Slashdot Mirror

To note that it is most common to believe does not make belief the "default" position. What makes something an "active" or "passive" position is not the relation to the will of the majority, but rather the type of claim it is.
Atheism (using the so called "weak" definition) is not making any truth claim. Most forms of theism are (but not all forms!).
The fact that there is a lot of social pressure to believe isn't directly relevant to belief: people can easily say they believe and not, or vice-versa. But even to the extent that social pressure makes people conform, it does this by convincing them to _believe_, which is taking an affirmative, active step. That they might be coerced to make this choice (perhaps to make their lives easier) doesn't change the fact that it took an _active_, not passive, step to get there.

I, however, am an atheist in the same sense that a baby is an atheist: neither of us have yet been convinced that there is a god, and so don't believe. In the babies case, this is largely because it doesn't have the capacity to believe much of ANYTHING yet, much less the existence of gods. Taking me as starting as that baby, however, as I grew up, I began to be able to understand claims well enough to consider whether they were convincing or not. But I still never came accross a convincing reason to think a god existed, and that belief was warranted. So, in effect, despite me gaining the _ability_ to understand and believe claims as I grew up, nothing much changed with my actual atheism: I remained an atheist in exactly the same manner I always was.

And I'm very sorry about your sobriety. Damn liquor laws...

You seem to imply by "default behavior" that is an instinct. I do not see how generation after generation the instinct of belief in God was passed down. Such an instinct is juxtaposed to the well being of humanity as a whole.

When asked who created God(s), religious and authority usually revert to dogma. They say God was always there. We can just as easily say that the earth, universe and humans were always here, and it would be just as a good explanation as what theism can coffer. The explanations of theism only make sense if you believe in their dogma.

It is better to be honest and say you do not know then to invent explanations like religions do. No explanation is better than one made up from someone's imagination.

"These are extremely relevant issues, as the outcome (regardless of belief) will change your perspective on life."
Beliving in the explanations given by organized religions can very well control your perspective of life, and thus control a large part of your life.

Can I simplify this insane thread?

Gnostic (nstk)
adj.
gnostic
Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.
Of or relating to Gnosticism.
n.
A believer in Gnosticism.

theism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

So, since the addition of a or an negates a root word, an agnostic is one who has no spiritual knowledge and an atheist is on who believes in no god or gods.

Special thanks to dictionary.com

---it's because Atheism is in itself a belief system.---

I am an atheist. Yet, I _inherently_ need not share any beliefs in common with any other atheist. The only thing that places us in the same category is that we lack what others have: belief in gods. What are you claiming is my "atheist" belief system?

---You specifically belive that there is no god.---

No, I don't. I don't believe THAT there is a god. There's a big difference.

---A lot of people call themselves atheists, when they aren't strictly atheists, for example they'll belive in some 'force' or universal intelligence from which we are all created or something like that. all of which exempts them from true atheism. ---

That depends. "True" atheism simply requires that one NOT be a "true" theist: whatever that is. If you consider belief in an universal intelligence to be theism, then believers in it cannot be atheists. But if you think that a belief in "fate" is not necessarily a form of theism, then such a person is legitimately an atheist.
Atheist does NOT equal "strict materialist." Many atheists believe in ghosts, ESP, and all manner of other non-natural things. They just don't happen to believe in gods.

It is because so many people believe in theism that this is so. The fact that there is a need for such a word as agnostisms and the false preconception that atheists deny the possibly of the existance of God(s) shows how much success religious authority has on controlling the minds of a great portion of the mass of humanity. When you are the majority you can control information.

If every religious man in the world claimed tomorrow that 2+2=5 and a small, consistent but isolated contingent of thinkers(atheists) said it was 4, after a period of time 5 would become the truth for the majority of men. Religion posses such awesome power.

I feel it would be a good time for atheists to join together in a movement implicitly to destroy theism. The control over the minds of billions that the dogma of religion gives a minority is dangerous and needs to be stopped.

---Atheism originally meant denial of theism. ---

Right, which is quite different from "affirmation that no gods exist."

In the end, what we have to deal with are CLAIMS for the existence of gods, not gods themselves.

