Slashdot Mirror

It is quite possible for a theist to not assert definitive knowledge

I disagree. The very premise of theism (as well as atheism) is to assert definitive knowledge. That is what defines the two opposing positions: definitive knowledge (otherwise they couldn't be opposing). If a person's stance is not authoritative than he cannot be either a theist or an atheist. He must be either an agnostic or apathetic. The person you describe is an agnostic who leans towards theism, not the other way around. In fact, the person you descibe is me. (I admit that I cannot and do not know either way, but I "have a hunch" that god exists and furthermore I certainly do hope that god exists.)

When looked at that way, you're right. The problem us that the definitions are not correct. For example; belief (theism) and knowledge (agnosticism) are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a theist to not assert definitive knowledge of their god or its properties.

What you say works only with faulty definitions. You're not even wrong!

Let's simplify this.

A theist knows that god exists.
An atheist knows that god does not exist.
An agnostic admits that he cannot know.
An apathetic does not care to choose a position.

When you look at it this way, athiesm and theism could be considered equally arrogant. Both positions insist that not only is the problem solvable, but that only they have the correct solution.

A-> ~B
A
______
~B
Looks like I just proved a negative... Sorry I don't really disagree that one should have to provide evidence for claims rather than evidence for negative claims, but it is totally possible to prove a negative. Indeed any positive can be framed as a negative A= ~(~A).

There are three orthagonal qualities when it comes to beliefs about god.

Gnosticism is a position on knowledge or proof. Gnosticism says we can have knowledge about the existance of god, Agnosticism says that we cannot have knowledge of the existance of god.

Theism is a position on beleif in god. A theist believes in God, an Atheist does not believe.

Finally their is Ignostcism. This is a position on the intelligibility of god. An ignostic claims that the word god in unintelligble, or lacks meaning, or is nonsense.

As I said , it is quite possible to beleive any combination of the above, it is possible for someone to believe that the idea of god is unintelligible (ignosticism), that the very unintelligabilty proves his existance (Gnosticism), and that they believe in god (theism). This could be considered the position of some Jewish mystics for instance.

I myself tend towards ignosticism, when people say that they believe in god, I always ask "What do you mean by god?". If the person manages to supply a strcit construction (say they claim they believe in the Greek gods as presented by Homeric epics), I can then decie if I'm Gnostic or theistic about their current position. For the example of Greek mythology, I am an Gnostic Atheist. Same for Christian theology. If a person says something meaningless (eg. "I believe in something bigger than myself"), then I would be an Agnostic, since I believe its impossible to have knowledge about meaningless statements. I would still be an atheist though.

Jesus wept! To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion

On the contrary - it is belittling atheism. Unlike theism, atheism is at least a falsifiable hypothesis: all that is needed to disprove atheism, is for some god to manifest him/her/itself in a clear, measurable way, that can be verified by independent researchers. The God hypothesis isn't falsifiable; it makes no predictions, and all the lacking evidence for God's existence is explained away with "God moves in mysterious ways". While science is not necessarily atheism, atheism is certainly scientific.

Religion, in my view, is what you substitute when you have no faith. To mind at least, it seems that if you really trust in God as the ultimate truth, then you should be happy to follow the truth whichever way it leads you - so, it would seem that scientists have more faith than those who have already decided what the truth must be. If God IS real, even if he doesn't reply in a loud voice when you pray, then all you have to do is trust him. He has created this reality, along with common sense and logic, he is good, he would not set traps for the faithful.

If you really have faith, then you will throw away your religion and accept science.

And lots of Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaders do not kill their people either, so when Atheists condemn all religions on the actions of a few, it is completely disingenuous double set of rules, one for evaluating Atheism and one evaluating Religions.

The fact is, PLENTY of people in Atheistic (official) government countries were (and are) persecuted exactly for their religion. Namely Jews and Christians in Soviet Russia, Falun Gong and others in China, etc and so on.

However, this is when Atheists apply the "No True Scotsman" logic and exempt themselves from the very thing they do to other religions, namely painting with broad brushes. Shouldn't we all be able to paint with the same bush?

