Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Pup]

Some people are more precise in their claims than others. I would not say there are no living ivory-billed woodpeckers because it's possible that there still are. I don't have an issue with you stating it the way you do as long as you don't have a problem with me stating it as 'there are probably no living ivory-billed woodpeckers'.

Naturally. Yet every statement carries that implied "probably," because there's always a science fiction excuse to fall back on (I could be in a virtual reality machine unaware of any accurate facts about the real world, so every claim I make is "probably" at best). So I'd say it's always a matter of degree: There are definitely no dragons unless this is a virtually reality, there are almost certainly no living woolly mammoths, there are probably no ivory-billed woodpeckers, there might not be any golden toads alive (yes, I had to google for that), and so forth.

 

[dlorde]

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.

It seems to be mostly about absurd semantic games, which are easy to play with ambiguous words like 'belief'. For example, Navigator has said that he has no, or he prefers not to have, beliefs. One can legitimately wonder whether he really believes this.

 

[marplots]

Tossing out links to fallacies isn't an argument.

Unless... is this a demonstration of how zealot atheists present themselves to believers? No wonder there's no communication.

I'll try again, in the spirit of the forum.

How are pixies, and vampires, and Leprechauns, and gremlins like God? Why are those good analogies? I assume they share some attribute or you wouldn't continue to pair the ideas.

 

[marplots]

But both positive and negative atheists will take it as a given that the theist position is unjustified. How we theistic beliefs beyond that (such as extraordinary or unusual) is really beside the point.

In other words, stuff like this...



... belongs in a separate thread.

I disagree. To show why positive atheism isn't justified, I must show that it is insufficient to answer the challenges of theists, while negative atheism does.

In a very real sense, the grounding for atheism of either sort is theism.

 

[Pup]

How are pixies, and vampires, and Leprechauns, and gremlins like God? Why are those good analogies? I assume they share some attribute or you wouldn't continue to pair the ideas.

They are or were believed to exist by many people, but no objective evidence has been produced that fits with a model of the world via the scientific method. Ironically, even the many (majority?) of scientists who say they believe in the existence a god don't publish papers with evidence for him/her/it.

 

[marplots]

They are or were believed to exist by many people, but no objective evidence has been produced that fits with a model of the world via the scientific method. Ironically, even the many (majority?) of scientists who say they believe in the existence a god don't publish papers with evidence for him/her/it.

Would that be the basis for positive or negative atheism then?

More importantly, since people generally do not believe in those things now, but still believe in God, does God escape the net? So far?

 

[Leumas]

Tossing out links to fallacies isn't an argument.

In a logical and scientific debate when illogical fallacies are committed it is important to point them out for the sake of keeping the debate on a logical and scientific track, or else it becomes a derailed wreck of illogical and fallacious claims.

I'll try again, in the spirit of the forum.

How are pixies, and vampires, and Leprechauns, and gremlins like God? Why are those good analogies? I assume they share some attribute or you wouldn't continue to pair the ideas.

As an atheist, do you really not know the answer? Do you really not see the similarity?

Unless... is this a demonstration of how zealot atheists present themselves to believers? No wonder there's no communication.

And here we go.... now everyone knows exactly where you really stand on the atheism spectrum.

[imgw=650]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282546bde3da4510.jpg[/imgw]

 

[I Am The Scum]

Would that be the basis for positive or negative atheism then?

It works fine either way.

More importantly, since people generally do not believe in those things now, but still believe in God, does God escape the net? So far?

No. Wishing really hard qualifies as neither justification nor a counter-argument.

 

[dlorde]

We've been over this. When the majority of people take something to exist as a matter of course, and without much question or debate, then it is very much an ordinary claim.

This discussion has taken an equivocatory (is that a word?) turn somewhere; the claim you originally objected to:

All paranormal beliefs including god beliefs are extraordinary by definition.

Is quite reasonable.

paranormal => extraordinary

para (beyond, outside, irregular, abnormal)
normal (everyday, ordinary).

extra (outside, beyond the scope of)
ordinary (everyday, normal)

 

[marplots]

In a logical and scientific debate when illogical fallacies are committed it is important to point them out for the sake of keeping the debate on a logical and scientific track, or else it becomes a derailed wreck of illogical and fallacious claims.

Pointing them out is one thing. Labeling something a fallacy because one can't grasp the point is quite another. It becomes a conversation killing dodge.

