Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Leumas]

Are you saying that Ben was doing this to show people that 'the god of thunder' wasn't real?

Or, was it for a completely different reason?

For example - a scientific reason...like proving that lightening was electricity.

 

[marplots]

Dude, did you even read the OP?

It's some 200 posts later. Maybe the premise needs a bit of an overhaul.

But, I'll back off from "absolute certainty" to the more politically correct, "as certain as I can be" which, as I have been arguing, is tantamount to the same thing. Call it "maximum allowable certainty" if you like.

Do you think there can be any evidence presented for God which a positive atheist would accept? That's the important bit. Whether God is impossible or merely undiscovered.

 

[Leumas]

In relation to god ideas...what if there is such a god(s) who knows it does indeed exist?

Does the rule still apply?

What if Nosferatu knows he is a vampire and has just feasted on a drunk alcoholic who also has just taken some LSD?

Would he be intoxicated or do the rules not apply?

What if Harry Potter got stuck in the wall while trying to enter the portal between platforms 8 and 9.... would we be able to go to Kings Cross and see him there?

What if Aliens came to Hogwarts and poked Nosferatu to figure out what makes him tick.... would he be ticked off? Would Harry Potter Avada Kedavra the Aliens to save Nosferatu from the indignation of the poking?

 

[ynot]

Does that count as a difference?

No. All paranormal beliefs are different. Why is a belief in a magical, invisible god any less paranormal than a belief in a magical, invisible spaghetti monster? Please don't say the number of people that are believers. That only makes the belief more popular, not less paranormal.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I wanna take a minute to clarify that the type of argument I have made in the OP is not meant to show God's non-existence with certainty or even to show that anything other than the atheist position is logically possible. It is what is known as a prima facie^WP argument.

The term prima facie is used in modern legal English (including both Civil Law and Criminal Law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic Philosophy.

I'm not saying the argument in the OP is airtight. I'm not saying that it negates a single theistic argument. All I'm trying to show is that there is no need for the constant retreat into negative atheism. There's no need for, "You can't prove a negative." The claim - that there is no god - is defensible.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It's some 200 posts later. Maybe the premise needs a bit of an overhaul.

But, I'll back off from "absolute certainty" to the more politically correct, "as certain as I can be" which, as I have been arguing, is tantamount to the same thing. Call it "maximum allowable certainty" if you like.

Do you think there can be any evidence presented for God which a positive atheist would accept? That's the important bit. Whether God is impossible or merely undiscovered.

You are still blatantly strawmanning my position. Please address the things I have said, not the things you would prefer that I say.

 

[Leumas]

That surely is dogmatism. But it also is - I suspect - something else which has infiltrated atheism and seeks to turn it into something other than what it needs to be.

Absolutely right!

Wow I am so glad you said this....There is a new phenomenon I have started noticing recently which I think goes along with the other not so new phenomenon of theistic usurpation of science.

The ID stratagem is to usurp science (now that the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be shoved back in their again) by pretending to be scientists but then start telling people that as scientists they disagree with those other atheist scientists who are blinded and biased by their atheism. They as reasonable and unbiased by atheism and as scientists they can attest to how science only proves God the Designer.

Along the same lines, I think there is an attempt at usurping atheism too. A fifth column if you will.

It is a new twist on the old ruse of pretending to be a reformed atheist who became one out of desire for debauchery or out of anger at god or the church and who has been saved from the dire consequence of such errors and now sees the light. Of course that is in addition to the other ruse of claiming that some famous atheists eventually repented on their deathbed.

I have noticed a proliferation on the internet and in the media in general of people claiming to be atheists who make sure to proclaim loudly and repeatedly their atheism and may even point out problems in religion but their objections to religion seems to be more often aimed at those other than the one from which they allegedly became atheists.

I usually start suspecting something skewwhiff when those "atheists" claim that they became atheists as a result of some abuse or mishap or that it was just a lucky coincidence and then tell a story about how they were really hateful atheists but that now they have mellowed down and have seen the light of how it is better to be a more reasonable and accommodative atheist.

They then go on to point out how affronted they are by those "offensive callas militant nasty unreasonable fundamentalist atheists" like Richard Dawkins et al whom they consider to be just as extremists and unreasonable as the extremist and unreasonable theists.

They then go on, in the spirit of accommodation, to defend theism but somehow their defense seems to be more often more vehement for the religion they claim to have become atheists from.

However, an indicative sign of something wonky going on is when they slip and state that atheism is as much of a belief system as theism and therefore why not just be more understanding and nice about our beliefs. Yes, they still say "our" to make sure to emphasize how they are atheists too making sure no one fails to notice the false flag they are flying.

