Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Navigator]

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

'Why' is a relevant question given the circumstance and the ability to ask questions in the first place.
That no sufficient answer is thus far been forth-coming, the nature of human consciousness it to continue becoming what it is becoming and "why not' will suffice while the quest continues. 'Why' is still on the agenda. Indeed, 'Why' is being enacted out in a 'make it up as we go along' fashion.

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).

That's kinda cute. However, we should all know that without the 'why' science would never have evolved as it has.
Asking a parent to explain 'why' human consciousness exists in this universe is not going to get any answer apart from perhaps philosophical/mythological ones.
A scientific parent might give an explanation such as 'just because'.

However, any child who would ask such a question is worth taking notice of.

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.

Yes. So therefore the existence of consciousness within this universe remains illogical. Illogical to what? To human consciousness of course. (what else is there which could even ask such a question?)

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

What?

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

The answer is not logical. Only if it is known that the universe created itself can that answer be even slightly more logical.

If the universe has always existed, then it cannot be said that it is the nature of the universe to exist.

It could only be said that it is the nature of the universe to have always existed.

That answer also cannot be logical for something which has not always existed. Human consciousness cannot find logic in such an answer.

So either way, the existence of the universe is illogical.

Even if it were possible to be outside the universe...lets say observing it as an explosion within a container as it expands, and even if it was known how it was produced in that container, while that could be seen to be logical "it is an explosion we created in a contained environment through a process we developed" it can only be seen to be logical by consciousness observing it in that way.
Consciousness observing it from within it, cannot show any logic for its existing and even if it was accepted that it was created by a consciousness outside it (as in the metaphor I gave) any reason why that consciousness within it, exists within it, would still be illogical to the consciousness within it.

No I didn't.

I know that. I want to know if you can give me a logical reason for the existence of the universe.

"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.

Thus human consciousness most naturally creates ideas of god(s) in order to make a go of possibly finding a logical answer.

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).

These are objects which science is able to probe. Questions of this nature (as to how they exist) are scientific questions.

Questions as to why consciousness exists are not questions science can answer.

Science can give theories as to how consciousness came into existence, but why consciousness exists...it is unable to answer.

therefore , ideas of god(s).

Ideas of god(s) are a logical step in relation to questions of why in relation to consciousness wanting to understand and know itself.

Why is consciousness in this universe? Until there is an answer (and human consciousness will continue to ask the question as long as it is able to) the position remains illogical, and irrational.

Yet here we are !

Yes! Essentially in the middle of a super vast explosion! Did God fart and the Devil light it?

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".

So now we proceed down the yellow dic(tionary) road.

So tell me. Do you 'comprehend' why human consciousness exists in this universe and is you answer rational?

Because if your answer is 'we just do' then I see no rationality in that. We exist in the middle of a super vast explosion 'just because'.

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.

So there is more to it than 'just because'? Or are we just theorizing?

 

[Brian-M]

That doesn't matter. Consciousness has no option but to create reasons otherwise it remains in an irrational position.

Wait, you're saying that it's irrational to admit that you don't know the answer instead of just making something up?

I think it would be more rational for the conscious being to admit when it doesn't know. After all, it's hardly rational to go around creating stories to explain things you don't understand, and then believe that those stories are real.

In creating reasons it is trying to make the universe a logical thing for consciousness to exist in

In what was does our understanding of the reasons for the existence of the universe affect the logical nature of the universe?

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?

Maybe not millions, but definitely many thousands.

For example, the "Christian Science" church has around 400,000 members worldwide, and one of their core beliefs is that all illness can be cured by prayer. They've been the subject of many court cases resulting of deaths of children from curable illness.

Another example, Jehovah's Witnesses consider blood transfusions to be against their beliefs, even when necessary to save lives.

Even members of mainstream branches of Christianity sometimes attempt to cure their children with prayer instead of medicine, with lethal results.

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

There are definitely some, but it's almost certain that they'd be a far smaller proportion of atheists than the proportion of theists who don't provide their children with medical care.

Less religion means fewer reasons to avoid taking children to a doctor.

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

And without the consequences of people acting on their religious motivations.

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).

The thing that has changed is that we're removing harm done for religious reasons.

