Slashdot Mirror

What? Are you insane? Really you should put numbers like that to a better litmus test. I'd really like to see the questions posed to get the theism vs. atheism to know who is counted as well as the criteria. Notice that "Western Philosophy" is not a search criteria, yet every western Philosopher up until the late 1600s would be "Theist", which includes Ancient Greek Philosophy. Aristotle was sure there was a creator, but is he counted as Theist? Well, if I look at "Ancient Greek" nothing shows up except for Priori knowledge.

If the data is obviously skewed, then the data is worthless. Sorry, come up with some better numbers.

Interestingly, if you look at only the "Asian Philosophy" you will see atheism more where I would agree to western Philosophy in terms of numbers. Roughly 25% of Asian Philosophers lean toward atheism, and huge number of those counted in that 25% are relatively recent.

The God of Classical Theism is not equivalent to Thor, Zeus or a unicorn. God has to exist by necessity and is not an empirical hypothesis one can test for, akin to Thor or a unicorn. Good blog for you to educate yourself on: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com

There are no rational reasons that I'm aware of to believe in God. I'd be pleased if you'd share some.

It partly comes down to how you define "God". If you define "God" in terms of classical theism, then there's no reason to presuppose the existence of such an entity.

However, that's not the only type of deity that's been followed over the milennia. To a Sun worshipper, the Sun is "God". Moreover, by any scientific test that you care to name, the Sun exists. Therefore, a Sun worshipper has every reason to believe in "God".

Or suppose that you define "God" as "that which mystics experience". As there's plenty of indication mystics experience something, it's perfectly rational to believe in "God". For this definition, "God" may be (and, indeed, most likely is) nothing more than an artifact of our psychology, but as ESR famously pointed out, that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing.

After years of work I came to the same conclusion the vast majority of Philosophers have, which is that there is probably a creator.

Strange, so a "vast majority" is about 15% right? This 2009 survey shows that 72% of philosophers from major academic institutions lean towards atheism as opposed to the only 15% who lean towards theism.

I dont intend anything in this post to offend, but to provoke thought; please do not take it as anything else.

I would say that your notion is attempting to create an easy way out, when in fact there is not one. If God does in fact exist, and is in fact as powerful as believed, then your relationship to him is, bar none, the most important thing in the world-- whether or not you recognize it. If you are in opposition to Him, there would be no power that could protect you from His ire.

There are many views on theism, and (by necessary truth) all of them save one are wrong. I think the view that "it does not matter" manages to be the most wrong-- because it doesnt just get the answer wrong, it gets the question wrong too. I would challenge you to consider on what grounds you consider the question "irrelevant"-- I would wonder if there were not some reason you avoid the question.

Being Christian I can not simply leave the question here-- It is my belief that there is in fact a God, and that he is so opposed to wrongdoing and to upholding justice as to place all of us who have ever committed a wrong in deed or thought in a terrible bind; I would contend that this includes you, me, and every other person who has lived. I would urge you to read through the book of Romans and determine whether you could still say that the question is irrelevant.

Well, I know you're a troll and I should ignore, but obviously evolution isn't atheistic. Theism is entirely irrelevant to the topic. Is a rock theistic or atheistic? The question is nonsensical, because rocks don't believe in things.

Oh Lord...one of those that believes what some 1800 year dead goat herder wrote about some 2000+ year dead guy, right? Its called LIGHTNING friend, and its already shown that complex chemicals form when you zap base chemicals repeatedly, enjoy the wiki article about the experiements done a half a century ago.

As opposed to an Atheism: The belief that there was nothing & nothing happened to nothing & then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything & then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason which then turned into dinosaurs.

I think you're post makes some really great points, but I want to point out that this is not a claim I would expect from any atheist, nor scientist. And I'm not atheist nor christian either - I'm just bored of reading all these "nothing came from nothing" statements attributed to atheists usually by christian nutjobs with little understanding of what they are talking about (anti-theism).
 

