Slashdot Mirror

people like you need to stop pushing false dichotamies and pretending that we're all out here to "take sides."

False dichotamies? Try Israel and Palestine. Or the Irish Republicans and the Unionists. You're right - we're not all out to take sides, but we need to be, because until enough people abandon religion, civilisation will remain shackled by conflict and segregation.

It is in fact quite possible to reject every religious text and still be agnostic.

That's because agnosticism, as I have already said, is a faux concept and merely a degree of theism.

Zealotry in favor of atheism is no better a government policy than zealotry in favor of Christianity.

OK, I'm going to define my terms very clearly so that you understand. Atheism is just the word used to describe a rational approach to religion. A rational approach to religion is the same as a rational approach to anything else. Information is weighed according to evidence and a conclusion is reached. That is all atheism means. In fact, I think it's pretty absurd there's a word for it, because as I said, for rational beings it's the default position! Can an atheist tell you that he is 100% certain that x deity does not exist? No. What he can tell you is that according to the evidence available, it is highly unlikely that they exist.

So, should governments approach matters in a zealously rational way? Yes, of course they should.

/*The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.*/

Well actually not , most atheist would agree that as much as there is no evidence for God , there is also no evidence against God.

Therefore you will have to believe that there is no God due to lack of evidence proving that there is no God.

atheist == believer

bzzzt. no.

theism vs. atheism are a different axis to gnosticism vs agnosticism

theism is belief that there is a God.
vs.
atheism is belief that there is not a God.

gnosticism comes from 'gnostic', an old series of beliefs primarily notable by the belief (a prerequisite for theists) that humans can now if God exists - gnostic systems predate most of the world's modern religions.
vs.
agnosticism is a belief that humans can not know for sure if God exists.

The two concepts are close, but different. It is not a matter of percents or certainty.

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?

Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.

Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?

I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?

Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.

You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.

You're a fucking idiot. Religion is not this world's problem, it's idiots. And you can't cure stupid. You're a shining example of it. People will do stupid things and hate each other even if you don't have religion.

And I'm not making an account just to reply to a dumbass like you.

As I was saying in another post: Atheists DO NOT believe in god. This does not require faith.

Keep in mid that Atheism can mean two different things which are actually quite different. From Wikipedia:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

There is a big difference between non belief and active disbelief. The latter position that deities do not exist does require faith, it requires faith that you as an individual are correct and in fact have the answer to an unknowable question. This type of atheist pisses me off because they are no better than the theists that they loathe. They are overrun with arrogance and pride.

I don't believe in god but I also know that I am at least partially or maybe completely wrong because like I said, it is unknowable. I also have no problem with people that believe in god, I just can't tolerate anyone that is so sure that their answer is the only true answer.

Most theists and atheists alike would jump to calling me an agnostic simply because they have a need to fit me into a neat little category. However, even though I don't believe in god while also not ruling out the possibility of a god, I am not agnostic because I do take a stand and have a position on the issue which is very simple:
Everyone is wrong!

see, now from what ive read, people are treating agnosticism as a type of BELIEF.
its not.
theism and atheism are types of BELIEF.
gnosticism and agnosticism refer to KNOWLEDGE.

a typical Atheist is an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST: you cant prove god doesnt exist, there is no evidence. therefore there is no god.

a typical theist is an AGNOSTIC THEIST: science cannot explain everything, you cant give me all the answers. therefore there must be a god.

a Zealous theist is a GNOSTIC THEIST: i hold the bible, who's teachings are irrefutable evidence, which PROVES god exists. you cannot doubt these teaching, therefore god exists.

so in laymens terms, pretty much everyone here is AGNOSTIC. just AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS, they dont believe in god[s] because nothing can prove them to be true. there is no evidence/knowledge to show they exist, so therefore they dont.

Correct - and it's still true that these definitions are not a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic and atheist - you can even be an agnostic theist.

But unfortunately many people do not understand the definitions you give, and I think that's what the OP was getting at: the people who admit they don't believe in God, but claim that they aren't atheists, instead claiming that they exist in some middle limbo ground, neither believing nor not believing, somehow existing between theism and atheism. Perhaps it's because of the stigma to do with the label "atheism", but I feel that the more people who distance themselves from atheism (despite not believing in god), the easy it is to stigmatise atheism. Worse are those who add to the criticism themselves, claiming absurdities such as "atheism is just as bad as theism", and thinking that they occupy some magical superior high horse between the two.

