Slashdot Mirror

Anyway, the point is, given how deeply intertwined religion is with those things which weigh most heavily on the human mind (or "soul", if you believe there is one), I don't think the cocaine analogy, nor the implied addiction model of religious belief, even come close to explaining why people adhere so steadfastly to religion.

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining why. I get your "unanswerable questions" argument, but - no offence - it's shit. Theism doesn't answer any of those questions. It barely even tries. It simply asserts commandments based on an Ultimate Authority - an immortal Mafia Don who promises to break our legs if we don't don't pay homage and follow his orders.

The actual meaning of life, the question of morality ... those questions remain unanswered on any broad level. That's because we as individual human beings get to define what those things are, and no external orders can ever solve those dilemmas for us. Nobody can tell you what the purpose of your life is, and nobody can dictate a moral code to you. I find religion particularly offensive because it pretends to do both. I get one life to live to the best of my ability - a mere 80-ish years on this Earth, if I'm lucky - and some jackass in a funny hat thinks he has the right to dictate how I live it based on orders from his magical sky daddy. Well fuck that. Even if there were a "god" to tell me how to live my life, I'd tell him to get fucked too - I don't give a damn how he intended me to live it because it's purpose is mine to determine. He could have some input on it (if he'd speak the fuck up) but the final decisions would still be mine to make. As long as you allow for free will, no religion can ever give you an answer to what the purpose of life is.

Religion answers the question "What is the meaning of life" to the same extent that cocaine does - it's all about the next fix. We can come up with much better answers than that. Even Douglas Adams' tongue-in-cheek answer was more meaningful and less harmful than the ones provided by most religions.

Poppycock.

There is no recorded instance of anyone "disappearing" when they became an atheist. Most of Europe is effectively atheist and has been for a couple of decades. When I look out my window, I see people - quite what they are doing in my backgarden I don't know :-P

Some unbalanced individuals may commit suicide if they believe their life has no meaning, but the change in paradigm between theism and atheism is such that people realise the meaning given by religion is illusory and that a good life has plenty of meaning even if there is no sky man wizard thing.

who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem? Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?

You are getting the issue sort of backwards. You are asking for evidence of a negative--evidence that God does NOT exist, and since proving a negative is impossible (disregarding logical impossibilities, like square circles), it's no wonder that you're coming up short. The issue is whether or not there is any reason TO believe.

I am finding it more difficult to remain an atheist

Have you found it more difficult to continue not believing in Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, etc? It's not in dispute that there are many things about the universe that we do not understand. I just don't see how "I don't know" maps to "God did it." Ignorance is not a theological argument.

Just because most of what the world pushes on you as the concept of "God" is complete crap does not mean that "God" does not exist.

Isn't that just as true of all the other gods? I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God, not because I claim to have total knowledge of the universe and can definitively tell you that there is no God. Please stop acting as if atheists are the one making untenable knowledge-claims. Theism is the claim that God exists, and atheism is just skepticism towards that claim. The burden of evidence still rests on the theists, just as it always does for the person making the claim.

In theory, this is true. In practice, it is not. If I dare to call myself a "free-thinking, religious individual" then 95% of atheists will roll their eyes and offer up some ridiculous strawman, as if on command.

Then I will say, "these people do not speak for me; I do NOT consider them to be rational freethinkers." Do you have the have the same integrity to speak against those who identify themselves as religious and spew forth hate?

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle.

Strawman: "atheism" = "a" (without) + "theism" (belief in a deity). Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief; they are NOT the same. There is no faith in atheism, by definition.

The morally dead will choose atheism. The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism as an attempt to escape their guilt.

Fuck. IHBT. Too bad that research shows exactly the opposite of what you claim (that is, those most likely to engage in sick sadistic, baby-killing, wife-cheating, sociopathic tendencies are the religious).

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle.

you seem to be confusing atheism with anti-theism.

Similarly to the difference between immoral (not moral) and amoral (unrelated to morals), atheism is not "a belief that there is no god", it is "a lack of belief that there is a god" (plural included).

Atheism is the faith that you will not stand accountable for your actions.

That's a crock of hope and change.

Atheism is the belief that the choice of your actions, and therefore the responsibility for them, is ultimately yours.

The morally dead will choose atheism.

Tell me, who is the more "moral" person, the one who chooses morality because they fear a punishment or expect a reward from an ultimate authority, or the one that does so just because they feel that it is the right thing to do?

The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism

And yet the atrocities committed in the name of religion vastly outnumber those committed in the name of atheism (or anti-theism).

BTW, there is no "atheist club"; most atheists are independent thinkers by definition, otherwise they'd probably be Unitarians (joking, joking). One of the few things that most atheists can agree upon is that there is nothing wrong individual spirituality or religion, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's when organized religion tries to force its opinions on everyone that people take issue. Sort of like when the RIAA forces through legislation we don't agree with then uses their clout as a large organization to legally bully you into submission.

