Slashdot Mirror

> What is the root of the problem? I know it's not video games, music, or any other activity or media that they could honestly care to ban.

Why do you assume it is only one thing?

It's hard to say what the root cause when the system of greed, power, and intolerance is designed to keep the slaves from waking up.

Fortunately the ignorance of both Atheism & Theism will soon be over.

If your beliefs are held only as a result of disciplined reasoning and experimentation then you're not a theist, are you?
 
See my argument further down- that in fact, given the overwhelming amount of theist literature and experimentation on the subject, anybody truly disciplined should at least be agnostic if not an outright theist. What I find a distinct lack of evidence for is the concept that there is no God.
 
  The only way out is to become an atheist in how you treat reality.
 
You mean I have to bang my head against a brick wall until I forget the past 1.5 million years of experimentation with theism and all of the data that was collected?
 
  You can still be a theist in the realm of spirituality, but you have got to let the natural world be what it is.
 
Not terribly hard, when you consider that most theism stems from observations taken from the natural world.

If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science?

If your beliefs are formed without any experimental or rational basis then you will have trouble with science. If your beliefs are held only as a result of disciplined reasoning and experimentation then you're not a theist, are you?

The only way out is to become an atheist in how you treat reality. You can still be a theist in the realm of spirituality, but you have got to let the natural world be what it is.

I believe the scientific process and theism go hand in hand. On the other hand, atheists have to be inconsistent with the outworking of their atheism. To use your language, the atheist not only has to make concessions but has to capitulate.

If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science? Now inconsistent with science-ism? Yes.

Now an atheist who assumes that we weren't put here for any particular reason should assume that we weren't designed for any particular reason. We weren't designed to apprehend truth. The thoughts in our heads are just atoms bouncing around in our heads in accordance with the laws of physics & chemistry. The best you could say is that our mind is designed to pick up chicks.

So if we have no basis for assuming the truth of our thoughts, how is atheism consistent with science?

And it doesn't stop there. You have laws of physics hanging in mid-air not supported by anything. No reason to assume they will stay the same (see David Hume atheist philosopher if you disagree). You have immaterial laws of logic that a materialist tries to use.

And even worse you have people like Dennett who try to be consistent with their atheism and then go on to say that the concept of self is an illusion. But go the whole way and ask who is arguing what.

Frankly, I've never run into an atheist who operates completely consistently with his own atheism. It's an impossible task.

I realize that in your eyes there is probably a big difference in natural termination and willfully doing so,

Right--in your eyes too, I wager. That is, you see a big difference in a human life naturally ending, and being willfully ended. (The difference would be the definition of "human life".)

but if every fertilized egg is a human being, nature seems to be awfully sloppy with lives,

Yeah, infant mortality rate used to be pretty high, too.

It's a point to raise if we're talking about the general Problem of Evil/Suffering as an objection to theism, but it doesn't help decide this question.

and for sure not every fertilized eggs just needs a friendly environment and nourishment...

Are you referring to complications in fetal development, and congenital disorders?

I didn't think to mention that kind of thing. Some require more than nourishment & friendly environment--some require more medical care. (And some might not be treatable with our technology.) But you could say the same thing about infants, toddlers, & teenagers.

You mean the same tenets that lead to public burnings, torture, mutilation, crusades, brainwashing and censorship? Christianity and the Vatican IS evil. Any religion is. It's a plague humanity needs to eradicate if it is to survive..

You mean the same race that perpetrated public burnings, torture, mutilation, crusades, brainwashing and censorship? White People and Europeans ARE evil. Any white person is. They're a plague humanity needs to eradicate if it is to survive..

You mean the same tenets that lead to public burnings, torture, mutilation, crusades, brainwashing and censorship? Nation States and specifically France IS evil. Any Nation State is. They're a plague humanity needs to eradicate if it is to survive..

