Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
This is how I know every god-based theism is wrong. Any sort of supreme consciousness would not care about things like "worship" or "tribute". These are egotistical human constructs and reflect the mindset of the people who lived in ancient times when most religions were created -- where a "god" would behave like a king or overlord. The Bible even uses these terms explicitly to refer to God and Jesus.
Hedonism itself, like I said earlier, does not talk about any God. The very fact that you had to prefix "Christian" to make it something different, a subcategory if you will, of hedonism, shows that Hedonism itself does not believe in the Christian God. If you look at the definition, in any reputed source, you will not find God in the definition of hedonism.
Can hedonism be combined with various sorts of theism? Sure. That does not mean hedonism itself has any theistic suggestions.
Like I say oranges do not have lactose, and you keep saying - what if we pour milk on it?
Again, remember the question I was addressing? It was not about a religion - it was about a philosophy : Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" ... . Hedonism is one, so not irrelevant.
It doesn't mention god - so applicable to atheists and in itself is an atheistic philosophy. You can combine it with some forms of theism - that wouldn't make hedonism a theistic philosophy. It doesn't mention ethics - so it is in itself free of ethics.
One of the (only?) things it advocates is pleasure (or different words more or less synonymous with pleasure). Without explicitly prohibiting murder - hedonism itself, and without combining with any other philosophy, it surely supports murder in cases where murder leads to immediate/medium term/long term pleasure. It doesn't matter if there is any one following the philosophy to the letter - philosophy of hedonism does exist and in practical scenarios supports murder if practised in its pure form - which answers the question I was addressing.
There are ethical varieties also of hedonism - but they need to be called ethical hedonism because hedonism itself doesn't have an ethics as you have yourself found in many sources of definitions.
One of these things has to be false: atheism is not the same as religion, a student committed one of the worst shootings in US history over anti-religious hate, or theism is the root cause of violence.
As much of an atheist anti-religious person that I am ...
That's called anti-theism, not atheism.
I can't shake the feeling that the secularisation of society has left a large hole somewhere.
I totally agree about the hole.
Those who in earlier times were the highly educated "moderate" religionists (Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, etc) have mostly stopped going to church, and those who stayed (evangelicals, pentecostals, "brown people" churches) have become more radicalized because of the Culture War.
Nothing good is going to come of this, IMO.
We probably differ on very little. The god described in the Bible, I cannot see that as being true. But something else ? What would a god be anyway ? My original point was there is no easy answer to the origin problem, not in theism, not in atheism. You can decide not to ponder the question. Otherwise, the remaining imaginable options are all problematic. I am burdened with the same problem as everyone else. If I do believe that something rather that nothing exists, (I do, I at least know I am conscious, even if I am dreaming) then I either have to adopt some metaphysical position, which puts me in the faith camp. Or remain agnostic and continue to ponder it. People who are only considering the biological genesis problem, or the cosmological problem, don't realize there is a much bigger problem, the ontological problem.
One can not be omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time.
You have not disproven the existence of any gods, you have merely reduced the viable search space. And you certainly haven't disproven the existence any gods "in the biblical sense"; the classical "omnis" are Greek, not Hebrew, and as such you won't find them listed (let alone used as some kind of definition) in the Bible. See open theism for one example.
As it happens, it's almost trivially easy to prove that some gods exist. The Roman cult of Sol Invictus worshipped the unconquered Sun. The Sun was, by any reasonable definition of the word "god", their god. Moreover, the Sun, by any reasonable scientific test you care to name, exists. Therefore at least one god exists. QED
If this sounds like semantic wordplay, it's no worse than what you just did. But on a more serious note, the interesting question isn't whether or not a god "exists" (since philosophical concepts "exist" in some sense), but whether or not the set of properties claimed of that god are true or not. And even then, it depends on who is doing the claiming as to precisely what is claimed.
Well, no; atheist means "not theistic," and theism includes belief in any or all possible gods. You don't get to "100% atheism" by process of elimination.
But in the spirit of "which gods do you believe in," I got a kick out of this:
ATHEIST!!!!!!!
>Then there's a small group of very vocal atheists who might be better described as "anti-theist" -
I'm anti-theist, but I'm not very vocal about it. There's not much to gain by being annoying to misguided theists by challenging their core beliefs that they don't want challenged.
Theism is a problem. It's dangerous. It leads people to do stupid things. It promotes gullibility. It's also not my problem.
Saying atheism is a belief system is no less ridiculous than saying not collecting stamps is your favorite hobby.
atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
So says dictionary.com.
Not sure if you meant that to refute my statement, but it doesn't. Having a belief is not the same as having a belief system. Atheists do believe that there is no god, although rarely with 100% conviction (more likely only 99.999999999%). But they almost always fall short of building a belief system around this belief.
