Slashdot Mirror

If you read various refutations of Pascal's wager, they seem to rely on "disproofs" of God's existance (by which they mean of course disproof of various Christian concepts of God as "all-knowing" or "all-loving" or whatever) by proving the logical inconsistency of simultaneous expression of various characteristics of God, or arguing about the meaning of belief. I don't think most Americans or people in general experience cognitive dissonance at holding logically inconsistent views of God in their head, so I don't think this abrogates the value of Pascal's wager to explain their psychological justification. Furthermore, I don't think somebody has to have a belief to profess it when asked in a poll.

Marrige by your definition, and that of your church, is between a man and a woman. For the larger society it is a legal standing that governs what happens to property, how those individuals are not treated as seperate people under some circumstances, and when authority is automatically delegated when for whatever reason, one of them is unavailable.

There is the sacrement of your church, and the legal framework WHICH PREDATES YOUR CHURCH. (I assume you don't worship any Babylonian Gods of course) Learn to be a big boy and seperate the two. When you start telling people who don't go to your church how to live their lives. I start telling you to shut the fuck up. Because as far as society is concerned they don't really care who the individuals are so long as the protocols are followed and the process works smoothly.

As much as your second comment drifts, it illustrates your specious reasoning. The choice isn't between two moms or two dads and a mom and a dad. It's between nothing but years of horrible abuse, or two daddies and two mommies. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than the alternative? Vastly.

And if you care so damn much, why aren't you adopting 15 kids? Just because you don't want to make it your problem, perhaps rightly so, is no reason to deny others that opportunity to give back.

This is all coming from a straigh guy, who doesn't like seeing guys kiss in public anymore than he likes seeing theism in public schools. But again, not really THEIR problem.

atheism is more than the rejection of the concept of "god", but rather the rejection of any religion. I take that to mean that an atheist takes nothing simply on "faith", but instead requires imperical evidence.

I disagree. Early Buddhism rejects the notion of any kind of a god, and also argues that nothing should be taken on faith, but rather tested and considered in light of empirical evidence. Buddha himself said that nobody should ever accept his words on faith, but should rather analyze very carefully and only accept them if they stand up to the light of reason. And yet, many people consider Buddhism a religion. Though to be fair, some say it is just a philosophy, so who knows??

You can't have a civil discussion with a theist. Theists like to think of themselves as rational, but if you observe their behavior you'll find they are anything but. They are full of anger and bitterness, and react with frightful outrage whenever they encounter someone with different views from their own. Even people who think that theism is a reasonable philosophy must admit that most theists did not arrive at their point of view through anything resembling a rational process. Rather, they are poorly socialized individuals who are lashing out angrily at anything which is valued by their exclusive society. You really shouldn't take it personally. It is the result of an angry and profoundly unhappy psychological condition on their part, not due to you or your beliefs.

humanism is a set of values, not a religion

But Humanism is a religion by its own descriptions. From here:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious

humanism is a set of values, not a religion

But Humanism is a religion by its own descriptions. From here:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor

Atheism is a misnomer; it really should be called 'anti-theism'. Linguistical the 'a' does not denote a negative. Consider 'moral', 'immoral', and 'amoral'. 'Amoral' is not acting against morality, but with lack of concern towards morality. 'Immoral' is acting against morality.

Interesting my ass.
Dead wrong, actually.

Linguistically, the 'a' does donote a negative. As a prefix it indicates the state of being without whatever the root is.
It also has nothing to do with concern or a lack thereof.
Amoral means without morals.
Atheism means without a belief in a god.

'Anti-theism' ('imtheism' doesn't sound right...) would be stating that god does not exist. 'Atheism' should be the lack of concern as to whether or not a god exists.

Anti-theism wouldn't be stating god does or does not exist. Anti-theism is being against beliefs in deities.
Atheism, again, has nothing to do with concerns. It is quite simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

I, personally am both Atheist and anti-theist.

I don't believe there is a god. I have yet to see a scrap of evidence, so I see no reason to accept it.
This makes me an atheist.

I think that religion by its very nature is a nearly universally bad thing. It holds society back and leads to horrible suffering and hatred.
I think that if we can do away with religion completely then the world will be a better place.
This makes me an anti-theist.

