Slashdot Mirror

Firstly, atheism is a rejection of theism, but as theology is a study of god/religions, I can quite happily study theology (although I don't) and be an atheist. I used to enjoy reading about the Norse gods when I was a child but without believing that they exist - they're good stories anyway.

String theory holds an interesting position in physics as no-one's figured out an experiment to dis-prove it yet. To my mind, this means that it doesn't really fall into traditional physics, but is more a mathematical theorem.

It does follow the usual rules of science, though: guess a theory that matches all of our existing data/experiments and then try to find a situation that doesn't fit the theory. If an experiment doesn't match the predictions, then guess a new theory and repeat.

You correct about Atheism being about faith, but incorrect about agnostic.

A-gnosis = Without _KNOWLEDGE_
Gnosis = WITH knowledge.

As a mystic BOTH theism and atheism _know_ _nothing_ about God -- all they have is an incomplete belief system. The gnosistic / mystic doesn't have all the answers either, but at least he has _some_ knowledge via _experience_. The only true type of Truth there is.

As an atheist, I don't have "faith" in the absence of god - I just look at the available evidence and realise that gods are equivalent to invisible pink unicorns. I don't have faith that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, I just haven't seen any evidence to support their existence (and thus I believe that only fools would think they exist).

That reasoning only works when there are two possible answers - true or false. You categorize things as false by default, and move them to the true category when you have evidence.

There are actually three possible answers - true, false, and cannot be determined. At its simplest level, things like division by zero fall into the third category. Or if you want a non-mathematical example, the liar ("this sentence is false") also falls into the third category. Or if you want a interrogative example, "does a parallel universe exist inside of a black hole?" works too (light and therefore information cannot escape a black hole, so we can never determine the answer).

In the general case, Goedel's incompleteness theorems say that there will always exist things which fall into the third category. Agnosticism properly recognizes that the last category exists and is the category which draws the fewest conclusions, and thus puts things in there by default until evidence exists to move them into one of the first two categories.

The proper logical answers to the question "is there a god?" are, true (theism), false (atheism), and cannot be determined (agnosticism). Unfortunately most self-proclaimed atheists conflate the last two, not realizing they're committing a logical error by doing so. Unless you can eliminate the third category (cannot be determined) as an answer, it is improper to place something in the false category simply because you have not found evidence to place it into the true category.

Science gets around the problem by deliberately setting up experiments (or at least trying to) which have two possible outcomes (confirmation or rejection of a hypothesis). In the general case however, you must first eliminate the "cannot be determined" category from consideration before you can apply scientific principles.

Viewing religion as a positive belief in some set of entities from which normative conclusions are drawn, then "atheism" as a simple non-belief in said entities, is indeed not a religion.

However, in a different analysis, one might regard "religion" from an institutional perspective --- as a particular self-reinforcing bundle of beliefs/views/behaviors/social-interactions that actively informs and guides adherents (while impacting non-adherents). In this case, "atheism" is more likely to fall into the same analytical category as (theistic) religions, distinct from "apinkunicornism."

Very few people actively take into consideration the non-existence of pink unicorns when pondering philosophical/normative questions. Many "strong atheists," however, specifically use the "godlessness" of the world as a key motivation and organizing principle for developing non-theistic worldviews, highlighting and deconstructing philosophical issues previously addressed by appeal-to-deity. Furthermore, they specifically seek out and interact with others on the unifying ground of "atheism," forming institutional structures larger than isolated personal non-beliefs: hence the production of atheist conventions, books, and even shoes (which have not developed around "apinkunicormism," aside from when that is used as a proxy for atheism).

From an institutional analysis perspective, "atheism" is developing similar structures to religion (and competing with, or filling the void left by, older theisms). As such, atheists should be self-reflective that many institutional problems ascribed to religion may also be operative within atheist communities. A reflexive revulsion to at least occasionally thinking of oneself as "having a religion" creates a barrier to challenging the shared institutional dysfunctions that can exist in both theistic and atheistic communities.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07398441_c.pdf

Table of data of PDF page 11.

