Slashdot Mirror

Religions do not require theism. Buddhism is a religion, but doesn't require belief in a deity. Many Buddhists *do* believe in deities, but not simply because they are Buddhist.

Your average secular Joe might think about it and concede that they were wrong, and something might actually change for the better. Or they might just say "that sounds very nice, but I like my old opinion better".

A theist can stick their fingers in their ears and chant litanies, and is indeed, far more likely to, because their doctrine includes inbuilt mechanisms that tell them to resist all questions and doubts. They might even obey the instructions in their doctrine that tell them to destroy those with world views that conflict with theirs.

Your average secular Joe is doing the same thing as the ignorant theist, only your language is clearly favoring the secular Joe ... and why? Because he's secular Joe! That is exactly the problem. It has nothing to do with theism or atheism and everything to do with MY group vs. YOUR group.

A scientist would examine and attempt to verify the other fellows position - and if he was right, may actually thank him for the enlightenment.

This is just not true. No one is that objective. And when the conclusion to the question might require a radical change in behavior, it's even more certain that no one will be that objective.

While it may seem like a key difference to someone who believes, it really isn't a difference at all in an objective sense.

Two guys walk up to you. One says "This other fellow and I both have imaginary friends. But there's a key difference. He claims to be the ultimate authority on what his imaginary friend says, and if you don't like it, tough. Whilst take my imaginary friend as the ultimate authority, and don't try to push my interpretation of His Word."

See what I mean?

I'm afraid I don't at all. Let's lay aside question of theism for a moment. Islam demands a specific political system and hence in order to approach that system Islamic leaders will rightly specify who best to vote for to achieve this end. Islam doesn't generally have a notion of personal relationship with God.

Christianity is a personal faith which makes no demands as to the political system under which it's adherents live.

The difference is clearly seen in the key figures in each movement. Mohammed came and battled physically against towns to enforce his regime. Jesus refused his disciples to physically battle even against the soldiers who came to take him to be tortured and killed.

[...] the Bible without any altering..." so they'd surely accept that the word "church" could be used as I've used it.

It wasn't a trick question, I was interested in how you were using it, not how it may be used. The passage you quote is from The Bible, the KJV is just a not very precise translation in anachronistic language. The Greek word is "hierosylos" (Acts 19:37) derived from Temple + Strip, ie it means temple robbers or in a widened sense those guilty of sacrilege. The term "church" had no meaning at the time of Acts - congregation is closer to the truth in that the Christians in a town would meet in one anothers houses to worship and share together.

Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Anti-theism, on the other hand, gets back into the realm of missionaries and zealots.

I guess it depends on how vague or specific you are on the word "appear". I know a lot of people would find a god appearing (becoming visible in a visual sense or coming before the public according to the dictionary) More than enough scientific proof to stop questioning the existence. I'm just saying this to show that, especially in the United States, the word atheism has evolved in a much darker definition.

More dependent on the definition of waiting; it's the difference from actively waiting (eg, "I really hope that a god appears soon so that I will know which religion to join") and inactively waiting (eg, "I suppose that, if a god appeared, I would have to join a religion"). I would argue that most atheists are inactively waiting (or just not waiting, as they don't want to subscribe to a belief system which involves worship).

So, atheism means that, even though you can go through the motions of theism, you don't really need to? (As asexuality means that, while you can go through the motions of sex if you need to, or are pressured into doing so, you have no mental need for it). That fits; if I had to choose between not practicing a religion and death (or at least social ostracism - although, considering the crusades and other religious wars, death works) I would probably be willing to go through the motions of belief.

I'm surprised to see such attitudes on an atheist/agnostic-dominated site like Slashdot. The way that atheists respond to the argument "if there is no God, all is permitted" is essentially with a version of utilitarianism. In a world where theism and related concepts like dualism no longer hold much sway, natural rights theory doesn't seem too useful.

Really? That's not what I've read in the Upanishads. Please don't lump all religions or all religious thinkings as one and the same. The simple approach to theism (and atheism for that matter) is not only ignorant but also breeds bias and prejudice that is unfounded.

