Slashdot Mirror

On what basis, exactly, do you make this claim?

On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity. There is no difference between Bush saying "God told me to attack Iraq" and him saying "The Lucky Charms Leprachaun told me to attack Iraq". If you're looking for Constitutional basis, there's Article VI, which states that no religious test shall ever be required to hold an office in the United States.

That's a slippery slope argument. You might as well disallow doctors from spreading into government, based on Dr. Kevorkian. (You know as well as I that for every Roy Moore or Fred Phelps, there are thousands of judges and priests who meld their religion and their jobs and their politics just fine.)

First of all, there's nothing wrong with Dr. Kevorkian so he's not a particularly good example but I understand your point. As long as judges can deal with the law without allowing any religious interference there's no problem if they themselves are religious. But it is never correct for them to make decisions or rulings based on religion.

Public contstructs like government are properly Agnostic, neither themselves atheist nor religious.

Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist. Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't. It is the lack of religion, which is exactly what we apparently agree is proper for public constructs like government.

Easy enough. I'll start with a rebuttal.

Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians"

No, they call themselves Catholics and Protestants. And they started fighting because of the feud between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, which can be blamed on Europe's feudal nature, which can be blamed on the aborted Islamic invasion of Europe via Spain, which would never have happened if the Muslims had considered the Europeans to be of the same brotherhood, as they would have if Paul and Mohammad had instructed their followers that they were all "Jews." (Or some other term.)

Leaving that claim aside, let's get on to something more worthwhile: if atheism should be considered a religion. (We COULD argue the definition of "religion" until we're blue in the face, but that'd be about as worthwhile as debating if the blue I see and the blue you see are the same exact color.)

In affirmation: I didn't say that the OED was irrelevant. Merely that it was not perscritpive--that is, its sufficient to garner the general meaning of a word, but the general meaning of a word is insufficient for ground of ethics, public policy, law, or a host of other things, as I have said elsewhere.

More specfically, Atheism SHOULD be on equal ground with "theism" (and "spirituality" and "transcendence", while we're painting religions with broad strokes)) wherever they meet, so that each belief may win on its merits and not on a mere technicality. The playing field should be level, or else the game will be foul and we as a species and civilization would not advance. ("Advance" to a better understanding of everytyhing or anything.)

Now, there are doubtless religions that are false and wholly incorrect. Pick any given religion, and at least half of the others will strongly disagree with that religion--and for most tenets, they cannot be objectivly disproven. It is for this reason that all religions should be given equal ground in public society; we simply cannot tell which one is right and which one isn't.

Were Atheism a mere absence of religion, an indecision that does not attempt to answer religious questions, there would be no reason to treat it as a religion. But Atheism does answer religious questions--there are proponents and missionaries for atheism, who for whatever reason publicize their faith in the same manner and mediums that the various formal religions of the world do.

It is for this reason--that there are atheists who, as atheists, seek to shape the world just as christians or jews or wiccans seek to shape the world as christians or jews or wiccans--that Atheism should be considered a religion.

As a final rebuttal, can you elaborate on how you feel that Atheism is harmed or wronged by being considered a religion? Atheists are certainly no more disliked by believers of other religions if because they are called "atheists" instead of "unbelievers". And weak atheists are no more wronged by strong atheists being treated like any other religous group than weak christians are.

What is a "Bhuddist"? I'll assume you meant to say "Buddhist".

My pastor at church described a situation where some Bhuddists found what they believed to be a peice of Bhudda's finger.

That makes little sense (not that I should expect any religion to make sense for long). In the Buddhist faith, "Buddha" is not an individual, but a category of person. It is a word used similarly to "saint". Of course, it's quite possible that the worshippers he described were not doctrinally correct, and had instead fallen into theism and idolatry. That happens with a lot of major churches- the people demand it, so the clergy provide.

Such behavior is quite similar to what Catholics have done for millenia (right up to the present). Does kissing the skull of a saint bring you any closer to Jesus?

I wonder why the pastor choose to use an alien, Asian religion in his example, when plenty of well-known Christian branches do exactly the same thing.

The desire for changing the pledge is predicated on the basis for that change. The purported reason is that having the phrase "under God" violates the 2nd Amendment. I'm trying to see if this is really the case or if there is a deeper reason, perhaps a general hostility to religion. So I want to know if displaying the DoL, which is a theistic document, in school would be allowed under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see why it's so hard getting an answer to this question.

