Slashdot Mirror

Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.

Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.

If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?

Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.

Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.

Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.

I would also add that the smart people usually make decisions for themselves about what they believe in, whether that be religion or atheism, whereas the 'dumbasses' tend to follow whoever has the best propaganda. Sometimes that is atheists who like to evangelise, sometimes it's the religion they have been born into that they never think to question, but the common thread is that they all believe whatever is the accepted belief in their environment.

I have met Atheists who have valid arguments for the non-existence of a god, Atheists who decided to drop any previous theism once they started university (college in the US, I think) because it was 'cool', and Atheists who keep it to themselves.

I have also met Theists who truly believe in God, follow their organised religion and have well thought out, internally consistent arguments for it; Theists who blindly follow their religion without deciding for themselves if it is true or not and try to convert all non-believers with flawed, hypocritical arguments; and Theists who simply follow their beliefs quietly.

The same goes for Agnostics, Polytheists and Pantheists

Actually, that's agnosticism.

Since one cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, one could argue that atheism is a belief system as well.

No. Being agnostic is a different axis that atheism and theism. Some agnostics are atheists(don't believe in a god and don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it) and some are theists(believe in a god but don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it).

And, again, atheism is not a system. It is a statement about a single point of belief.

If we agree atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, is simply referring to a state of being (i.e., a simple description of what is), as oppose to intellectual assent (i.e., a belief), then the question "Why are you an atheist?" is meaningless.

Bingo!

It would be akin to asking a tree, "Why are you a tree?" It does not make sense to ask either question because the terms are simply referring to a state of being.

With that in mind, why do atheists answer the question, "Why are you an atheist?"

Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.

It is a meaningless question. Yet, for some reason, atheists feel compelled to give an answer. (More often than not, they appeal to a lack of evidence for the existence of gods.) So, if atheists are compelled to give an answer, I find it difficult to believe that atheism does not mean something more than a simple lack of theistic belief to the atheist. I am inclined to belief atheists actually mean more by atheism than they let onto with the lack of theistic belief definition. (I would willing grant such meaning is subconscious rather than a conscious intent to deceive, though.)

I am compelled to answer simply because many people assume that it is a choice, or a rebellion, or any of a number of things. They assume this for different reasons, usually because they are theists who cannot imagine someone who lives without that baggage. If you probe deeper, you will usually find that the question they are really asking is "how come you are not like me?" And this usually requires some explanation, since it is not obvious to them. And in the cases where the question is asked genuinely and in a format that allows it, I do so, all the while making clear that I am answering these questions largely as a secular humanist and an anti-theist, not necessarily in the strict category of atheist.

Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion.

Nope. There are many different belief systems which may include atheism, and some of those may be considered religions, but not atheism itself.

Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."

Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview.

Wow, you just keep missing the basic picture, don't you? Atheism could be part of a religion. It could be a dogmatic statement. It could be a position and it most certainly does inform a worldview. But it is not any of those.

I can certainly understand why you want to try and equate them, though. Religions are in general so foolish and puerile that you have to imagine that the atheist you are debating is saddled with the same nonsense that you are. Otherwise, you just end up looking like a jackass jawing on about hand-me-down delusions.

I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective.

I have no problem supporting my perspective. I do it all the time. But my position is far more than simple atheism.

As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)

That's ok. I see theists as intellectual pussies who can't handle reality and so run like little sobbing children to hide behind the skirts of their imaginary sky bully who will protect them from the universe which really doesn't give a flying fuck about them. Grow the fuck up.

Bingo! That's why you can't call it a fucking religion, eh?

Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion. Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."

Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview. I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective. As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)

I before E, except after C.

Except for species, science, sufficient, ancient, society, seize, weird, theism, eight, weight, protein, sovereignty, foreign, vein, feisty, kaleidoscope, being, neighbour, their and numerous other words.

Citation needed.

No, you just need to read it. After you get past people getting tuned into pillars of salt, the seas parting spontaneously, water being turned into wine, bread loaves multiplying themselves, resurrection from the dead, angels, devils, talking snakes, 900-year lifespans, immaculate conception, and a whole host (sorry) of other Harry-Potteresque nonsense, you'll either know it is fiction or you'll have abandoned consensual reality altogether... in which case, welcome to theism.