A fair question. I think the term "Creationist" has primarily been used by both the young-earthers and the militant atheists to try to conflate the issues and create a false dichotomy.

Young-earthers often abuse the word "Creationist" to either try to claim broader support for their absurd position than they really have (by lumping theistic evolutionists in with their position) or to attack theistic evolution (by lumping it in with atheism).

Militant atheists abuse the word "Creationist" to lump all believers in God in with the young-earthers. The straw-man theism they thus set up is a lot easier to attack.

The word "Creationist" would most naturally provide us with a common term for all--Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Sikh, deist, or whatever else-- who believe in any form of divine creation, whether evolutionary, seven-days, instantaneously ex nihilo, or whatever else. But in the current rhetorical climate the term has become worse than useless, and I suppose I'd advocate avoiding the term and being more specific.

(If we were using the term in its most natural sense, "Creationist Christian" would either be redundant or rule out only those who do not believe in a Creator but nevertheless term themselves Christian-- a handful of liberal theologians and some Unitarians, I suppose.)

Originally, Atheism was actually considered the more bizarre assertion. The term was coined for the few people who not only did not believe in a god, but said that they would refuse worship even if there was one.

You can actually be an atheist even if there is proof of a god, which gives it the exact same potential for fundamentalism as theism.

As opposed to what you get when your official policy is to reject the "invisible friend in the sky".

You seem to be playing some none-too-subtle semantic games.

A theocracy's official policies flow from whatever the government believes are (or can cynically represent as) the wishes of their invisible friend in the sky.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, simply stated their official position on invisibly sky friends - no one is allowed to worship them - and carried on with the business of governing however the hell they wanted.

In a theocracy, theism guides policy. In the former USSR, policy forbade theism, but their policies weren't a consequence of their religious beliefs.

Funny?

Yeah, I suppose there are a lot of nitwits who buffoonishly yuck it up as they snicker and jeer at Rand.

Rand is an interesting cultural phenomenon. She was opposed to theism and collectivism, but pooh poohing Rand is largely only a collectivist shibboleth - the theists are usually indifferent to positive. The amusing thing is she had already perfectly portrayed today's detractors of her books in the books themselves more than half a century ago.

"Things don't work that way."

Is that the Scientist or the Atheist speaking? Because just among us girls, the divergence of Atheism and Science is getting as scary as the divergence of hard Theism and Science. I got shouted down in grad school (Botany) because what I spoke wasn't religious, no, it was against Canon. The subject was how peanuts grow. They do so in an odd and unique way. A way that sets them up to one day mutate into an incredible weed. My question was why are they only ones that do what they do given how adventitious it is. Another grad student called me an idiot for even asking. See, I went against Canon. I asked my advising professor about it later (it was her symposia) and she described the lack of imagination and original thinking in the hard sciences and exhorted me to not become the same. She herself had a hard time even getting her PhD as a mere woman because of this lack. This was a Big Ten school btw.

Your lack is philosophy, and imagination. It is you that is holding back Science as much as the Theists. When all he dreamers left NASA what happened?

I can see a forest, I can see trees, I can see a single tree, and I can describe everything that goes on with that tree, from its birth to its death and yet there is more to a forest than atoms banging around. Go outside and smell the flowers, Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

If I point out to a child that truly, there is no monster under the bed, that's not intolerance.

You are free to criticize Christianity by _expressing_ your anti-Christian ideas.

The problem with anti-theism is that they actively campaing against the human rights of Christians - such as the right to freedom of conscience and religion, and the right to political participation, which are both recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Disallowing public nudity or same sex marriage because it's against your religion, on the other hand, is intolerance.

The same would hold for other belief systems.
Disallowing oil drilling in Alaska because it's against your beliefs is intolerance.

I wonder if you could just point out that atheism by some standards is just as much a religion as theism.

Oh, this old canard again? Yawn.

You believe there are no gods,

Firstly, a lack of evidence isn't a belief no matter how hard the theists try and spin it. Secondly, the null hypothesis states that gods do not exist unless evidence is shown for them.

you can prove it only as much as one can prove there ARE gods.

