Slashdot Mirror

The question of theism is so loaded for some people that speaking against it in any manner would be genuinely offensive. This is the point behind all the "shut up" arguments, that there are some with hair-trigger sensibilities. The point ONLY works to stifle free speech, and is so tired that I'm actually expecting people to let go of it sooner or later when they see that atheists aren't shutting up and that their objections are unsound.

There are studies about this, and theism doesn't corellate positively with education.

In all honesty Dawkins himself does not understand these things he is talking about. He has no PHD in theology yet claims to be an expert in it.

So you have to be indoctrinated as a theist before you can criticize theism? How convenient.

Many of these points he makes is unclear, and can easily be argued one way or another.

I've never heard Dawkins be anything other than clear and convincing. (Ok, sometimes a little arrogant too) If you want to present some ambiguous arguments I'd be happy to walk you through them.

One thing for certain is that he has a bias in them, and does not completely think out his arguments.

The only bias I'm aware of is against belief without proof. Is the desire for evidence a bad thing?

Evolution could support Atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, why should it be either Atheism or Christianity as Dawkins states it should be?

Does he say that? I'm pretty sure he argues that evolution makes any supernatural explanation unnecessary. That includes Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.

This makes no sense as there could be more than one answer, and why should we accept Dawkin's answer when he can offer no valid proof or evidence to support it?

Because there's no reason to assume the supernatural without evidence. When you're constructing a theory, you want to use as few assumptions as possible. You only make more assumptions when they increase they predictive power, i.e when it's necessary to make the model fit our observations. Unless you have some observations (data) that require the assumption of a supernatural entity to explain, there's no reason to even consider the possibility.

If I said it supported Christianity, I would be just as fallacious as Dawkins saying it favored Atheism, when we both could be incorrect and it favors nothing or Buddhism or Hinduism instead.

Evolution does not "support" atheism. It is consistent with atheism, and powerful enough to explain our observations. It eliminates the need to make supernatural assumptions to explain speciation. If you have other reasons to believe in God, evolution does not weaken those in any way.

I honestly don't think you understand what a fallacy is, I could be wrong here. You've argued why they couldn't be fallacies, but you used faulty or unclear logic yourself to do so.

Really? Where?

Thanks for taking the time to try and rebuttle some of Dawkins' fallacies. I'm sorry you didn't do better.

Care to point out any mistakes I made? I pretty clearly explained why those weren't fallacies. If you think I'm wrong, at least show me where.

The argument goes like this: if there is a God (generally defined as an infinite being/force), then the existence of such is so far beyond our understanding that it is pointless to try to say anything about it, as anything we could possibly say is provably false.

This is a completely irrational position. Why is it "provably false"? Why is the existence beyond our understanding? You are ASSERTING these things. It is as irrational as theism, whereas atheism is the lack of belief, which is completely rational when there's no evidence.

I sincerely don't know who or what made them so angry and full of hate.

Here in the USA, I think that the attitude you are describing is a result of atheists feeling like they have been backed into a corner lately.
Think about the likes of:
Jack Thompson, Tipper Gore, the whole teaching ID/Creationism in science classes in Kansas(that was fortuneatly derailed), the 'think of the children' war on well, everything, the 'Moral Majority' sponsored legislation, 'Family Values' legislation, etc. being constantly hurled at us in a country that is supposedly run by a 'seperation of church and state', secular philosophy that has broken down and headed the opposite direction.(attempted theism by the Moral Majority/Family Values camp)

It's a defensive backlash, and IMO, justifiable.

The 'other side' seems to not realize that 'freedom of religion' also implies the right of 'freedom from religion...'My way, or the highway' gets old after a while!

Wrong. Let's look at the etymology of the word: 'a' â" without, 'theism' â" belief in a deity. Atheists simply lack belief in a god, there is no reason why they must actively deny such existence. One who has never heard of the idea of a God is just as much an atheist. By it's basic etymology, atheism has no specific ideas or beliefs, it's simply a lack of. In that way agnostics ARE atheists, just atheists that make a specific claim about why they lack belief.

Atheism is the belief in the lack of a god, not the lack of belief in god. As a belief, it's subject to dogma as much as any other belief.

Just like theism, most believers of atheism don't know what they're talking about.

"The main reason behind people thinking we're the most technologically advanced country is the idiotic "God Bless America" / "We're #1" crap"

Religion is a key reason for the intellectual backwardness of the majority of the US population. Science is the enemy of their imaginary celestial friend, and all intellectuals are just a bunch of scheming atheist Commie liberals.

