Is negative atheism an intellectually untenable position?

Anti-atheism: gnostic theists who are opposed to atheism. A good point. I agree. Gnostic (with knowledge) does not have to be scientifically based, the jury example shows valid methodologies to arrive at a belief.

I like calling myself an agnostic. Others would call me an agnostic atheist, but some would argue that they are the same thing so whatever. In any case, I default to the idea that without definitive evidence of existence, the default position should be disbelief. This is basically an application of Occam's Razor. Now what you need to understand is that Occam's Razor isn't always true, which means if you can present definitive evidence of existence then the default position should be one of existence.

What this means with me is that I don't believe or disbelieve in god, but for now I think the safest bet to make is that god doesn't exist. Once definitive evidence of god can be presented then I'll change my opinion.

a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for the clarification. This is the reason I left religion out of the OP. The individual who presented the arguments follows scripture and believes Jesus was a prophet (I am presuming he is a Muslim). In my OP I only described the arguments which made me challenge my own position. My conclusion was just that.

a reply to: VoidHawk

You are missing the point. I stated in my OP that evolutionists use the same methodologies to arrive at their belief.

a reply to: Kandinsky

It basically amounts to I don't believe, I don't think about it and I don't care. It's not an intellectual stance that requires conflict with others or even that it has a symbiotic relationship with Theism.

I agree. I would say this is agnostic atheism but without the 'standing on a pedestal' claiming this is the default natural position and the other beliefs (intelligent or non-intelligent design) are somehow inferior.

originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for the clarification. This is the reason I left religion out of the OP. The individual who presented the arguments follows scripture and believes Jesus was a prophet (I am presuming he is a Muslim). In my OP I only described the arguments which made me challenge my own position. My conclusion was just that.

No offense intended or taken. What fascinates me about our civilization is the thousands of gods throughout history, and the thousands today that are being worshiped, yet everyone wants to tell you their god is the right one. Logically, if a person is going to believe in deities, they must believe in all of them. They can claim their god is the supreme, but they can't prove it, and they cannot prove their god is the only one that exists. Therefore, they must be polytheistic.

In my opinion, history shows us plainly none of these gods exist, or ever existed. If they did, what happened to all of them? Where are they? Why are they not making themselves known today as they did thousands of years ago? The questions could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

Logic dictates there are no deities, and there never were. If that statement is untrue, then we should also believe in faeries, unicorns, cyclops, sirens, leprechauns, fire breathing dragons, Calypso, scylla, ad infinitum. None of these creatures can be disproven. So by default, you and others are saying I must be agnostic about them. I'm saying by default I should have no belief in them at all, because the evidence points in that direction. Just as it does with deities. S&F btw.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I would agree that a straight line is an accurate graphical depiction. I would say the circle argument is flawed as the circle does not represent anything. What did he say it represented?

a reply to: deliberator

This issue is regarding the response to claims made by theists for the case of a god. If the case does not convince, you're not required to then produce counter evidence or arguments as to why, a simple rejection of the claim is all that's needed.

And that's the case for any claim, be it the FSM, a flying elephant or anything else, the burden of proof is with those making the claim.

It is a fallacy that negative atheists say that 'there is no evidence for a designer creator' and therefore have a lack of belief. It is much better to say I 'believe' there is no evidence for a designer creator (positive atheism) which is an intellectually tenable position.

The evidences are all around them and yet negative atheists choose not to acknowledge it, are in denial or/and have ridiculous expectations about what constitutes evidence. Moreover the whole 'lack of belief' approach, is not something which science validated for them, rather it's a philosophical approach created by themselves.

What like the birds and the trees?.....

Have your ever heard the expression 'incredible claims require incredible evidence'? The claims for god/s don't get much more incredible.

Are you sure you're not a theist? some of the things you have said make me think you might be, that atheists 'deny' evidence for god/ and 'The evidences are all around them and yet negative atheists choose not to acknowledge it'...

And the arguments you've listed seem to be typical of what theists think atheists base their lack of belief on, especially argument 3.

Kinda skeptical...

originally posted by: deliberator
Anti-atheism: gnostic theists who are opposed to atheism. A good point. I agree. Gnostic (with knowledge) does not have to be scientifically based, the jury example shows valid methodologies to arrive at a belief.

To arrive at a belief yes. But knowing is more than believing. I agree it doesn't have to hinge on faith. But to know something is to be able to show why it is you know something is true. Or to demonstrate why it's true so that others can know it as well without a doubt. You can't do that with God either for or against his existence. Which is why I say both positives can't be.

a reply to: deliberator
He meant what I meant by the straight line; except that he was extending both ends of the line to infinity and claiming, as a mathematician, that infinity was the place where the two ends would meet. In other words, he was cheating.

a reply to: Prezbo369

This issue is regarding the response to claims made by theists for the case of a god. If the case does not convince, you're not required to then produce counter evidence or arguments as to why, a simple rejection of the claim is all that's needed.

With the 'run of the mill' negative atheists which Kandinsky describes then yes. In an intellectual discussion I disagree. You are required to produce counter evidence and arguments. This is how ideas are progressed. To be honest this is what caused my gripes which I described in my OP, I could not do this.

Have your ever heard the expression 'incredible claims require incredible evidence'?

Yes I have. Have you ever heard the expression "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ?

Are you sure you're not a theist? some of the things you have said make me think you might be, that atheists 'deny' evidence for god/ and 'The evidences are all around them and yet negative atheists choose not to acknowledge it'...