And if you read through enough Slashdot topics on Theism vs Atheism you'll find plenty of +5 comments from Atheists that suggest killing (or other inhuman treatment) of anyone having any faith. And in my opinion, they are just as dangerous as any religious extremist.

Point being, many Atheists love to tout how tolerant they are, until they meet someone with faith, and then they expose their extremist intolerance for anyone not like themselves, the very thing they condemn in others.

Atheists, as a collective, do not preach. Neither does "Reverend Wright" or "Al Sharpton". That does not make them less dangerous or damaging to society. Nowhere do I state that they all hang out in the church of atheism. I will state that the messages they preach are the same, and their rhetorical methods are the same script.

You seem to understand very little about the lack of the connection between morals and theism in general.

Actually I have studied pretty heavily in morality. More than 2.5 decades of study so come back after you catch up a bit. There is a reason I mentioned the noble lie, and it pertains to much more than just "Christian" or "Muslim" beliefs. In fact it goes well beyond religion, period.

I think you need to look much more recently for the term "Survival of the Fittest", it's a much more recent term and has nothing to do with Napoleon, or the conquests/colonizations of Britain, France, Spain, etc...

Mao and Stalin destroyed anyone related to Churches that were not "of the Government". This is by design as dictated by the manifesto. So while not an act of atheism, being atheist meant it was no concern for them to murder millions.

This is a mild necro, but I'm compelled to point out that theism and atheism are orthogonal to gnosticism and agnosticism. A gnostic atheist would claim to KNOW there is no God. An agnostic atheist (most of us) do not believe in god, but do not purport to KNOW anything.

It's important to note that there's not really any such thing as 'an agnostic', since 'agnostic' just means 'I have no idea', but doesn't say about what. In the common vernacular, it tends to mean 'I don't believe in God, but I can't be sure'; indeed, with this formulation, most people that claim to be 'agnostic' are actually 'agnostic atheists'.

You can also be an agnostic theist, who believes there's a god, but can't be sure about it. Strangely, I find there are more gnostic theists (despite their evidence being no better than a gnostic atheist's) than agnostic theists.

Think of what atheists preach

Atheists, as a collective, do not preach.

the damaging aspects of atheism ... consider the morality that atheism leads to ... Ultimately survival of the fittest becomes the only morality becomes the only morality. Falwell and Sharpe are nothing compared to Stalin and Mao to say the least.

Wow. You seem to understand very little about the lack of the connection between morals and theism in general. It had been observed countless times that a belief in any deity does not, in of itself, provide the necessary environment for people to develop morals. In fact there are plenty of regions on this planet, right now, where religious fervour runs high, while morality is practically non existent. There are also countless examples right now where people lead perfectly moral and humble lives without any religious association.

Survival of the fittest was a napolionistic idal, a term coined by the political landscape of a time when human conquest was still something that is acceptable for civilized nations, who, by the way, identified themselves as christian.

Finally, neither Stalin (I should know, he murdered my people), nor Mao, did what they did in the name of atheism. What they did is what any power hungry, insane, insecure, sorry excuse for a cowardly human being would do, kill anything that moved if it startled them. This would include *any* space where people assemble to explore *any* type of idea, as it threatens their power. That religious places of assembly were targeted was a consequence of that fear. They would have done the same had they been association with a church. Hitler was, after all, a Catholic.

That's absurd. There's no agenda to atheism.

No agenda at all? Not even the agenda of ending religion? Or perhaps I am thinking of anti-theism.

Right, so holding up a definition from your favourite dictionary wins.

No, I've referenced several dictionaries, and encyclopedias. Oxford is the only deviant that seeks to expand the term to accommodate common mis-use of the word.

Don't use atheism as a straw man to make agnosticism seem the rational rising above the irrationality of atheism and theism.

It's no straw man by any stretch of the imagination. You can find LOTS of people who hold such views, even in this very thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3270605&cid=42082221

It's hardly my fault you choose to mis-use a term.

Right, so holding up a definition from your favourite dictionary wins. Unless you've truly given this very little thought and study, you surely must be aware that it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you claim. Have you read the Oxford English Dictionary definitions?