Well what is the difference then?

The difference is that removing the religious causes of harm results in less harm done overall.

Here's a simple analogy...

One cause of falling down stairs is due to loose objects being left on the steps. Removing loose objects from steps everywhere won't prevent all falls, as that's not the only cause of people falling down the stairs, but it would reduce the total number of falls down stairs, preventing many injuries and deaths.

In this analogy, religious beliefs are the loose objects.

So why the fuss? Why the name-calling?

Assigning a label to a position is hardly name-calling. It's part of identifying and defining the positions held, so that we can talk about these things more clearly.

Anyway it is not about specifically competing against everyone, but against theism.

Competing for what? Not believing in God doesn't consume any additional resources that believers in God would otherwise require.

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?

It's preventing the human atrocities that would otherwise be caused by God beliefs that's important.

Then why "Positive vs. Negative Atheism"?

Because they're distinctly different positions.

The fact that it'd make no practical difference in the specific hypothetical scenario you presented in which everyone is an atheist is beside the point. We don't live in that hypothetical world.

So no logical reason can be given then?

I'd say that there is no logical reason for joining any non-existent movement.

Therefore what logical reason is there for a thread called "Positive vs. Negative Atheism" or for pointing out differences in a derogatory fashion?

The reason for the thread is to clarify the different viewpoints, and examine the different logical reasons for holding those viewpoints, and the different conclusions and actions that result from the differences those viewpoints in a world where theism has a significant impact on society.

I don't see any reason for doing so in a derogatory fashion.

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

And once you've approached and examined those beliefs, what good does it do you to continue to withhold beliefs?

The main reason for approaching and examining the beliefs is to weigh their relative merits and determine which one is more likely an accurate representation of reality.

If you refrain from that last step, it's a mostly pointless exercise.

"God" who?

Once again...

'God' who?

Yahweh of the Elohim.

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."

"God does not exist" would be the position of the gnostic positive atheist.
"I believe God does not exist" (eg, by concluding that God is "most likely a fictional entity") would be the position of the agnostic positive atheist.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

I brought it up in relation to you and Marplots' earlier objections to lumping gods in with myths and fictions. You guys said that apart from anything else, people are awfully fond of seriously believing in gods and they aren't awfully fond of believing seriously in fictions. I'm trying to explain why that doesn't seem compelling to me as a reason to consider them fundamentally different (in the sense of comfortably reaching conclusions in one case but withholding judgement in the other).

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

This simply doesn't follow; I don't understand what you mean. Making sense to me and being important to me aren't properties that are directly related. Most things that are important to me make sense, but they aren't important to me because they make sense.

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)

Oh, THAT's where you were going with this? I wish you'd just said so in the first place. Sure, if you like. It seems a little 'just so' but it's not the sort of thing I would argue against.

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?

You're phrasing this very weirdly. But more or less, yeah. If most ideas of gods were plausible and could be seen to exist then I wouldn't be an atheist. The heck would I be one for? It'd be like not believing in horses.

However I'm not going to be a preemptive theist on the basis that humanity may someday transcend to godhood.

 

[Navigator]

Wait, you're saying that it's irrational to admit that you don't know the answer instead of just making something up?

No.

I think it would be more rational for the conscious being to admit when it doesn't know. After all, it's hardly rational to go around creating stories to explain things you don't understand, and then believe that those stories are real.

In this situation it is rational to make things up. It is not rational to believe them. That is precisely why metaphor/myth is important.

In what was does our understanding of the reasons for the existence of the universe affect the logical nature of the universe?

What?
In creating reasons with metaphor/myth human consciousness is trying to make the universe a logical thing for consciousness to exist in.

Do you think Dolphin consciousness is doing the same or just enjoying the ride?

Maybe not millions, but definitely many thousands.

I wonder what that would look like in a graph.

For example, the "Christian Science" church has around 400,000 members worldwide, and one of their core beliefs is that all illness can be cured by prayer. They've been the subject of many court cases resulting of deaths of children from curable illness.

I think it is more than acceptable that they are brought before the courts. Obviously (or presumptuously) not all members of the "Christian Science" church adhere to this particular creed.

