Slashdot Mirror

So, it looks like he got all the "work" part out of the day and basically just gets to leech off of people while looking good.

I do find your reverence for your king not unlike a religion, so perhaps that theology comparison was valid, to an extent. But theism doesn't have a central ruler (not one that interacts with humans or exists, anyway) or figurehead that basically leeches off the populace.

If you would bother to learn something here, you would discover that this current king did much to disassemble the traditional monarchy and turn it into the non-ruling, philanthropic role that it is today in Thailand. When people talk about changes made since the 1930s, they are talking about things done during his reign!

I think he has made changes as fast as he thought the country could bear them. There is a reality on the ground, and you cannot flip a switch and remove the people's reverence for a king any more than we can remove all theism from the US next week.

Of course that there is no evidence for God's existence is not necessarily evidence for God's nonexistence, though it might be if we had reason for thinking that if God existed there would be evidence for this.

No evidence for existence doesn't imply non-existence. That is true.

Then you say (I think) ... that if god existed, and if we expected there to be evidence that he existed, our expectation of evidence being unfulfilled, we can then turn that into evidence of non existence of god. I think that's what you say, but I'm not sure.

I certainly don't accept that your one line statement has coherently summed up why I'm wrong. It sums up why you think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't call it a compelling argument.

See, from a scientific and logical point of view, you can't really say anything about the existence or non-existence of god. There is simply no measure of evidence which would conclusively establish either proposition as true. Science basically says that once you're outside of a reality you can play what if with, you're no longer playing with science.

By its very nature, any entity which would be capable of creating the universe as we know it would be outside of the realm of what we'd be able to know. So, speculating on what happens outside of the reality that we can understand and know is ... well, speculating. At that point, pretty much any form of speculation is essentially equally valid -- flying spaghetti monster? Sure, why not??

The big issue here, is how plausible you, yes you personally, find the idea that "god" or whatever you define as "god" to have been able to create our planet, all other concepts and things being equal. To me, I find it implausible.

Dude, I find reality implausible. That doesn't mean I find it impossible to believe in or reject that it exists, however odd or unlikely it may seem.

Here is what I personally believe ...

I believe that if such a being as god existed who could create the entire universe, that being would be so vast and profound that we could never really have a hope of forming a concept which would encompass that entity. I believe at that point that it's likely the universe would continue working within the physical rules which dictated its behavior, and planets and life would be a side effect that that universe. I don't think I can form an intelligent position on what god would be doing in the meantime, or what his opinions would be on the matter. :-P

I believe that there is absolutely zero objective evidence which could definitely establish the existence or non existence of such a being. I don't think we'd be capable of seriously evaluating this evidence anyway as it would be way more than our wee brains can possibly grasp.

I'm not advocating for the belief in a god, since I don't believe in god. I'm advocating for the belief in the belief in god.

Personally, I view it as a modified version of Pascal's Wager. I found that atheism lead to dark places without answers, and theism ignores the answers we have because those don't match what they believe. Personally, if your world view includes what we know to be scientifically true, and if you choose to believe in god, there is essentially no net harm to anyone else. The intangible personal benefits you may or may not receive are entirely your own business.

I choose to try to live my life as if there were greater consequences than a life which is merely ugly, brutish, and short. I can't accept the rigid morality of a church and an enduring "soul", and I can't accept the consequences of a system where what we do has no "big picture" implications and therefore morality is optional and a sign of weakness.

I fall into the camp of "neither this nor that". The Buddhist

No, he is correct.
Atheism is the lack of belief in God/Gods.
More accusatory it's an absence of theism.

This is no different then not believing in invisible pink ponies*.

His sig is accurate and succinct.

*OMG!Ponies!!!

I am a Muslim, I fully agree with your uncommonly succinct and eloquent expression of this concept. I only wish more non-theists could understand this point rather than blindly (dogmatically!) disregarding religion as incompatible with modern scientific investigation.

Well, it cuts both ways. The theists sometimes dismiss scientific evidence on the basis that it is incompatible with their beliefs in what god did, and what we're supposed to be able to do with it.

Some people coming from the theist point of view treat science as evil or irrelevant because it can come up with some items which might contradict a rigid, theism based world view -- take, evolution for instance. Among people who need to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea of evolution and fossils runs contrary to that. The notion that life could have occurred on another planet in a vast universe seems to cause some people some consternation as they want to believe that we are singularly unique and special.

Generally, I agree with you. It is entirely possible to maintain religious beliefs in the face of science (even in tandem with science) as long as you don't allow your beliefs to override the science. You just need to keep perspective on what issues are best answered by science, and which are best answered by religion.

