Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[I Am The Scum]

There is no god. There, I said it.





The discussion surrounding the two flavors of atheism has been bogged down for a while. Far too often a watered-down argument (and a perception of weakness) is presented when a more assertive claim is perfectly defensible. And all of this is done in service of a narrative that is quite irrational.

First, definitions: 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.

If you accept negative atheism, you might as well go all the way to positive. It's easy to show that it is only a baby step away. But before that, let me address the conversation itself.

90% of the time when a negative atheist defends his position (while distancing himself from positive atheism), his claim will look something like this:

Well, I can't completely, 100%, absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no possible, conceivable, imaginable way that a god of some vague, nebulous definition might exist, so... I'm just gonna withhold judgment for now.

I'm exaggerating, but only a little.

There's another attack on positive atheism you have probably heard before, this time from theists:

The only way you can know God doesn't exist is if you had knowledge of all existence, and then you would be like God.

Both of these are blatant examples of special pleading^WP. Where else do we use this standard when discussing existence? If someone claims that there are Reptilians infiltrating the White House, do we require that unwavering, absolute proof to the contrary be presented before we feel comfortable voicing strong disagreement? If someone claims that Bigfoot is in their backyard, do we withhold judgment until we acquire 100% knowledge of the universe? No, we don't. Why should we start here?

Given all of that, showing God does not exist is quite simple. I will do this by use of a simple analogy to illustrate a rational thought process.

Suppose I (a perfect stranger) were to say to you, "I am a dog owner." Do you believe me? You probably do. You wouldn't withhold judgment until some kind of evidence about this particular dog is presented.

Why do you believe me? This belief is not completely without evidence, but the evidence is contextual. You know that dogs exist. You know that it is quite common for people to own dogs. You know that dog owners typically talk about their dogs. My claim of dog ownership perfectly coincides with other, easily-verifiable facts. Sure, I might be lying, but lying about this would be far more unusual than me simply telling the truth.

Take it a step further. What if I went on to describe my dog thus: "He's 20-feet tall, weighs about 2,000 pounds, and can leap over the Empire State Building."

This time, you take my claim as false. Why is that? Because of everything you know about dogs and physiology and the laws of physics. My claim is now sharply in contrast with the facts. There's no need to sit on the fence and wait for me to produce photographs of my very large dog: You are perfectly justified in immediately saying I'm wrong.

Now, let's try something different.

What is the God claim all about? In general, it is the claim that there is a non-physical entity capable of many extremely powerful acts, such as creating things out of nothing, or reshaping the entire universe in an instant. But more to the point, this entity has a mind.

So what are the contextual facts about minds? Humans have them. Other animals have them. So far, so good. But where do we experience minds that are not tied to a brain or some kind of physical substrate? Where do we see minds that are capable of making/shaping things, not by triggering nerve impulses in hands, but just through sheer willpower alone? Nowhere. Again, a claim is presented that does not conform to the things we all know and understand.

The God claim is, on its face, completely contrary to the facts. Sure, it could be true, but it most likely isn't. As such, we are justified in the immediate rejection of the claim that there is a god. Such rejection should not be confused with close-mindedness. We should remain open to evidence, but until it is produced, we are arguing from a solid foundation when we say there is no god.

 

[Pup]

Take it a step further. What if I went on to describe my dog thus: "He's 20-feet tall, weighs about 2,000 pounds, and can leap over the Empire State Building."

This time, you take my claim as false. Why is that? Because of everything you know about dogs and physiology and the laws of physics. My claim is now sharply in contrast with the facts. There's no need to sit on the fence and wait for me to produce photographs of my very large dog: You are perfectly justified in immediately saying I'm wrong.

Good post. If I may add to that analogy a little, there's also the inescapable question if such a thing were to happen in real life, why is this person motivated to tell me about his illogical dog? What benefit does he get out of it? Is it a joke, a test to see if I believe, or something he would try to believe even if he didn't tell me?

The latter seems to be the case, and the apparent psychological benefit of believing that one has a 20-foot-tall dog, so to speak, is another reason to reject the actual existence of the dog. As long as the person believes it to be true and can maintain that belief, he's managed to get the benefit, and that benefit is apparently the motivation behind the claim, rather than the dog's actual existence based on normal standards of evidence.

 

[dasmiller]

What is the God claim all about? In general, it is the claim that there is a non-physical entity capable of many extremely powerful acts, such as creating things out of nothing, or reshaping the entire universe in an instant. But more to the point, this entity has a mind.

