Slashdot Mirror

No, it is absolutely not the same.
Theists believe Bigfoot exist
atheists believe Bigfoot does not exist.
agnostic isn't willing to draw a conclusion without proof so therefore is open to both possibilities until they find out otherwise.

accepting either atheism or theism is a leap of faith either way.

You can throw your scientific mumbo jumbo at it all you want, but the scientific method only works with our observable universe.
It is highly likely that IF there were a creator, it would have created our universe and the dimensions we perceive , and may very well be outside and separate from our observable reality. if this is this case ,...science is irrelevant.

So then a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge are the same (agnosticism == no belief).

Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.

I don't think Agnostics are prevaricating between theism and atheism. Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.

Further, as Sam Harris argues quite well, one need not be a theist to have moral values. Science + secular society are perfectly capable of agreeing upon ethical and moral rules, without resorting to theism.

He essentially goes for utilitarianism (by a measure of "human flourishing"). Which when put in to practice at a national level has repeatedly had the same result: "clearly my political opponent would rule poorly, and severely diminish the flourishing of the people, therefore the only moral action is for me immediately to order their imprisonment and execution".

Immorality is much easier to excuse when you believe there is a divine order to things. When someone is poor, or suffering or has had a bad run of luck, belief in a divine plan makes it easy to see that as deserved, instead of unfortunate. When someone is rich, powerful and/or fortunate, you're more likely to see them as superior and deserving of their good fortune if you are religious.

Every time you hear someone thank god that for answering their prayers and blessing them with something, keep in mind that intrinsically behind that statement is the idea that god has made a judgement call and found them deserving of having their prayers answered. It's a round about way of saying "God chose this for me, because he thinks I deserve it." It always rubs me as subtly arrogant to imply that whatever good fortune you are enjoying isn't simply good fortune, but it's a reward you earned because god found you deserving of it, and thusly found everyone else who doesn't receive that same thing, undeserving.

Hate to say it, but this is very simplistic. I'm a Christian, but suspect other faiths might say the same:

a) Deserved is rubbish - there are somethings that Christian's resign themselves to not understanding (contrary to popular belief we don't pretend to know it all!). Few Christian's would say someone struggling is being punished/it's deserved.
b) Rich people are treated no differently to anyone else by a Christian (and in fact many Christians would wonder whether the wealth has been accumulated fairly, or selfishly by stomping on others).
c) Prayer is viewed as petitioning God. We believe he answers according to his own (again sometimes unfathomable) will, which sometimes will match what was prayed for, sometimes not. Again the deserving argument doesn't come into it.

Agnostics that hold no belief are atheists.

Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.

Agnosticism is a position taken with regard to knowledge.

Theism and atheism are positions based upon belief, faith. The one does not replace the other.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. the Theism / Atheism poles are diametric opposites: belief and non-belief. There's no middle ground definable by knowledge, or lack thereof.

Agnosticism is not a third position. You're either a theist -- that is, you hold some measure of belief in a god or gods -- or you're not, and you don't. From there, you can, if you like, assert a state of knowledge to bolster your choice, or a lack of a state of knowledge to do the same thing. But your position is still either you believe, or you don't.

The whole point about belief, or not, is that it is contingent upon faith. Knowledge is not.

Hope that helped some.

That is for the most part not true at least for Christians. The modern Christian "should" understand that God condemns them as a sinner and that anything they receive is of grace and mercy not entitlement or some result born of their own "goodness".

Eph 2:8-9:
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

But ignore me and the facts and just tell me what a selfish entitled bad bad man I am.

Its really quite simple. They want to politicize, ideologue, and factionalize science.

Science has clout. Scientists carry weight when they say something. That is valuable to community organizers, politicians, opinion makers, etc. The problem is that scientists often refuse to cooperate. And its often hard to claim your political position is backed by science when there are just as many scientists that disagree with your political position as agree with it.

