Slashdot Mirror

The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.

Wow, I can really see you've expended some deep thought on these issues, fueled by your vast research on life and its meaning. Congratulations, you've identified mankind's biggest problems -- and their single cause -- right here on Slashdot!

Dude, you rock!

Here is the relevant etymology:

Theism: Belief in a god or gods. Theist: Person holding belief in a god or gods.

The root "a": Without.

A-theism: without belief in a god or gods. A-theism: Person without belief in a god or gods.

And before some wag tries to misconstrue the etymology as "without god" as in "a-theos", let me remind them that the word is not a-theos, it is a-theist or a-theism.

Atheism is not definitive of "disbelief." Disbelief is a additional stance taken over basic atheism (after all, you have to be without belief in god or gods to go the next step and declare your faith that there is no such thing.) This latter stance is called "hard atheism" while the former is "soft atheism." This is so well established, and has been for so long, you should be absolutely mortified that you are unaware of it, yet are trying to take part in a discussion about the issues. Go educate yourself.

The common person's misunderstanding of the atheist position is is why the wikipedia entry for atheist has been closed so often, by the way, atheists trying to get the definition for what they stand for corrected, and non-artheists repeatedly mis-characterizing their stance.

I don't need to defend this position extensively, it is a done deal in the atheist community. I'm just letting you, and others who are similarly confused, know what the actual situation is. You can check it out -- actually do some research -- and learn something, or you can continue on in ignorance. Your call.

With regard to the claim for agnostics; this is not relevant, except in that it puts agnostics out. Agnostics talk about knowledge, when asked about belief (the atheist/theist question.) These are two completely different cognitive domains. It is similar to asking if water is cold, and being given the response "I wonder if it is wet?"

Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. You can call it whatever you want, riding your confusion off into the sunset for all I care, but there are still only two positions. If your answer is that you hold such a belief, then you are a theist. If you do not hold such a belief, you are an atheist. With regard to knowledge, no one asked you what you knew, or why you take the stance you take: The question is simply, and always has been, do you believe? The only answers are yes, or no.

Strange comment, but... No, atheism is not the rejection of a theistic belief, it is the absence of a theistic belief. The statement "I believe there is no God" is anti-theism. "anti" opposed. "a" absence of. I have said before and I will say it again, to make public debate easier to follow, one should use a-theism and anti-theism (which is not yet a word) where appropriate.

I am an atheist. Does that mean I think it is possible that there is a god? No, I do not. I find the question to be absurd, and as with all other dumb questions, not possible to answer rationally. To have a conviction that says there is no god is as illogical as to hold a conviction that says there is a god. A scientist will have neither.

To paraphrase someone better at this than I am: The religious people are not right, they aren't even wrong.

The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.

I recommend you read "The Lucifer Principle," a book on evolutionary sociobiology. If you're coming from a non-religious background, then you'll probably have less of a morally queasy feeling when reading it than I did. One of the core arguments in the book is that humans innately wish to form groups, downplay the flaws of their own members, demonize the flaws of their rivals, and unite around a shared mythology of the inherent superiority of their chosen peer group. It's instinctual pack behavior inherited from our pre-human ancestors.

None of us are immune to it, and removing all religion will simply result in the use of other no less potent methods of justification -- nationalism, racism, class warfare, etc. The Communist Revolution in Russia is a good example of an atheist movement that demonized its enemies on non-religious grounds. Religion isn't the problem. It's operating on an instinctual xenophobia instead of rational tolerance that is, and you know very well that people can be rational and religious and can be irrational and irreligious at the same time.

The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.

I agree with most of what you say. (I would, being an atheist) But the above argument always leaves me a little uncomfortable. Weren't the Nazi's and the Russian communists atheist regimes? I don't think they were particularly well known for their peacefulness...

X.

Absolutely! Welcome to the world of indoctrination! People are taught from a very young age their various religious beliefs and morals.

