Slashdot Mirror

Every idea starts out as made up shit. But there's a big difference between shit that's just made up and is never processed any further, and shit that's made up, critically examined, compared with reality, revised as needed, and abandoned when it can't be made to conform to the known facts.

I'm not sure how that is very different then what happens everywhere. I mean the creation verses evolution argument isn't one of facts but ideology surrounding the facts. The entire young earth creationist movement is not exactly applied universally among all creationist yet they have seemed to work out about as many kinks in geology and so on as traditional science has. Either one or two of the worlds largest oil deposits were found by Young earth scientist using the young earth BS they cooked up to support their ideology. If they have a parallel process that seems just as effective, then by not examining it, you are basically not critically comparing it, not comparing it with reality, not revising the existing methodology or science, and not making the ideas conform to known facts. It seems that they are being rejected because it isn't what mainstream science wants it to be or because of a competing ideology attached to it.

But have we bred cows that can eat meat? This experiment greatly expanded the range of changes that can be conclusively proven to occur, and examining the frozen samples will allow us to examine the details of how those changes occurred.

No, not that I'm aware of. But they have bred cows and sheep that can eat grains and cereals that others will not eat or gain nutritional benefit from. I forget the name of the plant but it was considered poisonous to cattle and sheep several hundred years ago and now it's a drought staple because it needs very little water and will flourish in dried up grazing lands naturally.

He wasn't jumped for his belief in god, he was jumped for his odd comment about Darwin's way of thinking. Granted is was in response to a similar remark about creationists, but please don't pretend that he was just innocently stating a personal belief.

He was mixing facts for a personal belief. You see, seeing god everywhere isn't a bad thing- yet he made it out to be. That's the rubbish that made the first part of his post to be foolish and false. Here is why, science is about understanding the natural environment around us. Theism is philosophical and addresses the mind and spirit which also explains some of the deeper questions like why are we here, where did we come from and so on. Those are two entirely separate fields which do not speak of each other at all except for a small few pieces that this article didn't even remotely address. Even the creation verses evolution theories are bunk because we have no empirical evidence of either yet simple explanations from limited dead languages or interpretations of other evidence pieced together in order to create an ideology. And yes, we have never observes natural evolution to the point of speciation yet most creationist willingly accept the idea of evolution as in adaptations. In fact, if you critically think about the ideas of speciation, then you almost have to drop the conclusions presented by sites like Talk origins and others promoting the evolution over god crap.

Nothing in the article suggests anything about a god or not and it should have never been brought up. This whole thread was little more then people attempting to feel better about themselves by putting other down. I just stepped in and pointed to the hypocrisy or a vain attempt. You are who you are and if someone isn't happy about that, they need to change who they are, not attempt to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.

No, Deist meaning that they accepted that there may have been a transcendent creator or that there may be some sort of deity immanent [sic!] in the universe but that did not engage in theistic intervention in the day to day lives of people or in support of states or governments or cultures or other aspects of civilization, and that at best the existence of the deity can only be determined through the study of nature.

That is: if there is a God then it is either no longer present in the universe at all, or is present but chooses not to engage with humanity (no answering prayers, no revelation via burning bushes or other supernatural phenomena, etc.)

"God, Allah" (same thing) is a theistic being in anything actually describing its ("His") actions, talking and otherwise interacting directly (for better or worse) with selected individuals and/or actually appearing in person.

FSM is a theistic being in that it can touch people with its noodly appendages.

You cannot believe in a theistic being and be a deist simultaneously, although you could take a "silent theistic being" position wherein a theistic being exists in some withdrawn, non-interacting state, and has done so for at least the age of the geological record (i.e., billions of years) or even since the structure forming epoch (from the concordance model of cosmology) began. That would be theism in the limit of low and distant (in space-like or time-like senses) interaction. Theism in the limit of small numbers of interactions about at least 13.6 billion years ago is equivalent to deism.