Another example, Jehovah's Witnesses consider blood transfusions to be against their beliefs, even when necessary to save lives.

Well there was a time when transfusions were giving people HIVs, where this reasoning would seem to have been the right one.
But since screening proceeeses have improved, well what then?

I don't give blood. I am okay with dying if it meant that I didn't contribute therefore shouldn't recovery.

What is the problem really? the children who don;t have a say? then the easy way around this is to give children the same rights as adults...however - poor dears, they have not yet developed the cognitive necessities in which to make such decisions. Rock and hard place. Perhaps then children should not be considered the property of those who breed them into existence? Ah tell that to every women who ever gave birth and see what happens.

Even members of mainstream branches of Christianity sometimes attempt to cure their children with prayer instead of medicine, with lethal results.

But even so, it is not an epidemic and is not likely to become one.

There are definitely some, but it's almost certain that they'd be a far smaller proportion of atheists than the proportion of theists who don't provide their children with medical care.

Less religion means fewer reasons to avoid taking children to a doctor.

I wonder if the doctors would even notice the difference in their income, should everyone decide to turn positive atheist.

I am not overly impressed with doctors and hospitals myself. Nonetheless, I do use them if I think I need to.
But so do many, many theists.... Am I right or am I right?

And without the consequences of people acting on their religious motivations.

Well that's a theory. I can't say I believe or doubt that human beings will arrange themselves so that the theory might be observed to be factual.
It seems to me that I am correct to 'let it be' the way it is, rather than hassle individuals because of their particular position which is not like my own.

The thing that has changed is that we're removing harm done for religious reasons.

That can be taken two ways. not to worry I express things like that sometimes.

But yes - I think you are saying (even though you are not saying this) that if we get rid of god(s) inspired silly decisions then we wont give any idea of god(s) a bad name. We stand up and be silly all by our selves without saying it was some 'god' which told us to.

The difference is that removing the religious causes of harm results in less harm done overall.

Hmmm....

Here's a simple analogy...

One cause of falling down stairs is due to loose objects being left on the steps. Removing loose objects from steps everywhere won't prevent all falls, as that's not the only cause of people falling down the stairs, but it would reduce the total number of falls down stairs, preventing many injuries and deaths.

In this analogy, religious beliefs are the loose objects.

All religious beliefs? I have to get an answer before I feel comfortable with yeaing or naying this analogy.

Assigning a label to a position is hardly name-calling. It's part of identifying and defining the positions held, so that we can talk about these things more clearly.

Hey I love that. What I don't appreciate are the kinds of labels which really do more damage to that idea than uphold it. a bit like those objects left on the stairs you mentioned.

Competing for what? Not believing in God doesn't consume any additional resources that believers in God would otherwise require.

Competing for minds. Competing for control over human consciousness. It is the most precious and valuable resource in the known universe.
Essentially it is having control over a god.

Did that sound too serious? Do you think maybe all this community competition is just about good ol' healthy productive social evolution?

A lot of it is - at least on the surface, but the "1%" who are in controlling positions may well see it very differently. It would pay to see things the way they do.

Individual consciousnesses are the number one resource to own. Everything else (including gold and diamonds) are a distant second.

Even your preoccupation with wanting to gather whoever you can into supporting the position you are most influenced by is an attempt at procuring the most vital resource in the known universe.

It's preventing the human atrocities that would otherwise be caused by God beliefs that's important.

Logically though - I really hope you understand me here - I can only surmise that you do NOT want god ideas to be associated with human atrocities.
However, that cannot BE the case, since your position is that you do not believe god(s) even exist.

So therefore, your argument is illogical.

Because they're distinctly different positions.

The fact that it'd make no practical difference in the specific hypothetical scenario you presented in which everyone is an atheist is beside the point. We don't live in that hypothetical world.

Yes but we do consistently hypothesis about that world. (and with excellent reason)

Even that they are distinctly different positions, how is that a problem? What is the problem? Why are they in opposition? (the 'vs' part)

I'd say that there is no logical reason for joining any non-existent movement.

I would agree. So you are saying what? That positive atheism is not a 'movement' which requires 'converts'? then what the frack is the OP even about?

