Slashdot Mirror

Who and what is this judge precendent over? I was unsure of whether this was a judge in the US or a corporate judge. In any case, this judge seems to be a BS spouting lackey of corporatism (just another example of the internet becoming .commercialized). In any case, I may hate theism, but I must quote Voltaire here, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it unto my death" ... especially if you registered the domain in good faith and have a valid use of it. Why must stupidity prevail? oh yeah, capitalist government. In this case, since corporations are so favored, can a person create a company named after the domain name they buy, and simply use that as the company's site, like jasonswebcam incorporated. It might also be effective if you sue and have the domain transferred from yourself to the company, in case someone else wants to take the domain name away later. Oh look, the judges already gave us this domain name, they ruled that it was ours. not yours. nyah nyah.

I'me a christian, and everytime I have a discussion about things like the Evolution theorem there are people that say "You can never be as open-minded as we are, because the truth is already certain for you, and you will never accept anything that doesn't support that". I partly agree with them, but the forget that as atheists, they do exactly the same. There is always one thing they can rely on, and that's the fact that God doesn't exist, so there has to be a theorem that explains our existence. This shows that nobody is completely objective.

Yeah, I have the Touchstone edition sitting right here: (c)1993. I first read it in 1994, and this book has been the topic of numerous atheism vs. theism discussion forums for years. So what's next from Katz? A review of Kevin Kelly's "Out of Control" ?? ;-))

Don't have time for much so I'll go thematic instead of point-by-point.

The thrust of my argument is the sheer volume of brute fact it seems to me that the atheist has to accept. The fact that seasonings taste good to the human palate is my prototypical example. I fail to be convinced by the explanatory power of a worldview that says that physical laws just are, physical phenomena just are, and certain correlations between humans and the physical world just are. For a more detailed explanation of this approach, see Richard Swinburne's text, "Is There A God?"

The upshot of the beauty argument is that the theistic worldview and the athestic worldview are competing to explain the existence of the natural world and human beings. It is NOT a competition in the sense that if the atheistic answer is wrong or non-existent, the theistic argument wins by default. It is a competition in the sense of what can be explained by each theory and how well each side puts together its case. The sense of beauty is, in my mind, a pretty darn significant element of our human existence in a way that eclipses are not. A view that neither can explain nor can offer hope of explaining that in the near future is something I see as lacking. You apparently don't; you'll chalk it up to something we may find out in the future, or even if we don't it doesn't matter that much. I congratulate you on your faith.

For such a significant (in my view) element as the human sense of beauty, I have a ready answer and you do not. That is a separate issue from whether my answer is true or not, but in terms of explanatory potential, I've got the edge in this instance. I do NOT assume the theistic position is true and the atheistic position has no alternative; I merely point out that one theory may have greater explanatory potential than the other, and that's a criterion readily accepted by scientists.

Moreover, you are correct in asserting that the fact that the atheist doesn't immediately have an answer does not entail that no answer is possible. I'm not making that claim; if you thought I was, rest assured. In the interim, however, the theistic worldview is stronger in this area.

To sum up: I am not claiming that the problem of beauty makes theism true and atheism false; I am claiming that it makes theism a stronger theory than atheism, all other things being equal (which they seldom are) because of its explanatory richness. If that's the claim I'm making, I do NOT have to show my case to be valid until it's time to get to brass tacks; then we BOTH have to take the gloves off and evaluate the details of the competing worldviews.

Final point: I'm strongly suspecting that actual discussion of the validity of the cases would be pointless. You're demanding evidence but limiting it to only the subset demanded by empirical science (totally missing my point about the Christian claim that God directly interacted with human beings; it's direct--even empirical--contact which was written down thereby becoming historical evidence, not a tautology.) I don't suspect I can satisfy your evidentiary demands, mostly because I think they're artificially narrow. Likewise, I doubt you can satisfy my demands (or would care to or see the need to) regarding detailed explanations of various brute facts or human attributes because you'd think they're unnecessary. Sigh. I don't know, then, where we could really go from here.