In theory, this is true. In practice, it is not. If I dare to call myself a "free-thinking, religious individual" then 95% of atheists will roll their eyes and offer up some ridiculous strawman, as if on command. This is not tolerance, and it is not due to their oppression. It is due to hatred, groupthinking, and the manipulation of high-profile persons in this camp. There is a noticeable difference between a man who is raised without a god in his life, and a man who would label himself an atheist.

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle. It is based on faith. "Uncertainty" is the scientific approach to a lack of tangible, repeatable observation. To go forward with the inference "I have never seen God before, therefore the men who claim to have seen him must either be lying or crazy, and anyone who listens to them is wrong" is nothing but faith. Atheism is the faith that you will not stand accountable for your actions. It is a gamble made in convenience.

Most importantly, however, is that there IS an atheism camp. Atheism and theism simply cannot coexist as entropic states. The entropy is agnosticism, which atheism abhors for being its logical counterpart.

Ah, but I'm rambling on for too long, to the point where I won't even get to the moral of the story: The morally dead will choose atheism. The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism as an attempt to escape their guilt. For example, the larger and more deviant your porn collection, the harder it is to believe in God. (The reverse is not neccessarily true-- one does not have to be morally damaged to question the existence of God) It is interesting from a psychological standpoint, if not a religious one.

And don't even bother to go telling me how pornography is now thought to be a good thing. So are abortion and divorce, yet here we see how they all cause moral ambiguity in ones' own conscience. Religion has known this as a "deading of the soul" for thousands of years, but to call it such, after the last paragraph, would be too close to circular reasoning for your comfort, I'm sure.

I hate to break it to you, but the Republican party is in no way a shining example to be emulated. This is the party of 'small government' that wants to have a hand even in who can get married. The Republican party has a painfully obvious desire to push our government towards theism, with Christianity being the plank. No thanks. Personally I'd rather have at least a couple of (actually viable) third parties to choose from, but that is impossible thanks to both of our current ruling parties.

On the healthcare front, I'm not convinced that a public option is the only solution, but it's better than what we currently have. I have a close friend, with no insurance, who would have died were it not for Medicare. Her doctor chose her treatment, the procedure, everything. The state had no say in her treatment. On the flip side of the coin, my Uncle has a debilitating condition that is curable, but his insurance will only cover treatment, not the procedure to cure it. Under Limbaugh's 'proposal' both of these people would be dead for not being rich. Fuck that.

Informative is a highly subjective term when it comes to entertainers. I don't consider Jon Stewart to be a valid news source either. After listening to Limbaugh's rants for the past six months or so I've noticed that almost every single bit of 'information' the man spews is hate-filled, spun, and manipulated. Almost all of it.

By the way, ratings do not in any way have a bearing on the value of information; that's a false argument.

Yes, he defended himself from the term. That's cute. The song was painfully insulting and shouldn't have been given air time. I've noticed he has a goodish history of having to defend himself from the fallout of his own comments.

Christianity as I understand it, is descended from Catholicism, as Catholicism is descended from Judaism.

Your understanding is incorrect.

The Catholic Church claims the Apostle Peter as its founder. There were, however, ten other Apostles who began the spread of Christianity (Judas, of course, commited suicide instead of seeking redemption, cutting the total to 11 from 12). Within a few hundred years, the Catholic church became the dominant church in Europe, but it was by no means the only Christian church, simply the largest.

It also has the distinction of being one of the oldest Christian denominations. You could technically say that the Protestant denominations stemmed from Catholicism, but it would be about like saying Athiesm stemmed from Theism - Protestantism was a rejection of Catholicism and a return to the roots of Christianity. This is why the Bibles of the Protestant denominations of Christianity contain only the books written by the Apostles and the first few great missionaries who came behind them. The Catholic Bible is supplimented by a number of various books of tradition that have been passed down through the centuries, which other denominations don't ascribe to. The customs of the priesthood in Catholicism are also very, very different from other Christian denominations. The idea that the Pope speaks the word of God directly, for example, is not found in most other Christian denominations.

That said, you can usually simply cut away parts of Catholicism and get one of the various Protestant denominations, because they are built on the same foundation.

If your interpretation of Christianity was looser, rather than tighter, you would have ignored the differences and stuck to the similarities. But you did not do that, hence the argument. The idea of transsubstantiation is almost exclusively a Catholic or Catholic based idea. MOST people who read the passage where Christ broke bread with his deciples and said "This is my body, do this in rememberance of me" recognize that he was making a metaphore, and the point is to remember his sacrifice not get caught up in eating the body of Christ. Obviously that's not what happened the first time, why would it be happening now? It was essentially a Papal decree that made transubstantiation doctrine, for no real reason, and it's that sort of thing that led to Martin Luther founding the Protestant church. Essentially the only denominations that believe in transubstantiation are denominations that originated by churches that were catholic in doctrine, but for one reason or another were cut off from the main church. Russian Orthodox is like this, and is very very similar to Catholicism because of it.