Dawkins is an odd case. I feel that he often does both good evolutionary biology, and good popular-science writing about it. But The God Delusion, while fine as a statement of his views, causes trouble when it's taken, as he implies strongly in some parts, as a claim that science disproves god, or proves belief in god to be Mistaken. That's getting into philosophy of science and philosophy of religion, and Dawkins is frankly just not very good at it, or even well-read in the subject. At the very least, the book has caused a bit of embarrassment among atheist or atheist-leaning philosophers of religion, who generally have better arguments. Sort of a "yes, we agree with your conclusion, but...".

If you want a better-reasoned book that argues that science and philosophy make believing in religion unreasonable, I'd recommend J.L. Mackie's somewhat sarcastically titled Miracle of Theism as a better starting point.

I do believe the term "atheist" is a misnomer, however. The term "naturalist" or "materialist" is much more fitting, since an atheist will usually reject *all* supernatural claims including astrology, numerology, etc. Anything that's nonsense and cannot be verified, basically.

Atheism is simply a response to theism. An atheist is non-belief in a god or gods. There are branches of Buddhism that have no deities, and the people who practice those particular religions are atheists.

There's nothing paradoxical about believing in astrology or numerology or even scientology, and being an atheist. It's a bit tricky to be a practicing Christian, Muslim, or Jew and still be an atheist though.

Otherwise good acts like its position of non-interference in the holocaust and helping the spread of AIDS in Africa purely to spread their anti-condom propaganda?

The 20 quid a month to charity does nothing to absolve the serial rapist and murderer. There's not a Church in history which isn't by its very existence, paying much more than lip service to the ideas they claim to hold. Say what you like about God, theism and belief in general - but no amount of good deeds will absolve the name of the most prolific sexist, racist and hypocritical institution in the (approx) 1900 years since its inception.

I understand that some Americans (though I know not that you are) do not quite get the animosity felt here, as you have never quite felt the weight of this phenomenon in the form of a figure of authority, but as more of a will of the people. Please understand that the fear and distrust that you feel towards monarchies and other such unworthy and large governmental organisations, is on this side of the pond, felt towards the historical epitome of the monarchy-style rule: the Catholic Church. Still their influence is felt and feared in many far reaching decisions and consequences - still it rears its head in many a debate in all countries, even my own which went so far to avoid the rule of the Pope, as to create its own bloody stupid sect of the same religion.

While individual members and followers of the Church may do good in its name - the institution itself will be never be clean, will never be forgiven for its atrocities. Most of all, it will never be forgiven for the complete and utter perversion the of the message it proclaims to embody. Whether you believe in Christ or not (as I do not) it's hard to ignore the message he supposedly left: To love one and all equally and as much as you would your own son. To forgive all transgressions. That there are no rules about how or where to worship the creator and no rituals are required to bear his love. There's not a single sentiment of that message in anything the Church has said or done even in the last 20-30 years, let alone the last 2 millennia - how you can possibly continue to defend an organisation that exists merely to pervert the message of possibly the greatest philosopher of the time for its own benefit amazes and quite honestly disturbs me.

So says you.

One who subscribes to a set of presuppositions, however, believes in them because she accepts them as her starting point. Your presuppositions--your axioms--are your basis by which you interpret the world around you.

One must have faith in his presuppositions, because they are accepted without proof. Atheism is one of those beliefs that one must subscribe to without being able to prove it. The problem with assuming atheism as an axiom is that it does not comport with reality.

Atheism does not allow for uniformity of nature--how can one assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (in an atheistic worldview)? Because it rose yesterday? That only proves that it rose in our experience so far, but it doesn't prove it will rise again.

Atheism does not allow for laws of logic--how can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

Atheism does not allow for human dignity--the idea that humans have more dignity than say broccoli. Why is it permissible for the atheist to eat broccoli but not eat babies? Who says either one is any more valuable than the other?

Atheism does not allow for right or wrong. How can an atheist point to anyone else and say that they should stop doing it? A common response is that society adopts laws that determine the morality of the land. Okay, so might makes right? What would one say to the Germans of World War 2? It was legal to gas millions of Jews, so how can an atheist make a claim that their moral code is superior to anyone else's?