---When atheists who did not have faith in God appeared in numbers they argued these people deny the existance of God. That claim, like so many other religious claim presupposes the existance of God.---

This was especially important historically in Christianity, because the Bible says that "deep down" everyone knows god exists, so those that claim not to are just liars, or "in denial." The Bible calls unbelievers all sorts of nasty names. In fact, going strictly by dictionaries, "atheist" is still listed as a synonym for "wicked" and "amoral" in many usages.

"Theism" is the general word for belief in god(s). Naturally enough, that's the opposite of "atheism".

Deism specifically claims natural and logical evidence for an eternal creator but rejects miraculous tales in holy books. Many founders of the US were deists, whose quotes often leads to their being mistaken for christians.

"Some argue that theist apologists have been so successful in their slander of "atheism" that the term should be abandoned, and non-believers should switch to the term "non-theist" instead."

The apogolists were the ones to argue that atheists deny the existance of God. Religious authority sees the existance of God as a fact that should be so obvious it needs no proof. When atheists who did not have faith in God appeared in numbers they argued these people deny the existance of God. That claim, like so many other religious claim presupposes the existance of God.

I disagree. These definitions are pretty confusing, and rarely agreed upon, but please note: atheism reffers to belief, and agnosticism reffers to knowledge. These are two different things, and hence, agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale (they don't measure the same things).

Hence, one who is an agnostic can also be either a theist agnostic (admits that they have no knowledge of god's existence, but believe anyway, usually on faith) or an atheist agnostic (one who has neither knowledge nor belief in god/s).

Hence:

theism: belief in gods (for whatever reason)

atheism: no belief in gods ("a" = "without", "theism" = "belief in gods")

agnositicism: no knowledge of gods (its original form, when coined by Huxley, was that that such knowledge is impossible)

The oft forgotten (and more modern category) are the non-cognitivists, whose position is, essentially: "the claims for (this) god are so unintelligible that even if I wanted to "believe" I couldn't, because I have no idea what sort of thing I would even be "believing" in."

Now "atheism," since it has been such a prejorative term, is often a point of contention. Some argue that theist apologists have been so successful in their slander of "atheism" that the term should be abandoned, and non-believers should switch to the term "non-theist" instead. While I prefer keeping the term atheism (without belief), other people rightly disagree. Semantics aren't all THAT important in the end.

But it's worth noting that non-belief in, or even denial of, gods does NOT equal claiming that one knows that no gods exist.
I (as an example), don't believe in gods (am an atheist AND an agnostic, though that definition of it seems redundant to me). The claims I have heard for the existence of gods are unconvincing. Just because theists make them doesn't mean I have to leap out and disproove them, anymore than I can can leap out and disprove that invisible elves control the weather. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. And without good evidence, I am rightly skeptical: for me belief would be DISHONEST.
So, I don't believe, and I am critical of the claims FOR god. That doesn't require me to make counter-claims however. I have no idea what exists or doesn't. I just can't bring myself to believe in things unless I actually have a good reason to think they are true.
This doesn't mean I have any idea why theists do believe: for all I know, they might have good reasons. But all the reasons I have heard are unconvincing at best, unintelligible at times, flatly dishonest at worst. So I remain an atheist.

not believing in a religion is not the same as atheism. (Right?)

Wrong, basically. A (lack of) theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods).

Theism, perhaps?

Okay, I was making a glib point, but the word is 'watered down' anyway. Buddhism and Confucianism have few or no positive references to God/gods, but most people, particularly in the West, would consider them religions.

I noted that "disclaimer" in the original text, but at the same time you quoted a lengthy passage (longer than any other I have noted you responded to) and then proceed to engage in commentary. I could not "write this off" as a joke as that would be contrary to your manner in responding to these issues. Sarcasm aside, it *was* being used to bolster a position.

that this idea of atheism is a somewhat recent phenomena

But it is not. Our *modern* expression of it is, but atheism itself isn't. Keep in mind the meaning of the word (and it doesn't matter when we applied a token to concept -- the concept is more universal than the token). Look at the root "theism." Properly understood, theism means "having an active belief in a god(s)." That means that anyone that makes claim to knowledge of or belief in a deity of any form is acting in a manner which would be called theism. Now look at the prefix "a" which, as you may or may not understand, represents a negation (not).