I personally don't care enough about it to go around to people's houses trying to get them to ditch their beliefs or anything like that though.

This makes me not a zealot, and somebody who isn't a (complete) ass to hang out with regardless of your religious beliefs.

Everybody is born an atheist.
It is only if they, at some point after their birth, decide to start believing in a god that they can become a theist.

One of my personal pet peeves.

Mine is people who have no idea what they're talking about who nonetheless talk about it.

"Proving a negative" idea you speak of pertains to the breadth or scope of an assertion. For simple existence statements, the breadth of the assertion is small. For example, suppose someone says that there is green penguin. All they need to do is to show one example, and the assertion is demonstrated.

But other assertions -- such as, All planets have gravity -- can not be demonstrated this way. These types of assertions have an expansive scope. They cannot be proved with certainty, but they can be falsified. Find a single planet with no gravity, then the assertion is falsified -- and in fact you have proved a negative.

An interesting pattern holds in all of this -- the negation of an assertion regarding phenomena has a scope that is inverse to the original assertion.

Now, when you deal with theistic claims, you are dealing with assertions that have an expansive scope. Because of this, empirical evidence is is only determinative if some certain implication of theism can be shown to be false, thus falsifying it. But empirical evidence can never verify absolutely verify theism any more than it can similarly expansive claim.

That is why the proving a negative complaint is not relevant to the most common forms of theism, and why you example is somewhat beside the point.

Atheism is not a misnomer.

You're using the "constructivist language" definition of "atheism"- based on building up the word from individual parts. Unfortunately, popular usage has ignored that simple logic, and the common definition of atheism (as repeated in many dictionaries) is equal to what you call anti-theism. Other dictionaries give 2 definitions for atheism, permitting it to mean either explicit denial or merely refusal to affirm.

The most popularly used meanings have theism, agnosticism, and atheism meaning belief, uncertainty, and disbelief respectively. The equivalent words, based on meanings of component parts, would be theism, atheism/nontheism, and antitheism.

Another excellent example of a word whose usage is at odds with it's constructive meaning is "homophobia". Logically, that means "fear of the same", an antonym for xenophobia.

Atheism is a misnomer; it really should be called 'anti-theism'. Linguistical the 'a' does not denote a negative. Consider 'moral', 'immoral', and 'amoral'. 'Amoral' is not acting against morality, but with lack of concern towards morality. 'Immoral' is acting against morality.

'Anti-theism' ('imtheism' doesn't sound right...) would be stating that god does not exist. 'Atheism' should be the lack of concern as to whether or not a god exists. Note that this is different from 'agnosticism' which simply states that knowing whether or not god exists is impossible (at least at this time).

One of my personal pet peeves.

--etrnl--

Religious nuts. Bush. Gun nuts. Bush. Houston...

Don't forget atheist nuts. You know, like the pseudo-scientific zealots who believe that theory plus evidence equals law. Sorry. Unprovable theory plus overwhelming evidence equals really strong theory that still can't be proven in less than several million years or so-- even then, not without a technology that detects the presense or absense of a completely unobservable god. Welcome to the nut bowl. You've been one all along.

Don't get me wrong, evolution is a great theory IMHO, and very probably true, but as much as we might want it to, science can't rule out an unobservable, omnipotent god, nor can it deny that such a god might have influenced mutation, natural selection and the apparent age of the universe. As soon as we even consider the unobservable, science becomes irrelevant with respect to truth. Truth can be both observable and unobservable, but science is restricted to the observable; therefore, pure science has never claimed to address the whole truth, and explicitly declares itself neutral with respect to considering unobservable gods.

Zealots of atheism are far more damaging to the cause of real science than the religious wackos (Wacos? ;), because atheist extremists place so much faith in science as a tool for disproving religion that we tend to throw the scientific method itself out the window in order to make science bend to our faith in a godless universe. We play with science, but many of us conveniently ignore it when it won't support our claims. Sad.

Neither side can claim their view is absolute truth without abandoning the fundamental principles of science, which demand absolute, emperical, reproduceable proof-- not merely mountains of interpreted evidence or culturally authoritarian assertions.