Theism (or more specifically, Christian Theism) is a presupposition that, when accepted, allows for and comports with uniformity of nature, laws of logic, human dignity, and right or wrong. The atheist that relies on those four things borrows from the Christian Theistic Worldview only to claim that the Christian God doesn't exist.

And yet, in doing so, they become their own refutation.

You say:

There are atheists who do not merely believe that no creator is the most likely possibility but firmly believe they KNOW the answer to the question for a fact.

That is correct, but your logic goes in the wrong direction. While some atheists do indubitably believe what you say, it is not the definition of the word "atheist." People who believe that gods don't exist are atheists, but atheists are not people who believe gods don't exist. Atheists are people who don't believe that gods exist.

Wikipedia puts it this way:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Note that it doesn't say that atheism requires some kind of faith in the absence of gods, or that being an atheist requires you to "know" that gods don't exist.

The only definitions that make sense for classification of everyone is use atheist to refer to a firm conclusion that there is no creator, religious to refer to a firm conclusion that there is a creator, and agnostic to refer to anyone who has not reached a firm conclusion either way. These are terms of belief/faith not action.

See above. Atheism is the absence of belief in god, not belief in the absence of god.

I am confident that if you give this serious consideration you will realize that I am right.

Obviously, I believe the same about you, or I wouldn't spend the time arguing it with you :-)

What's the point of engaging in these sorts of discussions (not the one you and I are engaged in, but rather the original discussion)? My purpose is to persuade people that their thinking is flawed and that the facts of nature are still consistent with evolution. What's your purpose?

If you attack the mechanics of someone's argument in a pedantic sort of way, you just shut them out. Unless the topic of your discussion is formal logic, you're not going to persuade them of anything.

If you want people to change their way of thinking, you have to approach the meaning of their arguments and show them where their assumptions are flawed (but do so in a non-threatening way). Good science is non-threatening to intelligent theism.

That only gets you to a deist point of view. Theism is a huge leap from "I don't understand, so a Creator did it" to "I don't understand, but out of thousands of holy books, THIS one is correct."

To be a member of an Abrahamic religion and take their books literally, you have to believe:

1. You can cure leprosy by killing a bird on an alter, and dipping another bird in it's blood. (Judaism)

2. That if a man is mentally disturbed, one way to cure him is to drive the "demons" in him into a flock of pigs who then commit suicide by running off a cliff. (Christianity)

3. That ants can talk and there are evil spirits called djinns all around us at all times. (Islam)

All of these beliefs are frankly stupid. Evidenced by the fact that every religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into the future, because where there is free thought and true free will and the scientific method, religion offers very little.

PS Any responses that don't directly admit to believing in such petty parlor tricks as a literalist are simply white noise.

Yeah but at least you get a bit of choice and variety in monotheism. It's like the capitalism of theism's. Lack of competition in monotheism creates complacency.

i'm not pretending to not understand. i understand your claims perfectly well. you're just way, way off base. enough so that i'm not really interested in getting into a debate with you, because it's clear you're not interested in logic or reason, but instead have an agenda that must be served. so, instead, this is to correct a few glaringly obvious things for other readers. then i'm done.

you still don't show any understanding of the hard/soft or strong/weak distinctions in types of atheism. both tend to use the term "atheism" unadorned, but have very different logical requirements.
the statement "i do not believe in god" is, on its face, logically weak (an unfortunate term, but there it is): it makes no real claims, and is neutral as to the actual reality. this is what classical atheists believe. it is essentially the same as saying "i'm unconvinced".
the statement "there is no god" is logically strong: it makes a definitive claim as to the condition of reality. as such, it has the same requirements on evidence as the statement "there is a god (or gods)". this is the more common usage among modern self-professed "atheists". the logical requirements are not diminished based on the fact that you're asserting a negative.

asserting that the tyranny of atheist rulers is because of an underlying insanity but that the tyranny of theist rulers is because of theism is absurdly intellectually dishonest. why do you get to pick and choose?
even if you were to make that assertion and try to back it up, the disproportionate representation of psychopaths at the head of atheist regimes would leave open a rather interesting question of why that happens. that is, what is it about religion that serves as a check, albeit an imperfect one, on such craziness? that's not the best place to take your argument.

