Slashdot Mirror

Actually no. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Theism: the belief in a higher being. Atheism: the lack of belief in a higher being. Yes there are weak atheists and strong atheists, those that simply don't believe and those that insist there is no god, but does not make atheism a belief system.

Thats actually quite incorrect.

Science has a pretty good understanding of the physical basis for the neurological conditions that lead to theism when confronted with things that are not understood, or the natural tendencies for the brain to react in certain ways related to suspension of disbelief when presented with (and trained to blindly follow) authority figures.

Science can, and does in fact, say a lot about precisely why so many people so easily believe in something so patently ridiculous. It does say, in fact, a lot about why theism exists.

Science doesn't need to say anything about the existance of a supreme being because science can explain why you seem to think it should or shouldn't.

The GP is quite correct, even if modded down. The ability of a person to blindly accept things as plainly crazy and contradictory as the basis of all the common religions IS in fact a good indicator of a problem because it indicates a critical flaw in that persons ability to accurately judge information they are being given.

Theists are easy to control. Thats a bad, bad, bad thing when it comes to making rational decisions based on popular consensus.

Religious behavior is keyed much more to pleasing or displeasing a supernatural entity of one kind or another.

Actually, theism is the minority view among religions and religious practitioners. Human spirituality is much more general in nature, and faith-centric religions, such as the Abrahamic and Homeric religions, are a narrow in their spiritual scope and constitute a very non-representative sample. Most religions are not concerned with a deity or with deities, but with understanding and knowing oneself, and reaching a deep spiritual happiness. Even though a minority of Christians (for example) may find this in their religion, it is safe to say that most do not because that is not the tack of Christianity; instead, it is as you said: deity worship.

The approach of theistic religions of this sort is sycophantic prostration, not harmony or happiness; if these things follow that's fine, but they're beside the main goal of cultivating fear and an inferiority-to-a-god-or-gods complex. Some religions are deistic without this sycophantism, such as some forms of shamanism and the like; they center around the place and well-being of humans and of all the inhabitants of nature, even if they suppose the existence of one or more deities.

Purely materialistic and evolutionary theories, do not provide a very satisfying nor logical answer to WHY humans are so persistently, seemingly illogically and universally religious.

That claim is ignorant of evolutionary theory, of the scientific literature on the subject, and even of the popular literature on the subject. Spirituality could certainly provide selection benefits in terms of group dynamics, and investigations on this matter are ongoing. It's even to the point where evolutionary biology and anthropology are seeing overlap with genetics (even more than the usual population genetics overlap). A popular book making these rumblings more accessible is this:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n12/full/ng1204-1241.html
This subject was featured on the cover of Time Magazine only four years ago. It's something one might just miss, but given your cocksure attitude about Christianity being absolutely correct to the exclusion of all other religions and systems of knowledge, I think it might be willful ignorance, or perhaps outright denial.

Could it be that the account we read in the first book of the Bible really is true?

This seems very unlikely. There are many creation myths, and the account in Genesis, like all the others, makes claims contrary to what we observe in nature. Everything from biological evolution to geophysics to speciation to astronomy to genetics to basic physics and everything else indicate that the creation myth in Genesis' account is not only a myth, but one based on no empirical evidence at all; it makes claims about the nature of the universe, and those claims are verifiably, demonstrably wrong.

Maybe there exists a Creator God who created us in His image, and placed within us a very deep seated desire to know and interact with Him? Is that scenario really so impossible

It is no more impossible than that the Hindu Vedas represent a true picture of the universe; but they are both at odds with the universe itself. They both make claims which, upon comparing with physical reality, are inaccurate. You seem to be saying that if your Christian story is even a little bit possible in principle, then it's as good as gold and should be believed, or at least nobody should have to require evidence to believe they are true. It's *possible* in principle that things fall up rather than down, but nobody is justified in believing they fall up, because upon inspecting nature, things, in actual fact, behave otherwise.

The Genesis creation myth, as with any creation myth, makes very specific claims about the na

Actually I'd like to think we don't just focus on ignorance when it rears its head as theism, but rather smugly mock all ignorance even if not waving the banner of faith.

