Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[psionl0]

Now repeat this exercise for the more than a million Theos that the fecund but yet benighted imagination of people from the epochs of human infancy and adolescence have dreamt up.

I think that mono-theists will find that they are strong/positive a-X where X is every other god that is not the one they have been inculcated and indoctrinated into (sometimes even auto-inculcated).

That's probably a given.

The difference between the weak/negative atheist and the monotheist is that the weak atheist is in the final throes of his Cognitive Dissonance and cannot quite yet make that extra tiny step of becoming like the monotheists who are positive/strong a-every-other-god-but-theirs.

The difference between a naught-theist and a mono-theist is just that one last Theo for which they have become strong/positive a-Theo.

The weak/negative a-this-one-final-theo is basically in his final pangs of Cognitive Dissonance.

You seem to be claiming to know the mind of every non-believer and the final conclusion they will draw. That's rather arrogant. It is not reasonable to insist that "cognitive dissonance" is the only barrier to somebody not ending up a "positive" atheist.

Some people will switch between belief and disbelief several times in their life time and even change religions (if they are believers). Others may maintain the same position their entire life - even if that position is no belief one way or another.

 

[Dani]

Precisely. But is the OP not saying more that that?

He takes a position. One that I share. I'm saying this because there's been so much focus on strategy with theists, when the OP seemed more interested in a debate between different self described types of atheists and agnostics.

The positions are much closer than in a theist/atheist debate and the meat here is in the nuances related to what we mean with "to know" or how we think a belief is justified.

 

[marplots]

He takes a position. One that I share. I'm saying this because there's been so much focus on strategy with theists, when the OP seemed more interested in a debate between different self described types of atheists and agnostics.

The positions are much closer than in a theist/atheist debate and the meat here is in the nuances related to what we mean with "to know" or how we think a belief is justified.

We might eventually get to that.

As an aside, I've tossed out the word dogmatic in this thread. What I mean by that is someone who is unwilling to consider or address seriously any position that isn't based on some unyielding premises. Not even for the sake of good conversation.

But sometimes, I mistake another phenomenon for dogmatism. When I have had very similar conversations many times, I think I already know all the paths and where they lead. So I might cut off those paths to avoid what I think are dead ends, and sometimes do it when it isn't warranted. In particular, when someone else is having the conversation for the first time, it's not only unfair to drive the bus that way, but doing so can also appear the same as being dogmatic. It looks the same, after all. Wholesale rejection of broad areas as beneath consideration, even contemptible.

Of course, being the fair and honest person I am, I naturally forgive the sin in myself while pointing it out in others.

 

[Dani]

I don't think so. You have different approaches for different circumstances. The OP seems to be saying that there is only one relative position for every circumstance.

I don't know what you mean by "relative position for every circumstance".

Apart from the fact that Atheism is not about the lack of belief in dragons, I bet if I asked you to draw a dragon, you would be able to do so? Or if not, find a picture of one which represents 'what a dragon is'?

Now can you do the same in relation to all ideas of god(s)?

I would be able to represent neither all ideas of gods nor all ideas of dragons. But what's the point of this question?

 

[Pup]

I am not saying that you can;t be scientific about things. I am saying you can't use science as an argument that all ideas of god(s) are false.

But you knew that.
The gods of the gaps are still ideas of god(s).

On the contrary, I think one can use science as an argument that all ideas of gods are false. We're hard-wired to want to believe in gods. That's why we make them up and why we create gods of the gaps to preserve our beliefs.

But notice I've stated my position with as little backup and argument as possible, because I'm not trying to sell it. The information is out there if anyone is interested in exploring it, but if they're not, well, that's just not what they're into and it doesn't matter to me.

But really, if the argument is just about 'atheism is only about being positively against all known ideas of god(s) and supporting an end to all theism' then how are you and everyone who believes this, going to actually make it so?

If you're saying that some atheists are that way, that's certainly true. If you're saying that all atheists (or all positive atheists) are that way, well, I don't think it fits me. As long as others don't try to pressure their beliefs on me, except in situations where it's part of a mutually enjoyable debate, then I'm fine with theists being theists.

 

[Lithrael]

Apart from the fact that Atheism is not about the lack of belief in dragons,

Personally, my atheism is indistinguishable from my lack of belief in dragons.

I bet if I asked you to draw a dragon, you would be able to do so? Or if not, find a picture of one which represents 'what a dragon is'?

That depends. Medieval Western dragon, modern Western dragon or Chinese dragon? The modern Western dragon has tons of variants but I could describe the most common ones. I could definitely draw you something that you could show to most people in the West and they'd be able to identify it as a dragon.

Now can you do the same in relation to all ideas of god(s)?