The truly dispassionate scientist disregards atheism as readily as she disregards religion. For pure science to win the debate, the other two sides must tolerate the presence of alternate views as possible (and popular, if not reasonable) explanations. They must reject all appeals, on the basis of science, that one side is superior to the other. Everyone should get back to the business of real science, and while conducting science, remain neutral to the question of the existence of an unobservable god.

It is strange to any real scientist why so many wannabe scientists would so readily adopt an unscientific view like atheism, and then riddicule other unscientific beliefs like theism in the name of science, which can take neither side. What is even more baffling is how such psuedo-scientific bozos assume most scientists would agree with their unscientific world view simply because it admires science when science is convenient to their faith, and then denies science in order to assert the non-existence of god. Geez, where do these people come from?

Texas, I guess.

Yep. There's lots of nuts in Texas, but there's far more in California and New York. Texas nuts are mixed. One of our nuts, Jack Kilby, invented the basis of all modern technology. Another of our nuts is so deluded by politics that he/she actually thinks science is on his/her side of religious debates between atheism and theism that have chosen evolution as a convenient political battleground.

Sorry to crack your shell, dude, but you're a nut, too. We all are. Embrace it. When you stop filling your mind with hatred of your president and superstitious/religious extremists, you'll live a happier life with fewer ulcers. But hey, it's your own elite media megacorporation-inspired delusion. Don't let some nutty scientist ruin it for you!

It is to those who "have no religion at all" that the label of "atheist" is, rightly or wrongly, applied. Perhaps it would be better to divide the definition:

Atheist: (1) A person who does not believe in the existance of divinity. (2): A person who belongs to no religion because he considers them all to be false, esp. those who believe in the non-existance of divinity.

Definition 2 is too broad as it includes people who believe that a god exists but who do not believe in any existing religion. This contradicts the actual definition of the word which is anyone who lacks a belief in any god. I will not under any circumstances agree to any definition of the word that includes people who possess a belief in one or more gods. Stop wasting time by trying to redefine the word.

Please note that I am using the specific "system of belief" definition of religion. I maintain that, for (2), "atheism is a religion" is valid, if for no other reason than the simple imprecision of language.)

I have already explained that atheism is not a system of belief in a paragraph that you (surprise, surprise) ignored. I will repeat that paragraph now.

The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.

While (1) may be the historic, "technical", and even proper usage, (2) seems to be the much more common usage.

I do not accept your assertion that the erroneous definition 2 is the "much more common usage". Until you provide evidence to back up this assertion it is not valid.

In all honesty, I think that one or the other definitons should be changed to a more distinct term: a name for those that believe in the non-existance of god, so that they can stop co-opting the term "atheism" and cluttering up the issue.

I do not believe that you think this because if you did you would not be trying to confuse the meaning of the term. You are doing the very thing that you claim in this paragraph to oppose.

(Of course, there are loads of extant names avalable--"Skeptic", "Humanist", "Bright", "Scientologist" [though the last one, a perfectly sensible word, has been perverted by a money-sucking cult] and a few others. Unfortunately, (2)s are a diverse enough lot that convincing them to agree on a name might be more trouble than its worth, resulting in making it easier to just retire (1) and replace it with "non-theists".)

These words all have specific meanings. "Skeptic" applies to areas far outside religion. "Humanist" is a specific system of belief that not all atheists share so it is inaccurate to use it to describe atheists. "Bright" is a memetic experiment by Richard Dawkins that I personally believe is unlikely to catch on because it is needlessly confrontational. "Scientologist" is an actual religion, a specific set of beliefs that is most definitely not atheistic so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. The term to describe group 2 is "non-religious" and it is perfectly adequate. Co-opting the term "atheist" is nonsensical, especially to replace it with "non-theist".

It's becoming increasingly clear that your objection to using the correct definition of "atheist" is based solely on your view of it as opposing christianity. It is true that believing christianity to be false is a natural result of being an atheist but your discomfort over that is not sufficient reason for us to abandon the term.

No. I re-stated my position that, even though most dictionary definitions of "religion" specifically mention divinity, it is nevertheless proper to consider atheism "a religion." Specifically, I have maintained that public entities should treat Atheism the same as Christianity or Judaism or Wicca or Islam, and I have provided instances and practical applications wherein it is useful to answer questions such as "what is your religion?" with "atheist."