Me, I think the questions best addressed by theism are largely in a different domain than the ones defined by science. As long as you don't try to pretend the science is irrelevant or untrue, religion is completely compatible with science. Religion speaks to things that are basically beyond what science can intelligently speak to.

Sometimes, however, religion is incompatible with science. And, when that happens, you get people defending positions which aren't in line with objective, rational thought. Physical events are not really in the scope of theism, rejecting the reality of physical events because it doesn't match your theism is where the problems arise.

Cheers

interesting.

I still think you would have those that believe in a higher power, and those that don't.

Of the ones that do, some would believe it to be something such as Einstein's god, and others believe it to be a super-natural God or spirits.

Some people would probably be torn between the last one, and one of the others.

This still clearly defines atheism, agnosticism, and theism.

All of this without religion to organize the thoughts of the theists.

A- means lack of. Anti- means opposition. An antitheist would believe in an antigod, or be against theism. An atheist just thinks there is no god.

You are dead wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong. In a very important way.

The prefix "a" means WITHOUT.

Atheist means without theism, not against theism.

Asymmetric means WITHOUT symmetry, not AGAINST symmetry.

Saying that "atheists" are against god is ludicrous. SATANISTS are against god. Atheists don't even think he exists.

I know this from having been to several meetings. The atheist community is one of the most bitter and spiteful I have ever seen and actively wish to see all "non-rational" belief systems torn down and replaced with their "belief" system on a level that matches any religion. Pure tribalism at its best, two sets of group-think throwing stones at each other. the Atheists attack christen beliefs and they attack the atheists through ID.

The solution to the problem is not the one shown on /. of armchair intellectuals decrying the ignorance of the bible belt hicks, while smugly reassuring each other that they have the "best" ideology. It is through an understanding of their actions and why they do them and coming to terms with them. Calling their text book stupid isn't going to get them to stop. I don't know what the solution is, but I know what it isn't.

I couldn't agree more. Also: if "freedom" is our goal as a society, they have the right to have their belief, and to belief that a symbolic religion is more important than science. That's "freedom."

This guy had a good take:

The people who concretely affirm that there is in fact no higher being whatsoever are among the people that I do not agree with nor trust. I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists. ...But, like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheistsâ(TM) character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self. The individual fanatic and hard athiest both share the belief that they are right and disagreeing others are terribly misguided and wrong...

"Why Hard Atheists Shouldn't be Taken Seriously" by Edgar Alverson

It seems to me that the neutral position is agnosticism.

Atheism, or asserting definitively that a God/gods do not exist, is making a similarly conjectural and unprovable/non-disprovable assertion to theism.

This does not mean that homosexuality, et al., do not exist naturally in some individuals. Ethics involving these situations are a good exercise for casuists, and the debate has been a heated one. Unfortunately it has been rather dominated by theism on one side and atheism on the other. It has become a religious debate.

Oh, this sounds like the "Homosexuality isn't bad per se, but homosexual sex is, and you have a choice; if you are homosexual you should choose not have sex in a manner offensive to God/Nature." Not that you are espousing that, but it seems pretty easy to get there from where you're at. And yeah it sucks there.

You also said "sexuality" earlier, which is a (large) superset of sexual reproduction. It seems to me that you're in danger of a "masturbating is genocide" reductio ad absurdum (or however you spell that) by taking such constricted biological interpretation of sexuality. Though I suppose if you look to Nature as the sole vendor for your Laws, and if you're a seventeenth century philosopher who doesn't know about bonobo monkeys, that's the risk you run. :)

I probably don't get the whole "causist" thing.

Also it seems presumptuous to assert with even the slightest degree of totality that one can know what Nature's intended usage is -- or that one could even begin to know that without observing common usage patterns, or that there's no possibility to "think outside the box". What is the intended use of your appendix? Of a tree? Nature's recommendations for the use of a sunset are not clear to me, though if I were a cat or a bat I could probably hazard a guess.

One might ask this question another way: What is Nature's intended purpose of a man's nipples? And if we know that men's nipples are nothing more than a by-product of a design which grows nipples first and decides later if they will ever function as breasts, then the camel's nose has just snuck its way under the tent. Any sort of "rightness" about Nature's choices or recommended course of action is certainly clouded and possibly rendered fallible by the inevitability of useless nipples as a natural by-product of "right" sex. If Nature can make as bad or seemingly useless a choice as putting nipples on a man, which do nothing for a man but give him a way to get breast cancer, then I am inherently endowed with the "right" to make bad decisions too. (I suppose to fully flesh this out I might have to consider things like the degree of harm, etc. but like I said, nose under tent.)

