Slashdot Mirror

Sorry for the late response.

I'm going to stick with the idea that respecting people as human beings is the way to go.

That only gets you so far. It leads to countless problems when different people have different ideas -- you can't always respect both (especially when they have different ideas of what 'respect' means), so you need some other criteria to determine which to respect and which to throw under the bus.

If people don't want to be described as religious because they're not, then it's rude to still call them religious.

I agree with that, but any time you've got contrasting belief systems there's the potential for rudeness.

Not many atheists would stop an 80 year old grandma coming out of a church and start arguing with her about her faith until she starts crying. That's not decent. On the internet though, there's a different standard. I don't see why the suggestion that atheism is a religion is more rude than atheists' suggestion that Christianity is bullshit. The de facto rule is if you're offended, stop reading the thread.

Since it's generally done as some sort of attack, atheists generally are especially sensitive to it. So, if you insist on it, you're just being rude.

I agree with you, but from my perspective as someone who has from time to time put forward the idea that atheism is a religion, you're completely missing out on the rudeness of atheists as well. And in this particular case, the original poster who said atheism is a belief system was *certainly* not phrasing it as an attack:

One could argue that, historically, atheism is the most persecuted belief system still in practice. It would explain the relatively small proportion of the population that atheism makes up, as well as why that small proportion is spread throughout the world with no great central region to call home.

That gets an anonymous reply of:

"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.

Now let me ask... honestly.. which do you consider more rude? The guy who said atheists are persecuted for their beliefs, or the guy who calls God "make-believe" (alluding to a child-like level of thought) rather than using a more respectful term? I mean even hardcore atheists are allowed to say "God" or "gods" instead of using phrases intending to belittle the opposition.

I know you said "generally", not necessarily meaning this specific instance, but there must be a reason you brought it up -- why would you want to dampen a discussion that is not rude if your only wish is for people to not be rude.

You can say the same in regard to theism

Lol... No, you can't say the same about theism. Theism is the base of various conceptual trees; it is an active assertion with consequences that stem *directly* from the assertion. Atheism is not an active assertion.

So which consequences follow directly from the assertion "There is a god."? You can be theist without following any particular religion.

Atheists get their morals, values etc. from sources other than atheism -- of course, since atheism doesn't specify or imply any. Theists get their morals, values etc. from their religion in the form of directives in their various holy religious books,

Again: You can be a theist without following any religion or holy book. And a religion or a holy book is also a "source other than theism", because theism is just the believe in god or gods, nothing else is implied just by being a theist.

Simply ask *which* god or gods a theist believes in, and now you know which religion defines their theism, and further, you'll know which book lays out the next lowest branches of their behavior. You now have the basic map of their moral and ethical tree. You'll know if they have been told to go for one wife or many; if they can eat cows or not; if they should turn the other cheek or behead the opposition, and many more things as well.

Often this will work, but not always. You might get an answer like "Oh, I believe there is only one god and all the holy texts out there contain wisdom collected during eons about the complex relationship of god and humans." If you get an answer like this it is pretty clear that you talking to a theist, but you will need to ask a lot of additional questions until you will be able to build a basic map of the moral and ethical tree of this person. But even if you get an answer like "I believe in the Christian god and follow the bible" you still won't know if this person is going to eat meat, if the person is going to be pro-life or pro-choice, if the person believes homosexuals or non-christians should be burned, etc.

Turn that around, note that someone is atheist, and you still know absolutely nothing else about them other than they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. You don't have any way to ask them something atheism-related that will help you learn, either.

How is "do you follow any named kind of life stance that includes atheism" not an atheism-related question? And if you get an answer like "I'm a secular humanist" or "I'm a marxist" you will know quite of a lot of stuff about this persons morals and ethics. Sure, many atheists won't attach any name to their life stance and most theists will attach some kind of name to their life stance, but you can be theist without attaching any name to your life stance. But even if people do attach a name like "Christian" or "Humanist" to their life stance, the life stances of two people that used the same name can still be wildly different.

Or we can talk about probabilities: Just ask a random person a single question: "Do you believe in god? Yes or No" Then depending on that answer guess whether the person is pro-life or pro-choice. Your guessing will be much more accurate for atheist than for theists. Even if the theist also tells you that he believes in the Bible your guessing accuracy will still be lower for random Christians than for a random atheists.

You can say the same in regard to theism

Lol... No, you can't say the same about theism. Theism is the base of various conceptual trees; it is an active assertion with consequences that stem *directly* from the assertion. Atheism is not an active assertion.

Claiming "There is a god or gods." doesn't say "stone the unbelievers" or "go to church" or anything

Yes, I'm afraid it does. I picked mostly from Christian theism; but these various active assertions come right from the holy books of those particular theist trees, as well as from the various figureheads of those religions, in the name of, and justified by, those religions. This does not happen with atheism.

Atheists still ascribe to values, morals, tenets, etc. They aren't directly from atheism, just like the values, morals, etc. of theists aren't from Theism but from their religion, but all people ascribe to some kind of values.

