Slashdot Mirror

"Promoting atheism is just as offensive as promoting theism."

Not really. One is a statement of observable reality. But why get offended? I don't mind if people have a desire to share something that they feel is important. It's only when I say 'not interested' and they don't take the hint. I don't bother arguing about these things anymore, because you can't argue with faith and / or mental illness - not being glib, but I believe this is a real issue with extremists - and it makes no difference to the truth anyway.

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.

Atheists believe that there is no god.

Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.

Entirely incorrect, eh? That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.

You posit that lack of belief in a god or gods does not imply disbelief in the existence of same.

Au contraire. 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.

Let's try a little experiment:
belief == confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Lack of belief == a lack of confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof >/p>

One who lacks confidence in the existence of god == atheist.

Thanks for playing. I sure hope you're an ESL person.

Atheists believe that there is no god.

Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.

Another idiot who does know what "agnostic" means. Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Hell, Agnosticism and theism aren't either. Saying someone is agnostic tells you nothing about their belief or disbelief in a god. You can be an agnostic Christian.

Atheists believe that there is no god. Agnostics believe that whether or not "god" (whatever that means) exists is unknowable.

Having been first an agnostic and am now an atheist, I'm well aware of what the terms mean.

If you'd bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote you'd get my point. I'll make it again and I'll use small words to be sure you'll understand you warthog-faced buffoon.

It doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Einstein was an atheist or agnostic. He was a Jew. That makes it very unlikely that he would be a christian regardless of what his beliefs were with respect to the existence of god. Note that whether one is an agnostic with no religious affiliation or an agnostic with a religious affiliation is irrelevant to the point.

And you call *me* an idiot? Please.

Another idiot who does know what "agnostic" means. Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Hell, Agnosticism and theism aren't either. Saying someone is agnostic tells you nothing about their belief or disbelief in a god. You can be an agnostic Christian.

Complete this sentence: Theism is to Atheism what Religion is to _______?

Sodomy?

When did the lack of religion become a religion?

I think you misunderstand what atheism is.

Complete this sentence: Theism is to Atheism what Religion is to _______?

Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job. In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.

Promoting atheism is just as offensive as promoting theism. Religion has no place in the workplace, unless your workplace happens to be devoted to religious study of some sort. As long as you're not hurting anybody, I don't give a flying fuck what you choose to believe. It's not my concern, as long as you recognize that I have a right to believe differently.

That being said, renaming the Christmas party to the Holiday party is about inclusion... all 3 of the Abrahamic religions have holy festivals around that time of year, not to mention a large number of other festivals associated with the solstice. Almost every religion in the world does something that time of year, and calling it the "Holiday" party instead of the "Christmas" party acknowledges that those other religions have value. It also acknolwedges and includes people who don't follow any specific religion. (though the word "holiday" itself is a bastardization of "holy day", which kind of excludes the atheists)

Allowing gay marriage, similarly, is about inclusion. I can't believe I even have to make the argument here, but the only consequence of allowing gay marriage is that gay people will get married. The world will not blow up, cats will not start having sex with dogs, it will not suddenly start raining fish, the sun will not turn purple, and you will not hear 7 trumpet blasts. It's about extending the same rights to gay people that heterosexual people enjoy, pure and simple. And if your religion doesn't endorse gay marriage, then don't fucking perform it. Gay people can just as easily have a civil ceremony before a justice of the peace, or go to one of the churches that *does* support gay unions. It is *not* about people with an agenda trying to force their beliefs on others, it's about people wanting to have the same rights as everybody else. Of course, opposition to extending these rights to the queer community is about people forcing their beliefs on others....

Now... if you'd bothered to read the articles linked, it would be quite clear that this guy was a douche. He had a reputation for being pig-headed, and refusing to negotiate on anything... it always had to be his way that things got done. He had been spoken to as early as 5 years before he was dismissed about his unprofessional behaviour, and even admitted during his own testimony that they had been asking him for years to smarten up. There are plenty of religious people working for JPL who don't have any problems at all, and his religion had nothing to do with his having been laid off. And yes, it was a lay-off... they let 200 people go at the same time as him, because there was a funding cut. This is a complete non-story, and the only reason it's getting any press at all is because a number of zealots are trying to incorrectly paint this as an attack on religion.

Agnosticism isn't simply a point on a line that extends between atheism and theism.

A theist believes that there is a god or gods, or something along those lines, and believes that no "evidence" is necessary to maintain that belief, at least not in the conventional sense. In other words, a theist doesn't see a problem with believing in a being without having some sort of independent proof of its existence.

An atheist does not believe in a god or gods unless and until there is evidence to the contrary, in the same way that most people wouldn't believe there was a tooth fairy unless someone actually introduced them to the tooth fairy. Where a theist doesn't believe evidence is necessary, or, maybe more accurately, believes that subjective evidence is evidence enough (i.e., faith, or a "personal relationship" with the deity), an atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods without objective evidence to the contrary.