I feel like we've strayed from abortion and that's okay. :)

Hardin's essay is called "The Tragedy of the Commons." It is a great essay, even though I disagree with his recommendations. It's only about 16 pages, and worth the read. Hardin was a biologist. Some of his claims are, I think, unassailable. His advocacy of environmental responsibility is very eloquent.

As for your assessment of my view of sexuality: you are correct. I also suggest that blindness and deafness are commonly observed in nature. Yet, this does not cast into question the intended function of eyes and ears. The biological design of sexual anatomy is similarly well known, in spite of any strange uses we (or other creatures) may invent for them. Nature is the designer, not the user; Natural Law arises from nature's apparent recommendations and not from observed use cases (again, this is the distinction between principle and casuistry).

This does not mean that homosexuality, et al., do not exist naturally in some individuals. Ethics involving these situations are a good exercise for casuists, and the debate has been a heated one. Unfortunately it has been rather dominated by theism on one side and atheism on the other. It has become a religious debate.

I prefer the philosophical discussion. It is clear to me that licentious views of sexuality (and other acts) are incompatible with Natural Law philosophy, and that scientific advances over the past few centuries have not significantly altered the essential tenets of the Empiricists. I concede that Rights come from Nature.

It can be reasonably argued, as you have done, that rights are granted rather arbitrarily by those who have the guns. This is not my belief, but rights and liberty, after all, are subjective ideas.

I do have a higher opinion of the philosophies that were established during the Age of Reason. I consider them to be a good deal more than mere hand-waving, in spite of the failings and contradictions that were sometimes present in practice. I am not a moral relativist, although I do believe cases should be considered in the light of principles, and that exceptions can be made.

"It's very hard to prove negatives (and historical events)--you know that."

But it's very easy to falsify a set of theories that make many many positive claims. Strangely nobody has managed this.

It's obvious to me now that we're talking about two different forms of evolution. Yes, variation and mutation obviously occur (no one can disprove that--just look at viruses for example). But, we're talking about a theory that claims that some primordial material suddenly formed a working 'cell' which then started replicating and evolving from there. But, it's a chicken and egg problem, you see? A working cell doesn't appear from nowhere (let alone a replicating and functional cell). And, until you have a working cell, natural selection cannot do its thing. What makes one non-functional pile of garb any better than the next?

Have you ever heard of von Neuman's universal constructor? He set out to design in a purely artificial environment (i.e., that of mathematics) the minimal self-replicating automaton possible. Now, he may or may not have actually done so. But, two things are for sure--he came darn close and it's rather complex (on the order of 2 or 3 hundred moving parts). One missing bit and it does not work--how can that evolve? [And, this was in a purely intellectual environment (without the normal constraints of physics.]

"No one has the amount of time required to test and prove it though"

FAIL. Speciation has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab. A huge wealth of fossil and DNA evidence helps. Evolution is proven. The fine tuning of the mechanisms behind it are still being discovered. You probably get evolution mixed up with the big bang, abiogenesis and pretty much the whole of scientific knowledge and method though. A typical creationist thing, blur the terms of the debate and mix everything together.

Once again, we are talking about two different forms of evolution. The form I argue against is more properly referred to as Darwinism (and it is the combination of evolution and the philosophy of materialism as put forth by such extremist atheists as Dawkins, Dennett, & Hitchens). I agree most people are more reasonable that that (and even you seem to be). You don't really believe it all appeared out of nowhere do you? (If so, just where did the atoms that make up the primordial soup come from)? That form of extreme atheism is simply irrational--no matter how much they want to call it 'rationalism'. Anyone who thinks that evolution (major or minor) disproves theism is simply intellectually dishonest.

Whoa, hold on a second....

There are a lot of people using these words incorrectly. The secondary definitions you quote are examples of such confusion.

Word definitions are observed, not fixed by some central body (in English, at least). The reason multiple definitions are listed is because people *validly* use & understand these words in different ways. It's not confusion, it's language.

For example, many people claim to be agnostic but mean "I believe that there's some supreme power, but it's unknowable". That's not agnosticism, and if it's not deism it's damn close:

As long as you aren't using "believe" in the absolute sense there, that *is* agnosticism according to the definition you prefer, though. Once we agree that "no one can prove it", then it's a question of what conclusions we draw based on what we do know. Agnostic A might be 99% convinced that there is no god, and agnostic B might be 99% convinced there IS one, and hence follows their religion. They'd still both be agnostics (by your definition) as long as they both agree that we can't know for sure.

