Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think atheism can be equated with (or perhaps at least a subset of) logical positivism? This is not a trick question. Just wondering about other's thoughts.
Do you think atheism can be equated with (or perhaps at least a subset of) logical positivism? This is not a trick question. Just wondering about other's thoughts.
I’m not the smartest duck in the pond.
So could you explain what “ logical positivism” is?
If I remember right, Logical Positivism holds that everything can eventually be boiled down a simple scientific "theory of everything" (which in this case would be the Science itself) that will serve as a way to understand everything in the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Atheism just means not believing in god, although some atheists are slowly and probably unintentially pushing it from just general non-belif to a philosopy of it's own.
So the answer would be no, atheism is not a subset or branch of Positivism. They are just starting to sound similar, that's all. For now though, it would be saying Christians= Catholics. You don't have to be a positivist to be an atheist or vice versa.
I’m not the smartest duck in the pond.
So could you explain what “ logical positivism” is?
Thanks,
Aeroman
In a nutshell, logical positivism rejects metaphysical ideas as being ultimately meaningless, since they are not based in physical reality. It doesn't mean that metaphysics are false, just that the questions posed in metaphysics are not "genuine" since any answer has to resort to an assumption about things not found in nature.
I ask because I see a similarity with atheism, in that atheism does not seem to accept the idea of a "supernatural being" since, by definition, that being is outside of the natural - i.e. scientifically knowable - realm.
In a nutshell, logical positivism rejects metaphysical ideas as being ultimately meaningless, since they are not based in physical reality. It doesn't mean that metaphysics are false, just that the questions posed in metaphysics are not "genuine" since any answer has to resort to an assumption about things not found in nature.
I ask because I see a similarity with atheism, in that atheism does not seem to accept the idea of a "supernatural being" since, by definition, that being is outside of the natural - i.e. scientifically knowable - realm.
Thanks, I understand now.
I personally believe that atheism only means no belief in god or gods.
If I believed that there could be other dimensions I still think I could be an atheist.
And if I think that there could be a non thinking life force, I still think I could be an atheist.
Or that somehow some part of us is reborn, I still think I could be an atheist.
Now, don’t get me wrong.
In the state I’m in now, I do not think those things are true.
However I am a meditator and when I’m in a meditative state those things seem very possible.
A meditative state is an altered state of mind and I realize this. So I do not carry over those beliefs into this state of mind.
An atheist ought not to have any problem with any of those things, just so longs as the label 'god' wasn't attached to any of them.
That of course is so arbitrary as to be illogical and atheism has to be logical or it won't stand up for a minute, so the logical basis has to be not assuming unverified hypotheses about what these things such as meditation are and what causes them.
Do you think atheism can be equated with (or perhaps at least a subset of) logical positivism? This is not a trick question. Just wondering about other's thoughts.
possibly, for some people....but for others there is an unsurity about their beliefs...so I don't think logical positivism could be applied to atheism
Do you think atheism can be equated with (or perhaps at least a subset of) logical positivism? This is not a trick question. Just wondering about other's thoughts.
No because I think atheism is a result of a thing, and not a thing in itself. Allow me to explain.
I am someone who has one simple rule in life "Be open to listening to all ideas, but reject instantly any idea that comes before me with literally no evidence, argument, data or reasons to support it".
That is it. That is all I am and who I am.
Now GIVEN there is no argument, evidence, data or reasons on offer by anyone to my knowledge that a god exists, that is one of the ideas I reject. That is the result of the application of my simple rule.
"Atheist" is what OTHER people call me because of this. I do not use the term of myself.
"Be open to listening to all ideas, but reject instantly any idea that comes before me with literally no evidence, argument, data or reasons to support it".
What evidence, arguments, data or reasons are there to support the idea of atheism?
Is atheism logically coherent?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just wondering about other's thoughts.