So what are the contextual facts about minds? Humans have them. Other animals have them. So far, so good. But where do we experience minds that are not tied to a brain or some kind of physical substrate? Where do we see minds that are capable of making/shaping things, not by triggering nerve impulses in hands, but just through sheer willpower alone? Nowhere. Again, a claim is presented that does not conform to the things we all know and understand.

Actually, from the perspective of an agent within a computer program, the programmer has exactly those characteristics.

 

[marplots]

I think the problem arises because existence questions do not rely on deduction. While one may deduce the existence of something similar or related to a thing that already exists, you can't get there from here de novo.

Existence is primary and fundamental. We may be challenged to explain something we discover exists, but we aren't allowed to suggest, or take seriously, the existence of things because we think they "ought to be so." I can propose dragons by combining ideas about large reptiles and birds, but only direct experience with a dragon will convince me.

More importantly, direct experience trumps any argument against dragons, no matter how cleverly constructed that argument may be. No one here argues that trees don't exist, or shouldn't exist, or are impossible. We know trees directly.

For the theist, there is direct experience with God. Or so they claim. There can be no argument to overcome this. Any argument which attempts it must be false, for it gives the wrong answer.

The only approach with any hope is to attack the believer herself - claiming it's the perception which is in error and the measuring device is flawed. But that method leads to a general dismissal of all similar perceptions, and suddenly, I must doubt the tree too.

What can be usefully challenged isn't the existence of God, but the attributes believers attach. There's still a tree, but it's not responsible for creating wind by moving its branches.

 

[The Norseman]

Actually, from the perspective of an agent within a computer program, the programmer has exactly those characteristics.

Aaaaaand the nuclear bomb drops!

 

[ehcks]

By the only definition that actually works, that gods are fictional creatures in fantasy stories, gods do exist.

Does that make me negative or positive?

 

[Leumas]

Good post. If I may add to that analogy a little, there's also the inescapable question if such a thing were to happen in real life, why is this person motivated to tell me about his illogical dog? What benefit does he get out of it? Is it a joke, a test to see if I believe, or something he would try to believe even if he didn't tell me?

The latter seems to be the case, and the apparent psychological benefit of believing that one has a 20-foot-tall dog, so to speak, is another reason to reject the actual existence of the dog. As long as the person believes it to be true and can maintain that belief, he's managed to get the benefit, and that benefit is apparently the motivation behind the claim, rather than the dog's actual existence based on normal standards of evidence.

Or even more so if he tries to convince me that his 20 foot dog requires lots and lots of feeding and asks me to help him out with some donations to keep the cute dog.... or if he is capable to demand that it is law that I fork out upkeep money and goods and services for his dog....then it becomes obvious where he is really coming from and where he intends to go with his ruse and scam.... even if he really and truly believes the delusion... and it becomes even more pathetically obvious and sinister when he starts telling me stories about how his dog loved my grandfather and how he helped him murder all the nasty neighbors around him so that he can take over their houses.

 

[ehcks]

Or even more if he tries to convince me that his 20 foot dog requires lots and lots of feeding and asks me to help him out with some donations to keep the cute dog.... or if he is capable to demand that it is law that I fork out upkeep money and goods and services for his dog....then it becomes obvious where he is really coming from and where he intends to go with his ruse and scam.... even if he really and truly believes the delusion.

Clifford is real!

 

[Leumas]

By the only definition that actually works, that gods are fictional creatures in fantasy stories, gods do exist.

Does that make me negative or positive?

No... that just makes you very good at equivocating.

 

[Navigator]

There is no god. There, I said it.

Okay so you are asserting that you are a 'positive atheist'

First, definitions: 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.

By proclaiming something like "There is no god. There, I said it."

Neither position is a claim of absolute certainty.

Now you are confusing the issue. Clearly the statement "There is no god." is a proclamation of absolute certainly.

If you accept negative atheism, you might as well go all the way to positive. It's easy to show that it is only a baby step away.

Become a believer instead of just staying with the non absolute certainty of 'I don't know'. Not a baby step really. Too cult-like for my tastes.

But before that, let me address the conversation itself.

90% of the time when a negative atheist defends his position (while distancing himself from positive atheism), his claim will look something like this:
"Well, I can't completely, 100%, absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no possible, conceivable, imaginable way that a god of some vague, nebulous definition might exist, so... I'm just gonna withhold judgment for now."

I'm exaggerating, but only a little.

It isn't that you exaggerate but that you marginalize. It isn't even about withholding judgment. It is about knowing that i don't know and accepting that i cannot know because the idea of god(s) goes way beyond anything human beings are even capable of conceptualizing. i understand this to be the case. i know that some ideas about god(s) are more like characters in children's stories. But i also know (especially if i have actually looked into it) that their are other ideas which are not so easily categorized.

