Slashdot Mirror

It's probably just as much a religion as theism, it's just a religion without a deity. If you "don't give a shit" then you're agnostic, and that's probably NOT a religion.

Agnostic is not a person who "doesn't give a shit". Agnostic is a person who believes that it is impossible to prove or disprove certain metaphysical positions (one of which is the existence of God).

"I believe there is no God" - the affirmation of belief - is strong atheism.

"I don't believe in God" - i.e. the rejection of faith, rather than affirmation of belief - is weak atheism.

Well not all what religion does is bad. Not all what religion does is good.

Let's test your premise of exculpation: Not all what murderers and rapists do is bad. Not all what murderers and rapists do is good.

Does this somehow exonerate or excuse murder and/or rape? No... it really doesn't. It sounds good, but it doesn't actually work in practice. As it doesn't work for rape in today's society, it also doesn't work for religion, and for the same reason: its an extremely harmful influence on society, and regardless of the good done (architecture, art, tranquilizing influences on the gullible and misguided, charity), the harm remains and it is severe.

It is theism that caused those planes to be flown into the towers. It is theism that drives the thieves on their evangelistic shows. It is theism that drives the Texas school board to select for woo woo over science, and thereby affect the curriculum of just about every other state. It is theism that drives legislators and those in the pulpit to vilify sexuality. It is theism that created the entire swath of blue laws, an idiotic stab at the heart of reasoned governance we still have not recovered from. I could go on for quite a while, but I think I've made my point.

Whatever benefit accrue from theism - from architecture to art to comforting the misguided and mentally unstable using fairy stories about a totally evidence-free afterlife - it is my position these are neither worth the cost of the damage done by theism, nor irreplaceable by other means. And as for any "moral" behavior that theism might enforce on a society, far better that this would be derived from the benefit to one's fellow beings than out of a canned checklist developed by an 0th century society, or their earlier precursors, basically sheepherders and desert wanderers.

Religion is indeed a toxin today; we would be far better off on almost every possible level if we were able to divest ourselves of it. But it remains a powerful force because our educational system is unable to address the issue head-on. Science actually speaks quite strongly against the ideas pushed by religion (and all associated classes of woo woo), but instructors are firmly muzzled against saying so.

another person that doesn't know wtf an atheist is.

*sigh*

there is no leap of faith in atheism.

none.

at all.

atheism is actually "lazy" to follow your leaping metaphor. you show me proof that fits better than existing models and blammo, I take the new model, even if it involves a divine creator. done and done. but it doesn't end there, it never does, because we don't have all the answers, and that's the key point that you clearly miss: and i'll continue to question the creator model you gave me if it has holes that don't fit observations, until someone comes up with a better one, and again, and again, and again.

that is vastly different than any known theism.

don't be scared, we don't bite, just some of us are dickwads.

That's why I called it "agnostic atheism" as opposed to "agnostic theism" (The existence or nonexistence of god cannot be proven, but let's believe anyway because...) or "gnostic atheism" (It's possible to disprove the existence of god, here's the proof. (not really the right use of the term gnostic)) or "gnostic theism" (It's possible to prove the existence of god, here is proof.
I didn't say I think of god as uninvolved. I said god isn't interfering. I think of god as inherently involved. Just as I am quite involved with my body, so is god involved with its existence as the universe. Just as I don't speak individually to the cells of my pancreas, so god does not speak to people. That said, I am a Discordian, so God is a Woman named Eris and She can be a real Bitch sometimes. Why? Because I chose to "believe" that, and the idea of nonsense as the key to salvation amuses me. And I like entropy. Sure, it means the eventual end of all things if the universe is a closed system, but everything we do depends on the transfer of energy, and thus increasing entropy. A world with perfect order and 0 entropy would be a totally static singularity. My idea of heaven isn't a black hole. Of course maximal entropy (heat death of the universe) is just as bad.



Oh, look at you, aren't you a good islet of Langerhans! Yes, such a good insulin producer...

Simply not believing in a god figure is not atheism.

Yes, in fact it is.

Theism = belief in god(ess)(s/es). Atheism = not theism = non-belief in god(ess)(s/es).

I do not believe that there is teapot in a solar orbit between the Earth and Mars. That is not quite the same as believing that there is not a teapot in such an orbit.

A teapotist would believe is such a teapot. An ateapotist would not believe there is such a teapot, and would find the assertion that there is to be rather ridiculous, but would acknowledge that a negative cannot be proven. An agnosti-teapotist would believe that maybe there is a teapot there and maybe there isn't, but that the possibility must be seriously considered.

Maybe there is a god, maybe there's not. I don't care.

Then you might be labeled an apatheist, or an apathetic agnostic.

I agree with most of what you said, but would argue that an atheist who says they do not believe there is a god because they have not seen evidence of one but are open to the idea are not really truly atheists, but rather agnostics. I would agree that any particular theism requires more assumptions, but it becomes a whole different philosophical debate over what constitutes rationality in philosophy. One could argue that personal experiences could make it more rational to believe there is a particular god if your experiences seem to be in line with it, but because it is based on belief and philosophy and not science and is not measurable, there is no real way to determine which is more rational. (Though clearly blind adherence to any view is not rational.)