As an atheist, do you really not know the answer? Do you really not see the similarity?

Oh yes. I've already said it. It's a type of begging the question. By claiming God is in the category of make-believe along with these other mythical things, you get to avoid any justification for doing so. God is mythical because He's mythical, like these other mythical things.

Surely you'd call me out if a believer did it the other way around? Here's how it would look:

Well, if you believe in wind, or sound, or atoms - all things you cannot see - then you have to believe in God too, since God is as real as all those other things, even though you can't see Him.

I hope you can see how foolish such an argument is standing alone.

Thankfully, another poster handled it much better, claiming that things which are not subject to scientific laws and worldview don't exist, even though people may at times believe they do.

And here we go.... now everyone knows exactly where you really stand on the atheism spectrum.

If you mean not a zealot and capable of critiquing my own point of view - ya got me pegged. I don't mind being a thoughtful atheist, I quite enjoy it.

If the rule is to brook no dissent and toe the party line, I think it's a bad rule.

Did we at least decide that God isn't an extraordinary claim, but a mainstream claim?

 

[Leumas]

Would that be the basis for positive or negative atheism then?

More importantly, since people generally do not believe in those things now, but still believe in God, does God escape the net? So far?

Because, despite their similarity in being fictive products of hyperactive attribution and hyperactive infantile imaginations of the more benighted epochs of human preadolescence, the God delusion has the SKY DADDY aspect which the others purposely don't have as antagonistic characters complementing the protagonist Sky Daddy in the whole gamut of characters in the TALL TALES and fables and myths and camp fire scary fibs .

There is also another reason, as explained in the highlighted bits in the following:

Well done.... that is exactly what the God-did-it hypotheses are.... nothing more than lack of imagination of the power of NATURAL REALITY and utter incredulity of REALITY.

On the other hand the God delusion is the product of a hyperactive child-like imagination and wishful thinking and child-like fear of the unknown and child-like need for love and support and comforting and child-like wish for vengeance and "justice" and protection against the meanies.

This infantile psychological condition was and is viciously and cynically and predatorily exploited by clever brigands and wily poltroons to huckster and bamboozle the quivering shivering sheep. 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. People are willing to delude themselves and let others dupe them because mentally they are frightened pathetic wretched children. They are trembling lumps of insignificant debris floating on the waves of space-time trying to construe by any self-delusion a significance for their fleeting moment of existence punctuated by terror, and inexorable calamities. Impotent to exact justice or to stem the currents of time, they raise their arms up like children begging in supplication to an imagined sky daddy to lift them up and give them a comforting hug and to beat up the neighboring children.
It is a shame upon humanity that in the 21st century people are still willing to fool themselves with the God-did-it tomfoolery.

But what is a bigger shame is that people who claim to be not deluded by the God-did-it hogwash are willing to argue its validity because it is a popular delusion, and call people who argue against the gods claptrap incredulous and unimaginative.

 

[marplots]

This discussion has taken an equivocatory (is that a word?) turn somewhere; the claim you originally objected to:

Is quite reasonable.

paranormal => extraordinary

para (beyond, outside, irregular, abnormal)
normal (everyday, ordinary).

extra (outside, beyond the scope of)
ordinary (everyday, normal)

To remain consistent, I'd have to assert that God is not a belief in the paranormal, for any nuanced meaning of the term.

Here's one definition of paranormal:
"denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding"

If God is going to be in that category, than anything not yet understood by science would also be. For me, God is certainly paranormal, but for my fellows, He is apparently the norm.

Seriously. Although my experience is with Christians, I think other religions would have no problem with the idea that God is around, has always been around, and may even guide the affairs of mankind. As normal as gravity.

All I was getting at was that the existence of God is a claim so prevalent that the "that's just nuts" burden falls on atheists, not theists. We have a minority opinion on the matter. No amount of yelling at each other is going to change that.

If we truly are in the "the world is round" camp, while our fellow men are in the "the world is flat" camp, then the duty is on us to show why/how they are mistaken. It's silly to expect them to spontaneously agree with us.

And, in light of that, the negative atheist has an advantage over the positive atheist.

 

[dlorde]

Here's one definition of paranormal:
"denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding"

If God is going to be in that category, than anything not yet understood by science would also be. For me, God is certainly paranormal, but for my fellows, He is apparently the norm.

