Slashdot Mirror

Leonard Peikoff is retarded. He misrepresents agnosticism in two important ways.

Error number 1. Both theism and atheism are faith based positions. There is no proof of the non-existence of God, ergo anyone who claims "There is no God" has made a leap of faith. You may argue that the non-existence of God is more likely than his existence, but that's not good enough.

Error number 2. Agnosticism is a recognition that both atheism and theism require faith. It is not chosen for diplomatic reasons, it is chosen because it is the only position that does not require faith. I don't know, for 100% certain, that God does not exist. Hence, I am agnostic. Leonard Retard doesn't have 100% proof either, but he has faith, faith that he knows enough about the world to know, for sure, that God does/does not exist.

Incidentally, it must be said the behaviour of religious people does not tell us anything about God. God might exist, but have nothing to do with any religion. You cannot use flaws in Islam or Christianity or Scientology to disprove God. Equally, the behaviour of those religious people is NOT a reason to be an atheist.

Im agnostic because I believe being so sure of anything that is so far behind one's self without any proof for or against is unreasonable. But that doesn't mean I want modern governments and academic institutions to be ruled by these religious fanatics, they need to be secular institutions. The debate isn't about plain old theism and plain old atheism, the debate is over whether or not these institutions should be secular. Someone who believes or does not believe in a god make no difference in this matter.

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

In that sense it is closer to pure rationalism than atheism.

I've always had trouble with zealots of any camp. I actually put a distance from a friend who was a bit too committed to convert me to atheism, using the exact "Zeus" argument described above.

If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith." As you go through the business of living, you have to stand on one side of the line or the other.

It's simply not meaningful to hide behind "agnosticism" as a position. It doesn't make you sound diplomatic, it only makes you sound cowardly and irresolute. As an example, are you agnostic about Zeus, too? No? You're pretty sure that the possibility of Zeus's existence shouldn't inform your decisions and actions in everyday life? Then you must feel the same way about whatever God(s) the religious people are trying to sell you at the moment.

All it takes for thumpers to get away with this crap is for good "agnostics" to do nothing. It's not useful to natter endlessly about the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. The debate is between plain old theism and plain old atheism. And it isn't being held in Internet forums, at lexicographers' conventions, or in comparative religion studies. It's being held in the legislatures, in the voting booths, and in our kids' science classes.

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

Only the first supports yours...

But.. but... I didn't tell you mine. :)

I think it's ambiguous, you can use it in both senses.

One way of constructing the word atheism would be to take your English "theism" and prepend your English "a-" for "not", meaning "not theistic". I see this is your way and would mean exactly what you argue.

The other way is taking the greek "theos" meaning "god" and prepending the greek "an-, a-" meaning "not, without". If you look at this greek root and where and how it's used, this would mean "against god" or "no god" and some people, especially the people who coined the term way back then, mean it that way. So really #3 and #4 don't support your definition because they're etymological and only look where it came from, not where it is.

Finally, I agree very much agnosticism shouldn't be used for "not sure" but mean "I believe you can never know and you shouldn't try". There is no need for a word to mean "I'm not sure" because you don't normally identify as someone whose persuasion is "unpersuaded". Much the same way you don't have a third party for people who will either vote Republican or Democrat, but aren't sure yet.

Anyway, this isn't a topic dear to my heart and really either way is fine with me because it's mostly semantics when most everyone knows what the other person means. Ambiguous statements exist en masse and we clarify by expanding on something all the time, if need be.

I hope this makes a little sense.

Your last two support my definition.

The second, from Wikipedia, supports the concept of "weak" and "strong" atheism.

Only the first supports yours...

But examine the word itself. The a- prefix negates -- an atheist is a non-theist. To say that theism is definitely wrong, and that we believe there is no god, is to be an anti-theist -- against theism.

Agnostic doesn't fit particularly well to the position of lack of affirmation, as it actually implies something more -- that the question itself is un-answerable, unknowable. It is compatible with both atheism and theism -- that is, I could be a theist who believes we can't really know if a god exists, and must accept it on faith, or I could be an atheist who disbelieves precisely because most gods are unfalsifiable claims.

If we say atheism is a positive affirmation that there is no god, and agnosticism is "not sure", that would leave us without a precise word for what agnostic is supposed to mean.

