Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, certainly. I will entertain examples that contradict this of course.



But you demonstrate my case. The reason we alter our views and identify false perceptions is by way of other perceptions. The slow motion replay is an excellent example of just this. I believe one experience until another changes my mind. But they are both the same currency.

What I do not commonly do (if ever) is believe all my experiences are suspect because experience is bad evidence. In fact, experienced "evidence" is usually apodictic. "Show me" is quite a powerful thing.

Your subjective personal experience which you cannot demonstrate to anyone else (a revelation, for instance) can arguably be a rational reason to believe what you believe. It might even be the nature of such experiences that they compel belief, and one could hardly be blamed for being convinced under that circumstance. But it's not a good reason for other people to believe your tale or believe that your interpretation of what happened to you is accurate, without needing to presume any dishonesty on your part.

We know that revelations often contradict each other. For some reason, those of us who accept the revelations of the past tend to be skeptical of current reports of revelations.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I have been thinking about what the difference may be between elves, vampires, Leprechauns and God, even if all those things are imaginary. Here's what I came up with as an analogy:

In mathematics we can have the concepts of really vast numbers, like a googleplex. We also have the concept of infinity. They are similar in that neither concept fits well in our heads - in the sense that they aren't "real" and are hard to manipulate. But although a googleplex is nearly/just as inconceivable as infinity, it's still limited. There's a googleplex plus one.

In that way, all the other mythical beings, while magical, are limited in some fashion. The slot reserved for "unlimited magic" goes to God. It's as if the element of mystery is an essential property. If you understand God, He's no longer God.

Which is why, I think, believers don't accept the "super-powerful alien" as equivalent to God. Give an alien all the powers of God we care to name, and it's still not God - because God isn't supposed to be captured in that way. God's a placeholder for "something beyond all the limits I can conceive." Which is a problem when we want to then say God exists, because everything we know that exists has some limit or other, the very property God is allergic to.

So use universe-creating gods instead of elves and vampires? It could get obscure, but I don't mind asking the theist why they don't believe in Atum, Brahma, Damballah, and Gitchi Manitou; but do believe in God.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Apart from agreeing with what marplots answered I would answer that any atheist group which accepts any form of derision and hatefulness and belief in superiority of position in relation to other positions (theist or atheist) is potentially a group who will support the notion of killing those others in relation to those others lack of belief in what they believe in, in regard to their notion of superior position.

That is the worst abuse of the slippery slope fallacy that I have ever seen. Every group thinks their position is the superior one, btw. If someone thinks a different position is superior, THAT's the one they will hold, isn't it?

If you think that this is extreme, I do agree but it is a case of being matter of fact.

As much of a fact as the statement 'any group of girl scouts is potentially a group who will support the notion of killing those others in relation to those others lack of belief in what they believe in, in regard to their notion of superior position." Because ANY group can be described that way, if you think utter speculation is a good enough reason to do so.

Such behavior is easily able to devolve into murderous intent and then actual murder, given the right conditions.

Nuns can devolve into bands of sadists given the right conditions.

One can hope that those conditions never actually eventuate, but history shows that belief systems can and do perpetuate such inhumanity.

Speaking of humanity, your blatant attempt to dehumanize atheists who have an attitude you don't appreciate is noted. Under the right conditions you could easily wind up murdering them.

The problem is not only such type ideas of god(s) but the belief in those ideas. The same applies to those who believe in anything strongly enough that they would even argue with derogative expression against anything questioning their preciously held beliefs.

You seem to have a beam in your eye there, Navigator.

The problem, is belief. Dearly beloved belief. Belief which requires one to deride others who do not share said same belief. Even against others who hold no beliefs.

Can you hold your own beliefs a little more lightly, please? You're starting to get scary.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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

There's no way to know because people being positive atheists is compatible with a host of other beliefs, some of which may be in oppostion to each other. The same is true of the kind of world we would live in if everyone was a postive theist. There could be positive theists for a thousand different concepts of God or gods.

It would be helpful if the OPoster and other PAs could say what kind of a world it would be if everyone was a PA.

