Slashdot Mirror

And all else is equal. We have one universe and two competing explanations for its origin. One is unnecessarily complicated, non-testable, and non-falsifiable. It applies.

Ah, no, all else is -not- equal. The slightest evidentiary distinction entirely overrides Occam's Razor (as it always does), and we certainly have that. -Any plausibility- given to NDE's, accuracy of all prophecies being greater than .5 probability (not even a challenge), reports of personal experiences (of which there are thousands), takes care of this immediately.

Again, though, you must have -some- model of explanation of the Big Bang, and while alternate conjectures to theism exist, they all would have their own complexity of description on the level of physics. Even with your inaccurate overstatement of the principle, you must include this in evaluation of the alternate model's "complexity".

Ah, okay, well since you aren't taking a stance on whether you agree with the previous poster or not, do you want to start by showing the slightest way in which it is "ridiculous", using your own words? Given the majority of people on Earth say directly otherwise, your characterization is absurd on its face. Do you have a particular personal argument to overcome that?

Hear hear. It doesn't matter if the person was handing out DVDs about his imaginary friend (theism) or handing out DVDs about agnosticism, or atheism. Bothering people and wasting their time with any agenda is going to get you into trouble at work. People can believe whatever they want. (As Winston Zeddmore once said, "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."). However, other people shouldn't be bothering them trying to make them believe something else (typically something they find ludicrous).

He's no idiot, not by a long shot. They don't carry flags saying "Baptist" or "Methodist", they simply converse. And from what I've seen, athiests (and especially antitheists) continually shout "there is no god!" from the rooftops. Seldom is there a single slashdot thread where an antitheist has to inteject theism into the conversation. This thread is a good example.

One of my drinking buddies is an atheist, and like the slashdot atheists he's far from secretive about it. He grew up an a religious family in Kentucky and is insistant about his antireligion, especially when Cherish tends bar -- she's been trying to convert him. I keep telling her she's wasting her time.

Yes, surely there are atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists in the peace corps etc., but they are few enough to be invisible.

You may be surprised, but I didn't have a religious upbringing. Quite the contrary. I came to the conclusion of Theism apart from family influences. I'm not a very emotional guy, I came to the conclusion using logic. It's really why I'm a huge fan of C.S. Lewis. Most "Christians" (nominal and actual) use a lot of emotion to argue their position. Very few are like Lewis who base their philosophy on logic. It helps that both Lewis and I are INTJ personality types.

Setting aside philosophies of naturalism vs theism where our ideas differ is how we define the conclusion that a person is evil. I view a desire to do evil as being evil where you define an evil action as being evil. In that sense, we're both correct in the context of our own philosophy and incorrect in the context of each other's philosophy.

Now one more correction I want to throw out there is the idea of a moral compass. I do not believe a moral compass comes from faith in God. I believe that, just like you, everyone instinctively knows what's right and what's wrong (though we differ on the belief where that instinct comes from). So in other words the atheist will know what's right and wrong and that having a religion is irrelevant to having this knowledge. For me to think otherwise would cause a lot of theological problems.

Real theists are very different from what you'd expect. Many churchgoers do fit your assumptions. But those who actually think this stuff is real in a logical and coherent way are very different.

I was an apatheist, too, until I came to understand the threat to civilization posed by theism. At that point I found it necessary to stand on one side of the line or the other.

'Aggresive' athiesm that declares there is no God is technically a faith kind of like how religion is also faith

I disagree, and I think I can use an analogy to illustrate why I disagree. Imagine a bag containing 100 balls of different colours. Anna, a theist, says that she believes that the bag contains at least one red ball. Billy, an atheist, says he believes the bag doesn't contain any red balls. No one knows for certain the colour of the balls in the bag. Now imagine Carol, a scientist, starts randomly pulling balls from the bag. Initially there is an equal chance that both Anna or Billy are correct about the existance or absence of red balls in the bag. But as more balls are selected without encountering a red ball the probability that the bag doesn't contain any red balls increases towards 1.

Without deriving the math it seems apparent that the probably of a bag containing no red balls starts at 0.5 and increases asymtotically with probability 1 as balls are removed from the bag. Eventually no balls are left, and, if no red ball was drawn, the bag has probability of 1 that it did not contain any red balls. Only if at least one red ball is drawn does the probability that Ann is correct jump to 1. This is different to the probability of pulling a red ball from the bag at any one time, since here we have the benefit of knowledge about prior draws.

Now compare with the existance of god debate. Drawing balls from the bag is similar to scientific research used to understand the laws of nature and the universe. Thus far we haven't come up with a law that points to the existance of a god. (i.e. no red ball has been drawn yet). The more we understand about the universe we live in, without finding an underlying sentient controlling force, the less likely there is one. As with the earlier analogy we benefit from knowledge of prior scietific research, making it less and less likley that there is any kind of god or controlling force guiding our lives.