That's why I've been saying that's too broad a category to be useful to me. Sure, I'm in that group, but it doesn't say anything about my personally-reasoned conclusions about whether a god exists or not.

I'm not sure what you're saying about Deism -- the key element of Deism is that God doesn't intervene in human affairs. They clearly believe a god exists. Religious philosophies don't lie on a continuum; they scatter all over the place.

Atheism makes an affirmative statement. The atheist generalizes from "there is no evidence of god" to "there is no god". Not even the undetectable "Nature's God" of the Deists.

Again, this is the definition of atheism that *you* use, not everyone. Communication requires shared definitions, so if you're talking to someone who uses the broader definition, you may be misunderstood (and vice-versa as in our discussion...).

I agree that because the definition you're mentioning is common enough, I'm taking a risk if I just tell people "I'm an atheist" without qualifying it.

But if I just have one word (like on a form...) I have to choose between those common definitions; I'm still going to choose "atheist" simply because it's closer; for all practical purposes, I believe there's no god. Another way to look at it -- if you ask me "does Santa Claus exist?", I say "no". If you ask me the same question about god, I say "no" as well.

If you ask me "what proof do you have?!" for either one -- well, there's no absolute proof, just logical consistency, probability, Occam razor, and so on. But that's a philosophical discussion, not the response to a simple question about what is and what isn't (where we all operate on "probably true" whether we know it or not).

I also personally want to encourage people to continue migrating to the broader definition of atheism (i.e., the reasonable atheist), so I propagate that as much as possible. It's just a much more useful definition that encompasses a larger and more coherent group of people.

It also makes more sense given the word roots: "a-" is the greek prefix for "without" or "lack of", "theism" is belief in a god or gods. So "without theism" makes more sense than a positive "belief in god's nonexistence".

Many many years ago I thought I was an atheist, too, but I've met far too many atheists since then. There is no room for doubt in a true atheist. And without doubt, there is no room for science.

Agnosticism (in the sense you use it) is far too general to be of any use.

But the sense I'm using it is the first one you quoted:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims -- particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality -- is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

Any claim stronger than that is atheism:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism.

There are a lot of people using these words incorrectly. The secondary definitions you quote are examples of such confusion. For example, many people claim to be agnostic but mean "I believe that there's some supreme power, but it's unknowable". That's not agnosticism, and if it's not deism it's damn close:

Deism is the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene in its normal operation.

Theism is an overarching term that encompasses any belief in god (creator, supreme being). I don't know any theistic belief more abstract and refined than Deism, which is why I picked it.

Agnosticism doesn't reject theism, it makes no stronger statement than "we can't, at this point, know".

Atheism makes an affirmative statement. The atheist generalizes from "there is no evidence of god" to "there is no god". Not even the undetectable "Nature's God" of the Deists.

Dunno where you're getting "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" from anything I said.

See above.

It's frustrating that there's no word which properly sums up my viewpoint (and yours as well, I think)

Agnosticism. Militant agnosticism, perhaps, if you're afraid of being mistaken for a deist, unitarian, or other need-to-believe-er. "I do not know if there is a god, and I believe that you don't know either, no matter what you believe".

Okay, wikipedia time, I guess:

Deism is the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene in its normal operation.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims -- particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality -- is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people[1], using 'agnostic' in the sense of 'noncommittal'[2]. However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[8] and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere;[10] and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

(including 2 paragraphs on Atheism and Agnosticism, since those are tricky....)

The main problem here is that the words are loaded, and the commonly used definitions both fall flat. Agnosticism (in the sense you use it) is far too general to be of any use. Many priests would admit to some level of agnosticism, in that sense: if some fantastic, unquestionable event were to happen that obviously and flatly contradicted their beliefs, they'd adjust. Also, regular people don't always grasp the idea of "unknowable"; they think "oh, agnostic: you don't know if there's a God, like I don't know if my keys are on the hook or still in my coat pocket... but you can't just go check, can you!" I have to be able to explain my conclusions without also needing to get into tangential philosophical discussions.

"Atheism" comes closer, but of course many people (yourself included) use a definition that's also next to useless because it describes very *few* people, and not me. Religiously anti-god? Huh.

