Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Leumas]

[snip]....
Clearly the logical conclusion is that "God" is most likely a fictional entity.

A positive atheist is just someone who accepts this conclusion.

And there is a compelling reason for that .... it is called Practical Realism

.....

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.

.....

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.

 

[Navigator]

So do you believe in a full body resurrection then?

I don't believe in anything.

Where do the souls go from the day they die until the body is resurrected upon Jesus' return? Is there a holding pattern around heaven stacking those souls until their bodies catch up with them on judgment day?

Isn't that a question for christian type theists?

 

[Navigator]

And I am sure the makers of the Twilight Saga also "took the things which they prefer from the idea of that god Vampire, and discarded the rest."

So does that mean that Vampires exist?

Why are you dancing around answering the argument with this silly stuff?

You brought up the evil in relation to that particular god idea, and I told you there was also good in relation to that particular god idea.

I also gave a sensible reason as to why that most likely became the case.

But whatever. Your position thus seems to be that you don't mind god ideas as long as they don't contain evil acts or commands which provoke evil expression.

 

[Daylightstar]

I don't believe in anything.
...

Anything? Nothing at all?
How about for instance non corporeal consciousness?

E.T.A.:And this:

...
The reason why the universe does exist is for consciousness to discover.
...

 

[Lithrael]

Myths are not always about trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. They are like metaphor.

Yes, but that's not relevant to what I was trying to get at. What I mean is that if you put an allegory in a religious text (or a forwarded email) many people will take that allegory as literal truth. The properties of the allegory itself don't change depending on whether everyone believes it (mistaking it for literal truth) or nobody believes it (understanding it as metaphor).

Certainly I can take the biblical myth of creation and understand it as a way of trying to explain an irrational position. Consciousness is trying to explain its position in relation to the universe.

You are using a lot of words in ways I am not used to seeing them used.

The main thing I actually object to (in the list of godly attributes) is the 'superhuman ability/desire to judge/punish/reward humans' part.

Do you object to these attributes [apart from the superhuman bit] in relation to humans doing these things to one another? Also, is it the superhuman bit which disturbs you the most, especially if you can agree that humans judging, and punishing and rewarding are okay thing to do?

Let me clarify. Of course humans judge/punish/reward one another. Very broadly, every social interaction is loaded with these things. I object to it as a 'god' attribute (alongside superhumanity) because of this. It smacks of human projection ('sky daddy') and so seems both fictitious and preposterous.

But isn't something that looks to you as making sense, therefore important to you?

If I see that making a belief out of what evidence is available and how that evidence is chosen to be interpreted, doesn't make a lot of sense (I understand the compulsion to believe but it still doesn't make sense) I am able to decide that this is important. Important enough not to be influenced by being bullied or otherwise coerced into joining the ranks of those who believe the evidence is ample enough to form beliefs and therefore have license to ridicule and otherwise pass judgement.

As opposed to you with your licence to pass judgement on me as being a member of a rank of credulous, insensible bullies who cannot bear any disagreement? I still don't understand your use of important in this context.

It looks to me like I've run across a cattle grate and you've stopped at the edge of it and proceeded to tell me that my running across it is too presumptuous.

But are we cattle? No. Your use of cattle grate is inappropriate. It definitely implies that you see my position as one of a sheep who is part of the flock of fearful and that you have stopped being one of the mob and shown that the cattle grate is an illusion.

Ugh. OK, poor choice of words. Pretend I said 'rocky stream' or something instead. Just generally something crossable. I'm still hung up on the whole 'gods are not like other imaginary things' thing. I was thinking along the lines of crossing minor obstacles in a path as a metaphor for reaching (provisional) conclusions, and we'd both have no problem with a bunch of minor obstacles, but then there'd be one more minor obstacle that I can't see as fundamentally different but you don't want to cross it and I don't understand.

Why not? Are we not all god(s)? How do we move mountains? How do we fly? How do we do what we do with what we have? Are these thing not a form of 'super human' ability. No of course not. At least not in the way you are suggesting. But they are definitely examples of human achievement that in some ways even perhaps out perform some idea of god(s).