All major ones that anyone has written about, sure, given enough time and research. The modern Western God has tons of variants but I could describe the most common ones. I could definitely draw you something that you could show to most people in the West and they'd be able to identify it as a god.

My problem with this line of argument is that it's the common elements of ideas of gods that lead me to reject all the ideas that a person would decide to call a god. I'm an atheist in regards to supernaturally powered beings that interact with the world in a way that is meaningful to humans and desire some kind of acknowledgement and/or interaction from them.

Basically I'm looking at the most commonly asserted properties of gods, evaluating the evidence for those properties being held by anything at all, and coming up nil. Once you have come up with a god that doesn't share any of those properties, you have a god I won't deny out of hand, but you also have wandered so far from the common concept of a god that I don't understand why you are asserting that it is one.

If you have a guy who says that god is this tree right here, no powers or will involved then bang, I am no longer an atheist by that standard. But I would say that's an example of just defining words out of meaningful use.

 

[RickM]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

My conclusion, simply put, is that there is no God. If that makes me dogmatic, then saying that there's no dragon in your garage makes me dogmatic too.

By the way, I can declare myself an ignostic in some more nuanced discussions, but if I want to get my point accross in general, I say atheist.

And then there's the strategy. You can either start with the negative position (the default skeptic position) or adopt a more proactive attitude along the lines of positive atheism. I think both strategies are valid in different contexts. Whenever I debate with a theist (not very often) I choose the skeptical strategy, but in more nuanced discussions such as this one, in which most people self describe as either agnostics or atheists, the differences between positive and negative atheism are precisely what's interesting.

On point, reasoned, and clearly put! It shouldn’t take any more words than this to state your case, and no one was insulted.

 

[phiwum]

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%)

You are equivocating on the notion of "extraordinary".

On the one hand, it may be extraodinary that someone believes X (i.e., the overwhelming majority do not believe X).

On the other hand, X itself may represent an extraordinary claim.

It would be extraordinary if everyone on earth were omnipotent but did not know how to use their powers. This claim would still be extraordinary even if most people believed it.

Similarly, it is reasonable, I think, to consider the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being is rather different than what we ordinarily experience directly. I think that most theists would agree that this fact, if true, is rather extraordinary.

 

[Brian-M]

Medieval Western dragon, modern Western dragon or Chinese dragon?

How about the dragons of Pern? They can teleport, time-travel and form telepathic bonds with their riders.

 

[Brian-M]

The reason pixies, and vampires, and Leprechauns, and gremlins are brought into these conversations is because there is an expectation that everyone pretty much believes they don't exist. Which is the case. But God is generally thought to exist, which is certainly a difference of note, isn't it?

That's the entire point, to take belief out of the equation by providing examples of other supernatural beings that aren't generally believed in.

It's a way of showing believers what their beliefs look like from the outside.

If you want an example of something people have genuinely believed in, we could use magic fairies. A lot of people, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries) genuinely believed that the Cottingley Fairies were real. They even had photographic evidence for them, which is more than can be said about God...

A better comparison, or at least a more valid one, would be between God and other things that are false, but which a majority believe in. Like, "sugar makes children hyperactive" or "you have to wait 24 hours to file a missing person report."

I don't see how these are valid comparisons, as neither of them are supernatural claims. Both of them could be true from a purely naturalistic standpoint. (They just happen not to be.)

Another way these comparisons aren't valid is they're both demonstrably false, while God isn't.

Maybe something like Feng Shui or astrology might be a more valid comparison, but if the person you're talking to believe they're true or is willing to accept that there might be something to them, then they're not a useful comparison. And they're not beliefs about supernatural beings, so they wouldn't make a very good comparison either.

 

[Navigator]

He takes a position. One that I share. I'm saying this because there's been so much focus on strategy with theists, when the OP seemed more interested in a debate between different self described types of atheists and agnostics.

Yes but isn't the OP saying more than that? Isn't this also a pattern? Perhaps it happens when there are a lack of theists popping into the forum to make things 'interesting'(relieve the boredom) so attention is turned more onto those next in line to be the play things of dogmatic atheists.

So when you say you agree with the OP, it isn't just about your interest in your own position. You are also agreeing with the attitude that such position has in relation to weakling atheists. Fence sitters. Gutless middle-grounders. Religious apologists. You know. Those names and others which come up in these type arguments to denounce and demean those with different positions than the haughty dogmatist atheists hold.

The positions are much closer than in a theist/atheist debate and the meat here is in the nuances related to what we mean with "to know" or how we think a belief is justified.

Sure it is. But the meaty bits here are how some members can assert superior tone through their position by denunciation and ridicule and contempt.

Thus, somehow 'justifying belief'.

 

[Navigator]

On the contrary, I think one can use science as an argument that all ideas of gods are false.

Correct me if I am wrong here. Are all ideas of god(s) falsifiable?

