Slashdot Mirror

IF you bring your religion to a debate expect it to be scrutunized. Do not talk about christianity, islam, or taoism talk about generalities in respect to theism if you do not wish to inflame people, is that too much to ask?

Isn't the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that is is unconstitutional to say "under God" and endorsment of atheism over theism? Where do you draw the line?

Philosophy is a science, it is the search for answers.

It's debateable whether philosophy is a "science" or not: certainly it's not in any sense a science like, for instance, astronomy or genetics. But you are correct that it is a search for answers: but answers to what questions? The answer to that question is that the philosopher seeks answers to the same questions as the theologian. It is the same exact enterprise; in the case of the atheistic philosopher, the answers are assumed to come from someplace other than a god or gods, while for the theist those answers quite likely *do* come from a god or gods. Nevertheless, it's the same questions. The fact that you don't like the answers provided by whatever religions to which you have been exposed doesn't change the fundamental truth that the questions answered by theism are the same questions for which the atheistic philosopher seeks answers.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you describe rocks and keyboards as atheists, because ultimately atheism reduces man to nothing more than an impersonal thing, like a rock or keyboard! Because atheism is materialist (in the philosophic and not economic sense here), you and I are nothing but big bags of chemical reactions. We're more complex than boiling water or a campfire, but we're not fundamentally different, from the atheistic perspective: we're just bags of chemicals. And chemicals - or chemical reactions - don't seek answers. They don't give answers, either. They just sit there, like your rock or keyboard. That's what atheism does to us: it destroys the possibility of knowing anything, because bags of chemicals can't "know" anything. They're impersonal. And atheism reduces humans down to the impersonal.

There's nothing nonsensical about it at all, and it has nothing to do with theism. Atheism cannot support ethics that are more substantial than personal preference because of its cosmology. The atheist says that he is ultimately the product of completely impersonal forces. It is the height of absurdity to pretend that impersonal forces have anything to say about right and wrong.

Atheism demands that we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals with some interesting electrical and biochemical reactions going on. But if this is so, it is even more preposterous to pretend that atheism provides ethical categories! Chemical reactions don't make statements about ethics. If human cognition is no more than chemical reactions - as the atheist claims - then humans can no more make ethical distinctions than can boiling water or a crackling campfire. The personal is destroyed; there is no person to make decisions about right and wrong. Bubbling, sparking chemicals are all that remain.

Thus the whole attempt by atheists to make ethical claims (or, really, any other claim, since *all* human cognition is no cognition at all in their system) is based upon theft. They must engage in theft of some ethical categories from somewhere else, because their own system cannot support it.

And all this being true, we should not be surprised when a Stalin or a Mao commits atrocities in the name of atheism: atheism itself cannot provide ethical categories to induce them to behave well.

No, atheism describes ones lack of theism.

So how the hell are we here on earth? Via the big bang and evolution? You have to have some belief system. Believing that religion is BS is still a belief. This is your worldview (again, for lack of a better term).

We all have beliefs of why we are here, how we got here, etc. Not all of us do...

This is the pacifist mentality I was talking about. Sure, none of us _know_ what happend n years ago when the earth formed, but there is a lot of evidence and a lot of theories to at least study. Still, even this defines your worldview. Not caring is still a belief: A belief that it really doesn't matter.

Is a manual on toothbrushing, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't give praise to god

You make a good point, however I'm talking about Fictional writings. I'm not talking about "looking" to "find out where an author stands". I'm saying that in writings such as Tolkiens, one can see how his worldview has influenced his writing. The same can be said for political views, etc. Any personal convictions (religious, political, scientific, etc.) can influence an authors writings, that's all I'm saying.

they were just called "Christians" as if that serves to place them in the same camp on these issues.


The simple definition of a Christian is one who believes in Christ. It has little to do with "the church" or other theological viewpoints. Although Tolkien may have differed with Lewis theologically, I believe they could both be accurately labeld as Christians.

This pascifistic mantality doesn't quite work.

Eh? What is a "pascifistic mentality" and how was I expressing one?

Your worldview (for lack of a better term) is composed of your beliefs.

Indeed, but despite BEING an atheist, "atheism" is not one of my "beliefs."

Atheism is a belief that there is no higher being, and that what we see is what we get.

No, atheism describes ones lack of theism. The lack of a belief is not a belief. Many Buddhists are atheists: but they have many religious beliefs besides, and they certainly do not hold the opinion that there is no god. It's just that believing in one is not part of their religion.