If you want proof of how different the denominations are, and why you can't simply lump them all together as you did, go have Mass at a Catholic church and then run down to Baptist or Pentacostal church (Baptist and Pentacostal are themselves almost opposites) for a service. You will see what almost two different religions. Then run over to a Mormon church, which is as different from Protestant as Protestant is from Catholic.

The differences are so great that many in each group do not consider the others to be truly Christian, and that instead they still need salvation.

Oh, I disagree completely.

Atheism - "I do not believe there is a god"

Anti-theism - "There is not a god"

The former is within the realm of personal conviction. The latter requires a leap of faith, ergo religion.

The strongest position that a non-religous atheist can produce is something along the lines of "I am not convinced". When you leap to "you are all idiots", you have entered a position that you cannot support with facts.

BOTH are forms of "I do not take the idea of a god existing seriously," which is what really defines atheism. If you don't understand this, consider your own conviction that there is no Santa Claus. You can't tell me that you have any kind of proof that he doesn't, yet if I suggested to make it illegal to light fires in fireplaces in December so as to not light him on fire, you would think that was preposterous. Does that make you religious? It's exactly the same thing with atheism. If you just admit that to yourself, you can from then on start understanding what atheists actually think, instead of making up things you would like them to think. In any case, any kind of knowing at all requires what you call "a leap of faith". See, deciding things on limited information is what intelligence is all about. There is nothing religious about it. You are doing it right now as you sit in your chair and fail to be amazed that you don't fall through it. Science certainly crucially depends on it.

You seem to have taken atheism to the extreme of anti-theism, which is an equally untenable position and is a form of religion all in itself.

Some people seem to derive no end of pleasure from pointing out how not believing in gods is a religion. Do you realize how stupid it makes you seem? Is bald a hair-color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is a bare wall a kind of poster? Is... I give up.

Again, you're not educated on the matter, and are incorrect. What I believe, and whether or not it aligns with Catholicism is a measurable thing. It can be learned and is not a matter of faith.

Now, I'm not stating that there is a requirement that everyone know what I believe. What I am requesting, however, is that someone acquire that knowledge before pulling things out of their anal cavity.

To wit:

Faith which, BTW, causes you to dismiss vast majority of deities that were claimed to exist throughout all of the recorded history. You need to have a heck of a good reason to choose your one deity before you can start any critique of anti-theism (which you also are guilty of, to almost the same degree; excluding only one deity. Why the exception?)

In fact I believe in one God, as perceived by many different cultures. I believe that all these cultures eventually adulterate their understanding of the message and bend it to their own liking. As with all history, I believe that all religion is probably based on some form of divine inspiration. A lot of the detail is a lie, but the essence of it is, in my view, true. I do believe that God speaks to each of us and we each have the opportunity to hear it, whether descended from white Europeans or not.

So while you seem to feel confident that I believe in only 'the one white Jesus' and that I wish to burn at the stake all those that do not, I am offended that you projected this belief upon me without even inquiring about the topic. And I have every right to be.

So what am I guilty of, again? And by what proof, rather than assumption, do you make this conviction stick? Or are you, as did the poster above, merely lumping me in with others so that I will be easier to attack?

You are being a bit hypocritical. Not knowing all the nuances of particular mythology can't be strictly "uninformed state", can't be "without being educated in the matter", because you certainly are one of the first to admit that essential matters are relegated to faith.

Faith which, BTW, causes you to dismiss vast majority of deities that were claimed to exist throughout all of the recorded history. You need to have a heck of a good reason to choose your one deity before you can start any critique of anti-theism (which you also are guilty of, to almost the same degree; excluding only one deity. Why the exception?)

Oh, I disagree completely.

Atheism - "I do not believe there is a god"

Anti-theism - "There is not a god"

The former is within the realm of personal conviction. The latter requires a leap of faith, ergo religion.

The strongest position that a non-religous atheist can produce is something along the lines of "I am not convinced". When you leap to "you are all idiots", you have entered a position that you cannot support with facts.

What the hell makes you think I should give your version of Christianity more consideration than that of Catholicism? For 1/6th of the earth's population Catholic Transubstantiation is official church doctrine. The Catholic qualifier offers little except to stand up and point out that your craziness is better than the Catholics'. Your point, that I should know why your version of Christianity is better than all the others is self-defeating, my obligation to your religious rights precludes my ability to value your beliefs over another. It's not antitheism as much as it is an offense at the notion that *I* or any other atheist should consider theism at all. It is quite frankly about an atheists right to make a valid point without getting wrapped up in some religious "US vs Them" bullshit.