I am not attacking your beliefs, but as an athiest I do not see how calling an elegant set of equations "god", or calling an improbable medical scenario, or a sunset, or a warm fuzzy feeling "god" helps us to understand the universe any better. Monotheists try to connect all these things by virtue of their all being part of "god". I say they are all part of "the universe". Is that different? Is "the universe" my "god"? This is unclear. The danger comes when religious thought prevents us from learning more about the universe. At best, it distorts ideas by holding us to unproven, irrational beliefs which are incompatible with physical evidence. This can paralyze people who try to believe in physical reality and god at the same time; those who say they understand both usually have done so by distorting the facts and ideas until they become internally inconsistent and useless. At worst, religion actively impedes scientific progress because of stubbornness and adherence to outdated modes of thought (I need not point out the numerous crimes against humanity committed by the catholic church.)

In short, I believe that when religion and science are at odds, science must win (because, while both methods of thought attempt to reveal truth, only science does so provably,) and that when there is NO outright contradiction, (For example, "God brought the universe into existance" vs. "The universe came into existance",) science will again win because the theist view explains nothing more; the difference is, in fact, irrelevant. "God did it" is nothing more than an easy way out--it tells us nothing we need to know--and implies that no further study is required.

Up until now I have discussed a relatively harmless kind of theism. Perhaps "god" created everything, but what about the devil? One way of looking at the world is to see some things as "godly", and some things as less godly, not godly, or even evil. This dualistic view is dangerous because it leads to divisiveness, prejudice, and hate. Even if two such dualistic-minded religious groups agree on something, they will always find a third to demonize and persecute. Often religious value judgements are based on old, outdated writings, which are, (among other things,) often sexist and anti-homosexual, and in my personal opinion contain little wisdom whatsoever. Something someone wrote a long time ago does not justify making value judgements today; in fact, it justifies nothing. No reasonable human being would actually believe that those words came direct from god--we just want someone or something to tell us what to believe because we are too lazy or stupid to think for ourselves, and many of us simply want to hate and to feel justified in doing so. I hope that science maintains a safe distance from religion, because dogmatism could spell the end of science, and indeed of the individual. I am not being overly melodramatic--what are we if we cannot think for ourselves anymore?

first off, I said it's not a basic right and then I said it's unenforcable - that's quite a different thing than saying it's not a basic right because it's unenforcable.

Okay, I was a little confused by your wording. Still, there are some problems with this. One is that it implies that enforceability is required for legitimacy, which is not true. Try traffic law: is it possible to catch everybody who runs a red light? No. Does that mean that the laws against running red lights should be repealed? No.

Second, copyrights are not a basic right, it has nothing to do with whose rights are more important because when I copy something that you created - your rights are not being violated in any way.

Au contraire. It is not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but see what Amendment IX has to say about that. I have a right to receive proper remuneration for my effort. Writing is frickin' hard. Not everybody is Stephen King and can write ten dictionary-sized bestselling novels in a week. It takes time and effort, which were obviously not spent on another job (except possibly flipping burgers, or sticking price tags on merchandise at S-Mart)

In fact, that attitude is rather arrogant. It's similar to saying that stealing slaves from the plantation and freeing them violates their masters basic right.

But the master could have no basic right to them in the first place, because to do so would conflict with the basic human right to freedom. Humans have free will. Until someone codes a sentient AI, data does not. The slavery metaphor is not very apt.

You're assuming that copyrights are like some type of property right, I'm assuming they're not and acting from there.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, since we're operating from different sets of axioms. I've been taking the traditional "Euclidian" route, you've been taking the "non-Euclidian" one. The two points of view can't be reconciled if they are based on conflicting initial assumptions, like the perennial argument of theism vs. atheism.

However, unlike yours - my assumption is founded.

<impression voice="LaurenceFishburne">Show me.</impression> If you can trace this back to a set of initial assumptions I agree with, then you can show my own reasoning (and therefore my position) to be faulty.

I don't think there would ever be a problem with my (potential) children choosing a different religion. I believe that Christianity is about a relationship with God, and that children brought up in a Christian family should have such a relationship from the word 'go'. Either this relationship is real, or its false. I believe that the relationship in Christianity is real, and as real as the relationships I have with my friends and family. Nobody could brake those relationships down with mere words because they are based on the test of experience on a daily basis. The only exception to this is when somebody establishes a position of authority, and uses oppressive techniques (these kind of techniques are applied by cults to encourage members to brake away from family and friends etc.). I wouldn't expect that kind of bullying/oppression to take place in schools, and would therefore expect Christian children to maintain an active faith.