As far as "ancient" goes, the consensus is that the oldest copies of the fragments that make up the NT are from about 100-300 CE, about 1700-1900 years old. You may or may not think that's ancient, but that is, in fact, how old the writing is at a minimum. Since these are all known to be copies, it may in fact be a little older.

But that is still not correct, since an Invisible Man is not analogous to a Deity. So believing in a Deity is not analogous to believing in an invisible man. Animists believe in invisible men (e.g. our ancestors are physically present with us, but not visible). So your parallel might fit with Animists - and the phrase 'still believe' would certainly fit better (Animism being generally thought to be on the decline, whereas forms of Theism are on the increase). But again, grouping Animists with people who assert that Obama is a Muslim would seem a strange and unenlightening pairing.

Personally, his theism or atheism is pretty academic - the fact that he's an ex-Nazi, AIDS-spreading, paedophile-protecting cunt is enough to disqualify his viewpoint from any kind of respect.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bible makes it clear that everything is predestined or even that God knows the future in it's entirety. It is in many ways the most sensible option, but check wikipedia's Open Theism article to see a different approach. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I also don't think it's completely idiotic.

The simplest presentation of it would be that God knows everything that exists to be known, but the future does not exist in a knowable fashion, therefore God does not know it, but can predict it with high precision and can accomplish anything he desires.

Some open theists try to use it to get around the condemning humanity to hell problem you mentioned, that doesn't really hold water to me.

"A" means "not" or "no". "theism" means "belief in a god or gods". Atheism means you do not believe in any god or gods. If you are going to claim "Atheism", your cannot redefine the English or Latin languages to fit your personal credo. Live what "Atheism" is, or find a new name for what you are.

Theory notwithstanding, a not insignificant number of eastern Buddhists, not the Hollywood kind, pray to Buddha in pretty much the same way a Christian might pray to Jesus. (My family is half Chinese.) And even though in theory the eastern religions are supposed to be pluralistic, in practice they still threaten heretics with their version of damnation, which is being lost and unable to achieve nirvana. Or they threaten you with famine if you don't pay them to pray for the harvest. Those are exactly the same kind of miraculous claims you were attributing to theism and criticizing earlier.

Buddhists are obviously far less aggressive than Muslims. I don't think its entirely fair to say the Buddhist societies are less violent than Christian societies though. There has been a lot of brutality in India, and mass murder in China, even though Christian nations have been a lot better at projecting violence overseas. This reminds me of some pictures I saw a couple years ago of club wielding Korean monks rioting over some petty pay related dispute. One doesn't see that with Christian monks too often.

But if you prefer the best aspects of those other theologies to those of Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity, which you call theistic and I called totalitarian, then I have no criticism of that.

From what I have seen, Hinduism, as commonly practiced, is quite theistic by your definition ... Likewise for many varieties of Buddhism, even though the more abstract, self-help variety that's been embraced in the west is atheistic. Similarly Taoism, as commonly practiced, involves quite a bit of trying to suck up to a luck-god, even though there's none of that in the Tao Te Ching.

All of those entities are powerful supernatural entities, but they aren't a "God" in the theistic sense; they didn't create existence, and they aren't responsible for the rules by which the universe operates.

But if you're cool with all those other religions, than there's nothing atheistic about your atheism that I disagree with.

I don't know what you mean by "cool". All I'm saying is that theism has failed pretty much every test people have subjected it to. I can say that because theism is a pretty well-defined concept, and that's why it is useful to be clear about what theism is and is not.

In terms of what's "cool", I think all theism is not just false, but intrinsically morally wrong. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with not believing in a God, and on the whole, non-theistic religions tend to be more tolerant of different views.

Maybe you're even less a-religious than me, after all that. I do think that a lot of embrace of Buddhism by westerners is a reaction against Christianity without understanding the extent to which Buddhism is the same bullshit in a different form.

Buddhism is completely different from Christianity. There is no God to set the rules in Buddhism, the "gods" that there are in many ways inferior to human beings, and all beings are subject to the same laws of cause and effect. Unlike Hinduism, there is also no reincarnation of the individual self. Supernatural phenomena have no particular spiritual meaning. Buddhism doesn't require any particular ritual or observance for salvation (whatever works for you), and Buddhists have no problem believing that even Christians or Muslims may reach nirvana within their traditions. And there is no contradiction between core Buddhist beliefs and what's known about the physical world. (In case you're wondering, I'm not a Buddhist.)