As for "don't force your religion on other peoples' kids", I happen to agree with that position. But I contend that it must extend to atheism as well as theism, and it will be interesting to see how (or even if) a worldview neutral position can be maintained by the Government; especially since one of our founding documents says that the basis of our rights is rooted in a theistic position. Schools, for example, would have to get rid of all moral positions -- both the relativism of atheism and the absolutism of theism -- and I'm not sure I see how this could be done.

Who said there's a unique center of the universe? Not me. I know my 2 year-old thinks SHE's the center of the universe, but it will be a year or two before she can submit such a tightly reasoned post to Slashdot.

who says spacetime existed at all before the Big Bang? Not me - it may be meaningless to talk about "before."

Maybe try reading this. I don't agree with everything he says (e.g., no evidence that faith is innate IMO), but at least it's not incoherent rubbish. It seems from the conversations I've had that nearly all thoughtful, well educated Christians now reject the GotG.

Also, I'd recommend lsitening to (or at least reading the libretto of) Schoenberg's Moses und Aron . In addition to being one of the greatest achievements in music in the last 100 years, it's a powerful meditation on theism (Schoenberg was a Jew).

Well, thanks for the compliment. I think. ;-)

I'm trying to not be ignorant. But I also think that you've presented me with a false dichotomy. Not praising God's name every minute doesn't imply active promotion of atheism. I don't think I ever said that it did.

In any case, we've come to the heart of the problem. You rightly wrote mention either, and there's a problem. So my question is, how can society function in the absence of a worldview? If neither atheism nor theism can be promoted, what's left? AFAIK, there isn't a "meta-worldview" than can step in.

As for your last comment, I'm sure that there are morally-relativist Christians. However, Christianity and Judaism both affirm that God is the supreme law-giver and that His judgements are final. We may not like them, we may argue against them, but there is no higher court of appeal. So what I don't understand is how morally-relativist Christians defend their position, unless it's a temporary, pragmatic one. But even at that, how then can they pray "Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"?

I wish one of them might participate at this point...

Disclaimer - I was born atheist, became agnostic when I started trying to make logical sense of the universe, now I'm Buddho-Christian-heretic. I believe in God, but I believe evolution, quantum theory and rocket science - at least as far as they are scientific explanations for natural phenomena. I'm particularly thankful for anti-biotics, insulin and fetal heart monitors.

From an anthropological standpoint 'atheism' quacks like a duck, therefore it is a duck... er, religion. Thing is you see, atheists are as varied as deists. Atheists are segmented into cults of personality, cults of dogma and then there's all the millions of non-practicing atheists, like my friend the born-Catholic, reborn as sexist, alcoholic jock. To him God/god/goddess/gods (etc) is just a non-issue.

Atheism is an -ISM. It's a belief system the super-ordinating maxim of which is "there is no god", (not, "I don't believe in God") and all other values stem from that. This can be as ancient as Buddhism or as modern and topical as a talk show where libertarian lawyers tear apart ex-Catholic priests to the chears of the studio audience.

Atheism has plenty of positions on morality, just as there are plenty of sects in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and any other religion, and few of them agree any more than deists/theists. Some atheists think abortion is just fine because human life has no meaning. Some think abortion is an abomination because human life is the only thing that has meaning.

Some atheists actively pursue the destruction of theisms. (Like Communists and Socialists.) Most, like my friend, couldn't give a fig. There are other _groups_ that feel theists/deists are deluded, incapable of seeing logical truth and are therefore insane. This group of atheists, seeing that the deists/theists are irrational, would like to ensure deists/theists aren't allowed to vote, or, in some cases, raise children, since they would pass on their irrationalism to the children.

Atheism is institutionalized in the charters of rights and freedoms, constitutions and innumerable legal documents of various nations. It is likewise institutionalized in the forms of Communism and Socialism. The mental health community in North America, as I have seen it, is vehemently hostile to any form of belief that does not elevate the individual and said individual's impulses to pre-eminance. I've known shrinks to push their patients to cast off all "religious" beliefs and just do whatever they felt like. Some of those people have AIDS now.

Untold magazines line any newstand's shelves catering to the belief in the non-existence of any form of supernatural reality. They promote the infallibility of science, the superiority of humanity and the eventual ascendance of the human mind to transhuman and possibly transcendent states. Science departments at universities don't take a stand of "we're not here to talk about supernatural realities, we're here to measure the natural world". They publicly castrate anyone who asks a simple question about intelligent design. Or anyone who questions the presently accepted theory or points out that the current theory superceded a previous one and the current one might be as wrong as the previous and, wait, why are you throwing me out of the class, I have scientific proof, wait...

And most philosophy departments will have one or more experts on the dogma/doctrine (depending on sect) that is Freud's "The Future of an Illusion". That will get pounded on dogmatically, emphatically and emotionally every chance the professor gets.