It is also likely that most if not all non-stamp collectors have the belief that the hobby is not worth their time to pursue. But this belief does not build a belief system. They may even go as far as to research why stamp collectors pick such a horrible hobby. That researcher, and others who read their research, may start to form a belief system around why people become stamp collectors. But that still doesn't elevate their belief that stamp collecting is not worth their time into a belief system. That would require them to build a set of doctrines they feel they must follow because of their distaste of stamp collecting.
Most atheists could be lumped into a belief system of rationalism, or something similar. It is this belief system that most likely made them atheist in the first place. Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins have a belief system that I think could be called being a rationalist that plays a large part in their life and sometimes even careers. There mere fact they choose attacking theism as a significant way of expressing their rationalism still does not elevate being an atheist to a belief system.
"It is not a lack of belief. It is a belief that there is no god. It's as much a dogma as those who do believe in a god. It is certainly a belief system."
Atheism is a shallow position that incorrectly conflates Deism and Theism. An Atheist makes the (illogical) assumption that the only definition of God is the definition provided by the Deist: That is, that God must be a personal, anthropomorphic figure transcendent from this world. They then reject Deism and (illogically) conclude that a rejection of Deism is a rejection of Theism.
What happens if Deism and Theism are not the same thing? What if there are other forms of Theism which are not Deism? Here the Atheist argument quickly falls apart.
A Pantheist (for example) is a Theist that is not a Deist. A Pantheist defines God as All Things. A Pantheist may claim that God includes a Deity, reject that God includes a Deity, or claim not to know whether God includes a Deity. But, unlike the Atheist, a Pantheist would not consider rejecting a Deity to be a rejection of God itself. In fact, to a Pantheist the rejection of God is absurd. If God is all things then the rejection of God is a rejection of existence itself. To the Pantheist, the existence of God is axiomatic: Cogito Ergo Dues Est (I think therefore God is).
Actually, it's a spot-on definition. Pull the word apart:
"a-" meaning "without"
"theism" meaning a belief in a deity
Granted saying God as opposed to "gods" does tend to limit the definition more than the word would suggest, but that's barely relevant.
Negating a position is not by itself a neutral assertion. Atheism is a positive assertion that there happens to be no god(s) because you believe that not only that there might be no gods, but you assert that they do not exist.
Not knowing, not having a position, and not caring would be agnosticism.
What? It's all of them not just one or any specific one. If you admit to another god but not a specific god, you fail the definition that there is_no_god.
Wikipedia explains it better
There is some truth to both sides of this debate:
1 .The atheism of a person who has never heard of god is clearly not a belief system or even a religion.
2. But the atheism of someone who has heard of God and writes angry books on why believing in god is evil and why all kinds of theism should be destroyed, that can be a belief system and awfully close to a dogmatic religion.
So an opinion becomes a religion. Was the unabomber manifesto a religion?
Some people people say atheism is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. However, there is no club of the american non-stamp collectors, there are no people that write books about the dangers of stamp collecting, etc.
So the International Order of Oddfellows is now a religion? Any group of people that is organized has suddenly become a religion.
Especially in the US most people that do not believe in god, do not call themself atheists. This is because most of the time, when someone calls himself an atheist, he is the "religious" kind of atheist, not just the kind that does not care about god or thinks that god is not necessary.
People who are atheists who do not declare are just dealing with the George Bush Sr type Presidents of the USA who have stated that atheists are neither patriotic, nor can be citizens. Some times, just like we used to do with other groups, it is much safer to know your place, don't make waves, and submit.
And of course, many have had to perjure themselves in order to hold public office due to religious tests.
For your entertainment: Arkansas - No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Constitution, Article 19, Section 1)
Maryland: “[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God.” (Bill of Rights, Article 37). *Still on the books, but overturned.
Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” (Article 14, Section 265)
North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Constitution, Article 6, Section 8)
Pennsylvania: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)
South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution. (Constitution, Article 17, Section 4). *Still on the books, but overturned.
Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)
Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4)
Looking forward to your list of states that only allow atheists to hold public office.
or should I shut the fuck up and know my place?
There is some truth to both sides of this debate:
1 .The atheism of a person who has never heard of god is clearly not a belief system or even a religion.
2. But the atheism of someone who has heard of God and writes angry books on why believing in god is evil and why all kinds of theism should be destroyed, that can be a belief system and awfully close to a dogmatic religion.
Some people people say atheism is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. However, there is no club of the american non-stamp collectors, there are no people that write books about the dangers of stamp collecting, etc.
Especially in the US most people that do not believe in god, do not call themself atheists. This is because most of the time, when someone calls himself an atheist, he is the "religious" kind of atheist, not just the kind that does not care about god or thinks that god is not necessary.
>Tools matter.
Focusing on the symptom, doesn't stop the cause.
Cars kill more people then guns. We don't ban something simply because a few idiots mis-use them. (ir)Responsible use of the tools is the issue.
You will never solve the problem by "banning" something. Censorship didn't work for literature, it didn't work for prohibition, it didn't work for (non-alcohol) drugs , and it doesn't work for guns or have you learn _nothing_ from history??