Charts starting on PDF page page 13

Abstract:
Better understanding the nature, origin and popularity of varying levels of popular religion versus secularism, and their impact upon socioeconomic conditions and vice versa, requires a cross national comparison of the competing factors in populations where opinions are freely chosen. Utilizing 25 indicators, the uniquely extensive Successful Societies Scale reveals that population diversity and immigration correlate weakly with 1st world socioeconomic conditions, and high levels of income disparity, popular religiosity as measured by differing levels of belief and activity, and rejection of evolutionary science correlate strongly negatively with improving conditions. The historically unprecedented socioeconomic security that results from low levels of progressive government policies appear to suppress popular religiosity and creationist opinion, conservative religious ideology apparently contributes to societal dysfunction, and religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programs. The antagonistic relationship between better socioeconomic conditions and intense popular faith may prevent the existence of nations that combine the two factors. The nonuniversality of strong religious devotion, and the ease with which large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign, refute hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state, whether they are superficial or natural in nature. Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions

This is simply not true. A(without)-theism(gods). There is no affirmative belief in anything implicit in the definition of atheism or atheist.

even PAT ROBERTSON thinks the whole 6000 years thing is a bunch of crap... youd think the militant anti-theism folks would give it a break.

Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.
They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. If you fight science you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.-Pat Robertson

http://www.examiner.com/article/evangelist-pat-robertson-no-longer-preaching-creationism

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

Except we really doesn't have to be active about it at all. The disagreement is dropped on our doorstep (often literally) all the damn time. I don't think I've ever brought the subject up myself, either in real life or on the net. I didn't bring up the subject now; I merely responded to the joking and scoffing at the idea that someone might take offense (however fleeting and trivial, like a feminist offended by "fireman") at yet another allusion-without-condemnation to a dangerous fable that is still the single most important political force in this country.

If you did read my other posts, I hope you saw the one about freethought vs. atheism. Freethought influences me a great deal. It is an identity I have trouble imagining myself without, whereas atheism is a mere consequence, a conclusion able to be effortlessly changed at a moment's notice (not that it seems at all likely any new evidence or new reasoning is forthcoming.) Freethought--the valuing of critical thought and rejection of popularity-based arguments--guides the vast majority of my nontrivial thoughts and behavior. It affected my choice of career (a field the average person hasn't even heard of), my choice of a partner, my attitude towards alternative and conventional medicine (I frequently condemn both, but the worst offenses obviously lie with the former), my ethics and morals, etc. Atheism is an important consequence of freethought only to the extent that social and political theism is prevalent.

You put in zero time educating anyone around you about the perils of atheism or other non-Christianity? You are ok with your children being exposed to antiChristian beliefs; or if you are OK with it, do you make no attempt at to tell them that those beliefs are wrong? If an atheist starts gushing over about a book of Hitchens' or Dawkins', are you obliged to keep absolute silence lest you become a militant afreethinker (or a-atheist)? What about being pro-vaccine... is that a consciousness-defining trait if someone does not ignore idle chatter about vaccines causing autism to go unchallenged? Challenging stupid and dangerous ideas is simply an indicator that someone things those ideas are, wait for it, stupid and/or dangerous.

I don't find God-debunking books to be terribly interesting. I got around to reading The God Delusion like six years later only because I wanted to see precisely what could cause such offense. It was underwhelming and fairly tedious. I doubt I'll ever bother reading it through again. Nevertheless, I am a fan of Dawkins precisely because he does not shy away from condemning bad ideas. The belief (nonbelief) itself is completely immaterial to me; the politics of it, however, are not. Nonbelief matters because mainstream society, most promenently Fox News, keeps screaming its goddamned head off that it matters. Trying to counter Christian politics by simply saying "maybe you should keep that private; keep it to yourself" is silly and patronizing and unrealistic. I definitely do not and should not ever expect anyone to believe one thing and act a completely different way in public and in the voting booth. No, the proper response is "you are wrong, this is why, and this is why and how your wrongness is negatively affecting my life." No different from explaining statistics and herd immunity to an anti-vaxer, really.

If you have ever had the pleasure of debating with a Jesuit, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic in the least. If the Church is the Federation, the Jesuits are the Vulcans. Jesuit scholars have made many contributions to our collective store of knowlege, especially in math, astronomy, and philosophy.. These are the guys that invented propaganda, and are trained in logic, analysis, and debate in support of their faith. Speaking of their faith, it is the most rarefied, intellectualized faith on the planet. I'm looking forward to a vigorous debate between secularism and theism over the next several decades, and it's good to know that the opposition is putting their best foot forward.