Thirdly, on those rare occasions where a theist puts forth a coherent, rational god concept, it's found to be easily disproven, thus your statements are incorrect.

I wonder if you could just point out that atheism by some standards is just as much a religion as theism. You believe there are no gods, you can prove it only as much as one can prove there ARE gods.

What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached?

Your ignorance shows no bounds and therefore I quit reading at that point. Atheism (a = not, theism = belief in a god) is anyone that does not believe in a God. There is not single belief system for atheist. That would be like asking if you can get clear consensus on any issue because all the people you ask live in the same city/state/country/planet.

I would also add that you could easily ask 5 Christians about certian moral issues and recieve 5 different answers... examples are: what you can do on the sabbath, should a woman submit to her husband, does the Pope have devine power, is it allowed to have multiple wives, birth control, and abortion.

So your smug comment will be applauded by Christians who probably have less in common with you than this atheist.

Okay, I'm listening. What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached? Just a "Top 5" moral axioms that you'd say we could ask another atheist at random on and see that there's agreement with you on validity and priority.

A review of the history of Western Philosophy will show clearly that no secular consensus on the most basic points (see e.g. Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Altruism, Egoism, Stoicism, Pragmatism, etc., etc., etc.) has been achieved in 4000 years, and it isn't going to start now. In reality, unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity, chances are you have a generalized set of views you can't actually defend, and have assimilated them indirectly from theism as the cultural background norms. On that level, though, it's just subjective opinion you can ignore at will, and not a system of "morality" at all, rather just using the word "moral" in lieu of having any specific content to it. Getting credit merely for using the word "morality" while feeling free to ignore any and all specific expectations of any moral system, whenever and however you wish, though, seems to generally be the actual goal in the first place.

But, again, we're listening.

So I guess you, as a scientific mind, are able to admit you're wrong and gulity of a grave over simplification.

I can say that as you equate Religion to, i have to assume here, Christianity... certainly you're only considering mono-theistic faiths as you say "GOD" not "GOD(s)".

I would also have to assume your "observation" is based solely on your experience with practicing Christians in your local area.

It may come as a surprise to you that there are many different forms of Christianity, as there are many different forms of Monotheism, as there are many forms of Theism...

given you apparent lack of knowledge in this area, could you seriously make such a wide reanging and spurious comment and truly believe you deserve the mod of Insightful?

Factually erroneous on every point, but out of curiosity, what do you mean by "evil" per -your- definition and objective justification, rather than parasiting off of Christianity's as you attack it?

Are you saying that any of this behavior reduces the likelihood of the DNA of the theism advocates propagating maximally, as a Naturalism criticism that would validly remain open to you? Because at this point, you haven't suggested anything that gives any weight, validity, or significance to your characterizations.

>> "The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"
> "Agnostics" saying this more does not make it more true.

I am a mystic/gnostic, not an agnostic.

> Atheists ARE agnostics in the strict sense:
A _lack_ of belief almost NEVER provides knowledge, aka Atheism.

Atheists have NO knowledge because ALL they have is lack of belief, no experience, nothing.
Agnostics have knowledge because they _know_ that they have zero knowledge.

What part of the _definitions_ of 'gnosis' and conversely 'agnostic' do you not understand???

> God does not exist until god is proven to exist.
She would beg to differ.
Just because *you* are unable to find a _proof_ does not mean it doesn't exist.

My _experiences_ are my proof. i.e.
The fact that I can SEE color is THE proof that color exists.
If I couldn't see I would no NO proof BUT it would still exist FOR OTHERS.

> Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so god is extremely unlikely until some sort of proof starts showing up.
Prove that:
- time exists
- numbers exist

The problem is that you have no _experience_ of God because you don't understand the necessary prerequisite to: "KNOW THYSELF" thus you are caught in endless loop:

* I have no knowledge of God because I have no experience of God
* I have no experience of God, thus I have no knowledge of God