Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Leumas]

Tell me why the universe exists and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical.

The existence of the universe is a fact....much like the existence of a mountain or a volcano.... it is neither logical nor illogical, it is neither rational nor irrational.... you need to learn what those concepts mean.

The existence of consciousness in an illogical universe is irrational.

Show me why consciousness existing in this universe is rational.

When something exists, the fact of its existence is neither logical nor illogical...a rock exists .... that does not make it existence rational or irrational.

 

[ynot]

A fat eastern man (he's dead at the moment) has influenced Navigator to believe different things.

 

[Navigator]

I did not say they were ALL doing it. Though certainly some are doing so and some may not be doing so only out of inability and history is a record of how many did so.

So why did you bring it into the argument. Historically lots of bad crap happened in the names of god(s) and also 'just because'.
But lets assume all bad crap humans do to each other was/is done in the name of one idea of god or another.
All this shows us is that human beings need to have some unseen and unquestionable authority which wasn't human in order to do such atrocities.
Yet the same thing needs to apply to act of kindness and love...

Is your theory then that if we get rid of all ideas of god(s) that we will...be...well...what exactly?

But that is not what we are talking about.... we are talking about the "ideas of god(s)" right?

Right. I didn't put any focus on any particular god(s).

Whether or not people follow through with all the details of the idea does not reflect on the idea as it is set down quite clearly for all to see and read.

Sure.

The Abrahamic god idea in all three models of this type of a god idea have supposedly written books that tell the adherents to kill nonbelievers.

I am not a scholar on these three particular ideas but I do know that the Christian idea was to love one another. Is there any reference to killing others in the Jewish idea? I am reminded of the 10 commandments. Are those from the Jewish book?
I seem to remember that there was a commandment not to kill.
Would it be to presimptious of me to say that I bet there is refferrence to loving one another in the Koran.

How do you explain these obvious contradictions to your own argument that "The Abrahamic god idea in all three models of this type of a god idea have supposedly written books that tell the adherents to kill nonbelievers"?

The fact remains that the "god idea" that these people adhere to is one who is supposed to have written down laws that tell people adhering to his idea to kill nonbelievers.... Jews, Christians and Muslims can read their books where it shows that their god orders the killing of the nonbeliever. And in the Christian and Muslim cases this god promises to consign the soles of those nonbelievers to eternal burning in hell just for not believing.

Wow that is heavy crap! Why just your soles and not the rest of your body?

But seriously, I know you don't believe god(s) exist anyway, so you must realize that human beings wrote that crap. So you should be able to ascertain that something happened which gave access for those obviously narcissistic individuals to somehow have weaseled their way into positions of authority whereby they could actually do this.

The degree of each individual adherent's obedience or adherence to those laws and promises of revenge on nonbelievers does not change the idea itself. It is too late to do that now since they are written down.

Like it is 'too late' to change the dictionary?

Listen, that idea of god is ruined I concur. However, would you also then argue that loving each other and helping one another etc...all those things are also ruined, even though those things are also written down?

You can correct me if I am wrong in my assumption but let me assume that you would not argue that.
Therefore, you wouldn't be able to say then that idea of god is ruined but rather that it is obviously far too 'demonic' in some instances and 'angelic' in others, to even be the same idea of god.

It is far more obvious that it is two different ideas of god(s) which have been unsuccessfully morphed together.

Wouldn't it be far more logical to conclude that?

Then from that position you could say that at least one of those ideas is ruined (depending upon your preference).

Otherwise you are just saying that good and evil are ruined, because of the confusion as to which is which - the distortion.

This may well be the case too. Just what is 'good' and just what is 'evil'?

thus we delve into ideas of good and ideas of evil.

But seriously?

Do you think that loving one another is evil? Good? For example, is Pup good to accept everyone as long as they don't go hassling him?

Am I evil to chose not to believe that god(s) don't exist?

Why don't the people who are disgusted by the current Abrahamic God Idea just give up on this idea and look for a less repulsive one?

Well I can't speak for those. Perhaps though, what they do is take the things which they prefer from the idea of that god, and discard the rest. Is that the same thing?

If one is handed a chocolate chip cookie in which one knows for sure that some of the chips are in fact fecal matter while others may or may not be chocolate, how insane would one have to be and how desperate so as to pick out the fecal matter and then proceed with consuming the remaining cookie?

