Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[tsig]

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

Are you seriously trying to argue that it's all a computer program?

 

[Leumas]

Wow! As a non believer in god(s) who is also not a believer in the non existence of god(s).....

Based upon the sentiment expressed in the above....namely utter lack of ability to decide one way or the other... the statement

I am not even slightly convinced your argument sits on the solid ground you imagine it does.

Is quite consistent.... how can you be convinced about anything relating to this matter when you are incapable of actually making up your mind about anything that relates to it.

It is much like if I would state that I think #@$% is 10 meters high.

A logical person would first want to know what a #@$% is and then see a sample of it so as to decide whether the statement I made is true or not.

If I do not manage to produce the #@$% then any logical person would have to conclude that until I produce a sample of #@$% then my statement is meaningless.... or pointless .... or untrue.

But for all PRACTICAL REALITY and intents and purposes of RATIONALITY unless I can show a sample of #@$% then I can be assumed to be telling a lie.

In most avenues of life you would be much better off assuming that someone who cannot or would not support his assertion with evidence is most probably trying to hoodwink and bamboozle as has been proven by millennia of human experience.

But of course a person who does not care about PRACTICAL REALITY and wants to argue banal philosophical sophistry can be quite justified in withholding making an opinion one way or the other.

It all depends on what side of REALITY and PRACTICALITY you want to be and how willing you are to be scammed and fleeced.

 

[Pup]

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.

I have no idea which of the many meanings of "believe" you're using in that sentence.

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 no more or less useless than any statement based on my best assessment of the evidence. Everyone comes to conclusions based on evidence, from mundane things like the sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow to more specialized things like whether tariffs were more important than slavery in causing the US Civil War (they weren't; that's revisionist nonsense). People study things they're interested in, look at the evidence and make up their minds. Other things they don't care about and don't study (I have no opinion on the cause of the English Civil War for example).

There's no reason for the idea of gods be any different, if one chooses to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion (edited to add: whatever conclusion they come to, theist, athesit, whatever). It's not special.

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.

And yet I just got done saying I would change my conclusion if the evidence changed, just like any other evidence-based conclusion.

Your statement seems to be a straw-man. I am far less emotional about this topic than your post seems to assume. Your posts seem to indicate a strongly-held belief that not only must you not have a belief about the existence of gods, but more importantly, no one else should come to any conclusion about gods' existence either.

I can endorse the former (lots of people hold no conclusions about gods and I couldn't care less), but the other seems more in the category of a powerful but irrational belief, similar to evangelicals who believe they must convince others to think as they do.

 

[Navigator]

Could you please explain your thinking on this?

It kind of a natural thing. Nature isn't really about disconnected variables. Everything is connected with everything else.

Like that old saying about how a butterfly has something to do with a hurricane.

In the case of trees, what they do naturally has an effect on the environment and in relation to air movement involving localized pressure, trees play their part. Thus they have something to do with the wind. It may not be obviously as direct as planet rotation and warm and cold currents but air flow direction (which has to do with branches too) is also influenced by trees as well as transpiration. Water is a big influence. Trees and water and air.

 

[Leumas]

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.

Yes, but we know that people often fall prey to illusions and delusions and chemically (added or removed) induced hallucinations.

We do know that perception can be affected by nutritional, biological, physiological and psychological states and that people can be and are all the time scammed and tricked and bamboozled and hoodwinked (often by their very own gullible selves) into thinking and believing all sorts of things.

We have numerous examples of this from millennia of human experience.

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

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.

Unless people are willing to concede that their gods are as immobile as trees and that they consume fecal matter to obtain vital nutritional elements without which they would wither and die, I would still require more of an extraordinary proof for the claim of their existence than I would require for a claim of the existence of a tree.

 

[Navigator]

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

.

Ideas of god(s) are just that. I mean we can argue from the point of first deciding 'what is and what isn't acceptable as an idea of god(s)' before we then decide not to believe in them.

I can think of any number of idea of god(s) while keeping at least the criteria that they are normally non detectable, have something to do with why things exist, have abilities which humans do not have, and are free from having to fully adhere to the laws of physics.

I can also think of idea of god(s) which are not as capable as the above.

Sure we can then argue those points and even (the god(s) be willing) come to some kind of agreement which will then enable us to argue and discuss further, ideas of god(s).

And no. I don't reject other peoples description of god(s), be they atheist or theist. I just think some are too obviously creations of fear and ignorance, and modeled upon human vanity. Kind of like making up an idea of a god based on how that individual would behave IF he/she was in that position.

