Slashdot Mirror

1) Incorrect AGAIN. Atheism is "The belief that there is no god." *NOT* "The lack of belief in a god." While the latter naturally follows the former, (why would you believe in something that you feel does not exist?) the two are NOT interchangable, and have specific meanings.

The prefix 'a-' denotes "not" or "without." Ergo, "atheism" means "not theism" or "without theism," which certainly includes those who are not theists but don't actively deny the existence of gods, or perhaps are not familiar with the concept of a god.

Regardless of historical usage, there's no logical reason not to apply the term "atheist" to people who lack a belief in gods.

Perhaps it makes you unhappy that words can have multiple meanings? Sorry if that's the case, but you'd better get used to it.

It seems that the lessons of Reaganism need to be relearnt by each succeeding generation. According to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine a right wing dictator is authoritarian (good), while a left wing dictator is totalitarian (bad). I think the difference may have something to do with theism, but I'm not entirely sure.

This whole article is a crock. First of all, no genes for "religiousosity" have been identified, so no one has any idea where or how such genes are "hitchhiking" on the human genome. Second, if there is any such thing as an inhomogeneously distributed predisposition towards religion based on genetic factors, that predisposition is almost certainly extraordinarily multifactorial, not just a gene, but dozens, hundreds of genes, spread out over many chromosomes. The population genetics of transmission in this case are vastly more complicated than any simplistic model could reveal.

To be more explicit, the study is arguing that:

* There are two distinct strains of humanity, one that is genetically religious, one that is not.
* Certain religions promote larger families (not all religions do, note well).
* People that are genetically religious are statistically more likely to belong to the religions that promote larger families.
* Larger families guarantee a higher survival to reproduction rate (note well that this assumption is not generally true in nature, where survival rates for smaller families and less populous cultures are generally higher than those for larger ones with dilution of resources and more competition).
* No mechanism exists where non-religious people secularists can compete in reproduction rate, say by having multiple partners, engaging in infidelity and adultery, and so on (most of which are frowned on by the very religions that encourage high reproduction rates).
* Reproduction rate is ultimately the only thing that matters in population genetics. (So much for the long term survival of the homosexuality genes, eh?)
* Religiousosity genes in religions that encourage high reproduction rates will therefore always have a positive derivative in the enormously complex set of coupled differential equations that describe the gene distribution of the population, and must therefore eventually take over the population and become universal.

This is complete, utter, bullshit. It is bad science. It is terrible mathematics. Have these bozos never heard of complex systems and chaotic differential systems? Even if all of the assumptions above were true -- where clearly, most of them are pretty dubious -- the argument is naive in the extreme in a system so complex that there are doubtless many strange attractors on a constantly shifting landscape. Things it ignores:

* Memetics. Oh, wait, religions are memetic constructs, they are social superorganisms, not genetically encoded theistic beliefs. The key step in preparing a new generation of theists is the brainwashing of the children by bringing them up in the delusion. Perhaps there are genes that predispose one to being brainwashed, perhaps not, but as secular society continues to control information transmission to the very young there is a much, much faster mechansim than genetics acting to actively reduce the relative numbers of theists worldwide by simply educating young people so that they can see that the base doctrines and myths underlying the primary theisms are false.
* Non-religious, non-genetic factors that suppress or enhance survival rates. The Amish are a perfect example. They live within and are protected by a secular society. Plop them down in the Middle East and suddenly they would be a heavily persecuted minority. Plop them down in billion-person strong mostly-secular China and they'd have no capability of isolating their children for the key brainwashing step; the children would be taught from the earliest of ages that their parents religious beliefs were stupid myths. Alter American culture so that religions such as this no longer had tax advantages and insist that Amish children learn about astronomy and evolution and the fact that Amish mythology is mythology and you'd increase the defection rate to secular society.
* The fact that the number of secular non-religious people worldwide appears to be growing at

I understand people turning to religion, and I just hope that my life is never shit enough that I end up being one of them. But then I'm still young.

It's really easy to be bold towards reality when you're young, with fresh idealism and naivety on how you can impact the world.
Then, when people get older, many of them become more religious. Funny, isn't it?

That's the problem of most self-declared atheists (which often behave more like anti-theism proselytists): they expect people to drop their religious beliefs which bring them comfort, face the harsh reality and nothing is given to them as a replacement, not even a philosophy.