Any answer but the world being just as diverse as it was when the world was chock full of positive theists, just in different ways, will be wrong, to varying degrees.

Come on and give it a go. Convince me why I should become a PA by telling me what kind of a world I would be helping to create.

What is the supposed motivation of 'PAs' to convince you? Why do you think they want you on board? I wouldn't.

 

[The Norseman]

So use universe-creating gods instead of elves and vampires? It could get obscure, but I don't mind asking the theist why they don't believe in Atum, Brahma, Damballah, and Gitchi Manitou; but do believe in God.

A common retort I've heard is that "they're all just different names for the same thing."

Nuns can devolve into bands of sadists given the right conditions.

True. I've seen the movies. Only for research purposes, of course.

What is the supposed motivation of 'PAs' to convince you? Why do you think they want you on board? I wouldn't.

Oh, don't be so hard on Navigator, there! He'd be great at barbeques!

 

[ynot]

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.

The debate is specifically regarding paranormal beliefs like religious beliefs. Not beliefs like the sun will rise in the morning.

Paranormal beliefs that are claimed to be knowledge/reality are dirty words to actual knowledge/reality.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Oh, don't be so hard on Navigator, there! He'd be great at barbeques!

What do you mean?

E.T.A.: Never mind, I misread.

 

[Navigator]

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.

Show me what is logical about the universe.

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".

That was a pointless statement.

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.

The universe is illogical. I haven't come to the conclusion that it is logical.

Never mind the fact that this is a nonsense statement.

It is your opinion, not a 'fact'.

You base this conclusion on the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

Well it is what it is. An almighty explosion. What logic can you see in an almighty explosion?

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?

I have seen no evidence or been offered any evidence. Do you have 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)?

I have considered the fact of the universe. It is an almighty explosion.
There is only one fact to consider. There are no 'ideas' necessary to attach to that fact. it isn't anything but an almighty explosion, with the accompanying ripple effects.

If consciousness did not exist within this almighty explosion, it would still be illogical. There is no reason for the almighty explosion. The universe is an unreasonable reality. There is no rational reason for it existing.

Have you considered the ILLOGIC of your own statement in the light of the numerous people who have presented you with the fact?

I must have missed the numerous people who have presented me with the fact. What fact is this? That the universe exists? I have answered that fact by agreeing with that fact. that fact does not make the existence of the universe logical.

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.

On the contrary. I am fully open to hear any and all reasons for the logic regarding the universe existing. At present I have in all my life never heard any such reason, no any reason which makes it a rational place for consciousness to exist within.

There is no rational reason for consciousness in relation to the universe.

Let me explain this again...

You have not found any ACTUAL EVIDENCE PROVING the universe to be illogical.

I have found no ACTUAL EVIDENCE PROVING the universe to be logical.

You just have not found any evidence to the contrary.

Thus I have not formed beliefs which I hold to regarding the question. It is open ended really, wouldn't you agree?

In other words you have no concrete final proof that the universe is illogical.

Same can be said for the belief in the none existence of god(s). I have no
concrete final proof that god(s) don't exist.
I have no concrete final proof that the universe is logical either. I have no
concrete final proof that god(s) do exist. ...thus my position as an atheist, rather than a positive atheist.

But sure, I am open to be shown by you any evidence that the universe is logical and that consciousness existing within it is rational.

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.[/INDENT]
[*]You are POSITIVE now that the universe is illogical because SO FAR you "have no thing to show you otherwise".

No. I am not positive. I am open to being shown that the universe existing is logical.
At present, no one and no thing has shown me that the universe existing is logical.
(I do note that you left the word 'existing' out. A minor thing perhaps.)

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.​

Like I just said. I am not positive (one way or the other) I am open to being shown evidence that the existence of the universe is logical, and that the existence of consciousness within it is rational.

[*]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?​

[/LIST]

I remain without belief one way or the other. I have not said I believe the universe existing is illogical and that consciousness existing within it is irrational.
Do you have evidence this is not the case?

Do I have evidence it is the case?