It's also worth mentioning: It's hard to find someone who both calls themselves and atheist, and agrees that it is a positive affirmation. I suspect the reason theists like to define it that way is that it's much easier to then attack their affirmation -- "Prove to me there's no god" -- whereas if atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is right back on the theist, where it belongs -- "Prove to me there is a god."

examine the wording

atheist
"noun: one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster)

atheism "can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist." (Wikipedia)

atheist
"1571, from Fr. atheiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

atheism
"derived from the Greek word atheos, using the Greek prefix a- (an- not, without) ... derived from the Greek word theos (a deity...)" (MyEtymology)

etc.

I agree that people need to get this right.

"Strong" and "Weak" should only be applied to RELATIVE values, not to whole concepts.

An atheist is the one that does not believe in THEISM; theism being beliefs in supernatural beings. "Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief; it is the absence of belief." Either you do, or you don't, no relative things here.

"An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to knowledge." Either you think it is knowable or you don't.

"Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE with regard to a god or supernatural being."

"Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic"

"The agnostic THEIST believes in the existance of god, but maintains that the NATURE of god is unknowable."
"The agnostic ATHEIST maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. Not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the EXISTANCE of any supernatural being is unknowable as well."

I refer to you the book "Atheism, the Case against God", by George H. Smith, where he does an extensive and well thought out analysis, from where I take the previous quoted sentences. I guess you could find an actual book or reference for the other terms, but the extensive analysis given in this book properly cements his reasoning.

I'm 19. I still have religion, and I have a very great curiosity for science. I don't think being an anti-theist hero should have anything to do with someone being a science hero. If he make science popular on its own, well more power to him. What does the anti-theism have to do with it?

I'm glad I was sufficiently neutral in my post. I'm actually of apparently more or less the opposite worldview as you, yet you found my post rational. This is good. :)

Unfortunately for most of these sorts of discussions, inconsistent people on both sides of the worldview spectrum - shall we say, atheists and theists, for lack of better terms - tend to muddy any conversations with inconsistencies. I mentioned one on the more atheistic side in my original post. I would view "evolutionary theism[/creationism]" as an inconsistency on the theistic side.

[/ramblings]

Longwinded philosophical post. You've been warned.

One simple question. Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process? And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?

In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?

It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility. On one hand, saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.

To me, it seems inconsistent. Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would? Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.

I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?

This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview. I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid." :)

he may have perceived God as a universal entity and had no reason not to include theism in his fantasy.

So gray wizards performing an ultimate act of sacrifice by fighting a demon, and coming back as a pure white wizard is not theology?

I haven't read the book, but if that's in it, and given the overall theme of innocent/pure creatures doing their best to overcome evil forces, I think it's clearly theological. Especially given documentary I saw which said that Tolkien was a preacher's son, and wrote in the context of Nazi germany's spread across europe, his perception of it as an evil force, etc.

with relation to Islam, yes it is.

Also, i recall an interview with Peter Jackson in which he described reconciling his worldview with Tolkien's in the context of remaining faithful to the artistic vision of LoTR. He (in my view) misapplied a Tolkien quote dismissing allegory by claiming that LoTR couldn't have Christian or theist themes buried in it. My guess is that if Tolkien considered it (which is likely given his rigor elsewhere) he may have perceived God as a universal entity and had no reason not to include theism in his fantasy. I also find it hard to believe that Tolkien hated allegory all that much given his life long friendship with Lewis, an admitted writer of allegory. One might say that allegory was the majority of Lewis' work. Yet I've not seen any criticism of Lewis' allegory in their correspondence.

"This is not a rejection of theism"

Wimp. Reject theism. The only thing it gets used for in society today is to justify prejudice.

Throughout history, there have been lots of questions that science has not been able to answer. But science is not static. Over time, it has been able to answer more and more questions and close more and more of the 'gaps.'

For any theist, the 'God of the Gaps' defense is pretty weak. Just because we don't understand something doesn't require a God (or gods) to explain it.

This is not a rejection of theism, but simply a comment on science - just because we don't have an answer now doesn't mean we won't have an answer in the future. And not having an answer does not imply that there is a (or many) God(s).

Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.

Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.

Despite the request, let's look at the common trait that all of these groups share: the subcategory of delusion known as belief.

It wouldn't matter if all a cult was compelled to do was be happy and pick blueberries in a meadow; the situation remains that they are pushing claims that cannot be proven, yet insist on their validity. That in itself holds us back as a civilization because everytime someone shows yet another proof that we don't have to pick blueberries, we've got a large demographic who won't acknowledge the QED because in their head, belief somehow trumps scientific rigor. Compound that a few generations and non-blueberry picking proofs into the future, and come to find we're gimping along at a pace that's embarrassing when compared to where we should be.