To that end, they must make science less "spock-like". Spock isn't going to take sides in your petty political battles. He doesn't care. And you can't use his words to undermine your opponent because if you read between the lines there tends to be so many qualifiers that it isn't worth anything.

So... they want to make science more about emotion... opinion... feelings.

The dead give away is that he's saying "atheists need X"... atheists are not a faction like Catholics or Muslims or Hindus. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean you actually share many values with other atheists. Its not a complete ideology. Its just a a rejection of theism. Nothing more. Its like trying to build a political coalition around people that don't like hamburgers. Sure... you all don't like hamburgers, but do you have anything else in common? Not really.

Yet he's attempting to build something around and advocate for anti-theism and to do so he suggests that science should be emotionalized. Effectively, to turn atheism into a viable ideology or religion in its own right they have to all believe things. Rather then simply concluding that god is illogical... they have to have a common culture. And from there you might build a political coalition and cultural core. The objective being to turn atheists into a viable political force which will be used by the politicians to fight their stupid wars amongst each other.

Which is really all this about... the tools and minions of those political machines fishing for cannon fodder for their campaigns.

They'll pervert anything to get just one more meat shield for the grind.

Looks like this particular article failed hilariously... While appealing to trek nerds is always amusing... they seem to have forgotten that those same nerds are going to respond to it in their own way... which is to take this pathetic article seriously and rip it to splinters.

Yes, indeed. It basically is the utterly crude "you are either for or against us", that explicitly gets uttered only by the most primitive of minds.

The reason atheists discuss ethics and world-models all the time is that there is a whole spectrum of alternatives to crude theism out there and that to many atheists the questions of ethics and existence are important, often far more than to theists (the theists have it all figured out after all, just follow "this list" and you are good....). For example, I am a dualist in its most basic form (no claim about what the "something extra" is, I do not think there is enough evidence at this time to support more than an incompleteness of purely physical world models), and that is diametrically opposed to physicalism, often to the point that some physicalists suspect that dualist are sort of "theists in disguise". Yet both are valid atheist beliefs and both do not require any kind of mysticism or the like. Then you find a lot of mysticism in atheists as well. There are other models. The point is that if your thinking is free of the narrow constraints of theism, it turns out that things are actually not very clear-cut and hence anybody of at least some sophistication turns to discussion.

Atheism simply means that one does not believe in the existence of God. You can be religious and an atheist: there are many atheistic religions. And you don't need science to see through the self-serving web of lies preached by corrupt Christian churches, or to reject the evil morality that theism is based on.

The contradictions between theism and science are probably the least important argument against theism, both because science tends to be careful in its pronouncements, and because contradictions with reality are not convinced to theistic worshipers, and they are easily addressed by saying that whatever aspects of theism are contradictory are simply metaphor.

And many atheists do not.

The term "atheism" means "without theism". I.e. without a belief in a god. It's about a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule.

Why would they be in for a "rude" awakening, when one would think that any awakening at all should be a pleasant surprise?

Further, as Sam Harris argues quite well, one need not be a theist to have moral values. Science + secular society are perfectly capable of agreeing upon ethical and moral rules, without resorting to theism.

> A lot more people than atheists tacitly believe that God doesn't exist,

FTFY.

To know means: to be able to prove OR to have experienced. Since the existence of God is NOT some mathematical equation to be proven but experienced, atheists do NOT know -- all they have is lack of belief.

Since you are confused about definitions:

* Theist: With Belief in God,
* Atheist: Without Belief in God,
* Agnostic: Without Knowledge in God,
* Gnostic: With Knowledge in God.

The ignorance of Atheism is pretending their path is the only valid path.
The arrogance of Theism is pretending that their path is the only valid path.
As a Mystic, the first 3 groups LACK KNOWLEDGE, however ALL paths are valid.

Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete. Regardless, they can be just as good, (or as bad) as theists if they practice the golden rule. Your internal philosophy matters little; what matters is your external philosophy:

Treat others how you want to be treated.

