Slashdot Mirror

As long as you keep insisting that superstition "is perfectly okay" in various forms of unscientific and bewildered rhetoric, you and yours and everyone else will continue to suffer at the hands of its dogma.

Call theism what it is: superstition. Treat it the way it should be treated: as garbage thinking. Precisely the same amount of evidence exists for "gods" as exist for magical pink unicorns. Which is to say, none.

> It seems like bad religion has been holding back real global progress, why not a push to take religion in general out of society by replacing it with True religion, compassion, instead?

0. FTFY

1. Yeah, Good Luck with removing religion. Gee, did you forget a small little detail called The First Amendment ???

2. Everyone has faith. If you didn't have faith in your beliefs then why do you even have them in the first place???

3. Trading one evil with another another isn't the solution. i.e. Trading ignorance (Theism) for arrogance (Atheism) is treating the symptom and not the cause. As a mystic the solution is two-fold:

a) "gnosis" or _experiential knowledge_.

b) The fundamental problem is bad behavior towards others. There are nice Muslims, and nice Atheists. Likewise there are asshole Muslims, and asshole Atheists. Your beliefs only become a problem when you are unable to treat others with respect.

Banning something just because _you_ don't agree with it quickly leads to a slippery slope of censorship and rights abuse.

With freedom comes responsibility. Spiritually immature people who wish to harm others have yet to grow up and understand this truth.

--
First Contact in ~2024, proves that the Bible is not _literally_ true.

I think true atheists are more likely to go "Eh, god, what's it for?" than "God does exist !!!!" or "God does not exist !!!". Someone who truly doesn't worship doesn't need to fight instinct by consciously suppressing it. It's the same thing as that someone who's not a crook doesn't need to go around loudly proclaiming that.

I do think you're right that they're rare. The idea of a god is a very compelling one -- if it wasn't, theism wouldn't be so common.

Kurzweil (on the one hand) and all those people thinking the terminator scenario will happen (on the other) feel like theists who try to quash their theism by force, but it just pops up elsewhere in another shape.

Kurzweil's "we're all going to be immortal and the singularity will bring plenty to all" is: technology will let us make God and we will all go to techno-Heaven.
The terminator/golem scenario with the out-of-control superintelligences turning the whole world into computer material is: technology will let us make God and we will all go to techno-Hell. The more you get into the really bizarre end of the theology, the more obvious it is.

To have any scientific value, it would first and foremost have to be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions that will come true without fail.

This is flatly untrue. Stop misrepresenting and damaging science.

There is, like it or not, a great deal that is in the scope of science that is not directly testable. QM Interpretations, for one. Most any anthropological conclusion, as the circumstances are not replicable. Domains where results are, and can only be, statistical, and not "every time", such as sociology. I know you want a personal definition of science that just happens to match precisely what you need it to, to feel you can exclude theism. If you wish to simply be wrong about science, feel free. Don't damage others' understanding, however.

Logical Positivism has thoroughly addressed this, running aground decades ago with a very systematic attempt to frame science, and reality, in the context of notions like "everything is falsifiable, or else wrong, or at minimum unsupportable". It was an utter failure, and you repeating this course (along with your favorite atheist thought-leaders) will likewise result in failure. That battle is over. "Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa?" Frame that scientifically, and answer it. Or, recognize this along with a vast number of domains you encounter every day, is outside of the scope of science. This is why I find it difficult to credit you with honesty--it is literally impossible that you apply the same criteria to religion as you do to your other thoughts every single day. You are attempting to make science synonymous with epistemology. It is not.

Never in the classical mechanics.