Now understand, I don't care if you believe in a controlling force or not. Ones personal belief is personal, and I don't want to tell someone that they can't believe in a god if it helps them live a fulfuilled life. But it isn't reasonable to say that atheism is a faith similar to theism. By saying something like that you are ignoring the null evidence that has accumulated over centuries as part of scientific work. An atheist does not say 'There is no god, but I don't have evidence to back up my claim'. An atheist says 'There is no god, and my statement is supported by the lack of reproducible evidence for the existance of any controlling sentient force amassed over thousands of years of scientic work'. Null evidence is evidence if it is statistically sgnificant.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/29/ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution-as-a-theory/

Apparently paul was saying that evolution isn't validation of atheism. Which is a policy I think most believers in evolution would agree. Many christians that believe in evolution think the process was set in motion by god such as god put the planets in orbit... it's just a system for managing life as there is a system for managing planetary bodies.

I'm not a theist... I'm agnostic... so I don't particularly care either way.

I find theistic discussions in general to be a distraction. I don't enjoy them because I don't care. You can worship green fairies or nothing and it's the same to me.

I judge people by what they do not by what they say. If you're a good man and worship satan... then I'm going to think you're weird but I won't burn your house down. If you're a christian or a muslim or a jew I won't assume you're any less likely to rape a child or slit a throat.

Religion for me is a distraction... it's a waste of time. If it gets people to be better people then it's great. But that's a personal matter between those people and their beliefs. It has nothing to do with me.

As it regards public institutions, obviously their religion cannot be binding upon civic institutions. However, I think some institutions involve themselves in what can be a personal matter.

For example, I see no reason why public schools, marriages, or hospitals must be controlled to this extent by the government.

Each of these institutions should be individually allowed to manage their own affairs.

In regards to schools, I think we should privatize the whole system. Still give everyone a free education but make the actual schools themselves private entities. Ideally non-profit, designed for mass acceptance, and meeting all federal minimum standards. I think they'd do a better job given the same resources we spend on education in the US. Some of the schools will be more theistic then others. That's freedom. Let people have what they want. No one should be forced to go to a school that doesn't represent their beliefs. That goes in both directions. So if you're an atheist and want no theism in any of your classes then you should not be forced to suffer it. I believe in giving everyone what they want.

As to marriages, I think everyone should get civil unions and the whole practice of state marriage should be abolished. Marriage is traditionally a religious concept. It's ancient. And I see no reason to involve the government in it at all. If people in addition to getting married want to give each other power of attorney over each other, share assets, etc.... then I'm fine with that. But you don't need to get married to make those relationships. Furthermore, you can pretty much set up such a contract with anything. I mean, you can civil union yourself to a company or entirely theoretical entities that might not even have existence off paper. Then there's no issue about there being gay marriage or not. Call me Solomon... I'm very happy to split the baby in half if it will just get these two crazy women out of my throne room.

And then hospitals, neither the feds nor the state governments should tell a hospital what procedures it preforms. If the hospital administrators or doctors don't want to do something then they have a right not to do it. Understand this goes in both direction. I'm against banning abortion and I'm against forcing people to offer it as a service. I'm against putting a gun against a doctor's head and saying "do this or I'll destroy your practice/hospital."

Anyway, those are my views on the matter. I believe in freedom. I think everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You could argue the doctors hurt people if htey don't do a procedure but the doctors are free too. They're not slaves. If they don't want to do something you can't make them without violating their rights.

Atheism is the lack of a "theism"-- a belief in God. Would also say that people who lack belief in pink unicorns "operate on same level as believing in God"? Would you accuse these apinkunicornists of being part of a religion?

There is a universe of things that can be imagined but cannot be proven or disproven by the standards you put forth. It would be ridiculous to say that you're not being scientific if you fail to believe in every thing for which there is no proof.

Also, you're using the word agnostic incorrectly. You can be an agnostic atheist and indeed, that is what most atheists would affirm their beliefs as.

If God can't be proven or disproven, and it is a cardinal violation of science to believe in anything that can't be tested, then why is it acceptable to believe definitive in the inverse?

I don't understand. Theism is the belief in a deity (excluding the recent uses to indicate a grey area of something like a belief in the Christian God, or one substantially similar, without believing in the Bible). Atheism is the lack of belief in God.

You seem to be confused as to the meaning of the prefix "a". Immoral may be the opposite of moral, but amoral is not the opposite of either. Atheist does not mean "a firm and unfounded belief in the lack of a diety."

You can argue the only people who hold true to scientific tenets are agnostics.

Most agnostics are atheist, and most atheists are agnostic. The division between the two was invented by the church to divide and segregate opposition. For regular purposes, they are identical.

One can be atheistic and an agnostic deist rejecting theism and remaining undecided where deism is concerned. Also, what you state is not necessarily true about science. Postulation about unproven scientific theory if very often accepted as true if, based on research and mathematics, that it is the most likely true answer.

When Muslims kill Muslims, that's good news in the manner of Communists killing Communists. There are no "good" versions of humans who embrace either ideology.

Both ideologies impose social restrictions to which I object. One cannot tolerate anti-theism, the other cannot tolerate private property. Good fucking riddance.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism (theism requires an active belief).

