Slashdot Mirror

He did. Your problem is that you're confusing atheism (the lack of belief) with militant anti-theism (the belief in the lack of).

P.S. Do "circles" exist? I have only encountered engineering approximations. Believing in "circles" is akin to a kind of theism, I think.

Sadly this only shows a complete misunderstanding of mathematics. By demanding absolute perfection you simply create a rule that is a self lie and a self delusion. The joke that mathematics itself isn't perfect or anything like it. In a way pi is the ultimate joke because it is the point where physics invades and corrupts mathematics irreversibly - nothing much more advanced than pi can ever be totally absolutely pure.... Real mathematics is a hodgepodge of evolution and ill fitting pieces hammered together to make them work. Just try testing general relativity with KISS - Occam's razor. It fails miserably, because its maths can't be reduced to basic axioms.
There are a dozen other ways of breaking general relativity, perhaps the simplest is that it defines a universe that cannot exist because it doesn't define a stable FTL universe. Do you know why tens of thousands of physicists over 100 years have failed to break general relativity? an aura of inscrutable mathematical perfection and completeness - that is an illusion. That kind of absolutism belongs in religion not science. Yes there are real circles.

How many finite gradations to a circle?

Inquiring minds want to know.

P.S. Do "circles" exist? I have only encountered engineering approximations. Believing in "circles" is akin to a kind of theism, I think.

Calling (or writing) the appropriate politicians is a joke anymore. For example, I've recently wrote the elected state representatives from my area (and I've done so many times) about the fact that the state House recently passed a bill to practically guarantee that "In God We Trust" will be in our public schools and other government buildings if the state Senate passes a similar bill it will be the catalyst for all kinds of local skirmishes over the issue. I'm adamantly opposed to such a bill. The response I get from the area legislators? They either ignore my protests or they blatantly show their religious biases by coming right out and telling me that I'm the mistaken one. That In God We Trust is part of American history (even though as I've pointed out only since the mid-twentieth century) thus it belongs in our schools, etc. Modern political America is so poisoned with confrontational theism that elected officials couldn't care less about minority opinions on the matter. And this country is becoming increasing factious over a multitude of issues like religion, immigration, the role of government, social programs, jobs, water supplies, energy sources, land management, vaccines, corporate personhood, war, crime, ad infinitum. Of which none ever gets satisfied to any one person or group's liking. We are an increasingly divided nation on... well you name it. Those divisions will ultimately undermine the sense of even being a nation of "united states". Some states are even considering seceding from the union, something we haven't heard since the Civil War.

I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".

That's pretty idiotic.

But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".

You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.

So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.

I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.

Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make.

It's also something that many arguing against atheist are simply not willing to make.

I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".

I haven't declared anything off limits. My limits are whatever we agree upon. If having a conversation with me, someone points out all the "evils" committed by Christians, based upon their view, then by all means, any act committed by an Atheist is equally subject to how "atheism" should be viewed. But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.

My only rule is that logic must be applied equally, or it isn't logical. Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make. I wonder why.

Whereas Alfred Russel Wallace, who I believe can rightly be regarded as far more legitimate than Darwin himself (after all, he had a working paper that was observational while Darwin was still putsing and had nothing written, read Wallace's work, and back-fit "his" ideas to the notes from his voyage) but who simply wasn't a famous noble (damn pleb, stay out of the spotlight!), elucidated a theory of theism and the impossibility of life without it.

What's the reason for this unprovoked and gratuitous assault on Darwin? Darwin didn't start as a famous noble either though admittedly started with a somewhat better economic position (and social status) than Wallace.

Perhaps you ought to read Darwin first before you cast judgment? "The Origin of Species" is remarkable as a coherent, broad, and detailed argument for evolution. While much has been said about how we've moved on since then with far better and more nuanced understanding of biology and evolutionary processes, it is still remarkable how well Darwin's works can stand up to scrutiny, even today. I think these works will long stand as examples of how to make thoughtful, convincing scientific arguments.

Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science. The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.

Whereas Alfred Russel Wallace, who I believe can rightly be regarded as far more legitimate than Darwin himself (after all, he had a working paper that was observational while Darwin was still putsing and had nothing written, read Wallace's work, and back-fit "his" ideas to the notes from his voyage) but who simply wasn't a famous noble (damn pleb, stay out of the spotlight!), elucidated a theory of theism and the impossibility of life without it.

The general trouble faced by all for, as Hayek put it (slightly differently), rejecting "old men in the sky", is the reduction of vocabulary and thousands of years' refined traditions for thought of every kind; it's not accident the scientific revolution was preceded by religions ones, which formed the vocabularies necessary and led to the careful parsing of matters to be able to make distinctions and think clearly; nor that wherever religious have retreated throughout the globe, tyranny and mass murder have followed on scales unprecedented in history.

But hell, reject "religion" and one rejects the theoretical fundamentals. I've seen university professors go ape-shit when saying this, then reply to them such that the historically liberally ones STFU, and it takes only one word: "Spinoza."

