Goliath

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bumble Bee Tuna.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Soul Invictus

Okay....maybe you can view my example a few posts back using Iraq. I stated my opinion, however it wasn't an affirmative or positive stance. Wouldn't it follow that a negative claim or stance can be stated as in the affirmative? (Unless you have a different name for the negative claim)

I ask because I've been looking to get a positive stance for Goliath's atheistic stance, however I'm only get the proverbial negative definition that starts with "...the lack of" definition which has been profusely given to me time and time again.

Soul Invictus

BBT,

Okay, I'll try to set something up for you, but give me a minute to organize everything, okay? I thought this thread was dead, after about a week of no activity. When you don't see a reply, its because I'm working on it, ok?

Soul Invictus

It is equally smug to demean an argument that you find problematic by referring to the irrelevancy of it w/o addressing a specific point that you wish for me to explain or articulate better.


Edited to reply: I miss the point directed to me in your addition.

Charlie

Atheism is "Non belief", meaning no belief!

Atheism is not a belief! Atheist do not believe. Only believers, ie., christians, believe! If something has to be "believed" then that is your first clue that it may not be true. A christian has to "believe" in god, in order to be a christian. If there was proof of a god, then you would no longer have to "believe" because you would then "know" that there is a god. If there was proof, then we would all know! However, there is no proof of a god, and this is why christians must "believe". Atheist do not have a belief of nonbelief. Atheists simply "know" there is no god. Thus, Atheists have NO belief!

If Atheism was a belief, then we would be building Atheism churches all over the place and making a business out of it, making all that money and not having to pay taxes on it! (Hey, maybe I'm on to something here.. )
Charlie

Soul Invictus

Nice fresh post...you did hit on some concerns I made earlier about stances on knowing with certainty vs believing with speculation

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

That's the problem: You're looking for something that does not exist!!!

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

I have done no such thing!! I have repeatedly told you to the following two things:

a). Prove your claim that it is impossible to prove that no gods exist.

b). Explain why your "fact vs. opinion" diatribe is in any way, shape, or form relevant to this discussion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Soul Invictus

So you mean to tell me that a few pages back when I tried to restate your stance and you ever so quickly pointed out that I was [B]wrong[B] you didn't see that this was an issue I was looking to address?... You mean to tell me there is no affirmative stance to characterize your view? I'm guessing SteveD will corroborate what you say in his reply....

Did you have a look at my Iraq example previously?

Bumble Bee Tuna

No problem man. No rush.

As for your Iraq example...IIRC, it was "I believe that we should not have gone into Iraq"? I hope so, because I'm going off of that memory.

That is a positive belief. Had you said "I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq", it would NOT have meant the same thing. It would merely mean you haven't decided that we should have- but it doesn't leave out the idea that you haven't decided that we shouldn't have. If you said "I do not believe (positive)" instead of "I believe (negative)", it would make the difference between certainty and uncertainty. One could easily have no opinion on the matter.
The difference between your Iraq example and God, I suppose, is that disbelief is the default position. Inaction is not necessarily a default position (though it often is, so it would be harder to characterize yourself as an ainvasionist when you could just as easily characterize yourself as an anoninvasionist (if you used the "I do not believe (positive)" sentence). In some instances, inaction is perhaps a default position. It has to be, because with no information, you have no choice but inaction because action would have to be random and nonsensical. If you had a situation where you knew without a doubt from the start that some action would at least be a good idea, and it was a choice between a few different courses, your default position might be "randomly chosen option until I can decide on a better one".

To make Iraq comparable, let's call the position that we should have invaded Iraq invasionism. Because invasion is a big, risky action, I think it's safe to say inaction with regards to invasion is the default position. Your statement, "I believe that we should not have gone into Iraq", would be known as "strong ainvasionism", and it would count as a belief. Goliath's analogous position, "weak ainvasionism", would be stated "I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq".

I hope that all made sense.

And I would say, yes, there is no positive stance for weak atheism. Weak atheism is defined as the negative stance of atheism, strong atheism is defined as the positive stance of atheism. It is not that weak atheism is some unique concept that unlike all other concepts, can't be divided into a positive or negative stance, but that weak atheism is already a divided part of "atheism".

-B