Slashdot Mirror

Deism is watered-down theism.

Atheists haven't been causing genocide, torturing people, raping children or forcing people to follow our dictates for the last couple millenia.

Wow, just wow.

Some tens of millions of people would like to disagree with you.

Theism vs atheism is always filled with hyperbole from both sides, but it's uncommon to see someone go so far off the deep end. Nice job.

For example, I believe a Catholic has a right to refuse to assist in suicide, refuse to perform abortions, or refuse to provide contraceptives to people. Furthermore, he believes his actions to be justified and beneficial. Taken together, that makes his actions "valid". But the fact that he has a right to do so doesn't make it moral: his actions still cause other people to suffer unnecessarily and to deprive them of their free will, and that makes his actions morally wrong.

But while you and I consider an action that causes other people to suffer unnecessarily immoral, doesn't mean everyone else should think the same way. My moral standard is as valid as theirs. There's no One Moral Standard.

Moral relativism is:

Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference. They believe not only that, given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms; but further, that one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation -- the standard will always be societal or personal.

This is my position. While I can use my own moral standard to judge an action as "good" or "bad", that judgment only applies to myself. I don't think there's a universal moral standard everyone ought to follow.

Actually, theists can be truly unselfish: if they violate the rules of their church and risk punishment in the afterlife. If theism is true, the true purpose of an organization like the Vatican may be that it gives human beings an opportunity to defy it.

But if a theist is violation a rule of his God, he's doing something he finds morally wrong. A theist's moral standard is his God's, so by definition, anything he can be punished for doing is wrong by his own morality. And how can an action be unselfish, if it's evil?

Maybe if you knew what atheist means, you wouldn't have this complaint. The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.

To be religious is to have a non-empty set of deities in which you believe and which receive your prayers. To be an atheist is to have this set empty. Without an empty set, however, any set theory would be kind of lacking.

To be a whore is to have a non-empty set of customers who pay you for sex. Your mom (presumably) has this set empty. Therefore, your mother is a whore. Get it?

Maybe if you knew what atheist means, you wouldn't have this complaint. The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.

To be religious is to have a non-empty set of deities in which you believe and which receive your prayers. To be an atheist is to have this set empty. Without an empty set, however, any set theory would be kind of lacking.

The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.

Actually, he never refers to Atheism as a religion and it is entirely appropriate to include it in this conversation as it is about religious discrimination. The government is forbidden from promoting religion, and that includes promoting groups that discriminate against people with no religion.

Maybe if you knew what atheist means, you wouldn't have this complaint. The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.

I'm a moral relativist. That doesn't mean I don't believe in principles, I just don't think "I'm right, and you are wrong". My principles are as valid as anyone else's.

That doesn't automatically make you a moral relativist. The death penalty is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective. Likewise, Catholicism is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective.

For example, I believe a Catholic has a right to refuse to assist in suicide, refuse to perform abortions, or refuse to provide contraceptives to people. Furthermore, he believes his actions to be justified and beneficial. Taken together, that makes his actions "valid". But the fact that he has a right to do so doesn't make it moral: his actions still cause other people to suffer unnecessarily and to deprive them of their free will, and that makes his actions morally wrong.

Do the atheists you know believe in a transcendental "world", even if they don't believe in God?

There are about 2 billion atheists in the world, many of them deeply religious and with a deep faith in the transcendent.

If they don't, where do they believe the moral standard they follow comes from?

Logic, reason, and innate insights ("revelation"). In fact, Christianity actually also acknolwedges those as sources of morality. The failure of Catholicism is that hierarchy and authority trump logic, reason, and revelation in its practice.

Only non-theists can be truly unselfish, as they are able to perform good deeds and deny themselves any kind of reward.

I've made the same argument, and even Catholic intellectuals recognized this centuries ago.

Actually, theists can be truly unselfish: if they violate the rules of their church and risk punishment in the afterlife. If theism is true, the true purpose of an organization like the Vatican may be that it gives human beings an opportunity to defy it.

Because Agnosticism is "Weak Atheism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Bullshit. Agnosticism is simply not knowing whether a deity exists.