The reason for the thread is to clarify the different viewpoints, and examine the different logical reasons for holding those viewpoints, and the different conclusions and actions that result from the differences those viewpoints in a world where theism has a significant impact on society.

Right soooo...what? The accusation that negative atheism does nothing more than encourage theism and theists to continue being theism and theists?

Is that it?

I don't see any reason for doing so in a derogatory fashion.

And yet you do not voice objection when this is done?

And once you've approached and examined those beliefs, what good does it do you to continue to withhold beliefs?

There is no 'once this is done I can therefore assume belief position. The whole point of not being tied to beliefs is that I am free to journey through observing various beliefs without the addition of the bias of my own beliefs interfering with and influencing my perceptions.

The main reason for approaching and examining the beliefs is to weigh their relative merits and determine which one is more likely an accurate representation of reality.

Reality has nothing to do with belief. It is what it is. Even that it is irrationa and illogical, we are within it regardless. forming any beliefs about it is pointless and detrimental to accurate evaluation.

If you refrain from that last step, it's a mostly pointless exercise.

If I refrain from thus forming beliefs, I am in a better position to form more accurate evaluation. Hardly a pointless exercise.

Once again...

"Yahweh of the Elohim."

Okay fine. We can focus on that particular idea. Firstly, The elohim thus are what? A particular species? Is Yahweh the king of that species?

Please elaborate...and if this is likely to venture away from the OP, do so by creating another thread and I will gladly participate in continuing this discussion there.

"God does not exist" would be the position of the gnostic positive atheist.
"I believe God does not exist" (eg, by concluding that God is "most likely a fictional entity") would be the position of the agnostic positive atheist.

Okay. Semantics, but nonetheless seemingly important..."god does not exist" is the exclamation of the OP thus..."There is no god." is an expression of a gnostic positive atheist which is different from a positive atheist which is different from a negative atheist. Stretch and yawn...time to cook dinner...

Thanks for your reply. It was very stimulating.

Nav

 

[Leumas]

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

....

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?
...

So what you are saying is that because you have nothing showing you that the universe is not illogical then you have no other choice but to conclude that therefore it must be illogical.

Now...let's just for the sake of argument disregard the utter nonsense of the statement... and go on from there to analyze your "logic".

Let's just have a look

I asked you: What about your belief that the existence of the universe is illogical?

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

So to explicate this a little more coherently

• You have come to the conclusion that the universe is illogical.
  
  Never mind the fact that this is a nonsense statement.​
• You base this conclusion on the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
  
  Have you pursued any and all evidence? Have you looked up and down in every nook and cranny? Have you asked every person you could to provide some evidence?
  
  Have you considered "all other ideas for the universe(s)" which might prove to be "logical" (never mind the fact this is a meaningless notion)?
  
  Have you considered the ILLOGIC of your own statement in the light of the numerous people who have presented you with the fact?​
• You thus BELIEVE that the universe is illogical because you have not been able to find evidence to the contrary and not because you actually found evidence that it is illogical.
  
  Let me explain this again...
  
  You have not found any ACTUAL EVIDENCE PROVING the universe to be illogical.
  
  You just have not found any evidence to the contrary.
  
  In other words you have no concrete final proof that the universe is illogical.
  
  It is just that you so far as far as you are concerned have not come across any EVIDENCE PROVING the universe to be not illogical.​
• You are POSITIVE now that the universe is illogical because SO FAR you "have no thing to show you otherwise".
  
  So you have become a positive a-logical-universe based only on lack of evidence for its logicality and not on evidence for its illogicality.​
• You conclude that there is no "other conclusion you can reach"
  
  Ok then.... so you do not think that sitting on the fence in this regards is the better position to hold?​

So in the light of all the above (never mind the nonsense of it all) why do you think the sitting on the fence position in regards to god(s) is the better one?

Have you been presented with evidence for god(s)?

Here let's have a look at your own words expressed in terms of gods and the roles reversed

You: What about your belief that gods do not exist?

Positive atheist: That is not belief. I have nothing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?
​

Can you see now why it is only logical to be a POSITIVE ATHEIST..... much like you are a positive a-logical-universe?