* Almost all violence stems from insecurity.
Educating people to how to be _spiritually mature_ is the solution; reminding them there is only one "master" race:
* The Human Race
As long as people are ignorant, and intolerant of the fact that we are all brothers and sisters with differing opinions, philosophies, politics, and religion, violence will continue.
If the government spend more time helping and educating people instead of wasting money to be the biggest mass murder bullies around, things would change. Since *all* government is simply an extension of We, The People, that means we _all_ must learn to be responsible, have self-control, treat ourselves and others with respect. Just because Science is completely amoral does not imply morality doesn't exist. Regardless of theism, atheism, there are better and worse ways to treat each other. The spiritual law of:
* You receive what you give, and
Along with the highest principal of:
* Unconditional Love
Should be the primary focus.
Only a complete idiot would think you can treat the world as children with some group/government being the "parent".
Thank you for proving my point better than I could ever do. Your faith in your logical reasoning about God is shining through with every word. Faith. God cannot exist because I don't understand how he could hold a hammer, and I have ultimate faith in my ability to understand.
I pointed out two posts ago that it's matter of faith. Now you smugly bring up as if its a great revelation with which you will strike me down. A clue: when you make a point I already made to you, it's not a great revelation.
But yes, well done for conceding that it's a matter of FAITH. That was my point.
Clearly such ideas are irrational and impossible.
Not really sure what your point is. Those things are all observable. You said yourself that God isn't. So what are you equating to what precisely?
Your conversion of a horned horse into a magical beast that nobody could see even if it was standing in front of him is interesting, but only serves to prove the distance you have to go to make that analogy.
Not really, no. To me there's little difference between your God, who is apparently an unobservable being without substance and one of my hypothetical unicorns. Besides, they could allow you to see them if they wanted. I guess they don't generally want to be seen however. But the ones who can visit this realm are creatures of very advanced magic, so they can be invisible if they choose.
Sorry, but no. I pointed out that atheism is a belief system that requires faith just as much as theism is.
No, you keep asserting it, not pointing it out. There's a difference in that you're not making a reasoned argument, you're simply stating the same point repeatedly.
I am not the one who created the concept of the being you cannot believe in because you cannot understand him. ,
I don't follow. How is not believing in god (who I cannot observe) different in not believing that teapot exists?
No, sir, that is the very heart of the matter.
It is because you're putting words into my mouth. I never said anything along the lines of "if god existed he would... blah". You're arguing vociferously against something which I never said. That is the definition of a straw man.
"I cannot understand this, therefore it cannot exist."
At this point, I'm beginning to winder if you're intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm saying:
If it's unobservable, then I have no reason to believe in it (just like any other unobservable thing I can dream of such as my unicorns).
"cannot understand"
Again you're arguing against something I didn't say. Cannot understand is not the same as cannot observe.
To make a statement that something that couldn't be observed if it did exist does not exist because it hasn't been observed is a statement of faith.
If you concede the point you just made (I can only assume you do as you made it) then it is equally a matter of faith that I don't believe in unicorns and that I don't believe in that teapot orbiting a galaxy 13.3 billion lightyears away.
Neither of those things can be observed and so according to you, making the statement that they don't exist is a matter of faith.
How does he hold his hammer if he's not physical?
Thank you for proving my point better than I could ever do. Your faith in your logical reasoning about God is shining through with every word. Faith. God cannot exist because I don't understand how he could hold a hammer, and I have ultimate faith in my ability to understand.
Let's go back 200 years and ask this: how could we hear a man's voice if he were not in the room speaking to us? Let's go back 20 years: how can we put five hours of music recording into something that is smaller than one of Aunt Martha's compacts? How can a man walk on the moon when there is no air? Clearly such ideas are irrational and impossible.
It is as much an act of faith so claim god in all probability doesn't exist based on the evidence as it is to say that in all likelihood unicorns don't exist based on the evidence.
I've covered that error already. Finding no physical evidence of a being that, should he exist, would have no physical presence means nothing. Finding no physical evidence of a physical object has more significance. Your conversion of a horned horse into a magical beast that nobody could see even if it was standing in front of him is interesting, but only serves to prove the distance you have to go to make that analogy.
I actually made no statement of faith, if you read carefully.
It is, if you follow the reasoning behind the words. You are elevating god to a very special position ...
Sorry, but no. I pointed out that atheism is a belief system that requires faith just as much as theism is. I am not the one who created the concept of the being you cannot believe in because you cannot understand him.
Every time an atheist says "if God existed he would ..."
That's a straw man.
No, sir, that is the very heart of the matter. "I cannot understand this, therefore it cannot exist." That is a statement of faith in one's own ability to sense the universe and understand it based on incomplete information. When you consider the recorded history of mankind, you'd realize that "cannot understand" is a very poor way to determine what does and does not exist. To make a statement that something that couldn't be observed if it did exist does not exist because it hasn't been observed is a statement of faith.
That would be anti-theism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief.
So Sayeth Google.