Yes. As I stated in my previous message, I understand your position. I simply do not agree with it and you have no presented any reasons or evidence to back it up. An atheist's correct response to "What is your religion?" is usually "None" but could in some cases be "Buddhist" or "Humanist".

Kindly refresh my memory as to what you consider your last rebuttal to be.

Here I was referring to the First Amendment issue that I have expanded upon in my reply to one of the other branches of this discussion.

If you are referring to my supplied context as to when it is and is not proper to consider "atheism" a "religion", your rebuttal was little more than a repetition of your previous allegation that "atheism is not a religion".

The reason that I argue against considering atheism a religion is that a religion is a specific set of beliefs and there is no specific set of beliefs that unites atheists. All atheism is, is a lack of belief. Some atheists don't consider spiritual matters at all. Some think there are spiritual aspects to the universe but that there are no gods. Some are buddhists. Some are humanists. Some believe theism is a threat. Some don't. Some have an open mind, to consider evidence of the existence of a god. Some assert that "there is no god". We are too diverse a group to categorize as a religion. This is my position. If you intend to respond, please respond to my actual position, which is laid out right here. In this paragraph.

I did a small bit of cursory research, and found a summary of a Supreme Court case, ESA v. Rylander, in which the court found that "religion" should be interpreted very broadly when it comes to the law--and, ergo, my contexts wherein "atheism must be considered a religion."

This is an interesting decision and I admit to giving it only a cursory read over as it is quite late here and I should be sleeping. If you wish to continue to discuss it in response to this message I will be more than happy to read it more thoroughly tomorrow. I think I see where you are coming from, with the quote
" ...a review of case law suggests that while some courts include worship of a Supreme Being as an element of "religion," it is not a dispositive factor, and courts have expressly rejected the contention that it is the linchpin factor. ...If we rule otherwise, universally recognized world belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism, which do not subscribe to a theistic world-view, would not be consisdered religions."
This quote gives the opinion that theism is not a requirement of religion, something which I would agree with given Buddhism and other religions that are not necessarily theistic. However, it does recognize that religions involve a "belief system", which, for the reasons given in my prior paragraph I do not believe can be applied to atheism. I note that the commentary on this decision echoes your concerns about religious discrimination if atheism is not considered a religion but I stand by my interpretation of the prohibition against "respecting an establishment of religion". Please let me know if you disagree with my interpretation.

I believe that I should add a fourth and fifth context wherein atheism must be considered a religion: Whenever discussing the religious beliefs of a population or the workings of religion in public life; and Whenever civil servants are compelled to self-censor their religion.

I do not agree that atheism

I did a quick search, and discovered a site [infostations.com] that claims that the modern usage of the term "atheism" (and "theism") dates back only to the time of the French Enlightenment.

Your reference is a christian ministry, hardly a believable source for an objective view on the word.

It does when, prior to a certain period of time (say, the French Enlightenment or thereabouts), there was essentially no Atheism, and it would be fairly easy to research and learn that atheism has spread and become both more popular and more accepted as centuries have passed.

I do not accept your assertion that there was no such thing as atheism before the French Enlightenment. There is no reason to believe that there were no people who lacked a belief in any god prior to that time.

There are differences. For the context of "is atheism a religion", they can be ignored--or, to phrase it better, glossed-over--so that we can discuss the larger issue.

You keep saying this and I keep telling you that I do not agree. Repeating this assertion will not cause me to agree with it.

We are not discussing the finer points of atheism or agnosticism. A common search reveals that approximately half of the definitions of "agnostic" refer specifically to divinty or religion. Ergo, it seems prudent to ignore each other's usage of "atheist" or "agnostic" and instead focus on the larger picture of the discussion.

We are discussing whether or not atheism is a religion, a discussion that cannot proceed unless we agree on the definition of the word "atheism".

I am not, and have not, and will not, ask you to abandon your position on the meanings of the various words--though I will remind you, yet again, that English dictionaries are all descriptive and not proscriptive--that is, they are used best to learn new words or understand unfamiliar ones, not as an authorative source to settle issues of real merit.

