I don’t think “positive” in this context means assertions of existence.
Consider “positive atheism”.
If “There is no god” is a positive claim, so is “There is no purpose”.
Just to clarify, that was me and I said
Doesn’t need a meaning and purpose
That isn’t the same as
Doesn’t have a meaning and purpose
and it is a subtle but massively important distinction to make. You are right that if I had claimed the latter, it would be up to me to offer evidence to support my claim.
Also, I believe that my living room is empty (that is, that nobody is in it). I could equally say, “I don’t believe that anyone’s in my living room,” but phrasing it as a positive belief seems reasonable. And I can believe that nobody is in my living room without having to think about separate beliefs that Whynot isn’t in my living room, Der Trihs isn’t in my living room, Mijin isn’t in my living room, wintertime isn’t in my living room, Barack Obama isn’t in my living room, etc. Similarly, I can believe that there’s no God in this universe without having to think about separate beliefs that there’s no Thor, no Cernunnos, no YaHuWaHu, etc.
I saw a squirrel on the street yesterday. I believe that squirrel was dead: that is, I believe that for all the processes happening in its body, none of them were governed by a sentience. Similarly, I believe that of all the processes happening in this universe, very few of them are governed by a sentience.
Although I see why a lot of folks like to distinguish atheism as lacking any inherent beliefs, I’m not sure I agree. I do think that there’s some equivocation happening: if I believe that my living room isn’t empty, I need to get a lot more specific than that in my beliefs (is it my wife? is it an axe murderer?), but believing that nobody’s there pretty much ends that line of inquiry.
I think this is nicely put.
Problem is that is sounds so mundane when put down in black and white.
Of course that doesn’t tell the whole story though, my imperfect perception of my reality I actually find quite awe-inspiring.
I wanna say a little more about this, because I like my own analogy and also because I think it gets at something important. Do I think my living room has nobody in it? Sure. But I don’t think about it much (other than for the purpose of making this point): its emptiness is of very little concern to me.
But if there were somebody in there, suddenly we’d be talking about a very important belief. Who is it? What are they doing there? What do they want? And the more powerful that person in there was, and the harder a time I was having figuring out who they were and what they wanted, the more this belief about my living room’s occupancy would control my life. If someone wandered into my house and shrugged and said that nobody was in there, I’d be pretty vexed: their tiny insignificant belief, and their unconcern about it, would be hard for me to understand.
I think atheism is a belief, sure, but it’s a very minor one to most of those who hold it. Theism is a belief also, but it’s a much more important belief to those that hold it.
I think belief is perhaps not a very helpful word. For those that are religious it has specific connotations and interpretations that are relevant to the faith and the supernatural. For those of us not religious we probably just use it lazily to mean “I think”
Perhaps not productive to argue too much over it when it means different things to the different groups using it.
But the argument isn’t so much “There is a God” vs. “There is no God”; it’s “There is a God” vs. “I see no reason to think so”
You’re right that one does need to argue their point, but the point to be argued is not that God does not exist, it’s that the arguments in favour of a God’s existence are incorrect or insufficient. So the atheist does need to argue their points, but when it comes down to it, it’s still a case of their opponent having the burden of proof - the argument is addressing whether or not that proof is inadequate.
Unless we are all insane or everything really is “the mind”, there is plenty of evidence for an objective reality. Whether or not we’re perceiving it properly (obviously we generally don’t as science has shown), is irrelevant. Things happen repeatedly in our world and we can make predictions. We can alter our perception of reality but we have plenty of evidence in our own lives to show that we can’t alter an objective reality. Once people know more about the natural world, the more ‘true’ this becomes. Logic and reasonable thinking only become relevant when given proper data and interpreting it correctly. Otherwise it they can guide you nicely along in your delusion.
Now atheists can come to their lack of belief in gods because they trust their perception and they only observe evidence of a natural world that follows certain natural laws. But this belief in their own perception is not required nor does their perception even have to be healthy.
Even an insane person can be an atheist. He just doesn’t think gods exist. He can believe that the CIA is sending him messages through his cavity fillings or that ghosts speak to him through ground squirrels. So supernatural or irrational perception would still allow one to be defined as an atheist as long as he doesn’t believe the squirrel ghosts are special deities whose role are to control certain aspects of the world. He may not have a clue at all about scientific processes involved in the natural world. He may just think it happens. Now if he thinks he can control natural processes in a regular fashion then he can’t be an atheist because he would believe that he is a god.
Again, many theists simply cannot comprehend this simple lack of belief for atheists. I think it is due to many theists thinking of the world in terms of purpose and misinterpreting cause and effect. “There must be something out there. Otherwise why do I feel this way?” “Even though there’s no proof, you don’t KNOW that there are no gods. That requires some sort of belief.” They actively believe things, therefore atheists must also actively believe things. Analogies like “well, do you believe in Thor or the orbiting tea cup?” simply fall on deaf ears. Until there is an epiphany in which they instinctually “know” how atheists think, they’ll never get it.
I’m skeptical of the so-called agnostics. IMO, this is just a cop-out term for people who who either don’t want to offend anyone or want to appear “open-minded” and a “true skeptic”. I’d say most atheists are really agnostic in a sense that they know there are uncertainties. But, fuck it, why bother with that stupid term? I see just as much evidence for a god controlling nature as for a pink elephant (which by definition would make it a deity). If I’m going to be atheistic about the pink elephants, than I’m atheistic about any kind of god. That also goes with certain forms of pantheism. If your pandeity is simply nature, then you’re an atheist for cryin’ out loud. Come out of the closet and admit it! 