From this the understanding, "atheism" indicates one who does *NOT* have an active belief in god. Please be very clear on this: "NOT AN ACTIVE BELIEF." Notice it is not "has disbelief" (which is only a sub-set of the members of the set of (not)theists). This means that not only would the people labeled by the modern/popular use of the term (what you might say about me) are included in it but also is *anyone* who does not profess to a belief.
From this you can see that for as long as there have been those that have believed in god, there has been atheism. (Please note: I said "has been atheism" not "has been people that don't believe in god." The two statements are NOT equal. The second issue is one for historical accuracy.)
In fact, one might be able to argue that atheism has, in fact, existed prior to theism (as it requires no active belief), but I think that to be rather silly as, until there is theism, there is nothing to be (not)theism, so the term is somewhat meaningless.

"I am rational because I don't believe a particular thing

I invite you to reexamine your conception of rationality. One is not rational just because one does or doesn't believe in something -- One is rational because one thinks in a rational manner.

even if I have no proof of my position

Okay, I have said this like 25 times now, but I DO NOT *HAVE* TO HAVE PROOF OF ANYTHING (in this case). This is why I went into some length in discussion of epistemological principles.

We human beings are fallible. WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT. We don't automatically know things. We have specific manners in which we gain and validate knowledge. There are plenty of ways that aren't valid for gaining knowledge (they either lead directly to falsehood or are indirectly false by producing answers which may appear right, but not for valid reasons (therefore the answer truly isn't correct)).

We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise.

I feel I have to repeat the previous statement as this is something that just doesn't seem to be sinking in: We DO NOT just automatically presume everything is true until proven otherwise. If you need me to state it again, just to make it clear, *please* let me know and I will gladly reiterate.

Rather, we have to validate *everything* before we accept it a fact. You say I have no proof of my position (or I don't have a disproof of yours). That is just flat out invalid thinking. I am telling you that everything you claim *has* to be validated in order for you to claim it. (Otherwise you are making empty meaningless statements. They are disguised as if they had meaning and could convey information, but are in fact void of both.)

I put it to you yet again that the onus of proof lay upon the shoulders of he who affirms the positive.

other than logic,

Uh, what kind of alternate universe do you live in inside your head where you have something other than logic to validate rational thought? (HINT: outside of the scope of logic you have no rationality.)

where you are irrational because you believe in something you haven't proved to me but for which you claim to have similarly well-reasoned logic!"

Oh, you can claim that you have "similarly well-resoned logic" all you want -- IT DOEN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

You can claim that you are Napoleon all you want and that isn't true either.

similarly well-reasoned logic????

Where would I have *ever* indicated that? (You are putting words in my mouth to bolster your position.) I have done nothing but demonstrate that A) your arguments have *NO* similarity to mine, B) are not "well-reasoned" and C) are contrary to logic. In fact, if *ANYTHING* I have demonstrated that your arguments are NOT formed by rational, logical thought, and are rather a direct product of your desire to retain them.

You clearly stated previously that your belief state was in direct relation to the occurrence of characteristics you find desirable. (A point that didn't escape my notice that you ducked.) Your beliefs are based upon caprice, and any attempt to clothe them in the trappings of rational thought, does disservice to the entire concept of rationality.

Doesn't this assume a superior/inferior attitude?

No it does not. And to even suggest such indicates a desire to attempt to discredit my position by indicated it is derivative of hubris.

I would suggest that the proper way to evaluate any position is on the merits of the arguments themselves, and not any secondary concerns like the speaker or the intents of said speaker.

I *very* much want to keep this discussion focused on the content of the argument. While I don't mind a little name-calling (in fact, in any spirited discussion, I would expect it in the form of "playful jabs" between advocates, with all advocates understanding it as such), I do not want to allow a discussion to derail (and perhaps degenerate) because of it.