But in the light of the fact that you are unable to understand that the statement "the universe is illogical" is utter gibberish, I am not holding much hope for you to actually realize that being a strong/positive atheist is the more logical and PRACTICAL stance, even in your own estimation if only you could in fact understand what you yourself were saying.

 

[Brian-M]

In this situation it is rational to make things up. It is not rational to believe them. That is precisely why metaphor/myth is important.

Why is it more rational to make things up instead of admitting you don't know?

I don't see how creating fictional explanations for things we have no information about counts as either important or rational.

In creating reasons with metaphor/myth human consciousness is trying to make the universe a logical thing for consciousness to exist in.

Creating myths to explain the universe doesn't make the universe any more logical. What difference does it make to the universe what you believe?

Maybe you mean it creates the illusion of having an explanation for the universe (even though you know the explanation is almost certainly wrong)?

Well there was a time when transfusions were giving people HIVs, where this reasoning would seem to have been the right one.

You're saying that the right choice would be to select almost certain death over a small chance of catching a lethal disease?

(And what about the decades prior to the discovery of AIDS?)

But even so, it is not an epidemic and is not likely to become one.

I don't see how that's relevant. It was just one of several examples of what difference it would make to the world if people didn't have God beliefs. The fact that some people are dying because of it makes it a valid example regardless or numbers.

Well that's a theory. I can't say I believe or doubt that human beings will arrange themselves so that the theory might be observed to be factual.
It seems to me that I am correct to 'let it be' the way it is, rather than hassle individuals because of their particular position which is not like my own.

Who is suggesting that we hassle people for holding a different position?

But yes - I think you are saying (even though you are not saying this) that if we get rid of god(s) inspired silly decisions then we wont give any idea of god(s) a bad name. We stand up and be silly all by our selves without saying it was some 'god' which told us to.

It's more a case of preventing the silly decision in the first place.

Take the example people who pray over a sick child instead of taking them to a doctor because they believe that God will heal the child.

If they didn't believe in God, they probably wouldn't bother praying over the child. They'd most likely take the child to a doctor. And so without a belief in God many of those children wouldn't die.

All religious beliefs? I have to get an answer before I feel comfortable with yeaing or naying this analogy.

Hey, it was your scenario...

What kind of a world we would live in if everyone was a positive atheist?

I was just responding to what you asked.

Logically though - I really hope you understand me here - I can only surmise that you do NOT want god ideas to be associated with human atrocities.
However, that cannot BE the case, since your position is that you do not believe god(s) even exist.

So therefore, your argument is illogical.

I'm not particularly concerned about god ideas being associated with human atrocities. I'm more concerned with beliefs in gods being the cause of human atrocities.

Belief in gods exist regardless of whether or not god(s) exist, so there's nothing illogical about it.

So you are saying what? That positive atheism is not a 'movement' which requires 'converts'? then what the frack is the OP even about?

It's about positions of belief about the existence of God.

A movement is more than holding the same belief on a subject as someone else.

The accusation that negative atheism does nothing more than encourage theism and theists to continue being theism and theists?

Is that it?

No, it's more of a recognition of the fact that positive atheists are more likely to take action in improving the religion situation (such as education, raising public awareness and legal challenges) than negative atheists.

And yet you do not voice objection when this is done?

I don't recall any serious derogatory comments directed towards negative atheists that need correcting.

Okay fine. We can focus on that particular idea. Firstly, The elohim thus are what? A particular species? Is Yahweh the king of that species?

That's a matter of some scholarly debate.

One common interpretation is that "Elohim" means "gods" and that "Yahweh" is the name of a particular entity. Specifically, Yahweh is the god of Abraham, worshipped by the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons.

 

[Leumas]

.....

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.

The amazing thing is that I was about to search your previous posts so as to quote you specifically as you requested..... but then I realized that I already did in the very same post you were responding to..... but here it is again.

.....
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.
.....

What is even more astounding is that in the very same post in which you ask me to quote you specifically you go on to respond to my question

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

By saying further examples of what you ask me to quote specifically

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.

Let's have a look how many POSITIVE ASSERTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE you have made in the above quotes

• because the universe is illogical
• it is irrational that I am in it
• science simply doesn't offer
• which science isn't able to
• It is acknowledging that science cannot provide answers
• 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

How do you POSITIVELY know all this?

