Slashdot Mirror

Evolution has nothing to do with anything, then. And I believe he was stating his opinion.

One is, in fact, required to have a coherent worldview. If he's against theism, there aren't many alternative positions. This is another case of "arguing from a void." You don't get to say things like "physics is wrong, that's my opinion" with no actual backing of that stance. The structure of the statement implies you have an alternative you can support. Well, do so.

That's true of anyone, though. Even if you claim that what you're doing is objectively correct, someone can disagree. Indeed, that happened an uncountable number of times throughout history. Pretending that these things are objective does not stop 'bad' things from happening.

That is your -claim-, that there is no objectively true stance. It is again, an unbacked claim on your part. Were you correct, and you aren't, your position should be ignored after it was acknowledged as correct, because subjectivism means that for any given issue, Position X, and the exact opposite of Position X, are equally subjectively true. This is not an ethical position, this is a negation of ethics. It is complete, formal, amorality--with no potential to become otherwise.

I don't think it takes a theistic culture for people to believe that these sorts of things are wrong.

That doesn't alter the fact you have to actually specify your preferred culture for comparison, and defend the merits of its views. Otherwise, your position is a void that as specified exists nowhere--you just are hesitant to admit that, naturally.

> Then why do most the religious/atheists people try to push their ideology

FTFY. Not everyone has an agenda.

Insecure people are insecure. Fundamentalism / Zealotry knows no bounds -- be it fundamental theism, or fundamental atheism.

Those that do, are doing it because they think they are trying to "save" you.

I will go against the crowd here, and say that Internet helps me with my faith.

You might just be speaking for them. The minority tends to be more vocal.

became an atheist by reading about religion on the Internet. He was already away from faith, since he said that he would have identified himself as religious without attending service

I disagree with your example, but not with the idea. I am not an Xian, and religion, to me, has nothing to do with service, service is just another effect.

There is a famous quote, "Power corrupts, absolute power power corrupts absolutely." That was said by someone who was denying responsibility of the individual. Power does not corrupt. Power gives corrupt people the ability to exercise their extant corruptness. A non-corrupt person would be fine with power, and we might even be the better off for it.

Similarly, the Internet does not shake anyone's faith. It stirs he whose faith has already been shaken, or just wasn't so strong to begin with. That being said, sites of...um...ill repute, will demoralize a person, and that can ultimately lead to shake his faith. But that is more an issue of morality than theism.

you've flipped deism and theism, theism is generally considered religion that includes a knowable or partially knowable supernatural entity, whereas deism only really subscribes to a supernatural entity of some kind.

IE) god loves me vs god did it

if you want to get into the BS "spiritual" stuff, i'd just call bs, but apparently some people call buddhism non-theistic religion. whatever, but yeah, people tend to temper the claims of the christian right on the US founding fathers, by pointing out that jefferson and his ilk were better classified as deists; or the belief in the great clockmaker, setting up our existence but not giving a damn about it thereafter.

I disagree with putting deist as more devoutly religious than theists. Deism refers to belief in deity, as you say, but theism refers to belief in a particular deity with a name and personality.

Deists believe that the existence of a creator can be deduced from empirical observation, but (generally) that this deity does not interfere with the world at the level of human perception. i.e. it is reasonable to conclude that there is a powerful creative organizing force in the universe; it is reasonable to conclude that the best ethical course is to avoid killing or stealing from other humans; it is not reasonable to conclude a causative relationship between these two concepts.

Theists believe that the existence of their particular God was a divine revelation gifted to the personality in their cult of personality, and (generally) that this deity continues to be an active influence in the world. i.e. there is no morality except that given by a higher authority.

Jefferson and many of the other American founding fathers were deists. Fundamentalists are theists.

Urban dictionary isn't a dictionary.

Atheism means "without theism", and "theism" means a belief in god or gods. Thus atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods". It's the lack of a belief, not a belief.

You have agnosticism have right though. It means "I don't know".

No. Atheism literally means "without theism". With "theism" meaning the belief in god or gods. It is the lack of a belief. It's not a belief in itself. By definition.

It's no more a faith than being someone who doesn't believe in fairies or unicorns is.

Of course it is. Atheism is the absolute conviction that there is no God (or pantheon of gods or set of extradimensional beings whose footprint in this dimension represents god-like qualities and gives them a sandbox view and level of control over what we describe as our universe) in the absence of absolute proof of this. Furthermore, atheists, of late, have developed into a rabid -- dogmatic - subculture viciously going after anything that doesn't agree with their anti-theism, which, in itself, makes it religious in nature.