We all have beliefs of why we are here, how we got here, etc.

Not all of us do, no (to the extent you mean _ultimate_ origins, and not just that my parents had sex, and their parents, and so on)

In many cases it doesn't take long to figure out where an author stands on such issues, regardless of his religion or lack thereof.

Usually only when religion is being discussed, which is simply not the case for the vast majority of views and books people read in school today. Is a manual on toothbrushing, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't give praise to god (or even mention god), promoting the belief that there is no god? A book on math? A Robert Frost poem? I would likewise suggest that your desire to "find out where they stand" is a misguided approach that's only going to lead you into making a whole bunch of hasty generalizations and false dilemnas.

I'm not sure what this means. They either are Christians, or they aren't. Sure, they both differ in theological opinion, and they both express their beliefs differently, but this has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christians.

Please remember the context of what we were discussing. The issue at hand was the views of Tolkien and Lewis. That they had different theological ideas AND more importantly different ideas on how their works could and could not be seen as "religiously inspired" is very important to the point you were making, and instead of noting them, they were just called "Christians" as if that serves to place them in the same camp on these issues.

"Also, Atheism is just as much a world view as [Insert Religion Here]."

Actually, I consider it lack of a world view.

Its funny, really, that line of thought is the same ones many theists use when they eventually conclude that Science/Atheism/Rational Thinking is a religion too. Have you ever heard someone ask why you have rejected God? Somehow, they have completely turned the question upside down.

Now I am not trying to say that Theism is contrary to Science or Rational Thinking.

But here's the difference as I see it. It depends upon how flexible your world view really is. Its just as easy for an Atheist to get down right dogmatic about certain beliefs that they are convinced is true. And a Christian can be tolerant of other people's beliefs.

Now, of course them books weren't "banned" because of a sudden onslaught of rational thinking. We live in a democracy and there were enough parents who were vocal about the books being taught to warrant the policy. Thats just the way it is and bitching about it won't help. We're just going to have to wait for Widespread Social Change. It'll take a few generations, but it'll happen.

Also, avoid the word "banned". If the book is still in the school library, consider that a compromise. The curious kids may pick it up. Many of the kids won't read it even if it was assigned to them.

So I think its okay not cry "censorship!" at the next board meeting.

Atheism is illogical (precisely as illogical as theism -- think about it). Those who mock religion in general show themselves to be poor critical thinkers and/or puerile. Those who point out specific excesses or errors of religion are welcome to debate like gentlemen.

but theism means belief in God. what you mean is that there are plenty of religions who don't believe in God.

This is indeed true. There is no such clause in the constitution.

Just like the phrases "original sin" and "trinity" don't exist in the christian bible. But then that doesn't stop christians from using them to describe cornerstones of their faith, does it?

The Constitution does state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What does this mean? Well, the US Supreme court used the words "separation of church and state" to put this concept into simple to understand words. Incorporating notions of theism and monism into the pledge clearly shows an endorsement of these concepts over others. That is why it is unconstitutional.

The nonexistance of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution is not only not insightful , it's not even relevant. It is however a quite misleading.

Ignorant people do not slice up and cart around 2000-tonne blocks of stone

...and speaking of ignorance... yes, they did

[Snip pointless bit where you attribute a belief to atheists w.r.t. Egypt that not all atheists necessarily have.]

Atheism [dictionary.com] is not a default condition, it is the deliberate denial of theism [dictionary.com].

Nice try, but I've seen that faulty dictionary argument used too many times before to count.

Consider the following statements:
"I own three elephants that each cost me $5.00."
"I can eat 25 heads of lettuce in 2 minutes."
"You owe me $5000.00, but you just don't remember what from. Pay up."
Now, were you thinking on any of those subjects before I brought them up? I suspect the amswer is no. Do you believe any of the above statements? I suspect the answer is no. So, did I just succeed in giving you three new beliefs by stating things in your presence that you don't believe? Did I just succeed in giving you extra burden of proof you didn't have before? Of course not.

Theists saying things in my presense that I don't believe doesn't give me any extra burden of proof I wouldn't have had before. From a burden of proof standpoint, there is no signifigant difference between someone who has never heard of god and someone you've just told about god who then says "I don't see any reason yet to believe you."

---What I find amusing is an atheist calling something "immoral," thereby adopting tenets of theism without thinking. Without God, there is no morality: only situational advantage, and it is illogical and senseless to "have to worry about the future."---

Good greif man, PLATO refuted this argument thousands of years before you were born. I dare you to try and explain how the existence of a God "makes" morality. The very cocnept ("making" or "deciding") morality is incoherent.