It's funny tho, the whole 'morals from God ' thing. Any Christian I talk to (including relatives) all believe not only in words written on pages thousands of years ago (written by dudes named John and Paul, which are very Jewish names, and also hand-picked by the Catholic church in later years) but also usually support whatever bloodhsed in any part of the world as long as it's in God's name (the 'extremist' and uneducated Muslims love this too). Whether it's the (re-)invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever their morality points them, they all belive in and break the concepts 'written' down thousands of years ago. How hypocritical, yet, it's God's morals they're following. And they know it .

I was indoctrinated into Christianity from a young age. Was told all the scary stories of judgement and this and that and in my late teens/early twenties realized that it was all bullshit. All about control, judgement - all negative. I've never met anyone who is Christ-like in the western world. And I've come to realize that Judeo-based/Christian morals are the last thing I'd ever impart on my kids (if I ever have any). They're, in my opinion, totally backwards and have nothing to do with modern living and have nothing to do with living a decent, educated, fair, and compassionate life.

The best thing that could happen to the future of the world is the advent of a more universal, worldly, consciousness and an ascendency of non-theism. After all, there'd definitely be less or no wars (no God to justify them, no virgins in Heaven), less suffering (no wars plus no religious barriers to medical research), better integration (no separation of the righteous and 'wicked'), and hopefully more compassion (less Godly judgement), and definitely more time spent on learning about science and the natural universe and less about the supernatural, religious texts.

While I say each to his own, it's clear to me that the Judeo-based religions are fundamentally flawed and have little place in the future of humanity. Some day, they will be realized (hopefully) as the primitive thinking they are just like the Greek and Roman and even Sumerian or Egyptian gods (which we dismiss as ridiculous nowadays). Of course, I won't live to see it, but it will probably happen. It has to, otherwise humanity will destroy itself. You have only to glimpse any religious leader/figure around the world to be sure of that.

I surely appreciate your sentiments, but I think the merits of implementing Pascal's theism-wager vs. a pascalian-global-warming-wager can be summed up (by a devil's advocate against your position) as such:

Length of mortal life: ~75 years - Personally devastating effects of global warming: slim to nil
Length of eternal life: indefinite - Personally devastating effects of hellfire, if so existing: infinite

So the ratio between the two is, e.g., n : infinity, and people who take the lazy way out act accordingly.

People who actually give a shit, on the other hand, tend to think that there's more to being a {Christian | minimally decent human being | etc.} than being a selfish prick who only cares about his or her own soul -- a sentiment which is largely anathema to the actual words of Christ, as I recall.

good grief...

None of you, including me, are qualified for this debate... In fact I'd venture no one is.

Do you have ANY clue how much is written on G_d, gods, atheism, ant-theism, etc? By the time you've absorbed enough to be qualified you've probably spent the better part of your life doing it. And I've yet to meet the person who didn't have to take a side to support themselves (financially, or scholarly), by which point your obligated to stay to that side to avoid collapsing your entire house of cards. (Yeah, I'm aware this is a "slippery slope" argument, but if you can find a way, or better still an example off the slide I'd love to hear it)

Atheism, may or may not be a religion; but the way some people treat it, it might as well be. I believe this, you believe that; can't we all just get along? Granted, there will come a time when a religious issue goes to a vote. And if me and mine, choose to vote based on our personal moral values, that's not coercion: it's democracy. You do have the right to vote based on yours, the fact that there are more religious than non/anti-religious is irrelevant.

I understand why Christians/Muslims spend much time seeking to convince others of their faith, it's an (IMHO) unfortunate aspect of their belief. But why atheists get so hot under the collar every time G_d's name comes up, is a bit of a mystery to me. I spent the majority of my life as an atheist, and never once had the inclination to convince someone else to agree with me.

"religious apologists always turn the argument around saying 'god is beyond proof, you can't prove him'"

It's called un-falsifiable, and it's a two way street. If you could give proof to G_ds' existence or non-existence, G_d would instantly become an admissible component of scientific theory; the scientific community would either have to accept it or their own hypocrisy if they didn't. On the other hand I don't think it would have much affect on the worlds religions. Careful what you wish for.