Dunno where you're getting "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" from anything I said. Sure, there is no *absolute* truth in the real world, but that doesn't mean I check out the window every night to see if the Flying Spaghetti Monster will appear this time, any more than you check under your elbow every 5 seconds to make sure your desk hasn't been magically replaced with a walrus holding perfectly still. If it happened, you'd have to change a lot of views (maybe even just assumptions about your sanity) -- but it's not friggin' likely.

It's frustrating that there's no word which properly sums up my viewpoint (and yours as well, I think) -- there are plenty of us out there! -- but the vocabulary we have has been twisted for religious and political reasons for a very long time, and we have to make do with what we have. If you know of other words to answer that question that won't just elicit a blank stare, feel free to let me know....

One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.

The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.

Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).

Do you seriously not have that in your country? I had "Religous studies" class all through school, I think we covered Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, some paganism (British Isles version), Greek/Roman theism (this last one in History class). We also discussed agnosticism and atheism.

I'm not sure how much difference a very-Christian teacher makes; in my school less than 10% of the class was Christian, with similar proportions being Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. And of those, most didn't take it seriously. A very-Christian teacher wouldn't have lasted (and shouldn't really choose the job, they know they'll be required to teach everything).

Theism has always been the default state for our human societies.

There's little evidence of this before about 10,000 years ago. Confounding the issue somewhat is that there's little evidence of anything man-made from before about 10,000 years ago. And there is some theory that the cognitive evolution that helped us build societies and thus create the capability for leaving evidence also lead to the rise of religions.

I'm not disagreeing with your main point about practical usefulness, though it is confusing to define people by what they're not, especially when using the label of people who claim moral superiority.

Perhaps. But when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an aphilatelist? anumismatist? What about "area man" who "doesn't watch television?"

Theism has always been the default state for our human societies. Therefore a special label is useful to differentiate people. That doesn't make it a faith, it just makes it slightly unusual. I don't go around thinking "I'm an atheist!", but if someone questions me about religion it's a useful label.

You may have managed to avoid it, but the fact is that many who think they do not, have a religion, and it is none. They are evangelical, they have dogma, they demonize those who are not of the faith. They even have priests with vestments: A white lab coat.

Militant atheists are certainly more more vocal about arguing with religion, and some do go so far as making somewhat exaggerated generalization about theists (though not nearly as much as some claim). But your claims of "dogma" and "priests" simply aren't applicable to the vast majority of atheists.

I, nor any other atheist I can think of, would claim that someone Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins is some flawless fountain of truth. We just admire them a lot since they make some very good arguments and have good rational minds.

There really is a fundamental difference between atheists and theists in that regard. Theists believe that some people had/have a direct line to god, and as a result everyone who doesn't have this line is fundamentally further from the truth.

Atheists believe no one has the absolute truth and we simply keep learning. I admire the heck out of Darwin, but the fact is that I probably know a lot more about evolution than he did. I'm not particularly smart or educated in evolution, I just have the benefit of knowing a little bit of the 100+ years of research that followed.

I don't actually care that much about Darwin but he's talked about a lot because theists seem to think in terms of these great saints with a line to god. Since they have all their christian saints they start looking for the corresponding atheist saints and go after Darwin.

The absence of theism is not an absence of faith.

and

In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

are two false statements, and the first is largely unimportant. Like any other logical deduction about the world, if there is no reason to think something is true or that it exists, then it is probably false; and so both absence of faith in deities and faith in the absence of deities are both sensible and logical viewpoints. The entirety of science (which uses logic to make statements about the universe around us) is based on this idea. If something doesn't follow from what we [provably] know, and doesn't have evidence in itself, why should we think it exists? Indeed, why should we think it is not nonsense? Atheists are reasonable people who don't believe in deities in the sky, because they have no reason to. It is not easy to be athiest, yes, but only because humans evolved to worship, not because there's any logical jump to conclusions involved.

As for your second statement, you clearly do not understand. "Faith" in the religous sense is a silly notion that you should state something to be true without any evidence for it, and be rewarded for your blindness in some bizarre game played by the gods. "Faith" in scientific terms is rarely used, but it denotes our understanding that what our modelling of how something works via theory and mathematic representation need not be exact to reality. We live in a world of probabilities, and we slowly build our knowledge. Through experiments and reasoning, we try to make statements that seem to be true, and we therefore "believe" in them, to the extent of the evidence we find.

Compare that to religious people, who want to believe in what they say, and when pressed will offer "proof" (which you correctly put between quotes) in the form of arguments stemming from ignorance. Questions that they don't even understand. Who did such and such? How did X happen? Why is Y like so? We don't know yet? GREAT, then deity Z did it!

So please don't even compare the two.