In relation to the universe existing, it is an almighty explosion. Nothing logical about that. it is what it is (an almighty explosion) but even without consciousness acknowledging it does indeed exist, there is no logical reason for it existing.

It just is.

There is no rational reason for consciousness existing inside the illogical existence of the universe. It just does.

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?

I don't really 'sit on the fence'. Occasionally I climb atop the walls of the opposing positions and shout down to the perspective inmates that there is a whole other world for them to explore on this side (the outside). A whole colorful 'grey area' that they cannot see because the walls of their beliefs prevent them from being able to do so.

'tis all.

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

That depends wholly what is meant by 'god(s) and on the idea of the particular god being presented.
So far the only idea which also has accompanying evidence supporting it, is that idea that human consciousness is one such idea of god .

However, human consciousness may not be regarded by some to be an actual idea of god.
This doesn't mean to say that human consciousness cannot be regarded as a legitimate idea of god.

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?

Except of course that I am not saying I am positive about the existence of the universe being illogical or that that the existence of consciousness within it is irrational.

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.

I understand perfectly what I am saying. You are positive god(s) don't exist, and I am not positive at all that this is the case. (therefore strictly speaking I am not negative about it but neutral about it. I am a neutral atheist.)

You thus believe that gods don't exist because although you are positive about it, you cannot actually prove that this is the case. You can only say 'see! there are none to be seen!' (Strange that. Usually this is one of the main ingredients regarding 'what constitutes a 'god'.)

I on the other hand can agree with one of the ingredients which commonly constitutes 'what is a god' (an invisible entity) and conclude that I thus cannot say one way (positively) or the other (negatively) that gods don't exist, therefore I am neutral.

In relation to both the existence of the universe and the existence of consciousness within the universe, both can be evidenced. Therefore while I am not positive that the existence of the universe is illogical, the fact that it can be seen to exist at least allows me to see that so far, there is no logic to its existing. If evidence turns up which provides this logic, I can then be positive. Until then, I have to remain neutral. No point in being negative about it. Either positive or negative assumes belief. Neutral assumes no belief.



In relation to the existence of consciousness within the universe, I can 'see' consciousness through the actions of the forms which are biological ...specifically the human form with individual human consciousness and I see that it is irrational for human consciousness to be existing in the universe.

Its existence in the physical universe is irrational. Again I am not positive that this is the case, thus am open to evidence which can show me that this is not the case, but until then I have to hold the neutral position. There is no point in being negative about it. Either positive or negative assumes belief. Neutral assumes no belief.

(I am beginning to wonder if a so-called 'negative atheist' even exists. Wouldn't a negative atheist really be a theist?)

 

[I Am The Scum]

All I need to do is get Navigator to out himself as a good guy with a gun, and a pro-gamer-gater, and then I can fill out my International Skeptics bingo card.

 

[Navigator]

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.

Admitting one doesn't know is more rational. I was simply explaining why the idea of god(s) exists in relation to the evolution of human consciousness.
Is it rational for a parent-less child to make things up rather than say 'I don't know'?
The evolution of human consciousness = a parent-less child. It is rational even in terms of survival to make things up rather than say 'I don't know'

This is one good reason why the existence of consciousness within the universe is irrational to begin with. It forces that consciousness to make things up as if making things up was a more rational thing to do, which it is in relation to survival. (admitting 'I don't know' might prove fatal - such is the nature of the universe in relation to planet earth - things die)

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?

It is irrational to believe in anything. Thus it is irrational to make things up for that reason. It might not be so illogical to make things up in relation to surviving in the universe or for finding some rational reason for existing in the universe. It is not like the universe is able to give reason and rational. It is not like there is any parent species giving any reason or rational to the human species.
So what making things up has done is provide some kind of temporary explanation which will help human consciousness continue wanting to exist in a situation which is irrational, while it continues to look for rational.

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 human consciousness has evolved enough to have secured a foot hold. Therefore it is more able able to let go the beliefs in the myths. It still needs to learn how to let go of belief altogether.

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?)

Some people don't have a problem with death and dying. obviously these types are happy to die rather than do the blood transfusion.