This is an interesting comment that aims to admonish anyone who lumps religions together, labelling them as "ignorant," "prejudice," and "bias."

The reason it's interesting is because -- to be perfectly blunt -- I consider it a compliment to be accused of being ignorant about religion. I am a pronounced atheist who, like Richard Dawkins, feels that all religions must be eradicated.

There are a few things in this world that I know to be unconditionally wrong. Murder, for example, is wrong no matter what the reason. The scenario and reasoning is irrelevant, whether it occurs for vengeance (he raped me so I killed him), for defense (he broke into my house so I killed him), during a war (we were invading Iraq and I was ordered to kill him), for justice (he was a serial killer, so the state killed him), or for any other reason you can think of. Murder is wrong, period.

In that same vein, I feel it is fair to lump all religions together, since all of them have one commonality: they are mythological in nature, and they serve no purpose other than to subjugate mankind while filling its collective head with fairytales of holy missions and divine entities.

Therefore it amuses me that you perceive being prejudicial against all forms of religion to be unfounded, since the very concept of religion itself is (from a scientific standpoint) unfounded. Similarly, any religious individual who dares call another person ignorant is demonstrating hypocrisy in its purest form.

I suppose that most atheists would probably be willing to become theists if they were presented proof of a god, but that's not the same thing as waiting for a god or gods to appear.

I guess it depends on how vague or specific you are on the word "appear". I know a lot of people would find a god appearing (becoming visible in a visual sense or coming before the public according to the dictionary) More than enough scientific proof to stop questioning the existence. I'm just saying this to show that, especially in the United States, the word atheism has evolved in a much darker definition.

In the same way that asexuality refers to the lack of sexuality or sexual attraction in a species, atheism is that to theism in belief of gods. Asexuality is not celibacy.

The simple approach to theism (and atheism for that matter) is not only ignorant but also breeds bias and prejudice that is unfounded.

It's ignorant to lack belief in a god(s)?

Most atheists out there are waiting for the gods to come out from hiding. I promise you that they aren't ignorant. One thing you seem to misunderstand is that there is no "approach" to atheism. It is what you are when you don't follow a theistic religion. How can one not believe in god(s) and also not lack that same belief? I guess my question to you is - is there anyone who isn't ignorant? Your statement very much says everyone is no matter what.

The religious will argue that a soul is something unique to mankind

Really? That's not what I've read in the Upanishads. Please don't lump all religions or all religious thinkings as one and the same. The simple approach to theism (and atheism for that matter) is not only ignorant but also breeds bias and prejudice that is unfounded.

For those who must say that God does not exist, try this: your position is just as unprovable as theirs, and yet raising your voice to argue your point is just as pointless as theirs.

Some of us prefer to assume that where no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a thing can be shown, then the thing itself does not exist. On a biological/animal level, I almost guarantee that this is the approach you take, too.

Although this can never definitively disprove God, it is a demonstrably effective way to operate in reality. Caveman Grok says there are mammoth to the West, which seems to contain an empty desert, although he can offer no evidence for this claim and no-one has ever seen a mammoth in the desert. Caveman Dirk says there are deer to the East, and points to deer tracks leading that way and forest in the East. On average, those who follow cavemen like Grok may find mammoth, or they may use large amounts of energy and find no food at all. Those who follow Dirk are more likely to find food. So on balance for our cavemen, it makes sense to disbelieve propositions for which there is no evidence.

In the context of this hypothetical, your position amounts to saying "those who are saying there are no mammoth to the West must accept that their position is just as unprovable as Grok's, yet raising your voice to argue your point is just as pointless as theirs." With respect, I do not think that is right.

If we permit ourselves to move away from philosophical absolutes, then I think it amounts to a strong argument that there is a better basis for atheism than theism. Instead of hunting mammoth in an empty desert, we run the risk of wasting our lives hunting for meaning in a spiritual void.

Another way of looking at this is to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That truism is not provably correct (I might see the Loch Ness Monster) but it still has great practical value.