Personally I think what you are trying to say is 'why not just chuck the whole darn cookie away and give up cookies altogether because that whole cookie was such a bad experience that the thought of cookies is, until your dying day, spoiled.'

At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

Each to their own in that regard. For me I am not interested in giving up my interest in cookies. I like to examine different ideas of god(s) because the universe is illogical and it is irrational that I am in it. So the idea of god(s) at least may give me something to think about which science simply doesn't offer.

Therefore, I choose not to believe that god(s) don't exist. Nor do I choose to believe that they do.

What I chose to do is to keep the question of gods open as part of the overall process. That is more philosophy than science, but philosophy serves a part of our overall consciousness which science isn't able to.

If it were, then there would be no need for philosophy. Science would have all the answers which would show why the existence of the universe is logical and why it is not irrational that consciousness (human in our case) exists within it.

Because they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and they are therefore nothing but Red Herrings.

Why is this question "irrelevant to the discussion at hand"?
Can you think of any non religious institutions which tell their supporters to kill non supporters?

Why is that a 'red herring' when it can contribute to a more balanced and thus meaningful discussion?

Same applies to these questions:

Can you think of any non religious groups which tell their supporters that it is okay and acceptable to use any manner of derogatory expression to spread hate and disunity and conflict into the human community?

That question simply (and correctly) infers that hateful and derogatory expression is not confined to religious expression. Indeed the OP is not even about religious expression anyway so it is not as you claim, a 'red herring'. Your claim that it is a red herring is in itself a 'red herring'

The third question is also relevant to this argument in relation to god ideas. If indeed you are able to understand that not all ideas of god(s) are about just one particular god idea.

Or for that matter, can you think of any religions which specifically do not encourage the followers to kill others who don't believe what they believe?

 

[Brian-M]

Tell me why the universe exists and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical.

Logic is a function of thought processes. If the universe does not think, it cannot be either logical or illogical.

The reason why the universe might exist is irrelevant.

 

[Navigator]

The existence of the universe is a fact....much like the existence of a mountain or a volcano.... it is neither logical or illogical, it is neither rational or irrational.... you need to learn what those concepts mean.

Yes it is a fact. I wasn't saying that it wasn't a fact.

You need to understand why philosophy exists.

When something exists it is neither logical or illogical...a rock exists .... that does not make it rational nor irrational.

What you are failing to understand is that without consciousness, the universe would have nothing in which to acknowledge that it exists - that it is a fact.

Therefore the only reason YOU are able to say "The existence of the universe is a fact" is because YOU are a fact.

Therefore it is not about the universe but about YOU.

In relation to YOU, the existence of the universe is illogical.

In relation to YOU, the existence of consciousness in the universe is irrational.

unless of course you can answer this:

Tell me why the universe exists and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical and you would also be able to show me why consciousness existing in this universe is rational.

You cannot.


Therefore the existence of philosophy and the existence of the ideas god(s) persist.

You saying "it just is" does not satisfy the deeper aspects of consciousness.

Generally speaking.

If it satisfies you, then well and good. You should be a happy well rounded individual with nary a care in the world and unconcerned with having beliefs to which you want me to adopt as well.

But that is not the case now is it Leumas?

 

[Brian-M]

What kind of a world we would live in if everyone was a positive atheist?

A world much like this one, but without churches or priests, and without religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

(That's not to say that there would be no bigotry, violence, terrorism or war. Just not the religiously motivated instances.)

 

[Leumas]

Yes it is a fact. I wasn't saying that it wasn't a fact.

You need to understand why philosophy exists.

Ah...is that what you think you were doing?

You certainly have fooled me!

What you are failing to understand is that without consciousness, the universe would have nothing in which to acknowledge that it exists - that it is a fact.

Therefore the only reason YOU are able to say "The existence of the universe is a fact" is because YOU are a fact.

Therefore it is not about the universe but about YOU.

In relation to YOU, the existence of the universe is illogical.

In relation to YOU, the existence of consciousness in the universe is irrational.

What utter hogwash! I am glad I missed that class in Philosophy Apologetics.

unless of course you can answer this:

Tell me why the universe exists and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical and you would also be able to show me why consciousness existing in this universe is rational.

You cannot.


