Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Navigator]

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.

You (as we both can agree) twisted my initial context so to make a statement of your own and I would agree at least that you are correct about some theists pretending to be atheists.

Atheists pretending to be theists, positive atheists proclaiming negative atheists are really just religious sympathizers etc blah nauseam...all essentially name calling and point scoring.

What I do enjoy about you is that you at least seem to be someone who takes your beliefs seriously.

It would be interesting to hear (or if you have a link - to read) what kind of world you would have if everyone believed the same as you did)

 

[Brian-M]

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.

Here's a simple way of getting your head around it.

Tom fills a jar with sand at the beach.

Dick sees the jar and insists that the number of grains of sand in the jar is even.

Harry responds by insisting that the number of grains of sand in the jar is odd.

Tom sees no reason to believe either Dick or Harry when they make these claims, because nobody has bothered to count the grains.

Where X is the statement "the number of grains in the sand is even"...

Dick: I believe that X is true.
Harry: I believe that X is false.

Tom: I do not believe that X is true.
Tom: I do not believe that X is false.

Now make X the statement "god(s) exist" and...

Dick is a theist.
Harry is a positive atheist.
Tom is a negative atheist.

(I didn't mean to imply that theists are dicks with this example, that's just an amusing coincidence.)

 

[Navigator]

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]

Ah yes. Straw to burn! The survival of the fittest...

Here's the thing...is the mob the fool religious and the leaders positive atheists pretending to be theists in order to give god ideas a bad rep?

(and will we ever truly know?)

 

[marplots]

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.



Sam and Mike disagree, but for very different reasons.




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

That is very good. Did you notice though, that the fallacy depends on Sam's car being in the same category as other cars? If, for example, he drives a Tesla, then it wouldn't be the special pleading fallacy, because a Tesla is actually in a different category than "cars that need radiator fluid."

This is why existence questions don't fit that rule. If we are trying to decide whether something exists or doesn't exist, we can't yet say which category it rightfully belongs in. To simply claim it belongs in the category with other things that do not exist only begs the question. It isn't then special pleading to say we haven't yet decided that God belongs in the "doesn't exist category," even if we agree that those other things do.

You can't have a special pleading fallacy until you've settled whether or not something is special, and that, in turn, requires a determination of whether it even exists or not. Perhaps God is special because He's the only one of His type that exists. Maybe He's a Tesla.

 

[Navigator]

Here's a simple way of getting your head around it.

Tom fills a jar with sand at the beach.

Dick sees the jar and insists that the number of grains of sand in the jar is even.

Harry responds by insisting that the number of grains of sand in the jar is odd.

Tom sees no reason to believe either Dick or Harry when they make these claims, because nobody has bothered to count the grains.

Where X is the statement "the number of grains in the sand is even"...

Dick: I believe that X is true.
Harry: I believe that X is not true.

Tom: I do not believe that X is true.
Tom: I do not believe that X is not true.

Now make X the statement "god(s) exist"...

Theist: I believe that X is true.
Positive atheist: I believe that X is not true.

Negative atheist: I do not believe that X is true.
Negative atheist: I do not believe that X is not true.

Negative atheist: I do not believe it is even worth arguing about. But if you want the truth, I am not interested in counting the grains of sand in order to see which one of you fools is actually right.

 

[I Am The Scum]

That is very good. Did you notice though, that the fallacy depends on Sam's car being in the same category as other cars? If, for example, he drives a Tesla, then it wouldn't be the special pleading fallacy, because a Tesla is actually in a different category than "cars that need radiator fluid."

This is why existence questions don't fit that rule. If we are trying to decide whether something exists or doesn't exist, we can't yet say which category it rightfully belongs in. To simply claim it belongs in the category with other things that do not exist only begs the question. It isn't then special pleading to say we haven't yet decided that God belongs in the "doesn't exist category," even if we agree that those other things do.

You can't have a special pleading fallacy until you've settled whether or not something is special, and that, in turn, requires a determination of whether it even exists or not. Perhaps God is special because He's the only one of His type that exists. Maybe He's a Tesla.

Sam is special pleading no matter what he drives. Fallacies are fallacies even when they point towards true conclusions.

 

[ynot]

Theists either believe god(s) actually exist despite lack of knowledge (faith), or believe they know god(s) actually exist (delusion).

Atheist are those that aren't motivated into god beliefs by either faith or delusion.

Don't think anything else really matters.

 

[Navigator]

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]

 

[I Am The Scum]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9661[/qimg]

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Do you have any clue how to discuss issues without being condescendingly insulting?

ETA: /lostinterest

 

[tsig]

Excellent rebuttal. Top marks!

If you can't answer them, ridicule them.

 

[marplots]

Sam is special pleading no matter what he drives. Fallacies are fallacies even when they point towards true conclusions.

Here's the fallacy:
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."

It cannot apply unless there is a generally accepted rule in play. To rely on such a rule, when there isn't one, negates the basis for the fallacy.

Mary has created a rule that cars need radiator fluid. A Tesla is an electric car and does not fall under the rule. It is not an exception to the rule, no more than my dog is an exception to the rule. The rule itself is bad, because it creates a category that is too broad. The correct, and more specific, generally accepted rule is that cars with internal combustion engines need radiator fluid, and the Tesla is not in that category.

It is not special pleading to point out an error in the construction of a rule or to deny that it is generally accepted.

If the general rule is that mythical beings (elves and so on) do not exist, one cannot then simply claim the rule applies to God, when we already know that the generally accepted rule for God is that He exists. (As shown previously by way of poll numbers.) Note that "generally accepted" does indeed mean more people believe it than don't, despite the disingenuous claim of argumentum ad populum for that statistic.