OK - please give me a description of theism that makes it sound not-absurd.

If you can, that'll be a first.

Remember - you aren't allowed to appeal to ignorance in your definition, as we're all supposed to be educated here.

Good luck!

Theism is not "an invisible man in the sky."

Yes it is.

What I don't get is how Xenu and his nukes is treated as bunk, but the invisible man in the sky who can hear a billion people whisper to him at the same time is treated like a celebrity who dare not be questioned by anyone who wants to run for elected office in America.

Maybe because that statement is misrepresenting theistic belief to make it sound silly? Theism is not "an invisible man in the sky." I am taking the statement literally here, that there is a human that lives in the upper atmosphere that cannot be detected by any known means, but does have the ability to open a one way communication channel with any of the earth's occupants.

When you say "invisible man in the sky" it makes theism sound absurd because if that's what theism was, it IS absurd.

But Xenu's nukes are not a misrepresentation of Scientology. They sound silly all on their own.

That's not a really good answer to your question, but that's where I see the difference.

Can I just ask, what the hell does logic (generally held to have been invented by the ancient greeks c. 350BC, although as usual the chinese have a claim as well, and developed over history with contributions made largely by islamic philosophers) have to do with Christianity?

Everything.

Because Logic wasn't "invented" by anyone. It existed long before any civilization graced the face of the planet.

The Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be both Non-A and A at the same time) was just as true before the Greeks as it is today.

But you see given your belief that logic is a created convention--we couldn't know anything. Logic is just a set of conventions that we created and we impose arbitrarily on our reasoning.

If that were the case--I could adopt any ol' system of logic that I please. For example, I could adopt a system of logic that says Theism is true. And then I can say "I win, because my system of logic says Theism is true."

Obviously this is absurd. I can't just adopt any ol' system of logic, because they are laws that actually exist--and they are required for rational discourse.

And they don't make sense within the atheistic worldview--which doesn't allow for abstract entities like laws to exist.

Your only problem is you *assume* laws of logic while attacking the only worldview in which laws of logic make sense. You see you are first assuming the Christian Theistic Worldview, attacking it, and then retreating back into your materialistic worldview which doesn't comport with laws of logic.

For example, may I ask: given your axioms, your givens, your presuppositions of the universe...does there exist anything non-material? Can abstract entities like "laws" of thought exist given your worldview?

You may answer, "well laws of logic are just conventions of thought, agreed upon by men." If that's the case--we could all just adopt our own conventional system of logic. You'd see logical societies with their own rules, etc. I could say, "I adopt the convention of logic that says Theism is true, and so I win."

This is absurd. No one believes that logic is a convention, nor do they treat it as such.

You could say, "Well, you assume logic, too, so nyah nyah nyah." Which is true, I do assume laws of logic exist. Except **they make sense within my Christian Theistic Worldview.**

My worldview allows for abstract, universal absolute like laws of logic. The Christian Theistic Worldview is the only worldview I've found that is consistent with human experience.

Laugh away all you want at Christianity. Try to use logic to argue against it. But the irony is that every time you utilize logic you become your own refutation. You can't escape the Christian Theistic Worldview. You have to assume it to make sense of the world.

[The Christian bible] has a very unified central authorship and message concerning the dealings of God with mankind.

No, it doesn't. The books themselves are inconsistent, there are technical problems in the stories related, and any illusion of consistency or unification is only because humans met and decided what to consider canon and what to consider apocryphal. Furthermore, you claim that the Bible defines the message "concerning the dealings of God with mankind". You're shooting the barn and then painting a bull's eye around the place you hit. Your reasoning is circular; it is an unconvincing tautology to say that some sprawling and meandering work (by authors whose only link is their common theism) covers all the "right spots" when you used that very work to define what the "right spots" are in the first place!

Much of it depicts human history written down before it ever took place.