Except is isn't really. Agnositicism is the postition that the existense or non-existence of god is unknowable. Philosophically that's much a much stronger claim than atheism.

Claiming that you have proof that there is no God because in your view there is no evidence of His existence goes beyond the strictly logical.

Who claimed that anyone had proof that there is no god? I claimed an absence of evidence of a god. Absence of evidence that should be there if this god posesses any of the properties attributed to him/her/it/them by Cristians/Muslims/Jews/etc. Empirically that is indiciative of a lack of god.

Agnostics acknowledge that there are things that cannot be disproved.

No, they're being cowards in refusing to take a position. They certainly have one (one way or the other), they just refuse to state it publically.

The more rigorously motivated place the null hypothesis squarely in the "there is no god" camp, waiting for evidence to the contrary.

Welcome to atheism.

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism (theism requires an active belief). Claiming that you have proof that there is no God because in your view there is no evidence of His existence goes beyond the strictly logical. Agnostics acknowledge that there are things that cannot be disproved. Some claim not to care one way or the other. The more rigorously motivated place the null hypothesis squarely in the "there is no god" camp, waiting for evidence to the contrary.

No, it sounds like atheism. Belief in theistic god(s) = theism. No belief in theistic god(s) = atheism. Clear enough?

http://jhayeshappyheretic.blogspot.com/2001/06/there-is-no-such-thing-as-agnostic.html

That still implies that something is only worthwhile only if it was observed by someone and that's clearly not the case.

Instead of talking about what we know right now, let's talk about the past. The fact that atoms could not be seen or proven to exist in any way in the distant past had no bearing whatsoever on their reality nor on their importance to the rest of the universe. They existed since the beginning of the universe for billions of years, entirely without our observation.

The fact is that should God or some other supernatural force exist, by definition, there is no reason to believe that they or any of their actions are forced to be available for your observation. Their non-falsifiable status makes them an impossible subject for scientific inquiry. Of course, this is not really very controversial.

Still, it seems to me that people are considering the non-falsifiable case of deities to be a weakness of theism, when it is actually quite the opposite, it is a limitation of the scientific method and observation. In this case, the fact that you cannot perceive something is a limitation of yourself, not of whatever deity, or even of any theory of a deity that is out there.

I admit, in the end, you have to choose something to guide your actions. If you want to say that observations or science or whatever does, that's your choice, but while it may be no worse than postulating an invisible, all-powerful deity, it's really no better.
 

Well, anti-thiests, those that believe there is no god, not those that don't have a belief that there is a god

That's atheism and agnosticism. Atheism isn't short for anti-theism. "a" as a prefix means without. So atheism is "without a belief in god(s)", not "opposed to the belief in gods".

The distinction between atheists and agnostics is very fine. The atheist says "I have no belief in the flying spaghetti monster" and the agnostic says "it's not possible to now for certain whether there is a flying spaghetti monster". Both think people who run their lives based on a belief that there is a flying spaghetti monster are pretty stupid. Either may also be actively opposed to flying spaghetti monsterism because of the bad effect it has on society, but that's not implied in either of the terms "atheist' or "agnostic".

I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion

Where do you live? Have you never passed a church with an evangelical poster outside it?

Are you a Christian? If so how did that come about? The most common method is parents pushing it on their children, indoctrination usually starting in the first few days of life with a "baptism" ceremony, claiming the person for christianity before the person is even able to think for themselves.

Very often its pushed in schools, on TV, on the radio. Atheism doesn't tend to have schools or TV channels and radio stations and programs. (Perhaps there's the odd exception to prove the rule.)

One would think the detractors of theism might view it as slightly less ridiculous given the wealth of intelligent and otherwise skeptical minds who've been believers. That's not to say it's true, per se; just that "completely ridiculous" might not be the most apt way to describe it. Or, if you insist, it means perfectly reasonable and intelligent people can somehow accommodate holding "completely ridiculous" beliefs while deriving emotional/psychological benefit from them.

It doesn't matter if you call them a religion, a group, a cult, a political party, a sect, or a space agency, and regardless if you agree or disagree with what they're doing, they're still an organized group with similarities to religion, acting upon their specific beliefs that there is no N+1.

What you're describing is simply atheists with a social conscience. They wish to help society at large instead of just standing idly by.

They're like doctors who want not only themselves to be healthy but the rest of society as well, and so they fight disease and explain the principles of infection. And that is an especially apt analogy. After all, theism and religion are symptoms of mental insanity, so a medical response to them is very much in order.

Calling doctors a cult, political party, sect or religion because they want to cure disease would be quite ludicrous too.

Eh thats just humans thinking tribally, its the 'toadie' syndrome. If the boss doesnt like someone, he'll surely look favorably upon the one who breaks their legs. It isn't very surprising that it got extended to theism when people in power realized that its better for the boss/bosses to be intangible and merely be 'interpreting their will'.

As an atheist, I have mainly problems with Theisms. I don't especially care if you want to believe a cosmic force, the universe = god, etc., although I do not. Things get nasty when people believe that their "holy book" represents absolute truth and act accordingly.