The stereotypical American is the typical American. We have some very bright people. but the mob is the enemy of social progress. There is a huge disconnect between "leading edge" Americans and the mass of ignorant slaves to theism. I find it interesting that we fight the Taliban not because they are backward and toxic, but because they are not Bible Thumpers.

I don't accept any theistic beliefs, and I do accept the validity of evolutionary theory. I don't recognise any universal, absolute and arbitrary morality. I (like most people I imagine) voluntarily subscribe to a personal ethical framework that I refine and revise the more I experience. Why do I bother? It turns out that I'm not some kind of rapist murdering thief because it's glaringly self evident that that kind of behaviour wouldn't do me any favours. Looking at it from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, it seems it's just a fact of nature that short term "self sacrifice" very often pays off disproportionately in the long term. Going out of your way to help people results in the vast majority of those people wanting to help you at a later date.

But it isn't purely about cold calculated return on investment. There's a reason people that you help want to help you in return. Human beings have emotional triggers that provoke altruistic and cooperative behaviour, feelings of gratitude, friendship, trust, love, compassion, etc. Perhaps a theist would say these come from god. An evolutionary psychologist would say these traits have evolved since, as I pointed out earlier, altruism and short term self sacrifice pay off more in the long term than short sighted coercion and greed and are therefore selectable traits.

So as far as I can see, the reason people act for the good of others / their environment is just a mixture of pragmatism and natural human emotions.

As you rightly point out, the mechanism of evolution implies no moral obligation in any way. It has no intent or conciousness with which to desire any outcome or behaviour.

I always find it interesting the way some religious people bring this subject up in terms of "obligation". It implies the only reason they see to behave ethically is because an authority tells them to. That kind of attitude is something I would reject as potentially extremely detrimental to the well being of myself and the people I care about, so by my "morality" unquestioning deference to some kind of ethical proxy is "immoral".

To put it simply - do you love your family only because your preacher tells you that the bible says that there is an omnipotent being that will torture you for eternity if you don't, or do you love them because it is an innate part of what you are to love them?

Now you can say obviously it's the latter and that innate part of you comes from god. Fair enough, and I can say it's the latter and that innate part of me comes from the evolutionary processes that are part of the natural functioning of the universe.

Now apply that same line of thinking to all the people you like, trust, or feel compassion for, and hopefully at that point you can appreciate why someone with no belief in an arbitrary "morality" can behave ethically and with compassion without the need for divine proscription.

Not only does it seem obvious to me that "goodness" is simply an innate part of being a human, it makes me wonder about the people to whom it isn't obvious. Are they like some kind of barely contained sociopath that would kill everyone they dislike if only god would tell them it was OK? I imagine not, but it seems as shame that they don't give themselves enough credit for the "goodness" that is simply who they are, rather than who they're told to be.

I don't want the world to become an uninhabitable wasteland because as a human, my emotional makeup causes me to care about the welfare of the human race, and my acknowledgement of myself as a member of the common descent of all life on the earth, and my emotional appreciation of the natural beauty of the system causes me to care about the fate the ecosystem of the earth

As a counter example, simply an example - not a generalisation, there are some who use the religious belief of an imminent rapture to justify not caring about the environmental consequences of our behaviour at all. So theism is not always a guarantee of responsibility.

If I believe in evolution, I usually reply something to the effect of, "It's not a religion that one might believe in... You can either prove it or you can't." The notion of being able to falsify scientific hypothesis seems to be a bit beyond the conceptual grasp of a large portion of the population.

I'm a Christian. Yes, I've seen evidence that there's a God, in fact, rather recently. But my belief in God isn't based on evidence, it's based on faith. That's why it's called religion. Any time a belief system is based on faith rather than repeatable experiments, we have to call it a religion.

I know this is going to ruffle a few feathers, but I'm sick of this debate being rehashed again and again. For many, many years, what was taught as evolution in public schools was largely based on blind faith in evolution. The conflict over evolution in schools had nothing to do with science and everything to do with conflicting belief systems, i.e. atheism versus theism. And for that reason, the teaching of evolutionary theory was slanted toward whatever personal agenda the teacher had with respect to the above debate. Science got lost in the process.

And evolution itself was largely a matter of religious belief for the century after Darwin. Biology was one of the few sciences which accepted a theory which was provably false by anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics. The early theories of natural selection were mathematically sound, but to go the step beyond and claim that "random change" would differentiate species only indicated the discipline's misunderstanding of randomness, and was based largely on faith. It was as if, unable to find a specific cause of speciation, biologists just gave up critical thought and claimed "random chance did it". It was intellectually lazy, and Americans knew it. And this version of evolution would be taught as late as the 1990's.

