Slashdot Mirror

I don't believe in any type of god, and therefore nothing that would follow from that. However, as a measure of exercising critical thinking, I believe high school students should debate all sorts of theism vs. anti-theism purely for the philosophical and intellectual merits of dissecting existence through logic. This is provided that such curriculum not be biased in either direction, by the material or by the direction of the teacher. At the end of the day, the kids can believe what they choose.

Creationism on the other hand amounts to teaching young people that fairy tales are true. There is a point where parents stop lying to their children about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The educational system has no place re-introducing blind belief in nonsense. The study of evolution does not hide that it is woefully incomplete on some important details, but it does teach how the objectivity of the scientific method led us to what we do now understand and shows us how one day we will unravel the whole lot of it. When you introduce creationism as a valid alternative to science, you must also introduce a creator god and that's where the buck stops - rendering critical thinking unimportant.

I welcome any debate this comment produces. I can already guess what some of them will be : p

Exactly. Modern science has absolutely no idea how live arose from non-life except for a few just-so stories that can't be shown to even be theoretically possible, let alone shown to work in a lab. If live arose from naturalistic causes, there is no guarantee that it is a common occurrence or even a guarantee that it has happened more than once.

Now, lets say for the sake of the argument that theism is true, could god have created life on other planets, certainly. Could he have have created an entire universe billions of light years across just so he could create one planet of sentient life? He has unlimited time and resources so why not?

Either way, the evidence seems to point to there not being a lot of life out there.

The fact that you think that supernaturalism and religion are synonymous demonstrates that you don't understand religion very well. Atheism just means not a theist -- 'a' is a prefix that means 'not.' If you don't believe in God but you believe in ghosts, you're an atheist. Sure, some religions incorporate supernaturalism -- fundamentalist Christians and some variants of Hinduism, for example -- but many do not and supernaturalism isn't a necessary component of religion. Zen Buddhism, Taoism, non-fundamentalist Christianity, and non-Orthodox Judaism are a couple examples.

A common trend you'll see among the religious -- that the stupid also believe in the supernatural -- you'll see among atheists as well. An atheist who believes that aliens built the pyramids is just as crazy as the Christian who believes that Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles. The crazies will be crazies, religion or no religion.

Being skeptical of weird stuff doesn't mean one can't be religious so that's not a valid definition of atheism. Atheism is a strict belief that any form of theism is incorrect. That may not be a very complicated (or rational) belief system, but it's still a belief system.

The usual retort to that is that it's reversing cause and effect.

Religion does not cause poverty and misery. It's wealth and happiness that leads to secularism, agnosticism, atheism and the sort of bland and bloodless liberal theism which for most practical purposes is functionally equivalent to atheism or agnosticism.

I do not identify myself as an atheist. Technically, I am agnostic, because I know that there is no way to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity. I have no objection to people discussing their theories about such an entity, and I will even admit that some are a lot more entertaining than others. On the other hand, I hate it when people try to use their religious beliefs as arguments for or against anything in the real world. "This man has to die because he is an asshole" is a valid argument, "This man has to die because my Holy Book says the penalty for what he's done is death" is not. Thus, I am only 'unconcerned' with theism and theists as long as they do not pretend that their religious beliefs are in any way relevant to me. As soon as that line is crossed, I become, indeed, an anti-theist.

That said, could you please explain why the Atheist League should be called the Antichrist league, as opposed to the Anti-Kali, Anti-Mohammedan, or Anti-Pastafarian league? Sure, there are tons of different sects that profess the divinity of Christ - Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, members of the Unification Church, etc... But there are also a lot of sects that do not consider Christ divine, and frankly, I feel a lot more threatened by some of the latter.

The guys who keep trying to bring me to Christ on the streets of Glendora are polite, clean, and well dressed. They bother me a lot less than people who think that I could be killed without spilling blood to fuel a religious rite, that I should pay higher taxes because I am an unbeliever, or that mocking their fairy tales is a capital offense.

So, again, why should people identify as antichrists, instead of atheists if they have no more beef with Christians than they have with other, less... grown-up theists?

Just to note, the three "omnis" are a construct/summarization originating within the Catholic Church, and you will find this nowhere in scripture.

There are, indeed, arguments against this notion (such as doing logically self-contradictory things), which are often presented with a certain air of triumph by atheists. However, belief in this is irrelevant to theism per se, and in no way a "must". "Extremely knowledgeable, extremely powerful, and extremely benevolent" works just fine for all relevant theological purposes.