You never get this sort of thing with anything else, such as ghosts, UFOs or unicorns. People say they believe or they don't - none of this cowardly "Well I don't believe in fairies ... but I don't disbelieve, therefore I'm still better than both those who believe, and those who don't believe in fairies!"

If atheism is the default position, why are there so many people who believe in some sort of supreme being? I'd be quite willing to wager that over history, more people have believed in divinity than have not.

Despite being an agnostic with atheist leanings (as described earlier in this thread), I suspect that theism is the default position, with atheism being a recent aberration.

Oh, and your arguments on this sort of topic will be taken better if you leave the emotional content such as "grow up" out; we expect dogmatic and provocative crap from the theists, and look to the atheists for cool reason. ;)

That seems like you are implying that atheism and theism are both irrational viewpoints. I assume you don't believe in the tooth fairy, but are you really saying you don't believe in a lack of the tooth fairy? Are you only agnostic about the tooth fairy or are you an atheist with regard to the tooth fairy.

There are an infinite number of things to not believe in, but saying that not believing all these possibilities is the same as believing in them seems rather ludicrous.

See also: Burden of Proof.

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No, and the reason is simple: it wasn't the atheists that started saying that there is no god; it was the theists saying that there was one.

I find it useful to think in terms of two axes, atheism-theism and agnosticism-gnosticism.

The theism axis addresses the question of whether god (however defined) exists, as if that question were answerable as a matter of objective fact.

The gnosticism axis addresses the question of whether it is possible for a human being to *know* definitively that god either does or does not exist.

So, for example, Richard Dawkins is a gnostic atheist, while C. S. Lewis was an agnostic theist.

Websters defines athiest at "one who believes that there is no deity" and religious as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity."

Simply, Athiests can be religious, in that they are manifesting faithful devotion to their ultimate reality in which there is no deity.

Just for fun, Websters defines theism as "belief in the existence of a god or gods" there is no mention of "religion or faith".

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

Right...in exactly the same way as not playing tennis is a sport. Atheism is a lack of faith, not an act of faith. There is no evidence for gods or faeries or santa claus; are you agnostic about faeries? If not why not? Why so sure? How about santa? How about gods? Why claim agnosticism in the face of gods but not Russell's teapot? It's an absurd cowardly accommodationist position.

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?

Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.

Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?

I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?

Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.

You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.

"Taking an absolute stand on theism OR atheism requires that you take as much evidence as there is into account, and then assume the rest."

Which is why you get 5 buck if you spot an someone taking an absolute stand on atheism and not saying they are simply a functional agnostic atheist because there is no evidence is available.

I saw one of those once, they came across as utterly crazy.

Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, and you're probably both if you're either (though agnostic theists do exist, they're weird).

"An atheist is someone who does not believe in the possibility of a god. Not someone who does not have a religion. By not ruling out the possibility of a god, the person is not an atheist."

That's your definition, not anyone else's. Not any atheist I've ever met, not any atheist I've ever heard described. Short answer -

FAIL.

A-theist - without theism. Without religion or faith, usually because they are also a-gnostic, that is to say that they have been shown absolutely no supporting evidence for any of it.

This puts the Atheist in the same boat as the theist: with a belief that lacks any evidence.

ahem.
a- = without
theism = belief in a deity
atheism = without belief in a deity

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.

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.

From your post, I'd guess that you might describe yourself as "deist", if you were familiar with the term. It is distinct from "theist", and somewhat overlaps "atheist", in that it is a rejection of all of the theisms. In fact, deism is condemned as vehemently as atheism by the major theist doctrines. However, it is a definite intellectual position, unlike the confused non-stance of the agnostic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

As many others have pointed out, you cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist, therefore you need to make a 'reasonable assumption' about the nature of the universe in order to arrive at atheism. That 'reasonable assumption' for atheists is also called 'faith' for theists. Taking an absolute stand on theism OR atheism requires that you take as much evidence as there is into account, and then assume the rest.