Positive vs. Negative Atheism

[Navigator]

So it's just an unfounded assumption?

Well Brain-M, if you have any evidence that the existence of this universe is logical, please share.

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

Should I therefore presume there might be and thus think of the existence of the universe as being a logical one?

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

Because it is, that is why. do you have reason to think otherwise, and if so, why not just share the information?

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

Not if I don't believe they are not true as well. I am open to being corrected here. That is honest.

None.

So you too see no logic in an l almighty explosion...

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...

Here we go...the almighty dictionary to the rescue...

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.)

Well thanks for the lesson. And here I was just using the generally understood meaning of the word.

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

Really. We understand that it is an almighty explosion. Therefore it is logical.

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.

Hey I understand it but i think it is nutty.

A person who is negative about something doesn't support that something.
A person who is positive about something, supports that something.
A person who is neutral about something, doesn't support either of those somethings. and nor do they attack either of those somethings.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Brian-M]

What is a closeted atheist?

A closeted atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but is still pretending to be a believer.

Some people prefer to keep their atheism secret, because they're afraid of bigotry against atheists.

There have been teenagers kicked out of home or disowned by their parents when they've admitted that they're an atheist.

In some countries, if you decide that you no longer follow the state faith and openly admit to being an atheist you can be imprisoned, possibly even executed.

This sort of thing makes people in some places reluctant to openly admit that they're atheist.

 

[Navigator]

That is the worst abuse of the slippery slope fallacy that I have ever seen.

Not at all Mister Agenda, not at all.

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?

Not at all. A neutral group does not think that their position is superior in the sense that all other positions are inferior.
Rather, they understand that their position is the most logical one to have.

It is not about superiority Mister Agenda. It is never about superiority.

It isn't even about winning, Mister Agenda. Or who has the biggest 'whatever' or who has more intelligence or who has more heart, or who is more black or more white or more red or more yellow or more grey or more friends or more family or more money or more influence or more audacity or more brownie points...

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.

It has been proven that such children under the right conditions will at least support adults who will do the killing, yes. They may not be 'girl guides' or 'boy scouts' but they will - under the right conditions for such a thing, definitely dress for the occasion and go through all the right moves and spout the correct propaganda.
Would you like a photo, or can you think up an image for yourself?

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

That is correct. It is all about belief, and not just religious belief. distance yourself from belief and your chances of devolving are greatly reduced.

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.

Not at all. I have no reason to do so and no belief that they would ever deserve to be murdered.
This does not mean to say that I cannot recognize their attitudes as being something which supports dysfunction.
Being a neutral, should the human race devolve into that state of legalized murder, that would have me among the first to be executed. It is just one of those things.

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

Who says so? Jesus?

If you have concerns as to my expression, please do share them. What have I expressed to others which you consider to being derisive of others who do not share same position as I do?

Bear in mind that i am entitled to defend my self and any one else from attacks of that nature but I don;t need to use the same derogative expression in order to do so.

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

I have no beliefs to hold. I am in the neutral position.

 

[Navigator]

A closeted atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but is still pretending to be a believer.

Some people prefer to keep their atheism secret, because they're afraid of bigotry against atheists.

There have been teenagers kicked out of home or disowned by their parents when they've admitted that they're an atheist.

In some countries, if you decide that you no longer follow the state faith and openly admit to being an atheist you can be imprisoned, possibly even executed.

This sort of thing makes people in some places reluctant to openly admit that they're atheist.

Okay.

Thanks.

 

[Brian-M]

So it's just an unfounded assumption?

Well Brain-M, if you have any evidence that the existence of this universe is logical, please share.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "unfounded".

"Unfounded" means something that isn't based on logic or evidence.

Until you can provide logic or evidence which demonstrates that the universe is illogical, then the assertion that the universe is illogical remains unfounded.

Should I therefore presume there might be and thus think of the existence of the universe as being a logical one?

No. You should remain neutral on the position until you have reason or evidence one way or the other.

Because it is, that is why.

You believe it is, because it is?
That's about as circular as any argument can get.

do you have reason to think otherwise, and if so, why not just share the information?

I have no reason or evidence either way, which is why I'm not asserting either position.