Atheists get their morals, values etc. from sources other than atheism -- of course, since atheism doesn't specify or imply any. Theists get their morals, values etc. from their religion in the form of directives in their various holy religious books, where the behavior that is expected from them, from eating shellfish, to scouring female slaves' mouths with a quart of salt, to not eating cows, to beheading the infidels, to not stepping on bugs, is laid out for them in painstaking detail.

Simply ask *which* god or gods a theist believes in, and now you know which religion defines their theism, and further, you'll know which book lays out the next lowest branches of their behavior. You now have the basic map of their moral and ethical tree. You'll know if they have been told to go for one wife or many; if they can eat cows or not; if they should turn the other cheek or behead the opposition, and many more things as well.

Turn that around, note that someone is atheist, and you still know absolutely nothing else about them other than they don't hold a belief in a god or gods. You don't have any way to ask them something atheism-related that will help you learn, either. They might be a "smiter", they might be a vegetarian, they might eat burgers, they might be a peace-nik, they might be supportive of polygamy, they might be chaste by nature -- atheism tells you nothing about anything else in a person's mindset -- that's the point. Theists often make this point themselves, though in a rather clueless way, ridiculously claiming that atheism leads to, or is, nihilism -- but of course it isn't/doesn't do that, either, any more than it is, or leads to, a path towards pretending a cracker is someone's body. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all it is.

Theism, on the other hand, is, like it or not, a hotbed of behavior control -- very specific behaviors follow directly from adhering to the religious ideas that actually make up each variety of theism. Atheism is absolutely null in this regard.

Feel free to have the last word. I've explained the facts three times, and I'm pretty sure that doing so again won't convince anyone who still feels otherwise of a single thing. It reminds me quite strongly of something... oh, yes, of course: Theism.

Agnosticism and Atheism are the same... there is no such thing as weak atheism.

Theism: Belief in a God
Atheism: Lack of belief in a God

Agnosticism is an altogether different thing from either of the above. It's a belief that you cannot ever truly know whether God exists or not (well, it pertains to more than just God, but that's the context where it's used more often). Consult your dictionary for details. Agnostic != atheist, except when used by people who don't know the true meaning of the word.

Also, strong vs weak atheism is a meaningful distinction. There are plenty of people who believe in the lack of God, rather than not believing in God.

Agnosticism and Atheism are the same... there is no such thing as weak atheism.

Theism: Belief in a God
Atheism: Lack of belief in a God

If you aren't sure, you don't believe in a God and therefore lack belief and therefore are an "a-theist". Either you believe or you don't. Do or do not. There is no try.

You completely miss the point. There are no "atheistic ideologies." Ideologies may include atheism, but atheism itself includes nothing.

You can say the same in regard to theism. Claiming "There is a god or gods." doesn't say "stone the unbelievers" or "go to church" or anything. But people will rarely stop there. People will always try to build a set of values and rules. Because of that people will always develop religions or ideologies. These ideologies may include atheism and a such a ideology can be called "atheistic ideology" just like a theistic ideologies, which will usually be called religions. And just like it often has been a short way from theism to "burn the disbelievers", it also often has been a short way from atheism to "burn the believers".

When a person who is an atheist ascribes to any tenet, proposition, dogma, etc.... it's a 100% guarantee that said concept didn't come from atheism, but from something else.

The same thing is true for theism.

But atheism... it's like being bald.

Not really. Atheists still ascribe to values, morals, tenets, etc. They aren't directly from atheism, just like the values, morals, etc. of theists aren't from Theism but from their religion, but all people ascribe to some kind of values.

You completely miss the point. There are no "atheistic ideologies." Ideologies may include atheism, but atheism itself includes nothing. Atheism stands alone. It has no opinions; there is no mental lever provided by the atheist stance to start anything. It's just a lack of belief in an absurd proposition. It causes nothing. It's not an active stance. It's a lack of one.

Atheism doesn't say "eat this but not that." Atheism says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "stone the unbelievers", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "whip one's self until bloody", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "fly the aircraft into the building", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "Give 20% of your money to the church", it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't even say "don't go to church." it says "I don't believe there is a god or gods." Atheism doesn't say "memorize this book." There is no book. There isn't even a paragraph. Here is the whole atheist ball of wax, nothing left out at all: "without a belief in a god or gods." That's it. Finis. Exit stage left. Whoosh.

However, religions -- theism, the opposite of atheism -- are active stances; stances that uniformly, in and of themselves, have and promote (often insist upon) tenets, dogmas, rules, authorities, entire books of ridiculous claims and instructions for behavior. These often include instructions to deal harshly with people. Atheism has no such instructions; it's philosophically, ethically and morally empty and cause-free: it describes nothing more than the fact that the atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods.

Whereas theism... the crusades. Witch burnings. Blood libel. Galileo's incarceration. Bruis' burning at the stake. Beheadings. Hangings. The inquisitions. Abortion clinic bombings. 9/11. Excommunication. Sexual repression. Can't buy beer on Sunday. Can't marry this religion, or that sex, or X number of spouses. Also, propositions like "the earth is 6000 years old."