David Hume is absolutely correct, but that passage is totally irrelevant. that is, it applies exactly as well to strong atheist claims as it does to theist claims. you seem to want it to say something it doesn't.

i have no interest in defending the claims of any particular branch of Christianity. you seem, there, to be laboring under the mistaken belief that i give those claims some sort of "free pass" as far as logical constraints go. that's the main reason i'm no sort of proselytizer. turnabout is fair play, i guess, but in doing so you're totally punting on your logical responsibility. and it's a poor punt, given that at no point have i framed things in a "Christianity (of any derivation) vs. atheism" argument.
that cemented, for me, your position as the sort of anit-church zealot your "argument" about the role of religion on human nature has made you out to be. there's no point in arguing or debating with zealots of any stripe. for other readers: when presented with "you don't understand A", asserting "yeah, well you haven't proven B" is not a coherent defense. especially when nobody's made any claims about B.

you lump in "belief in the absence of evidence" with "belief in the face of contrary evidence". this, logically speaking, is an error. your apparent, persistent inability to understand this is likely related (in which direction i do not know) to your inability to differentiate between the claims of two different types of atheists.

and no, i will not do your work for you.

Both theism and atheism are faith based positions.

Atheism is a faith based position as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Simply not believing in a god doesn't require faith. It is just refusing to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Not true. In order to disbelieve something, you have to believe in the premise that it does not exist. You have no undenyable proof that a thing does not exist, therefore you are believing it does not exist. You may have good evidence which suggests that a thing does not exist, which means that it may be a reasonable leap of faith to believe it does not exist, but it still involves a conviction without proof. Without absolute proof of a negative, the best you can have is a logical assumption, not a logical certainty, and an assumption still takes faith. It's not illogical to say "There's no reason to beleive in god." It is illogical to say "There is no god". The first is true. The second is speculation. Probably good speculation, and I'm not discounting its possibility, but it is true that there is not concrete evidence to support the existance of god, while it is not true that there is concrete evidence to support the non-existance of god. Only probable evidence that supports the non-existance of god.

Yes, my point exactly. I'm not the one who holds that point of view, you are; I'm merely replacing "God" with "pixies".

I think you don't know what the point of view is. Now listen one more time, agnostic, I don't believe but am not ruling it out, atheist, There is no god (pixies for you) because of whatever reason. Do you see the damn difference? One is a definitive statement that suggest knowing the other is an non-definitive statement concerning what is unknown. The two do not intermingle.

It states: Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable. [1] It is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive.

How do you get from that, to: "Not being convinced in something"?

Fuck man, are you that stupid? If I convince you, then the unknown is no longer unknown. If you are not convinced in the presence or absence of a god or body of knowledge, then the definition fits.

And since you refer to Wikipedia, check out atheism: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

And both of those statements are definitive which is impossible if you are unsure or hold a belief that it is unknown or inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Read the damn words that you posted yourself.

And you sources, when they don't contradict themselves, side with me and not you. Answer this, it's a logic question that I asked of you in my last post but you conveniently ignore, how can not knowing be reconciled with a definite statement of the existence or non-existent of a being? As I pointed out before, they can't and you have yet to show how unknown can mean known.

If someone tells you they're an atheist, it's not very clever to make assumptions about what they believe by ignoring sourced definitions, or redefine the terms just so you can make up a straw man. And what's more, when they clarify their stance, shouldn't you accept that? I'm telling you now: I don't believe in God.

Unless they are a moron who doesn't know what atheist is and things agnostic means atheist or don't understand the difference between knowing and not knowing, then my assumptions will always be correct. I'm sorry that you are so hurt about not being in the club with the popular kids, but truth is, you never should have in the first place.

No, I don't. Have fun with your straw man.

You should probably look that up too. I don't think it means what you want it to mean. BTW, it is not a universal "I don't agree" clause.

Honestly, I have no idea why so-called agnostics seem to spend so much time attacking people who don't believe in God, just because they use a different term to them - even when numerous dictionaries and other sources back up their usage.