The only problem with this idea is that it is often broken down in the science lab. Despite evolutionary biology being broadly compatible with Christianity and despite efforts to remove the religious debate, in my experience Christianity (explicitly, not just theism in general) is still pitted against evolution in the classroom. In fact, efforts to be 'fair' about it have actually made the problem worse: I have seen biology textbooks that spend a page discussing 'creationism' and then say 'and here's an alternative theory' before going on to discuss three chapters of evolution. By setting them side by side, they appear to be contradictory. I believe that 'creationism' and evolution should not be pitted against each other: evolution is the current popular scientific theory and should be taught as such. [But it should also be made clear that it is only a theory!] Creationism in the pseudoscience sense is not central to Christianity: Jesus is. The sheer amount of 'fact' behind evolutionary theory makes it appear stupid and old-fashioned to believe in God, but the premise is false, because the two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm now regretting ranting about evolution, but I think the point is that Christianity is not given a fair hearing in schools in the UK, and my original post was to agree with Jon's point that Christians are taking the wrong tack by lobbying for creationist teaching (both in the US and in the UK). I understand their frustrations, but pitting creationism against evolution solves nothing. Instead we should be looking to see fair representation of all faiths (and not in the science lab!) where the truth is allowed to speak for itself. After all, we can't all be right. Can we? :-)

1. Schools in the US are NOT atheist; they are (and should be) *secular*. There is a very big difference here; atheism takes a position on the issue, whereas secularism (if that's a word) does not. An atheist school would promote or teach atheism, where a secular school, when it discusses religion, presents things totally matter-of-factly, generally from a historical viewpoint. If anything, schools in the US, in my experience tend to slightly favor theism.

2. I find your definition of atheism to be philosophically sloppy. I personally differentiate between strong atheism and weak atheism; strong atheists believe there is no God, whereas weak atheists don't believe there is a God. The difference is that strong atheists make an assertion (there is no God), and therefore assume the burden of proof, whereas weak atheists make no assertions, and therefore don't have to prove anything. A weak atheist has a lack of belief in God in the same sense that they have a lack of belief in Santa Claus; show it to me and I'll believe, until then, I won't. As a weak atheist, I don't feel this position is rooted in faith, but rather a clear understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.

That said, theists could be right on. I just won't join them until there's a better chance that God exists than not. For what it's worth, I agree about the strong atheists, tho. :)

Atheism denies the existence of God. To deny God's existence demands omniscience on the part of the denyer - who would then be (by many definitions) God. So Atheism is not intellectually credible.

Atheism leads to agnosticism by this argument.

That is one of my favorites, it has so many responses. It also gives me the opportunity to use the phrase "invisible pink unicorns playing ragtime silently behind your back when you aren't looking. "[1] Ask yourself the following about that phrase:

• Have you evaluated all the possibilities that this could be happenning so as to assure that it is not?
• Is it allowable to adjust the definition of unicorns, (or any other word used) to make it more possible? Say unicorns don't have to horse size, etc.
• If some one told you that these pesky unicorn would not bother you if you just chanted their name, would you do it?
• If the belief became fashionable, would you lend it credulity?
• What burden of proof would you place upon yourself to disprove it, and what burden of proof would you place upon those who claimed it?
• How much does the risk/reward ratio have to be adjusted for you to shift the burden of proof?

Now let's suppose someone claimed that there is a god to me. First they claim horrible loss if I fail to believe. I take a look around and see that there are numerous people making the same offer, but that none of their products are identical. So I put the burden of proof on them. They present me with their body of evidence, which I go through methodically and either

• refute specific claims.
• show as unreachable without an assumption of first principle.
• or show other examples of similar style or pathology (thus denying the unique divinity of based on the claim that "no other has ever done this". C.S. Lewis favorite Lord Liar Lunatic)

Put succinctly, Atheism is not merely the denial of the existence of god(s). That would be anti-theism, which is sometimes referred to as strong atheism. Anti-theism is a favorite misconception among Christians for explaining away atheist (we're angry with your god), while it only explains a relatively small portion of atheist. Weak Atheism (a name I truly despise, because the connotation is wrong.) is life without attachment to a personal belief in God one way or the other. This differs from agnosticism, which claims that it is unknowable one way or the other. The unicorns should not occupy your thoughts for more than a moment, as you can patently see that it is a waste of time (or maybe, a form of paranoia). The presense of another person's belief in them should be concretely addressed. While I do not put belief in gods, I do believe that there exists a belief in God in others that I must deal. When I find my ambivalence on the subject attacked, I respond with a critique of the attachment to the belief.