Yet at the same time, they can be as reckless and thoughtless as some of the ideas of god(s) so far.

So why not call humans 'gods'?

Because that isn't what I'm talking about and that's not what I mean when I use the word and that's not what I mean when I say I think there aren't any gods.

I'm not an atheist because I have a thing about gods, I'm an atheist because I have a thing about implausible things in general.

Well I am only saying that being an atheist is about lacking belief in god(s) rather than implausible things in general.

Sure, but I'm only an atheist because of the overlap in the Venn diagram. The circle for 'people who don't believe implausible things' is, as far as I can see, a smaller circle entirely inside the circle for 'people who don't believe in gods.' The circle for 'people who don't believe in implausible things but make an exception for gods' seems to me to be a totally different circle. That is, I guess, my whole point.

I'm assuming you would draw it with one circle poking slightly out the side of the other instead, and call the sticky-out bit 'people who don't believe in implausible things but don't think gods are implausible.'

The problem here is that I don't see how anyone can think gods aren't implausible without really torturing the meaning of the words 'gods' and/or 'implausible.'

But then, if human beings are the nearest things to actual god(s) that are evident, then lack of belief would no longer apply. We would simply know.

What? I really don't follow this.

So in one sense, [it can be argued] the idea of god(s) is a natural enough thing and human consciousness has been using these ideas to project itself onto/into as a way of eventually coming to the understanding that it - at the very least - Human consciousness is a god in the making. An idea of god.

Sure, if you like, but also not at all what I am talking about.

If your idea of god is plausible then you've literally defined yourself out of the equation as far as I'm concerned.

Please do explain your assertion.

Explain what? My working definition for a god is skimmed from common ideas about gods and includes things that are deeply implausible. If someone has an idea they are calling a god, but it's plausible, then I personally would neither call it a god nor conclude without further examination that it doesn't exist.

 

[Pup]

I don't believe in anything.

You don't believe that it's better not to believe in anything?

 

[Leumas]

I don't believe in anything.

What about your belief that the existence of the universe is illogical?

What of your belief that the existence of consciousness is irrational?

What about your belief that science cannot answer questions in general let alone your illogical and irrational ones?

What of your belief that continuing on searching for a god delusion is more likely to yield answers than science ever would.

.....
The existence of consciousness in an illogical universe is irrational
......

.....
The universe itself is illogical and consciousness existing within it is irrational.
....

.....
Each to their own in that regard. For me I am not interested in giving up my interest in cookies. I like to examine different ideas of god(s) because the universe is illogical and it is irrational that I am in it. So the idea of god(s) at least may give me something to think about which science simply doesn't offer.
......

What I chose to do is to keep the question of gods open as part of the overall process. That is more philosophy than science, but philosophy serves a part of our overall consciousness which science isn't able to.

If it were, then there would be no need for philosophy. Science would have all the answers which would show why the existence of the universe is logical and why it is not irrational that consciousness (human in our case) exists within it.
.....

 

[Navigator]

That assumes it's possible to discover this reason.
I see no reason to make that assumption.

That doesn't matter. Consciousness has no option but to create reasons otherwise it remains in an irrational position.
In creating reasons it is trying to make the universe a logical thing for consciousness to exist in

Or churches, or priests, or prayer sessions, or people praying for their children to be healed instead of taking them to the doctor, ect.

So without religion there will only be those who trust the official authorities in relation to drugs and entrust the lives of their children with these trustworthy specialists?

So there will an end to that kind of dishonesty and corruption in relation to an end to not being able to trust those who lead you?
Is this refusal to taking children to a doctor an epidemic of some kind? Are there large numbers of individuals doing this? If not, why are you even bringing this into the discussion as argument? Are millions of theists doing this thing?

Are there atheists who do not trust their children with medical authorities?

Fixed that for you.

So it would be exactly the same. Just without any religious motivation.

Not really, that's merely the effect it would have on the world if everyone held that opinion.