We're hard-wired to want to believe in gods.

This seems to be contradictory to the default position of atheism.

Nonetheless, whether its a hard wire or simply the way consciousness reacts to being in an irrational environment (the physical universe) the ideas of god(s) are natural enough.

That's why we make them up and why we create gods of the gaps to preserve our beliefs.

Tell me how the god(s) of the gaps preserve belief. Or maybe not...this is after all a thread dedicated to dogmatic atheism vs rational atheism.

But notice I've stated my position with as little backup and argument as possible, because I'm not trying to sell it.

What is there to sell? The idea that explicit atheism is somehow a more rational position than implicit atheism?

The information is out there if anyone is interested in exploring it, but if they're not, well, that's just not what they're into and it doesn't matter to me.

Aye. Lots and lots of information...

If you're saying that some atheists are that way, that's certainly true. If you're saying that all atheists (or all positive atheists) are that way, well, I don't think it fits me. As long as others don't try to pressure their beliefs on me, except in situations where it's part of a mutually enjoyable debate, then I'm fine with theists being theists.

Are you saying that you are a positive atheist who doesn't mind theists?

As long as they don't hassle you - which is quite acceptable and I agree with you. People can be whatever they want to and believe whatever they want to as long as they don't hassle anyone. Sounds reasonable.

Do you think that explicit atheists making clearly derogation statements about implicit atheists can be defined as 'hassling' those implicit atheists and that it is fair enough to stand up and not take it or just as importantly stand up and say it is not right to do so, even if you are not being hassled yourself?

 

[Navigator]

Personally, my atheism is indistinguishable from my lack of belief in dragons.

Why is that? Is it because you are an explicit?

That depends. Medieval Western dragon, modern Western dragon or Chinese dragon? The modern Western dragon has tons of variants but I could describe the most common ones. I could definitely draw you something that you could show to most people in the West and they'd be able to identify it as a dragon.

Of course. And just to be clear, even if a Western dragon was shown next to a Chinese dragon it is most likely both will still be seen to be dragons.

All major ones that anyone has written about, sure, given enough time and research. The modern Western God has tons of variants but I could describe the most common ones. I could definitely draw you something that you could show to most people in the West and they'd be able to identify it as a god.

Sure. It was never my argument to claim that this wasn't the case.

My problem with this line of argument is that it's the common elements of ideas of gods that lead me to reject all the ideas that a person would decide to call a god. I'm an atheist in regards to supernaturally powered beings that interact with the world in a way that is meaningful to humans and desire some kind of acknowledgement and/or interaction from them.

The basic garden variety idea of god(s)

Basically I'm looking at the most commonly asserted properties of gods, evaluating the evidence for those properties being held by anything at all, and coming up nil. Once you have come up with a god that doesn't share any of those properties, you have a god I won't deny out of hand, but you also have wandered so far from the common concept of a god that I don't understand why you are asserting that it is one.

Ideas are ideas and in relation to god(s) can be regarded as pretty much inexhaustible.
So you are an atheist in as much as theists and the popular notion of common ideas of god(s) go.
Why then is it important to you to be an explicit atheist and be in opposition to implicit atheists?

If you have a guy who says that god is this tree right here, no powers or will involved then bang, I am no longer an atheist by that standard. But I would say that's an example of just defining words out of meaningful use.

What if I said to you than one idea of god(s) is that humans are gods?

 

[Navigator]

How about the dragons of Pern? They can teleport, time-travel and form telepathic bonds with their riders.

The images from google re dragons of Pern are recognizably dragons.

 

[Navigator]

That's the entire point, to take belief out of the equation by providing examples of other supernatural beings that aren't generally believed in.

It's a way of showing believers what their beliefs look like from the outside.

If you want an example of something people have genuinely believed in, we could use magic fairies. A lot of people, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries) genuinely believed that the Cottingley Fairies were real. They even had photographic evidence for them, which is more than can be said about God...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=721&pictureid=9665[/qimg]​

'God' who?

I don't see how these are valid comparisons, as neither of them are supernatural claims. Both of them could be true from a purely naturalistic standpoint. (They just happen not to be.)

Another way these comparisons aren't valid is they're both demonstrably false, while God isn't.

Maybe something like Feng Shui or astrology might be a more valid comparison, but if the person you're talking to believe they're true or is willing to accept that there might be something to them, then they're not a useful comparison. And they're not beliefs about supernatural beings, so they wouldn't make a very good comparison either.

How many theists have you actually converted using this argument?

 

[Navigator]

That is interesting. He makes a good case.

And in a bit of synchronicity, at the end of the article he says this (my highlight):
"Can someone from the mirror neuron camp come forward and provide us with an example of what kind of empirical result would falsify the theory? Because if you can't falsify it, it's no longer a scientific theory, it's religion."

Which, as I understand it, is the reason God is the purview of religion and not science.

Yes I noted that. I think he was speaking about beliefs being formed regarding non-falsifiable ideas.

Essentially if it cannot be falsified then it can be called a religion and religion does not necessarily have to have a god idea at the helm.

It could just as easily be a brain.

 

[marplots]

You are equivocating on the notion of "extraordinary".

On the one hand, it may be extraodinary that someone believes X (i.e., the overwhelming majority do not believe X).

On the other hand, X itself may represent an extraordinary claim.

It would be extraordinary if everyone on earth were omnipotent but did not know how to use their powers. This claim would still be extraordinary even if most people believed it.

Similarly, it is reasonable, I think, to consider the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being is rather different than what we ordinarily experience directly. I think that most theists would agree that this fact, if true, is rather extraordinary.

That latter would make it amazing, as amazing as black holes or any other grand discovery, but extraordinary is about beliefs. Beliefs are grounded in people. We should at least agree that the belief itself isn't extraordinary, even if we disagree on whether the object of that belief is.

As I read the statement that started this: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" I am struck not only by the first use of the word, but the second as well. The evidence sometimes proffered by believers is personal experience. I can think of no more powerful form of evidence than that.

So, even coming at it from the other direction (back to front), I still reject the dictum. At the root of it is the nature of evidence itself. In the end, isn't evidence just and only whatever it is that convinced me? That is, on what basis, other than a subjective judgement, am I to evaluate evidence?

For, we find that this evidence is supported by previous evidence and that by even older evidence in a long chain, reaching back but never really bottoming out. Of course, none of this would mean I can convince anyone else. One person's personal experience is just another person's "cool story bro."

Essentially then, we have two types of historical evidence. There's the "I saw bigfoot" kind that convinces only the viewer, and then there's the "Here's the film I took of bigfoot" kind which can be shared and analyzed. Are we justified in saying that one type is stronger than the other, or is it just that the one can be shared and the other cannot?

(I have purposefully left out the type of evidence that allows us to directly test the world with predictions. The, "let's create some more evidence" type.)

 

[marplots]

That's the entire point, to take belief out of the equation by providing examples of other supernatural beings that aren't generally believed in.

It's a way of showing believers what their beliefs look like from the outside.

If you want an example of something people have genuinely believed in, we could use magic fairies. A lot of people, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries) genuinely believed that the Cottingley Fairies were real. They even had photographic evidence for them, which is more than can be said about God...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=721&pictureid=9665[/qimg]​

I don't see how these are valid comparisons, as neither of them are supernatural claims. Both of them could be true from a purely naturalistic standpoint. (They just happen not to be.)

Another way these comparisons aren't valid is they're both demonstrably false, while God isn't.

Maybe something like Feng Shui or astrology might be a more valid comparison, but if the person you're talking to believe they're true or is willing to accept that there might be something to them, then they're not a useful comparison. And they're not beliefs about supernatural beings, so they wouldn't make a very good comparison either.

I don't really disagree with your take on it, except to point out a couple logical problems. First, comparing claims against other claims we reject and pointing out the similarities, doesn't help answer the question of existence. I can read all sorts of fictional tales about sailors, knowing they are fiction, and still discover there are real sailors. Or, if that's not exotic enough, replace sailors with space aliens. No amount of fiction harms the smallest bit of fact in any way.

But more importantly, we tend to say that "supernatural" is equivalent to "doesn't exist." Or at least that's how I think it's being used. And that's why it sounds to me like begging the question. And it's not like history isn't filled with things once thought supernatural that turned out to be just plain old natural. We can follow the trail by looking at how the "Godly gaps" have shrunk. God doesn't have to be supernatural at all, just misunderstood and not yet cataloged. In the same way that the mystical "spark of life" turns out to be chemistry. And, I propose, that such a "natural" God wouldn't offend scientific sensibilities at all.

 

[Brian-M]

The images from google re dragons of Pern are recognizably dragons.

I was just offering an additional variety to the list, I wasn't trying to suggest something completely different.

I suppose I could have suggested Komodo dragons. Those dragons don't have wings, don't breath fire, and don't grow longer than 10 feet.

If we were talking about Komodo dragons, then I'd have to say yes, I believe that dragons exist.

 

[marplots]

Yes I noted that. I think he was speaking about beliefs being formed regarding non-falsifiable ideas.

Essentially if it cannot be falsified then it can be called a religion and religion does not necessarily have to have a god idea at the helm.

It could just as easily be a brain.

I actually think we are pretty far along in falsifying God. Not in the mathematical sense, but in the courtroom, "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense. The more of the world we explore and do not find God (nor a use for the idea), the more we can come to doubt there's any God to find. There's just no place to put Him anymore.