and I agree with you. People can be whatever they want to and believe whatever they want to as long as they don't hassle anyone. Sounds reasonable.

Yes. I suspect there are lots of others like me, but people don't notice us because we're not the ones making the noise. For example, I'm posting here on a forum generally sympathetic to atheists/skeptics, rather than over on a theist forum criticizing theists.

I figure if theists come here, they know what they're getting into, but it's rude to walk into their church, so to speak, and criticize them. Everybody needs a hobby, and it would be as silly and pointless as posting on a Star Wars fan board saying how stupid Star Wars is.

Do you think that explicit atheists making clearly derogation statements about implicit atheists can be defined as 'hassling' those implicit atheists and that it is fair enough to stand up and not take it or just as importantly stand up and say it is not right to do so, even if you are not being hassled yourself?

Naw. I say let them do what they want. It's just words, and there are generally moderators/officials/laws in place to prevent things from getting out of hand for the particular venue, whether it's a message board or a public square. As long as general freedom is protect by law, people can engage or disgage as they see fit.

Certainly people might want to call out others for being wrong, but that's just the nature of public discourse and it goes all directions--most everybody including me have lots of positions that they think are right and, therefore, others are wrong. The degree that one wants to argue with those others, or just leave them alone and go on with one's own life among like-minded people, is up to the individual.

 

[stanfr]

I actually think we are pretty far along in falsifying God. Not in the mathematical sense, but in the courtroom, "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense. The more of the world we explore and do not find God (nor a use for the idea), the more we can come to doubt there's any God to find. There's just no place to put Him anymore.

You can put him/it at the beginning of the universe. That's a pretty big (or incredibly small...depending on how you describe it) place.

 

[Leumas]

You can put him/it at the beginning of the universe. That's a pretty big (or incredibly small...depending on how you describe it) place.

So s/he/it is the mad scientist that blew itself up with the big bang, and that is why s/he/it no longer exists?

Maybe the big bang was a result of a group of mad scientists doing a crazy experiment with a powerful accelerator-collider and blew their whole universe up and started ours?

Or the big bang might be the orgasmic result of a wanker god who had a heart attack as a result?

Or it could have been a deadbeat dad who big banged some goddess and ran away when he found out she was pregnant and she subsequently out of a broken heart and being all alone died while giving birth to our child universe and that is why we never see him or her?

 

[phiwum]

That latter would make it amazing, as amazing as black holes or any other grand discovery, but extraordinary is about beliefs. Beliefs are grounded in people. We should at least agree that the belief itself isn't extraordinary, even if we disagree on whether the object of that belief is.

The highlighted bit is simply not supported by English usage.

We use the word extraordinary to describe facts (or propositions). Now, of course, it might be extraordinary that someone has a particular belief, or it might be that the contents of the belief are extraordinary.

It would be ludicrous to think that "extraordinary" refers to the prevalence of beliefs when we say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If this is what Sagan meant, he would be claiming that the popularity of a belief is relevant to whether we ought to accept it, i.e.

"If few people believe the claim, then we ought to provide extraordinary evidence (that is, evidence which few people believe)."​

Your reading is obviously nonsense.

As I read the statement that started this: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I am struck not only by the first use of the word, but the second as well. The evidence sometimes proffered by believers is personal experience. I can think of no more powerful form of evidence than that.

Really. Personal experience is the most powerful form of evidence you can think of.

So, even coming at it from the other direction (back to front), I still reject the dictum. At the root of it is the nature of evidence itself. In the end, isn't evidence just and only whatever it is that convinced me? That is, on what basis, other than a subjective judgement, am I to evaluate evidence?

From the standards of rationality, perhaps?

For, we find that this evidence is supported by previous evidence and that by even older evidence in a long chain, reaching back but never really bottoming out. Of course, none of this would mean I can convince anyone else. One person's personal experience is just another person's "cool story bro."

Essentially then, we have two types of historical evidence. There's the "I saw bigfoot" kind that convinces only the viewer, and then there's the "Here's the film I took of bigfoot" kind which can be shared and analyzed. Are we justified in saying that one type is stronger than the other, or is it just that the one can be shared and the other cannot?

We are obviously justified by centuries of recognition of the frailty of human perception in deciding that recordings which can be examined and re-examined, carefully analyzed, etc., are fundamentally better evidence than fleeting perceptions. Surely, every full-growed person knows that they have mistakenly believed they heard someone call their name, thought they saw something in a sports game and realized they were mistaken on viewing the instant replay, etc.