The spectrum from most devout religious to least:

Deist: one having belief in deity
Theist: one having theological belief (deity not necessary, "generic spiritual")
Atheist: One without theological belief
Anti-deist: against the idea of deity
Anti-theist: against the idea of religion

A: prefix meaning "without"
Acapella: music without accompaniment
asexual: without sex
Athiest: person without theism

Atheism is not a religion, like 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby.
I don't collect stamps, and I don't make a hobby of not doing it. I don't care about it at all. Nor do I care if other people want to collect stamps.

I am an atheist, and I actively like people who are gullible enough to believe devoutly, devoutly believing they will burn in hell for harming or stealing from me. I wish more idiots did. (as well as the brilliant religionists, whom I'm very glad are wise enough to follow the 10 commandments because they're a good idea for all my neighbors.)

From my agnostic perspective (your mileage may vary) I consider atheists to be as much creatures of faith as their theistic opponents:

Theism: I believe there is a God, even though I can't prove it scientifically.
Atheism: I believe there is no God, even though I can't prove it scientifically.
Agnosticism: I don't know, I have no proof.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

Why would an atheist reject a god nobody claimed ever existed? What is your definition of atheist? The proper definition of atheist: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Without somebody inventing and claiming a god exists, there would be no people to reject the unpostulated, unclaimed, concept. Your logic is severely broken or you are completely ignorant as to what atheism actually is.

Atheists simply reject theism. They don't have a faith. The rejection of a faith is not a faith. To claim that is ignorance. Off is not a tv channel. Bald is not a hair color. Unemployment is not a job. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not playing tennis is not a sport. Abstinence is not a sexual activity. An empty bowl is not a meal. Silence is not a noise. Clear is not a color. An absolute vacuum is not a smell. Not kicking cats is not animal abuse. Not doing drugs is not an addiction. Not practicing a faith is not a faith. Make sense?

I even removed the sarcasm from the above statements to ensure you wouldn't be confused.

One more little fancy bit of information, if there was one shred of proof for any god, there wouldn't be atheists with any credibility. In all reality, I was going to say there wouldn't be atheists at all if there was any proof of a god, but we still have idiots that believe the world is flat. Even atheists aren't immune to 'teh dumb' sometimes.

Many atheists are angry not at religion, but at what the religious have done to them. From blue laws to the subjugation of women to vilification of sexuality to 9/11 to bibles in courtrooms and required oaths to god and silly sayings on our money and all manner of other current-day evil, atheists have legitimate gripes that they are being abused for no other reason than those contained in religious thought.

Some go further and are mindful of religion's evil history, such as the crusades, the inquisitions, witch burnings and the like, taking those as cautionary tales of just how black and evil theism can get when it becomes the rationale that underlies the actions of the government. It tends to make us at least... twitchy, about modern day religion. Religion's current abject misbehavior when it interfaces with government very much appears to be a forewarning that perhaps we'd best get in there and put a stop to it, hence activism and negative characterizations (generally accurate ones, too.)

I don't hate religion -- in fact I have a large religious library and find it fascinating in terms of human behavior and can only appreciate and love the amazing art that it has brought to society from architecture to sculpture, painting and even some jewelry -- but I can sure tell you that my reaction to the various theist interferences with everyone else's politics, legal system, and even day to day life is nothing kind at all.

When theism can be characterized as a mode of thought kept to one's self and used to guide one's own actions, with great respect for, and isolation from, the actions of others, I have no problem with it whatsoever.

It is one (unprovable) thing to claim God exists. It is quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that God has a specific list of rules for you to follow, and a specific set of rewards and punishments lined up for them, and specifically wants you to give me a specific amount of money.

Why draw this distinction? Because it is widely understood that belief in God helps maintain psychological health, especially when under pressure. It is a critical element of the most effective addiction-recovery programs as well as keeping military personnel functional when the crisis hits and sane after it has passed.

None of this means God exists. But it means that belief in God, even in the most abstract way, is beneficial to humans. It also seems true that some humans can cope just fine while being strictly atheist, or just agnostic. However, this does not change the fact that for most people, belief in God is useful.

The problem is not belief in God, but belief in all the other baggage that humans bring along with belief in God. And this fact has also been widely recognized. Spiritual-but-not-religious may be hackneyed, but it is still popular, for this very reason. And it is nothing new. For example, the Sadducees (a Jewish sect that were part of Jesus' primary target audience and comprised a lot of the early churches) did not believe in an afterlife at all (no heaven, hell, reward, or punishment, yet still they found reason to believe and benefit from belief).