Why? Because communicate is a process designed to convey complete thoughts and if you can't label yourself correctly, then don't get pissy about being accused of something that goes with the label. Tell me again, how does no knowing translate into a knowing there is no something? Tell me, how does that logic work? Not believing in god is not atheist, believing there is no god is. They are two entirely different concepts and don't intertwine.

Only if you are a moron and don't pay attention to the rest of the statement.

Yes, my point exactly. I'm not the one who holds that point of view, you are; I'm merely replacing "God" with "pixies".

Then you should get out more. It's within the first paragraph at wikipedia

It states: Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable. [1] It is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive.

How do you get from that, to: "Not being convinced in something"?

And since you refer to Wikipedia, check out atheism: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Case closed. In my earlier comment I give further sources for a range of definitions.

If someone tells you they're an atheist, it's not very clever to make assumptions about what they believe by ignoring sourced definitions, or redefine the terms just so you can make up a straw man. And what's more, when they clarify their stance, shouldn't you accept that? I'm telling you now: I don't believe in God.

Actually, the term goes past a god or gods existences and refers to the ultimate knowledge in any particular subject. It is often used in terms of gods and is so in this conversation. And no, you can't be agnostic and atheist because the act of atheist is a known assertion(there is no god). It removes the unknowable portion of agnostic.

Already proven you wrong, but just OOI, in your personal set of definitions: since I don't believe in God, but I also don't claim his existence or not is unknowable, what category do I fall into?

Atheist assert they know, you can't hold a belief of not knowing while asserting you know. It just doesn't work. I'm sorry I shattered your world view and you might not fit into the popular groups anymore but that's just the logic working, not me.

No, I don't. Have fun with your straw man.

Honestly, I have no idea why so-called agnostics seem to spend so much time attacking people who don't believe in God, just because they use a different term to them - even when numerous dictionaries and other sources back up their usage.

There is no such thing as a "scientific fact." There are only hypotheses, theories and laws, all of which only apply to observable phenomenon. Science doesn't know everything, but it is the only way we CAN know anything. My opinion may just be an "opinion", but it carries a lot more weight than theists' fantastic God claims, since there isn't a shred of scientific evidence in supports the existence of a supernatural being. Some people choose to believe in God anyway, and that's fine--but don't confuse their dogmatic faith with my use of sense and reasoning. Atheism != theism.

The debate is between plain old theism and plain old atheism. And it isn't being held in Internet forums

Then stop posting here if you don't want a debate.

But then your position is not rational, but merely convenient.

So, are you saying that my lack of belief in leprechauns or brownies or unicorns is not rational, but merely convenient?

I am an Atheist. A- (without) theism (belief in the divine). I don't believe in the Divine. Do I pretend to have proof of the non-existence of God? No, I do not. I don't need it, any more than I need to prove that any number of mythological creatures do not exist.

It's really quite simple. I simply do not believe in that which can not conceivably ever be observed empirically. Making up supernatural explanations for that which we have not yet come to understand through science is convenient, and lazy.

Atheism

Agnosticism,

Theism

OK, here it is, read 'em and weap. Pick one.

Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.

No reason why one should have to.

Science has never been about the existence (or the lack thereof) of god. Science concerns itself with understanding the observed phenomena of the universe, and says nothing about the primary cause, if any, behind all phenomena. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove god. Our current knowledge of the universe is incomplete, and perhaps inaccurate in many ways. We are simply not in a position to be 'resolute' about such questions, at least not yet.

Being 'irresolute' when discussing ultimate causes, therefore, seems to me not cowardly at all, but logically the most acceptable position at present. Staunch theism and staunch atheism are both extreme positions, and neither can be scientifically defended.

Atheism is fashionable in certain circles, slashdot not the least among them. But if you disregard public opinion and apply cold logic, you'll see that an atheist is just as pig-headed and stubborn as a creationist.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist (i.e. you don't believe in any god and you claim there is no way to know this for fact) or you can be a gnostic atheist (i.e. you don't believe any god and you claim to know this as fact). Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

In the same way, agnosticism and theism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnostics aren't in opposition with atheists or theists, they're in opposition with gnostics, be they theist or atheist.