Have you in fact searched up and down into every nook and cranny?

Have you analyzed and studied any science at all let alone ALL OF IT?

Have you considered THE FUTURE and found out that EVEN IN THE FUTURE science will not answer anything?

But I must give you one thing.... you are right in thinking that science will not be able to answer YOUR questions..... you are right.... but not for the reason you think.

You are absolutely right.... science will never be able to answer YOUR questions because ..... wait for it..... wait..... wait.....now go for it click this

It is because your questions are NONSENSICAL.

Your questions are MEANINGLESS.

Your questions cannot be answered by science the same way science cannot answer a question that asks why D$%#G%^# is @#$GTR.

When you learn how to ask the right questions in a rational and logical manner and actually learn what logical and rational in fact mean then you might one day appreciate that science which has so far given numerous RATIONAL and LOGICAL answers to most of the questions of humanity (and even ones they never asked), may be a better avenue to answers than what humanity in its benighted preadolescence used to give ..... which is .... God Did It.

The God did it answer is an old benighted answer which has been proven time and again to have been the wrong answer in almost every avenue of SCIENCE (if only you knew what the word actually means).

But yet you seem to think that the God Did It answer will be more satisfying than saying "we don't know and we will keep on searching".

Realizing (perhaps??) that the current GOD(s) who had been claimed to have done it, in fact never did exist let alone did it, you are searching for ANOTHER GOD(s) to claim they did it for the questions that yet have not been answered.

And you seem to know the future because you are a POSITIVE A-SCIENCE-IST and you know for sure it will never answer..... but you are right.... because the questions you ask science to answer are meaningless nonsense .... perhaps those kinds of questions can indeed be answered by the equally nonsensical and meaningless answer.... God(s) did it!!!!

 

[marplots]

I brought it up in relation to you and Marplots' earlier objections to lumping gods in with myths and fictions. You guys said that apart from anything else, people are awfully fond of seriously believing in gods and they aren't awfully fond of believing seriously in fictions. I'm trying to explain why that doesn't seem compelling to me as a reason to consider them fundamentally different (in the sense of comfortably reaching conclusions in one case but withholding judgement in the other).

I think we could make a case either way. I could easily imagine someone telling me the same kinds of things about Leprechauns as they might about Jesus. For instance, a placeholder for "stuff that happened I don't understand" and "mysterious, unseen player" or even "magical being who can help me."

On the other hand, there's this whole community involvement thing with religious belief, arguably much more than any claimed underlying personal feelings about God or Jesus. There's group worship, politics and so on. The whole "God thing," with the worship element, feels enough different for me to award it another set of clothes. Like how house cats and tigers are similar, but where they differ, it's pretty important. (Or even dogs and wolves.)

 

[Pup]

I think we could make a case either way. I could easily imagine someone telling me the same kinds of things about Leprechauns as they might about Jesus. For instance, a placeholder for "stuff that happened I don't understand" and "mysterious, unseen player" or even "magical being who can help me."

On the other hand, there's this whole community involvement thing with religious belief, arguably much more than any claimed underlying personal feelings about God or Jesus. There's group worship, politics and so on. The whole "God thing," with the worship element, feels enough different for me to award it another set of clothes. Like how house cats and tigers are similar, but where they differ, it's pretty important. (Or even dogs and wolves.)

At certain times and places, though, actual belief (with peer pressure and social consequences) in a lot of those things was real. I think the point of the analogy is to show that such things stripped of their peer pressure and social context seem silly to believe in, yet with that context, they were as "real" as gods.

 

[marplots]

At certain times and places, though, actual belief (with peer pressure and social consequences) in a lot of those things was real. I think the point of the analogy is to show that such things stripped of their peer pressure and social context seem silly to believe in, yet with that context, they were as "real" as gods.

What you describe is the way I lean, but I have to consider I have an atheist/scientific bias. Because of my bias, I'm left as an outsider trying to see things through the eyes of believers and what they say.

Certainly, from a believer's point of view, the comparison between God and Leprechauns would seem unwarranted and even insulting. But yeah, as you say, peer pressure and context rule the day.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Questions as to why consciousness exists are not questions science can answer.
...