You're not seriously suggesting that any reasonable, mature person could possibly stand steadfast in his belief even after watching a slow-motion replay that proved it wrong.

 

[Lithrael]

OK I'm going to start out by apologising if I've been creating any insulting metaphors. I'm so far away from understanding your position that I'm likely to get it wrong a few times when I try to go 'if this is what you're saying...'

Why is that? Is it because you are an explicit?

It's because the evidence leads me to believe that both dragons and gods were dreamed up by humans in a very similar way, even though they have different roles in human cultures. In this thread a lot has been made of the fact that lots of people genuinely believe in gods but nobody genuinely believes in Harry Potter. I honestly straight up do not understand why that is supposed to be meaningful. Creation myths, for example, are considered to be clearly fiction by many, many people and to be absolutely true by many, many others. The properties of the creation myth itself don't change depending on whether everyone believes it or nobody believes it. And more to the point, people are credulous. A charismatic person can attempt to start a religion or a cult just by telling people an interesting story and asserting that it is true (and throwing in a few other bells and whistles) and it will work.

Ideas are ideas and in relation to god(s) can be regarded as pretty much inexhaustible. So you are an atheist in as much as theists and the popular notion of common ideas of god(s) go.

Right. The main thing I actually object to is the 'superhuman ability/desire to judge/punish/reward humans' part.

Why then is it important to you to be an explicit atheist and be in opposition to implicit atheists?

Here's another example of me losing your thread. It's not important, it just looks to me like it follows. It makes sense. By the same rules I use for everything else in my life I get to this. And I'm not in opposition so much as I don't at all understand it. It looks to me like I've run across a cattle grate and you've stopped at the edge of it and proceeded to tell me that my running across it is too presumptuous.

What if I said to you than one idea of god(s) is that humans are gods?

If it doesn't involve presuming superhuman powers and just is referring to our ability to reshape the world and each other as per normal then sure, but again, I wouldn't understand why anyone's choosing the word 'gods.'

I'm not an atheist because I have a thing about gods, I'm an atheist because I have a thing about implausible things in general. If your idea of god is plausible then you've literally defined yourself out of the equation as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Navigator]

I was just offering an additional variety to the list, I wasn't trying to suggest something completely different.

I suppose I could have suggested Komodo dragons. Those dragons don't have wings, don't breath fire, and don't grow longer than 10 feet.

If we were talking about Komodo dragons, then I'd have to say yes, I believe that dragons exist.

Then we can also understand where stories of dragons most likely originated. With knowledge regarding dinosaurs.

Perhaps bones were discovered and stories created around these findings.

 

[Navigator]

I actually think we are pretty far along in falsifying God. Not in the mathematical sense, but in the courtroom, "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense. The more of the world we explore and do not find God (nor a use for the idea), the more we can come to doubt there's any God to find. There's just no place to put Him anymore.

I assume you are speaking of the Jewish/christian/Muslim idea of god. Would that be correct?

 

[Navigator]

Yahweh of the Elohim.



Who's trying to convert anyone?

What is this OP about? Simply pointing out the differences between one type of atheist and another?

Explicit atheists are trying to convert others because they have this belief that the world would be better off if ideas of god(s) were absent.

That is why they create labels and argument fallacies and speak down at implicit atheists whom they think of as inferior and apologetic.

 

[Leumas]

Then we can also understand where stories of dragons most likely originated. With knowledge regarding dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years before even primates started to evolve let alone Hominidae and hominins.

No human could have ever seen a dinosaur.

Of course that is not what some theists think.

Perhaps bones were discovered and stories created around these findings.

Yes, that is perhaps the origin of legends like Human Giants and other monstrous creatures like those in the bible.... however I don't think the myths of dragons came just from the occasional unearthing of a giant femur.

I think dragons are perhaps based on exaggerations in size of real dragons with gradually added embellishments from fertile imaginations of artful myth makers and folk telling tall tales and campfire fibs.

 

[Navigator]

Are all ideas of mermaids falsifiable? Of course not, in the sense that we can't search all the seas of all the planets and declare them empty of mermaids.

But we can falsify mermaids in the sense that we can see why the specific myths about them were typical of human imagination and false perception, how the myths spread, why people gave them attributes that made them undetectable, and so forth.

There might certainly be mermaid-like creatures on some undiscovered planet, but until we find them, I'm pretty confident in saying that mermaids don't exist. The idea was created not because it was a reasonable hypothesis for other forms of life, but because of how humans create myths.

Same situation with the gods of the gaps that aren't obviously falsifiable, such as a god that created the universe then never interacted with it again.

