Slashdot Mirror

your statement itself contains a hidden discouragement: against atheism, which is not a religion

A lot of important science raises serious questions that make people of many religions uncomfortable.

Atheism is a-theism, the antonym of Theism. Theism is "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods", so Atheism is "an absense of doctrine of belief in the existense of a god or gods."

If you think it's anything else, or is equivalent to some other religious belief, you're simply wrong. It's just the state of not believing in gods.

As to how an athiest would pick, well, as an athiest, I tend to pick my beliefs to benefit me, and society, which ultimately benefits me. Society is a collection of people who all think of themselves as 'me' and who probably feel much like I do about many things. If I want a stable life I support the civilization I'm in, I do that by supporting those around me unless it greatly inconveniences me.

I don't think an Ant has to have a belief in god to decide to help the colony and in a similar way, I don't have to have a belief in an ultimate right and wrong to feel that my best interests lie with some form of the golden rule and "civilized" behaviour. "When in Rome", to a degree.

What I wonder is why you think you need a god to tell you this. Are you so desperate for someone to take responsibility that you'll take direction from a musty of book just to avoid being in charge of your own actions?

It's all well and good to say 'science is all about making models and we never know if those models are true, so really we don't ever know anything', but saying 'we don't know anything' (being 'agnostic about everything') is essentially just a semantic game, in which you've defined the word 'belief' so strongly that you believe nothing, basically taking yourself out of the game since that's not how other people mean 'belief'.

Now, maybe you're not agnostic about everything, you're just saying it about god--hey, maybe god exists, I can't disprove it. But then, are you also agnostic about unicorns, fairys, leprechauns, and ghosts? If not, why not?

For me, atheism is the only intellectually honest thing I can be (although I admit it took me a few years as an agnostic to complete my theism-deprogramming). I have no reason to believe a god exists any more than I do to believe elves exist--despite plenty of literary and oral tradition for both. Occam's razor says chop chop, and so, goodbye god. (I usually summarize this argument as follows: I find it kind of surprising that theism is such the default that I have to name myself as a-theistic to describe my lack of belief in something there's no evidence for. After all, we don't need a word acornic to describe people who don't believe in unicorns.)

Of course, you can make the move that 'some sort of prime mover that built the universe and triggered the big bang exists', and call that god, even if that thing isn't omniscient, omnipotent, or anything like any of the gods traditionally worshipped by people. But then you've basically gone and redefined god, and what's the point. An example in that vein: unlike fairys and elves, there's pretty clear evidence that the Santa Claus of familiar tales doesn't exist--at least, he's never left me any presents or come down my chimney, and I assume you share that experience. But maybe Santa Claus really DOES exist--he just doesn't actually leave presents or eat milk and cookies left for people. And he doesn't live at the North Pole literally, where he would have been spotted; he lives in an underground base in Antarctica, in fact. But if you believed that, why is this guy anything to do with traditional "Santa Claus", other than maybe happening to have that name?

• "Strong atheism is an
• explicit belief that there are no deities. (They may, for example, be considered an impossibility.) Such a position usually commits one to having, or at least allowing for, positive assertions about and explanations of the natural world which do not require a deity.
  
  Weak atheism is a mere lack of belief in any deity. (One may hold that there is not enough evidence to support a decision, or one may simply not have a position). This is related but not equivalent to agnosticism, which affirms that a person cannot have firm knowledge of the existence nor the inexistence of any deity. Nonetheless the two terms are often used interchangeably."

Theism and atheism both tout declarations of belief concerning something that is supernatural. A materialist scientific verdict cannot be given either way. Therefore, they are both faiths. Theism is faith in presence; atheism is faith in absence.

Incorrect. If theism is "faith in presence" then atheism, or "non-theism" means "absence of (faith in presence)". Huge difference. You're confusing "I don't believe that" with "I believe the opposite of that".

A-theism: without theism. An atheist is a person without a god belief and that is all. A man raised by wolves in the wilderness is an atheist not because he believes that a god does not exist; he is an athiest because he has no conception of what a god is.

The problem with saying that atheism has not been proven is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If I say that invisible pink unicorns exist then the burden of proof falls on me. It is my job to prove that they exist, not your job (maybe you are an aunicornist) to prove that they do not. Likewise when a theist makes the claim "A god exists" it is their job to prove the existence, not the job of the atheist.