When it comes to being conscious, although not fully worked out, this is an area science can at least study since it has a so called phenomenon and part of the mechanism.
Science getting answers about 'being conscious' is, let's say, not an entirely unreasonable expectation.

When it comes to the esoteric 'consciousness', that's an area entirely for fantasy, irrational belief and charlatans.

 

[Lithrael]

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

(...)

I don't 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?

Here let's have a look at your own words expressed in terms of gods and the roles reversed

You: What about your belief that gods do not exist?

Positive atheist: That is not belief. I have nothing to show me otherwise. Therefore what other conclusion can I reach?
​

Is this where one goes /thread?

As far as the other issue of comparing God and Leprechauns, I'm still pretty confused. I can understand the social utility of not comparing them, in that it's going to insult more often than it's going to result in lively debate. But I don't understand the difference in terms of reaching or withholding conclusions about their existence. I understand being careful about one's own scientific bias (especially in light of all the things we know about how much the human psyche likes to jump to conclusions and to feel correct). But I don't understand how that means one can never conclude that what's going on is that the god believers have a very strong god belief bias (especially in light of all the things we know about how much the human psyche really really likes to have god beliefs).

Does that not boil down to 'well, so many people feel so strongly about it, how can I be so sure it's not true?'

And is that not total hooey?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Belief is merely the acceptance of a given proposition as true. There's nothing terribly complicated about that, and nobody should be treating it like a dirty word.

 

[Mister Agenda]

It's a mystery to me why that highlighted part is true. Why is God not a silly thing (from the believer's perspective) to believe in?

Because that's the one they believe in. The people who believed in the other things didn't think it was silly either, it's just that those things have fallen out of popularity.

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.

Yes the analogy would be pretty pointless if you compared God to a bunch of things the person you're talking to believes are real. But a lot of people used to believe in them.

But God is generally thought to exist, which is certainly a difference of note, isn't it?

It's the whole point of the analogy. All of the things on the list have the same amount of evidence, but only one of them is believed in, and who believes in it lines up almost perfectly with what is commonly believed in the region in which a person grows up. As used to be true of the others.

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."

The reasons people believe those things are not analogous to the reasons people believe in God or used to believe in fairies. The beliefs you're talking about are merely mistaken information which a little research can clear up.

But I can clear something up: the real reason you have a problem with the first analogy is that you think it's not nice to compare God with things that are now considered silly. You may be right, I've no problem with changing the comparison to Damballah and Vishnu, as long as I'm not talking to a Hindu or someone so New Age wishy-washy that they pretty much believe everything is real.

There are many more of these. If God is a false belief that many share, this would be a more proper category than things that are generally not believed in at all.

Except that the 'negative atheists' like me are not claiming that God is a false belief that many share. We're claiming that whether it is true or false, belief that God is real hasn't been rationally justified yet, any more (or less) than belief in Ganesha or Brahma has been justified.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You missed my point. It is easy to name call and to say 'so and so did it'. That is what we were making comment on.


Just because something is done 'in the name of anything' does not mean that theists are the only ones doing it. People can and do call themselves whatever it takes to get into positions of power and influence over the mob. You know this to be the case so stop hiding behind those silly whatever-they-are-collectively-called labeling links.

One could easily use the same justification to claim that some percentage of history's worst atheists were secretly theists out for power in an atheist organization, or even under cover to make the organization look bad or discredit the ideoology, if one were so inclined. I'm not sure of what use that sort of speculation on the unknowable is, beyond being a handy excuse to limit the culpability of the side with which you agree.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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)?

You did a little switch there. He only has to draw one dragon but has to draw all gods? Why? The ideas of imaginary dragons are just as limitless as the ideas of imaginary gods; even if there is a real dragon or god somewhere. Why the switch if you're not already aware of that. Dragons and gods are on the same page in this situation.

 

[Mister Agenda]

What is this OP about? Simply pointing out the differences between one type of atheist and another?

Explicit atheists are trying to convert others because they have this belief that the world would be better off if ideas of god(s) were absent.