There's another attack on positive atheism you have probably heard before, this time from theists:
"The only way you can know God doesn't exist is if you had knowledge of all existence, and then you would be like God."

Both of these are blatant examples of special pleading^WP.

Perhaps the OP is also a 'blatant example of special pleading' and cult-like because it is so obviously pleading the position of strong atheist as being the one every atheist should adopt, and that those who attack their strong beliefs are not being nice.

The argument from theists makes a pretty good point. It is quite humorous. It is like saying "If you discovered that no god existed it would be because you knew everything and therefore can be called (or call yourself) 'god'. Perhaps human consciousness will eventual know everything, but if there ever comes that day, one can be sure it would have evolved so much as to be unrecognizable as being human consciousness by the likes of you and I and everyone else.

Where else do we use this standard when discussing existence? If someone claims that there are Reptilians infiltrating the White House, do we require that unwavering, absolute proof to the contrary be presented before we feel comfortable voicing strong disagreement?

Ideas of god(s) are generally in another category. Beside , being an atheist has nothing to do with believing in the non existence of Reptilian overlords in positions of power and influence over the affairs of human beings.
Being an atheist specifically is about lacking belief in god(s)

If someone claims that Bigfoot is in their backyard, do we withhold judgment until we acquire 100% knowledge of the universe? No, we don't. Why should we start here?

Ideas of god(s) are generally in another category. Beside , being an atheist has nothing to do with believing in the non existence of Bigfoots in the backyards of human beings.
Being an atheist specifically is about lacking belief in god(s)

Given all of that, showing God does not exist is quite simple. I will do this by use of a simple analogy to illustrate a rational thought process.

Suppose I (a perfect stranger) were to say to you, "I am a dog owner." Do you believe me? You probably do. You wouldn't withhold judgment until some kind of evidence about this particular dog is presented.

No I would not believe you. Why would I even need to? You are not even asking me to believe you. You are simply claiming that you are a dog owner.
I mean lets face it, most of us hereabouts are 'perfect strangers' to each other. We say what we say and there is no necessity for any of us to believe anyone else as to what they say they are.

You say you are a 'positive atheist.' So what? Where is the compulsion for me to believe you? What does that really mean? that you have beliefs other atheists do not share.

Why do you believe me? This belief is not completely without evidence, but the evidence is contextual. You know that dogs exist. You know that it is quite common for people to own dogs. You know that dog owners typically talk about their dogs. My claim of dog ownership perfectly coincides with other, easily-verifiable facts. Sure, I might be lying, but lying about this would be far more unusual than me simply telling the truth.

It would all depend on what you are wanting me to believe right? And WHY. Why do you want me to believe you? Do you want me to convert? To become a 'positive atheist' like yourself?
Also, not to forget that being an atheist isn't about lacking beliefs in dog(s).

Take it a step further. What if I went on to describe my dog thus: "He's 20-feet tall, weighs about 2,000 pounds, and can leap over the Empire State Building."

This time, you take my claim as false. Why is that? Because of everything you know about dogs and physiology and the laws of physics. My claim is now sharply in contrast with the facts. There's no need to sit on the fence and wait for me to produce photographs of my very large dog: You are perfectly justified in immediately saying I'm wrong.

You got it backwards though. Ideas of god(s) generally do have these accompanying abilities. If you were describing a human being in a blue suit with a red cape, I would also think you were fibbing. Superman is far to busy to be putting on that much weight. And I can;t even imagine how he got to be so tall!

Now, let's try something different.

What is the God claim all about? In general, it is the claim that there is a non-physical entity capable of many extremely powerful acts, such as creating things out of nothing, or reshaping the entire universe in an instant. But more to the point, this entity has a mind.

Okay. Tick that box. Ideas of god(s) all are beings with minds and extraordinary non human capabilities.

So what are the contextual facts about minds? Humans have them. Other animals have them. So far, so good. But where do we experience minds that are not tied to a brain or some kind of physical substrate? Where do we see minds that are capable of making/shaping things, not by triggering nerve impulses in hands, but just through sheer willpower alone? Nowhere. Again, a claim is presented that does not conform to the things we all know and understand.

Okay. Ideas of god(s) do not conform to the things we all know and understand. Tick that box.

The God claim is, on its face, completely contrary to the facts.

Okay. The non physical face of God is completely contrary to the facts of the physical universe. The Creator has left the building. Tick the box.

Sure, it could be true, but it most likely isn't.

Are you absolute sure about that? (Of course not. You already said so.)