As someone who was a god-botherer in his fucked-up youth (I'm now an igtheist that considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be moderates who are soft on theists), the stance that the fairly modern church I went to drilled into me was that wherever the new testament contradicts the old testament, the NT takes precedence. For example Matthew 5:38-48 (the "turn the other cheek" passage) basically wipes out all excuses for revenge. Gone. Kaput. And sure enough, there's almost no reference to revenge or vengeance in the new testament compared to the OT or the Apocrypha:
$ zgrep -c -i '^..O.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
62
$ zgrep -c -i '^..N.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
12
$ zgrep -c -i '^..A.*venge[a-z]' kjv.txt.gz
38

Delving into those 12 NT quotes, many of them are telling stories referencing OT times, and many others about how god himself will be vengeful. One's good old-fashioned drug-induced gibbering (Revelation). However, one is borderline (Romans, surprise, surprise), it does imply that a just theocracy may take vengeance upon evil as an agent of god.

So I would say that "according to [my christian] beliefs", the christians were not "equally as bad". I can't think off the top of my head think of any gospel passages that "could be interpreted to also mean that followers of it should murder non-Christians". The only NT thing that comes to mind would be in Paul's letters (surprise, surprise again, he indeed is the loose cannon), Romans 1:24-32 (the "gays deserve to die" passage) but that's worded as a "historical" OT recollection of god smiting the evil poofs complete, admittedly with perverted approval, rather than an order for humans to do the smiting henceforth and forthwith.

So I do think that I can drive a tram sideways between the christian scriptures and instructions to kill people, but I can't even get a cigarette paper between the hebrew or muslim scriptures and direct orders to kill people. I.e. I do consider it a "particularly larger leap".

Of course, these are matters of opinion. Opinion in a subject I do like to discuss, for further historical, literary, cultural, and even personal, enlightenment (hence accedentally nearly getting killed by a workmate). I could happily chat about this with you down the pub for hours!

OT - regarding your homepage link, just today in the pub at lunch a good friend of mine said "Phil, don't ever do acid". Oddly enough, the topic of conversation at the time was that of my *ig*theism and how it deviated from his atheism.

Quote: "It is this inability to know the outcome of our own deliberations that gives rise to our impression that we possess free will, he says."

Nonsense. We have free wills because we're people and not machines, whether predictable or unpredictable. Being free means that there's nothing else, typically hereditary, environment or coercion, that dictates how we must behave. It matters not that those factors cannot be calculated in some way that will predict our behavior. Calculation isn't the issue. Our ability to will is.

In fact, in many cases, our free will is demonstrated by the very fact that those who know us can predict precisely how we will behave. A honest man will be honest no matter what sorts of pressures are placed on him. He is 100% predictable, but he free because no one can make him lie.

Much of this fuss exists not just because science is reductionist but because science does not realize that it is reductionist. It reduced us down to machines and then decides that we're not like a thermostat but more like an iPhone. Pitiful.

Those who'd like to see this issue examined long ago and in detail might want to read Arthur Balfour's Theism and Humanism, a lecture series that was given just before World War I but is still in print. In it he blasts the idea that materialism can explain the human personality or behavior.

God in the form sold by the 3 majors doesn't exist, it is a logical fallacy.

This in itself is sufficient to demonstrate you have no idea what a logical fallacy is, or how logic is applied. Which fallacy? The real ones are actually formalized and enumerated. Theism is not among them.

I actually belong to a "literal" militia, recognized by the state, and while I don't own a musket I do own the modern equivalent.

This is relevant only insofar as you are agreeing with me. The founding fathers certainly didn't have the precise form of your "militia" in mind when the principle was drafted, yet, I presume you feel it applies. It is also quite-unproblematically used to apply to individuals "bearing arms" in general, though that lacks the precise correspondence to the original text that you claim would make it not "valid".

Your "faith" is my joke, that you deign to scold me is evidence enough of your unrelenting arrogance, anyone of merit would have skimmed past my post, but you took it personally.

Yawn. You might be able to troll me with that if I didn't know otherwise as fact. We'll take up the discussion to elaborate on the question at a much-later date, though. Your participation non-optional.

Then that's anti-theism, not atheism.