Thus insidiously building an image that moderate nice atheists understand that atheism is an emotionally irrational state based as much on faith as any religion and only those nasty "fundamentalist atheists" are the militant ones who want to fight and hate religions despite not having any real proofs for their faith in atheism.

 

[marplots]

No. All paranormal beliefs are different. Why is a belief in a magical, invisible god any less paranormal than a belief in a magical, invisible spaghetti monster? Please don't say the number of people that are believers. That only makes the belief more popular, not less paranormal.

It's in the word magical. If God exists, God is just a scientific fact, no magic at all. Magic is tied to non-existence in the same way paranormal is tied to woo. If you want to tie paranormal to anything our current concept of the universe doesn't accept, then yes, among those who do not accept God, God would be paranormal. But who owns the label? Saying God is a magical, paranormal being would sound foreign to someone who believes God is divine. I don't think they'd equate miraculous with magical. But I suppose they might.

And it's not just the number of people who believe, although I think that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but the authenticity of that belief. Does anyone really believe the FSM exists? Wasn't the meme created as an example of something silly that does not exist?

The only reason we are discussing atheism and not beliefs about vampires, is exactly because the belief is taken seriously by so many and has social ramifications. It's not just an affectation, it has real world consequences. People blow themselves up in service to these ideas.

Finally, we could say that all beliefs are equivalent, insofar as they are things happening in our heads. We'd still want to know why this belief is accepted and not that one, even if they appeared to have an equivalent amount of non-evidence. That's a serious question. In a world where most of us don't seem to have any trouble distinguishing fiction (movies, books, et al) from fact, why do we disagree about God?

 

[ynot]

I wanna take a minute to clarify that the type of argument I have made in the OP is not meant to show God's non-existence with certainty or even to show that anything other than the atheist position is logically possible. It is what is known as a prima facie^WP argument.



I'm not saying the argument in the OP is airtight. I'm not saying that it negates a single theistic argument. All I'm trying to show is that there is no need for the constant retreat into negative atheism. There's no need for, "You can't prove a negative." The claim - that there is no god - is defensible.

I agree.

 

[marplots]

You are still blatantly strawmanning my position. Please address the things I have said, not the things you would prefer that I say.

I am not describing your position, I am describing mine. What's the point in adopting your position when you can expound it better than I?

 

[Brian-M]

Here's the two as I understand it.
1) There is no God. God doesn't exist. - the positive assertion
2) I don't believe in God, but that's more a fact about me than anything else. - the other side.

Here's the two as I understand them:

I do not believe that gods exist (negative)
I believe that gods do not exist (positive)​

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 don't see how that follows. "Not yet understood" doesn't mean "beyond the scope".

Sir, may I have another?

Okay... Fallacy Fallacy.

(I'm not saying you're committing it, but I do think it's useful to keep in mind when people start naming the fallacies they think they've noticed in other people's posts.)

 

[Navigator]

You must own staples or lots of horses.... you seem to have an ample supply of straw.

If only staples were made of straws, no one would be able to crucify you.

 

[Leumas]

It's in the word magical. If God exists, God is just a scientific fact, no magic at all.

The same statement can be said about vampires and pixie dust and tooth fairies and Santa and every woo that man has ever hyper-attributed and hyperactively imagined.

If god existed where is s/he/it?

Why have we so far not seen a single evidence for it after all those years of us existing?

It seems the more our knowledge expands the less and less s/he/it is able to poke his followers through the space-time fabric beyond which s/he/it is now hiding according to the casuistry of the sky daddy wishful "thinkers"

It is a suspicious concept indeed that which becomes more and more illusive the more we are able to actually verify its veracity. In the days of human ignorance s/he/it was UBIQUITOUS and around every corner. Now that we know how to look around the corners and into the gaps it seems to have taken refuge in the places we can never verify for sure whether s/he/it does indeed not exist as we have found in the previous gaps because we are now told its place is out of the realm of reality altogether..... very suspicious indeed! .

The whole concept of the ethereal god outside space-time is an illogical fallacy in itself.... the fallacy of moving the goal posts.... every time we try to score, the god deluded move the goal posts.

[imgw=350]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128254c7ad419f7f4.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Brian-M]

OTOH people who have a disbelief in god(s) may include the neutral position as atheist in order to make it seem that they are taking a default but reasonable position.

But if we're going to have an in-depth discussion about belief, we need a word or phrase we can use to indicate the neutral position.

Some people use the word "agnostic", but doing this deprives us of the use of a word that serves an important function in distinguishing knowledge from belief.

By appending the modifiers "positive" and "negative" to "atheist" instead, we keep the word "agnostic" free for making distinctions about knowledge, we have separate terms for the neutral and contradictory positions, and we can use the unmodified word "atheist" to cover both these positions together.