"I'll refer you to 'bible errancy'"

Who's bible? And why does it matter? If ones life is happier for having "known G_d", then kay sara sara.

FYI: most 'bible errancy' is hog wash. Largely using peoples lack of knowledge on a subject against them, nit picking details that are resolved in other sources. I've rarely seen a 'bible errancy' that held up against a professional minister of faith (who ostensibly has a broad enough base of information to avoid, "not in this text" type errors).

Atheism is the state of being without a belief in a god or gods.

Is that a-theism or athe-ism?

But that's the question really, what kind of atheist are you? I'd say there's a good number of both, and the latter group have more reason to argue with the theists.

So there are mushy definitions and less-well-spoken stances on every side of the issue - what's new? A more robust definition, it seems to me, is that a-theism is, very strictly, the absence of faith in things theistic. There isn't convincing evidence to support belief in (x), therefore I lack belief in (x).

a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"

The problem with that definition is that then atheism does not appear to be a belief system. However, there are some people who are religiously atheistic (eg the monkeys who think the Bible says pi=3). These already have a name, strong atheist = "with a belief in the non-existance of god or gods", which is a belief system. Thus, the term "atheist" encompasses both a belief system and what is not a belief system. I think this is too broad, and push for separate names.

a = "without"
theism = "belief in a god or gods"
a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"

As a fundamentalist atheist myself, I'm perfectly prepared to say there might be one. In fact, might be two or three. Or 42. Or thousands of them.

But since none have shown their heads, or their works, around my neck of the woods there is no point in getting all tangled up in some belief without a reasonable basis in objective fact to reason from. So I keep the idea in the same drawer with other ideas that require extraordinary evidence, such as pink unicorns, UFOs and telepathy. Sure would be interesting to see. When and if that happens, I'll re-evaluate the situation.

• Theism: The belief that God exists.
• A-: Prefix indicating lack of.
• A-Theism: The lack of belief that God exists.

Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.

The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?

'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.

The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).

Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.

Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.

If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.

and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)

people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.

Both beliefs can be called atheism, sometimes they are referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism. If you parse the word as a-theism, then it's just the absence of a belief in god, wheras athe-ism means belief in the absence of god. It's unclear.

Theism == Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

So theism is the belief, not the god or gods. I definitly lack such a belief, but I don't see how the lack of belief makes it a religion.

Arose, your post appears to be content-free. Can you please correct that appearance by pointing out what part of the subject I appear to have not got straight?

No God != No Religion

A-theism == "the definite absence of theism". This is a religious position, a definite religious assertion. It is a religious statement which says that there is no God.

I would also bundle what you might call "imaginary" of "phantom" gods who exist but have no measurable effect on the universe into "Practical Atheism", but that's optional.

there are people that use the guise of religion as a reason for violence. But there are those also that use atheism for exact same purpose and reason.

Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world. Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle

We don't need a term like agnosticism just so we can cover the prevalent misunderstandings of what the term atheism means!

It's a-theism, not anti-theism, for a reason.
An excellent source on this topic is wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god"." In other words, atheists lack a belief in god, they do not believe there is no god. Also, they do not believe there could or couldn't be a god, "because we don't know".

These are all very different things.

Now, granted some atheists may claim they actually believe there is no god, much like you may find a republican that really wants to balance the budget.;-) The Wikipedia definition refers to that as positive or strong atheism. But according to the root of the word *a*theism, it really should correspond to "weak" or negative position as defined by Wikipedia, namely the absence of a god-belief.

No, they're not. You're falling into the trap religionists love to lay - buying their trojan definition of atheism.

Atheism is not a belief in a negative. It's a lack of belief in a positive. A-theism. Not theism, or without theism. To be an atheist does not require a faith in the non-existence of G-d, simply an absence of faith in the existence of G-d, which is to say, an absence of theism.