Nothing much has changed except humans now just do all the crap to each other without any need to be doing it in the names of any ideas of god(s).

Positive atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. It doesn't inherently require the people who hold that position to want to change other people's opinion on the subject.

Well what is the difference then? Are you and many others in this forum using the position to try and get people more motivated to require the people who hold that position to want to change other peoples opinions on 'the subject'?

That would probably fall under the heading of antitheism.

Nobody has ever claimed it could.

So why the fuss? Why the name-calling? Why the need to make threads such as this one?
Are the people doing so antitheists? Actually just glancing at the link your provided, it seems this might be the case.

I'm not aware of how positive atheism alone would provide motivation for any of these things.

Which is perhaps why antitheism is involved in the process?

What competition?

What exactly are positive atheist competing against everyone else for?

Are you not aware of how human community presently works?
Anyway it is not about specifically competing against everyone, but against theism.

Okay, I'll tell you again. A reduction in religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism and war.

So it could be said then that PAs do not wish for any ides of god(s) to be mixed up and associated with human atrocities?

Negative atheism would have the same effect.

Then why "Positive vs. Negative Atheism"?

I'm not aware that holding a particular opinion on a single subject counts as joining a movement.

So no logical reason can be given then? Therefore what logical reason is there for a thread called "Positive vs. Negative Atheism" or for pointing out differences in a derogatory fashion?

In what way does it serve you better?

It allows me to approach and examine without belief motivating or influencing the way I do so.

And in what way does refraining from reaching a conclusion count as "more logical"?
Does it count as "more logical" to not apply logic in order to reach a conclusion?

If you want logic, examine the facts:

• People claim a powerful supernatural entity referred to as "God" exists.
• There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that a "God" exists.
• There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that anything supernatural exists.
• Many of the claims associated with God (such as the creation myths) directly conflict with available evidence.
• Humans have a long history of inventing, and often believing, stories about non-existent supernatural events and entities (such as fairies, dragons, ect).

Clearly the logical conclusion is that "God" is most likely a fictional entity.

"God" who?

A positive atheist is just someone who accepts this conclusion.

But doesn't the position claim that god(s) do not exist? This is more than accepting the conclusion that "God" (whomever you are referring to here) is "most likely a fictional entity."

"Most likely a fictional entity" ≠ "Does not exist."

One is a statement of not being sure one way or the other but leaning toward it probably not being the case.

The other is a definite statement of belief.

 

[Navigator]

I don't believe in anything

How about for instance non corporeal consciousness?

Nope.

You don't believe that it's better not to believe in anything?

Nope. I know it is better not to believe in anything.

What about your belief that the existence of the universe is illogical?

That is not belief. I have no thing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?

What of your belief that the existence of consciousness is irrational?

In relation to existing in this universe, again - it is not belief. I have no thing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?

What about your belief that science cannot answer questions in general let alone your illogical and irrational ones?

What is that even supposed to mean? You will need to quote me specifically on that or I cannot answer.

What of your belief that continuing on searching for a god delusion is more likely to yield answers than science ever would

Being interested in ideas of god(s) is not belief that such a thing may provide answers that science cannot provide. It is acknowledging that science cannot provide answers so I might as well look elsewhere.

I may not find the answers, but I might find things which can assist in my contribution to the process of consciousness within the universe.

But certainly I am not compelled to do this through a belief that it can. I have no idea as to if it can or can't but I do know that science isn't useful for this.

What can science do in relation to human consciousness and the universe? I already worked out how far it possibly can take human consciousness in relation to the universe and that place is illogical.

 

[Pup]

You don't believe that it's better not to believe in anything?

Nope. I know it is better not to believe in anything.

Seems that's just a semantic ploy to avoid saying you believe in anything. But if you allow it for yourself, seems you need to allow it for others. If a positive atheist says he doesn't believe that god(s) don't exist, he knows god(s) don't exist, then all the accusations of atheists' dogmatic belief fade away, just as you say you have no dogmatic belief.

 

[Dani]

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.

Non sequitur.

Being a positive atheist is a position related to a particular matter: the existence of God.