Just because one does not believe in the divinity of scripture does not mean that one automatically fails to use any knowledge held therein. As my reading list should indicated, I know the subject fairly well.

One sig put it best, "When you understand why you don't believe in any other gods but yours, you will understand why I don't believe in yours."

Cheers,

To say that he was a sort of shallow thinker (No it doesn't type) doesn't do him justice.

I didn't mean to imply that Hume was shallow, I just don't see that his argument against causality carries the weight of refutation that many philosophers tend to give it. Hume earned his place in modern philosophical history for believable arguments against a long-held doctrine (namely, our topic) that was used as a principle in the demonstration of theism for a very long time. Interestingly enough, this (in a very general way) can be said about most modern philosophers.

Your example justified Hume in a different way. Those who claim universal causation are making an assumption which cannot be proven.

My example doesn't justify Hume, it justifies you. Hume claimed that we cannot know causality at all, my example gives one case in which we can, and therefore refutes Hume. I conceded to you that it doesn't prove universal causality at all. And since I don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics, I conveniently can't begin to dispute with you on those grounds. :)

This thread isn't really off topic. It tends to come up every time evolution is mentioned...

Yeah, it does, though I'm not sure that evolution should be the counterpoint to theism that it is made out to be. I got into this thread because it wandered out of quantum mechanics and into philosophy, a field in which I have a little more grounding.

But now that we're on it, I just wanted to point out that I think that theists use evolution as the badguy for theism, when really it is the proper antithesis to 6000-year-old-earth creationism (which I don't hold) instead. The antithesis of theism is atheism; this is the position I'd rather tackle. That's why I thought our discussions were a bit off topic...

I think that St. Thomas (and those from whom he received his doctrines, Aristotle via the Arabs) presents relevant and demonstrable arguments for the existence of God (not necessarily any particular God, nor even one God for that matter) in his Five Ways. He demonstrates God as primary mover, first efficient cause, uncaused necessary being, most noble being, and final cause, using only the first principles of natural philosophy (as opposed to using revealed principles, to which most anti-evolutionists are forced to resort at one time or another). I think that theism is an unavoidable (natural) philosophical position, if looked at with integrity. I'm not talking about the Bible or the Koran or anything here, I'm talking about using well-founded logic based upon principles induced from common sense experience.

Except it gives no better explaination itself, since it will answer the question "why is God here" with the same empty wording. And the more commen skeptic answer to "why are things here" is "I don't know and I'm comfortable with that. I know a god only adds more questions than it answers and thus makes no sense to assume."

Actually, the only theism this could really give rise to (as opposed to shore up) is the Spinozan god - the universe is god, no extra consiouness. Because adding intellegence to this first cause only makes it too complicated to be causeless. You're down to worshipping the quantum irregularity or what have you. It cannot simply argue for an attribute, because adding almost any other attribute would make this argument nonsensical, as discussed earlier.

PS, I never assume that a person is arguing for any particular god unless stated. The only assumption I made is that you would want some consiousness in your god rather than spinozan (sp?)In fact, in my long expereince with theological arguments, it is par for the course to start out with a very vauge god and suddenly find yourself assuming that all that had gone before now can be applied to Jesus (or rarely, someone else) as described in the inerrant new testamate.

-Kahuna Burger

After all, many different religions advocate
different moral systems, and some don't
advocate a moral system at all. If you have
a given set of morals, you can probably
find a religion that's ok with them, making you
no less free than if you were an atheist.
Atheism, like theism, is a broad category of
beliefs, and it's difficult to generalize about
either. Mysticism, materialists, some forms of
humanism, and various other philosophies all
fit under the broad banner of atheism, just as
christians, hindus, believers in the greek gods,
and many others fit under the broad banner of
theism.