So when you hear someone questioning darwinism, or evolution, this is what the debate is about. They are probably not aware of the more recent advances in the subject, probably cannot elaborate on any of the specific theories regarding speciation (which, to biology's credit, are actually listing falsifiable hypotheses now). It is not about science, but bad science put forward in the attempt to make a larger cultural change, a shift away from belief in God.

There is no conflict between science and religion, because both seek the truth, but work in different problem domains. That said, though, there's no place for faith in science, and one need not "believe" in it the way one might have faith in the second coming of Christ. The debate over evolution should serve as an indicator of how bad things can get when science attempts to step outside of its proper boundaries into the realm of philosophy and religion. I do not want future spacecraft designed by faith any more than I want future public policy governed solely by science. (While I'll admit that science can inform public opinion, it cannot resolve the ethical and moral questions.)

So before you go about bashing evolution bashers, please remember: most of these people were taught falsehoods in the name of science. Once you address that issue, you'll find that there's really very little left to debate.

That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?

Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.

Where's the problem here?

In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.

You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions.
Theism: Positive belief that there is a God.
Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God.
Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.

Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.

So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the belief that one has no knowledge of God or his/her/its existence. Look at the damn word roots.

Atheism is saying: "Since there is no evidence whatsoever of the presence of a god, there is no reason to hypothesize on there being one."

Agnosticism is hypothesizing that there might be one.

What you are talking about is merely the reaction of atheism towards theism, without theism, everyone would be atheist, yet no one would even think about the statement "God does not exist". In other words, this question arises only because some people believe that God does exist.

If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"?

It's still an -ism, a belief that the world is a-theic, or non-deical. The stance without proof for either side is called agnostic, or not-knowing (not-believing would be a better description).

If something is amoral, it is without morals, which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking"

The prefixes "a-" and "-n" have the exact same meaning in Indo-European languages. That's why every European language uses a different proposition for the negative: a- on- un- in-, to name a few.
Linguistically, there is no difference between amoral and (i)nmoral, and the morphing of -nm- to -mm- is called consonant assimilation, I believe.

Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".

Not necessarily. By that logic, pantheism would encompass all religions, because it merges pan- (= all) with -theism (= believe in God). Instead, it is an -ism (= belief) about pan-theos (god(s) in everything). So, in the very same vein, atheism is a belief in a-theos (there is no god).

But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion

See above. This is false. Not asserting anything is called agnostic.

This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.

And both are correct.

It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof.

Why? They both assert something that is inherently unprovable.

There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians?

Yes, if you wish to disprove his argument you must. Until you have proven him wrong, the only thing you can assert is that you do not believe his statement and go your merry way. But be aware that by dismissing his statement, you have not proven him wrong.

Hey. My personal beliefs aren't something I am trying to push, and I think I was clear to say that both theists and atheists can make compelling arguments for their respective sides. But to define "atheist" in a way that automatically makes the theist superior is an intellectually dishonest tactic -- that was my only point.

I think theology as a field of study is perfectly respectable and it doesn't matter which side of the fence you happen to believe -- there are many theologians who are devout, and many who are just as expert in the field but are atheist. A comprehensive understanding of the material doesn't imply a belief one way or the other, just as there are many who are fascinated by cryptozoology who don't necessarily believe in cryptids but find the lore of importance to our culture. Theology itself is a legitimate field of study regardless of whether or not theism is correct.

Citing my credentials in this area is pointless, because I'm not here to argue for one side or the other. I am quite capable of defending theism or atheism, as I'm capable of defending any side of a debate whether or not I, personally, agree with that side. My only point was that atheism has a clear definition, as has been argued by dozens upon dozens of theologians and philosophers, and defining it dishonestly gets us nowhere. Atheists are not immune to this criticism either, but that wasn't the topic of discussion at this time.

So, would you kindly just chill.

RantingKitten did not use the word incorrectly. He just used it in the traditional sense, not how it is understood by most people today. A better choice would have been agnosticism; however, this does not make his choice of language incorrect. Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism. The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists. The word atheist eventually became ambigous due to its popular use in the active rejection of god. For this reason, the word agnosticism was used instead to describe atheism as it was understood in the "traditional" sense. For example, if you are agnostic you are also atheist, in the traditional understanding of the word because you do not affirm or deny the existience of god(s). Not affirming it is enough to be understood as atheist (traditionally). However, if you claimed you were atheist (when infact you are agnostic) to Joe Plumber today, he would understand it as the active rejection of god. So agnostic = atheism, but only in an academic way.