See, here is the issue. You make claims representing science that neither science would accept, nor are even logically coherent. How do you know this? Psychic powers? You see, presumably you consider me someone rhetorically applying theological assumptions to science--that I'm saying such things as "a theory means a theory" because I'm attempting to weaken some assertion. No, in fact, this is derived entirely from my secular science education. If someone stood up in the classroom and announced, "we shouldn't be calling these 'theories', we should be calling them 'facts'"... they would have been laughed out of the room, and not for theological reasons, but because this violates and misrepresents the basic nature of science. We explicitly -do not know- what observations will be made in the future, or new observations regarding the distant past, and to claim otherwise is to introduce -psychic assertions- into the core of science. Yet, this is precisely what Dawkins, Hitchens, Nye, Tyson, and the rest of their crowd do on a regular basis, for political and philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You can with the smallest effort find statements by all of the above which are based on untestable inference, not science. So, agreed, first thing is the baseline of what constitutes "evidence", and what constitutes "science".

Your current notions of both, are simply wrong. Testability is a scientific positive. Falsifiability is a positive. However, these do -not- scope science. Logical inference from data and tested knowns are also validly in the domain of science, and to deny this would be to chop away so much of science it would be unrecognizable. As well as stopping future science at the root, since formulation of a hypothesis -always- precedes formulating a test for it, by definition. You are suggesting "science" may not include its own established methods--which absolutely include a scientist thinking something is likely true based on inferential assumptions of his knowledge domain, -before- a test can be performed or can even be defined. That's the reality. "Science" is indeed happening there, even when it isn't testable, and that interim period can last decades. Still science.

As for the 6000 years, you'll have to provide some basis for saying snakes could not evolve another characteri

You cannot verify or falsify a great deal of science, vast amounts of which is, nonetheless, peer-reviewed. I presume you then no papers regarding the various Interpretations of QM are peer-reviewed, since which is accurate cannot be empirically verified?

You have a purely imaginary notion of science and most of the core attributes of it. Feel free to start with answering any of my first response, and show a basic understanding of what "evidence" apart from "proof" is, what QM agrees is possible, what a theory means, or... just anything. Failure to understand what "peer reviewed" means is simply an additional failure of your scientific non-knowledge.

Just even basic, I mean the most basic level of coherent thought and baseline honesty allows it to be clear that because I say something is an analogy, I am not saying everything is an analogy. You see clearly how stupid that claim otherwise is, no? Yes.

I have made no assertions of "proof", so try to avoid conflating "evidence" and "proof". Any thought you have following that is likewise irrational. Do we have "evidence" of aliens and Bigfoot? Indeed we do. Very poor evidence, and, as you well know, nothing for them remotely approximating a multiple-PhD authored, peer reviewed study as published in the Lancet. As -one- source of theistic evidence. People err and people lie, true. You have given no reason they would in this case. In no other case can you dismiss hundreds of eyewitness reports with a smarmy "people lie", either.

It doesn't translate into our normal space... so, then, quantum computing is an impossible lie? There can be no macro-scale effects of quantum behavior? Do tell, how you know this. You can make a killing in the market short-selling these companies. You can spend the money in this universe that, according to the only viable position left to you, is -entirely- a macro scale effect of quantum behavior. Perhaps it doesn't exist, then?

I have made no claim it happened in 6000 years, I am in the camp of theistic evolution. Again, point at whatever Straw Man you wish, your generalized dismissal of theism does not in any way logically follow. And, in fact, evolutionary evidence has shown such changes in far less than 6000 years, Peppered Moths happened in 50 years, according to mainline evolutionary theory. But if the topic is religion, oh, then no, that's an impossibly short timeframe.

Is there a topic somewhere you can address honestly or correctly?

Atheism is older than theism. Everyone is born without beliefs.

I was a major editor on the free will and determinism articles on Wikipedia a while back, and there was a problem editor who trashed a lot of those things and drove away a lot of other editors (including myself) and left things in a really craptastic state, so in this case I wouldn't rely too much on Wikipedia.

The SEP articles are good though, curated by professional academics.

Fatalism is the concept that a certain thing is absolutely inevitable one way or another; that no matter what anyone does, no matter what happens, this thing will end up happening anyway. It's actually rather counter to causal determinism, because it implies that changes in prior events can be no detriment to the inevitable, fated event; the effect happens independent of the causes, with or without them.