In fact, I don't think the statement even makes sense.

Not if I don't believe they are not true as well. I am open to being corrected here. That is honest.[/quote

You're like a person who confidently asserts that the number of grains of sand on the beach is exactly divisible by 371.

Even if that person doesn't believe the statement is necessarily false, it's still dishonest for them to go around saying it if they don't believe it's actually true.

Well thanks for the lesson. And here I was just using the generally understood meaning of the word.

I honestly have no idea what definition of logic you've been using. It's clearly not a definition that I'm aware of.

Which is why I presented the dictionary definition, because those are the generally understood meanings of the word.

We understand that it is an almighty explosion. Therefore it is logical.

Our knowledge of it is derived from logic, therefore it is logical.

And "almighty explosion" isn't how scientists describe it.

 

[Leumas]

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.

You mean semantic legerdemain like this

....
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.
....

My favorite of the above linguistic chicanery is this one

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

I think the above statement ought to be nominated for the most amazingly ILLOGICAL gobbledygook that has ever been "blahed blahed".

Saying that it is not in the nature of something that has always existed to exist is definitely the most stupefyingly unprecedented linguistic skullduggery!!

 

[Leumas]

Navigator,

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

It is easy to churn out tons of hogwash .... what is hard is trying to sweep it away so that it does not stand in a thread on a Skeptics' Forum appearing to be unchallenged.

I wish someone would pay me by the word for all the time and effort I (just to mention one person) had to put in wading through all that claptrap trying to compose something that is meaningful to scrape away the heaps upon heaps of illogical nonsense and twaddle.

If only someone cared enough to employ me fulltime to do nothing but dedicate my efforts to writing on forums like this one in defense of logicality and rationality and to expound the merits of science and reason.

 

[Navigator]

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "unfounded".

"Unfounded" means something that isn't based on logic or evidence.

Until you can provide logic or evidence which demonstrates that the universe is illogical, then the assertion that the universe is illogical remains unfounded.

Are you saying then that the existence of the universe is logical?

No. You should remain neutral on the position until you have reason or evidence one way or the other.

Therefore to remain neutral is to not think about it at all, as either logical or illogical, even though i am in it?
That - for a conscious being, would be an irrational thing to do.

You believe it is, because it is?
That's about as circular as any argument can get.

Do you think it isn't or do you have no opinion one way or the other?

I have no reason or evidence either way, which is why I'm not asserting either position.

Okay. So therefore everything which human consciousness does, is not evidence that the universe is logical or illogical. It is besides the point?

This would have to of course include anything which humans do which involves explaining the universe in relation to being within the universe.
Anything humans do is not about finding logic in the universe or rationality in their existing in the universe, it is simply going along with whatever is happening and doing whatever can be done in relation to the universe and maintaining an existence within the universe, to whatever end - rational or irrational, it does not really matter.

In fact, I don't think the statement even makes sense.

Well if - for you - there is no rational reason for human consciousness to exist within this almighty explosion, and no need for one then yes, the statement would make no sense to you.

You're like a person who confidently asserts that the number of grains of sand on the beach is exactly divisible by 371.

Apparently it has been said that the number of grains of sand on all the beaches are less than the number of galaxies which exist in this almighty explosion.
Whatever.
But anyways, my main point was to show reasonable explanation for why human consciousness was compelled to create mythology and metaphor. To show that this is only natural under the circumstances.
Understanding can go a long ways to moving forward without the need to be immature in dealing with people who are still trapped within their beliefs in mythological concepts.

Or for that matter, those who are trapped within their beliefs that god(s) do not exist, but cannot adopt the same argument which you present here regarding the universe. Because unlike the universe, god(s) are not that apparent.

Perhaps the universe is the inside of a gods brain?

Can you say for sure it is not?

Even if that person doesn't believe the statement is necessarily false, it's still dishonest for them to go around saying it if they don't believe it's actually true.

Who is doing that? Not I. I am saying I am not positive the existence of the universe is logical, or the existence of consciousness within the universe is rational.

It seems to be pointless. All these years gone by, what actual point to existing within the universe has become evident to human consciousness?