Ironically, my view of the Christian God actually runs fairly close to yours with exception that I think he is interested and involved, but I see God in the universe and the laws thereof and really view the Biblical version of hell as simply being the removal of God from maintaining anything. (A world with none of what we generally see as order in the universe and the people going there being given what they want (to be on their own independent from God.) And heaven being a world free of entropy and decay, working in perfect balance. It gets a little more complicated than that, but at it's simplest I've found that that view seems to be consistent with Biblical theology.

No, atheism is the LACK of theism, i.e. the lack of belief in a god / some gods. It is not the hard opposite, i.e. belief in no god.

Theism makes a statement that cannot be proved or disproved by the actions of humans: There is at least one god.
Atheism makes a statement that cannot be proved or disproved by the actions of humans: There are no gods.
Agnosticism makes the statement that neither of the above can be proved or disproved by the actions of humans, and therefore there may or may not be a god, and we have no way to tell.
Agnosticism is the only "purely rational" choice. That said, atheism requires simpler assumptions than theism (no unobservable beings that act outside the laws of the universe) and could be said to be "more" rational than theism. It is logical to assume agnostic atheism: We have not observed a god, and see no direct evidence of such a being, therefore it probably does not exist, and until such time as it is observed we can make the simplifying assumption that it does not exist.
And then there are people like me, the Pandeists. God is the universe and the laws thereof. This is very different from an interfering, theistic god.

If you look at the words, 'agnostic' simply means "without knowledge". By itself, it doesn't specifically refer to religion at all.

'Atheism' on the other hand means "not theistic". This one is more subtle but realistically includes what you also think of when you think of agnostic. Anything that isn't a theistic belief falls under theism, including but not limited to "I know there is no god". An alien who never even heard of the concept of religion and therefore holds nothing you can call a "belief" on the subject would be an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't care; that's being an agnostic. Atheism is the active belief that there is no god, just as "religion" (more accurately, theism) is a belief that there is at least one god.

It's probably just as much a religion as theism, it's just a religion without a deity. If you "don't give a shit" then you're agnostic, and that's probably NOT a religion.

I have no good grasp of the statistical breakdown amongst atheists between those that understand and those that don't, so I cannot refute you. My point was that at least some atheists exist (and possibly this correlates positively with how vocal and aggressive these atheists are in trying to refute theism) who don't understand this. In fact, several of the atheists who posted opinions in this discussion seemed to me to not have a good understanding of this issue.

I guess that most vocal atheists are just referring to the positions taken by vocal theists when they discuss these matters. The rest are just below the radar and generally not a matter for debate.

> I'm saying that most atheists that will debate the subject understand this too.

I have no good grasp of the statistical breakdown amongst atheists between those that understand and those that don't, so I cannot refute you. My point was that at least some atheists exist (and possibly this correlates positively with how vocal and aggressive these atheists are in trying to refute theism) who don't understand this. In fact, several of the atheists who posted opinions in this discussion seemed to me to not have a good understanding of this issue.

I most certainly count amongst the religious those who defend religion. You're also not looking hard enough if you count me among the philosophically unsophisticated. I was one credit shy of completing a minor in philosophy before I discarded the majority of it as mere intellectual wankery and therefore a supreme waste of my time, but I digress. If you had a point to make, you'd have made it. You would have granted us atheists some shred of evidence, asked for since there were such a thing as theism, but like all others you can't and continue the never ending chain of failure. Really I don't know why I bother. Just surrender already and be done with it.

Evolution is a theory which has yet to be proven.

Horseshit. Evolution has been observed as new species happen, and the fossil record is pretty clear on how it has worked from the past. We don't know every detail for every species, but to say evolution has yet to be proven is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright lie.

there is absolutely no reason that evolution should be granted any merit beyond intelligent design

Except, there is no evidence to support intelligent design in any meaningful way other than to say "we have an alternate theory which should be listened to", and it's all predicated on the fact that something seems so complex to you that it couldn't have possibly evolved. There is however physical evidence and observations of evolution.

Why are all evolution vs. intelligent design debates always really just deism vs. atheism debates? Why can't anyone consider the possibility of intelligent design without asking 'who'?

Because only someone with a vested interest in there being a 'who' is proposing ID. Science starts with a point of view which is inherently atheist, and absent any evidence to suggest any basis for theism, keeps it that way. Without evidence to suggest some "supernatural" force, we assume only natural forces have been at play. So, until we see some physical proof to suggest that a deity or other outside actor was in mucking about with the life-forms, it's an extraordinary claim with absolutely no proof or evidence to support it.

Seriously, what evidence is there to suggest intelligent design? I would say there is no credible, factual, physical evidence other than supposition by people who engage in wishful thinking.

After all, evolution is simply a theory, not a proven fact. What should give it any further merit over any other not-disproven theory?