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

Hey, wait. You as an agnostic are specifically claiming that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God? That seems a bold statement and a very large burden of proof. Nope, I won't assume that because I know that it's just one usage of the word. I'll do you the courtesy of asking you what you believe.

I'm an atheist in the sense of lacking belief in gods. With particular gods though I'd go so far as to say that they certain gods are internally inconsistent and probably don't exist. If a believer told me that their god is the universe then to that extent I'd agree that their god exists. Where it's likely to break-down is when the believer begins to ascribe self-serving attributes and desires to their god.

Your agnosticism appears rooted in a straw man of atheism. Are you the type who's trying to rise above the melee by adopting the view that theists and atheists are just as bad as each other? In reality atheists and agnostics generally hold the same basic view. Do you believe God exists? If your answer is "I don't know", then by default you lack belief in God. You are an atheist in the sense of lacking belief, and you would also be an agnostic in the sense of not claiming knowledge of God's existence or non-existence.

By all means use the agnostic term if it feels more comfortable. Don't use atheism as a straw man to make agnosticism seem the rational rising above the irrationality of atheism and theism. Read, and maybe consider discussing this with atheists and agnostics.

That wasn't his claim. His claim is that relative comparisons are needed for relative questions. I understand you dodge this by accepting no responsibility for any demographic at all (other than, perhaps, the immediate residents of your basement), via the standard Argument from the Nonexistent, but it is quite useless for any functional ethics or construction of beneficial norms. And yes, I already am clear on the fact that "construction of beneficial norms", that is, any expectations at all of you personally, is the last thing you want and will go to any lengths to avoid. Take comfort, even if temporary, in the fact you are hardly alone. In a less-temporary sense, well, either theism or Darwin will take care of you, really doesn't matter which you choose.

Then that makes your argument completely non sequitur and irrelevant. To be more clear, I said "religion bad" and you countered with "anti-religion bad/worse."

Religion harms humanity. I can think of no single instance where that statement doesn't apply. Before the 1960's, Christian theism was pretty much all hellfire and damnation. People got into peace and suddenly, god became a loving god. Before that, holidays were largely just church services and they pulled in and adjusted for some really nice human holidays like Christmas (as we know it) and Easter (as we know it). Religion seeks to clothe itself in higher things and ideals, but none of them originate from the religion itself -- it is merely an adaptation or an adoption of something which already exists. This is done to the point that religious people seriously believe things like "how can you be a good person without god?!" This in turn, harms the religious person's over-all view of man by making them believe all men are evil unless they are practicing [their] religion. This, in turn, makes them easier to kill without conscience.

"Commies" or "Nazis" is not the opposite of religious theism. Just be clear on what you're trying to say because it really sounds like it. The absense of religion helps. Even in religious countries, the less they actually practice the better.

There have been ZERO governments BASED on "atheism".

There have been governments which replaced theism with "cult of personality"/politics as religion.

Thanks for playing, you lose again.

"...on evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory as 'lies straight from the pit of Hell.'"

By the way, it would be nice if the quote was an actual quote. Bear in mind that the Big Bang was initially proposed by a Catholic physicist/priest, and was roundly attacked as "anti-science" for sounding to much like Genesis, in contrast to the then-prevailing Steady State theory of the universe.

It's not clear to me what would be objectionable about embryology per se from any theistic stance, and it's really only scientifically-untestable "-only- evolutionary processes occur" that poses a conflict for some views of theism. When I see a semi-quote like this one, I tend to think there's a bit of bias involved with the citation...

Sorry, but on this issue, I'll take Nikita Khruschev's recounting of history over yours, as he was probably a little more familiar with the situation than you.

After the criminal murder of S. M. Kirov, mass repressions and brutal acts of violation of Socialist legality began. On the evening of December 1, 1934, on Stalin's initiative (without the approval of the Political Bureau - which was passed 2 days later, casually) the Secretary of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee, Yenukidze, signed the following directive: ...

This directive became the basis for mass acts of abuse against Socialist legality.

