GAD - 14 January 2012 09:50 AM

I liked this;

Despite the existence of well-established and powerful theoretical frameworks, some individuals may still hold an Edelpilz epistemological notion that only the samples brought back by astronauts were truly decisive. Or even that a deep moon core sample is still necessary to settle the lunar Limburger. But such people have truly lost their whey.

This is a clear dig at those who claim we can’t say anything for sure until we have checked under every rock in the universe.

Are there a lot more Positive Atheists on board than we thought, GAD?

Answerer - 17 January 2012 11:58 AM

GAD - 14 January 2012 09:50 AM

I liked this;

Despite the existence of well-established and powerful theoretical frameworks, some individuals may still hold an Edelpilz epistemological notion that only the samples brought back by astronauts were truly decisive. Or even that a deep moon core sample is still necessary to settle the lunar Limburger. But such people have truly lost their whey.

This is a clear dig at those who claim we can’t say anything for sure until we have checked under every rock in the universe.

Are there a lot more Positive Atheists on board than we thought, GAD?

God that would be cheesy goodness!

What’s a negative Atheist? I see any nonBELIEF as positive.

Avogadro’s number - 18 January 2012 05:59 AM

What’s a negative Atheist? I see any nonBELIEF as positive.

The “I lack belief”, “you can’t disprove god”, “unless we have searched under every rock”, “we can’t be certain”, “agnostic atheist” type atheists.

GAD - 18 January 2012 08:11 AM

Avogadro’s number - 18 January 2012 05:59 AM

What’s a negative Atheist? I see any nonBELIEF as positive.

The “I lack belief”, “you can’t disprove god”, “unless we have searched under every rock”, “we can’t be certain”, “agnostic atheist” type atheists.

It’s the subtle connotations. Basically, at least the way I see it, it amounts to a recognition of Atheism through the front or back doors. Positive Atheism accepts the “proofs” that already exist for the non-existence of God(s), other forms suggest that the best that can be said is there is no “proof” God(s) exist, with a more serious implication of “until and unless it is forthcoming” as the main substantiation. The contemplation of a “forthcoming” is just as fantastical as the “proofs” Theism already offers. The “back door” approach feels that it is being true to the possibilities of science, the “front door” feels that science and reason has already done its work without tentativeness, it transcends the realm of belief into the arena of fact-based knowledge. “God” is not and cannot be nor contemplated as the subject of any scientific experimental design, which is a basis to know, not to not know.