An agnostic is a person who believes that man can never have knowledge about a god. An agnostic would say that we can't say if God exists or not because this is impossible information for humans to know. Agnosticism is the positive belief that "Man can never know knowledge about God." While athiesm is the lack of a belief in a god, a negative. Agnosticism is one of the more misunderstood religious beliefs. If you do not believe that man can never have knowledge of God then you are not an agnostic.

-Al

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."

"Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not."

"The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble."

"...the answer to the question 'Isn't atheism a religious belief?' depends crucially upon what is meant by 'religious'. 'Religion' is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and worship. (It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not 'religion' according to such a definition.) Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of 'religious' to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as 'religious' as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV."

So, according to the atheists themselves (and they back it up elsewhere on the site with OED quotations), atheism is "absence of belief", while agnosticism is "belief that we'll never know one way or the other".

Furthermore, even if you assume that the word 'atheism' refers only to so-called "strong atheism" (i.e. the assertion that there is no god), and further assume that holding any kind of belief about a god (even a negative one) qualifies as a religion, that still does not lead to the conclusion that separation of church and state is equivalent to the state pushing 'atheism' as a 'religion'. Separation of church and state means that the government takes no official position one way or the other, which is equivalent to "weak atheism" (absence of belief), or what we might call "non-theism" (since the meaning of the word "atheism" is in so much dispute). In terms of freedom and rights: not mentioning god is not the same thing as saying that god does not exist.

There are two ways of interpreting the word "atheism"

athe-ism: belief that there is no god.
a-theism: no belief.

The first is a religion. The second is not.

In any case, "under God" is clearly choosing sides as far as religion goes, because there are religions that do not have exactly one god.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to shut up and sit down????

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete...

As an athiest and a patriot I have been waiting for this for years!

As a fellow atheist who considers himself lucky to live in the great, flawed, wonderful, terrible United States of America (I need a better understanding of patriot before I'll claim to be one), I was excited as all get out at the ruling. Then quickly annoyed at some of the brainless comments I heard on TV (though a few others were brainful), especially by some of our elected representatives in Congress who are evidently much too cowardly to stand on principle and support the constitution in this case as they might well do in other cases. Not that I should have been surprised.

BTW, CNN's banner on the ruling spelled "atheist" as "athiest", just as the poster I'm quoting did. I'm fine with alternative spellings among Slashdot readers -- the more, the merrier -- but on CNN it felt like a slap in the face. OTOH, they probably misspell things all the time (I usually ignore the obnoxious things so can't be sure); I guess that's some small, twisted kind of consolation.

In god we trust is the only thing left on the chopping block!

Well, maybe not the only thing, though IMO it should be the next to fall, but I'm not going to get my hopes up; I have a feeling today's ruling won't stand for long, let alone a hypothetical ruling against the blatant theism-promoting "In God we trust".

With any luck, we will now see a bunch of public figures make fools out of themselves rushing to support the promotion of God by the State. Strike that: no luck will be required; it's a sure thing.

I didnt' say people back then were dumb. I used the word "ignorant".

They just didn't know any better to realize such things as "the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth goes around it."

Another flaw is your failure to understand tha atheism isn't a claim, nor a belief. It's the default hypothesis when evidence is lacking, and there hasn't been enough evidence yet to sway from that default hypothesis.

We don't often see it as a default hypothesis because we are indoctrinated to believe in a god since early childhood, such that anything else now seems like a deviation from the norm.

I'm not calling them dumb. I'm calling them ignorant.

A-theism means "without belief in a god" and nothing more.

It is a negative, not a postitive, and as such it is not an argument at all. Atheism it not something that you prove. You do not prove negatives or non-things. As such it is ridiculous to say that atheism is a "religion". Atheism is a religion like the lack of belief that today is Monday is a religion. And ALL unborn children are atheists.

Anti-theism (against all gods), on the other hand, is probably what you mean when you say "atheism". All anti-theists are atheists, but all atheists are not anti-theists. In fact MOST atheists are not anti-theists.

Glad we cleared that up.

# By nature of being alone, atheists are smarter than everyone else. Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question. Further, atheists are not subject to the pedestrian difficulties of respecting the points of view of others in the course of discussion. This is called "free thought".

If you want to believe in the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I respect your point of view. If you want to believe in the Christian God, I also respect your point of view. It really doesn't matter to me that I know both of these beliefs are necessarily false beliefs; that there are no invisible pink unicorns and no omnipotent dieties. Believe whatever you wish. This is called "free thought."

# Under their intrinsic immunity to the inverse application of their accusations, atheists are capable of making statements such as "Enforcing your beliefs in moral absolutes upon others is wrong." without being concerned with the paradox such statements represent.