There are a wide variety of determinisms, most of which are about one class of phenomena (usually human thought or behavior) being determined exclusively (i.e. regardless of any other kinds of phenomena) by another class of phenomena (e.g. genetics, upbringing, etc). The three exceptions to that, that are almost equivalent as far as free will goes and are often used interchangeably in discussions regarding it are logical, nomological, and theological determinism. Logical determinism is just the position that there is some truth of the matter, already, about future events. That may or may not be because events naturally follow from other events in an orderly, law-like fashion; if that's the case, it's nomological determinism. If it's not the case, then something else besides natural laws, i.e. something supernatural, must have fixed the truths of those future events, which leaves you with theological determinism.

As an atheist, I generally disregard theological determinism, and am only concerned with nomological determinism which is thus equivalent with logical determinism. Even accepting the possibility of theism, I'd argue that theological determinism just pushes the question back further: does God's behavior, including the fixing of future events, proceed in an orderly, law-like fashion (in which case theological determinism is still just a subset of nomological determinism with a specific intermediary class of phenomena, acts of God), or not (in which case future events, fixed at the dawn of time though they may be, still proceed from the random whims of God, and so you've really still got indeterminism).

Your claim that free will is a necessity of Christian faith is false. There are Christians on both side of the debate and the mystery of evil is answered differently depending on one's stance. A determinist views free will only in a compatiblist sense. A person is not coerced into any decision, but he does choose according to his nature. He is rightfully held responsible on this basis. Man's systems of law are no different. The serial killer who is abused as a child or raised by a monster is still held accountable for his actions. Many atheists are determinists, yet they still support the existence of penal systems. As to why would a sovereign benevolent God create a world in which evil will exist? There isn't a clear answer, but the problem poses a false dichotomy. Any possible reason, such as a greater good or glorification eliminates the problem.

The problem of evil is a problem for atheism, however. To use it as an argument against theism is to be inconsistent with a naturalistic worldview. There is no absolute basis for morality, so how can you use a moral judgment to argue against theism? This is why consistent atheists deny evil exists and it is contrary to the way they live. Unfortunately, most don't take the time to consider the implications of their views.

Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.

Trump won in the Republican primaries despite the opposition of the GOP establishment. Sanders lost in the Democratic primaries because the geek couldn't deliver the votes.

The "corporate overlords" as the geek describes them have been standing up for a open and humane secular order that is distinctly different from the toxic nationalism that defines Donald Trump and the theism of the religious right that dominates the GOP.

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are merely midpoints of indecision where someone has committed fully to neither view. A true agnostic still remains someone who is not willing to commit in either direction, that doesn't change.

I'm not sure what you mean by "committed" here. Just because an atheist or theist holds a belief that the existence of a god cannot be known for sure (agnostic) doesn't mean they're only partially an atheist or theist. They're still fully in their categories, just a difference of degree.

For example, I believe in the theory of evolution. In any reasonable way I can imagine, I am "committed" in my belief. But as with all a posteriori claims I recognize that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt, and if sufficient evidence were somehow to come up to contest it (however unlikely that might be) I would change my view. This doesn't make me a weak believer in the theory evolution, just rational.

"Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes."

Except that is in itself a belief.

Say for one moment that a theist has actually seen god, and that their god is actually real, it would imply that existence is in fact knowable, and that the agnostic merely believes that it's unknowable. Agnosticism as a statement as you describe is in itself something that simply cannot be known with certainty, and hence must inherently be a belief.

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are merely midpoints of indecision where someone has committed fully to neither view. A true agnostic still remains someone who is not willing to commit in either direction, that doesn't change.

I'm not sure you really understood the philosophical texts you apparently claim to have read.

Atheism is a perfectly testable belief. I don't believe there's a God, to prove me wrong, show me one. Theism is not a testable belief as it is impossible to prove a negative.

So a lack of belief is now a belief?

I'm not saying there aren't atheists who are fervently anti-theistic, reactionary and at times exhibiting behaviors that are typical of more extreme forms of religiosity.