First, we DO know of at least one real god: The god of Sol Invictus, also known as our sun. That right there is a God, sir, with historically-documented dedicated worshippers, doctrine, dogma and all. If I want to get pedantic, that's how I'll first refute your statement, "The god of the bible has been trivially disproven as has all the others that have some coherent, rational definition" (and if I get REALLY pedantic, not only will I explain the particulars of the cult of Sol Invictus to you at length, I'll also go look up the current primitive tribes around the world who still worship the sun and name them off to you)

No, thanks, it's not necessary. The sun is more than adequately explained by science. There is no evidence that the sun does anything that the adherents of the god of the sun say it does, does it?

So, pedantically speaking, you're already wrong. There is historical evidence of an all-powerful god that is testable and falsifiable.

And that is...?

I'm going to assume that your athestic philosophy has become pseudo-religious dogma that you blindly adhere to, and that you use as a justification for your bigotry against people of a theistic bent, and thus you were willfully unaware of this.

I don't self-identify as an atheist. That aside, there is no atheistic philosophy as atheism is simply "without theism". What bigotry do I display and how would that make me willfully unaware of anything? Sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

that supposition only stands on the extent of our ability to identify--without bias--the nature of reality around us

I'll provisionally agree with this.

It also assumes that our evidence is 100% right--and ALWAYS WILL BE.

No, it doesn't. It's seems typical of theists that are feeling threatened to only argue strawmen and semantics.

But if you've done any research into the nature of error and how intrinsic error is to the scientific method (as you profess to in your post above, but then go on to completely refute your comments about doubt and ambiguity with your subsequent statements) then you will realize that any absolute assertions, by their own nature, will always be wrong. It is therefore entirely possible that deities do exist, but they either either exist outside of our current scope of awareness, are smart enough to avoid detection, or have been there all along but blind nitwits like yourself who adamantly deny the existence of anything you cannot personally put your hands on cover up the evidence because you must defend your worldview at all costs, lest you become that what you hate.

What is a deity and, presuming you can coherently answer that, which deity are you talking about?

I don't see you questioning your own unbending belief in the lack of any and all deities, because you've taken it as a personal truth that there are none, no doubt because you bear ill will towards anyone with a belief in theism for all the real and imagined slights they've personally done you and that which you hold important over your life time and the centuries. But, big hairy Scandinavian fella, that's your own personal problem.

Do you have anything of substance to say or is it all blah blah blah? Please keep in mind that you don't matter enough to me for me to become upset by what you say. I doubt you'll bother to reply, but if you do, keep it in mind. Perhaps we can actually have something to talk about!

I think you're of a stubborn mindset, you don't like to change your mind unless you're presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and even then I suggest that you'd still refuse to believe it because you're probably a materialist at heart who feels far calmer knowing that there's nothing in the dark looking back

Very well, Wild Norseman! I shall continue in my attempts to infuriate you!

First, we DO know of at least one real god: The god of Sol Invictus, also known as our sun. That right there is a God, sir, with historically-documented dedicated worshippers, doctrine, dogma and all. If I want to get pedantic, that's how I'll first refute your statement, "The god of the bible has been trivially disproven as has all the others that have some coherent, rational definition" (and if I get REALLY pedantic, not only will I explain the particulars of the cult of Sol Invictus to you at length, I'll also go look up the current primitive tribes around the world who still worship the sun and name them off to you). So, pedantically speaking, you're already wrong. There is historical evidence of an all-powerful god that is testable and falsifiable. I'm going to assume that your athestic philosophy has become pseudo-religious dogma that you blindly adhere to, and that you use as a justification for your bigotry against people of a theistic bent, and thus you were willfully unaware of this.