I don't give blood. Do you think therefore I should not receive it? I think that is fair enough. Others disagree. I don't have a belief which would demand no one gives me blood. the law says I am entitled to receive blood. Perhaps the law should demand that I also give blood if I am also able to receive blood.

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.

Some people are dying of all sorts of things. Maybe it isn't relevant. However, the small changes you speak of which might happen, don't persuade me that I should become a positive atheist.

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

Who is suggesting people are not being hassled to change their positions? What has been suggested is that people are being hassle because of their positions, by others who have a different position.
That is bad enough, wouldn't you agree?
It is not an unfair stretch of the imagination to assume that some of those doing the hassling are doing so to try and persuade those they are hassling to change their positions. Surely they are not all just hassling for the sake of waving their assumed superior position in the mocked faces of those being hassled?

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

Well as has been pointed out, those silly decisions aren't going to stop just because everyone assume the positive atheist position.

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.

Yes that argument has been presented. I just said that it is the same as not wanting that God to be associated with such practice. A little irony 'tis all.

But whatever. Is it wishful thinking on the part of the positive atheist to want to live in a world without ideas of god(s) anyway, and what real advantages are there to this?

What say the child saved, is then kidnapped and sold into the sex slavery trade, to which the positive atheist position has no influence over changing?

Is the child (in the opinion of the positive atheist) still in a better position being alive, than dead?

How does a world full of positive atheists prevent the sex slave problem?

if there are no more theists, is there then such a thing as positive atheists?

If so, are positive atheists immune from being involved in the sex slave 'industry'?

Really it is about significant changes. Positive atheists want an end to theism. How is that significantly going to change the world?

Show me that and I will contemplate changing my position to positive atheism.

In the mean time, all in all the world is as it is for better or for worse, and I have no reason to think becoming a positive atheist is going to change that or even make me a better person than I already am, which is probably more to the point.

Hey, it was your scenario...

No, it was your analogy.

I was just responding to what you asked.

And you gave your analogy. I then asked. "What kind of a world we would live in if everyone was a positive atheist?"

Generally speaking. How significant would the changes be? i think there would be no real significant changes in the way humans presently behave with one another. Nice or nasty.

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.

Surely though you must realize that using god ideas for doing atrocious things is just an excuse?
Separate god ideas from human beings and what you will have then is atheists doing atrocious things in the name of nothing in particular.

But surely you also know that not all god believers are acting any more or less atrociously than those who have no god beliefs?

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

But there is no logical to your arguing that belief in gods are causes of human atrocities, because these atrocities will continue anyway right?

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

Okay. According to you, positive atheism is about having belief about the existence of 'God'. The belief is 'God does not exist'.

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

Okay. A movement involving positive atheists would involve doing what?

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.

Because so called 'negative' atheists remain neutral. Like myself, I see no actual significant projected changes in the way human beings behave towards each other if everyone became positive atheists.

Things are not really over all even that bad are they? You are not claiming things would get better. You are just saying certain things would be removed.

You do understand that in order to make such a thing possible you cannot simply assume that human beings will give up what they think is good for them and replace it with something which does not compensate for the thing given up?

It is a bit of a pipe dream, I think.

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

So maybe what I call derogatory is what you call acceptable. Now convince me that I should become a positive atheist when you cannot even acknowledge derogatory statements aimed at those who have different positions from the ones doing the firing.

How do you convince anyone not of your ilk, to abandon their position and join your own when you cannot even acknowledge when derogatory expression is being used against those whom you wish to persuade?

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.

So do you wish to start a thread on the subject or not?

 

[Navigator]

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.



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



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.



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?

What is a closeted atheist?

 

[Navigator]

There's no way to know because people being positive atheists is compatible with a host of other beliefs, some of which may be in oppostion to each other. The same is true of the kind of world we would live in if everyone was a postive theist. There could be positive theists for a thousand different concepts of God or gods.

Yep. I would say it is a bit of a pipe dream to believe it is possible for everyone to become one or the other etc.