If you argue that there need not be a point to any of it, then what is the point is taking positive positions regarding your existence in relation to the universe and other positions which individual consciousnesses presume which are not the same as your own?

If there is no point, then where is the rational? One simply exists. Yet you and I both know that human consciousness never has and likely never will assume that there is no point to being. We make that up as we go along, and indeed can do so without thought to any rational reason for doing so.

We see the galaxy as a thing human consciousness might one day explore in space ships and have adventures and utilize and explore etc blah blah, but we don't need to have any rational reason for doing so, We just do it if we can.

Space cadets hoo rah!



But ultimately even if this were to actually eventuate, in relation to the universe, there is no rational reason to do so. What possible rational outcome would there be in relation to consciousness and the galaxy?

Turn the whole thing into a vast machine?

I honestly have no idea what definition of logic you've been using. It's clearly not a definition that I'm aware of.

Which is why I presented the dictionary definition, because those are the generally understood meanings of the word.

Well the general understood expression of the word seems to happen in relation to things to do with not understanding how and why something occurs. Why did so and so do such and such? No reason forthcoming? Then so and so doing such and such is illogical. It makes no sense.

Logical = that which makes sense. that is the general understanding of the word. (There is no overall point to it)

Our knowledge of it is derived from logic, therefore it is logical.

But sometimes knowledge is not logical. We know we are within the universe but we know not why.

And "almighty explosion" isn't how scientists describe it.

Whatever. 'Big Bang' sounds slightly less accurate given the fact of the matter. 'Almighty explosion' isn't much better. Mindbogglingly incomprehensible explosive event is closer to the truth. What does it matter how scientists describe it?

How is a scientists description any more rational than the one I used?

 

[ynot]

I’m amazed that some have been able to endure Navigator’s spurious antics for so long.

 

[Leumas]

....

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.

And what is the point of all the above linguistic legerdemain?

It is to divert attention away from the other hand shoving a rabbit God through the illogic trap door.

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

And while one is awe struck and dazed by the amazing conjuring of God right out of thick illogic and not paying attention to any of it, the stuff below is pulled out from under the cape:

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.
....

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.
....

And this

....

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)

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

 

[Leumas]

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

....
Yes! Essentially in the middle of a super vast explosion! Did God fart and the Devil light it?
....
We exist in the middle of a super vast explosion 'just because'.
....

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

Do you know how one of the most beautiful places on earth was formed? (see below)

I think you should go to Hawaii and tell them that the "almighty explosion" that created their wonderful island upon which they exist is illogical.

Do you know what the sun is? Is it illogical?

But all this talk about the universe being illogical and consciousness existing in it being irrational has been just a load of Red Herrings.

The topic is about strong atheism vs. weak atheism.

You keep asserting that you are an atheist but you're still in search for other "ideas of god(s)" that might be true as opposed to the false "ideas of god(s)" that you assert you are an atheist towards.

Can you for instance explain how you have become an atheist in regards to Jesus or Allah or YHWH?

Have you studied them in depth and did you read their scriptures and have you read books written by apologists for them?

....
I am not a scholar on these three particular ideas but I do know that the Christian idea was to love one another. Is there any reference to killing others in the Jewish idea? I am reminded of the 10 commandments. Are those from the Jewish book?
I seem to remember that there was a commandment not to kill.
Would it be to presimptious of me to say that I bet there is refferrence to loving one another in the Koran.
....

How could you by any reasoned logic have arrived at the a-Jesus and a-YHWH and a-Allah "ideas of god" when as evinced by your very own words you know hardly anything about them?

You assert that you are an unbeliever in anything and not even in not believing nor in believing....you believe nothing.

But then we read that you know no more than an inkling about THREE ideas of gods followed by over 5 BILLION PEOPLE and yet you declare yourself as an atheist as far as they are concerned.

How do you know Jesus and/or Allah and/or YHWH are not the "right ideas of gods"? You, by your own admittance have but the slightest knowledge of them.


This "almighty explosion"
[imgw=400]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/06/article-2199277-14DEB2D7000005DC-680_634x513.jpg[/imgw]

will one day become this

[imgw=400]http://expatwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/costa_rica_no_artificial_ingredients.jpg[/imgw]

And these organisms are living right on top of an "almighty explosion"

[imgw=400]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LhWZNMoFlVg/T5uGPCRyqtI/AAAAAAAABtI/OUrkF068PGI/s1600/deep-sea20hydrothermal20vent-jj-001.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Not at all. I have no reason to do so and no belief that they would ever deserve to be murdered. ...

Your reason would be that the beliefs you try to force others down their throat is not accepted as easily as you would like.
Then there is your frustration that you can not ever hope to substantiate your irrational beliefs.
The whining in your posts appears to have made place for a more aggressive attitude, emotional references to killing and murdering included.
Taking the lack of connection with reality of much if not most in your posts into consideration, I would not put too much stock in your assurance that you would never do such a thing.
If done in real life, monitoring might be warranted.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have no beliefs to hold. I am in the neutral position.
...

You have clearly demonstrated this to be untrue. You believe all kinds of stuff.
Stuff you can not or can't hope to substantiate.

Are you believing that stuff or are you holding such beliefs? Who cares, whether you're holding your belief or wear them on your head, is all the same.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
How is a scientists description any more rational than the one I used?

Yours is only an emotional concoction. How it looks to you, how you feel about it.
Nothing more than that.

 

[Brian-M]

I’m amazed that some have been able to endure Navigator’s spurious antics for so long.

Personally, I think I've reached my breaking point in trying to talk some sense into him.

It's not really worth the effort of spending a silly amount of time responding to what he's saying anymore.

 

[Pup]

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!

Is the highlighted bit sarcasm? Doesn't seem to be, yet I see Navigator's posts as working very hard to force an opinion on others: the opinion that one should hold no beliefs.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I’m amazed that some have been able to endure Navigator’s spurious antics for so long.

I think the most baffling thing is his repeated insistence on being 100% neutral, while his goal appears to be nothing more than disagreeing with everyone. It's gussied-up confrontationalism.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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

Yes, it could easily devolve into a course on comparative religion focusing on the mutually exclusive attributes of the various creator deities, starting with their ascribed lists of deeds. I haven't read forward yet, so I'm interested to see if that's Navigator's response.

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

You do not want to hear what my hardcore Pentecostal father thinks nuns do in the privacy of their cloisters. Let's just say that he thinks at least some of them are absurdly evil.

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

I'm sure he'd be great at a lot of things. He strikes me as decent and intelligent. I'm sure if we were all face-to-face where we could pick up on each other's emotions, the rhetoric for all of us would be toned down.

 

[Mister Agenda]

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

That was a particularly stupid build-up to a particularly stupid attempt at a 'gotcha'. Of course, you had to choose a route like that, because any example that was actually analogous, like belief in ghosts or Bigfoot, wouldn't have taken you where you wanted to go.

But you made yourself sound absurd by trying to apply 'logical' or 'illogical' to a brute fact of existence, defined by its existence. It's a nonsense question, like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (As many as God wills! How many is that? Uhhh...).

A negative atheist is someone who doesn't believe any God or gods are real, who doesn't believe that any of them actually exist, but concedes that many versions of them are impossible to disprove and all some of them have going against them is lack of any good reason to think they actually exist. The degree of improbability they assign to God or gods varies, but is usually very low, on the order of less than one percent.

If you want to call that theism, it says a lot about your intellectual integrity.

 

[Mister Agenda]

What is a closeted atheist?

An atheist who keeps the fact that they are an atheist secret. An atheist can be completely closeted, 'out' to just a few people, out to certain kinds of people (close friends and maybe a sibling or two, but not the rest of the family or people at work). And of course, the atheists who are completely closeted, except on-line, where they can be anonymous. Until this century, it was not unusual for atheists in the USA to have never knowingly have met another atheist.

I'm a 'mostly-out' atheist. I don't advertise it at work, but a number of co-workers are aware. My father's side of the family knows, largely because I was asked straight-up by my snoopy step-sister-in-law. What that has mainly accomplished is making my visits home awkward, so I have elected not to inform my cousins, aunts, and uncles on my mother's side, who are equally fundamentalist.