It's like trying to say someone is an extreme non-sports fan. So extreme they'll go out of their way to ban all sports!

Just because someone doesn't see the benefit in playing golf (an ateeist) doesn't make them into a anti-golfist

I am a dualist. Physicalism has some very obvious problems, just as theism has. So I assume the simulation would only provide the "reality interface", and not create the individuals in there.

It is sad to see someone can't respect the arbitrary beliefs of others simply because you are so delusional to think *your* beliefs are magically "correct". When are you going to stop falling for duality and start living unity?

As a mystic, BOTH Theism AND Atheism are based on ignorance. They have ZERO knowledge about their Higher Self or about The Source -- they _only_ have a belief (or non-belief). HOWEVER, IF that faith helps you be a better person then that is good. Note: Even atheists have faith: If you didn't have faith in your beliefs you wouldn't have them.

You are very confused about the purpose of religion vs Religion - little r vs big R.

True religion (little r) is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your philosophy.
The pseudo Religion (big R) is about mostly about selling heaven insurance and providing a social community.

We all agree that dogma, creed, tradition is unnecessary for you and I. In contradistinction some people actually like the foundation of tradition and the energy of old stone churches. Who are you to say their opinion has no value??

More importantly: When are you going to stop tossing the baby out with the bath water?

Theism works for some people, for others it doesn't. Atheism works for some, for others it doesn't. There is no "one true path". Technically, there are INFINITE paths -- you can only walk ONE at any one time. Who are you to judge another person's path???

After you die you will have proof that there is much, much, much more to consciousness then the human kind you were limited to.

The first step of wisdom is saying: I don't know. You would do well to get off your arrogant, ignorant attitude and learn:

BOTH the PROs _and_ CONs for

  * Theism, and
  * Atheism

Then your perspective will enlarged and you might actually be able to understand relate to people instead of coming off as a pompous douchebag with zero respect for others.

--
Religion is one man telling another what he should do to understand God.
Spirituality is one man telling another what he could do to understand God.

Given that 'theism' is the belief that there is a god who does intervene in the world, (Deism being the belief that a god set the world going but now is no longer involved) atheism is a belief that there is NOT a god who can or has intervened in the world. It's a belief in a negative, which every logician will tell you is unprovable. Atheism, on the strict definition, is therefore illogical. Claiming a seat on the 'end of the fence' and labelling it 'atheism' won't actually do - it's a piece of Humpty-Dumptyism, making words mean what you want them to, not what they are defined as meaning. On the subject of alien, I'm suggesting that since it's obvious that any 'god' will be external to this world in some sense, it can therefore be argued to be alien. Actually it's possible to translate 'holy' as 'alien'... But it's not an important point; the core point is that there can be no certainty that there isn't something out there that matches the features of a 'god'.

And if I'm exploring the natural world, am I going to go with the complicated "unknowable" answer that invokes a deity...

So, as usual, "goddidit" is either ludicrously too simple, or incredibly too complex, depending on which particular argument an atheist is discussing.

Again, though, you thinking that the slightest difference in probability of the truth of a proposition is provided by how simple the model is, is simply you entirely misunderstanding Occam's Razor and what it says. The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is much simpler than the Everett Interpretation, and it is completely false to say that Copenhagen is therefore more likely, and even more so to claim that Occam's Razor ever said or indicated that. Additionally, there is most definitely a distinction in the degree of evidence--you can refer to NDE phenomena, individual accounts of spiritual experience, historical accounts, prophecy fulfillment, etc., and -regardless- of how strong or not strong you consider these, or even if you somehow find them "anti-evidence" for theism, there is certainly a distinction in evidence per se--at which point Occam's becomes wholly inapplicable to even use, as it does to every other case in philosophy or science. Occam's preference for the simplest model is, to put it directly, for the purpose of and only supports preferring the simplest model possible, and makes no other claims. The "convenience" of doing so is, quite literally, the only thing it gives you and what it is for (though, say using Euclidean rather that Riemannian Geometry is indeed generally and usefully preferred due to simplicity, and here again neither is "more true").

I'll give him a pass

No need to. He's right, you're wrong, and the fact you were just parroting Dawkins doesn't change this..

Its God, not god. I know its a popular fad in Atheism to leave god in lower case, but its used as a name, and thus bad Grammar. Please don't make an excuse, I've heard them all, form god is not a name, to I used it as a generic concept, to which god. None of that affects the placement in the sentence which is all that matters.