From my experience, atheism is an active and varied belief system which is deeply entrenched within the modern cultures of the world.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not down on atheism. It's just really, really unscientific to think that atheism isn't a religious belief system.

a distinction between theism and established religion

But even theism is a religious belief. And more specificly the government is pushing monotheism. Furthermore the way it is used in the pledge and anywhere else makes implications about the nature of that monotheism.

The constitution forbids the government from establishing any official religion. You can't try to claim a "loophole" that the government is allowed to "promote" a religion because "promoting" isn't "establishing". And you can't try to claim a loophole that the government is allowed to push individual beliefs of some religion just because it isn't pushing the entire religion at once.

It's not like anyone is saying that you have to be a Quaker or a Puritan or a Catholic, etc. to vote.

True. But that just means it's an insidious creep of religion into government rather than blatant oppression.

the Pledge is strictly voluntary

But the new form with "god" DOES contain/promote certain religious views, and it IS being promoted through government action and governemnt authority.

The government forbidden from promoting ANY religious belief. Of course government employees are perfectly free to believe and promote anything they like when they are not acting as agents of the government.

A teacher leading a class pledge is an employee of the government acting as an agent of the government. The pledge was fine before "under god" was added in 1954.

-

Not true. The only requirement for atheism is a lack of belief in theism. There is nothing in the definition of atheism that prevents us from objecting to Buddhism, just like there is nothing in the definition that prevents us from objecting to child pornography. Non-theistic subjects, like Buddhism and pornography, are completeley unrelated subjects.

"under a god" might be sufficiently neutral to meet the establishment clause, I suppose. Generic theism isn't "an establishment of religion".

Very well expressed. However, I think there is (and I think the Court will recognize) a distinction between theism and established religion. It's not like anyone is saying that you have to be a Quaker or a Puritan or a Catholic, etc. to vote. And in the end, as you point out, the Pledge is strictly voluntary (nothing prevents someone from saying everything in the Pledge except "under God" either). In addition, even if the Court says that theism in general is not a religion, and that the Pledge doesn't violate the Constitution, that won't prohibit individual states from doing away with the Pledge or with the offending parts.

Evolution is taught in the schools, but most people don't actually believe it.

You behave as if evolution were a fact or at least a plausible, cohesive theory, when most of it is nothing more than glorified conjecture and sophistry revived from the ancient Greek pagan philosophers.

God is axiomatic. Most people are born into the world and just know it. Theism is natural. Atheism must be taught.

Science is worship.

Now, scientists worship the knowledge itself of the created things,

Those who are agnostic (a-gnostic; Greek for no knowledge), have chosen to remain know-nothings -- ignorant of the knowledge of God.

Government, religion, education, science, philosophy, literature, music, art, food, clothing, architecture, and more in every society have been influenced by a belief in a supreme Creator. It is inseparable from the human experience. Everyone has a theistic orientation, whether it's a/mono/pan/poly-theistic or avowed agnosticism. As the Rush song goes, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Now please don't give the obligatory troll response of "what about a tooth fairy orientation?" Nobody believes in that. It was created as fiction from the beginning. It was never intended to be believed and plays no fundamental part (by a long shot) in the human experience.

God is axiomatic. Most people are born into the world and just know it. Theism is natural. Atheism must be taught.

(If evolution has determined that theism is important to humans, then you are choosing to devolve your posterity. Your descendents can look forward to welcoming their evolutionary superior theistic overlords. ;-)

Pure science would be objective, but everyone has philosophic bias. A denial of bias blinds a scientist to the nature of his own being and the skewed inclinations of his own presuppositions. Philosophy influences not just the interpretation of experiments, but the very construction of experiments and the choice of which experiments to conduct. Like in the media, a bias is revealed as much by what is not included than by what is included.

There is nothing in or of the Earth that contradicts the Bible; the Bible and the Earth are complementary. They were created by the same Omniscient Being. Why does "science" seem to contradict the Bible? As the Wahabis have hijacked the religion of Islam, so have the militant Atheists hijacked the practice of science. Science was first practiced in order to have greater understanding of the Creator's handiwork.

Science is worship. It used to be worship of the One who created the objects of study. We sought knowledge of creation so that we would have more to thank God for; so that we would see manifestations of His majesty and glory; so that we might gain some insight into the character of the Lord of the Universe. Now, scientists worship the knowledge itself of the created things, while denying the One who made it all. Thus, they blind themselves to the greater realizations and appreciations that science is meant to seek out. Those who are agnostic (a-gnostic; Greek for no knowledge), have chosen to remain know-nothings -- ignorant of the knowledge of God.