The teaching of critical thinking, and methods of recognizing pseudoscience, is important. People need to learn this, not only to protect them from charlatanry of every variety, but also to help them recognize when their own faith might be a bit heavy on the unsubstantiable details. It should not be presented as a definitive disproof of theism, however, since it is not (agnosticism is the only truly logically defensible position), and since the psychological harm this could cause will be socially harmful and will cause tremendous political resistance.

Don't be silly. You have no reason you can offer that anyone can't simply outright kill anyone they feel like, much less object to nuanced distinctions over terminology regarding "marriage" when the actual distinction in rights from another arbitrary construct with another term (i.e. "civil union") is virtually nil.

Don't commit the absurdity of thinking you have any basis for, or can offer any weight to, any of your purely-subjective moralizing whims about anything. If you have any such positions, they came as stolen from a dilution of theism, as neither Darwin nor anything else nameable by atheism as an ethical basis means anything at all. Secular philosophy hasn't the slightest consensus on anything after 2500 years of intensive focus on ethics. You won't be making a breakthrough here and now. It remains, as usual, empty, meaningless, and without either justifiable intrinsic force or any objective reason for anyone to give your position and instant's thought or concern.

I think often people are so infused with anti theism that they're philosophically simplistic.

The issue is not whether religion has a place in this or not but whether philosophy itself has a right to argue its points... and whether science can answer any philosophical question?

My point is that philosophy which both science and religion are branches of deals effectively with everything. There are some things that science as a branch of philosophy is ill suited to deal with... issues of morality, ethics, and other immaterial issues.

Science has no place in that argument. By the same token, neither do many branches of philosophy that are suited to ethics able to deal with debates involving very material questions.

The old term for science was "natural philosophy."

The point is that science has its domain. It rules it. Anything entering its domain will lose to it.

But that domain is not infinite. The scientific method itself is a philosophical construct that is extremely useful but it has limits. Other branches of philosophy ATTEMPT to deal with other issues. Their natures being more arbitary you will never get the clear results you get from science. But you will at least get SOME results which is more then you can get from science when it leaves its domain.

People like Bill Nye are less scientific activists at this point then political activists. This statements do little to educate people about anything they don't already know or to expand knowledge or to render convincing arguments that change any opinions.

He's a rabble-rouser. Which is too bad.

Understand, I am not defending theism or the theistic interpretation of the natural world. Rather, I am saying that Bill Nye isn't helping the situation and that if he both understood what he was doing and cared he would do it differently.

That's not theism, that's pan-deism - the idea that the Universe itself is God. (Not Pandaism, that God is a Panda). The problem is that pan-deism logically excludes the theistic proposition that there is a personal God that is separate from (timeless, formless, eternal, and so on) and can intervene in the universe, in fact, there can't be a God separate from yourself, since you are part of the Universe, and thus by definition, God. So one has to pick between that belief or the Bible, I think.

As to how it relates to scientific theory, it's wrong in the sense that Laplace conveys to Napoleon when Napoleon asks where God is in Laplace's orrery of the solar system; "It works without that hypothesis". Occam's razor says that given two theories of equal explanatory power, the simpler one would be more likely. Therefore, for the amount of explanation that adding pandeism, or theism, on top of existing big bang and evolutionary theory gives, there seems no point. There is no observation that is better explained with the additional hypotheses than without.

Then you know nothing beyond what your prejudice limits you to.

I know "nothing"? Prove me wrong. Prove to me that religion is not about power and influence and money and tribalism. I've got a mountain of objective evidence that shows that religion is very much about those things so you've got a large task in front of you. Belief in a deity or proving the existence of one is a very separate issue from relgion.

Small minds aren't limited to theists. Gnostic atheists display small minded bigotry all the time, as you have just have.

Small minds rely on personal attacks rather than actual ideas based on observable evidence. I'm not the least bit ashamed to say that I think people who worship a deity through an organized religion are generally small minded, tribal, insecure, irrational and very often are being taken advantage of because that is what the evidence shows. If you can show me objective evidence of how they are not those things then I'll reconsider my position.

Personally, I'm agnostic, but unusual in that I am an agnostic theist. The Gnostic question (Can God's existence be proven?) and the Theist question (Does God exist?) are too often conflated by laypeople.