Since you do not place any weight on dictionary definitions or on the definition actually used by atheists why do you expect people to use your definition? What reasons can you give for accepting your definition?

Instead, I will simply re-state my suggestion that you cease both your juvenile "corrections" of my use of "agnostic" as "atheist" and we move on to matters of actual substance and not mere tit-for-tate squabbling.

You continue to insult my position and then act as though your should be taken seriously. You will be treated as you treat others; it just something that you're going to have to live with.

You repeatedly assert that the definition of "atheism" is not important to the discussion, an assertion that is not believable in the face of your continuing refusal to accept, for the sake of this discussion, the use of the definition that you consider to be "technically correct". If you honestly considered the matter unimportant you would simply drop your insistence on a definition that has no basis other than your own assertions of its validity.

Your use of atheism is different, but not contradictory, to mine. I believe that you have said that "atheism is not anti-religion", which means that it clearly is not the mere opposite of religion.

That's what contradictory means, to be contrary to.

It is obvious from the context of my original quote that when I said atheism is not "anti-religion" I was referring to it not be opposed to religion, to it not being an attack on religion.

Now, a simple view is to term atheism as a mere inversion of "theism"--instead of "there are gods", "there are no gods." By this term, we could classify Bhuddism, Shinto, and some variants of Humanism as Atheist. And, were we discussing the characteristics of moral systems that do and do not include gods, this would be a fair distinction.

Why do you keep throwing up new definitions of atheism? You have already agreed that the technically correct definition of atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. For someone who keeps complaining about chaos and diversions in this discussion you certainly seem to move the goalposts a lot.

Incidentally, many buddhists, shintoists and humanists are atheists. I think your problem is that you can't stop viewing atheist as a category of belief and atheists as some largely homogenous group that shares a system of beliefs. The only thing that all atheists share is a lack of belief in any god.

However, in the common vernacular, "Atheism" has a more specific meaning than "A religion that doesn't belive in gods." It is commonly understood to include a lack of belief in not only in divine all-powerful beings, but also in souls, reincarnation, and a good deal of other spiritual or theological concepts.

Understood by whom? I do not agree that atheism implies any belief or lack of belief in souls, reincarnation or other spiritual or theological concepts. My girlfriend is an atheist but she believes that there is a spiritual aspect to existence that is beyond science. I don't agree, but that doesn't make her not an atheist.

Using Atheism to mean something more than what it means--by applying it to people who are not atheists and would neither consider themselves atheists nor likely be considered atheists by atheists--strikes me as contributing only to the confusion and upset regarding atheism that you so stridently hope to avoid.

You are the only one who is suggesting using "atheism" to mean more than one it means, to call it a religion as though there were some belief structure that united atheists.

As for your concerns about it applying to people who are not atheists, I have seen no evidence that anyone in this discussion has suggested such a thing. If you believe otherwise, please provide quotes or links to the relevant posts.

Hence, "technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.

What are "our purposes"? My sole purpose in this discussion has been to clarify the definition of atheism so that theists are not mislead about what it means. You are right about it being a broad category; atheists vary tremendously as the only thing they are guaranteed to have in common is a lack of a belief in any gods. You are the one who is trying to group all atheists together. I do not agree that the correct definition of atheism should only be used in a few very specific contexts and you have not provided an reason for me to change my mind.

"Atheism" is a tricky word to use, because it is an invented word that has both entered the vulgar lexicon and been used as an identifier of a "movement" of sorts, despite that movement's subsequent fractionalization into finer shadings of meaning.

Your assertion that atheism is a "tricky" word appears to be baseless; the word atheism traces back to the Greek "atheos" and I do not see how you can deride it as an "invented word" as it is no more "invented" than any other word.

The fact that a word bases on a Greek root does not imply that it dates back to ancient Greece; merely, instead, that its inventor had a knowledge of the grecian language.

I did a quick search, and discovered a site that claims that the modern usage of the term "atheism" (and "theism") dates back only to the time of the French Enlightenment.

Etymology aside, Atheism remains a "tricky" term because it has so many distinct shades of meaning. A common dictionary search, returning 3 sources, lists "godlessness" as a second definiton for each one, and a search for godlessness returns those same three sources, each of which defines "godlessness" as "wickedness".