The point being that I have advanced a consistent position, backed up every one of my arguments, and attempted to demonstrate that they derive from a consistent logical framework. I have gone to great lengths to show that the positions I hold, I do not hold lightly. They are not whim. They are not half-thought concepts I just digested as a child without ever bothering to examine and validate them. They are "well-reasoned" and "logical."*

*[Okay, if they *weren't* well-reasoned and logical, they *why* would I hold them? Do you know anyone who says "I believe X to be true, but I know that is false or against everything else I know to be true"? (Outside of religious types, who, for the most part are the one class who gladly accept ideas as true that they know to be against rationality. ie, "God exists outside logic." or in other words (The Bard's) "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.") One doesn't hold a position *nor* advance it without believing in it.]

If you think that having the courage of your convictions is somehow equated with a "superior attitude," then so be it, but I would have to think that this represents a misunderstanding on your part.

scientific arguments which I have heard to say "there is no God"

Well, once again, primary issue is to prove that there *IS* a god, not to prove that there *isn't.*

One, can, however, in the light of statements proffered to prove god, demonstrate the errors in said statements. But this is not proving that there is no god, but proving that arguments that say there is a god are flawed. There is a difference. The burden of proof is still on those who affirm the positive.

precluding Deity

This is the same error, over and over again. One doesn't have to disprove god. One has to prove god. You don't presume that what you *want* to be true is true. *YOU PROVE IT.*

usually by denying the possibility of that religious experiences can be real without conclusive evidence that they are not

And again, it is not anyone's responsibility to prove something isn't religious -- It is the responsibility of the person that claims it to be religious to prove that it is.

Oh, and keep in mind that if you attempt to use "religious experiences" as a proof of god, you are not entitled to assume that god exists. That is what is known as circular reasoning.

Goes like this:

1. God Exists.
2. God makes miracles.
3. X was a miracle.

You just run around in a logical circle unable to prove anything. That will not be allowed.

So try Occam's razor

Before I even look at your list, remember that if you assume the notion that god exists, that opens up a whole holy host (pun intended) of new questions. The idea behind Occam's is to *simplify* the explanation, not create one that begs new questions.

But that being said, I can address each of your points to indicate that one doesn't need to go to more complex explanations. I will try to be brief:

a typhoon class storm dissipated
And typhoon class storms *don't* dissipate on their own? Just because one happens to stop at a time that is fortuitous for you doesn't mean that is *why* it dissipated -- it just means that the two events are temporally related.
You would have a lot of trouble trying to justify that your needs/desires are what caused it to stop.
And you say nothing about all of the typhoons that didn't dissipate.
Look, this falls under synchronicity, which rather than reiterating on each point, let me address at the end of the discussion.

multiple cancers driven into remission for more than a dozen years until a mother finished raising a specific child (in fulfillment of a religious promise)
And there have been plenty of times when cancer didn't go into remission when prayed for. Are you saying that these people were less pious or god loved them less??? That is proof alone that prayer is not the cause.
Let me add to this that I know of *many* cases where a person with a terminal condition (not just cancer) has survived long enough to see something happen. And few of these have been religious promises. Most have come from a profound love that drove a willingness to fight. The human body is an interesting thing, and to say that the mind is divorced from it, is to misunderstand the mind. Studies have indicated that the overall mental wellness of a person can profoundly affect their physical wellbeing. The mother that wants to live long enough to see her child raised (and I will argue that 99.9% of it is from a love of the child -- If my mother was only bound to my raising because it was a religious promise or duty, I would be offended. In fact, I think you insult all of the dying women you speak of by minimizing their love of their children, in order to rationalize your argument. I think you owe them a silent apology.), can under some situations hold an illness at bay.
And another way to look at it is spousal death. It is a well known fact, that once one elder spouse dies, the probability of the other dying within two years shoots through the roof. The explanation is that they surrender the will to live.
But why is it, that if you can attempt to use god to explain someone fighting for life, you don't seem to use god to explain people dying?

arriving just in time to offer critical assistance to someone I had never met

Okay, please provide exact figures for the number of people in danger praying in a 20 mile radius to you that you *DIDN'T* save. That alone should indicate to you that prayer is not causal, but rather incidental, to your actions.
Your behavior is this situation relates to your preconceptions and your predilections. See synchronicity below.

detected liars in front of a jury

How the hell do you get divine intervention out of this??? Seriously, I am confused. Something this simple happens all the time without divine intervention.