---There is no reason to be moral/nice/kind to one's fellow man apart from a perceptible advantage gained; if you cannot identify the exact advantage, you are acting illogically.---

God forbid we actually act morally because we CARE about virtue, or have compassion for others, right? Or DID your God forbid it? Tell me: of the two of us, which one worships a being who supposedly commanded its followers to dash unborn infants out on the rocks?

---Atheism, if carried to its logical conclusion, inexorably leads to nihilism.---

Nonsense: please explain how the lack of a PARTICULAR ideology (theism) requires that a person have NO beliefs or ideology, let alone believe IN nothing (nihilism).

What I find amusing is an atheist calling something "immoral," thereby adopting tenets of theism without thinking.

Untrue. I can have a code of ethics (or "morals") because I do not want to cause emotional distress and hardship for other human beings. That does not imply or require a belief in a diety.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. --Albert Einstein

Re: "It's selfish and immoral to only be concerned about yourself, or be like Reagan's fundie Secretary of Interior who said "We don't have to worry about the environment, the day of judgement is at hand". Yes, we do have to worry about the future even after we're gone for our children."

What I find amusing is an atheist calling something "immoral," thereby adopting tenets of theism without thinking. Without God, there is no morality: only situational advantage, and it is illogical and senseless to "have to worry about the future." There is no reason to be moral/nice/kind to one's fellow man apart from a perceptible advantage gained; if you cannot identify the exact advantage, you are acting illogically. Atheism, if carried to its logical conclusion, inexorably leads to nihilism.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."--*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."--*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."--*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."--*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."--*M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.

I understand trolling to be making a deliberately shocking and disruptive statement which 1 - is patently absurd and indefensible in debate and 2 - I know to be false in order to produce an emotional reaction for the sheer sport of doing so. I wish I were trolling.

You are correct, it is absurd. Unfortunatly this is the state to which /. has devolved. I miss the days when it was about debate, with a tint of flame at times, but none of the current trolling and full on personal attacks. A common tactic of trolls is to reply quoting text the original poster never typed. The 'universe' statement stuck out like a big troll warning lamp.

Atheism's primary practice is to work through the government to supress the religious life of others. I have never known of any organized atheist effort not directed toward limiting the religious freedom of other people.

I disagree. From my point of view this practice is to prevent christanity from becoming our national religion. The debate is almost always concerning the 10 commandments. Atheists see this as very dangerous. For example, no religion at all in public(read government, public schools): The religious(christian, as other religions are rarely espoused to warrant public display) have the ability to teach their children, and practice their beliefs in thier churches and homes. If religion was taught in public school or displayed in every predominant government building(I won't open the argument of which religion) atheists as well as religions other that the posted one, go through the difficult task of unlearning that dogma that is forcibly subjected on them. Is it limiting your religious freedom? Probably somewhat, but the opposite completely destroys the religious freedom of atheists and every other non dominant religion by forcibly subjecting them to the majority's religious views.

Furthermore, say the top 10 list of huey the goblin were the posted items/classes in question. I pay taxes. You pay taxes. Do you want your tax dollars going toward instilling in every child, including your own, a dogma that you do not subscribe to?

Moment of silence in school? Sure go for it in my opinion, but as soon as one particular religion is pushed, I'll be there voicing my disagreement. Atheists get a bad name on this issues, as we take the front lines saying "no way." What you don't hear is the silent support from hindus, muslims, and the myraid of other religions practiced in this country. They don't want christianity shoved down their throats either, but don't want to publically take the side of "those devil worshipping atheist ammoral evildoers."

Point taken, but given that, I would really like to know how you distinguish yourself from agnosticism.

Unfortunatly, it's back to semantics. Admittedly, others can better describe the difference than I, but I'll try.

Agnostic: Believes god might exist(skeptical), but even if it does, it is not provable.

Atheist:Lack(back to that word again) of belief in god. But not anti-god.

Maybe this will help: a quote from another discussion that says it better than I can:

No, I'd call "hard atheism" a faith. "Soft atheism" -- nontheistic agnosticicm -- is the position that discounts faith; hard atheism assumes that something does not exist.

Or, to put another way: you can't prove a negative. You can't say God doesn't exist any more certainly than you can say he does. Nontheistic agnostics consider God irrelevant at best, but take no position on the definitive question of whether God exists at all. Such people are those who choose no faith at all. Everyone else -- believers, fideists (I would prefer to call myself a "theistic agnostic"), and "hard atheists" -- are operating on faith, either for or against.