Oh, and I have to call you on this: so the only explanation to the large number of vocal non-theists on the site is groupthink? Nevermind that every study you're going to find on the matter shows that nontheism increases with education and this site is "News for Nerds." Nope, it's all just groupthink. And here I thought my renouncement of delusion at sunday school in the early 90s was from my own thoughts. Turns out slashdotters have the technology to go back in time and trick elementary students into thinking that the one true invisible telepathic sky god doesn't exist. Thanks for straightening that all out for us!

Supporting those who seek the abolition of Scientology is one thing, and I support such an end goal myself.

Calling for the end of theism in all forms, however, is something else entirely. I realise that atheism (or at least fashionable agnosticism) is part of the established groupthink here on Slashdot, but as difficult as this may be to comprehend, for some of us, theistic belief is nothing but positive, and it doesn't inspire us to go out and rape, murder, or rob anybody either.

Most people here support the concept of entirely customisable cognitive environments in terms of shells, window managers, and so on; from the perspective of mechanistic atheism, a form of theistic belief doesn't need to be perceived much differently.

If you choose to go without one, for whatever reason, that's fine; I'm not evangelical in the slightest, and I endorse the right of anyone to be totally atheistic who wants to be. All I want is recognition of the same right of freedom of belief myself. If people aren't using theism as an excuse to commit crimes, (and I don't) there is no reason why theism should not be permissible.

No, I am not certain.

Good, now we can over forward.

And I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you think I have to disprove that which is not proved.

What I asked you to do was present your evidence that God does not exist, but it's irrelevant, we both know proof either way is impossible.

you take PERSONAL offense at an insult to your beliefs, that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm not insulting you.

I don't and I'm glad you weren't. I was calling on you to back up your claims.

I was a fundamentalist Christian for several years. It's BULLSHIT. Every bit of it.

Well that explains the puzzling perspective of your argument. Frankly I don't blame you for how you feel, those guys ram it down your throat and even ice cream will choke you when it's force fed. I'd be angry with religion too, but that's a Church, not God.

I'm the first to admit that I'm a monkey when it comes to being holy, but can we agree that the view we both share here is that I.D is a crock and not helpful to anyone?

Can we also, despite the fact that you have made it clear that the theism of the argument (blasphemy) is meaningless to you, agree that arguments specifically designed to weaken the relevance of I.D within Christian organisations must have some place if we are to destablise the attacks being made on science education in our schools?

We have a common view point here, are our beliefs relevant?

Actually, if the religious are correct, then God wrote the rules to say that chemicals would most likely someday combine to form the original organic compounds that would evolve to be life as we know it

That position is called "deism" and is very different from "theism", and it's very different from saying "God created man".

Scientists that say "There's no God, because Science doesn't allow there to be a God,"

Since there is no accepted definition of "God", scientists generally don't make such statements. What scientists can say is that there is no shred of scientific evidence for the existence of anything like any of the "God" concepts of the Abrahamic religions. Furthermore, scientists can say that any literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts known facts and observations and therefore has to be wrong. The only even remotely Christian theology that is known to be compatible with science is deism, but deism is physically indistinguishable from atheism, so it's not clear that it is a theology at all.

So, scientists don't say that there "is no God", but that no religion has yet been able to put forth a concept of "God" that isn't either trivial or wrong. You're welcome to try.

This is creating a (false) triple-value option.

1) I believe in religion
2) I don't know
3) I don't believe in religion

Atheism is lack of belief in a god, not refusal that a god could possibly exist. The existence of a God is not falsifiable. Therefore your only options are

1) Theism (belief in religion)
2) Atheism (lack of belief in religion)

It seems from googling a bit that it's become commonplace use Agnostic as a modifier for Theist and Atheist. Perhaps what you really mean is that you're an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist? In this framework your options are:

1. Theism (belief in a specific mystical deity or dieties)
2. Agnostic Theism (belief in the general concept of mystical dieties)
3. Agnostic Atheism (lack of belief in the concept of mystical deities)

Or as Richard Dawkins put it,
"I am only agnostic in the sense I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

It's quite meaningless to go around modifying every single decision and concept with "MAYBE..."