Therefore the existence of philosophy and the existence of the ideas god(s) persist.

You saying "it just is" does not satisfy the deeper aspects of consciousness.

Generally speaking.

If it satisfies you, then well and good. You should be a happy well rounded individual with nary a care in the world and unconcerned with having beliefs to which you want me to adopt as well.

But that is not the case now is it Leumas?

 

[Leumas]

So why did you bring it into the argument.

Because You said this

I think if you could be honest and a bit more insightful you would realize that your statement "Religions tell followers to kill nonbelievers." is far too generalized and sweeping to be useful for anything other than propaganda.

So I responded with this

Except that in today's world the three religions followed by almost 5 Billion people (i.e. the majority of humanity) do tell people to kill non-believers and dehumanize them and that if the believers are too weak to kill them to pray to their god to do so and to rest assured that this god will eventually make them roast for eternity in a pit of fire and gnashing teeth.

So it is NOT too generalized nor sweeping since the GOD followed by the majority of humanity does "tell followers to kill nonbelievers".

 

[Navigator]

Logic is a function of thought processes. If the universe does not think, it cannot be either logical or illogical.

Quite

The reason why the universe might exist is irrelevant.

It is not that the universe might exist. It is that the universe does exist.

The reason why the universe does exist is for consciousness to discover.

Thus: The reason ideas of god(s) exist. And philosophy. But not science. The reason science exists has nothing to do with the reason the universe exists. It only has to do with the fact that the universe exists.

 

[Navigator]

A world much like this one, but without churches or priests, and without religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

(That's not to say that there would be no bigotry, violence, terrorism or war. Just not the religiously motivated instances.)

In other words simply a world without religious motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

It would be exactly the same in relation to bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

Thus, positive atheism is only concerned with getting rid of the religious motivation of bigotry, violence, terrorism or war. But cannot in fact get rid of bigotry, violence, terrorism or war motivated by other things - including even perhaps bigotry, violence, terrorism or war motivated by positive atheism.

thus, it is about getting rid of the competition?

Come on now. Tell me again what difference to the world positive atheism would have? And while you are at it, tell me what logical reason I would have in joining the positive atheist movement, when my own position serves me far better and is more logical because i don't have beliefs to adhere to.

 

[Leumas]

I am not a scholar on these three particular ideas but I do know that the Christian idea was to love one another. Is there any reference to killing others in the Jewish idea? I am reminded of the 10 commandments. Are those from the Jewish book?
I seem to remember that there was a commandment not to kill.
Would it be to presimptious of me to say that I bet there is refferrence to loving one another in the Koran.

Aha.... is this your way of doing "philosophy".... pontificating about something without actually knowing anything about it?

How do you explain these obvious contradictions to your own argument that "The Abrahamic god idea in all three models of this type of a god idea have supposedly written books that tell the adherents to kill nonbelievers"?

Well let's have a look at some of that "love" and lack of orders to kill.... shall we?

Look at this post and this post for more examples.... here I am only going to post a few verses from each book of each religion.

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.​

Deuteronomy 13:12-15

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities..... saying, Let us go and serve other gods.....Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.​

Quran 4:89

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,​

 

[Navigator]

Come on now Leumas

Stop with pulling the faces and get down to the business of discussion. Start by contemplating this post in relation to your assertion that GOD is JUST an idea that tells HIS believers to kill all non believers.

In other words, if you are going to quote the evil then also quote the good, because both happen to be in the same books you are quoting but you are only focused on the evil.

Do you understand? The idea of this particular god is both - good and evil. Not just one or the other.

 

[Leumas]

Wow that is heavy crap! Why just your soles and not the rest of your body?

So do you believe in a full body resurrection then?

Where do the souls go from the day they die until the body is resurrected upon Jesus' return? Is there a holding pattern around heaven stacking those souls until their bodies catch up with them on judgment day?

 

[Leumas]

Well I can't speak for those. Perhaps though, what they do is take the things which they prefer from the idea of that god, and discard the rest. Is that the same thing?

And I am sure the makers of the Twilight Saga also "took the things which they prefer from the idea of that god Vampire, and discarded the rest."

So does that mean that Vampires exist?

 

[Leumas]

Personally I think what you are trying to say is 'why not just chuck the whole darn cookie away and give up cookies altogether

You are really very adept at misrepresenting your debater's position.... excellent straw man building I ought to tip my straw hat to you but unfortunately I do not have one.