Now, an agnostic is someone who believes that metaphysical issues like the existence or nature of god or the gods is not only unknown, but unknowable in the usual sense of the word. Agnostics (gnosis meaning knowledge in Greek) believe that the idea of fact or evidence or proof is completely irrelevant to metaphysics, because humans simply aren't able to know one way or the other. The nature of god(s) is such that there can never be any true knowledge of them, certainly not in the same sense as "knowing" about gravity, or that New York City is on the east coast, or that your mom wears combat boots.

So, you can have an agnostic theist ("I believe in god, but I don't think that anyone can really know about god in an objective way,"), or even an agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in god because there is no proof, and even if there was a god you wouldn't be able to prove it,") although the latter is a little more difficult to manage. But it isn't as if putting Richard Dawkins and Pat Roberts in a blender would result in an agnostic.

> He is encouraging others to reject religion and other supernatural beliefs that are made without good reasons

Oh please. Dawkins continues to shit on other people's belief. When he is able to respect a person _irrespective_ of their beliefs then maybe the rest of the world will pay attention to him.

First, right now he comes across as a pompous ass unable to acknowledge that *everyone* has faith. i.e. If you didn't faith in your beliefs you wouldn't have them!

Second, as a Mystic the problem is BOTH Atheism and Theism are based on ignorance. They have beliefs (or lack of them) yet they BOTH LACK KNOWLEDGE. While Dawkins is able to see the wisdom of Atheism and the ignorance of Theism, he is _also_ unable to see the weaknesses of Atheism and unable to see the wisdom of Theism. This is not his fault. All the major religions for the most part have crappy teachers not understanding the difference between religion and spirituality. i.e. "How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering " Unless a priest, rabbi, minister, etc, is able to explain what the Key of Knowledge is, sadly, they don't know jack about God, or the purpose of the Universe: HINT: It is ALL about relationships.

Third, Dawkins is ignorant of God because he keeps using another man's definition of "god" instead of his own. He is an arm chair theologian. You wouldn't go ask a non musician how to be the a great drummer; you would go find someone who IS a drummer to SHOW you.

Fourth, He is unable to reconcile the *paradox* "There is only one path; there are infinite paths." He doesn't understand that BOTH Atheism AND Theism are valid paths. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Fifth, Dawkins continues to ignore the evidence that Death is merely a shift in consciousness as the NDE proves.

* http://abcnews.go.com/Health/neuroscientist-sees-proof-heaven-week-long-coma/story?id=17555207#.UI0gU41lQf4
* http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Unless he is able to see BOTH the WISDOM _and_ IGNORANCE of Atheism he is deluded.

Dawkins in The God Delusion does not agree with your definitions here. Most importantly, your definition of anti-theism is way off. Anti-theism is simply against theism. That is, whether or not a theist's claims are true, you wouldn't want them to be true and you believe that they're harmful. Anti-theism says nothing about whether or not a god actually exists, although I suspect all anti-theists are also atheists.

>This is wrong by any modern definition. Atheism and Agnosticism are not generally considered mutually exclusive, and most atheists would actually call themselves agnostics as well (including myself).

Yes. I am agnostic atheist. I know that i can be wrong. It could be that gods exist. But also i think that gods are as likely as the easter bunny. No evidence speaks for them.

>Anti-theism is the affirmative position that there are no gods. This is only a subset of atheists. Most atheists would not make this claim, because it shifts the burden of proof from the theists back to them,

Here is a difinition problem. Anti-theism is also used for people that are active opposed to religions.

I fore one call me an agnostic atheistic anti-theist. I think that the big religions are the biggest danger for the survival of the human species. I am against all religions. Not that i want to outlaw religions, but i think that they have no special right for respect. I have the right and use it to say that the jew/christian/moslem god is a evil ass that deserve no followers. I am an anti-theist.

Fact: You don't know what the term atheist nor the term agnostic means. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Theism is belief on one or more gods. Atheism is the lack of that belief.
Gnostism is knowledge. Agnostism is the lack of that knowledge.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Because I don't know if there's a god or not, but I know believe in one.

You're quite right that atheists are wrong to claim that *no* god exists,

No, he's not right about that, because very few atheists actually make such a bold and absolute claim. Including Dawkins. GP spent an awful lot of time using strawman arguments trying desperately to put himself on a different and higher plane than atheists, even though he is one. The word does not mean "irrationally believes that it is absolutely true there can be no god". It actually means "without theism". If you don't believe in any theistic belief system, you're an atheist. It's that simple.