And the arguments you've listed seem to be typical of what theists think atheists base their lack of belief on, especially argument 3.

In my OP I clearly stated these are not my own arguments and also the reason why I present them. I could not challenge the arguments intellectually which has made me question my own position. If you look back at my posts I have not promoted or argued for theism.

a reply to: deliberator

Non-belief in spaghetti monsters and flying elephants is an improper analogy to non-belief in a deity. While we have seen spaghetti and elephants and have observed their properties, we have not seen anything of a deity. Furthermore, a jury will make its ruling based on evidence presented. There has been absolutely zero evidence presented for a deity - were the same level of evidence provided for God be presented in a court case, the case would get thrown out for lack of evidence.

The only two untenable positions are anti-theism/positive atheism and positive theism. Negative-atheism (or agnostic atheism) is hands down the most logical position. Negative theism, while not untenable, is - when analyzed, irrational.

Think about what you just said, the jury uses evidence. Can fingerprints on a gun be taken as 100% proof? If so why are people framed in this way? If justice is infallible why do we hear about individuals being wrongfully convicted after spending years in jail.

I purposefully left out agnostic theism as this would bring scripture into the argument although many would argue this is also an intellectually untenable position. By removing scripture from the argument it leaves just one question, is the universe intelligently designed or non-intelligently designed. It has to be one or the other.

Neither science nor creationism can prove outright which one it is. Both sides are based solely on belief. Both sides use similar methodologies to arrive their belief eg logical, rational, mathematical arguments etc just like a jury. You say theism is untenable and yet you offer no valid arguments to support your statement so it can be challenged. In fact you don't know the answer as if you did you would not have started a thread a few days ago asking for other members to give you the answers.

As for science remember we were told for over 50 years that saturated fats cause heart disease. There was never any evidence to support this. As technology evolved it has now been shown that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Scientists claim that due to further evidence they had to re-evaluate the saturated fat claim. What this basically means is science was wrong in the first place.

If you think negative atheism is an intellectually tenable position please explain why. If you can't then your statement is invalid as there is nothing to critique. This is not an attack on you personally btw. I have been searching for this answer myself but not really getting anywhere.

a reply to: deliberator

A popular fallacy people make is trying to compare viable courtroom evidence to scientific evidence. Each field has different standards for the evidence they will accept. Courtroom evidence happens to have looser standards than scientific evidence. That is why witness testimony can get a conviction, but when people talk about there not being evidence for god, they are talking about scientific evidence not courtroom evidence. After all, you don't prove existence in a court of law. You prove it with science.

a reply to: deliberator

If justice is infallible why do we hear about individuals being wrongfully convicted after spending years in jail.

Justice and evidence are two different things. We aren't talking about justice - rather the overwhelming lack of evidence for the existence of any deity.

By removing scripture from the argument it leaves just one question, is the universe intelligently designed or non-intelligently designed. It has to be one or the other.

False dilemma. Maybe it isn't designed at all.

Both sides are based solely on belief

Incorrect. One is based on hypotheses, theories, repeated tests, and observations - the other is based on an ancient book.

In fact you don't know the answer as if you did you would not have started a thread a few days ago asking for other members to give you the answers.

You thought I came to ATS to learn something? I don't remember asking for answers - just for opinions and some solid debate.

As for science remember we were told for over 50 years that saturated fats cause heart disease.

No one denies that science makes mistakes from time to time. Still - no evidence coming from the belief in God side.

If you think negative atheism is an intellectually tenable position please explain why. If you can't then your statement is invalid as there is nothing to critique. This is not an attack on you personally btw. I have been searching for this answer myself but not really getting anywhere.

You certainly do deserve an answer, but since I'm tired right now, I'll leave you with this link to another thread in which, over the course of the pages, I think I present a logical case for negative atheism (or agnosticism as I'd prefer to call it).

However, to sum it up: The most logical thing to believe is that which we have the most evidence for. All the evidence suggests a completely impartial and impersonal creation. Anyhow, I'll let you read over the linked thread and get back to me with questions/comments - I'll resume discussion after I've slept.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think there's even anything that would qualify as courtroom evidence for the existence of a God.

a reply to: scorpio84

Good point. All the witnesses we could call for witness testimony are deceased.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree. The evidence in court is not the same standard as science. There is the argument that the finely tuned universe is evidence. One thing that has always baffled me is solar eclipses. Statistically what are the chances of a moon being at the right distance from the star and planet to form a perfect eclipse? Some would argue that it is statistically viable but to be able to state that you would need to know how many stars there are in the universe.

Agnosticism has nothing to do scripture and science says nothing on the claim for an intelligently designed universe or a God.

The only people making any claims are theists, it's their case to make and the onus is on them. There are no ideals being presented or arguments being made, just the rejection of a claim, a finding of not guilty.

Noone is advocating a position they know to be false nor is anyone plagiarising an argument.

However the argument presented in the OP is filled with falsehoods and fallacies (such as the list of arguments atheists make).

a reply to: deliberator

Ellipses are formed from two foci points and orbiting around them. Just like taking a constant radii and rotating it around its starting point will form a perfect circle, rotating a point consistently around two foci will form a perfect ellipse.

The fine tuning argument is an argument based off confirmation bias. It assumes that god is real then looks for proof by saying that only god can make the things we see in the universe.