You mean the same tenets that lead to Nazi experiments and forced sterilization? Science and specifically Chemistry IS evil. Any science is. They're a plague humanity needs to eradicate if it is to survive..

(The world doesn't need your hate. Your atheism does not make you special or right. Theism and atheism are just semantic games.)

no one gives a fuck what you think. you're just a bitter little boy who blames the church for his being a total misfit. boo fucking hoo. you're not the first person to have a hard time but sadly you'll be in a whole raft load of others who were too busy pointing their fingers at others to be a real man and do something about it.

keep patting yourself on the back about how you feel about the whole theism thing. i just wish you were man enough to not need the constant acceptance of others about your decision on go on and live your own life. the only people who really wear their hearts on their sleeves are needy little bitches. you're so desperate that it's turned you into an obsessive. you'll end up talking yourself up to others like you've fought the good fight but those around you who have gotten on with their lives will just pity you and nod their heads.

all in all this wouldn't bother me but it seems that you're the kinds of bitches who fuck up everything else by always trying to make your own little crusade the topic of every conversation. you're a waste of flesh. go fuck yourself.

The failure of your analysis comes from assuming that "philosophy" is a direct synonym to "religion". They are not the same, so saying that "belief in no God" is equal to religion isn't accurate.

Atheism is a philosophy just like theism is a philosophy. In your parallel, atheists aren't about eradicating stamps, they're the ones who think that collecting stamps is a waste of effort.

Virg

You are reversing his logic. The OP said that we shouldn't vote for people who "advertise their religiousity". This doesn't mean that therefore a less religious person is necessarily always better, as some might be bad in other ways. Saying "Advertising religion => bad leader" doesn't mean "Not advertising religion => Good leader".

As for Stalin:

The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

- Sam Harris.

The problem is not that some bad leaders happen to be theists, nor is it that some happen to be atheists. Yes, both of those are unfair arguments.

What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence - whether that's theism, or fascism, or whatever else. This isn't all theists, but it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God.

Atheists might happen to be like this in other ways but this behaviour is not due to their atheism. There is no society that suffered as a result of people turning to reason and evidence, rather than faith.

I'm sure you can name a few.

Who else, OOI? (Please, don't say Hitler.)

Okay well I disagree. Atheism is a conscious decision to reject religion. Chairs are not atheist. Horses are not atheist. It's just silly.

Atheism applies to humans, and I'll grant that someone who has never been exposed to religion most likely doesn't believe in God -- although it's certainly possible that they do, human religion was invented by *someone* after all, and there was a first time, it didn't come down from the heavens! -- but practically speaking atheists are self-identified, not identified by an observer. To self-identify as atheist you simply have to know what atheism means, and thus what theism is, and thus what religion and God are.

Obviously you missed the point.

As I read it, your point seems to be presenting an argument for the existence of god.

I never mentioned god.

You said "but deep down you also believe that god started it all.

That kinda looks to me like you mentioned god, and as your concluding statement it sure seems to me to confirm my reading that the point of everything above it was to present an argument for the existence of god.

I didn't say that god created the big bang.

You said "But where did all this come from? you said it yourself, it's all too beautiful to be a coincindence.... deep down you also believe that god started it all."

You imply there must be some bigger explanation "where did all this come from?", and you project that he must secretly believe your answer that "god started it all.".

So yes, you directly asserted god started it all, and you directly equated the Big Bang with "started it all". So yes, again I think you did say exactly what you claim you didn't say.

Maybe you're thinking of some other post you made somewhere else :D

You also missed the point of the big bang. Not just a bang. The best science has it that nothing existed before the bang. Nothing, not matter, not space, not time. Nothing.

I understand that. However I also understand that that "best science" is far from accepted solid science, and that it is at the outer most fringes where all of our current understanding breaks down. Right now it appears that time-as-we-know-it breaks down. It's possible that it is only our mathematical/theoretical grasp on time that is breaking down there, or if time-as-we-know-it does indeed cease to exist, it would merely mean we do not yet have the language to explore the "before" or "origin" of the big bang. I would say our grasp of that general era is still very slippery.