(I invite you to try to find a significant quantity of self-identified atheists, famous or not, who actually hold to the ridiculously strong definition debated against at length by the GP. I predict you won't have much luck, though I'll admit I might be biased since I am a self-identified atheist who does not in any way maintain that it is flatly impossible for a god or gods to exist.)

I think this sort of thing happens because "atheist" has such a strong negative cultural connotation in certain societies that some people are still hesitant to identify as one, and feel a need to point at "extremists" they can distinguish themselves from. "I'm one of the good ones! Not one of them!"

This is wrong by any modern definition. Atheism and Agnosticism are not generally considered mutually exclusive, and most atheists would actually call themselves agnostics as well (including myself). Anti-theism is the affirmative position that there are no gods. This is only a subset of atheists. Most atheists would not make this claim, because it shifts the burden of proof from the theists back to them, and IMHO (and that of quite a few others in the skeptic community) is a nonsensical claim, since it tries to prove a negative. Similarly, I do would not make the claim 'no pixies exist'. I highly doubt they do and I would bet a billion dollars that they do not, but I cannot actually say that I KNOW they do not exist, because I would have to explore every corner of the universe to actually know this with absolute certainty. It is really all semantics, because at the end of the day, whether I am an atheist or an agnostic, I can simply state my position: "I do not have any belief in any gods" (as opposed to "I believe there are no gods"). At that point, a theist must defend their claim that, in fact, some gods DO exist, at which point I will ask for proof.

I would say more "False equivalency", and a guilt by association.

An atheist feels that they cannot reasonably assert belief in a deity.

However, there exists a broad subcategory within that group that is directly anti-theist. This group is VERY religious, and likes to reinvent the meanings of words to deny such.

The outright assertion that a deity CANNOT exist at all is very much a supernatural belief. Here is why:

The theist asserts that a deity can and does exist in such a fashion that science can never detect it. There is no evidence nor means to verify this claim. It is therefor supernatural. (Outside of observable and testable nature.)

The anti-theist asserts that no deity exists, and that no such deity can ever exist. There is no scientific protocol or process to determine this standpoint as empirically true, and no such tool can definitively exist within our universe. (There is some shaky evidence to suggest that there are indeed other universes, but our tools mean dick for analyzing them.) Thus, the statement is supernatural. (Outside of observable and testable nature.)

While atheism is not a supernatural position, anti-theism most certainly is.

That anti-theists are a very vocal and prominent demographic of the larger atheist category, is the source of the problem. This is not a strawman. This is a guilt by association. The antics of the anti-theists impugns the character of the larger, benign, atheist group.

The point is atheists shouldn't ever be organizing as being atheists. It should not be a defining characteristic.

It *shouldn't* be, but we kind of have to. Theists are organizing as theists to push a theistic agenda. Even if you want a theism neutral public forum, atheists have to push back or resign ourselves to ever encroaching theism.

Pleased to meet you

Likewise.

Coincidentally this apparently unrelated issue was posted in response to my "hospitality/politeness/gentleman-liness" post

I'm sorry. I did not intend it as an insult, and I was worried that it would be taken as such. Hence my qualifications in the rest of the paragraph. I guess the better way to phrase it would have been that if I had said that we have different definitions of the words, which leads to misunderstandings on both sides.

Well OK but try this somewhat more pragmatic idea on. Unfortunately the problem might be an active dislike, not merely a lack of understanding. And thats OK, as long as we try not to aggressively convert each other, especially by negative means but also by sorta-positive means, I think we'll get along all politely with great hospitality on all sides. The alternative is not so pleasant.

Yeah, it wasn't a very practical solution. I only posted it because I couldn't think of any other way to resolve the issue other than the default of just not talking about it. I also agree that attempting to aggressively convert someone is the quickest way to get them to dislike you.

As for the problem being an active dislike, I would like to know why. I like to solve problems, and unsolvable problems can be fun to think about as well. I would think that the reason for theists actively disliking atheists may be that it seems all atheists look down upon theists as being irrational and mentally inferior. That they have no respect for theists. That theism is a mental problem that needs to be corrected because it's unhealthy.

I'm having trouble understanding why an atheist would actively dislike someone solely for being theist. I'm not saying that there is no reason for it, just that I'm having difficulty empathizing with the atheist's viewpoint and I would like to better understand it. Is any of the above stereotype about how atheists feel true? Is there a stereotype among atheists about theists?

I also apologize if any of this or my previous post came across as preachy. It was not my intention. I realize that nobody will ever convert from an argument on the Internet.

Calling theists "ignorant" is indeed insulting when said theists are well-educated (even in evolution, which I learned as an accepted fact - in Catholic school), and quite well aware of your arguments.

He didn't actually do that, did he? He said creationists were ignorant (or stupid or crazy). You're deliberately twisting his words to make him seem more insulting than he actually is. That's far more insulting than anything Dawkins has said.

Are you ignorant of the difference between theism and creationism?