Like it or not, God is the generally accepted default, and creates a rule thereby. We may disagree with the rule, but it's up to us to justify ourselves, not the other way around. (At least as far as special pleading is concerned.)

Now, it certainly may be that what is generally accepted isn't correct, but, as you point out, that has no effect on whether it's a fallacy or not.

 

[marplots]

If you can't answer them, ridicule them.

How do you answer a list of links? Another list of counter-links?

 

[marplots]

Here's a simple way of getting your head around it.

Tom fills a jar with sand at the beach.

Dick sees the jar and insists that the number of grains of sand in the jar is even.

Harry responds by insisting that the number of grains of sand in the jar is odd.

Tom sees no reason to believe either Dick or Harry when they make these claims, because nobody has bothered to count the grains.

Where X is the statement "the number of grains in the sand is even"...

Dick: I believe that X is true.
Harry: I believe that X is false.

Tom: I do not believe that X is true.
Tom: I do not believe that X is false.

Now make X the statement "god(s) exist" and...

Dick is a theist.
Harry is a positive atheist.
Tom is a negative atheist.

(I didn't mean to imply that theists are dicks with this example, that's just an amusing coincidence.)

I thought I had it, but with this latest, I've lost it again.
Why isn't Tom an agnostic?

 

[ehcks]

I thought I had it, but with this latest, I've lost it again.
Why isn't Tom an agnostic?

He is, but he's also a negative atheist.

On the other hand, he's not, because we're talking about a number of grains of sand. That can be counted, which means the number can be known. Agnosticism isn't "I don't know." Agnosticism is "It can't be known."

 

[Leumas]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=859&pictureid=9661[/qimg]

• Lack of historical knowledge.
• Wishful thinking.
• False attribution.
• Straw man.... this one burned up on the fire of your zealotry however.

 

[marplots]

He is, but he's also a negative atheist.

On the other hand, he's not, because we're talking about a number of grains of sand. That can be counted, which means the number can be known. Agnosticism isn't "I don't know." Agnosticism is "It can't be known."

OK, let me ask this then.
Would a positive and a negative atheist answer this question the same way or differently: How do you know there is no God?

 

[Leumas]

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.

OK, let me ask this then.
Would a positive and a negative atheist answer this question the same way or differently: How do you know there is no God?

How do you know there is no $%^&D$#?

Do you think there can be any evidence presented for $%^&D$# which you would accept?

You see unless we agree on a precise, non-illusive, concrete, well documented and clearly outlined definition for $%^&D$# you cannot possibly answer the questions rationally..... right?

So the answer to your questions is..... define "God"!

Give me a coherent definition for this "God" and I can then apply the Scientific Method to it and determine the validity of the hypothesis and then write a scientific journal paper presenting my findings for MANY of my peers to review and verify that I have not in fact fallen prey to one or many of the all sorts of ways even scientists can fool themselves.

After that we may then see if other hypotheses fit the data better than your hypothesis and we go on from there until eventually it becomes an accepted THEORY which we can for all intents and purposes rest assured that it is fact until another genius comes along and modifies or augments or outright falsifies the theory.

You see all the "god" hypotheses up to about 200 years ago were considered fact by the advocates of the various competing hypotheses and even killed each other trying to prove whose was the correct one.

But then new geniuses came along and made all those older "facts" obsolete in the light of new data.

So I advise you to consider really carefully when you are setting down the definition of this new hypothesis of "God"..... and remember that to even begin to qualify as worthy of being considered by the scientific method, it has to be possible to falsify.... I hope you know what that means.

 

[marplots]

How do you know there is no $%^&D$#?

Do you think there can be any evidence presented for $%^&D$# which you would accept?

You see unless we agree on a precise, non-illusive, concrete, well documented and clearly outlined definition for $%^&D$# you cannot possibly answer the questions rationally..... right?

So the answer to your questions is..... define "God"?

Give me a coherent definition for this "God" and I can then apply the Scientific Method to it and determine the validity of the hypothesis and then write a scientific journal paper presenting my findings for MANY of my peers to review and verify that I have not in fact fallen prey to one or many of the all sorts of ways even scientists can fool themselves.

After that we may then see if other hypotheses fit the data better than your hypothesis and we go on from there until eventually it becomes an accepted THEORY which we can for all intents and purposes rest assured that it is fact until another genius comes along and modifies or augments or outright falsifies the theory.

You see all the "god" hypothesis up to about 200 years ago were considered fact by the advocates of the various competing hypothesis and even killed each others trying to prove whose was the correct one.

But then new geniuses came along and made all those older "facts" obsolete in the light of knew data.

So I advice you to consider really carefully when you are setting down the definition of this new hypothesis of "God"..... and remember that to even begin to qualify as worthy of being considered by the scientific method, it has to be possible to falsify.... I hope you know what that means.

That's interesting. Does it mean I can't be an atheist because I don't have a clear definition of what God is?

My question however, wasn't to ask for a specific methodology, but to see if there was a difference between a positive and a negative atheist in how the question would be answered.

 

[Leumas]

That's interesting. Does it mean I can't be an atheist because I don't have a clear definition of what God is?

See... you are now trying to sneak in an underhanded equivocation.


Notice what I said here

You see all the "god" hypotheses up to about 200 years ago were considered fact by the advocates of the various competing hypothesis and even killed each others trying to prove whose was the correct one.

But then new geniuses came along and made all those older "facts" obsolete in the light of knew data.

So you see when I say I am an atheist I am so in regards to the all but countless and already quite debunked and long dead theos-hypotheses from the annals of human benightedness and folly.

If you have a new hypothesis then we will wait and see if it will be debunked like all the others or if you will be the most famous human being to have ever existed as the INVENTOR of the only GOD that has not yet been debunked.

Are you up to the challenge....can you at least give us a sneak peek at this "God" of yours?... remember it has to be falsifiable.