You'll have to explain what you mean by "vulgar lexicon"; the use of the term "vulgar" has a negative connotation that I do not believe you can apply to atheism.

No, it doesn't. "Vulgar lexicon" is a synonym for "vernacular." I.e., the common tongue spoken without jargon or specific contextual redefinitions.

You will also need to provide evidence of an atheist "movement". There are atheist organizations, but then there are organizations for stamp collectors and golfers; the mere existence of an organization does not constitute a movement.

It does when, prior to a certain period of time (say, the French Enlightenment or thereabouts), there was essentially no Atheism, and it would be fairly easy to research and learn that atheism has spread and become both more popular and more accepted as centuries have passed.

These are not merely "technical" differences, they are actual, significant, important differences that cannot be ignored.

There are differences. For the context of "is atheism a religion", they can be ignored--or, to phrase it better, glossed-over--so that we can discuss the larger issue.

I merely proposed what I did because I saw that confusion was arising from the difference of the terms.

Your attempt to "simplify" matters by ignoring or downplaying these differences is not acceptable in the context of this discussion,

We are not discussing the finer points of atheism or agnosticism. A common search reveals that approximately half of the definitions of "agnostic" refer specifically to divinty or religion. Ergo, it seems prudent to ignore each other's usage of "atheist" or "agnostic" and instead focus on the larger picture of the discussion.

which is why no matter how many times you ask me to abandon my position and accept yours I will not do so.

I am not, and have not, and will not, ask you to abandon your position on the meanings of the various words--though I will remind you, yet again, that English dictionaries are all descriptive and not proscriptive--that is, they are used best to learn new words or understand unfamiliar ones, not as an authorative source to settle issues of real merit.

Instead, I will simply re-state my suggestion that you cease both your juvenile "corrections" of my use of "agnostic" as "atheist" and we move on to matters of actual substance and not mere tit-for-tate squabbling.

My use contradicts yours, which is why when you describe mine as "technically correct" you describe your own as "technically incorrect". I do not believe you will be able to point to posts you have made in the past where you describe your definition as technically correct.

Your use of atheism is different, but not contradictory, to mine. I believe that you have said that "atheism is not anti-religion", which means that it clearly is not the mere opposite of religion.

Now, a simple view is to term atheism as a mere inversion of "theism"--instead of "there are gods", "there are no gods." By this term, we could classify Bhuddism, Shinto, and some variants of Humanism as Atheist. And, were we discussing the characteristics of moral systems that do and do not include gods, this would be a fair distinction.

However, in the common vernacular, "Atheism" has a more specific meaning than "A religion that doesn't belive in gods." It is commonly understood to include a lack of belief in not only in divine all-powerful beings, but also in souls, reincarnation, and a good deal of other spiritual or theological concepts.

Using Atheism to mean something more than what it means--by applying it to people who are not atheists and would neither consider themselves atheists nor likely be considered atheists by atheists--strikes me as contributing only to the confusion and upset regarding atheism that you so stridently hope to avoid.

Hence, "technical correctness" is so misleading as to be effectively "wrong" for our purposes. It is "technically correct" to call Hindus, Native Americans, and Bhuddists "pagans", but such a broad catagorization lacks understanding and should not be used outside of a few very specific contexts.

Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Pot. Kettle.

Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.

Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.

You requested an example of a Baptist/Protestant religious rule that contradicts the laws of the land. I provided one. You're welcome.

Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you.

This is an odd thing for you to say given the insult in the message I replied to plus the ones in your latest message that I will be quoting later on.

The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism.

"Crude bungling of the language" is ad hominem. Hope that information helps you can watch out for that sort of thing in the future. As for your actual point, you're wrong. "Agnostic" was coined to describe the position "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty." This position, when applied to the question of the existence of a god, results in atheism. Weak atheism, to be precise. You continue to claim there is a third choice between having a belief in something and not having a belief in something but you fail to specify the details of what that choice is, just spouting the word "agnostic" as though your mere use of the word made your point for you. It's as though you just expect me to "see the light" and abandon the position of rationality. Read any Jack Chick tracts lately?

Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means.

