Slashdot Mirror

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.

Approach it from this angle... "theism", by definition simply means "the belief in a god or gods" and there is no specification as to which god or gods. Therefore, there are multiple branches of theism, but in order to be categorized under the broad umbrella of "theism", they must all share the common belief in a god or gods.

Therefore, since "atheism" means belief in no god, whatever sub-branch of atheism you may identify with, you must accept the common belief in no god.

Well, deism - the claim that god exists but works by natural processes and isn't interested in what's happening today - is technically theism because is involves belief in a god. But since deism claims that god is natural, it falls outside what we usually consider religion, because usually religion involves the supernatural.

Really, it's a mess. Once you start throwing out the rules of logic - and anything that posits a god does - it becomes impossible to determine what anything is, or the truth or falsehood of any proposition.

One mistake - ANY mistake - can lead to the conclusion that something is nothing. From there, it is trivial to "prove" anything. That's why scientists are always re-running tests, trying new experiments to challenge old conclusions. Cleaning up mistakes brings us closer to understanding reality. Also, simple, direct experiments are preferred when possible, because fewer variables and less complication reduces the possibility of errors.

You're just making stuff up now.
As for your comment on morality, theism has the Euthyphro dilemma which really destroys any argument that morality comes from god.

I don't think I accept your distinction between your weak atheism definition and your agnosticism definition. Specifically, I don't think there is one. Either a person asserts that they don't believe there is a god, or they assert that they do believe there is (or isn't) a god. I'm not sure why the question of whether the answer is knowable or not comes into it?

It only comes into it because agnosticism is not a statement about religion per se. It is a statement about epistemology, but most people outside of philosophers only seem to care about the term when it is referencing religion.

Agnosticism is a position that the truth of a particular statement (or type of statement) cannot be determined. If you ask me whether it's going to rain next Thursday, I could answer, "yes, I think it will" or "no, I don't think it will." I could also answer, "I don't know." But if I answer, "We can't know whether it will rain next Thursday" (due to lack of data, the unpredictability of weather, etc.), that's a different kind of statement than simply "I don't know."

Weak atheists don't know and/or don't care. They don't make any claims about beliefs either way. Agnostics are making a statement about epistemology. It is a different type of statement than the theists or strong atheists are making, but it is a position nonetheless. (There are others as well, which have to do with other problems that are either theological or epistemological in character.)

Scientifically, the hypothesis is non-testable, so I don't think there's much dispute in the scientific arena about how knowable the answer is (ie: it's not)?

Well, what exactly is the "hypothesis"? I think you're assuming that theism is only something of the Christian variety (or similar religions) that believe in an invisible God who works miracles. But one could choose any sort of religion and define "god" in a number of ways. Perhaps one's god is an apple or a tree -- in which case, asking questions about the existence of the god is not as important as perhaps determining what it means for a god to be an apple.

Even if we want to believe in an invisible god, one could choose any evidence of experience as proof of some "god" if one wants to. For example, every time an apple falls from a tree, I could say, "Ah, God caused that apple to fall. That is proof for me." What could you do to disprove that God caused the apple to fall? You could describe theories of gravitation, but the theist will simply reply that you're giving a different description, but God was still the ultimate cause. Such a belief system is tested every time an apple falls, and it would only be disproved by an apple falling up or doing something else.

Similarly, the (strong) atheist could assert that God has nothing to do with falling apples. The atheist asserts that the regularity of falling apples does not require a God to make each one of them fall; it is simply of a property of physics, with no necessity to invoke a deity. The atheist might use the laws of physics as an explanation and would only be disproved when the apple did something that contradicted it (which under some circumstances, might be interpreted as a "miracle" by some).

Note that in this case, violation of expectations could disprove both theist or atheist attitudes -- because they are interpretations of evidence, not necessarily about statements of fact. Then, the agnostic comes along who says, "We cannot know what the ultimate cause of the falling apple is -- if there is a God involved, we cannot know either way." That's actually the scientific view you're endorsing by claiming that it is untestable. You're making a claim about what is testable and what is untestable, and that is defined by your scientific worldview. But what I "believe" and what I can "test" are not necessarily about the same things.

You state "I don't think there is one." Do you mean, "I believe there is no such thing as God"

The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative.

Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. You discuss the "logic" of the claims of theism, atheism, and agnosticism, but it seems that you don't actually know the logical consequences of what's going on. You're in line with some of the connotations that people think these words have, but if you want to have a rigorous argument about the logic of belief systems, read up about what you're talking about first.