I think that generally speaking, Atheists respect the scientific process because it is the same one that leads them to conclude there probably isn't a god. A good scientist is always ready to be proven wrong and the null hypothesis is central to the entire process. These principles are anathema to Theism which is, by definition, based on claims without supporting evidence - aka "faith". From a personal standpoint, the idea that anyone could actively oppose the ideals and principles of the scientific method seems completely insane, but then I'm not American.

Immorality is much easier to excuse when you believe there is a divine order to things. When someone is poor, or suffering or has had a bad run of luck, belief in a divine plan makes it easy to see that as deserved, instead of unfortunate. When someone is rich, powerful and/or fortunate, you're more likely to see them as superior and deserving of their good fortune if you are religious.

Every time you hear someone thank god that for answering their prayers and blessing them with something, keep in mind that intrinsically behind that statement is the idea that god has made a judgement call and found them deserving of having their prayers answered. It's a round about way of saying "God chose this for me, because he thinks I deserve it." It always rubs me as subtly arrogant to imply that whatever good fortune you are enjoying isn't simply good fortune, but it's a reward you earned because god found you deserving of it, and thusly found everyone else who doesn't receive that same thing, undeserving.

I think people tend to have that view regardless of religion. Religion just shifts it toward god being the cause rather than people.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else.

Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.

Only because theists have done everything in their power to change the common meaning of the word "atheist". It's so much easier to persecute someone if you can twist their stance into being the exact opposite of your own because this allows you to set up "us versus them" and "attack on our way of life" straw men.

It doesn't help that for many people (in English anyway), the phrase "I do not believe X" has come to be equal to "I believe against X". Declaration of a lack of a thing does not, in any way, declare that you hold to its antithesis. It's this crucial point that theists miss -- some due to ignorance, but most due to an explicit intent to mislead.

Of course, this applies to topics other than (a)theism, and is pretty much the standard MO of most conservative pundits. Why have a rational discussion when you can fabricate a one-sided fight instead?

They're both subordinates of a military hierarchy at the service of a UN-like (thus profoundly antidemocratic) institution. They gave up their free will to serve an entity they have no control over. You might even call that a form of theism. In any case it's not ethically defensible for a rationalist.

People say that theism is the disbelief of a self-contained universe, but that is not correct. Theism is the disbelief of people. By being a theist, you are in fact saying; "I dont believe anything that anyone has -ever- said in refutation of the existence of god'. You are saying: "Those people have been misled or deceived in some way and I dont believe them no matter their opinion, credibility, or station in life."

Theism will never be popular or accepted. Because that acceptance would not be reciprocated. Theists don't believe in people.

Immorality is much easier to excuse when you believe there is a divine order to things. When someone is poor, or suffering or has had a bad run of luck, belief in a divine plan makes it easy to see that as deserved, instead of unfortunate. When someone is rich, powerful and/or fortunate, you're more likely to see them as superior and deserving of their good fortune if you are religious.

Every time you hear someone thank god that for answering their prayers and blessing them with something, keep in mind that intrinsically behind that statement is the idea that god has made a judgement call and found them deserving of having their prayers answered. It's a round about way of saying "God chose this for me, because he thinks I deserve it." It always rubs me as subtly arrogant to imply that whatever good fortune you are enjoying isn't simply good fortune, but it's a reward you earned because god found you deserving of it, and thusly found everyone else who doesn't receive that same thing, undeserving.

Impossible? Hardly.

Do you understand the difference between a- and anti-. Believing there is no God is non-scientific nonsense, you can't prove a negative. An atheist relates to a divine entity in the same way he relates to all the other (infinite number of) things that is unlikely. I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but I also don't believe in red tea-cups in orbit between 75 and 253 astronomical units from the center of the sun. This lack of belief can not create extremism. If on the other hand I felt that I knew that God doesn't exist (as I mentioned non-scientific nonsense) then I can become extremist. On the other hand, that isn't atheism, that would more correctly be described as anti-theism.

Which is why they form clubs?

Perhaps to try to defend science from the militant Christian nuts?