Often I hear from the militant atheists that one should base his/her beliefs on vague notions of Humanism. That's certainly very comfortable for mid-high class people living a reasonably comfortable life, specially people from US/Canada who are so awfully detached from the realities of the World.
Humanism is quite nice in theory, but the fact is that reality sucks and most people (no matter what they claim) don't give a jack shit for other people. The only things we can count on is individualism and hypocrisy.
Unless something new appears, there won't be a Star Trek-like life and philosophy in the future.

And that's what militant atheists do not understand.
But, hey, it's easier to simply push your views and mock religious people while fooling oneself you're providing a great service to mankind.

Wrong. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

What you describe as "agnostic" is actually only one of 6 types of agnosticism, called "strong agnosticism". Most agnostics aren't like this, most are one of the other types (which aren't all completely separate from each other), such as "weak agnosticism", "agnostic atheism", or "agnostic theism".

Agnostic atheism
        Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism
        The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

So no, all agnostics are NOT atheist as you state.

Similarly, "atheism" has many different shades too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism. Interestingly, Jainists and Buddhists are atheists, as they do not believe in a god, even though they are technically classed as religions.

However, in my experience, usually when people talk about atheists vs agnostics, they mean the "weak agnostics" above, and the "philosophical atheists" who vigorously deny the existence of deities.

There's a difference between religion and religion; a difference between organized theism and non-organized such; a difference between islam and f.e. buddhism, and definitely a difference between core values of islam and f.e. christianity. Don't taint all religion per se just because of what the islamist swine do.

You are correct in that agnosticism states that there is no proof. However, Atheism as regularly displayed in religon is different from that - it is more often a statement that because there is no proof, there is no God, or perhaps more that a belief in God is wrong. Obviously, such a reasoning is erroneous, but it is often demonstrated by such strong atheists as Dawkins.

I am personally an agnostic and I find it intensly annoying when people prosthelytize, be their religon atheism or theism.

1) The natural world IS everything. Therefore there's nothing beyond and therefore nothing unknowable because it is all the natural world

2) if we're all just in a vacuum, then that external world is real. If it isn't, then the real world is the real external world.

3) Theft is wrong, see the constitution regarding liberty, justice and so on. If you steal my dinner, I starve.

4) Since not everyone has the same aesthetic feeling, there's no one answer, but the answer is available for each person.

5) If you assume it isn't, the universe doesn't work and becomes Wonderland.

6) Not science, and anyway 1+1=2 has been proven.

7) if everything we can do is in the "natural world" then nothing outside it can affect us, therefore what worth is there in something that cannot be seen, felt, smelt or affect us in any imaginable form, and, moreover, cannot see the natural world (since that would require the natural world leak out).

Now, please answer those questions with theism.

1) "God" is outside the natural world. Circular argument. Prove it.

2) God made the real world as he said. Except bats aren't birds...

3) Theft is right, if you're stealing the life from unbelievers, the goods, lands, women and wealth of the people who currently occupy "the promised land". So can't prove it's wrong.

4) Bible has nothing about aesthetics

5) The unproven assumption that god exists, is outside the natural world and undetectable within it, yet still manages to have an effect...

6) No maths in the bible.

7) Your implication that there's something outside the Natural World.

Concur. I believe my house will be there when I leave work and go home. It might not be. I could have been acid tripping all day that I had a house. Wtf is reality? I once saw a catholic lady cry because some asshat needed to convince her that it was nuts to pray to Mary. I think praying to Mary is idiocy, but wtf destroy some poor soul who wants to believe otherwise? Hell, there could be. To wit I say, "pray to Mary for me too! And hurry!"

The first problem is a problem of communication: that neither side is open enough to listen to the other. I've often found myself on the fence, but the arrogance and condescension of the butthole representing either theism or atheism serves as nothing but a stumbling block. First, get over yourself (general "yourself" there), then, let's talk. Better yet, let's drink a 12 pack and talk, cuz you're waaay to uptight to take seriously....

"Agnosticism" is a statement of epistemology. It merely states that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. "Theism" and "atheism" are declarations of belief. The express an acceptance of an ontology.

You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. While the epistemological question of our knowledge of God may be inaccessible, it is difficult to remain completely neutral with respect to personal belief.

Do you think God exists? You are a theist. Do you think God most likely does not exist? You are an atheist. As it turns out, most atheists are agnostic, and are more than willing to admit there is a certain probability that some form of god exists. That probability is simply vanishingly small.