It is a well established fact that people express their internal state physically. The manner in which a person carries themselves conveys a *lot* of information about them. Most of us are keyed into this at some level. Although we might not be able to articulate why we come to a conclusion about someone (a lot of our behavior in this regard is not internally examined -- we process information like this on a sub-conscious level) we perform this function thousands of times during the day to one degree or another.
There is nothing magical to this. It is just a vast body of experience with human interaction throughout life that allows us to subconsciously evaluate another's "body language."
You just happen to be adept at reading "liars' signals." (For example, there were studies that were conducted that indicate our eye position belies our internal state. People that lie will subconsciously look in a direction. How difficult is it to see that one can pick up on these cues on some level.)

You cannot explain why you "detect" like this only because you are unfamiliar with the subconscious automated process that you use. (Like walking, which took us a long time to learn, it is something we perform without thinking about it. But just because you are not aware of every impulse to move every muscle, doesn't mean that you don't walk.)
Add to this the notion that people at trial are most likely under more stress than they normally would be and would even exaggerate their behaviors, making them easier to pick up on.

understood the unspoken thoughts of a person who I did not know very well

See the item above about being able to pick up on cues and process them on a subconscious level. You seem to be a fairly sympathetic person. You, from what I can tell, seem to be predisposed to empathy in some form. As such, you are going to be more disposed to pick up on certain cues than the rest of us would be. (And I am sure that the rest of us have things we are more sensitive to that you are -- we each have that which we are good at.)
From what you tell me, I would be surprised if you *weren't* able to pick up info from people in trouble. But there is nothing magical about this either. You are just a good listener and are perceptive in an empathetic manner.
It doesn't matter that you can't articulate the process that you use (as there are thousands of complex behaviors we engage in that we cannot articulate because we haven't bothered to examine them). That doesn't change the fact that you use them.

I ask that in the coming months, when you have an empathetic reaction to people, you stop and ask why you have that feeling. It is tough because we don't bother to think about our reactions ("if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). I (and others I know) have done this, and it is amazing what you discover about yourself. You can learn to watch your reactions and analyse them. It is difficult at first, but after a while, things start to "click." ("Oh, yeah... When I see someone do/say/whatever X then impression Y pops into my head.") You will be amazed at what you learn about yourself, and by making the action conscious you find that you are better able to refine and strengthen it. It seems you have a gift (let's call it a skill) and I would think it your responsibility to strengthen it.

seen healthy, normal infants born when the medical doctors insisted that the only possibility was brain damage

And how many brain damaged babies do you see born when the doctors think them to be normal? Is this a proof of god? I take it you have never see a doctor make a mistake before, therefore god must be the explanation.

I think this a germane place to bring this up, but why is it that religious people only credit the things they *want* to happen to god, and never the bad things. Why is a healthy baby proof of god, but a sick one somehow doesn't pertain? Why is it a typhoon that dissipates an act of god but the one that kills thousands isn't?? Why is it that "god will save those in the WTC crash", but god has nothing to do with the buildings collapsing???

People rationalize things in the name of god. As "god" is very much a subjective construct, people are free (not bound by reality) to randomly apply the concept according to whim. (That is the power of god for people. It is a whim that can be applied on a whim to make people feel better. But wishing doesn't make it so...) People will always use the example of things they want to happen that do as proof of god, when all they are saying is that a whim was made to pass, and they want more to do the same.

That does NOT prove a thing, and, in fact, is just more circular reasoning.

So I said I would mention synchronicity. The notions I put forth here come from a reading of Jung when I was back in high school. It has been that long since I have read Jung, and no longer know how much of the following argument it his, and how much I have mutated over time into my own comprehension. If I have absolutely mutilated his thoughts, I apologize to the man, but thank him for the planted seed that brought forth fruit in my head.

