I don't think I've ever heard of this 'positivism' this guy's talking about. I had to wiki it and the definition doesn't really sync with what he's taking about either. I also don't agree with the wiki's definition regarding society either, especially when much of our society was built with strong religious influence. So that's a little confusing. I certainly don't view myself as a positivist, or humanist. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal nor am I a conservative but I guess I associate more with liberal views. Above all, I'm a skeptic that questions everything with logic, reason and solid facts. I am an atheist strictly because of the probabilities I have reasoned and nothing more, all hopes and dreams and egotism aside. Also, I don't find atheists treat theory as if it was religious evidence at all. I have however seen countless occasions where theists cherry pick some theories and treat them as facts to spin twisted counter arguments.
Most of the society was build by ancient greeks and romans. They had their gods, but they didn't make a huge role in societys development. Christianity basicly came in, destroyed roman empire, everything was forgotten for a long time and then we were rediscovering it. I'd say I am positivist. Everything can be described by science. We might not be able to describe it yet, thats why we call some stuff mystical or whatever, but everything can be described by science. Everything what happens is science.
The postivism this guy is talking about is probably twentieth century logical positivism rather than the broader nineteenth century movement by Comte, which was an effort to put both society and religious thought on a strictly empirical footing; or the legal positivism of John Austin, which tried to exclude all considerations of justice and morals from the law. The logical positivism of A.J. Ayer (particularly before his near death experience), which was the rage in the fifties and early sixties, said that all statements about reality had to be empirically verifiable or they were "metaphysics" and thus nonsense. There go string theory, M-theory, and multiverses. Any discussion of God, pro or con would be metaphysics and nonsense in Ayer's book. This whole forum would qualify as nonsense, so we're all wasting our time here. (Sometimes I wonder). Ayer's thinking has been out of style since the sixties. Philosophers of science have questioned the narrow emphasis on empirical "verification" in favor of a broader insistence on refutablility. And mathematical physicists are now far more inclined than they used to be to spin theories that nobody expects anyone to be able to prove empiricly in the forseeable future. Positivism tries to banish the messy ambiguities and uncertainties of life from the realm of legitimate knowledge. I'd argue that it has lots in common with religious fundamentalism, with its focus on the literal meaning of words in a book as the only acceptable basis for belief. Both approaches are guided by a futile quest for certainty in an uncertain universe. I'm certainly no positivist, but I'm definitely a humanist of the Christian variety. I dig people and regard them as truly amazing, whether they're made in God's image or vice versa.
I think atheists are the other extreme of theists in the sense that they don't believe something and have no proof to support their views either. A truly rational person would have to truthfully say that there is no verifiable evidence either way.
You are wrong. If Atheists believe in another god then yes, you would be right. But one group is making an extraordinary claim, and the other just don't accept it because there is no proof or evidence backing it up. Absolutely zero.
This thread isn't about Atheism. It's about Atheism + My thoughts on Atheism + are long and windy and I'm guessing would clash heavily with opinions on here just because it involves the 'F' word. Feminism.
You basically said the same thing I did. But, just to avoid an argument: From Wikipedia; Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. I believe this is what I said, just not as long winded.
Gee, I'm sorry, I never heard of atheism + before. After watching the video and looking up positivism, it sounds like just another bullshit "thing" that people are doing that can't make up their minds which way to swing. Either you are an atheist, or you are not. This thread reminds me of main stream religion, where no one can agree on what god to follow, or what dogma to believe in, so they think up a bunch of bullshit that does nothing more than confuse an already ridiculously clouded issue. Just more fence sitters who can't commit to any belief.