No, it doesn't. The Bible is incredibly vague in any "prediction" it can be construed not to botch, while botching claims about reality whenever it does dare to be specific enough to test. All its predictions are of the kind "some bad stuff will happen to some people, some good stuff will happen to some people". Those aren't predictions, they're truisms. If we squint, and want to believe the way an indoctrinated and entrenched person does (or if we are incurious, unscrupulously trusting, or just dim-witted), then perhaps we could convince ourselves of anything, from the Bhagavad Gita to the Bible to voodoo to tea leaves.

Just think about how specific a divinely-inspried work of prophecy could be. It could contain information about the treachery at Thermopylae, the battles of Tours and Hastings, the discovery of the "new world" by Europe, any mention at all of the contemporaneous oriental civilizations which were vastly more advanced than those in Europe, the rise of modern democracy, the dangers of chemical and nuclear weaponry in the world wars, global stock market crashes, solutions to the problems of poverty and human suffering all over the world, and mathematical insights, all in esquisite detail before they happened.

If such a book were conceived with true foreknowledge, it would be the most precise and useful guide to civilization ever, even after millenia of use. Instead, it is vague enough to fit most circumstances if the reader squints hard enough, makes statements that are clearly at odds with physical reality (and some of which were known by more advanced societies to be wrong even when they were written, such as the value of Pi), and could easily have been written by anyone who lived 2000 years ago. Your denial of these things is either ignorant or irrational.

When the art of printing was finally invented in 1439 by Johannes Gutenberg, guess which human writing was first printed?

You're appealing to popularity when it suits you. (It's ironic and hypocritical that you drop this tactic when discussing your doubt of stellar fusion.) Christianity was spread at the point of a sword, by self-righteous Christians performing the Inquisition. When the printing press was invented, the Christian Church was the most powerful social entity in the world, spanning nation-states, languages, and cultures, after centuries of bloody conquest. It is unsurprising in the least that such a powerful tool as the printing press was abused by the most powerful human social construct.

Guess which book its enemies have endeavored to destroy more than any other?

Guess which book has inspired its followers to murder, torture, enslave, and subjugate the greatest number of their fellow humans-- the Christian bible.

there are many religious writings, but none of them come even remotely close to the content and distribution of this remarkable book.

And yet, "this remarkable book" (a pithy phr

God do I hate that thing being trudged out for every idiotic theism "debate". It's basically a combination of a tautology (requires a non-zero probability of God's existence) and a few preposterous assumptions (voluntarism, the notion that "wagering for God" does not affect your life, the "other gods" complaint, which can result in infinite "misery" for a "for" wager, etc).

It's cute enough as a philosophical experiment, but the typical layman interpretation of it is just plain idiotic.

Umm. You do realise that only Fundamentalist Atheists are required to scorn everything that a theist does. Mere fanatical Atheists just scorn theism, and evaluate other aspects of a person's character and activity according to whatever criteria are locally relevant.

Slashdot isn't an especially atheistic crowd to begin with and I don't think I've ever met an atheist who thought that theism necessarily prevents somebody from doing good work in other areas(though it certainly can). Strawman much?

Actually, I am not Thai, so he is not my king and I do not have that much reverence for him. I am impressed with his philanthropic record. I equate the populace's need for an anachronistic belief system with theism, and the negative sides which lead to much questionable behavior "in the name of" this figurehead.

The political fact is that nearly all lese majeste actions in Thailand are the equivalent of witch-burning or "honor killings" (though usually more noise and less fire). It has nothing to do with actual figurehead and a lot to do with the people themselves. The current king of Thailand should feel a lot less guilt about his life than the majority of crass, selfish westerners who waste their privilege with no real concern about helping anyone else, much less guiding an entire third world nation into a developing/developed nation and economy.

It is foolish to vilify the man because he was born into a unique situation and did a very good job of optimising his output of "good", all things considered. I hope you are equally antagonistic to every single westerner who is born into a life of relative privilege, economically speaking, and does not immediately shed all this onorous responsibility to charity and then go live in a jungle by the fruit of the earth. Otherwise you're just being a petty hypocrite.

Idealogues are people who have not yet learned to appreciate the complex issues in life and the human condition.