An example of vile provocation of odious falsification and of criminal violation of revolutionary legality is the case of the former candidate for the central committee political bureau, one of the most eminent workers of the party and of the Soviet Government, Comrade Eikhe, who was a party member since 1905.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khrushchev-secret1.html

And on, and on.

You can't quite seem to win on any point, can you? You're just making assertions of its ethical status, in the face of you agreeing with a directly-equivalent action in WW2. And, do note, emptily using the term "ethical" neither means you've connected your assertion to any demonstrated system of ethical axioms, nor, well, that you have the slightest idea what you mean when using the term "ethical", other than philosophically parasiting off of -my- metaphysical justification by cultural assimilation of the norms of theism. Yes, I actually do know at least a dozen formalized systems of proposed secular-based ethics, and their respective weaknesses. You completely defaulting on justifying your characterizations -at all-, drawing from the resources of -your worldview-, isn't even getting started on what you need to do here.

Again, still waiting for any objection you care to forward on the basis of evolution, or anything to give your self-contradicting subjective utterances any weight at all. Until then, carry on as the sole party here advocating mass-murder.

What I think what religious people don't get is that the non-religious people don't care what Einstein's views on religious were, because they don't need constant confirmation of their beliefs.

But the people who make a big deal out of their Atheism with Capital A do, which people who make a big deal of their Theism with Capital T recognize because they see their mirror image, thus Einstein quotes and interpretations fly back and forth like machine gun fire where ever these two fight.

And that rises interesting question: should future archeologists uncover a few scrambled pieces of this thread 10,000 years from now while examining the early Internet culture, would they conclude that Einstein was a prophet or a pagan god of some kind? Would they speculate that the early physicist was named after this obscure mythical being? And would opening the Archive of 4chan melt their faces off ?-)

A lack of belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof) in something (god, the tooth fairy, whatever) necessarily implies belief in the the lack of that thing.

That's a very strained definition of belief. And, no, a lack of belief does not necessarily imply belief in an opposite or contrary view, or even that there is such a thing. For theism, which espouses belief in a god or gods, one is not of that state if one does not hold that belief. One might not even know about the idea of god or gods; but still, because one does not hold the belief, that makes one atheist.

You see, atheism has no catechism, no book, no rules: there's no "why" to it, because it's not a positive assertion. I'm unconvinced by supernatural arguments. I could easily be convinced by concrete evidence. I don't assert there is no god or gods. There might be. There might be elves, too. Fairies. Ghosts. Etc. I just have no reason to think so at this point.

So I hold no such belief. My confidence in these ideas is extremely low, but my belief is entirely lacking. Belief is, in the end, a personal assertion of, or perception of, some kind of truth. Truth, for me, requires both evidence and consensual experience. I can't get to a perception of truth with a complete lack of evidence, so... no belief. There's no evidence there isn't a god or gods, either. So I can't get to truth there, and so I hold no belief there.

What is confusing you is that some folks do make the claim "there is no god or gods", and, while they are atheist, they are going well beyond a simple lack of belief, for whatever reasons they might have. Just as a Christian theist goes well beyond "there is a god" with some very detailed specifics, and in a very different direction than a Hindu theist does, an atheist may go well beyond atheism with other ideas in the same sphere, and in a very different direction than I do. But it's not a given, and you shouldn't treat it as if it is.

Finally, I am far from alone in this basic take on atheism. It is neither a new idea, or a particularly debatable one. One of the interesting things about it, in fact, is that you usually hear it coming from theists. I would submit to you that theists, of all the people in the world, are least qualified to tell you what it is myself, and people like myself, think. If you want to know, ask. But please, stop trying to tell us what it is we think about things.

Oh, I get it now. You can call the dictionary definition strained if you like. Frankly, I don't much care what you think or believe. Not because I have any animosity towards you. I don't even know you. I certainly don't care enough to attempt to define *your* beliefs, an most certainly not enough to try to dictate my beliefs to anyone else.

If you think that a lack of belief in a god or gods is not the same as belief in the lack of them, by all means do so. I disagree. However, I wouldn't ask anyone to think or believe in a certain way. If that's how I came off, please accept my apologies.