Again, horseshit. You don't seem to know what the scientific definition for theory, or if you do, you're intentionally ignoring it to try to muddle the conversation with your mumbo-jumbo.

If gravity hadn't been deemed a "law" several hundred years ago, it would still be considered a "theory". While something could come along to invalidate what we think about gravity, an awful lot of stuff has been shown which is consistent with the notion of gravity.

Full disclosure: I am a Bible thumper, and I have friends who believe in intelligent design who are atheists. Intelligent design does not predicate a deity.

Anybody who says they're an atheist who believes in ID is either lying, an agnostic, or a crack-pot.

Because the only explanations become: deity, space aliens, or some "unknowable actor", which for all intents and purposes gets us back to deity.

Show me one falsifiable experiment you could do to learn anything about Intelligent Design. If you can't, your entire position is a fairy tale, and cannot be construed as science. Science has testable, verifiable and falsifiable hypothesis ... if you don't have the ability to offer those, don't call yourself science, and don't try to put yourself on equal footing with it.

All you're doing is saying "well, it's possible that the bogey man came in and did something, and since you can't disprove it, my theory is as good as yours".

I learned the other day that Agnostic and Atheist aren't actually seperate from each other.

Most atheists are Agnostic Atheists. Myself included.

Gnosticism has to do KNOWING
Theism has to do with BELIEF

As compared, someone who doesn't KNOW the existence of gods, but still chooses to believe there's a strong likelyhood they do exist, would be an Agnostic Theist. (i.e. Pascal's Wager)

Me, the lack of knowing, combined with the rigorousness of search for evidence, and not finding any, leads me to believe that gods probably don't exist. (i.e. Unicorns and Dragons)

If you don't know if gods exist, and go about your life behaving as if they probably don't exist. You're probably an agnostic atheist too.

___________________________

I find it relevant because it shows that even with secular things like particle physics, the ability to claim knowledge of something, and the action of belief in something are actually separate concepts but with a high degree of overlap and compliment each other.

It's funny how they are the alternative now.

I like the way you label all of your core political/religious beliefs as "facts", then complain that people don't check facts. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid or poorly informed, and eveyone who agrees with me agrees with that!"

I'm glad you like it! :-p

BTW - what "core religious beliefs?" I'm a hard-line atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is in direct contrast to theism, which is required for a "religious", aka superstitious, belief. I think Richard Dawkins is wishy-washy on the subject. There is no god, and no possibility of god, in this universe. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that other people should become atheists - they have every right to be wrong on something that's of a personal nature. They just don't have the right to tell anyone else that they must live their lives in accordance with their "god" or they're going to hell.

Since this is slashdot, time for a bad car analogy. Saying I have a religious belief because I'm an out-and-out atheist is akin to saying someone has a favorite car because they only take public transit.

Or that someone with no eyesight has a preferred color for their guide dog. Or that someone who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" believes in ghosts.

Like any competent atheist

Paine wasn't an atheist at all; he strongly believed in God and wrote The Age of Reason in defense of religion. He merely believed that the Christian religion and the Bible had become corrupted. And personally, I'm an "atheist" only in that I reject theism (mainly, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) as false, but I don't reject religion.

You are suffering from confirmation bias associated with your lack of comprehension of the bible ... Many of the point to Dr. Strong's concordance for accurate and meaningful translations which sort of stop Paine's interpretations cold.

If my understanding of the Bible is incorrect, then so is the understanding of one of the largest Protestant denominations: I grew up Protestant, went to Sunday school and was confirmed. I've read KJV, NIV, Luther (in German), and the Catholic Bible (in Latin). I reject the teachings of the church and the Bible because I consider many of them morally wrong and reprehensible, in addition to being logically inconsistent. And those Christian and biblical teachings that I agree with are not unique to Christianity.

Besides, Protestantism has the doctrine of "sola scriptura", which includes the claim that the veracity of the Bible ought to be self evident and does not require complicated interpretation. Well, it is self-evident to me (just like it was to Paine, Jefferson and many others) that the Bible is corrupt and that the lunatic and vengeful God it describes just doesn't make sense.

All the annoying humility and reverence, without the theism.

Why the constant harping on evolution vs. creation? Isn't it a possible scenario and therefore scientifically valid that some super being designed and created the universe? Especially when numerous people experience communication with this super being on a daily basis? CmdrTaco and other slashdotters seem to have this wacky, religious and evangelistic idea that once we divest ourselves of a belief in God our lives will improve, our science will flourish, and we'll find the elusive cure for the common cold. Atheism and Theism are philosophically equal options. Evolutionism and Creationism, their origin science corollaries are scientifically equal options. We all actually know this. Evidence is and always has been in the eye of the beholder. The underlying belief system and deeper still, the worldview of devotees of both camps are the gatekeepers of how the evidence is interpreted. But no, the atheist agenda can't admit that! Never! We are pure scientists! You are religious pig dogs... Yes it's getting a little old...