Interestingly, a Christian-just-God-deist-Spinozan coalition on theology produced a document that put rights of man above the reach of rulers, wrote a whole document imbued with that philosophy and said it was only a silver mirror to a declaration that was gold and annunciated it; they were promptly ignored by others who don't "care" about the God of Nature or Nature's God, and their legal theory is tiraded againts on my country's shores by the "originalists" who reduce themselves in these moments to children with minds intolerant of something that can't be defined or set around an equal sign mathematically, with statements like "organic law is a theology, and not a theory of law." No, for lawyers, anything but brute force to the heads of all is no law at all--cause God ain't there.

One thing folks beyond our watery borders never have gotten is that religion has pretty much been a benefit to keep those mofo's in check at home, voting the cynics out or constraining what they can do. (Why they tirade about their being "idiots!!!!") It's as religion has declined in America that largely things have gotten worse, not only on account of removing the traditions and particulars that prevent a larger portion of people from buying their bullshitting or accepting the kind of things which only add to their historical litany of gross harms to human rights (forcible sterilization by the "superior" class of "educated" professionals who graduated stupid-U with inculcation of Darwinism? Only a troglodyte would dissent!).

Of course, as the sophistication of religion is drowned, its adherents' own harmfulness rises: the whole point of religion is largely to "do no harm", at least in the Christian tradition ("harmless as doves...", "...children of the Father..."), which includes the "do to prevent harm", which a certain left here hates heatedly. People hate religion because it can be used to coerce, yet then impose their own flimsier, undeveloped, and evidently harmful (which from the consequences which keep recurring, is obvious) ethics and shame, silent, threaten...in a totalitarian streak instead of fearful of a God should they be wrong.

My point is, really, "old men in the sky" shows a level of theological understanding that predates the Empires of Egypt and Nubia, or the Logos of Egypt, probably comes from those who think everything "Jew" is just late-made-up writing anyway (even as among some of the most significant of Egyptologists continue to uncover long-lost and forgotten sites are found by using Jewish writings) and don't know that the oldest mentions of a theology that is truly Divine comes

IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism.

True atheists. True... Atheists. Wow, you really said that.

Did you ever consider that people talk about it because they're surrounded by people who talk about religion, and like it or not, religion is quite popular? Equating rational arguments against theism with religion is just silly. It makes complete sense that people would want to educate others, and this is seen as fine when it comes to plenty of other topics, but not to you for this specific topic, which you've arbitrarily declared to be off-limits.

"Religious gold" and you'd be okay with being forced to accept theism immediately, your "decision" being irrelevant, correct?

Incidentally, you are talking about a very near-term time frame in which you claim would hold (and not all places on Earth even today). Up until, say, 1800, it would be as likely as not that if it would have happened there'd be no channel of communication by which you would hear about it--and we do in fact have such claims preceding that, which you have no actual way to dismiss.

The scope of "never" is not "very modern times in which it happening would make faith universally irrelevant."

What if your position is that you don't fuckin' know? Why is that not possible?

Certainly it's possible. But it's a different question. The distinction of atheism and theism is drawn on the basis of belief -- not of knowledge. You remember the Heaven's Gate folk, the ones who killed themselves so they could be "picked up" by an "alien spacecraft" they thought was out there somewhere? Obviously, they believed it -- killing themselves pretty much tells you that in the most unquestionable manner possible. But they didn't *know* it, did they? Because it's nonsense from word one. Likewise a devout Muslim believes things wholly, and Christians believe other things. These things are incompatible conceptually, so even if one is right, the other is wrong. They both believed -- but at least one (almost certainly both) are wrong. Belief is not knowledge. That is why protesting one does not know does not answer, or even address, the question of "do you believe in a god or gods, or do you not?"

So ask yourself this simple question: Do you believe there is a god or gods? Note the complete absence of the word "know" or "knowledge" in that question. Belief is predicated upon faith -- not knowledge. We've already established that. And that's all you're being asked. Do you believe, or not?

If the answer is yes, you're a theist. If the answer is no, you're an atheist. If you mumble something about "I don't know", you're avoiding the question. You either believe in a god or gods, or you don't. No one asked you why, because it isn't relevant to the answer.

Based on your definition then it would appear that Atheism is a philosophy in opposition to Theism. So I'm still confused by your point.

Theism: Belief in a god or gods.

Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods.

Trivialism: Belief in zero or more gods.

Yeah, but this downgrades the "belief" word. I mean, there are a million things I don't believe, but it would be absurd to describe me as a "believer in the non-existence of invisible bouncy fluffy tribbles that push everything around to make it look like gravity", even though that's what I am (believer, that is, not tribble).

I like Douglas Adams' thing: "I am convinced there is no god" - implying that I'm perfectly happy to believe in a god when a shred of real evidence turns up for it, but that hasn't happened yet, and right now I'm not going to pretend that I think it likely. It's not the same circuitry as Belief and Faith.