Your own statement presumes that they are true. Words like "proof’, and that very list of requirements all assume that logic and reason work. And claiming that you’ve heard people say things on the subject is itself an argument that there is an objective reality that can be perceived.
If the first two statements are false then we can know nothing of interest about the world, nor is there any point in talking about the matter since there’s no one to talk to. And if the second two are true then we can say or think nothing of use about anything.
Yep.
Ah, I misread.
I understand and agree with the distinction.
Not believing a belief is not a belief in and of itself. You’re conflating one definition of the word with another.
Yes, it’s a belief not unlike my believing that penguins exist, even though I’ve never seen one. It’s not a belief as in a religious system.
You’ve never seen a penguin? You’re missing out. Those things are fuckin’ adorable.
Or so you believe.
First, I suggest that “better” is not meaningless but is a key aspect of why atheists reject theistic explanations. We are always evaluating various premises and conclusions and determining whether they are acceptable or not. We accept those that we think are “better” than the alternatives. And, we live in a world that has more theists than atheists. In general, we assimilate the beliefs of those around us, and, at the very least, we are affected in some way by them. Being an atheist in a predominantly theistic society requires a deliberate denial of theism, and it requires an alternative to theistic claims. Atheists believe that those alternatives are “better”.
Also, in reference to "bronze age tribes, you said that “they were ignorant of science in general and did they the best they could.” (Emphasis mine.) Isn’t the implication that now we can do even better because we are no longer ignorant of science?
I missed the quick conclusion. What was it?
I think you mean the “preferred” position, or “the position that has shown be be more helpful in formulating how the universe works.” For millennia, the default was “God did it”, and for many people today, it still is.
I guess the main issue I have with simple (and, I think, naive) dismissals of theism is the fact that many, many highly intelligent people throughout history and today have believed in some form of theism. I am not (repeat NOT) arguing that “God exists because many people believe that God exists.” I am saying that when highly intelligent people believe that God exists, then this suggests that a belief in God cannot be dismissed with a simple claim like “There’s no evidence that God exists.” The argument needs to be a bit more sophisticated. I’ve noticed, though, that some atheists have not examined the deeper issues of theism, and, for them, facile dismissals are adequate. Other atheists know more about about theism than most theists, and it is this additional expertise that supports their atheism.
In any case, for the statement “God exists” to be meaningful, there needs to be a meaningful and coherent definition of “God”. Ultimately, that’s where theistic arguments break down.
Yes, it can. Being highly intelligent won’t keep you from being wrong if you are ignorant or irrational. Or under the threat of death or torture if you speak the truth, for that matter. And again, there’s no evidence that god is even possible, much less real.
And, why is it “naive” to dismiss theism because there’s no evidence for it? Is it naive to dismiss claims that an intelligent invisible green mango is plotting my death? That’s more plausible than God, yet I don’t hesitate to dismiss it.
If it’s invisible, how would you know it’s green?
Among the other reasons, remember that different people have different levels of ability in terms of logical reasoning. There are different levels of acceptance of atheism with education and scientific training - this isn’t random.
The point about imaginary beasts is about logic, not emotion. God isn’t the only fantastical thing people believe because of emotions. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle became a spiritualist because he refused to accept that the death of his son in the war was final. That was very relevant to his thoughts, but it doesn’t make his belief in fairies any more valid.
For many, perhaps most, theism is the path of least resistance. They are born into believing families, going to church with their parents avoids arguments, religion is tied to social rites. There is plenty in the culture to make someone who doesn’t participate feel guilty. Why reconsider your beliefs if this will just cause problems. You are much more accepted as someone who believes but doesn’t go to church except during Christmas and Easter than someone who doesn’t go because he no longer believes.
As has already been mentioned, you don’t need another explanation. But I’ve found that some people are very uncomfortable with this concept, which is where a lot of pantheism comes from.
As for evidence, much of it is actually bogus, in the sense being stuff that most people are taught and is accepted culturally, but which is not really true.
Intelligent theists probably have the same physical interpretation of the world as atheists. Evolution is an example. It is the imputation of meaning that is the big differentiator. Look at theistic evolution. As far as observations go, it is exactly the same as standard evolution. The difference is just the assumption that a deity is invisibly loading the dice to force the outcome to be us. Clearly some people are upset that we are just one of the many potential outcomes of the process, and not made in god’s image at all. Ditto for the deistic god who set the universe into motion.
Or the answer is a non-answer. I have no pre-ordained role that I should be fulfilling. How can we tell if were are doing it or not? I can count and be happy about my accomplishments, I can count and be unhappy about stuff I think I should be doing but am not doing, but I don’t think I was born with a set of objectives, and I really don’t think I’m being graded on them.
You want evidence that it’s green? Ah, but I’ve just been told that dismissing something due to a lack of evidence is “naive”. So your question is naive too!
I have no reason to believe any human religion has described or can describe the nature of the universe, its origins or its likely eventual fate in a manner more accurate than the modern sciences of cosmology and astronomy. The question of whether or not there is a God or gods is moot - the human philosophy of theism is without any evidence that any of its variations has accurately described said God or gods (assuming they exist) so I’m content to live in indifference to this particular branch of philosophy, i.e. I can live without theism, much as I can live without the equally evidence-free philosophies of phrenology or astrology, which also operate in a manner inconsistent with anything I would describe as reasoned analysis.
Thus, I am an atheist. I live without theism. Theism is useless to me.