Tenets are to religion as hair color is to hair. There are lots of colors; hair color is integral to the idea of hair. You can't say hair doesn't have a color. But atheism... it's like being bald. You can't describe a hair color for a bald person -- the idea is meaningless. Just as ascribing tenets to atheism is meaningless. There aren't any. When a person who is an atheist ascribes to any tenet, proposition, dogma, etc.... it's a 100% guarantee that said concept didn't come from atheism, but from something else. So please, stop trying to assign wrongheaded ideas to atheism. Atheism is the lack of adherence to one very specific idea, no more than that, and therefore doesn't drive adherence to any set of behaviors at all.

I'm a little bothered by the problem of evil, but I don't see it as irrefutable evidence against benign theism. The arguments I've heard generally go one of two ways:

(1) I can't imagine a good reason for allowing such evil, and so there cannot (or is very unlikely to be) a sufficient reason. My problem with this is that it makes a strong assumption about the intelligence of the person making the objection, and as we know people can be pretty unintelligent.

or...

(2) There's can be no good reason for this much evil in the world. My problem with this is that no human really knows how much good and evil are in the world, or how much of one gives rise to the other or is necessary in order to achieve the other, etc. Also, it's not always so clear what we mean by evil - humans don't always agree on that.

A lot of the arguments around this seem to make the inference that just because someone can't imagine a way that X eail

Atheism doesn't consist in holding to an empty set of beliefs.

The reason it is not a belief system is the same as the reason that theism is not a belief system. This is a generic label for a certain sort of position on some philosophical issue.

Atheism isn't a belief system, but the rejection or lack of one.

"Atheism is a belief system" is a definition born of an American cultural background. Since theism is the majority position (86%), the distinction between strong disbelief in make-believe beings Vs. mere indifference in same, is given exaggerated importance.

In the southern India in the state of Tamil Nadu atheistic parties gained lots of ground in the 1960s. ( Even now all the dominant parties there eulogize a noted atheist, but the parties themselves have become more tolerant towards theism). One of the fanatical members of this atheistic party named his son "God Does not Exist" (kadavul-illai in the local language). Name was found to be too long for the liking of his teachers and classmates. So they shortened it to "God" (kadavul). So, yes, I could have spoken to God, if I had gone to that school. God flunked eighth grade and dropped out of school, if I remember it right.

Don't worry about it, we're on the same side here. Certainly atheism is a belief, just not a codified one like whichever flavor of theism. But if someone suggested I join an atheist "church" I'd kick them in the nuts.

I apologize, I simply misjudged what, if anything, you were arguing against. I'm so used to people trying to take away my 1st amendment right to freedom of religion (including fellow atheists) that I thought you were arguing against the idea that atheism (I believe that there are no gods) is as much a belief as theism (I believe in a god / multiple gods).

"I don't care about the question of a god's existence" (atheism).

No, it's not.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

At best there is explicit atheism (intentional rejection of theism) and implicit atheism (having no knowledge of theism), but not caring about the question is not the definition. A consequence, perhaps, but not the defining characteristic. Whether or not you care about the question is orthogonal to whether or not you believe the question can be answered, which is to say it exists regardless of what the answer is. I'm sure there are theists who also don't care about the question, for example, but for very different reasons.

Religion does not imply belief in a god. You are confusing religion with theism.

Well now, doesn't that just throw another abstraction into the mix. OK, from now on I'll try to be more explicit.

Religion does not imply belief in a god. You are confusing religion with theism.

Deism is a subset of theism. They aren't an equivalent just because they use the same ending. Deism is something like being agnostic about an afterlife but feeling comfortably sure there is a theistic being out there. The fundamental difference for Deists versus more traditional Christians (Deism isn't exclusively Christian but almost always relates in Christian-majority countries) is that Christians believe God takes a more direct role in their lives. Deism is a more self-directed belief. Still doesn't remove them from believing, just makes them somewhat less religious as an active participant.

Agnosticism, is a lack of faith - a state of uncertainty, where you don't believe or disbelieve in either.

No it isn't, Agnosticism is a belief about reality and the nature of knowledge that some things (usually the nature/existance of god) are unknowable.

Either side, both theism and atheism, requires some faith.

No. Atheism is not belief in no god. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. I can clearly say that I do not believe in god without taking a position on the knowability of god.
--
JimFive

Atheism, requires faith. Faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence against.

FTFY

Agnosticism, is a lack of faith - a state of uncertainty, where you don't believe or disbelieve in either. Either side, both theism and atheism, requires some faith.

You seem to be the unreasonable, with a lack of sense and reality. Neither atheism or theism have any particularly strong claim to truth. Both require aspects of faith. Atheism requires faith that there isn't some power beyond our comprehension and ability to examine, and theism requires there is.

Lemme see if I get this. Theisim requires faith. Faith to believe in something for which there is no real evidence.

Atheism, requires faith. Faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence.

...

Nope, still don't get it, please explain further.