I have no expectation that we'll find evidence for a god - it's an explanational hypothesis out of many candidates. I'd be hugely surprised if theism turned out to be true. I don't think that puts me on the fence. But calling it a belief fails to capture what I feel - I'd just say atheism is a null hypothesis, just like the "no tribbles" thing.

Theism: Belief that there is at least one god. Atheism: Belief that there is no god. Both are beliefs.

Is baldness a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

Is not kicking a kitten an exercise in animal abuse?

What kind of murder is not killing someone?

I hope you're beginning to grasp the idea. Lacking belief in a god or gods is not "believing there is no god or gods", that's an entirely separate issue (and yes, some atheists will go there, but specifically because it is only some of us, it can't define atheism.) We all share just one thing: We lack belief in a god or gods. That's the common pivot.

Belief, as any theist will tell you, is predicated upon faith. I have no faith there is a god or gods. Never saw any reason whatsoever to take such a step. Ergo, no belief arises. Don't have any. Zero. In fact, the only things that seem to provoke a faith-like response in me are those that I have become convinced that have a serious pile of consensually experiential, repeatable, testable evidence behind them -- those things that have been vetted by the scientific method, which is a method that I personally have seen in action, am aware of many results of, each of which has consistently turned out to be reliably entwined with the objective reality I perceive.

So my confidence in the method is very high, and my presumption is that anything I am told by what I consider reliable sources has passed through this method and come out as validated as we can manage to get it, is probably a close approximation of reality -- at the very least. And the cool thing is, if it's not close enough, the method itself will eventually turn that up, and we'll get a better approximation.

This method is known to me to have produced technology of a very wide and useful variety, as well as an amazingly interrelated body of information of an almost uniformly inter-supporting nature, especially of those issues that have been worked on by many, and these things in turn bolster my confidence in it (the method.)

Theism? Nothing from its root concepts. Plenty of mundane things -- charity, art, architecture (alas, I repeat myself), even science. Also war, torture, etc. But eruptions from the core beliefs? Zip. No manifestations, no miracles, no fairness, no honor, no rewards, no devils, no angels, not a single sign of kindness, nor of anything remotely resembling good parenting. Absolutely nothing. Ergo, no confidence, and certainly no belief.

While we're at it, claiming lack of knowledge isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism, either. We're all either theists or atheists. Just as we're all stamp collectors, or not. The agnostic claiming a third position is either bewildered or disingenuous. In order to be agnostic (or claim knowledge, for that matter), one has to take either the theist or atheist stance. No way around it.

Ahem!

Theism: Belief that there is at least one god.

Atheism: Belief that there is no god.

Both are beliefs.

There are no tenets of Atheism. Atheism is not a religion or any form of organization. It is simply the lack of theism. Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a gods, goddess, etc. It does not mean you can't be a part of some quazi-religious group, such as some variants of Buddhism, Secular Humanism, Confucianism, etc.

Atheism is ... rather a philosophy opposed to [religion].

Completely, 100% wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is. Anything else, *anything*, is an add on from some other idea. I'm absolutely, completely, atheist -- I hold no belief in a god or gods whatsoever -- but I am not opposed to religion, in fact, I can cite you chapter and verse as to many of the benefits religion brings, and has brought, to our society. I live in a church. What I am opposed to is any particular religion getting control of law and/or government. Because that has demonstrably caused harm almost without surcease. But again, even this is not a consequence of my position that the idea of god or gods is ridiculous, rather it is a consequence of my observation that every religiously influenced law I know of is extremely bad law, and furthermore, tends to favor group A over group B in such a way that there is no sane basis for it.

Theism: Belief in a god or gods.

Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods.

A clarification to my own post:

I believe that we should examine the evidence of whether life is natural or artificial make an informed our choice of theism or atheism, not the other way around. In other words, we should not chose atheism or theism and then use that as a basis for deciding whether life is artificial or natural. I suspect that evolutionists who claim that our prescence on Earth proves a natural origin of life are doing just that.

The largest US denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, which a) is rather big on creationism, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" and b) is not connected to the Church of England. Their "ancestors" are English nonconformists who were being discriminated against in England because they did not belong to the state church.

Historically, Baptists were staunch defenders of the separation of church and state. For instance, the phrase "wall of separation" has its origins in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association, who had stated their belief that "Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals" and "that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor".

However, now that conservative Christians and Southern Baptists are the majority in many places, they have decided that having government support for their own brand of religion was rather attractive. It's very important for a religion to maintain a plausibility structure: it's much easier to keep people "in" and to find new adherents when your brand of religion is the default option, is very visible in public, has prominent people within its ranks (evangelical Christians and Tim Tebow, scientologists and famous actors, etc.), and is considered "reasonable". Teaching "the controversy" reinforces the plausibility structure of conservative Christianity by making it look like YEC and evolution are two equally reasonable hypotheses about origins, which only differ in terms of presuppositions (atheism vs theism).

To go back to the OP, the only denomination that is directly connected to the Church of England is the Episcopal Church, which is one of the most progressive denominations. I'd suspect that, in terms of ethics, many Episcopalians would find more common ground with humanists than with a conservative Baptist.