This weak vs. strong atheism including agnostics is, well, bullshit. It is a point made by atheists to try and make their numbers greater and their argument stronger. It is similar to a religious person saying that agnosticism is weak theism, being that the only difference is that a religious person has faith, while an agnostic is content to simply not know.

There are a variety of types of agnosticism, and some are closer to atheism, while some are closer to theism. To lump them all under atheism is to lump those of us who simply realize we cannot know with those of you who think you do know. Atheists and religious are both based on faith, although opposite ends of the faith spectrum. Agnostics simply realize that we cannot know, and form our beliefs from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism -An agnostic

And yet there is a growing amount of religious people for whom Science (big S) is a religion. They call themselves atheists ... "I'll believe what this scientist says even though I don't understand it because I don't like the religion I grew up with"

Go on, give me an example of such a person.

Sure, there might happen to exist some people, but it is wrong to attribute this to atheism - the fact that they're an atheist is no more relevant than them having a beard; and plenty of theists who misuse science exist also.

No one is claiming that all atheists are rational. After all, there are people who don't believe in god, but also believe in the supernatural, homeopathy, and so on. They're atheists, and they're irrational. But so? This is not an argument against atheism; nor is it an argument in favour of theism. Saying that there exist other forms of irrationality is not an argument in favour of being irrational!

I'm not sure what your point was? Just because some people misunderstand science doesn't mean that the OP and others fall into this category.

The rational folk on both sides of the theist

Aha, here we have it - let's slip in the card that, because some atheists are irrational, we can suggest that it's only some theists that are irrational, and therefore some theists are rational. Well firstly, that's a logical fallacy. Secondly, I disagree that belief in god is based on reason.

An agnostic is someone who claims we don't know or can't know about God - it's not mutually exclusive with atheism (or indeed theism), nor does it mean they don't have strong feelings. Someone who doesn't care wouldn't identify as agnostic in the first place - apatheism may be a better term for them.

Yes, instilling "healthy skepticism" by perverting the nature of God and religion is just what our kids need. Nothing is worse than ignorant athiests and science fundies that neither understand or appreciate the roles of religion in our society.

Not when it comes to claim as a "hard scientific" fact that God is an instrument of the oppressing masses while simultaneously teaching kids that IT IS OK FOR THE PARTY to kill people for their beliefs or for their relative's beliefs (yeah, you could be killed because your cousin believes in X or Y.)

I mean, seriously, how much more stupid can you be that you completely missed the point - that it was not teaching of atheism, but conditioning at an early age to accept widespread murder of those in the opposition.

Not only that, and say what you will about theism, it was religious organizations in Nicaragua at the time who were at the forefront of human rights which is why the political establishment of the time made them a target.

Atheism as a way of thinking != politically motivated religious persecution.

Only an ideologytard would miss the difference between the two.

People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists.

That's a semantic argument, and not one I'm particularly looking forward to, but technically speaking, yes they are. Again, the word "atheist" simply means, not a theist -- that is, not one who believes in a god.

Now, you'd be right to say they're probably not skeptics or rationalists, and they are by definition not naturalists, but to say they're "not atheist" is akin to a protestant claiming catholics are "not Christian" or vice versa.

I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate.

Here's a start:

someone who denies the existence of god

That's not correct, either, as atheist simply means one who doesn't believe.

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

That's about right.

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

Again, I reject this definition. However, the same site also offers the correct one:

atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods

And again, note that in either case, we're still talking about gods specifically.

One who rejects or is ignorant of theism.

And so on.

The only two definitions I see there, and the only two I've heard in general, can be summarized like this:

1. One who denies that any gods exist.
2. One who does not believe that any gods exist.

Tarot cards do not require deities, nor do ghosts, UFOs, or for that matter, perpetual motion machines. There are any number of things which are unscientific, possibly paranoid, dogmatic, and foolish, without ever claiming to be a religion, and certainly without being concerned with a deity in particular.

I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational. But most people who admit to being atheist are rational.