I do not believe you are attempting to redefine "religion". You are expressing a desire to treat atheism as if it were a religion even though you seem to understand that it isn't. I see no benefit to atheists were that to happen, although I can see how theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is just another religion and act as though it required proof the same way their religion of choice does. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself to accommodate theists at my own expense.

I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion."

You keep saying this and you keep failing to provide examples of these "good deal of contexts". One thing you need to learn about atheists is that we tend to require evidence before we accept a person's assertions. If you really are "seeking understanding" you'll start providing some.

But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.

This is another ad hominem. Just so you know, ad hominems usually work best when you have a third party audience of idiots. Your use of them would be an insult to the other people reading this discussion if there were any. I'm guessing that you and I are the only ones here so you needn't bother with the attacks.

I'm also guessing from your final paragraph that you are seeking an end to this conversation. To be honest, you sound like you're getting really stressed out about this. I don't expect to convince you of anything and based on your existing "arguments" (for lack of a better word) you shouldn't expect to convince me of anything. Please feel free to not respond if you're getting stressed. This discussion is not provoking an emotional response in me so I have no problem continuing if you do decide to respond. It's up to you.

Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.

Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.

No, I'm hung up on honesty. Trying to change the definitions of words is a common theist tactic but it only works on the dim. As for the ad hominem, fallacies like that won't save you.

Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you. YOU are the one who is misinterpreting what I'm saying because you have an irrational dislike of atheism being treated as a religion by the government.

You seem to have this perception of atheists gathering to discuss and celebrate atheism the same way theists do their religion.

No, I don't. And I've said as such. To paraphrase: "Atheists only organize to the extent that they do organize to oppose religion." They don't gather as Atheists to celebrate, to donate to charities, or to form communities.

When an atheist does any of these things, they choose from secular and even religous extant bodies, and if they must form a new body, they generally won't label it as "atheist" unless they specifically want to counterbalance the influence of organized religion.

This is, of course, their right. But "Atheist" organizations should be treated exactly the same as "Christian" organizations by all such organizations that are neither Atheist nor Christian.

The position that you claim you want government to hold is (weakly) atheistic. You seem to have some sort of problem with the word "atheistic" so you want to substitute "agnostic". You seem to want to redefine atheism to mean strong atheism. Well, we're not having it.

(We?)

The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism. Atheism is a loaded term that is imprecise for the purposes of our discussion; thus, it is appropriate to use the newer term of "Agnostic" to define a position that is neither for nor against religion.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means. I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion." But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.

Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. While I am urged by my ethics, morals, and religion to seek love and understanding, I fear that no more understanding will come from this discussion.

On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity.

Demonstrating evidence of validity has never, and should never, be a requirement for influencing government. The only way to prove political or economic theories is to set up a test country, and that's simply not a good idea. (We can't afford to only stick with what we have seen.)

Religion, by and large, is harmless in government, for the simple reason that the only religions that grow to significant size in a country are those that are aligned with the ethics and morals of said country. If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.

Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice.

The definitons that you use are far too vauge for this usage. Strong Atheists share all of the faults of fringe religions, and a "weak atheist government" could in its own way be as bad as a Strong Atheist, or Catholic, or Wiccan government.

Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist.

Yes, exactly. Government shouldn't, and by and large doesn't, make a stand either way on whether or not deities--or spirituality of any kind--exist. Government is properly Agnostic--it should simply assume that religious questions cannot be answered by government or law, and act accordintly. The law shouldn't care where the ideas of public officials come from, just so long as they're consistent and roughly aligned with the moral compass of the nation.

Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't

As a practical matter, whenever you find "Atheism" you find it working against religion. As you've said yourself, atheism does very little but say "your religion is wrong and shouldn't have power over me."

Of course, this gets us back to my original point: Atheism should be treated as a religion by government and public society. Government, Science, and Economoics should be agnostic, and essentially ignore the religious questions that Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence answer.

Any claim an Atheist makes based on Atheism should be given no more or less weight than a claim made by a Christian based on Christianity, and the religious belief of an atheist or a christian should matter no more than the state and town that they call home. A scientist that draws a scientific conclusion that "there is no god" should be greeted with the same skepticism than a scientist who claims to have found evidence of the soul is greeted with. A business that forbids religious missionary work should simply forbid religious discussion of any kind.