So you think god exists but know you can't prove it. There is no objective evidence to support your belief but it's fine as long as you understand it is irrational. So long as you keep those beliefs to yourself and don't try to force it on others then you and I have no quarrel. But you do realize that per your own argument on null versus 0 you are treating the theism question as true when in fact all the objective evidence is null or in some cases of specific religious claims, 0.

Furthermore you talk about the difference between theism and gnostism but ignore the fact that religion is a further separate issue. Religion is a social construct designed to create a powerful tribe based on theistic beliefs. You can believe in a god without being a member of a religion and without all the societal baggage and false stories that religions bring to the table.

But there are times when they are not - calls to destroy churches or make the propagation of beliefs illegal are just as onerous as any other call to set up a single state religion and just as illegal in the United States under the first amendment.

Who said anything about destroying churches or making propagation of beliefs illegal? I merely suggested a strong separation of church and state and strong education. We don't permit prayer in school because not everyone believes in prayer. We don't permit creationism in science class because creationism is not science and has no place there. If someone wants to believe in something irrational then they have every right to do so. That does not however mean they should have any right to push their irrational belief on to anyone else through the government or other coercive means. It also means that organizations formed around pushing irrational religious dogma on others (often at the point of a sword) are dangerous things that should be held at arms length by civilized society. If someone wants to quietly believe there is a god out there then there is no harm in that but that is demonstrably NOT what religions tend to do.

Wow. You've never read Inherit The Wind, have you? Pretty much anything you've said can be shrugged off by any but the most fundamental of theists.
 
Seriously, atheists and agnostics need to pull their heads out of their ass about theists. As an agnostic myself I can't help but see why theists mock uptight atheist types. The proclamations and the dependency on religious fundamentalism depended upon by atheists who'd argue such points makes the atheists look as foolish as the religious fundamentalists.
 
Let me clue you into something here: By and large, theists are no more fundamental in nature than are people who align themselves with political parties such as the Republicans and Democrats. The vast majority are are centralist. It's the mouthpieces who feel that they have something to gain by beating every single thing said to death who make their entire organization look like a bunch of raving lunatics. Guess where people like you fit into this?
 
While the number of theists seems high the truth is few actually adhere to any aspects of their "faith" aside from basic humanistic morals. Their deity brings a bit of comfort but these people aren't looking to be martyrs. Do you honestly believe that if the number of supposed theists in this nation were really hardcore adherents that we'd have things like legal abortion, gay marriage and pornography? Seriously?
 
Most theists aren't going to change their minds on this matter, not because they're so willful and invested into their faith but simply because they see no real gains to giving up their theism. Again, it's like politics, if the Democrats who bashed Bush so hard over the Patriot Act actually cared about civil rights do you think the Democratic party would still bolster the numbers that they do since the reality of the Obama administration came to light?
 
You're fighting a fight that really isn't a fight in these people's eyes. They mock you because you deserve to be mocked for being a fool. If religion really was adhered to in the numbers given in these surveys then society would be extremely different. These people aren't looking for a fight, they're looking to comfort their minds. These people aren't writing science policy and their votes hardly determine scientific funding in a meaningful way.
 
It's like belittling and battling dirt farmers who don't support NASA. At best you're wasting your breath and at worst you're pissing people off about something that they don't really care about, they're just sick of hearing you piss on them. The majority of theists are just as sick of the fundamental theists as you are but they're not going to do anything about it and without break a dozen laws they really can't do anything about it even if they would want to.

The northern europe doesn't even believe god exists.

Not really. Look at these statistics from the eurobarometer poll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

Europe seems to be split between Theism, Pantheism and Atheism.

Let me start over. The "religoius benefit" this article cites is "a thicker cortex" as a key benefit of theism. It implies that a thicker cortex is a good thing, "bigger is better" right? WRONG. Now that I've made you aware that my previous reply was made in the context of the article it is replying to (really? you didn't know that?), let me clear out the "elephant in the room": a thicker cortex is assocaited with a lower IQ. The link to the Oxford study with that data is in my original post.

PS: Another thing about this "study". Polling x non theists and x theists without matching them 1:1 isn't going to produce any meaningful results. He already impled that the non theists he studied were lower on the socioeconomic scale, drug users, and cigarette addicts etc... It seems he picked out a bunch of "straight edge try hards" to represent the Theists in his group and a bunch of degenerates to represent the non theists. He didn't pretend to have any scruples about doing it that way eitehr, as if being a poverty stricken addict is somehow parallell with being an athiest and being a wealthy straight edge is inherent in being a Theist. And people wonder why we say the article seems biased.