To directly respond to your paragraph arguing
"How is atheism responsible...", if you're
religious, there's little difference. You
find the moral framework you like, then find the
religion that can justify it. Accept god? Which
one? It doesn't seem clear why jehovah is really
much of a better candicate than zeus, krishna,
or various other supposed deities for worship --
there's no evidence for any of them existing,
there's a good reason to believe that they all
were made up in order to secure social order,
and they're all described in fanciful texts with
plenty of things that we now can scientifically
verify as error.

Self-esteem is often used in reverse. The purest self-esteem you will find is in prison. You don't step on people like insects unless you feel that they are insects compared to you. This could relate to manic depression or a depressive nature in the profiled subjects.

I'm under half in this profile (from a rough count) and I was dangerous in high school. I've always had a violent compulsion burried in my mind which I fight. It's a pre-disposition that this profile would miss. I became a Christian and learned to puch it around the way it pushed me around.

Atheism, more to the point anti-theism, is the state religeon. Belief in God subjugates state authority. It can also unite forces which do not fear the state.

One of these days, I'll have to create an actual account :).

--Admiral Coeyman

http://www.corner.net/admiral/

*sigh*

Atheism: "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God" Reread that: disbelief in. This is sometimes called 'soft atheism'; if you disagree with the definition, call OED and let them know. I also happen to believe it is the more grammatically correct of the two:

a == 'without'
the(os) == 'God'
ism == 'belief' (according to some)

atheism == without (belief in) God

Either way, it makes no statement other than that the atheist is one who doesn't believe in God. Saying that God can't or doesn't exist is 'antitheism' (and idiotic); I trust I don't have to explain the difference between 'anti' and 'a'.

Since it is implicit in agnosticism that the agnostic not believe on God (well, not necessarily, but in all cases I've heard of), agnosticism is the equivalent of atheism. It might help to remember that agnosticism involves knowledge whereas (a)theism involves belief. One can be both an atheist and agnostic--in fact, claiming to be anything other than agnostic is foolishness--but the latter can never replace the former.

Speaking as an atheist, I completely agree with much of what you said. I'm not terribly loyal to my colleagues. In fact, I spend the bulk of my time arguing with other atheists and defending theists from morons. I'm quite open to the possibility that God exists, and should proof present itself I will make a judgement; until then, I will happily continue being an agnostic atheist.

A + theism = lack of belief in god.

A + moral = lack of morals

A + symmetrical = lack of symmetry

You are the one telling me that there is a god. I being from the jungles of Borneo have no concept of God and/or Christianity ( I was taught to worship a tree), and thus do not deny God anymore than I deny the existence of FrooFroo the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nor Beebo the Magical Talking TreeFrog, nor Eswina the Dancing Hippo of Power (who lives in my backyard), nor Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo.. shall I go on?

Insert other interesting analogies to taste, stir well, then Flame Broil and moderate to -1 (which will likely happen, but such is the price of anonymity :-P )

I always wondered whether someone's theism (or
atheism) would affect coding style.

theism does not mean that life has meaning

The goal of the theist is to grow closer to God. This sounds like meaning to me.

Nor does atheism "prove" that "life has no meaning" - you give your life meaning.

What's the point of trying to give your life meaning, except perhaps as a cruel joke on yourself? When you're dead, you're dead, and your "meaning" is suddenly rather meaningless.

Religeon is just a retreat into culture, an excuse for misery and war.

This is a very narrow-minded view, I'm afraid. Try looking at the world and the human experience in general, and you will see that religion is much more. Like anything humans engage in it is imperfect (sometimes very imperfect). However, you're making sweeping statements which badly misrepresent the reality of the situation, IMHO.

Nor does atheism "prove" that "life has no meaning" - you give your life meaning. The fear of atheism is the fear of no absolutes, ... but this is just a popular opinion, it doesn't have to be this way. Religeon is just a retreat into culture, an excuse for misery and war.

Faith does not consist of closing off your brain and arbitrarily believing something that makes no sense. Here is what faith really is: I have two intellectually credible alternatives. One is atheism--with the logical consequence that nothing really matters at all. The other is theism--which means that human life does have meaning. Given this choice, neither one of which I can really prove or disprove, I choose to believe the one that makes life worth something.