Synchronicity, in my take, is an expression of cognition. Simply put, it is that we are more likely to perceive that which we are predisposed of to perceive. Let me try a simple example:

Let us say you break your leg. You are hobbling down the street on your crutches, when you notice someone staring in a store window with a cast on their arm. You continue hobbling, and later notice someone across the street that is also on crutches and has a foot in a cast. Your immediate reaction is to think "My god! There are certainly a lot of people who have been breaking things of late. I wonder what is causing this?" But, in fact, there may *or* there may NOT be more people with broken limbs. What is happening is that, otherwise, you wouldn't notice a broken limb or if you did you would forget it. But, because you have one currently, it speaks to your experience, and therefore the stimuli becomes more salient in your environment. But the fact that you notice it more doesn't mean it is happening more -- It just means you are noticing it more.

You want to see things, you *will* see things.

Notice how you never discuss the negatives of any of the above situation. You discard them as non-significant because they don't fit your pre-conceptions. I will tell you right now that there are *many* more mothers that would like to live long enough to raise their children and don't than there are those that fight of an illness. But somehow you ignore all of these as they don't reinforce your preconceptions.

And we are back at the point of circular reasoning. You expect to see things (presume the conclusion of your argument) and for some reason you think yourself surprised when they happen.

I capitalize his name, God, as well as Zeus's, but neither his pronouns nor gods collectively. I capitalize the name of the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazi Party, but not atheism or theism. Buddhism: capitalize or not? I don't know, so I just try to put it at the beginning of the sentence :)

As a Christian, I respect your blind faith in NO God, as you respect my blind faith in God.

mmm... you say that a little stronger than I would. I respect you, but not particularly your specific beliefs. If someone tried to convince me that they just "knew" that 2 + 2 = 5, I would smile at them and try to say something nice; I wouldn't spit on them. But I'd be hard pressed to come up with actual respect for the idea.

Some parts of religion that I do respect have to do with the traditional aspect of community. Many people yearn for the "spiritual" aspect of religion, but hate the idea that there would be any particular rules that would limit their own behavior in way. They say, "I believe in God, but I disagree with organized religion." I am the opposite; I think that their belief is simply narcissism. I don't believe in God, but I do "believe in" organized religion. I think a community of people coming together, agreeing on some boundaries of behavior, admitting and forgiving transgressions, celebrating life and praying for each others' future is a community worth living in. The average person knows almost nothing about science and medicine, and they undoubtedly know equally little about philosophy. But they put band-aids on cuts and join hands and sing about a brighter future and what's wrong with that?

> It goes to show that science can evoke the kind of deep meaningful experiences many religons do.

To the extent that I could believe in a God, it'd have to be the type of God who'd design a set of physical constants and behaviors (including all that quantum and stringy stuff we're still trying to understand) and sit Himself back to see what unfolded over a few billion years. The type of God who bangs something out of a cookie cutter in six days and sleeps in on the seventh just doesn't interest me. He's a cheapskate.

For another look at the kind of theism I'm imagining, I recommend the last book in Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series. (But read all the books in the series, in order, for the full effect.)

I'd have loved to have sat down with Sagan and discussed the inter-relationship between awe, religion, and science from an anthropological perspective. Humans seem to have a need for awe, and a need to explore. What a pity most of us use it to follow charlatans instead of digging the real stuff the universe has to offer.

You fundies reading this - don't take my crack about "six days" as being a cheap shot at Judeo-Christianity. Imagine some schmuck in 4,000 BC watching the episode of Cosmos where Sagan walks us through the "modern" creation story by mapping the history of the universe from Big Bang to evolution of Homo Sapiens onto a one-year calendar. Your 4000-BC yokel, who's just mastered writing, might very well end up with something akin to Genesis.

In the interests of fairness, of course, it's much more likely that the author of Genesis just guessed lucky.

But having known some fundies who referred to him as "Sagan the Pagan" back in the 80s, I have very fond memories of doing just that -- sitting one such fundie down in front of that episode and, one hour later, asking "Now, what was that you were saying about basic science being wholly incompatible with your religion?"

"I-don't-care-ism" is not mutually exclusive with atheism. One can be an apathetic atheist.

My rebuttal follows: Nobody has ever knocked on my door and offered to teach me about "Not believing in God".

No, they just inject it directly into school curriculums...

I've never heard an athiest tell someone they deserved to rot in torture for eternity because they believed in god.

True, but belief in a Creator does not equate to sending non-believers to a hell-equivalent.