Now, the evidence as you suggest (and we'll assume that in this instance you're referring to the entire scientific body of knowledge revolving around testing the assumption that there is an all-knowing omnipotent entity out there somewhere who's personally interested in our world) does indeed trivially disprove the existence of afore-mentioned deities. However (and boy is this a bugger), that supposition only stands on the extent of our ability to identify--without bias--the nature of reality around us. It also assumes that our evidence is 100% right--and ALWAYS WILL BE. But if you've done any research into the nature of error and how intrinsic error is to the scientific method (as you profess to in your post above, but then go on to completely refute your comments about doubt and ambiguity with your subsequent statements) then you will realize that any absolute assertions, by their own nature, will always be wrong. It is therefore entirely possible that deities do exist, but they either either exist outside of our current scope of awareness, are smart enough to avoid detection, or have been there all along but blind nitwits like yourself who adamantly deny the existence of anything you cannot personally put your hands on cover up the evidence because you must defend your worldview at all costs, lest you become that what you hate.

I don't see you questioning your own unbending belief in the lack of any and all deities, because you've taken it as a personal truth that there are none, no doubt because you bear ill will towards anyone with a belief in theism for all the real and imagined slights they've personally done you and that which you hold important over your life time and the centuries. But, big hairy Scandinavian fella, that's your own personal problem. I think you're of a stubborn mindset, you don't like to change your mind unless you're presented with extraordinary evidence to the contrary (and even then I suggest that you'd still refuse to believe it because you're probably a materialist at heart who feels far calmer knowing that there's nothing in the dark looking back at you). So I'm going to wind up by cheerfully insulting you more, you rigid atheistic asshole, you. And, here's the other kicker: everything you believe in has to have been right since the dawn of time... HAS TO. Because if there's even one degree of deviance or even one instance of the supernatural occuring, or something even close to a deity poking their head into our particular spacetime coordinate, then you're wrong. And you're going to have to deal with it. Now, go off and masturbate while thinking of a witty response to me to put me in my place.

Atheism is a taught belief, and used as a Noble Lie in the same way as theism..

This is such bullshit. Every atheist I've ever met came to the conclusion that there is no God based on what theists taught them.

Not one of them had parents who told them there was no God, in fact about half of them were children of theists and the other half had parents who either ignored religion completely or said "learn about it and make up your own mind."

If you want to eliminate atheism, stop teaching about God.

I think where we differ is in you blaming theists for trying to further the destruction. I look more at the cause which started the destruction. This is the part most atheists will deny: Atheism is a taught belief, and used as a Noble Lie in the same way as theism..

I'm not old enough to have seen classical education in the US, but the 50s were when it was last used. My parents had rhetoric and logic in elementary school in the late 40's and early 50's. Sure, during the first hundred years not everyone could afford to send their kids to school.

Based on what you have stated, I think we agree on many aspects of the problem. The obvious Soctratic question becomes: If theism did not dismantle the classical education system and "dumb down" society to an alarming level, why would they be responsible for furthering the destruction of society (perhaps exaggerated, but thinking longer term)? Would it not be more likely that the same people originally dismantling education are responsible, and people are taught to look elsewhere?

Further, based on Given the reality of who is benefiting most from a factory education, bringing up questions like the origin of the universe (if any) is doing them a disservice. There are a few further questions. If there is no point in the question, why are people trying so hard to make people never look? There are billions of dollars spent every year to spread the message that there is no creator, and that the question is meaningless, and that you should not consider the question if you are "smart". (The last being the common fallacy used to convince "educated" people that there is no creator.)

There is a lot of implied conspiracy in those questions, but I don't find them unreasonable to investigate. A last side note is that if you believe that there is a creator (which is a very logical conclusion) then theology does gain some importance. If you never look, and simply believe there is no creator of course theology is all bunk. I also strongly disagree that theism has been bad for society. Our laws are based on theism. Our morality is based on theism. Theism is a way to teach the ignorant morals without educating them. Theism used in this context is not the extremists which are rare, but the generally accepted schools of theology.

In closing, thanks for the civil comments and well thought out points. It's very much appreciated.