It is impossible to enforce the belief of atheism because atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief, specifically, the lack of belief in a god. Like maybe aunicornism is the lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods.

Someone could enforce the beliefs of anti-theism, but to claim that all anti-theists want to enforce their beliefs on others is also absurd.

# Still further related to the "platform" explained above, atheists may make any convenient reference to the evils of world religion (whose proof is subject to the provisions outlined in point one), without applying this analysis to practiced atheism (such as that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot).

You are talking about enforced anti-theism, NOT enforced atheism. Repeat after me: All anti-theists are atheists, but all atheists are not anti-theists.

In summary, then, your argument is well supported by your beliefs. However, because my religion teaches common respect (Christianity), I cannot subscribe to your argument.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You should never support arguments with beliefs, you should support beliefs with arguments. Supporting arguments with beliefs the fundamental logical fallacy the most religions share.

"Naw, atheism is the belief in absence of deities."

Sorry to burst your bubble, AC, but you're wrong.

"The word itself could mean either, athe-ism or a-theism."

No. For your information, the word atheism is known to derive directly from the Greek word atheos, which in turn comes from the Greek prefix a- meaning "the absence of-" (c.f. apolitical, atheoretical) plus the Greek word theos meaning "god".

That's known as etymology. It's a fact. Now it's also a fact that there is no meaningful word or word fragment "athe", no matter how much you might like one to exist.

atheism is the absence of belief in deities

Naw, atheism is the belief in absence of deities. The word itself could mean either, athe-ism or a-theism.

---Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.---

"Some guy says that Bigfoot exists, and this Polaroid sheweth his blurry leg."

---You have a reason to belive in God, you are just ignoring that reason---

That you would lie about me, tell ME what I do or do not believe or have reasons for (when you have no idea who I am or what goes on in my mind), reflects poorly on your character. Especially when it's done merely to try and score a rhetorical point. Being dishonest about me is not a good way to convince me or anyone that yours is a position of truthfulness.

---My definition was incorrect, but so is yours. A-theism means no belief, but if you have no belief, why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing?---

I don't happen to believe in the god you claim exists. You do. We need some word with which to distinguish ourselves. That word is "atheism." Atheism is not a "belief in nothing." ("Nihilism" is, I think, the belief in nothing, and I am not a nihilist) Atheism simply tells you that I lack a PARTICULAR belief: the god belief. I have plenty of other beliefs, they just don't have anything to do with the subject of gods.

---If you show forth your non-beleif, it is in fact a belief, just a belief in nothing.---

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. I am also not a racecar driver. If I point out that I am not, does that then make me a racecar driver? No. No more than me noting that I am bald is the same as telling you my haircolor. Pointing out that I don't believe in god is not _stating_ a belief. It's just the opposite: it's noting that I do NOT have THAT belief (the belief in gods).

I'm sorry if you find these issues honestly confusing. But I fear that you are NOT simply confused: I fear that you want to deny this definition not because you don't understand it, but merely because you wish people to live in a world where they only have a choice between two unprovable faith beliefs. But that simply is not the case. I suspect this because I've heard your taunting retorts about "belief in nothing" and "why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing" before. Hopefully you are just repeating some common rhetoric that someone else taught you to unknowning say in these cases, in which case, you are not really to blame: they are. But, now you know.

---I belive that we should forgive one another as the word of God says, so I forgive you.---

For what, exactly? What did I do to you?

Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. You have a reason to belive in God, you are just ignoring that reason. My definition was incorrect, but so is yours. A-theism means no belief, but if you have no belief, why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing? If you show forth your non-beleif, it is in fact a belief, just a belief in nothing.

I belive that we should forgive one another as the word of God says, so I forgive you.

Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

poly-theism : Belief in multiple gods
mono-theism : Belief in one god
a-theism : Belief in no gods.

Unless you actually do know Greek (in which case I apologize), my translation has as much validity as yours.

"a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. It is not a positive belief in anything. Lack of a belief is never a positive position of faith.

> A-theism = "Without Theism"

Shouldn't that be "a-the-ism"?

a: without
the(o): God
ism: ideology/belief

i.e., the ideology/belief that there is no God.

The way you broke it up ("a-theism" or "without Theism") doesn't quite make sense.

A-theism = "Without Theism"

You are blubbering over semantics. Do you think that before people came up with the term "day-job" nobody worked in the daytime?

Anti-theism (I like the sound of that!) on the other would probably imply defiance toward theism.