Most, yes. However, if you want any meaningful statistics, you have to also include agnostics, and some of them include those who have no particular religion. Not all atheists are "out of the closet", so to speak, which is one reason I'm as vocal as I am -- to reassure those who aren't that it's ok to be an atheist, and that there are others who think the way they do -- some seem to live with the idea that there's something wrong with them, or that they should be quiet and say they're just not particularly religious...

If it comes down to talking to aliens, tho, I suspect that scientific rationalism - and probably anarchic scientific rationalism - will win the day.

I would emphasize the science and the rationalism, and while I don't know that anarchy is best, I would say someone without religious or political affiliation would be best.

no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion.

Why not?

Well, because atheism isn't an ism. It would be like going to war for non-stamp-collecting.

I can see going to war for related things, like reason, science, etc. I don't see why you'd go to war for atheism, and I imagine it'd be difficult to raise an army around that idea. Maybe antitheism, but not atheism.

Wasn't arguing about that. Read what I wrote.

I didn't think you were. I was making both of these points to illustrate that even if Stalin went to war, it doesn't really change things.

it does argue that perhaps atheists are more mentally and emotionally balanced *g*

Possibly, but again, I'd put that more in the context of whether a religious person is less mentally and emotionally balanced.

There are atheists who believe in tarot cards. That's the point I'm driving at here.

Look, if you want to argue that atheists are or aren't more mentally balanced than the rest of whomever, confine your argument to that.

That's pretty much what I'm trying to do.

Trying to combine it with psychotics like Stalin, or conflating atheism with theism just doesn't work with me.

I don't think I've done that.

I mentioned Stalin because the AC did -- I was more or less diffusing its point.

I just plain don't believe in any godlike or supreme beings at all, ok?

Ok.

I call it rationalism;

Well, no, it's not.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with rationalism, I'm saying that atheism is not by itself rationalism. Someone could become atheist because they have good, logical, rational reasons, or someone could become atheist because they had a bad experience in church.

You don't seem to have any real understanding of atheism at all.

I've been an atheist for several years now. We seem to agree on most of these points, and it's not as though the definition of "atheist" is particularly difficult -- "one who does not believe in a God."

I also tend to debate theists (and especially Creationists), so I'd say I have a fair understanding of what you mean by rationalism, and I have a somewhat rationalist, naturalist perspective. I was trying specifically to avoid conflating that with atheism.

Now, I suspect that religion tends to make people less balanced in many ways, which is why the statistics look the way they do -- but I think at this point, that's as much a reflection of the lack of influence by religion on atheists as it is a reflection of the critical thinking, rationality, and sanity of the truly skeptical and inquisitive atheists.

nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place,

Well, yes and no. We have some good theories, and we've watched real religions arise fairly recently -- cargo cults being the obvious example.

  In other words, no, we don't know.

The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs.

That's unfortunately only true for a minority of the world.

Unfortunately.

Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.

The AC pointed out Stalin.

See my reply.

There are two crucial issues here: First, no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion.

  Why not?

Second, the term "atheist" simply means one who is not a theist -- there is no unifying belief or dogma, no requirement that atheists be scientifically minded critical thinkers or even sane.

  Wasn't arguing about that. Read what I wrote.

The numbers right now do tend to favor atheists in a few ways -- fewer in prisons, fewer divorces, etc -- but this isn't really relevant, other than to dispel the notion that atheists are inherently evil or stupid.

  Which is a good thing, considering how much atheists have been put down as just that over the centuries, and even here in the US in the last century. But it does argue that perhaps atheists are more mentally and emotionally balanced *g*

You only need one person to be a counterexample to that, but it seems less useful to try to show that atheists are somehow better, more peaceful, smarter, etc.

Wasn't trying to point that out as an overall individual trait, although it certainly seems to be so; I wasn't quoting statistics, you were.

  Look, if you want to argue that atheists are or aren't more mentally balanced than the rest of whomever, confine your argument to that. Trying to combine it with psychotics like Stalin, or conflating atheism with theism just doesn't work with me. I just plain don't believe in any godlike or supreme beings at all, ok? I call it rationalism; or in my more drunken moments rational anarchism.

  You don't seem to have any real understanding of atheism at all.