Wow. Somebody needs a hug, although not from anybody in AA. Some people find the acceptance and awareness of groups to be of comfort, without having to adopt the theism found in the 12 step books. There's all kinds of different ways to treat an addiction, and although some ways are more public that others (Like AA). There are atheist AA groups, Sober Recovery, SOS, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, Cognitive Behavior Therapy. There's antipsychotics and antidepressants. There's antabuse - which does exactly the same thing as the "vaccine" - only it only lasts up to 5 days, not 30. There used to be subcutaneous antabuse implants which lasted 30 days too. People still drank on them. People will still take drugs while on methadone. It's in an addict's nature to take something. Anything that helps somebody away from their addiction is a good thing. To dismiss the value of any particular approach because of a few zealous wingnuts is simply wrongheaded and harmful. Addictions - be it alcohol, crack, heroin, gambling, food - they all kill. Attitudes that all you need is self control and more willpower display out of a complete lack of knowledge the biology of addiction, and show a disturbing lack of empathy for what an addict goes through. If the "vaccine" works for a few people, it has value as a treatment strategy. If SSRI medication works for some, it has value. If talk therapy, be it in a professional or informal group setting like AA, work, that also has value. Some people will need none of these aids, some will will need more that what can be found. Just like calling something a cure does not make something a cure, cursing at something and calling it awful does not make it an awful thing.

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist.

This is definitely a valid opinion, but It's not necessary to be an atheist to have issues with organized religion. A group of people taking advantage of people's faith does not necessarily mean that that faith is wrong. I'm not trying to support theism or atheism, just trying to point out that organized religion is not necessarily representative of the religious beliefs of that faith.

Did Aristotle believe in Yahweh? Did Plato believe in a Judea Christian God? That is the root of the question, and the frame of mind required in order to look at the question without the biases.

If you are openly bigoted does that mean that everyone else is? Hardly. As mentioned above it's possible to look at the question without theism. If you don't care to try I'm okay with that. However your biases preventing you from looking are foolish, and not a reason to invalidate the question.

Theology works on the theory of a creator

No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.

You're only right if we're talking in the abstract about just any creator, but we're not, despite any the weasel wording, we're talking about the Lord God of christianity.

And that creator creates a strong expectation that there will be no dinosaur bones (and no Auswitch etc).

My predictions of the effects that should be observed may be wrong, but nothing that causes (significant) effects on this world is truly outside the purview of sience!

If my question was a mere assertion rather than fact you would have provided a scientific hypothesis for Intelligent Design.

You were just given a scientific hypothesis for intelligent design, that observable cases of it exist and are required for explanation of the scope of biological characteristics within the scope of biology. Any number of empirical cases can be called up by your at the cost of googling "genetic engineering". Those cases are the test, the test is based on purely empirical factors of genetic engineers doing it, and intelligent design is therefore, quite simply, renderable as a scientific hypothesis, and is quite simply scientific fact.

Intelligent. Design. That's what the concept is, that's what the words mean. That you want to make up the meaning as something it clearly is not, is quite irrelevant.

But let's leave aside what you are adding on to and/or distorting the plain words as "really meaning", and focus on the issue you care about, rejecting theism, rather than scientific accuracy as pertains to biology. That the characteristics of biology qua biology cannot be fully explained by evolutionary processes isn't an open question or subject to handwaving that no hypothesis can be formed regarding it. It obviously can be formed, obviously can be tested merely by googling the history of genetic engineering, and "intelligent design" is simply fact when applying the terms across biological history. Though your colorful language is rather amusing, this remains the case, it isn't "creationism" simply because you declare that intelligent design means what it simply doesn't mean, as a matter of simple English, and it isn't the case that I'm "competing against unknown". There is no "competition" here, and if an intelligent agent (of any origin) is demonstrably involved in distant history -as well-, that in no way is dependent on "creationism" (really, it's just two or three logical thoughts you need to string together here--the set of A isn't the set of B, and the sets indicated are directly indicated by the words--you can do it), and would be a scientific determination of great scientific interest. Your content-free rant doesn't address anything and does not alter this.

No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable);

The Universe existing is evidence for a creator. Don't confuse that with any school of Theology. We have ample evidence that a creator is required by the lack of other Universes springing up inside of our own. We also seem to have this crazy idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We use this to trace back the expanding vacuum and big bang to a point where we run out of actions. That does not mean that we don't exist.. but rather you are choosing not to look at the root question.

A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.

Read the atheist comment I responded to above. It is ad hominem against all theism without provocation. That is rather common among atheists. I don't disagree with you that it should be as you said, but we are a long way from Utopia.

Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.

That statement I agree with. I have very close friends that are both theist and atheist. Not all people are the same.

Theology works on the theory of a creator

No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.

A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.

Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.