I don't for example think that if god(s) exist then they must necessarily be evil due to the nature of the universe, or more specifically the malevolent behavior of human beings.

 

[Navigator]

I can endorse the former (lots of people hold no conclusions about gods and I couldn't care less), but the other seems more in the category of a powerful but irrational belief, similar to evangelicals who believe they must convince others to think as they do.

The OP argues that 'positive atheism' is the best position. I think that this is nonsense and say so.

I am not interested in convincing anyone to believe anything. The OP is.

 

[Leumas]

The OP argues that 'positive atheism' is the best position. I think that this is nonsense and say so.

I am not interested in convincing anyone to believe anything. The OP is.

Would you say the same about people who say that positive a-Medusaism is the more rational stance?

Would you think it is better to sit on the fence regarding the existence of Leprechauns?

 

[Leumas]

Ideas of god(s) vampire(s) are just that. I mean we can argue from the point of first deciding 'what is and what isn't acceptable as an idea of god(s) vampire(s)' before we then decide not to believe in them.

I can think of any number of idea of god(s) vampire(s) while keeping at least the criteria that they are normally non detectable, have something to do with why things exist, have abilities which humans do not have, and are free from having to fully adhere to the laws of physics.

I can also think of idea of god(s) vampire(s) which are not as capable as the above.

Sure we can then argue those points and even (the god(s) vampire(s) be willing) come to some kind of agreement which will then enable us to argue and discuss further, ideas of god(s) vampire(s).

And no. I don't reject other peoples description of god(s) vampire(s), be they atheist or theist a-vampirists or vampirists. I just think some are too obviously creations of fear and ignorance, and modeled upon human vanity. Kind of like making up an idea of a god vampire based on how that individual would behave IF he/she was in that position.

I don't for example think that if god(s) vampire(s) exist then they must necessarily be evil due to the nature of the universe, or more specifically the malevolent behavior of human beings.

In all of the above substitute the word gods with Gremlins or Elves or Vampires or Satyrs or Leprechauns or Tooth Fairies.

Now read it again CAREFULLY....Now do you see how IMPRACTICAL you are being?

Would you be so adamant at debating the "middle ground" of dis/believing in Hobbits and Elves?

Do you think a person who is a non believer in Vampires who is also not a believer in the non existence of Vampires is a PRACTICALLY RATIONAL person with his feet firmly fixed in REALITY?

Would you really... seriously... come to a forum and debate any people who say that they are positive a-vampirists trying to show them how they are wrong?

Could all this tortured neutrality be just another Cognitive Dissonance Alleviation Casuistry?

You might continue on with your CDAC and say that god(s) are not on par with vampires or elves.

Well, that is just anther CDAC.... people have believed wholeheartedly and adamantly in all sorts of claptrap throughout the existence of humankind. Why are those ideas now relegated to the annals of human folly while the more pernicious folly of believing in gods is given special pleading?

 

[ynot]

I'm fairly sure Navigator is a Buddhist. He believes in a not-god kinda god, so it suits his beliefs to have a non-belief middle position belief so he can not believe in the not-god he believes in.

 

[marplots]

Yes, but we know that people often fall prey to illusions and delusions and chemically (added or removed) induced hallucinations.

We do know that perception can be affected by nutritional, biological, physiological and psychological states and that people can be and are all the time scammed and tricked and bamboozled and hoodwinked (often by their very own gullible selves) into thinking and believing all sorts of things.

We have numerous examples of this from millennia of human experience.

But we march on. The fact that some people, sometimes, are delusional doesn't help with existence questions.

"I saw/felt/experienced X" combined with "people can be delusional/make mistakes/lie" doesn't help much. It's only later on, when you already have an answer, that you can now point to the claim and call it false.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I'm not a religious person, but I don't think the idea of God is extraordinary from their point of view. In fact, wouldn't they say that denying God is the extraordinary position? Don't they wonder how we atheists are able to live our lives without being in touch with and directed by the divine?

"Extraordinary" is a matter of opinion, and as such, we lose. A simple poll would show the strong atheist to have, by way of popularity, the more extraordinary claim. And in one sense, I agree. It's rather an extraordinary thing to claim the majority of my fellow human beings are deluded. Even if they are.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not a religious person, but I don't think the idea of God is extraordinary from their point of view. In fact, wouldn't they say that denying God is the extraordinary position? Don't they wonder how we atheists are able to live our lives without being in touch with and directed by the divine?

