Positive Atheism

[Purple Rabbit]

getting back to point I believe the original question was religions contributions to society.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining, creating mythos/ religion.

Stop right there. These are still unsubstantiated claims of yours. Please substantiate that claim. Why do you assume that god necessitated explanation? And why is it not the other way around?

That necessated a higher level of morality,

Please substantiate that claim.

.. defining moral terpitude.

Please substantiate that claim.

I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

Please substantiate that claim.

The first and second great awakening.

Are you referring to Enlightenment? And how was that ever an ambition of religion?

Here is a small reference for gender equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Norwich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Egalitarianism

It is true that in early christian history there were schools of thought with an explicit egalitarian pov. Augustine's doctrine of original sin overturned these tendencies however in late 4th century. Hence implementation failed as a result of clerical forces. It re-emerged again in clerical circles considerable time after Enlightenment in Europe. Enlightenment itself involved a struggle to separate clerical power from secular power which proved to be a precondition to implement the ideal of egality in society, the church still lagging behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

Complementarianism is a clerical school of thought that emerged considerable time after womens rights in western society have been established. Also note that it is predominantly a critique on the traditional role of women in church. Hardly something that you can bring up as an argument for a role of religion on the change itself. Instead of being the spark that ignited women's rights this is a much delayed clerical reaction on changed secular opinion. It strives to implement modernized women's rights in church..

While I don't assert that religion has done a lot of harm to society, I'm sure a predominant amount of atheists on here can list the negative impacts. I was just atempting to round out the list from a more well rounded perspective.

In fact I do acknowledge that religion can be a vehicle for positive societal developments and moral. I do think however that that property is not unique to religion and that its dogmatic nature (like all dogmatic platonic systems) and its hierarchical organisation rather inhibits moral and cultural development than facilitates it. The history of religion in the west clearly shows that implementation of moral concepts in clerical practice considerably lags behind of implementation in society from a non clerical origin.

In science (except for mathematics) it is indeed based on observation. What makes you think it isn't.

I'm glad we agree. That was in reference to the cause and effect of God.

Up till now science has no empirical evidence suggesting such a supernatural entity. So how do you connect t he dots between god and observation?

Yes, you implicitly did by stating "In our universe cause preempts effect." (underling by me). And rephrasing your statement to "In and outside our universe cause preempts effect." makes it nonsensical, since it is not clear what outside the universe means and if your cauation rule applies on the treshold between inside and outside.There you go. If god is outside the ruleset, than you cannot apply the ruleset to god and your claim about causation does not apply.

I am unfarmiliar withe the definitions and application of all of the logical fallacies used in debate, so let me restate. In our know universe it is widely accepted that cause preempts effect (with a few acceptions). I define our known universe as the things we have discovered in our universe. If something outside of our known universe it has the potential to be explained by the rules science, reason and logic can measure. If it is outside of our universe, even the rules we haven't come up with yet would not be forced to apply. If (from a perspective within our known universe) God created our universe, the first action of our known universe yould be an effect of God's cause. Is that any clearer?

Your argument is clear (as it has been to me in former the post) but seriously flawed. The flaw is not just some sort of procedural issue on debating technique but at a fundamental logical level. You cannot randomly define terms like inside and outside of the universe and declare the laws of nature applicable on both sides. When you say that god being 'outside' caused/created the universe, you apply reasoning about causality to the outside. How do you account for the fact that causality has any meaning outside the universe? More accurately put, 'outside the universe' must mean without reference to spacetime since spacetime is what makes up 'the inside'. But causality cannot be understood without reference to time, since without time it is not clear how the cause can precede the effect.

What are you referring to?

per your request I was suggesting we leave God and divinity out of the conversation as well as my lack of debating skills. Let's just stick to religions.

I haven't brought up your debating skills in conversation. You did. I think it is irrelevant for the arguments we exchange.

Mormonism is out the window, right after the indoor plumbing stuff. What religious movement(s) were early adopters of women's rights?

So a strong independant community is not a benefit to society, or you're not willing to discuss it? See above for the latter half.

I have adressed that above.

What is a psychological aversion?

That would otherwise noted as a chip on the shoulder, an axe to grind, a pessimistic penchant for pietism, etc.

You cannot read my mind or extract my motives from it, as I cannot yours. Don't step into the trap of mind reading. The arguments are what counts in debate, not the beauty of mine or your mind from whatever moral perspective one chooses.

[TruthWorthy]

I used to be a Postive Atheist before being set into Agnostic Atheism.

I've just accepted agnosticism's possibility and I hate it because the reasons supporting "god are stupid.

They make good points in thier discussions, and I really like thier logic on everything they talk about.

I still think "god is a less logical conclusion to creation. I hate that the basis of the argument rests on disproving the existence of "god. Imagine if it were the other way around and they had prove their argument . . .

Sooo, Is Positive Atheism logical? Is Positive Atheism faith based just like religion?

Yeah, positive atheism is logical. Only imaginary ideas keep the "god argument going.

[Rhizomorph13]

Why do you write god like "god? I thought it was a typo but every instance of god in your post is written that way. Curiousor and curiousor.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, positive atheism is logical. Only imaginary ideas keep the "god argument going.

If you think positive atheism is logical, then you haven't accepted agnosticism's possibility. The two are incompatible.

[Purple Rabbit]

Yeah, positive atheism is logical. Only imaginary ideas keep the "god argument going.

If you think positive atheism is logical, then you haven't accepted agnosticism's possibility. The two are incompatible.

So what, agnosticism and theological noncognitivism are incompatible too.

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't know. I haven't studied that.

Positive atheism makes the assertion that God does not exist. An agnostic (whether it be strong or weak or other) cannot make such an assertion, since agnostics say these things are unknown or unknowable. Thus, they are incompatible.

[littlegrimlin1]

kavdoaijeradnvadfef!#@@!

Well, I would like to be a Positive Atheist except for the fact that I do not see it as logical... ;\

Sigh..

[Purple Rabbit]

Think about this. If we cannot be 100% certain of anything, not even deductive mathematical truth, than aren't all human statements on truth essentially relative? And if so, is it then possible to say that 1+1 = 2 is on par with god does not exist for particular god concepts that logically contradict itself?

I'm just wondering here, not stating the claim of absoluteness, but rather a sort of "as absolute as it gets".

[Tiberius]

We can be 100% certain of mathematical truth, since it's an entirely human invention. We made it, we control it. That's the difference here.

Gods (whilst also being inventions of man as I believe), are defined outside of the boundaries of humans. We don't have control over them as we do with mathematics. Thus there is always going to be the possibility that such beings exist, and that maybe the men "inventing" them were doing so because these gods acted through them.

[Purple Rabbit]

We can be 100% certain of mathematical truth, since it's an entirely human invention. We made it, we control it. That's the difference here.

No, we cannot. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has shown that not all of the mathematical framework might be provable. Also the fundamental assumption is implicitly made that deductive reasoning is conclusive. How can we be 100% sure of that?