Part of the difficulty is because of the ambiguity used in the word "atheism," which can mean non-belief, or it can mean a positive belief that there is no god. Those are two different claims (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and "strong atheism"). And you obviously don't know what agnosticism is.

Here's a simple example of arguments that state a view on whether it will rain next Thursday.


THEISM: "I believe that it will rain next Thursday."
STRONG ATHEISM: "I believe that it will not rain next Thursday."
AGNOSTICISM: "I believe that we cannot know whether it will rain next Thursday." (Due to lack of data, or some other problem with epistemology.)
WEAK ATHEISM: "I don't know whether it will rain next Thursday."

Theism is a positive statement of belief, strong atheism is a negative statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement that we cannot logically believe either positively or negatively. Agnosticism is thus also making a specific claim about the state of knowledge and what can or cannot be deduced from it.

Agnosticism is not simply stating "I dunno" and going on with our lives. It is an epistemological claim about the evidence for a god. Stating "I dunno" is a fourth position that is not theism, strong atheism, or agnosticism. Most people who actually argue about the logic of these positions call the "I dunno" crowd "weak atheists" because they don't really believe, but they aren't making a negative assertion either. They simply don't believe either way.

In sum, there are more possible logical positions than you acknowledge. These are the most common ones.

That is absolutely correct.

Theism is not a religion, it is simply a belief in God(s).

You can be a theist and still say fuck God, I'm going to do what I want.

You can be a theist and not agree with any of Earths religions, past or present.

Theism is not a religion and atheism is not a religion either.

Would you call "theism" a religion? Of course not, and neither is atheism. Those terms are only used to describe a position on the subject of make believe beings. Atheism has no dogmas, no holy texts, no shared morals or ethics, no preachers and no recognised leaders. The only thing it has is a position in the disbelief of gods. THAT IS ALL, there is nothing else. Why do people continue to spread false information on what they think atheism is. But if you want to get technical, the proof for atheism is found in the lack of proof that absolutely any make believe being exists.

No Dogmas? "nothing exists beyond the material"

No holy texts? "The God Delusion"

No morals or ethics? Got me there, philosophy has so far proven incapable of justifying ethics or morality on atheist assumptions.

No recognised leaders? Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

As for false information, every time you refer to the subject of "religion" as "make believe things", you do exactly the same thing. Religions have as their subject immaterial things, which are not the same as "make believe things". Truth and melancholy are distinct from Peter Pan. Of course, charging you with hypocrisy would be meaningless, since atheism is incapable of enforcing even a code of courteous discourse.

Would you call "theism" a religion? Of course not, and neither is atheism. Those terms are only used to describe a position on the subject of make believe beings.

Atheism has no dogmas, no holy texts, no shared morals or ethics, no preachers and no recognised leaders. The only thing it has is a position in the disbelief of gods. THAT IS ALL, there is nothing else. Why do people continue to spread false information on what they think atheism is.

But if you want to get technical, the proof for atheism is found in the lack of proof that absolutely any make believe being exists.

So, you are saying I believe in Atheism merely because I care about Theism? But you care about Atheism as well. (You posting here proves that) So, by your own argument, you must be an Atheist also!

Also, as an avid RPG player, I care about elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, goblins, witches and all manner of fantastical creatures...surely you do not suppose I believe in those as well?

Your error is that you equate caring with believing.....and any dictionary will tell you the difference.

If you can't do these, you're spouting bullshit and really out to shut up and let the adults talk.

Such an arrogant and condescending statement.

Please outline the beliefs of atheism. Please outline atheistic morality. Please define the atheistic purpose for life.

To bumble around life being afraid of the most superficial aspects of any spirituality. To be angry at human belief systems and blame it on spirituality. To espouse their disbelief in the most selfish way until their deathbed where they cry for forgiveness before they die.

You seem to carry the anger of an ex-theist, not disconnected ambivalence of an atheist. Fundamental a - theism is no different from *any* group who "knows the truth" and "seeks to liberate all" with their "higher understanding". Spirituality is an intensely personal thing. Rampant atheism sickens me as much as rampant evangelism and is just as hypocritical.

What is this "morality" that every atheist adheres to? What is the "purpose in life" that all atheists uniformly have? Show me any book recognized by atheists as their "bible".

Now read that again but replace "atheist" and "atheists" with their opposites "theist" and "theism".

There is no "morality" that every theist adheres to. There is no "purpose in life" that all theists uniformly have. There is no book recognized by theists as their "bible".

Using your own argument, theism is not a religion, either, hmm?