It seems the most useful way of labelling the positions to me.

 

[marplots]

Here's the two as I understand them:

I do not believe that gods exist (negative)
I believe that gods do not exist (positive)​

Thanks for that. I'll see if I can get my head around that version instead of striking out through the jungle on my own.

 

[Navigator]

It is simple really. I was saying that science was not about the business of dealing with ideas of god(s) and you mentioned Ben as if he was a scientist sorting the business of dealing with ideas of god(s) in relation to his experiments with lightening.

You said:
"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."

Thus you were more than implying that science is about sorting the business of dealing with ideas of god(s) which is not what Ben was actually doing in relation to his experiments.

You can argue that it does not matter because positive/dogmatic atheists can use that to point to the fact that no god(s) [that anyone witnessed] were involved with that scientific experiment, but it does not mean that science is about sorting the business of dealing with ideas of god(s).

It is not.

 

[ynot]

It's in the word magical. If God exists, God is just a scientific fact, no magic at all.

If unicorns/vampires/fairies/FSM's exist as a scientific fact they are still magical? Is that special pleading I Hear? Why would gods be more likely to be scientifically proven to exist than unicorns/vampires/fairies/FSM's?.

Magic is tied to non-existence in the same way paranormal is tied to woo.

No, woo as used in this forum has always been a simile for magical thinking. Magic is therefore tied to woo. Believing and claiming that something magically exists is woo.

If you want to tie paranormal to anything our current concept of the universe doesn't accept, then yes, among those who do not accept God, God would be paranormal. But who owns the label? Saying God is a magical, paranormal being would sound foreign to someone who believes God is divine. I don't think they'd equate miraculous with magical. But I suppose they might.

If people want to believe that an invisible, magical sky-daddy is normal, then that's their delusion and they're entitled to have it. Beliefs don't change or create reality however.

And it's not just the number of people who believe, although I think that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but the authenticity of that belief. Does anyone really believe the FSM exists? Wasn't the meme created as an example of something silly that does not exist?

The only reason we are discussing atheism and not beliefs about vampires, is exactly because the belief is taken seriously by so many and has social ramifications. It's not just an affectation, it has real world consequences. People blow themselves up in service to these ideas.

Finally, we could say that all beliefs are equivalent, insofar as they are things happening in our heads. We'd still want to know why this belief is accepted and not that one, even if they appeared to have an equivalent amount of non-evidence. That's a serious question. In a world where most of us don't seem to have any trouble distinguishing fiction (movies, books, et al) from fact, why do we disagree about God?

Any belief that's not supported by a single piece of credible evidence has no authenticity. A belief doesn't gain authenticity by being supported by belief and numbers of believers. The whole point of comparing god beliefs with other paranormal beliefs is to show they are essentially the same type of belief (paranormal).

 

[I Am The Scum]

Also, I wanna give the most robust example of special pleading I can think of, because some people are still having trouble with this.

-----

Rhonda is explaining vehicle maintenance to Sam and Mike.

Both of you should change your vehicle's radiator fluid every 2 to 3 years. If you don't, dirt will build up in the system, and the engine may overheat.

Sam and Mike disagree, but for very different reasons.

I cannot agree. Any time the cooling system of a vehicle has been analyzed, it has been a vehicle other than my own. It would be irrational to apply the standard of other people's cars to my own. After all, they're just not the same thing. Your rules do not apply here.

I cannot agree. My vehicle is a motorcycle. There is no radiator, and therefore, no radiator fluid to change. Your rules do not apply here.

Sam is engaging in special pleading. Mike is validating his distinction.

 

[Leumas]

If only staples were made of straws, no one would be able to crucify you.

They would be able to build many fagots though and burn burn burn... as they used to love to do.

[imgw=400]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Witch-scene4.JPG/569px-Witch-scene4.JPG[/imgw]

 

[Navigator]

What if Nosferatu knows he is a vampire and has just feasted on a drunk alcoholic who also has just taken some LSD?

Would he be intoxicated or do the rules not apply?

What if Harry Potter got stuck in the wall while trying to enter the portal between platforms 8 and 9.... would we be able to go to Kings Cross and see him there?

What if Aliens came to Hogwarts and poked Nosferatu to figure out what makes him tick.... would he be ticked off? Would Harry Potter Avada Kedavra the Aliens to save Nosferatu from the indignation of the poking?

Okay I will answer the question.

The assertion:
Things that exist do not have to have their existence proven.

The question:
Q: In relation to god ideas...what if there is such a god(s) who knows it does indeed exist?

Does the rule still apply?

Yes the rule still applies. Things that exist do not have to have their existence proven.