/Brian

Now, he uses the term nontheistic agnosticism. This is what atheism is. It has been highjacked by people who are anti-theists(they are religious in this IMO) but do not want to call themselves 'anti' anything.

Theists==Agnostic||Atheist||Agnostic==Anti-theis t

Agnostics sit on the fences, some lean toward theism, some lean toward Anti-theism. True atheists are in the DMZ. We are the Switzerland of religion. I want so bad to say "we don't care" but that's not it, but at the same time that's it exactly. Very difficult to explain in a very binary issue.

/. will likely close out this discussion soon. If you would like to continue it you may email me at ninjalex@NbellOSsouthPA.Mnet (remove the NOSPAM obviously)

--Alex

Hey, I can do this all day. I don't mind feeding trolls once in awhile.

My humility extends to my recommendation that you reevaluate your standard for truth. The invincibility of your ignorance with regard to the flaws of how you think demonstrates a lack of awareness of the capacity to do that. Your faith is, for lack of a better word, blind.

You sure read a lot into my thought process from a total of 4 lines of text. Faith? Faith? Atheism is not about faith. Perhaps you are referring to anti-theists? A(theism)==not. A(theism)!=anti. Not theist is not the same as anti-theist. You were born an atheist, but were taught dogma. I prefer to skip the dogma.

Not only is atheism a belief and an idea, but it is distinguished among ideas in that its fundamental characteristic is applied to others. It is by nature, therefore, a belief which can only exist in as much as it is forced upon others.

In a word, bullshit. One more time for the cheap seats: Atheism is not an idea. It is a non-idea. As to forced upon others, how many times were you drug off to atheism church as a child? How many atheist have knocked on your door trying to convert you?

It bears mention that the only defense you've raised outside of trying to bolster the "platform of Absolute Knowledge of the Universe" has been the emotional statement quoted above. Also, you have characterized my criticisms of the platform principle as trying to prove"a superiority complex" on the part of atheists. I thought the underpinning of atheism is the iron adherence to reason. It is interesting that someone so ostensibly dedicated to reason is capable of being so guided by emotion.

This gave you away as trolling. Good job feeding it though. Never anywhere have I said I was trying to bolster "platform of Absolute Knowledge of the Universe." Nice job trying to put words in my mouth however. I did not pin the superiority complex issue on you. That was all your doing:

Excerpt from the catechism, verse (hehe) 2:
Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question.

Atheists are not robots. We do not desire to be. Emotion is part of the human condition. Again, atheism has no iron underpinnings. It is about the lack of faith in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice how I said "lack," but didn't say "disbelief." A very crucial difference between atheists and anti-theists.

I think a point that many people forget when accusing theism of inhumanity is that if atheism is true then theism is empty and the church is hollow. And therefore, there is no real purpose to pointing out the evils of the church, because it is empty and the evil lies in man.

The immediate reply is "that what I am saying, the church is evil", but that is missing the point. If there is no god, then there is no church, it is man that is evil. Pointing to the church would be like a victim pointing to a gun.

The argument against atheism is dissimilar but still just as invalid.

I just wish that more people would think about these things before repeating them over and over. A perpetuated lie is the worst kind, because it has a certain inertia that is difficult to erase.

Mao and Stalin wanted religion wiped out because it stood in the way of their complete social control over society. They both happened to be atheists, but this is no more relevant than that they both happened to be men.
Mao and Stalin had philosophies, evil philosophies. They were indeed atheistic philosophies. But this says nothing about "atheism" which isn't itself even a philosophy, but rather a term to describe the LACK of theistic tenets in a philosophy. Some philosophies are atheistic, some theistic, and some of both types are good, and some evil. Conclusions should not drawn about either atheism or theism in general. But there is an additional silliness about claiming that atheism is to blame, in that atheism is not itself a philosophy.

The fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this Christian god does little credit to their gift for religion--and not much more to their taste. They ought to have been able to make an end of such a moribund and worn-out product of the decadence. A curse lies upon them because they were not equal to it; they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a part of their instincts--and since then they have not managed to create any more gods. Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! Instead, there still exists, and as if by some intrinsic right,--as if he were the ultimatum and maximum of the power to create gods, of the creator spiritus in mankind--this pitiful god of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid image of decay, conjured up out of emptiness, contradiction and vain imagining, in which all the instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and wearinesses of the soul find their sanction!--