Stick with what you feel is the best. Don't hassle those who have different positions.
Don't worry - the world isn't going to all suddenly change to some religion which demands things of you that you don't want to do.

Any answer but the world being just as diverse as it was when the world was chock full of positive theists, just in different ways, will be wrong, to varying degrees.

Whatever. Such a world - such reversion to a prior state is highly unlikely. It sounds a bit paranoid and even CTish to think that it maybe even could do.

What is the supposed motivation of 'PAs' to convince you? Why do you think they want you on board? I wouldn't.

Luckily I am unconcerned with what you would or wouldn't do in relation to me.



But as is being pointed out, it seems that it is something called 'antitheist' which is doing the hassling, not PA.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have considered the fact of the universe. It is an almighty explosion.
... There is no reason for the almighty explosion. The universe is an unreasonable reality. There is no rational reason for it existing.
...

But:

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

Talking about explosions

Perhaps 'rational' is the escape clause, or perhaps there is no reason for there being a reason for there being no reason.
Or perhaps this is what unconscious means, or is it unconsciousness ......

 

[Daylightstar]

... Don't hassle those who have different positions. ...

Why do you do it anyway?

 

[Daylightstar]

Apart from agreeing with what marplots answered I would answer that any atheist group which accepts any form of derision and hatefulness and belief in superiority of position in relation to other positions (theist or atheist) is potentially a group who will support the notion of killing those others in relation to those others lack of belief in what they believe in, in regard to their notion of superior position.

If you think that this is extreme, I do agree but it is a case of being matter of fact. Such behavior is easily able to devolve into murderous intent and then actual murder, given the right conditions.

One can hope that those conditions never actually eventuate, but history shows that belief systems can and do perpetuate such inhumanity. The problem is not only such type ideas of god(s) but the belief in those ideas. The same applies to those who believe in anything strongly enough that they would even argue with derogative expression against anything questioning their preciously held beliefs.

The problem, is belief. Dearly beloved belief. Belief which requires one to deride others who do not share said same belief. Even against others who hold no beliefs.

 

[RickM]

Navigator,

Your ability to type a thousand words a minute is an advantage in this debate.

One needn’t subscribe to all of your thoughts and ideas to still appreciate the open-minded nature to which you ponder our incomprehensible universe. Obsessive determination to force opinions on others does nothing to advance human intellect. Your philosophy on this subject is perfectly reasonable, so keep up the good work!

 

[Brian-M]

The universe is illogical. I haven't come to the conclusion that it is logical.

So it's just an unfounded assumption?

There is no reason for the almighty explosion. The universe is an unreasonable reality. There is no rational reason for it existing.

How do you know there is no reason? How do you know that there isn't a reason that we're unaware of?

I have found no ACTUAL EVIDENCE PROVING the universe to be logical.

And you have found no actual evidence proving the universe to be illogical, yet you assert that the universe is illogical. Why?

Thus I have not formed beliefs which I hold to regarding the question.

So you're making assertions that you don't believe are true? Isn't that a little dishonest?

Well it is what it is. An almighty explosion. What logic can you see in an almighty explosion?

None. But asking what logic is in the Big Bang is like asking what color is Thursday. Your statement indicates that you don't understand what logic actually is, so here's a definition...

logic (countable and uncountable, plural logics)

1. A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.
2. (philosophy, logic) The study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
3. (mathematics) The mathematical study of relationships between rigorously defined concepts and of proof of statements.
4. (mathematics) A formal or informal language together with a deductive system or a model-theoretic semantics.
5. Any system of thought, whether rigorous and productive or not, especially one associated with a particular person.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logic

Logical just means in agreement with the principles of logic. An event, whether the Big Bang or falling down the stairs, is only illogical if it contradicts what logic would dictate. (For example, if you fell down the stairs in a building which has no stairs, then that would be illogical, because logic would say it is impossible.)

Our understanding of the Big Bang is derived entirely from logical examination of the evidence, therefore the Big Bang is completely logical.

(I am beginning to wonder if a so-called 'negative atheist' even exists. Wouldn't a negative atheist really be a theist?)