There is only one account of creation in the Bible. It is the chronological account in chapter one. This narrative of the creative stages ends at the conclusion of chapter one. Chapter two mentions creation, but, in fact, moves on to a completely different subject. After the sixth day (i.e., after the last verse of the chapter), creation has been completed, and God takes a day off to reflect upon His creation. This chapter puts the focus on God's relationship with man. The transition is in Gen. 2:1-3 where God provides man with his first Sabbath. This is part of the God-man relationship, because Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27, Amplified Bible) Keeping the Sabbath holy is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) and an integral part of God's covenant with man.

Chapter two complements chapter one. It backtracks and shows how t

What really strikes me as odd (or maybe as typical) in your mode of discussion is the total lack of space for any hint of morality in those that choose not to believe in God. Your consistent grouping of morality on the side of theism, and the subsequent imposibility of a morality outside the context of a God is simplistic, to say the least.

I do not believe in a God that leads my day to day life, or even cares about it. I do not believe in a God that loves us as individuals. I do not believe in a God that sat down one day and created heaven and earth for our benefit.

And when I stop looking at spirituality, I look around me and see organised religion outdoing organised crime in profit margins, ruthlessnes and control. I look at organised religion and see nothing but nepotism, and little evidence of this assumed morality. I see massive coverup of child abuse. I see lives destroyed in the name of the pope. I see people going hungry, without help from the churches, that can seriously afford it. I see a pope, buying a million dollar Bentley, so he can drive around in safety, while his followers slaughter each other for ridiculous reasons. I see an organised fostering of hate, a repressive regime, that actively discourages discovery of the world around us, an inward-looking philosophy, that frowns on exploration. I see a cult. A cult more concerned with control then with anything else.

Irrespective of my lack of beliefs in a traditional sense, I live my life, and teach my son to live his, along a moral code that requires no deity to enforce: Be nice to others. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about.

What is the moral basis in atheism that says persecution is wrong? It's still going on in China; what suasion are you going to use to stop them?

One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.

Your only choices are theism or atheism. One of them can't be "reality denying". So which one is it?

I claim there is no objective moral reference (first principles, as you call it). I think that's the only intellectually honest answer to the human condition.

I don't agree with your first principles, either philosophically, personally, or historically.

Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population

The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history. And they do it in concordence with their atheism; as opposed to the theists who do it in spite of their theism.

A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.

Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?

I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact.

Then you are not an atheist. I don't know why you seem to have an overwhelming need to fit such a label, but the fact is that you do not. The reason is you acknowledge that your view to be a belief, which is not allowed for a theist or an atheist. To them, they hold the truth and have no need to qualify their view as being a personal belief.

The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.

You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example. You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.

Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.

This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.

I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate.

Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response. To me, it simply represents that one is willing to acknowledge that they cannot know everything and that they therefore can not always reach the right conclusion. There is really nothing I can point to being convincing towards either theism or atheism.

I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.

It means we probably wouldn't get along very well in person. :-) The problem is that you seem unwilling to ponder "silly" things, where I enjoy toying with ideas of all kinds.

I never argued that any of this had to do with truth.

It's still at the stage of logical consistency

which atheism fails to satisfy just as certainly as theism does

I brought up Heisenberg precisedly [sic] to point out that it may well be beyond our abilities to explain everything rationally.

we are still pretty stupid about the answers to big questions

If religion has made a mistake, it is in saying it knows the answers without evidence. In that way, atheism is a religion.

You missed the whole fucking point.

One of us is definitely missing the point.

Cultures make up lots of shit, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I never argued that any of this had to do with truth. It's still at the stage of logical consistency, which atheism fails to satisfy just as certainly as theism does.

It's not enough to just explain things, they must be explained rationally.

Again, this has nothing to do with my position. I brought up Heisenberg precisedly to point out that it may well be beyond our abilities to explain everything rationally. What is certain is that, for all our knowledge, we are still pretty stupid about the answers to big questions. If religion has made a mistake, it is in saying it knows the answers without evidence. In that way, atheism is a religion.

Dumbass.

One of us is definitely being a dumbass.

Which is therefore a religion. Atheism is the belief, in the absense of any scientific evidence either way, that there is no deity just as theism is the belief in a deity under the same circumstances. They are both religions, and both equally irrational viewpoints defended, well, religiously.

In the immortal words of Rush "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. / If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Or to put it another way, if on a form you are asked to choose your religion and you choose to put "atheist" or "none" or even "not applicable," that is your religious belief.