That is why they create labels and argument fallacies and speak down at implicit atheists whom they think of as inferior and apologetic.

You seem to have explicit atheists mixed up with anti-theists. Just because one identifies as an atheist, it does not necessarily follow that they think no one should be a theist.

 

[Navigator]

I brought it up in relation to you and Marplots' earlier objections to lumping gods in with myths and fictions. You guys said that apart from anything else, people are awfully fond of seriously believing in gods and they aren't awfully fond of believing seriously in fictions. I'm trying to explain why that doesn't seem compelling to me as a reason to consider them fundamentally different (in the sense of comfortably reaching conclusions in one case but withholding judgement in the other).

The only comments I have made re this is that atheism has nothing to do with any other myths but god ones. God idea(s) are myths and metaphor specific to ideas of god(s).

This simply doesn't follow; I don't understand what you mean. Making sense to me and being important to me aren't properties that are directly related. Most things that are important to me make sense, but they aren't important to me because they make sense.

Well perhaps you would care to clarify then. What is something that makes no sense to you which you consider to be important?

Oh, THAT's where you were going with this? I wish you'd just said so in the first place. Sure, if you like. It seems a little 'just so' but it's not the sort of thing I would argue against.

Okay. So this might be something you see no particular importance in?

You're phrasing this very weirdly. But more or less, yeah. If most ideas of gods were plausible and could be seen to exist then I wouldn't be an atheist. The heck would I be one for? It'd be like not believing in horses.

However I'm not going to be a preemptive theist on the basis that humanity may someday transcend to godhood.

i don't think that is even necessary. No more necessary than taking the positive atheist position. that is why I don't. Because there is one idea of god which is at least the most plausible in the whole universe and explains adequately the myths and metaphor of most other god ideas.

So my position acknowledges this. I still lack belief in god(s) because there is no rationality in belief anyway, and I don't assume the position of declaring 'there are no god(s)".

I do not know if someone could be a theist (preemptive or otherwise) if they chose to agree to human consciousness being a god.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The way I explained it is that since there exists different types of atheists, that the explicit are in the business of trying to convert all atheists to become explicit atheists.

Your terminology is confusing. Implicit atheists are people who don't believe in God because they're unaware of the concept, like babies. "Implicit atheism is an absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it."--George H. Smith

Explicit atheists have considered the question of deities and rejected belief in them. An explicit atheist would have to explain to an implicit atheist what a god is before they could attempt conversion.

You seem to be conflating closeted atheists with implicit atheists and open atheists with explicit atheists.

I'm sure it's unintentional, and I think I can parse what you really mean most of the time, but it reads very oddly.

This (as I explained) includes those who are quietly explicit atheists. They simply let the more verbal/vocal members of their group to do the majority of the speaking.

It seems a tautology that the more vocal members of a group will do the majority of the speaking.

Thus they are supportive of these more verbal brethren of their ranks, through their silence.

Silence is no more support than it is consent. There are many reasons for someone to remain silent besides support of what is being said.

So in that sense when you say "Some are that way, some aren't." what is really being said is that some are more vocal than others, but all are equally explicit and support one another in selling the explicit atheist beliefs.

Selling them to whom? Closeted atheists? That is the silent atheists you're saying are 'equally explicit' already? What are the explicit atheist beliefs being sold of which you speak? Can they be summarized as: you don't need to be shy about identifying as an atheist?

 

[Mister Agenda]

I can be forgiven for thinking that a thread topic called "Positive vs. Negative Atheism" and the OP and in particular YOUR posts, are about looking down ones nose, slurring and name-calling against those who are not explicit atheist like you are.

I am skeptical that you are not trying to convert me. But perhaps that is my misunderstanding. Perhaps rather you know you cannot convert implict atheists so all that is left to you is to use expressions which are obviously derogative towards those positions you see as being beneath/inferior to your own.

Irrelevant haughtiness.

Whatever.

Here it seems like you're equating implicit atheism with negative atheism. In standard useage, you are an explicit atheist and a negative atheist. You have considered believing in a God or gods, and concluded that they are something in which you cannot believe, at this time. That makes you an expicit atheist. Considering that there is at least a small possibility that God or some gods are real anyway makes you a negative atheist.