SB

"Scientology == Catholicism == Christianity"

Every time there is any Internet forum discussion critical of Scientology this same meme pops up. It's not true. Elevating Scientology to the same status as established religions with thousands of years of history is an attempt BY SCIENTOLOGY to legitimize itself. Just look at how a discussion about Scientology and a "docudrama" about it spawned this sub-thread plus discussions of Atheism vs. Theism, Christianity's historical abuses of believers and non-believers, political power struggles of one dogma vs another, the current state of Islam, etc.

Any other org is fair game so long as negative attention is diverted from Scientology.

Keep your eye on the ball, folks.

Actually, religious people tended to kill other religious people. Atheism wasn't even invented until quite recently. Almost all famous scientists were theists. The supposed incompatibility of theism and science is also quite a recent invention.

So quit playing the "downtrodden minority" card. Religious people never harmed you.

One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.

Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.

"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective or common noun. It is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power. The Taliban is 100% radicalize Islam in origin and operation. Associating Christians in this way is simply disingenuous. If you want a true analogy, try the Irish Republican Army.

Further, dominionists don't say in any way that they want to forcefully convert any one or that they intend to mass murder any people who will not believe in their exact form of Christianity. Reconstructionists have nothing to do with government or militant attitudes. They're basically the root of the protestant movement away from the control of the Holy See (the pope). Reconstructionism was in fact a break from religious control and not an instantiation of it.

Finally, using a blog to support a radical opinion is about as useful as using a tissue to clean up hurricane Katrina. However, reading it, you'll notice all references to slavery and the law of God are from the Old Testament. If you know anything about modern day apologetics and theism, its been generally accepted for several centuries that the coming of Christ eliminated the "old law" and brought His own based entirely around the premise of John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life. None shall come to the father except through me." Which can in no way be interpreted as Christians enslaving other men.

After all that, I leave you with this: http://xkcd.com/386/

I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe I am just dreaming but I believe that some day theists and atheists will be able to sit down and discuss such topics by presenting thier own ideas to stand on its own merit without having to attack each other's.

Yep, you're dreaming. That's like saying "one day people who believe in fairies and people who don't believe in fairies will be able to present their own ideas instead of attacking each others".

By definition, Atheism is the rejection of theism. Theists make a claim, atheists say "you're full of shit". That's it. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even be a concept, so how in the world can you present an "atheist idea" which is independent of theistic claims?

I don't argue that it can't be proven. I argue that compelling arguments can be made based on evidence, but that is a far cry from proven. Give me some even somewhat rational evidence of God in heaven. I doubt you have too much.

Fixed that for you.

Atheism is a belief. It is a belief that there are no deities/gods/whatever.

No, it's not.

Or my definition of atheism is wrong.

Yes :)

Atheism is simply the rejection of theism. Theism makes the claim "there is a god, and these are it's properties". Atheism is a response to that claim - "sorry, we don't believe you". It is not, however, an acceptance of the opposite claim.

Think of it this way: if you tell me that you are a billionaire, I'll say "sorry, I don't believe you". Based on the data available, I have no reason to believe that statement. However, that doesn't mean I believe that you're NOT a billionaire. It just means that I have no reason to accept your claim. If you can provide evidence, then I will accept your claim. Conversely, if I discover evidence to the contrary I will continue to reject your claim, AND I will start to believe that you are a liar. But my default position is one of simply rejecting your claim while not accepting the opposite claim either.

I have found that most "atheists" that are outspoken truly believe there are no such things as deities or gods, not simply reject the belief in it.

That may be so, however, you've got a bit of a selection bias there. First of all, a large percentage of people who self-identify as "agnostic" are technically atheists. Second of all, you're intentionally selecting a subset of atheists who are more likely to hold the belief you're looking for.

Personally, I believe that there are no gods, or at least I've never heard of a god for which there is any evidence. That belief isn't inherent in atheism, though - it's something extra. If you want an analogy ... some Christians believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. However, that belief isn't a requirement of Christianity - it's something extra which they've added on to the actual theology. It's the same with atheism, except that atheism doesn't come with any theology or beliefs in the first place, so any beliefs that atheists happen to hold are by default an add-on.