So some ides of god(s) are still not falsifiable.

I think that children/babies may start out as negative atheists--they haven't heard of any god they believe in because they haven't heard of any god--but magical thinking is already hardwired because a search for cause-and-effect is hardwired for survival.

So the implicit atheist is closest to the default position.
How can you tall that an explicit atheist is not forming beliefs based on the same hard wired survivalist thinking?
Cause and Effect are natural properties of this universe. The universe itself is illogical and consciousness existing within it is irrational.

If a child touches a hot stove, she'll notice that stove-like objects are hot and not touch one again, hopefully. But that already opens the door to magical thinking. What if a child notices bullies leave her alone more often when she's carrying her lucky pebble (by coincidence)?

What if her lucky pebble is actually a sharp stone bound to a heavy stick?

Seriously though, are you saying that the lucky pebble is the same as a god idea?

Wouldn't it be more logical to think that some humans choose to be bullies (and choose to support bullies) in order to control and direct the weaker ones and that this would have more to do with why god idea(s) were invented?
Then because the god ideas threatened the bullies because the weak learned how to use the god ideas to deal with the bullies in a way which took some of the control away from those bullies, that the bullies then realized the only way to beat that was to infiltrate the beliefs and subtlety and not so subtlety bully their way to a position whereby they could dictate the god idea to their advantage and thus resume control?

IOW Organised Religion.

It takes maturity to start separating out real cause-and-effect from magical cause-and-effect. We want to find cause-and-effect, because it gives us control, so we have a tendency toward magical thinking, and gods/prayer/supernatural-beings-who-can-be-appeased are just a step further.

I agree, and I think that's the strongest argument for positive atheism rather than negative atheism. Gods as a category are a human response to an irrational (or apparently irrational) environment.

Perhaps, but it may also be a rational way for consciousness to understand its position within an otherwise irrational universe.

Assuming it is possible to remove all ideas of god from human consciousness, what is left which is rational?

Because, when you used the bracketed phrase (or apparently irrational) you are implying that human consciousness can make something rational out of something irrational.

Real briefly: a god of the gaps can't be falsified, so a person can claim it's real without fear of being shown evidence otherwise, while I god outside the gaps might be falsified by the scientific evidence at any time.

So science which only deals with ideas related to the physical universe, cannot deal with ideas of god(s) which are unrelated to the physical universe even though the ideas (in a philosophical light) are possible. Science cannot deal with such ideas.

But then - take the belief that one idea of god(s) created the universe in a few days.
Then we poke and prod for a few thousand years and discover that things around these parts have been going on for eons.

Two things happen in relation to god ideas. One is to claim the science is wrong and the other is to alter the idea of god(s) in order that it fits the evidence.

IOW - the ideas of god(s) remain, and simply evolve.

Though I disagree that this is a thread about dogmatic vs rational atheism.
A negative atheist can be dogmatic (stick to his position at all costs despite all evidence), and a positive atheist can be rational (have a logical reason for his position).

'All the evidence' is but a drop in the ocean. Hardly enough to convince a rational thinker into joining the ranks of his bully brethren and becoming a believer.

Rather, 'tis a most wholesome position to remain mid grounded and not conclude that ideas of god(s) are altogether resolved by human science to date.

Nay. Your reasoning is really no more than an excuse to be (or at least silently support) that which thinks itself superior and its beliefs logical.

Yes.

So you are an explicit atheist with nothing to sell except the belief that your atheism is the best position because it is (you believe) the more rational. Why did you say you were not trying to sell it?

Yes. I suspect there are lots of others like me, but people don't notice us because we're not the ones making the noise. For example, I'm posting here on a forum generally sympathetic to atheists/skeptics, rather than over on a theist forum criticizing theists.

I figure if theists come here, they know what they're getting into, but it's rude to walk into their church, so to speak, and criticize them. Everybody needs a hobby, and it would be as silly and pointless as posting on a Star Wars fan board saying how stupid Star Wars is.

Perhaps it is all really just a hobby. Something to divert us from the realization we exist in an irrational position.

Naw. I say let them do what they want. It's just words, and there are generally moderators/officials/laws in place to prevent things from getting out of hand for the particular venue, whether it's a message board or a public square. As long as general freedom is protect by law, people can engage or disgage as they see fit.

Yes that tends to be the underlying attitude of explicit atheism. Verbal bullying is acceptable as a form of expression. Not all (like yourself) choose to always do so, but their silence (lack of opposition) supports the expression nonetheless. And when asked of course, you have to make that clear or you may be suspected of being an implicit atheist.
And as you say, the rules and moderators also have to share the particular bias.
The only misinformation I see then, is in how forums are sometime named. They give a false impression.