Also, this is a lie. The idea that God shrinks as Science advances is based on the idea that Religion and Science are incompatible with Religion begin reduced to Theism only. But in reality, God is not simply an explanation of things we don't understand.

The idea that the Creation stories in Genesis are meant to literally describe how God created is another matter entirely, and it is the blind insistence upon this presupposition that results in so much hot air being expelled on both sides of the issue.

In practically every thread you get someone who tries to reconcile evolution with theism. They say, well, "God created the system of evolution. Tada!" or "God guides evolution. Tada!"

The truth is that when evolution is properly understood it is a complete replacement for the theistic creator hypothesis. It actually goes even further than this and give us yet more evidence that God doesn't not exist.

The problem with evolution is that it's not the kind of system a God that cared and loved us would design.

Does survival of the fittest seem righteous to you? Why should the most well adapted survive? Surely a better system would be one where people with kindness, co-operation and charity thrive and the selfish, brutish and dishonest perish? Yet we do not live in this world.

Theism as a whole has the problem that it makes a really bold claim: "God exists and he loves us." and then it has to retreat almost immediately behind a series of adhoc justifications for why the observed universe doesn't match what we'd expect if that claim were true.

If God really existed the universe would be hugely different to the one we currently live in. If God really existed science would have found him by now.

That's because that's what Christ said. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mk 16:16

This is yet another problem with the theism. The complete and utter confusion about what God wants. You're sat in this thread quoting the Bible as if it were the word of God, yet there are literally thousands of independent strands of Christianity alone. I don't even mention that even there were 2 billion Christians, 71% of the words population think your view is a heresy. You would even be called a heretic by members of your own superstition.

Again, would this confusion about religion be expected if there was a God who loved us? Absolutely not.

It is a popular--and recent--misconception that faith and reasoning are incompatible. Many, if not most, of the great minds of the ages were believers in God or in other forms of religion. The idea that religious people are necessarily irrational fools is simply a lie; there are plenty of both religious and atheistic people who are irrational fools.

The people in previous times didn't have the weight of evidence we do today. Faith and reason are incompatible. Faith is based on truth by revelation; that is, that some people a long time ago had the "word" revealed to them and every one else is left in the dark. The only hope we have is to just trust them. Reason works by studying, debating and seeking out evidence. Anybody can critique that evidence, review it and discuss it.

These are diametrically opposed view of the universe and completely incompatible.

I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.

...waiting with baited breath...

In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.

Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.

These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.

Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)

This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.

Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.

The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.

I agree, despite your hypocrisy.

This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.

Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.

That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.

Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.

> There is no solid proof either way though
Incorrect. You'll get your proof after death when you realize your consciousness _knows_ The Source.

As a mystic whether you believe (or not) is completely IRRELEVANT. The ONLY thing that matters:

      Are you able to treat others with Respect for a different perspective?

The fact of the matter is that both Atheism and Theism are based on ignorance; both ONLY have belief(s) about The Source; they lack _knowledge_. Arguing over which one is "correct" or who has more faith is spiritual immaturity. Parents don't chastise their children for their beliefs. Only assholes belittle others for their beliefs. Who cares what a person believes if their behavior shows they are able to treat people humanely?

> Gnostic Atheist
That is total oxymoron of terms. Either you have knowledge or you don't. There is no inbetween.

Note the difference: the latter is a belief system, the former isn't.

Only because you phrased it as such. In actuality, the atheist disbelieves in a deity given a lack of proof one way or the other - That still very much counts as a "belief", regardless of how positively or negatively you chose to word it.

Now, I have to agree with you that saying we can't know anything about the divine amounts to an assertion of faith. Merely saying we don't know and moving on from a moot question, however, does not.

I think, though, that we really have more subtlety here than two distinct groups. You already brought up "weak" atheism, we have the same for agnosticism (and theism, and gnosticism). Referencing that chart, any stance (in the absence of evidence, which describes our current reality) outside the center amounts to an irrational belief system. Personally, however, I consider it more of an error to posit that we can have information about something which may not even exist, than to say we cannot (as distinct from "do" and "do not"); but I will grant that as a slight deviation from pure rationality on my part.

As an atheist, I'm not sure how this promotes atheism. Anti-theism, yes.

Still friggin' hilarious.