No, a negative atheist is just someone who has no positive beliefs about God (whether for or against). I don't know why you don't understand this, since it has already been explained repeatedly in this thread.

 

[Leumas]

Navigator,

Your ability to type a thousand words a minute is an advantage in this debate.

One needn’t subscribe to all of your thoughts and ideas to still appreciate the open-minded nature to which you ponder our incomprehensible universe. Obsessive determination to force opinions on others does nothing to advance human intellect. Your philosophy on this subject is perfectly reasonable, so keep up the good work!

You mean like this stuff

No, we are only trying to make them stop shoving their world view down everyone's throat whenever they can get away with it.

We are only trying to demonstrate how their world view is wrong only because they think that it is so correct that they cannot resist the need to enforce it upon everyone by making it the laws of the land.

It is not positive atheists that are

• Persecuting Gays and denying them equal citizenship privileges.
• Targeting and killing abortion clinic staff and flying airplanes into buildings.
• Impeding scientific Research and Development because of their delusion.
• Obstructing education based upon rational realities and trying to shove their delusions into children's education.
• Machinating and supporting things that will cause world destruction because they want to hurry their delusion's long awaited consummation of his marriage to them behind closed doors.
• Hindering action to stem global worming because they believe those disasters are part of their delusion's plan
• Fomenting civil unrest in the defense of their delusion,

Please read some history to find out who are the ones that have done harm for millennia to the whole world.

While we are busy fending off allegations of being "scary nasty totalitarian fundamentalist atheists" hurled at us by self-admitted reformed hateful "fundamentalist atheists" this stuff is going on:

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.​

It is not positive atheists that are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.

It is not atheists that are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.

While we argue on forums whether negative atheism is nicer than the positive one they are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.

From Here

The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."​

[qimg]http://spagmonster.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/christian-persecution.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/bcf6a53b82badb9a8503facb73b2a45d_zps8558b72f.jpg[/qimg]

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb207d719dc1.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Navigator]

Navigator,

Your ability to type a thousand words a minute is an advantage in this debate.

One needn’t subscribe to all of your thoughts and ideas to still appreciate the open-minded nature to which you ponder our incomprehensible universe. Obsessive determination to force opinions on others does nothing to advance human intellect. Your philosophy on this subject is perfectly reasonable, so keep up the good work!

Well thanks RickM. When I get bored with the whole blah blah, i will likely bugger off to someplace else ( the garden or a good book), but I do appreciate the intellectual stimulation - arguing with the mostly intelligent individuals hereabouts is better than what some forums have to offer.

 

[Brian-M]

Is it rational for a parent-less child to make things up rather than say 'I don't know'?

No, it isn't. Making things up would be more emotionally satisfying, but to act on the basis of emotion rather than logic is to act irrationally.

It is rational even in terms of survival to make things up rather than say 'I don't know'

Really? How does creating false explanations for things provide a survival advantage?

admitting 'I don't know' might prove fatal

Can you provide examples of situations where primitive humans would have been likely to die from natural dangers if they admitted they didn't know the explanation for something?

It is irrational to believe in anything.

No it isn't. It's very rational to believe in things that can be demonstrated by reason and observation to be likely true.

So what making things up has done is provide some kind of temporary explanation which will help human consciousness continue wanting to exist in a situation which is irrational, while it continues to look for rational.

You don't need to have a reason for continuing to survive in a situation for which you don't have a rational explanation for.

The survival instinct provides a desire to preserve your existence regardless of your understanding of the nature of your environment.

Some people are dying of all sorts of things. Maybe it isn't relevant. However, the small changes you speak of which might happen, don't persuade me that I should become a positive atheist.

I'm not trying to persuade you to become a positive atheist, nor am I saying that it's necessary for people to become positive atheists to achieve the same result. All that is necessary if for people to abandon potentially harmful supernatural beliefs.

And small changes, over time, add up to create big differences.

Well as has been pointed out, those silly decisions aren't going to stop just because everyone assume the positive atheist position.

But the silly decisions made on the basis of theistic beliefs will stop, and so there will be slightly fewer silly decisions made in total.