As such, we are justified in the immediate rejection of the claim that there is a god. Such rejection should not be confused with close-mindedness. We should remain open to evidence, but until it is produced, we are arguing from a solid foundation when we say there is no god.

Wow! As a non believer in god(s) who is also not a believer in the non existence of god(s) I am not even slightly convinced your argument sits on the solid ground you imagine it does.

But then again, you are after all speaking (in relation to me) to the non converted.

 

[Navigator]

There's still a tree, but it's not responsible for creating wind by moving its branches.

However, would it not be true that the movement contributes to the continuation of air movement?

 

[ehcks]

However, would it not be true that the movement contributes to the continuation of air movement?

No. Air moves by localized pressure zones and temperature gradients and altitude changes by mountains and such.

The trees just make a rustling noise as the air flows by.

 

[Pup]

Now you are confusing the issue. Clearly the statement "There is no god." is a proclamation of absolute certainly.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

If I say "There are no living ivory-billed woodpeckers," that's no more or less a statement of absolute certainty. Based on the evidence currently available, I think it's perfectly true. But if someone produces a living ivory-billed woodpecker tomorrow, I would change my statement. So was it an absolute certainty or not? It's the same when I say "There is no god."

It's the difference between a statement based on evidence and one based on faith. There is no rational way to change a statement based on faith without abandoning faith. But one can change a statement based on evidence when evidence changes, without abandoning the concept of relying on evidence.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

 

[Navigator]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

If I say "There are no living ivory-billed woodpeckers," that's no more or less a statement of absolute certainty. Based on the evidence currently available, I think it's perfectly true. But if someone produces a living ivory-billed woodpecker tomorrow, I would change my statement. So was it an absolute certainty or not? It's the same when I say "There is no god."

So your idea is to believe rather than simply accept. Also, you would believe god(s) exist if someone where to produce one for you.

Until then, rather than just accept that there is no reason to believe in god(s) such ones have to be a 'strong positive atheists' and believe that god(s) don't exist and proclaim such (so that you are not like those weaklings) and set about preaching that word in the hope of adding more brains to that culture.

Clearly the statement "There is no god." is therefore a useless proclamation, apart from attracting like-minded easily lead believers. It sounds like an absolute statement but it is more like the wind in the trees. It creates a little noise, and due to the subject matter, there is next to no chance anyone is going to produce any god(s) for you to thus convince you to renounce your beliefs.
Sounds just like a fundy only the opposite polarity...

It's the difference between a statement based on evidence and one based on faith.

Should I be swooning? So on the one hand there are beliefs based on faith and the other hand beliefs based on the current evidence that there is lack of evidence in which to believe in god(s) and - oh yeah what the hell! Might as well believe they don't exist while we're about it!

There is no rational way to change a statement based on faith without abandoning faith. But one can change a statement based on evidence when evidence changes, without abandoning the concept of relying on evidence.

It is one thing to acknowledge the lack of evidence and another thing entirely to form strongly held beliefs built around the lack of evidence.

So in as much as there is clearer understanding as to the differences and why those differences exist, self proclaimed 'positive atheists' prove that belief systems distort understanding and promote the need in the believer to convert those whom they regard as 'weaker/negative' individuals into their fold.

It is that 'those who are not for me are against me' mentality. Ancient and wacky.

 

[Navigator]

[qimg]http://s11.postimg.org/d0rsr6dlf/f_USS5_GO.jpg[/qimg]

I would say my position is that i have extremely strong feelings for choosing not to believe one way or the other.

 

[Navigator]

No. Air moves by localized pressure zones and temperature gradients and altitude changes by mountains and such.

The trees just make a rustling noise as the air flows by.

Yes. The movement of the branches is not what contributes to the localized pressure. Something else about tress does that.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes. The movement of the branches is not what contributes to the localized pressure. Something else about tress does that.

Could you please explain your thinking on this?

 

[Leumas]

I would say my position is that i have extremely strong feelings for choosing not to believe one way or the other.

I believe you!

The reason is that it is impossible to believe one way or the other when you have no idea what it is that you are trying to decide about one way or the other.

Since so far, despite you repeatedly in multiple threads and in multiple posts stating this thing called "ideas of god(s)" and despite you rejecting and ridiculing other people's ideas, you still have not stated not even once what these ideas are and how they are different from what people have already described.

You keep on rejecting other peoples description of the "ideas of god(s)" without even once venturing forward with your own description.

I believe that you really do not know what it is you are talking about.

But at least you are being logical in not making up your opinion one way or the other.... it is impossible to make an opinion about something when you do not even know what it is.... well, one can do that if one is irrational... but you are not being irrational, at least in this regards.