I do see your point, and I broadly agree; but it is a feature of magical thinking that the paranormal is the norm, so for your fellows, God is both paranormal/supernatural and normal. They wouldn't make such a fuss about God if it wasn't paranormal/supernatural.

Is it just more semantic games, or another of the mysteries of religion? You be the judge

 

[marplots]

This infantile psychological condition was and is viciously and cynically and predatorily exploited by clever brigands and wily poltroons to huckster and bamboozle the quivering shivering sheep. 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.

People are willing to delude themselves and let others dupe them because mentally they are frightened pathetic wretched children. They are trembling lumps of insignificant debris floating on the waves of space-time trying to construe by any self-delusion a significance for their fleeting moment of existence punctuated by terror, and inexorable calamities.

Impotent to exact justice or to stem the currents of time, they raise their arms up like children begging in supplication to an imagined sky daddy to lift them up and give them a comforting hug and to beat up the neighboring children.

What a powerful indictment of your fellow men that is. I think you've demonstrated quite well the stance of the positive atheist and the necessary conclusions that flow from the position. It suggests, not merely a disbelief in God, but castigates a large portion of humanity as well. I find it elitist, militant, polarizing, and a kind of zealotry.

Still, it might be correct for all that.

 

[marplots]

I do see your point, and I broadly agree; but it is a feature of magical thinking that the paranormal is the norm, so for your fellows, God is both paranormal/supernatural and normal. They wouldn't make such a fuss about God if it wasn't paranormal/supernatural.

Is it just more semantic games, or another of the mysteries of religion? You be the judge

I think we atheists are the only ones who care. Like other minorities, our issues are ours, and the majority is free to carry on as if we don't exist.

Until we get another billboard. Oh boy, then the poo hits the fan.

 

[Leumas]

Pointing them out is one thing. Labeling something a fallacy because one can't grasp the point is quite another. It becomes a conversation killing dodge.

You may jolly well be right, but one thing I have learned from years of experience debating apologists and casuists is that after all their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and they have failed to substantiate their claptrap, the next step in their sophistic hoodwinking stratagems is to obfuscate the issue at which they failed by degenerating the argument to tomfoolery by firing the ad hominem and red herring arrows out of their well-stocked quiver of logical fallacies.

So it is quite important to point out the illogical fallacies.

Case in point is your statement below

Oh yes. I've already said it. It's a type of begging the question. By claiming God is in the category of make-believe along with these other mythical things, you get to avoid any justification for doing so. God is mythical because He's mythical, like these other mythical things.

You see I have already pointed out multiple times to you how many illogical fallacies you commit in the above paragraph and still you keep on repeating it.... which is another illogical fallacy in itself.

Repeating untruths never will make them true for logical people.... it might be an effective technique in theistic circles and it is indeed a practice many theologians and theists employ in their attempts at pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes... nevertheless, it does not pass muster in logical forums.

Here is the list again.... hopefully you might eventually appreciate where you are going wrong.

• special pleading
• Burden of Proof

.....things which are not subject to scientific laws and worldview don't exist, even though people may at times believe they do.

Yes you should read the above quote a few more times out loud and then you might grasp how erroneous the things you said in the preceding quote were.

If you mean not a zealot and capable of critiquing my own point of view - ya got me pegged. I don't mind being a thoughtful atheist, I quite enjoy it.

If the rule is to brook no dissent and toe the party line, I think it's a bad rule.

Did we at least decide that God isn't an extraordinary claim, but a mainstream claim?

See.... there you go again still equivocating despite the numerous posts pointing that out to you.

And of course that is on top of the ad hominem.

 

[Lithrael]

Marplots, I really do not understand your argument.

By claiming God is in the category of make-believe along with these other mythical things, you get to avoid any justification for doing so. God is mythical because He's mythical, like these other mythical things.

Well, yes? Extremely clearly and practically definitionally?

Surely you'd call me out if a believer did it the other way around? Here's how it would look:

Well, if you believe in wind, or sound, or atoms - all things you cannot see - then you have to believe in God too, since God is as real as all those other things, even though you can't see Him.

I don't understand how this statement compares to the previous one. Being invisible is not the same sort of category as being mythical. Invisible things include literally everything that does not exist, everything that only conceptually exists, and a whole bunch of things that demonstrably do exist. Also things that are only semantically invisible (a seagull that is too far away for me to see is invisible, without magnification a bacterium is invisible). When the argument says God is invisible and lots of invisible things exist, it ignores that lots of invisible things actually don't exist.