Atheism is not as un-scientific as being religious. In fact, as the lack of god is the null hypothesis, atheism is the default scientific proposition. Until there is a testable, positive hypothesis concerning the existence of god, theism is entirely in the realm of wish-fulfilling fantasy and philosophical self-gratification.

Agnosticism, meanwhile, is not a "third option." As you use it, as a state of superposition between theism and atheism, it isn't even coherent.

Theism is not "completely wrong". Even if atheist philosophers of religion disagree and seek to undermine theist arguments, they nonetheless find that theist arguments are formidable and worth examining carefully. The academy sees a healthy back and forth between the two sides.

Isaac Newton did not study the occult. He studied alchemy. He was doing so at a time when it's discrediting was already in progress but importantly was far from complete. Quite frankly I cannot help but think that if alchemy had anywhere to go - Newton would have been the one to find the way. But your statement doesn't hold water in general. Einstein despised astrology - as do almost every other scientist. Any doctor worth his salt despises homeopathy. Pseudoscience relies on these concepts.

Now sometimes something that came from a pseudoscientific history will voluntarily submit itself to testing via the scientific method. When this happens a number of things usually occur. Firstly the unscientific explanations for it's theories are almost immediately abandoned - instead the things that "work" (in other words the observed phenomena) gets re-explained using real science. From that basis the techniques are then invariable improved. This does mean that the occult, cultural and pseudoscientific traditions around has to be abandoned leaving us with something that is just plain science. Examples include willow bark becoming aspirine and more recently both acupuncture and chiropractics. If you get either chiropractics or acupuncture therapy from an accredited physiotherapist you should be well aware that what you're getting is so different from what you'd have gotten from the traditional healers who it came from as to be virtually unrecognizable - on the other hand the benefits are far more effective and real because all the mystic crap got thrown away and the technique the physiotherapist uses focuses only on those which are based in scientific fact.

Those cases are where scientists should legitemately be open-minded. When proponents of a cultural or other knowledge artifact says "test us via the scientific method, check our statements, correct them and improve them and we'll accept the parts that are lost in exchange for the improvements to the parts that are right" - then it would be callous of a scientist to refuse to be involved with such studies (if he's in the field) or accept them once done because of where the idea originally came from.

Now as for ghosts, there is nothing remotely close to a scientific observation that can be studied. We have no definition or idea of what the phenomena is we're supposed to study, no clear parameters of how to identify it if we did find it, no repeatable scenario, nothing we can replicate in a laboratory - nothing at all. All we have is anecdotal reports (that vary immensely) many of which can be explained by known natural phenomena (an this is where Occam's razor DOES kick in and say we MUST assume those explanations rather than one that relies on something we cannot define and the very existence of which relies on something which if it exists at all is not only observable but doesn't obey the laws of nature).
I suggested a study of the people however because I believed that we can get interesting psychological and sociological data from comparing facts about those who would choose the scientifically implausible scenario (including usually those aspects which are so supernatural they cannot be explained and would require us to accept exceptions to the very laws of nature - in the absence of any known singularity) compared to those who would be sceptical and declare most of it to be human error and the rest to be caused by unidentified but completely natural phenomena (radiation sources, leaky vents whatever).
The bit about IQ tests was a joke. The bit about testing general level of science knowledge was not - I'm convinced that the more knowledgeable somebody is about science (and in particular about the scientific method) the less likely they are to accept that ghosts or haunting is involved. This should align with other data we can reasonably use for comparison - such as the fact that theism shows a marked decline with higher levels of scientific education and becomes extremely rare among professional scientists - where it does exist there the scientists i

Language is confusing, I’ll grant you that. Several prefixes can mean multiple things, even contradictory things (for instance, in- may mean “not”, as in “indiscreet”, or it may mean “extremely”, as in “inflammable” – two entirely opposite meanings).

The prefix a- generally means “not” or “without”, but it can also mean “against” in a sense. And to fully confuse the issue, it can also mean to indicate that something is in the particular state indicated (i.e. aglow), or even the stronger concept that it is completely/fully so (i.e. abashed).

The word “atheist” means “not a theist” but in the sense that it is opposed to theism.

The word “agnostic” is formed from the same prefix (a-) with the word derived from the Greek “gnosis”, i.e. knowledge/enlightenment. And in the same sense that atheist meant “against theism”, agnostic means “against knowledge”: the belief that nobody has adequate knowledge or enlightenment to determine conclusively either one way or the other whether God exists.