Why quibble about where the definition of theism breaks down at the margins?

What margins? 54% of the world are either Christian or Muslim, clearly theistic in the narrowest of senses. Almost the entire rest of the world is not theistic: non-religious, Buddhist, Taoist, Hinduist, or Shaman.

The difference is really one of moral authority and power. In the theistic religions, God has the ultimate moral authority and power over creation. In the other religions, all sentient beings (even gods) are bound by the rules of an impersonal universe. If Vishnu or Zeus tell you that you should kill your son, that doesn't automatically make it morally right; if Yahweh tells you to kill your son, that automatically makes it morally right. In Christianity, you're saved by believing in Jesus, no matter what your deeds, in Hinduism or Buddhism, you can believe in, or worship, whatever you want, it's your deeds that count. In the theistic religions, you owe obedience to God because he created you and God supposedly cares; in the other religions, you don't owe the creator anything.

There really isn't much "margin" between theism and other religions, either in the beliefs or in the population of believers.

I almost agree with all that.

I think my disagreement comes down to this: theistic models of the world are wrong, but not entirely. So when I parse your definition of theism, "the belief that God communicates with man personally and that he intervenes in the world directly", it breaks down at what the definition of God is. You permit supernatural beliefs under atheism, and anything supernatural, if real for us, must have effects in our world. If there is also conscious agency in anything that's at least partially supernatural, and I don't see why that should be excluded, then it starts to take on the qualities that you call theistic.

Would a person who believed in the ancient Greek gods be a theist or an atheist in your definition? Those gods are not omnipotent or omniscient, and are only rarely personal or immanent. I think that a person who believed in them would be a theist. How about a person who believed in those gods, but who did not believe that the gods were what they represented themselves to be, or what other people represented them to be? I'd say atheist, except that the possibility of those gods communicating with man personally or intervening in the world directly would still be accepted by such a person.

It seems that your definition still hinges somewhat on the acceptance or rejection of so-called monotheistic theologies. I say so-called, because the major monotheistic religions appear to me to be more accurately described as totalitarian polytheistic religions. They elevate one god from among many, then condemn the rest to being false and/or in opposition to the one true god. But the chosen god is still one among many in the smallness of what it encompasses as an idea, and in that opposition to those other gods is usually a critical part of its cult dynamic.

Why quibble about where the definition of theism breaks down at the margins? Its because the margins are where the truth is. It seems a shame to me to bundle truths together with a lot of lies under the heading of 'God' and then accept or reject the whole thing as a package. This is actually one of the main things that pisses me off about religious people, they lay exclusive claim to a lot of stuff that should belong to all of us, smear it with shit, and teach people from infancy that their choices are to take it or leave it.

Yes, a great many theists make those kinds of claims, and I agree they're mostly bullshit.

All theists make those kinds of claims; it is what defines theism: the claim that God communicates with man personally and that he intervenes in the world directly. All major theistic religions have kept extensive records of such interactions. If you don't believe in them, you are an atheist (although you may still be a deist).

My claim was that if you declare ahead of time what is or is not knowable, then you condemn your understanding to remain in whatever box its in currently

Theists postulate the existence of specific observable effects, and if they cannot demonstrate those observable effects, then their theistic models of the world are wrong. Stating that says nothing about what is knowable or not in general.

Note that atheism isn't the same as materialism or exclusion of all supernatural beliefs, atheism is simply the (well-founded) belief that an omnipotent, omniscient, personal, immanent God does not exist.

This is not Steven Rado, writer or reviewer, as has been explained already. Robert Louis Kemp cites Rado as one of his sources.

As for the physics in Kemp's book, the immediately accessible feature to me from the previews is the radical theism involved. It is not unlike Newton's radical theism, that God is an implementer of arbitrary mathematical designs, as well as an arbitrary puppet master when he wishes. You should consider the position of Spinoza and Leibnitz as an antidote to Newton's assertion of faith. They apparently came to an agreement that mathematical systems exist out there wherever they can because there is no mechanism for a cosmic censor to prevent it.

There are dubious things to be seen in the mathematics, but I did not slow down into crawl gear to prove my impressions. Why would there be an aether? Why are photons standing waves with only a fixed number of wavelengths? How can a photon overcome the dipole nature of its fields to become a polar charge when orbiting the location of the charge?

Naturally, I prefer my own manuscript on controversial physics.