Have you seen any such notion of tossing out all cookies in my statement?

Can you show me where I said that?

If one is handed a chocolate chip cookie in which one knows for sure that some of the chips are in fact fecal matter while others may or may not be chocolate, how insane would one have to be and how desperate so as to pick out the fecal matter and then proceed with consuming the remaining cookie?

I was talking about A chocolate chip ....one.

Why could it not occur to you that each cookie no matter what type (or even different chocolate chip cookies from the one that was described in my post) were not the subject of discussion.... if they need any discussion then they will each and every single one of them be examined to determine their cleanliness.

But I understand where you are coming from given this further statement below:

because that whole cookie was such a bad experience that the thought of cookies is, until your dying day, spoiled.'

Your underhanded attempt at sneaking in a typical casuistic ruse.....which I have seen being used many times over by Christian and other sophists.

"... someone hurt you and now you hate God"​

• Poisoning the well
• Appeal to motive
• Ad hominem

 

[Leumas]

At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

Each to their own in that regard. For me I am not interested in giving up my interest in cookies. I like to examine different ideas of god(s) because the universe is illogical and it is irrational that I am in it. So the idea of god(s) at least may give me something to think about which science simply doesn't offer.

Enough said!

 

[Brian-M]

The reason why the universe does exist is for consciousness to discover.

That assumes it's possible to discover this reason.
I see no reason to make that assumption.

In other words simply a world without religious motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

Or churches, or priests, or prayer sessions, or people praying for their children to be healed instead of taking them to the doctor, ect.

It would be exactly the same in relation to non-religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

Fixed that for you.

Thus, positive atheism is only concerned with getting rid of the religious motivation of bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

Not really, that's merely the effect it would have on the world if everyone held that opinion.

Positive atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. It doesn't inherently require the people who hold that position to want to change other people's opinion on the subject.

That would probably fall under the heading of antitheism.

But cannot in fact get rid of bigotry, violence, terrorism or war motivated by other things

Nobody has ever claimed it could.

- including even perhaps bigotry, violence, terrorism or war motivated by positive atheism.

I'm not aware of how positive atheism alone would provide motivation for any of these things.

thus, it is about getting rid of the competition?

What competition?

What exactly are positive atheist competing against everyone else for?

Come on now. Tell me again what difference to the world positive atheism would have?

Okay, I'll tell you again. A reduction in religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism and war.

Negative atheism would have the same effect.

And while you are at it, tell me what logical reason I would have in joining the positive atheist movement,

I'm not aware that holding a particular opinion on a single subject counts as joining a movement.

when my own position serves me far better and is more logical because i don't have beliefs to adhere to.

In what way does it serve you better?

And in what way does refraining from reaching a conclusion count as "more logical"?
Does it count as "more logical" to not apply logic in order to reach a conclusion?

If you want logic, examine the facts:

• People claim a powerful supernatural entity referred to as "God" exists.
• There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that a "God" exists.
• There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that anything supernatural exists.
• Many of the claims associated with God (such as the creation myths) directly conflict with available evidence.
• Humans have a long history of inventing, and often believing, stories about non-existent supernatural events and entities (such as fairies, dragons, ect).

Clearly the logical conclusion is that "God" is most likely a fictional entity.

A positive atheist is just someone who accepts this conclusion.

 

[Leumas]

If it were, then there would be no need for philosophy. Science would have all the answers which would show why the existence of the universe is logical and why it is not irrational that consciousness (human in our case) exists within it.

If you repeat the above gobbledygook a gazillion times over it will never pass muster for anything other than nonsense and hogwash.

 

[psionl0]

John 8:37-44
.................................
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
....................................
Luke 19:27
..................

At least you are quoting from the NT - the section of the bible aimed at Christians.

Nice catch with Luke 19:27 although I doubt that I (or anybody I know) would ever be good enough to receive such an instruction personally.

Of course, this is a long way from the OP's assertion that a "negative" atheist ought to be a "positive" atheist instead.

 

[ynot]

So do you believe in a full body resurrection then?

Wonder why he doesn't admit he believes in reincarnation?

Wonder why he doesn't tell us why the universe has to have a reason to exist? Then tell us what that reason is.