"Extraordinary" is a matter of opinion, and as such, we lose. A simple poll would show the strong atheist to have, by way of popularity, the more extraordinary claim. And in one sense, I agree. It's rather an extraordinary thing to claim the majority of my fellow human beings are deluded. Even if they are.

Which is why this phrase, though pithy, isn't very useful.

 

[ynot]

All paranormal beliefs including god beliefs are extraordinary by definition.

 

[marplots]

All paranormal beliefs including god beliefs are extraordinary by definition.

From Wiki:
"A 2008 survey of 1,000 people concluded that, based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification, 69.5% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12.3% of Americans are atheist or agnostic, and another 12.1% are deistic (believing in a higher power/non-personal God, but no personal God)."

By definition, not believing in God is more extraordinary than belief.

God may be unique, but so are a lot of things. Belief in God is the norm. (81.6%)

 

[psionl0]

As a non believer in god(s) who is also not a believer in the non existence of god(s) . . . . .

Still trying to re-define atheism as totally neutral?

 

[ehcks]

From Wiki:
"A 2008 survey of 1,000 people concluded that, based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification, 69.5% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12.3% of Americans are atheist or agnostic, and another 12.1% are deistic (believing in a higher power/non-personal God, but no personal God)."

By definition, not believing in God is more extraordinary than belief.

God may be unique, but so are a lot of things. Belief in God is the norm. (81.6%)

Extraordinary does not mean uncommon.

 

[marplots]

Extraordinary does not mean uncommon.

Thanks. I'll let these guys know so they can remove uncommon as a synonym.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/extraordinary

 

[Leumas]

From Wiki:
"A 2008 survey of 1,000 people concluded that, based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification, 69.5% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12.3% of Americans are atheist or agnostic, and another 12.1% are deistic (believing in a higher power/non-personal God, but no personal God)."

By definition, not believing in God is more extraordinary than belief.

God may be unique, but so are a lot of things. Belief in God is the norm. (81.6%)

Extraordinary does not mean uncommon.

Thanks. I'll let these guys know so they can remove uncommon as a synonym.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/extraordinary

Illogical fallacy of Equivocation on top of another called Argumentum ad populum.


Extraordinary does not mean by what people think.... it means by standards of science i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, etc. etc.... you know those things that define REAL knowledge and use proofs to validate that knowledge.... you know that thing called the Scientific Method.

Your argument about the MAJORITY opinion is rejected by those same majority.

The majority of people reject the god delusion that is not theirs.

So if we go by the majority opinion which is by the way another illogical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum, we find that all god delusions are false since any one god is rejected by the majority of humans who do not share that same delusion.

Putting aside the illogical fallacies, we also know that the majority of people used to think that lightening used to be a physical manifestation of their god's anger until Benjamin Franklin counteracted all that awesome anger with a simple iron rod... it seems gods are helpless against iron including YHWH.

Does that mean that up until the majority of the people stopped thinking that lightening came out of the derrieres of gods that it in fact did so up until that point?

The majority of people used to think that demonic possession was the cause of Epilepsy.... does that mean it was true and then it became false when the majority of people started believing in psychology and neurology and medical science?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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

By the only definition that actually works, fictional creatures in fantasy stories do not exist.

By definition, not believing in God is more extraordinary than belief.

The number of people who believe in something says nothing about how ordinary that thing is - it could be very mundane and obvious, or completely fantastical and impossible.

God may be unique, but so are a lot of things. Belief in God is the norm. (81.6%)

Being unique or rare does not necessarily make something 'extraordinary' (eg. a car's number plate is unique, but certainly not extraordinary). Belief in God may be common, but that doesn't make Him 'ordinary'. He is still (purported to be) a supernatural being with extraordinary powers.

extraordinary
adjective
: very unusual : very different from what is normal or ordinary
: extremely good or impressive

I'll let these guys know so they can remove uncommon as a synonym.

18.4% of Americans do not believe in any gods. This does not mean that Atheism is 'extraordinary' - only that it is a minority in the US.

 

[Leumas]

Which is why this phrase, though pithy, isn't very useful.

If only you understood what it actually means you would have understood that it is quite useful as will as pithy.

Have you heard of the Scientific Method?

Science is not just pithy but extremely useful too.... but I understand ....it seems the more a person's mindset is based upon the god delusion the less familiar they are with science and its usefulness.