I am insulted by pop scientist posing as real scientists and trying to "prove" that, not only is there no god

I see that general accusation a lot, but I have exactly once seen someone claim science disproving god, and I personally smacked them down for it, and they immediately replied profusely apologizing for his careless language.

Zeus and all of the other gods are human creations, but science cannot disprove Zeus.

Anyone claiming to "disprove" god is wrong. But unless I am seriously missing something, there really isn't anyone out there claiming a disproof of god. People like Richard Dawkins (the most commonly icon of anti-theism) publish books and speak on why people have a habit of inventing gods and on why the arguments for god are wrong and why god is unnecessary or even silly, but even Dawkins has explicitly stated that there is no proof and cannot be any proof of non-existence of gods. Dawkins says "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."

Either I am seriously missing something, or your "insulting" blight of scientists-trying-to-"prove"-there-is-no-god don't actually exist. Maybe you are insulted by people who think god is "very very improbable", or maybe you are insulted by people who think god is silly, but I don't think you can fairly complain about some blight of people claiming to "prove" there is no god. By interpreting them as claiming "proof" of no god, you are turning them into straw men that are obviously wrong and irrational. People who don't believe in any of the various gods are generally fully ready to agree it is obviously impossible to prove Zeus doesn't exist.

if one thinks that there is[god], then one must be a snake handling rube stump jumper.

I certainly didn't say that, and I think that sort of egregious over generalization is generally confined to wild internet flamefests where the theists get just as ill behaved against atheist

This is all so much unbelievable piffle that I don't feel I need to deal with it.

One point I would like to deal with: it's "atheist", not "athiest".

That is, it is a- (negation, absence) theism (belief in god). The non-belief in god, or the belief in the absence of god.

Not "athiest", which would be the most athy, or something.

Spelling things right makes you look brighter than you evidently are.

Oh OK I am going to respond: did you really mean to say "so called evidence"? That _really_ makes you look dumb.

Agnosticism isn't trying to be the 'middle option' between theism and atheism. Theism/atheism split operates on the axis of God's EXISTENCE while agnosticism is a stance on the axis of the KNOWABILITY of God's existence. It is for example entirely possible for a person to believe in God because of some intimately personal experiences, but at the same time believe that its existence can not be proven philosophically or scientifically, making that person a theist agnostic.

I said science, not atheism. The moment you can demonstrate the existence of God (note: "there's no other explanation" isn't evidence), theism becomes science. Belief in that which there is evidence of is the definition of what religion is not.

Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism.

See, but see, the problem here is that "theism" tends to be seen as functionally equivalent to "classical monotheism," so by that viewpoint Buddhists, Hindus, and Neopagans are all soft atheists by that definition. This is more or less due to the fact that the secular humanism on which most modern atheism is based is largely simply secularized interpretations of Christian humanism. Western Atheists and Christians have a heck of a lot more in common with eachother than they do with Thai Buddhists with either group.....

I reject the whole framework, myself, in favor of something which is somewhat pantheistic with man-made religions functioning as an interface between a pantheistic reality and the human condition. Oddly enough this has paralles in Aristotilian thought, but is somewhat different from Aristotle's viewpoint in that I don't accept an unmoved mover, etc. In some ways that might make me "functionally atheist" to some atheists, but then I see most atheists as "functionally Christian..."

functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism.

In no way, shape, or form are agnosticism and atheism equivalent. Agnostic is "a", without and "gnosis" knowledge, "without knowledge". Atheism on the other hand is "a", without and "theism" belief in a god, ie there is no god, or "God". I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god exists, but I certainly want to know one way or the other. Whereas Agnostics are open minded Atheists are not.

In the beginning, of Christianity, there were Christians who were the same and didn't believe in a god, Agnostic Christians. The early churches though persecuted them.