The two are the same. If you are without the belief that there is a theos, that is practically the same as the belief that there is no theos. And given that etymologies do not perfectly define a word, you are losing sight of the fact that in modern english, athiesm is an ism (to quote wikipedia, "a principle, belief or movement"). It is a lack of certain beliefs, but it also describes certain beliefs in and of itself-- it is an active, rather than passive rejection of theism.

I dont know what the fuss is about, unless it is discomfort at the idea that everyone has a belief system of their own, even if they would prefer to think of their own as mere rejection of all others. To say you believe nothing would imply that you reject even your own views, opinions, and ideologies.

Nowhere does it say it's a "belief system", first of all. It's the simple negation of theism, which is the belief that there is a God. The negation of that is again the lack of that belief.

And listen to yourself. "Without God." Yes, that's what it means. I'm not really sure how you get from there to "a belief system around the idea that there is no theos," as opposed to, say, "the state of being without the idea that there is a theos."

If that were your point, you expressed yourself poorly. In the post you reference, your sentence "In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism." is an absurd false dichotomy - agnosticism is a epistemological position, while atheism is a position of personal belief. The two are orthogonal and compatible with one another. I believe that theism is irrational, so the binary alternative of atheism (I feel I must remind you that the word simply means "not theism") is the rational choice.

Moving on, and using your definition atheists who are "marked by militant or crusading zeal", most such atheists still do not fit your strawman that all of them are positive atheists. I'm not even sure that there's a correlation between zeal and positive versus negative atheism. For an example of a prominent atheist who might fit your zeal definition, Richard Dawkins does not hold a positive atheism belief- see his book "The God Delusion." Ascribing religious beliefs to a person that they do not hold is typically offensive to anyone, not just atheists. This makes particularly offensive your use of the particular strawman you're attempting to portray a diverse group as consisting entirely of.

And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.

I absolutely do give that much thought to the existence of God. Daily. Some people are non-thinking sheep, but not all.

The problem here is that you seem to have come ready to defend your religion by attacking mine, and are making assumptions along the way. I wonder constantly if what I'm feeling is genuine, for a multitude of reasons. A Christian doubts whether the impulses he feels are his, or the work of God, or the temptations of Satan - regularly. To assert that such a person has never considered that God actually doesn't exist means you genuinely have no idea who or what you're talking about. The hand of God is subtle, otherwise there'd be no exercise of free will, and what then would be the point of life?

People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.

Here's my evidence: I pray and things happen.

I realize that you're ready to attack that assertion, but unfortunately you don't have anything better than this to rebut it. He's real. Is he some bearded white dude in the sky? Probably not. But there's no doubt that I am interfacing with some power far greater than myself. None. Why? Because I practice it regularly. I feel it as surely as I feel the cold air when I step outside in the morning. The fact that you do not recognize that same feeling fills me with sadness, but I do respect your choice. And I believe that God does as well.

Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.

It is either madness, if it is false, or enlightenment if it is true. In either case.

However, in both cases, why do you even care?

You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.

And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.

You are welcome to believe what you wish, but belief in god _is_ irrational. I said this to someone else before so I may aswell reiterate.

The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.

People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.

Believing in something without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.

Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.

Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.

Bullshit.

The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.

Many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.

In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism.

A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.

The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me?

Believe whatever you want to, but don't claim that it is a rational belief unless you can back it up.

Atheism is not based on evidence or reason; it's based on belief. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God. That's all it is.

There are many definitions of Agnosticism, but it doesn't really make sense as a "middle ground" between atheism and theism, because atheism is simply the logical negation of theism -- an atheist is anyone who is not a theist.

With the definitions I like to use, they're not even mutually exclusive; atheism and theism are about belief, while agnosticism and gnosticism are about knowledge. You're likely an agnostic atheist -- you don't know, but you don't believe. It would be possible to be an agnostic theist -- "I don't know, but neither do you, so I may as well believe."

If I say I'm thinking of a shape, but I won't tell you what it is or answer any questions, the logical choice is just to ignore me.

Oh, I'd love to, but if you're insisting your shape-you-won't-describe be taught in schools (given "equal time" with actual geometry, hoping to replace it someday), if you won't vote for a politician who doesn't claim to be thinking of the same shape, and if there are millions of shape-ists, it's kind of hard to just ignore you.

Atheism is like saying I'm not thinking of a shape

Nope, all it's saying is "I don't know that you're thinking of a shape." Read that carefully. The distinction between that and "I know that you're not thinking of a shape" is profound.