That's a step in the right direction.

I just said that it is the same as not wanting that God to be associated with such practice.

Association is not the same as causation.

Is it wishful thinking on the part of the positive atheist to want to live in a world without ideas of god(s) anyway,

Yes, it is.

and what real advantages are there to this?

As I've said repeatedly, the real advantages are that all the harm done because of beliefs in gods would no longer occur.

What say the child saved, is then kidnapped and sold into the sex slavery trade, to which the positive atheist position has no influence over changing?

You're suggesting that we shouldn't bother saving people on the off chance that something as bad or worse might happen to them later?

Is the child (in the opinion of the positive atheist) still in a better position being alive, than dead?

In my opinion the child is still in a better position, partly because there's always hope for escape.

How does a world full of positive atheists prevent the sex slave problem?

Nobody is claiming that positive atheism is the solution to all the worlds problems.

That question is like asking how having a world full of zen Buddhists would prevent breast cancer from occurring.

It's a ridiculous question to ask.

if there are no more theists, is there then such a thing as positive atheists?

If some people still held the positive belief that gods don't exist, then yes.

If so, are positive atheists immune from being involved in the sex slave 'industry'?

Is this supposed to be a serious question?

Really it is about significant changes. Positive atheists want an end to theism.

No. Some positive atheists might want that, but that doesn't mean all positive atheists do.

How is that significantly going to change the world?

As I've said repeatedly, the real advantages are that all the harm done because of beliefs in gods would no longer occur.

And small changes, over time, add up to create big differences.

Show me that and I will contemplate changing my position to positive atheism.

I don't care whether or not you change your position to positive atheism.

No, it was your analogy.

I was just responding to what you asked.

And you gave your analogy. I then asked. "What kind of a world we would live in if everyone was a positive atheist?"

No.

In post 327 you replied to something Pup posted by saying that belief in God has the benefit of giving people "the illusion that their illogical existence is not happening in vain, and that something cares about them"

In post 344 Lemus responded by comparing religion to narcotic painkillers, and suggested that churches should come with the same kind of warning labels that painkillers come with.

In post 357 you replied to this by saying:

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

It would be helpful if the OPoster and other PAs could say what kind of a world it would be if everyone was a PA.

Come on and give it a go. Convince me why I should become a PA by telling me what kind of a world I would be helping to create.

In post 366 I responded to this by saying:

A world much like this one, but without churches or priests, and without religiously motivated bigotry, violence, terrorism or war.

(That's not to say that there would be no bigotry, violence, terrorism or war. Just not the religiously motivated instances.)

Clearly you were the one who brought up the question of what the world would be like if everyone was a positive atheist.

Surely though you must realize that using god ideas for doing atrocious things is just an excuse?

Separate god ideas from human beings and what you will have then is atheists doing atrocious things in the name of nothing in particular.

But there are some atrocious things that people would never do if not for a belief in god, such as blowing up abortion clinics or hijacking airplanes and flying them into public buildings.

But surely you also know that not all god believers are acting any more or less atrociously than those who have no god beliefs?

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant.

But there is no logical to your arguing that belief in gods are causes of human atrocities, because these atrocities will continue anyway right?

But not all the atrocities would continue.

Many would continue, but some wouldn't because god-related beliefs are certainly the cause of some atrocities.

Okay. According to you, positive atheism is about having belief about the existence of 'God'. The belief is 'God does not exist'.

Yes, and a negative atheist is someone who holds no belief either way.

Okay. A movement involving positive atheists would involve doing what?

That would depend on the specific movement. My point was that positive atheism isn't itself a movement, which is how you were describing it.

Because so called 'negative' atheists remain neutral. Like myself, I see no actual significant projected changes in the way human beings behave towards each other if everyone became positive atheists.

I wouldn't expect there to be any significant changes in the way human beings behave toward each-other either.

Things are not really over all even that bad are they?

That would depend on where you live. There are places where people are killing each-other because of religious beliefs.

You are not claiming things would get better. You are just saying certain things would be removed.

Some of the things removed would be bad things. This would make things better.