The argument you're deconstructing says that God is mythical and mythical things don't exist. Your counterexample's metaphorically saying that it ignores that lots of mythical things actually do exist. Whereas your stated point is more that God isn't necessarily mythical.

Mythical things include everything that a bunch of people thought sounded good and passed along in some kind of tradition. You'd need a different metaphor for mythical than invisible for me to understand how 'God isn't necessarily mythical' isn't special pleading.

Did we at least decide that God isn't an extraordinary claim, but a mainstream claim?

The thread has repeatedly discussed the difference between scientifically extraordinary and popularly extraordinary. For example, the utility of homeopathic or chiropractic treatments are pretty mainstream claims whilst also being scientifically extraordinary claims.

Also, that something is ordinary to some group or individual does not make it ordinary in any other sense then that, and it's the popular, rather than the scientific, meaning. It's ordinary for those in marathon training to run 25 to 50 miles every week; to almost everyone else that's an extraordinary amount of running. If half of everybody was in marathon training it'd still be an extraordinary amount of running to the other half of everybody. But in scientific terms, being in marathon training is not extraordinary because it's well within the limits of human capability.

 

[Stee]

If God is going to be in that category, than anything not yet understood by science would also be. For me, God is certainly paranormal, but for my fellows, He is apparently the norm.

Do you also lump fairies, dragons and bigfoot in this catagory? Wouldn't we need something to actually measure before starting to talk about how to catagorize it?

Seriously. Although my experience is with Christians, I think other religions would have no problem with the idea that God is around, has always been around, and may even guide the affairs of mankind. As normal as gravity.

They may have no problem with it but it does not make it right, gravity is testable, I can drop my pencil right now and I know it is going to fall. There is no evidence for 'god' being around. Having things that are not yet explained by science is not the same as asserting that an all powerful being is in control of everything then now and evermore. Or anything in between for that matter.

These arguments still feel like they are giving a free pass to the idea of there being a god which is something I do not understand or agree with. The argument that lots of people believe it therefore it must have some grain of truth does not work.

If we truly are in the "the world is round" camp, while our fellow men are in the "the world is flat" camp, then the duty is on us to show why/how they are mistaken. It's silly to expect them to spontaneously agree with us.

Quite right, anyone looking at the available evidence rationally and in an unbiased fashion will come to the conclusion that there is no god or gods. The problem with this world is round and flat argument is that it has turned out to be testable and now we know it is not flat. The strength of the god delusion lies in the fact that it is not testable and therefore believing in it somehow becomes acceptable.

 

[marplots]

So it is quite important to point the illogical fallacies out.

Case in point is your statement below

Marplots Oh yes. I've already said it. It's a type of begging the question. By claiming God is in the category of make-believe along with these other mythical things, you get to avoid any justification for doing so. God is mythical because He's mythical, like these other mythical things.

You see I have already pointed out multiple times to you how many illogical fallacies you committing in the above paragraph and still you keep on repeating it.... which is another illogical fallacy in itself.

Repeating untruths never will make them true for logical people.... it might be an effective technique in theistic circles and it is indeed a practice many theologians and theists employ in their attempts at pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes... nevertheless, it does not pass muster in logical forums.

Here is the list again.... hopefully you might eventually appreciate where you are going wrong.

• special pleading
• Burden of Proof

Can someone else explain this to me? I'm willing to learn. Why do the two named fallacies fit the quoted portion?

(By the way, I think they are called logical fallacies, not illogical fallacies. The double negative would be odd.)

 

[Leumas]

What a powerful indictment of your fellow men that is. I think you've demonstrated quite well the stance of the positive atheist and the necessary conclusions that flow from the position. It suggests, not merely a disbelief in God, but castigates a large portion of humanity as well. I find it elitist, militant, polarizing, and a kind of zealotry. Still, it might be correct for all that.

That is the difference between an aspiring skeptic and an accomplished one.

An accomplished skeptic seeks the truths of reality no matter how unpalatable they may be.

The pretend skeptics call people who point out the truths of reality derogatory names and start throwing hissy fits and spewing epithets at them in a desperate attempt at assuaging their Cognitive Dissonance.