But me, I lack belief in God. It's not that I don't deny that such a being could exist, it's that I honestly see no point to such a being, and if one is going to invoke a Prime Mover as a necessity, then I'll just apply Occam's razor, take the attributes needed to explain the universe (by making the universe its own cause), and get rid of what I view as the unnecessary entity.

That's not to say that God couldn't exist, and that I'm totally wrong. In that respect, I suppose I'm an agnostic atheist. That tends to make me a little less doctrinaire, I suppose, and I really do have little time for the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, whose brand of anti-theism I tend to find fairly infantile.

I realize that language changes over time, but atheist is not a theist who loses religion and an agnostic is not a non-theist. In fact, the way you have it rather reverses things.

Agnosticism is a response to gnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from Greek "gnosis" or "knowing" and represented a particular kind of religion, though there are many variations of gnosticism (including some christian, some not). An agnostic is someone who declares that they do not have such knowledge. They do not deny the existence of a god or gods (as an atheist does), but they do not claim knowledge of it.

As mentioned above, atheism is a rejection of theism. This does not mean "disgruntled theists" or "ex-theists". It means someone why denies the existence of a god or gods -- because doing otherwise would make the a theist.

An agnostic is a kind of theist, the kind you have left over after categorizing by religion.

Many atheists treat the non-existence of god(s) like a fact just like the religious treat the existence as fact [...]

There is a very important difference here: With most atheists I have met so far, your first usage of "fact" could be defined as "assumed to be true based on available evidence until a better proposition is presented". With most theist I have met so far, your second usage of "fact" could be defined as "declared true even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and defended the more vigorously the more evidence against it is presented". Belief means different things in theism and atheism. Atheists usually believe in the absence of a higher power in the same way as they believe in the second law of thermodynamics: as the best available hypothesis currently at hand.

Being 'agnostic' is a short-hand for being unsure about God, but it's really an orthogonal term that should be used as a modifier on (a)theist.

An agnostic atheist is someone that doesn't believe in God, but can't be sure that one doesn't exist. A gnostic atheist is someone that KNOWS God doesn't exist.

An agnostic theist is someone that believes in God, but can't be sure that God exists. A gnostic theist is a person that KNOWS God exists.

Atheism tends to lean towards agnosticism naturally, since it's impossible to know. Theism tends to lean towards gnosticism naturally, because that's kind of how faith works.

You're still confusing yourself between atheism and agnosticism.

If you have no view either way then you're agnostic because you've determined the answer to be unknowable with current available evidence, if you have a belief there is no god, or a specific disbelief in god, then you're an atheist.

"Actually having a belief that there is no higher power, in a way validates the belief in a higher power, which is completely contrary to what atheism/non-belief is."

No, it really does no such thing. If what you mean is that theist zealots can say "But your system is just a belief too!" then you're right, the difference is that atheists have the pragmatism of being able to argue that if you're going to believe in one unproveable thing like a god, that you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hence, it makes more sense to simply not believe in such nonsense, or alternatively, to go the agnostic route and at least argue that it's all unknowable so not worth having an opinion on.

There are ultimately just three answers to the question, is there a god? Yes, no, and maybe/I don't know. Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are the words we use to describe these things, and once again, the dictionary makes this clear. If you don't like that, then don't argue with me, I don't define language, I just consume it as defined. Argue with the authors of every dictionary every written if you have a problem with it, that is unfortunately how the English language is defined, and if you want to create your own definitions you must start your own language.

No, atheism is what it says on the tin. Theism is a belief in a god or higher being, atheism is belief that there is not a god or higher being, again, the a means not, it is the inverse of theism.

What you're talking about is agnosticism. If you believe the question is open then you're an agnostic, not an atheist.

Lookup the definitions for theist, atheist, and agnostic if you want to confirm this for yourself.

Bullshit.

Religion or theism, no matter how you dress it up, basically boils down to a belief in fairies. It's basis is all an irrational delusion, nothing more, there is no god.

Wake the fuck up.