Falcon

All this is is an attempt to pass off religion as science.

But that's a primary goal of creationists and iders making a end-run around the seporation of church and state by dressing up theism as science.

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.

Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.

Self-proclaimed agnostics are either, in reality, "soft atheists" or people pleasers who feel the need to assert their special individuality in such a way that offends the least amount of people.

Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism. It's not like sexuality where you can swing both ways.

If you cannot prove God exists, you also cannot prove He doesn't exist, because such a proof would not be falsifiable. The very nature of God, by definition defies proof. I am perfectly happy to admit that I cannot prove God exists, despite my faith in His existence. I look at the evidence, especially that of Christ (Who did exist, and is either who He said He was, or was a liar (or the Gospel writers were) or was insane... no other possibilities), and have concluded, based on _faith_, that He is Who He said He is, and not a crazy person or a hoax concocted by 1st century zealots. I cannot prove this to you and have no intentions on trying. However, a very small seed of faith, nourished with a great deal of reason and logic have led me to point where I am.

The _best_ you can probably do in this matter is invoke Occam's Razor, which unfortunately works either way depending on your point of view. What's more complex and less probable, the idea of an invisible, omnipotent Creator or incredible order and complexity arising through randomness? Which is simpler. St. Thomas Aquinas had several proofs of God, which I myself don't find completely compelling, although I have great appreciation for his use of logic.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, your lack of belief is as much a matter of faith as my belief. I certainly don't fault your "faith" that God doesn't exist, that's up to you. I do however disagree with you, and more importantly, hold that your beliefs cannot possibly carry more weight or be more based on logic or empirical data than mine, because it's impossible to prove a negative. It's a Catch-22, and I'm perfectly happy to admit that... I think God wants us to need faith in Him, because if there were no question, there would also be no free will. He's infinite, invisible and omnipotent. Any argument you could make for His lack of existence can be gratuitously countered with the fact that God can do anything... including giving us an evolutionary tendency to believe in Him! Including, however much I disagree with the idea, that He made the world 6000 years ago and planted fossils and all the other physical evidence as some sort of divine practical joke.

If you believe that you can disprove the existence of God, I'd love to hear your theory. If it holds water, I would think you would have quite a bit of well-deserved notoriety coming your way. Don't hide your light under a bushel.

By the way: I was making a joke regarding theism to mirror your sig, in the way mathematical definitions are made, where theism is defined as a belief in a number of gods. Zero is a number. It's a joke...

p.s. I hope these spin batteries work out. I've always thought a "quantum leap" in battery technology such as this appears to be could be as transformative to our way of life as the microchip was.

I certainly know for sure that Dawkins regularly labels theists as being, as a general rule, superstitious, ignorant, unintelligent, unsubtle, simpletons, archaic, unprogressive, etc.

That's great, but I didn't ask for "general rule" (as in your subjective and biased opinion). I asked for specific examples.

And what's more, he seems to be in a crusade to go all over the world giving talks where he does so.

This is just silly. Comparing giving talks across the world to slaughering people? Yeah, it takes a theist to come up with something like that I guess :)

I've gradually come to see that Dawkins, while quite intelligent, isn't really very knowledgeable outside a very narrow field, but goes around acting as if he is, and won't listen to reason when people try to enlighten him about his errors and misunderstandings.

Once again, an example? You people never seem to be able to come up with a single example!

He doesn't know enough about, for example, philosophy or the social sciences to understand that the scientistic, atheistic worldview he's crusading for is not nearly as solid as he thinks it is.

Yawn. More pointless personal attacks rather than addressing the issue. That's theism for you right there. You are merely asserting that he doesn't know enough. You have not managed to show that assertion to be true.

Once you realize how many problems Dawkins' whole worldview has, you start to think that perhaps he is a bit intellectually lazy.

What do you mean by "Dawkins' whole worldview", specifically? What are these problems?