Your mistake in describing atheism is try to frame it as you would a religion. That's the trouble with religion; it narrows your perspective. Just because others use religion as a substitute for having a personal "way of dealing with life", does not mean that atheists are "trundling forward in life without said beliefs". Atheism is just the opposite of theism: a belief of a god or gods as the creator of the universe (who may or may not intervene with the universe and his creatures). Religion does not make you a better person (than an atheist), it just changes to whom you answer for bad behavior.

No one can "prove" the origin of the universe. But every single religion is man-made, and contains errors of morality and fact. These religions then use their falsely obtained authority to steal and plunder, and to indoctrinate communities to respect hierarchies for no other reason other than the existence of the hierarchy.

Deism is the assertion that there is a God. It's an enormous leap from there is a God, to the God described in this book is the only real God.

Adeism is a logical fallacy. Atheism is a logical conclusion.

That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.

Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.

Well, no one ever said it was an "organized" religion, but what is a religion anyway? Now, I know I'm going to metaphorically be stoned for saying this, but follow the reasoning...

From Dictionary.com "Religion" is defined as:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(The other definitions are quite redundant... "A set of beliefs", "A group of people who share a set of beliefs", etc... So, we'll just skip them. Of course, someone could always craft a definition that is carefully worded to specifically exclude atheism, but that doesn't seem intellectually honest to me.)

Is atheism a "set of beliefs"? Of course. Namely, it is the belief in the non-existence of a god. Does this set of beliefs concern the "cause, nature and purpose" of the universe? The "cause" and "nature" part are given by science and the "purpose" part is simply a negative... there is no "purpose" as theists would understand it. Notice the rest of the definition uses words like "especially", "usually" and "often", which means that those items are typical, but not necessary. So religion does not necessarily require a "superhuman agency" or "ritual observances" or even a "moral code"... most do, but it clearly is not necessary.

Now, I'm not saying that atheism is the same as theism, clearly they are not. But perhaps we are drawing unnecessary distinctions because of a Pavlovian response to the word "religion". Who ever said that religion=theism? It may usually carry that connotation, but must it? When we look at the word "religion" antiseptically, what is there to recoil from?

A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs and we all have beliefs about a great many things. Religion is merely the set of beliefs about the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe. So? We all have beliefs about that. Atheism is merely the religion that does not choose to rely on "superhuman agency or agencies" to explain the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe.

Name a single precept or belief or moral that you can say with absolute certainty that all atheists have, non-atheists do not have, that doesn't involve the disbelief in a deity.

Atheism is simply a response to the position of theism. Is "theism" a religion? No. It's an adjective with regard to belief.

I don't deny anything. I simply don't believe, because I've never seen anything that has even the slightest weight in favor of the various claims of theism. The only thing I object to is the imposition of religious behaviors upon me by the religious. For instance, if they don't want to drink beer on Sunday, then by George, I think that's just fabulous. However, if I wish to drink beer on Sunday, and they move to stop me - for instance by forcing stores not to sell beer to me - well, now we have a problem, and they have just become my enemy by stepping on my liberties. You'll note this opposition arises without any attempt by me to deny the religious their beliefs, or the truth of them, etc.

Religion, like any other highly personal set of choices, should remain between one's self and other consenting adults. As soon as you force it, or material consequences of it, upon someone else, you're pond scum. And that's being unkind to pond scum. Irish lawmakers have today joined this damp, respect-free group.

...because atheism isn't a religion. Being atheist is simply the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. It's just a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't define a person's outlook, behavior, morals or ethics. Atheism is the condition of trundling forward in life without said beliefs. That's all it is. So you can, and you will, encounter atheists who despise theism, atheists who don't care about theism, and atheists that are very interested in it for any number of reasons. Each will have their own way of dealing with life, because, and I am really repeating myself here, atheism contains no instructions of "how to" anything.

As some (very clever) wag has said: If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

that actually stems from a common misunderstanding, that highly technical degrees require highly intelligent people, and these people being of such grand intelligence are above the influence of theistic absurdities like 72 virgins after blowing yourself to bits in the name of a supernatural being.

theism is the suspension of reason. my coworker has a masters in computer science, and takes his children to the creation science museum twice a year for pictures with the dinosaurs. can an engineering doctorate holding terrorist not be convinced to enact and achieve outlandish acts of brutality regardless of what logic and reason tell him? of course.

icecream truck driver or nuclear physicist, the end result is simple: if you can get someone to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities.

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Above quote from Wikipedia.

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.

-- George H. Smith

An atheist is not someone who is anti-god, merely someone who does not believe in a god, no matter how much you'd love to believe that "a" = "anti-".

/Mikael