 

[stevea]

Tell me why the universe exists and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical.

"Why? is an ill-formed question that admits no sufficient answer.

Most of us learn this around 5-6yo when we start a cycle of iterative "why?" questions in response to any random question; usually aimed at Mom, and the cycle ends when we've irritated her enough. These badly formed questions are the stuff of common shalllow philosophical paradoxes (Alan Watts discusses this a bit, wrt to nonsense like the mind-body paradox).

There is no list of assertions that can be made that can ever answer a broad "why" question without also leading to further "why" questions.

Then you ask that this of the property of existence - which is by definition a property of the universe.

Here:
Q: why [does] the universe exists ?
A: It's the nature of the universe to exist.

and you will tell me also why the existence of the universe is logical.

No I didn't.

"Logical" describes a relationship between abstract assertions. It is fundamentally impossible to make any such assertions about a physical universe that we can only know by observation.

Properties like existence,mass, charge, spin are entirely unrelated to logic. There can never be any logical argument that asserts existence or non-existence (tho contradictory properties like particle/wave are hard to comprehend).

The existence of consciousness in an illogical universe is irrational

Yet here we are ! By observation consciousness and the universe both appear to exists. Your attempts are rationalizing observation is based on your fundamental misunderstanding of what logic means. There is a difference between "irrational, and "don't comprehend".

Show me why consciousness existing in this universe is rational.

The concept of rationality or logic is fundamentally inapplicable.

Like the computer in "Dark Star" you need to study phenomenology and perhaps the British Empiricism ideas.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, but that's not relevant to what I was trying to get at. What I mean is that if you put an allegory in a religious text (or a forwarded email) many people will take that allegory as literal truth. The properties of the allegory itself don't change depending on whether everyone believes it (mistaking it for literal truth) or nobody believes it (understanding it as metaphor).

I understand this. Myths are not read as myths but as actual things. I cannot help how other individuals interpret myth or how they chose to accept it as.

You are using a lot of words in ways I am not used to seeing them used.

Yes. What I said was this:

"Certainly I can take the biblical myth of creation and understand it as a way of trying to explain an irrational position. Consciousness is trying to explain its position in relation to the universe."

What that says is this:

Human consciousness is in an irrational position (it has evolved in this universe which is essentially one god-almighty explosion) and it is within this explosion human consciousness has found itself to be.
Such is the case, it is an irrational position for something which is able to say "I AM" or "I exist" to be within.

There is no sense to it.

Therefore - naturally enough - human consciousness makes up stories in which to give it a sense of the rational, and god ideas are part of that natural process.
Also, in relation to the 'one god' idea (introduced or maybe popularized through the Jewish aspect of human consciousness) this god idea reflected both extremes of human behavior (human behavior also reflecting the irrationality of its position in the universe) and thus I also understand that the notion of good and evil is portrayed within the mythology of that particular god idea.

Let me clarify. Of course humans judge/punish/reward one another. Very broadly, every social interaction is loaded with these things. I object to it as a 'god' attribute (alongside superhumanity) because of this. It smacks of human projection ('sky daddy') and so seems both fictitious and preposterous.

Okay - I find that to be a very good clarification. i simply have taken it one step more. (or maybe a few steps but whatever) - What is NOT fictitious (but may still be preposterous ) is the fact that the projections are coming from something which does really exist. From human consciousness.

I see it this way. Human consciousness is evolving and doing so in an overwhelming position (within the universe) and thus having no outside 'parent' to explain things to it, Human Consciousness has no choice but to make things up as it goes along and in doing so naturally creates myth.

In projecting itself into those myths it is essentially (and somewhat unconsciously) showing itself to be the very god(s) it is projecting itself into - apart from the superhuman stuff (which may be more of a far reaching projection - something it aspires to become) but anyway - it can only project from its own somewhat extremely limited position. it is a learning thing...a thing learning. Sky Daddy and Earth Mommy are simply (and essentially) something human consciousness never had. It has only ever had human parents, which essentially are just children who grew up in the same circumstance - having no outside parental guides so thus forced to make things up as they went along.

So when i use the expression Human Consciousness, I am speaking about the whole thing. What it is doing is working within a constant flow of birth and death of its instruments (human bodies) and during the time of life, it is accumulating knowledge through experience and recording that information. the birth and deaths are starts and stops but in relation to the whole life is flowing and doesn't stop and start.

In this way human consciousness is in a continual stream of living and taking with it the information of experience it has accumulated.

In this way it is teaching itself. It has no Sky Daddy and essentially is the Earth Mommy.

As opposed to you with your licence to pass judgement on me as being a member of a rank of credulous, insensible bullies who cannot bear any disagreement?

I cannot agree that I have passed judgement on you in relation to that. Generally I take people as they express themselves toward me/about me.
So if I have said as much to you, it will be because you expressed this attitude.

I still don't understand your use of important in this context.

If anything at all makes sense to you, do you not consider that thing to be important to you?

Ugh. OK, poor choice of words. Pretend I said 'rocky stream' or something instead. Just generally something crossable. I'm still hung up on the whole 'gods are not like other imaginary things' thing. I was thinking along the lines of crossing minor obstacles in a path as a metaphor for reaching (provisional) conclusions, and we'd both have no problem with a bunch of minor obstacles, but then there'd be one more minor obstacle that I can't see as fundamentally different but you don't want to cross it and I don't understand.

Hmmm. Perhaps your position is still jumping streams while I am flowing with the whole river of human consciousness? I chose not to cross tributaries but to jump into the main river.

Because that isn't what I'm talking about and that's not what I mean when I use the word and that's not what I mean when I say I think there aren't any gods.

Yes I know this. But god ideas are god ideas. The nearest thing to resembling any god in this universe is Human Consciousness. aka Earth Mommy.

Sure, but I'm only an atheist because of the overlap in the Venn diagram. The circle for 'people who don't believe implausible things' is, as far as I can see, a smaller circle entirely inside the circle for 'people who don't believe in gods.' The circle for 'people who don't believe in implausible things but make an exception for gods' seems to me to be a totally different circle. That is, I guess, my whole point.

I'm assuming you would draw it with one circle poking slightly out the side of the other instead, and call the sticky-out bit 'people who don't believe in implausible things but don't think gods are implausible.'

The problem here is that I don't see how anyone can think gods aren't implausible without really torturing the meaning of the words 'gods' and/or 'implausible.'

Well if I have already in this post clarified my position, I needn't repeat myself.

The bottom line is that the evolution of Human Consciousness created god ideas specifically as a projection of itself...not only as it was, but as it one day hoped to evolve into.
This - at least from our individual perspectives and contributions to this evolution - is an ongoing process and it is most appropriate to consider that regarding Human Consciousness as some kind of 'god' ,might be torturing the meaning of the ideas of 'what god(s) are' but to be fair, Human Consciousness is not there yet (in relation to some of the ideas which it has thus far projected) but has already surpassed other god idea projections created from earlier/ancient times.

The best I can say is that Human Consciousness is a god in the making.

Having said as much, I am under the impression it is going to make it.

(I have no reason to believe that it won't)

What? I really don't follow this.

If Human Consciousness is the nearest example which exists in the universe which can be regarded as a god or at least as relevant idea of a god - , then we don't have to believe at least one god exists in this universe. We will simply know this is the case.

Sure, if you like, but also not at all what I am talking about.

What are you talking about then? How I should jump and be on your side of the stream?

Explain what? My working definition for a god is skimmed from common ideas about gods and includes things that are deeply implausible. If someone has an idea they are calling a god, but it's plausible, then I personally would neither call it a god nor conclude without further examination that it doesn't exist.

So in order to maintain your position on the 'other side of a stream', you need all ideas of god(s) to be implausible and unable to be seen to exist?

 

[Navigator]

Seems that's just a semantic ploy to avoid saying you believe in anything. But if you allow it for yourself, seems you need to allow it for others. If a positive atheist says he doesn't believe that god(s) don't exist, he knows god(s) don't exist, then all the accusations of atheists' dogmatic belief fade away, just as you say you have no dogmatic belief.

I have no problem with that. So is this the case?

 

[Navigator]

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.

Non sequitur.

So are you stating that being a positive atheist has nothing to do with judging other positions as inferior to the position of positive atheist?

Being a positive atheist is a position related to a particular matter: the existence of God.

According to you this appears to be the understanding. According to others it is not. According to others, being in that position gives a person the right to call atheists who don't share the position as being such things as weakling atheists. Fence sitters. Gutless middle-grounders. Religious apologists. etc...

You know this if you have been reading the posts in this thread.

So is that the case or not? Is being a positive atheist a position related to a particular matter: the existence of God as you say and if so, are such derogation expressions an optional aspect of the position? Acceptable and allowable.

I ask because I do not see where you have objected to fellow PAs using such expression, so am unsure of what it is you are trying to say here in regard to the position.

 

[Pup]

I have no problem with that. So is this the case?

Speaking for myself, yes. It's evidence-based knowledge the same way I'd say I know there are no mermaids. Of course if one wants to quibble, there are always ways to do so, with the brain-in-a-vat hooked up to a virtual reality machine being the trump card that proves no one might be able to know anything about reality. But for normal definitions of "know," absolutely yes.

 

[Dani]

If you want logic, examine the facts:

• People claim a powerful supernatural entity referred to as "God" exists.
• There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that a "God" exists.

• 
  
  At this point I'm already a positive atheist. If one consistently applies Occam's razor, that's enough. The same goes for the idea that we're a brain in a vat or that gravity is caused by undetectable, supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum.
  
  

  [*]There is no verifiable unambiguous evidence that anything supernatural exists.

  
  Occam's razor again. The supernatural doesn't exist.
  
  

  [*]Many of the claims associated with God (such as the creation myths) directly conflict with available evidence.

  
  So I logically deduce that those claims are not true. This is only consistent with my previous conclusion.
  
  

  [*]Humans have a long history of inventing, and often believing, stories about non-existent supernatural events and entities (such as fairies, dragons, ect).

So I inductively conclude that God is another such story.

Clearly the logical conclusion is that "God" is most likely a fictional entity.

A positive atheist is just someone who accepts this conclusion.

Yes.

Nice post.

 

[Daylightstar]

I don't believe in anything

How about for instance non corporeal consciousness?

Nope.
...

You do.

...
That is not belief. I have no thing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?
...
In relation to existing in this universe, again - it is not belief. I have no thing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?
...

You have no thing to show your 'conclusions' to be correct. You have nothing but belief.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I may not find the answers, but I might find things which can assist in my contribution to the process of consciousness within the universe.

But certainly I am not compelled to do this through a belief that it can. I have no idea as to if it can or can't but I do know that science isn't useful for this.

What can science do in relation to human consciousness and the universe? I already worked out how far it possibly can take human consciousness in relation to the universe and that place is illogical.

Your path to 'illogical' is irrational.

 

[Dani]

So are you stating that being a positive atheist has nothing to do with judging other positions as inferior to the position of positive atheist?

Not any more than any other individual that has a particular opinion on the matter. We all think our own opinions are right.

According to you this appears to be the understanding. According to others it is not. According to others, being in that position gives a person the right to call atheists who don't share the position as being such things as weakling atheists. Fence sitters. Gutless middle-grounders. Religious apologists. etc...

Well, take it with them, not with the concept of positive atheist. If two short guys with moustache yell at you on the street, do you think all short guys with moustache would do the same?

You know this if you have been reading the posts in this thread.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any particular link?

In general, I see many reasonable posts here.

So is that the case or not? Is being a positive atheist a position related to a particular matter: the existence of God as you say and if so, are such derogation expressions an optional aspect of the position? Acceptable and allowable.

Being derogatory is optional of any position. As is being nice.

About anything.

I ask because I do not see where you have objected to fellow PAs using such expression, so am unsure of what it is you are trying to say here in regard to the position.

What particular expression are you referring to?