Certainly people might want to call out others for being wrong, but that's just the nature of public discourse and it goes all directions--most everybody including me have lots of positions that they think are right and, therefore, others are wrong. The degree that one wants to argue with those others, or just leave them alone and go on with one's own life among like-minded people, is up to the individual.

And so that is how human consciousness deals with its irrational position. By behaving irrationally but pretending it is rational to do so.
Find your group and stick with it.

Ignore the BS from other groups and stomp on anyone from any other group who dares to set foot in your own groups holy ground.

Is this message board really dedicated to servicing explicit atheists?

 

[Leumas]

What is this OP about? Simply pointing out the differences between one type of atheist and another?

Explicit atheists are trying to convert others because they have this belief that the world would be better off if ideas of god(s) were absent.

That is why they create labels and argument fallacies and speak down at implicit atheists whom they think of as inferior and apologetic.

• Straw Man
• Ad hominem
• False attribution

 

[Pup]

What is this OP about? Simply pointing out the differences between one type of atheist and another?

Explicit atheists are trying to convert others because they have this belief that the world would be better off if ideas of god(s) were absent.

That is why they create labels and argument fallacies and speak down at implicit atheists whom they think of as inferior and apologetic.

Do you mean every explicit (strong/positive) atheist, or some?

The way you've worded it, it could sound as if you mean every one or that it's a part of the definition. Needless to say, that's not true. Some are that way, some aren't.

 

[Leumas]

I assume you are speaking of the Jewish/christian/Muslim idea of god. Would that be correct?

And every other gods dreamt up by the hyperattributive imagination humans often fall prey to as well as the benighted wishful thinking of shivering quivering sheep viciously and cynically and predatorily exploitated by clever brigands and wily poltroons. Much like all the other cons, scams and hoaxes discovered or invented by numerous hoodwinkers and mountebanks throughout the ages and are still being utilized even today despite all available knowledge.

 

[Pup]

So some ides of god(s) are still not falsifiable.

If that's what you want to believe...

How can you tall that an explicit atheist is not forming beliefs based on the same hard wired survivalist thinking?
Cause and Effect are natural properties of this universe. The universe itself is illogical and consciousness existing within it is irrational.

The last sentence contradicts the next to last sentence, so I have no idea what you're trying to convey there. But yes, the explicit atheist is using the same cause-and-effect exploration of the world as the theist. He's just being more careful to avoid biases that lead to magical thinking.

Seriously though, are you saying that the lucky pebble is the same as a god idea?

Yes. You're hung up on the bullies aspect. Let's say she does well on tests, or finds pennies, or it's sunny, or her favorite team wins, or any occurrence essentially unconnected to carrying the pebble.

She thinks it's a case of cause-and-effect due to carrying the penny. In fact, it's random, but if it happens a few times by coincidence, or she can add extra factors (the pebble was in the wrong pocket so it didn't work that day), or she can overlook the times it doesn't work, she can convince herself she's got a "real" lucky charm that works.

Petitional prayer to a diety, same thing. And other parallels between magical thinking and religion, too long to go into here.

Rather, 'tis a most wholesome position to remain mid grounded and not conclude that ideas of god(s) are altogether resolved by human science to date.

That's the belief you're selling: that not believing is better than being an explicit atheist.

I'd saying you're selling it no more or less than I am--well, you're selling it a bit more, based on the total number of posts arguing your position and the don't you think it would be better... suggestions.

But we need to define selling, because I think you're using it too broadly, in the hopes that the negative connotations will spill over elsewhere. Everyone has positions that they think are true and would defend in a mutually agreeable discussion or if challenged, from subective things like what's the best music, to political/social views like racism or anti-racism, to perhaps obscure evidence-based things in a scientific field that can be based on a lifetime of careful research.

"Selling" could range from defending a PhD thesis to engaging in polite debate to ranting on the streetcorner that everyone is going to hell or posting angry comments on Youtube. If all those things are equally "selling," any connotation of "selling" is lost; it's part of virtually all human interaction.

 

[Leumas]

..... The universe itself is illogical and consciousness existing within it is irrational.....

Is this the "implicit atheist's" version of a fallen world and original sin?

How can the universe be illogical exactly? That is like saying rocks are illogical or fire is illogical or tsunamis are illogical.

Some consciousness is illogical indeed.... other consciousness invented the concepts of logical and irrationality which other consciousness don't even fathom.