As an example. The Koran is a lot like the bible, many similar stories. I have no obligation whatsoever to make the distinction when pointing out kooky biblical stories. For you to make that distinction and side with me against Muslims is ridiculous.

The reaction was that this particular craziness belonged to the Catholics and not your version of Christianity (which for the record, still doesn't matter for the purposes of our discussion). My position is that one religious person pointing out the craziness in another religion and siding with an atheist to illustrate the point, is untenable. It always will be, because your position offends the atheist.

Anti-theism is just fundamentalist atheism. It's not a religion in itself.

And I cannot state this strongly enough. I do not mean to disrespect you're personal views in any way, but I don't see how I should understand your religion any more than the fundamentals of Islamic terrorism or Scientology. As far as I'm concerned you are all equally deranged, sorry, but that's the truth.

If you admittedly do not wish to understand, then kindly STFU? It would be the polite thing to do, rather than blathering on without being educated in the matter, would it not?

You can call it derangement, but in your admittedly uninformed state, that's not 'truth' as much as it is 'ignorance', because as you stated, you are willingly failing to understand the content of the positions.

You seem to have taken atheism to the extreme of anti-theism, which is an equally untenable position and is a form of religion all in itself.

Anyway, perhaps you should be more appropriately termed an agnostic and not an atheist?

No. Agnosticism is the stance that one doesn't know; it isn't a third position between theism (belief in a god or gods) and atheism (without belief in a god or gods.) Either you hold such beliefs, or you don't. Why - knowledge, instinct, ignorance, statistics, disdain - doesn't have any measure of effect on putting you in some position of ambivalence. Either one is a theist, or one is an atheist.

Just as there are many subtle differences in theist positions, there are myriad subtle differences in atheist positions. The unfortunate part for public perception has been the casting of "atheist" in the role of anti-theism. That assigns a good many people views they don't hold.

You're still begging the question. Maybe right and wrong are meaningless concepts and are no one's responsibility. Or maybe they are the responsibility of an alien species we have not yet encountered. All atheism truly says is that they aren't the responsibility of a god, but that isn't a positive claim. That's a rejection of a claim, which, incidentally, isn't even core to theism itself. Basically, atheism will, by corollary, reject any claim that depends on the existence of a god, but it makes no claims of its own. In conjunction with other ideas, perhaps you might arrive at the notion that morality is a real thing and that it is man's purview, but that does not deductively follow from the rejection of the god hypothesis.

Well, the roots of the word "atheism" are: "a" (the negative modifier), "theos" (meaning god or gods) and "ism" (theory, practice, or belief). Regardless of how you have chosen to redefine it for your own purpose, atheism, by definition is the belief (practice/theory/etc...) that there is no god. Therefore, when people say "atheism", I will always assume that they actually mean "atheism" unless they clarify beforehand. This conversation is about atheism.

You can play this game if you want to. Note that in my original post I qualified my statement saying that "most people who actually argue about the logic of these positions" refer to the "I dunno" position as "weak atheism." The fact is that philosophers and theologians make all sorts of distinctions between positive/negative atheism, weak/strong atheism, and various other possibilities. And they often refer to the "I dunno" position as "weak atheism." If you want to call it something else, fine. I was just telling you what people who actually debate things like this call it. (If you don't believe me, look it up.)

As for the etymology argument, I was just trying to explain how I think all those philosophers and theologians justify using the word "atheism" in the phrase "weak atheism." Etymology can only take us so far, though, and I agree that the roots of the term "atheism" have to do with actual denial of the existence of god. But again, I noted this in my post, because most societies in the past were theist, so to not believe was to make a major statement against societal morals, rather than simply "I dunno." But how the term was used centuries ago doesn't negate the fact that philosophers and theologians have come up with various distinctions within it nowadays.

In the end, we're left with a terminological problem. If someone asks you, "Do you believe in god?" If you believe, you could say, "I'm a theist." If you don't believe, you could say, "I'm an atheist." But what if you don't know or don't care? I'd hardly say you're a "theist" in that position, since most people require theists actually to believe in something. If you don't know and/or don't care, you don't believe in god (whether or not you are positively sure that there isn't a god), and therefore the most appropriate term seems to be that you're an atheist, meaning that you do not hold the belief of theism. If you want to make up another term, that's fine. Many people seem to appropriate the word "agnostic" these days, even though (as I've pointed out), that technically makes an epistemological claim, rather than simply "I dunno."

So, get annoyed at people who misuse "agnostic" or get annoyed at people who (in your opinion) misuse "atheist." I'm just going by the terms the experts use.

Wrong. According to Wikipedia (and this atheist): "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist."