Positive and negative atheism

[Secular Pinoy]

Positive atheism is usually defined as a belief that holds that there is no god (for this thread, I will be assuming only one conception of god: restricted theism of the classical theistic strain, that is, the OmniGod). Negative atheism, OTOH, is a lack of belief in god, usually because the concept of god is neither proved or disproved.

My question is, assuming that god-talk is somehow meaningful (so as to ensure that noncognitvism is not a valid option), and that if god is shown to be false, do negative atheists have a burden of proof to argue against the nonexistence of god? Or can both positive and negative atheism be simultaneously justified with regards to one definition of god?

[Hedshaker]

What's the difference? You either believe or you don't. If there's any doubt then you're agnostic. Surly?

Just say no to irrational beliefs and don't waste time trying to disproof a negative. It's logically imposibile.

[Jobar]

I've always considered strong or positive atheists to bear a certain burden of proof; for one thing they must state exactly what it is they do *not* believe. Weak or negative atheism carries no such burden, and is basically the Missourian's stance- "show me."

I have seen some really excellent defenses of strong atheism here; bd-from-kg comes to mind. In relation to the Abrahamic God, I find that the internally contradictory nature of an omnimax creator to justify strong atheism, whereas the more nebulous concept of a deistic god is much harder to disprove.

[The_Unknown_Banana]

I would say that both positive and negatives would be simultaneously satisfied; since negative atheists don't have any belief in God, a proof against his existance would only coincide with their worldy beliefs..?

A true agnostic probably would have the burden of proof to argue against it, in order to justify keeping their beliefs.

imo.

[spacer1]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy:
My question is, assuming that god-talk is somehow meaningful (so as to ensure that noncognitvism is not a valid option), and that if god is shown to be false, do negative atheists have a burden of proof to argue against the nonexistence of god?
What do you mean by "god is shown to be false"? If there is some conclusive way we could prove god's non-existence, then why should there be a burden of proof on anybody?

[JERDOG]

When people ask me about my atheism I usually give them a class on what it and its varations mean.

For me atheism says that a god is not logically possible.( a negative statement)

I then tell them that an agnostic atheist is someone who says that a god "may" be logically possible.

An "agnostic thesis" is someone who believes in a god but admits that it cannot be logically proven nor can they know any specific attributes.

And of coarse a "thesis" is someone who believes that a certain god/s posses certain specific attributes.

Since I am an atheist that means that I say that a god is not logically possible. I am willing to change my view to agnostic atheist if someone ever gives a noncontradictory explanation of what a god is. However that has never happened nor do I think it ever will.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
if god is shown to be false, do negative atheists have a burden of proof to argue against the nonexistence of god?

No. If god doesn't exist, the negative atheist can properly continue to not believe that god exists.

crc

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by wiploc
No. If god doesn't exist, the negative atheist can properly continue to not believe that god exists.

crc Yes, but is he/she justified in not accepting the assertion "god does not exist," even when the positive atheist has shown that there is no god (or to clarify, to have sufficiently met his/her burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of god)?

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by spacer1
What do you mean by "god is shown to be false"? If there is some conclusive way we could prove god's non-existence, then why should there be a burden of proof on anybody? See my clarification above. Sorry for being a bit vague.

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by Jobar
Weak or negative atheism carries no such burden, and is basically the Missourian's stance- "show me."And if the positive atheist has sufficiently met his/her burden of proof, and the negative atheist still refuses to assent, does the negative atheist then have the burden of proof for his/her position?

[spacer1]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy:
Yes, but is he/she justified in not accepting the assertion "god does not exist," even when the positive atheist has shown that there is no god (or to clarify, to have sufficiently met his/her burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of god)?
Again, if the atheist can somehow show (prove??) that there is no god, then the matter is settled and the agnostic has no reason to remain agnostic. They should become atheist.

If the atheist has sufficiently met the burden of proof, then there is no god, and there's nothing more to say.

I just don't see how such a burden of proof could be sufficiently met.

[Secular Pinoy]

Well, I have seen some pretty intransigent negative atheists online, so I was wondering if they're being dogmatic about their lack of belief, or not.

[spacer1]

Dogmatically undecided?

[Secular Pinoy]

Dogmatically unwilling to make a positive assertion concerning the nonexistence of god. That is, even with a narrowly defined god (such as the biblegod of evangelical xianity), they prefer to stay negative atheists because they do not wish to have the burden of proof. Negative atheism, after all, is easier to uphold (just negate any theistic arguments) than positive atheism (negate theistic arguments + nonexistence arguments).

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Jobar
I've always considered strong or positive atheists to bear a certain burden of proof; for one thing they must state exactly what it is they do *not* believe. Weak or negative atheism carries no such burden, and is basically the Missourian's stance- "show me."

I have seen some really excellent defenses of strong atheism here; bd-from-kg comes to mind. In relation to the Abrahamic God, I find that the internally contradictory nature of an omnimax creator to justify strong atheism, whereas the more nebulous concept of a deistic god is much harder to disprove.

As a strong atheist, I must disagree with you. I hold my belief as a conclusion: theists have posited the existence of a supernatural being and have utterly failed to present any evidence that their position is valid. In addition, I see no evidence for anything but natural processes in the workings of the universe. Accordingly, I have concluded that no supernatural beings exist. My conclusion is tentative and conditional, since I will have to revisit it should any reasonable evidence ever be presented.

This applies to supernatural gods in general, not to any particular one. The 'personal' gods - those that created humans and are concerned with their behavior - are so incoherent and contradictory that their existence isn't worth considering.

[Howard]

I thought we pretty much agreed that when it comes to belief or lack of belief in a concept, especially an unobservable and untestable concept such as God, the burden of providing evidence and/or arguments always lies with the ones making the positive assertion. Why should atheists, be they positive or negative (which is really just semantical hair-splitting) ever have to provide supporting evidence? The believers should provide the evidence or arguments, and we go from there.

The only problem I see is when atheists say they KNOW there is no God, or do not admit even to the possibility of it. Such absolute statements would require support, but to say that you don’t believe until you see some reason to, doesn’t.
.
Also, since we differentiate between the theistic and deistic concepts of God, shouldn’t we add the term “adeist” to our lexicon? I hereby request a ruling on that from the gods (so to speak) of the SecWeb.

[Jobar]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
And if the positive atheist has sufficiently met his/her burden of proof, and the negative atheist still refuses to assent, does the negative atheist then have the burden of proof for his/her position?

IMO every believer has their own 'version' of God. So, as I said above, a strong atheist must be able to logically disprove the existence of all versions- not a practical task.

A deistic god is, basically, hidden from us. An omnipotent being that wishes to hide from its creations could not be seen or deduced- so although such a god is basically useless to postulate, we can't logically disprove it. It's like the theist argument 'God moves in mysterious ways'- if it's an insoluble mystery, why bother puzzling over it? Because of that, I'd say that an 'adeist' is expressing an unfounded belief. (A sort of negative faith, I suppose.)

Remember, Occam's Razor is not a law of logic. It's more a guideline- a very powerful and convincing one, to be ignored only at grave risk, but we can't treat it as, er, holy writ. ;) (Pity, that; if we could, we could offer a logically stringent disproof of God.)

SP, though I've seen arguments in these forums between atheists and agnostics, I haven't seen any real disputes between weak and strong atheists. In fact, most weak atheists will state unhesitantly that for some versions of a deity, they are strong atheists. Weak atheism has the advantage in that it does not require us to *disprove* all the billions of hazy and incoherent gods that inhabit people's heads; for that reason I personally always 'open' a debate with any believer from a stance of weak atheism. In my experience, all strong atheists accept all arguments from weak atheism.

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Jobar
IMO every believer has their own 'version' of God. So, as I said above, a strong atheist must be able to logically disprove the existence of all versions- not a practical task.

This is why I do not deal with individual gods. Instead, I talk about supernatural gods as a group: those which somehow exist outside the normal physical laws which govern the universe, and can create and destroy at will. Classed in this way, there's no need to address each individual deity.

I take no strong position concerning Zeus and Odin and the rest, but I think they're also pretty unlikely.

A deistic god is, basically, hidden from us. An omnipotent being that wishes to hide from its creations could not be seen or deduced- so although such a god is basically useless to postulate, we can't logically disprove it. It's like the theist argument 'God moves in mysterious ways'- if it's an insoluble mystery, why bother puzzling over it? Because of that, I'd say that an 'adeist' is expressing an unfounded belief. (A sort of negative faith, I suppose.) [/QUOTE]

The deistic god makes the most sense to me, although I think the concept ultimately fails because of the first cause problem. I agree with you, though, that it's basically pointless to discuss it.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

If you make a claim that "god exists", the burden is on you to prove your claim. If you claim that "it is not the case that god exists", the burden is on you to prove that claim.

It is not logically impossible to prove a negative. People do it all the time.


I like using the following definitions:

Theist: Accepts the claim "God exists"

Strong Atheist: Accepts the claim "God does not exist"

Weak Atheist: Does not accept the claim "God exists" - this does not imply that weak atheists must accept the claim "god does not exist." A weak atheist may choose to accept neither claim.

[xorbie]

Weak athiests are truly on the fence I guess. I personally am an agnostic aesthetic atheist. I will explain the aesthetic part if asked, but I don't see it all too pertinent to this thread.

However, I firmly believe that God (or at least one or two versions of God that are close enough to the generic OmniGod to merit the name) cannot be proven or disproven.

And yes, negatives can be proven and are proven all the time. I can, for instance prove that no triangles exist in two dimensional Euclidian space such that the sum of the internal angles is anything but 180. It is pretty trivial, really...

[wiploc]

Originally posted by xorbie

However, I firmly believe that God (or at least one or two versions of God that are close enough to the generic OmniGod to merit the name) cannot be proven or disproven.

Would you agree that it can be proven that there is no frog who
1. totally wants people not to suffer,
2. can easily relieve people's suffering,
3. knows about people's suffering, and
4. lets people suffer?

If we can disprove the frog, why can't we disprove the god?
crc

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Jobar
Remember, Occam's Razor is not a law of logic. It's more a guideline- a very powerful and convincing one, to be ignored only at grave risk, but we can't treat it as, er, holy writ. ;) At best, you can only treat it as a non-holy writ -- and writ small. To the delight of Lewis Carroll fans, there are no rules of thumb through the looking glass, which is precisely where you find yourself as soon as you posit a Supernatural inaccessible to the protocols of science.

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wiploc
Would you agree that it can be proven that there is no frog who ... No, but feel free to try. Tell me, how far and wide have you searched for such a frog?

[wiploc]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, but feel free to try. Tell me, how far and wide have you searched for such a frog?

Xorbie admitted that negatives can be disproven. Are you in a different camp?
crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by wiploc
Xorbie agreed that negatives can be disproven. Are you in a different camp?
crc

[Keith Russell]

Good evening.

As an atheist, I don't disbelieve in 'God'; I am aware of no 'God'.

All I've been given are concepts of 'God'.

But, I do believe that every single one of the concepts of 'God' that have been described to me are invalid; that each of them contradicts reality in some fundamental way.

Is there a word for someone who does not reject 'God' (since there is probably no 'God' to reject), but who rejects every human description of 'God'?

K

[premjan]

an emergent property of many human systems. So in this sense, it is evident that "God" exists (look at how many different people actually believe in God).

Whether this emergent God objectively has all the purported properties, is a different matter entirely. However, there are many people who are quite satisfied with the concept of God hence in this sense God exists.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
My question is, assuming that god-talk is somehow meaningful (so as to ensure that noncognitvism is not a valid option), and that if god is shown to be false, do negative atheists have a burden of proof to argue against the nonexistence of god?

Well, certainly a burden to produce some justification for what we claim. For me, the world seems very much like there is no God in it, and if there were a tri-omni God I would expect it to look a little different. This is far from proof, but it is evidence. I personally think that my opinion that there are no Gods is justified by my experience.

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by wiploc
Xorbie admitted that negatives can be disproven. Are you in a different camp? Nice topic for a different time, but you were about to disprove Superfrog. No?

[xorbie]

That SuperFrog is a poor strawman. Like I said, we know for a fact what a frog is (they are biologically defined you know). It is scientifically impossible for a frog to exist that has those attributes. If you use any other definition for frog, you are just arguing for God, and calling it frog. In which case, no I could not disprove it.

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by xorbie
That SuperFrog is a poor strawman. It certainly is. Furthermore, it's your strawman.


Originally posted by xorbie
(they are biologically defined you know) So your position is that you can "disprove" the existence of supernatural qualities in all things whose definition precludes supernatural qualities. A stunning victory! ;)

[xorbie]

I never claimed it was a super victory, which is why the SuperFrog is a very poor strawman. "Frog" has a very specific definition, and having such "supernatural" powers would preclude it from being a frog. You see it is impossible for frogs to know about human suffering, and no frog has the capabilities to stop human suffering or even want to. Thus, this frog is a biological impossiblity. God, on the other hand, is not biologically defined as anything, and in fact has no physical properties whatsoever.

God can be logically spoken about and there are logical proofs both for and against it's existence. Now I personally don't think God is provable either way, which means speaking about burden of proof is useless conversation as no such proof exists.

Your last proof consisted of two absurd comments. I am pretty sure you are a person of reasonably high intelligence with basic reasoning capibilities. Please don't prove me wrong.

[Leah]

Originally posted by wiploc

1. totally wants people not to suffer,
2. can easily relieve people's suffering,
3. knows about people's suffering, and
4. lets people suffer?


brilliant.

5. Takes personal pleasure in seeing people suffer

[xorbie]

I hope you realize that has absolutely nothing to do with theism. Yeah, the Bible is bull. It would take like a 4th grader who had minimal literacy, reading comprehension and critical thinking (i.e. not one in the US ;) ) to realize that.

[Jobar]

I never claimed it was a super victory, which is why [Jesus] is a very poor strawman. "[Man]" has a very specific definition, and having such "supernatural" powers would preclude it from being a [man].

Hmmm? ;)

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Is there a word for someone who does not reject 'God' (since there is probably no 'God' to reject), but who rejects every human description of 'God'?


Hello Keith,

Would this be noncognativism - which I believe is the stance that none of it makes any understandable sense?

cheers,
Michael

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by Howard
Also, since we differentiate between the theistic and deistic concepts of God, shouldn’t we add the term “adeist” to our lexicon? I hereby request a ruling on that from the gods (so to speak) of the SecWeb.

Hi Howard,

Sorry to be so late to respond to your request, but since none of the other Admins are around:

<best Ron Hubbard voice with crashing of thunder and casting of lightning bolts>MAYBE </best Ron Hubbard voice with crashing of thunder and casting of lightning bolts>

Hope that helps!

cheers,
Michael

[Secular Pinoy]

Originally posted by Jobar
In my experience, all strong atheists accept all arguments from weak atheism. There may be disagreements. Strong atheists may accept a weak atheist's arguments, but would perhaps make a stronger conclusion, that "therefore god doesn't exist," rather than "therefore, god's existence hasn't been proved."