Athiests don't seem to have to band together once a week to re-affirm their lack of faith.

I think you mean "re-affirm their faith" since nobody wants to re-affirm their lack of faith....

Athieism never told you how to have sex, what to wear, what to eat, what movies to watch, what books to read, how to act, how much to drink, how much to beat your kids, how to think about other people, how many ox your dead servant is worth...

You say that like it's a bad thing.... :) Actually, Atheism often tries to tell me what movies to see, what to wear, what books to read, how to raise my children, what to think about others, etc. It simply uses a different standard than the one I choose.

Finally, zeal is merely a synonyn for passion, likewise zealous and passionate can often be used interchagably. Zeal sometimes has a religious connotation, but not always. My point is that *anybody* can be zealous about acheiving their goals, not just God-beleivers. One more thought, how is your Atheism any less a faith-based belief than my "Theism"? (I think that's the word) Do you have any proof the the universe came about by random chance? As I see it, we both look at the same set of data and draw two separate, but equally valid conclusions.

Do we have a first, here? A Slashdot discussion about religion that's actually civil? I hope so, and I hope you take my statements in that same spirit I took yours.

Averye0

Bertrand Russell wrote the definitions of atheism, theism, and agnosticism that have the most meaning in my life. I can only paraphrase, but he said, basically, this:

Atheists believe that they can KNOW that God does NOT exist.

A theist believes that it is possible to KNOW that God DOES exist.

An agnostist believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.

In this way, I consider myself, in a purely _pragmatic_ sense, to be both an atheist and an agnostic. I don't believe that God exists, but I acknowledge that He might.

And, truthfully, at this point in my life, I consider the question of His existance or non-existance to be (almost) irrelevant. If I knew that he existed, I wouldn't live my life any differently than I do now. Still, there is the intellectual curiosity, and I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of certainty if it arose (assuming that this opportunity did not involve wish-fulfillment or self-delusion).

Theism of some kind _can_ be a very useful 'meme' when you have the tendency to behave as though you have to control the world and everything around you. You can call that codependency, you can call it typical of drug addicts, you could call it a very common trait that _creates_ drug addicts, but the fact is there are many people who are neither cowardly or stupid, yet who habitually interact with the world in a controlling, manipulative way that just doesn't produce helpful results.

There's a hell of a lot of evidence that, for people whose heads are wired that way, developing a faith in some kind of God is a very helpful 'mental judo' that gets them out of their own way- whether or not this faith is at all logical or provable or justifiable. As a result you get into a situation like this:

• I don't know whether there's a guiding power greater than people (i.e. me)
• When I act on the basis that I must master my fate, I get hung up and tangled in my own schemes and cause chaos
• When I act _as_ _if_ there is a 'God', I cause less chaos, and things mysteriously work out better than when I was mucking them up
• When I do this without belief, it's like walking a razorblade and I'm fighting my instincts to muck things up all the time
• When I do this with the trick of the mind called 'belief', I likewise avoid mucking things up, but I sleep better and worry less about stuff.

It always kind of annoys me to see these fervent attacks on any form of theism. Usually I let it pass. This time, though it's 4 AM and I should be heading to bed, I felt like speaking up just a bit. Yeah, I have vague theistic notions. I consider it an intrinsic quality of my relation to this God that I can't possibly understand it- it is by definition (my definition) entirely beyond my ability to comprehend. It is, however, a pretty good reason for me to leave some things to it, and concentrate on just trying to do the best I can with what I have. I know that this works better than my previous need to be the master of my fate- I do _not_ know that this is because there's an old guy with a beard 'up there'. I could be wrong- I could be looking at pure chaos and projecting an order that doesn't exist (on the other hand, look at the scientific definition of chaos....). But the bottom line is, my relation to the world is saner and less dogmatic when I _do_ have faith in whatever the heck my God is.

If you don't like that, sux to be you ;) because your arguments will not change the fact that when I believed as you did, I was _miserable_ and pretty dysfunctional at life. Sorry- atheism didn't work well for me. It didn't tend to make me good at patience or tolerance- never mind peace. I'd rather not know and quietly expect some higher order in the universe, than convince myself that I'm _it_.