You are wrong. Theism is the belief in at least one god. The prefix a- is a lack of the root. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God (one way or the other.) Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, monotheism is the belief in one god. And -ism is a belief or doctrine. Atheism, as a word, is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief. Of course, culturally, atheism has been equated with a belief that there is no god, but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god. It's simple logic: "If I believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is possible," does not infer "If I do not believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is impossible." If you are going to split hairs, you might as well do it correctly.

If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"? When something is asymmetrical, it is without symmetry. If something is amoral, it is without morals -- which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking". Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".

It's certainly true that some atheists take a more positive view and assert that a god or gods cannot or do not exist. But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion -- simply not having a belief is sufficient to be classified as atheist.

This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.

The reason theists like this argument so much is because they realise that they carry some burden of proof, because they acknowledge they are making an assertion about the nature of reality. Yet they also find it difficult to present any objective evidence to back their claim. This puts the atheist at an advantage, until the theist uses the above argument. Suddenly the atheist is faced with an impossible situation -- how do you prove something doesn't exist, especially when the something in question is a god?

No matter what the atheist says, the theist can claim that the god somehow manipulated the observation or outcome. And thus, the theist has now placed himself on superior ground in the debate, for while the theist may be able to dredge up a few interesting things the atheist can't explain, there is nothing the atheist can say which cannot immediately be explained away by the theist as some whim of the deity.

It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof. There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians? Do you consider yourself some sort of active disbeliever in Reptilians, or just someone without even a passing interest on the topic?

I'm not trying to say which side is correct here, as both can make compelling arguments, but clouding the issue with incorrect definitions does nothing to advance the debate.

What a crock of crap, seriously. Religion is a mask for this offensive, as it has been for offensives of the past. Theism bring a depth of culture to a people, as does atheism - history notes this MANY times over, go google a few!

The issue here is that people are people, good and bad. That's it. I, myself, am a pacifist atheist, and I consider myself to be 'good' in the Christian sense (as that's my own cultural upbringing). Do us the favour of NOT castigating atheists as harbingers of evil. The evil acts of the few (who happen to be in power) belittle those who follow them blindly and frequently in an innocent capacity.

You sir, are not a true atheist, but clearly an angry one, if you're one at all.

Yes, that is Dawkins' answer to Intelligent Design. This is not a reference to anything pertaining to evolution. Stein asked how ID could be applied to science, and the ONLY way is if alien life (intelligent) seeded Earth (design). Why is this the only answer? Because a deity is not science. Your God is not scientifically verifiable. Therefore it (and anything pertaining to it... your Bible, creationism, cdesign proponentists, etc.) cannot be a scientific answer to anything.

ID does not say anything of deities. The point is that the activity of intelligent design is detectable. And, in fact, that is a point that Dawkins' apparently now concedes by his mentioning of the plausibility of the detection of evidence of panspermia. Dawkins is only more comfortable with panspermia than with theism due to already held beliefs about the non-existence of God (which is a prime example of what many proponents of evolution have done over the years--they start with 1 - 'God cannot possibly [or does not measurably] exist and thus cannot have created life on earth', and build a system of reason upon that). But, they have failed to consider that if you change your first axiom to something more like this:

• A detectable higher-intelligence cannot possibly [have] exist[ed] and thus cannot have created life on earth.'

things get very interesting very quickly.

And for further reference, Stein was referring to life on Earth, not life in "the universe", something that IDists do not believe in either.

Well, I'm an 'ID theorist' and I have no idea what you just said we do not believe in. As I said before, there are considerable numbers of ID theorists who believe in panspermia (and reasonbly so) and the rest make no conclusion about alien life at all (as that is currently beyond the scope of ID theory which is concerned with detecting intelligent activity and not with speculation about the designer's (or designers') identity). That is not to say that the question of the designers' identity is beyond science, but it's a little early in the game for such speculation, I think.

I do believe you meant to say, "Someone who edited the page on Wikipedia disagrees with you."

Or in fact, http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html this website, since it is the "source" of the "definition" the editors of wikipedia are using.

Robert T. Carrol is cited as the source of the link above, and as such the quote from wikipedia "It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism."

but then you could always throw this in there "Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people, using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'."

Btw, it is provable that something does _not_exist, since phisics is also math... like, it's easy to prove that you can't have perpetual motion, and even get energy from it, right?

Ok:
Exhibit A:
Material proof of the existence of a 6th finger on my right hand = false.
A 6th finger on my right hand does not exist.
Math does not lie.

Exhibit B:
Material proof of the existence of a god = false.
A god does not exist.
Math does not lie.