After all SCO isn't claiming to be on a mission from some deity and we can mock them for irrational thinking as well.

along with meaning that we can't know if God exists (which just as much a "leap of faith").

I'm not sure what you mean in this case by a "leap of faith". Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that claiming we can't know is in and of itself a leap of faith? Without certainty about how you define "know", I would disagree. I believe it was Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, who logically proved that the idea of god the way we usually define it is not within the realm of science, and can therefore not be proven or disproved in a scientific manner. I don't remember the exact argument he makes, but that's a very simplified summary of it. (if any other /.ers want to comment or correct me, be my guest)

I reject belief in God (without asserting that there certainly is no God), so I'm an atheist. That's a definition backed up by many dictionaries and other references.

Well, I think this is a question of semantics: the way I've most commonly seen it defined is that atheists not only "reject the belief in God", but actually "reject the existence of God". The two of very different, and I would say the first one is a closer description of agnosticism, whereas the second is the definition of atheism. Taken in this sense, I feel uncomfortable calling myself an atheist.
This being said, I think there is ambiguity in the meaning of atheism, and I've seen several different definitions, including the one from Wikipedia, which is very ambiguous as it describes atheism as being "either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism" (capturing both definitions above). In this sense, agnosticism could almost be described as a form of atheism.
I feel agnosticism is also ambiguous because it can mean you don't know because you can't tell or haven't thought about it, or you have decided you can't know as a result of a rational thought process. My literature professor in high school (he was very Catholic) always said "agnostics are the worst kind, because they can't make up their mind" - I would disagree with that.

Ah, it's the "I'm superior to both atheists and theists", as if it's somehow possible to exist in limbo-land between the two.

Since you cite Wikipedia, let's take a look:

Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) 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 unknowable.

Firstly, this is itself an assertion, and could be viewed as a statement of faith. Secondly, it is not mutually exclusive to atheism - many of those atheist scientists could be agnostics too, so your argument doesn't hold. Yes, scientists should be agnostics - but there is nothing wrong with being atheists too.

Thirdly, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about atheism:

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]

So in fact, only some of those atheist scientists are stating god doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is not some "middle ground" between theism and atheist - and that's going by the source that you quoted.

Your opinion of atheism is completely contradictory to how I view it...I think it does benefit society

What you think or I think does not matter, what actually matters is what is real. Historically, religion with all its flaws has given us the abilities for pretty much any advancement we have today, you can thank the university system for that. Also the charity of Religious organizations to keep society running in times when welfare wasn't around. Even the wars that religion has been responsible for, it really wasn't religion that was the problem, a human used a common goal to cause said war, would have happened with or without religion because people are selfish. Be it the hate of a race, a nationality, or a faith, humans will always use common goals as tools good and evil. Atheism, Historically has given us relatively nothing and taken so much. for a good neutral debate check this link.

Rather, you believe things that have been thoughtfully tested and proven

This is not a fault of religion, this is simple human rationality. I consider myself a rational christian, I believe not because someone told me to, but because it makes sense and I can justify my belief. I do not confuse it with science, but rather a rational understanding of history and personal experience. I will admit largely the religious field behaves like sheep, but that doesn't mean that all religions are wrong. Don't judge a belief be it Atheism, Gnosticism, Theism, or even scientific theories by the people involved, rather look at the evidence behind it. I think this is a mistake many people make.

I think it's marvelous to be driving towards actual truth rather than clouding it up with nonsense.

This statement is completely dependent on there not being a god, for if there is a god of some kind, then the atheist is just driving towards a lie.

Why must these people kill those people? Different religion

Well that is entirely way too exclusive a statement, people use religion as an excuse to kill each other, if they didn't have religion they would use another excuse, this has been proven time and again in history.

Why is global warming all a conspiracy? Because God has a plan.

Who the heck uses this rationality? Wow, any christian is called to be stewards of creation. Case and point, I and the churches I am involved in are very active in taking a proactive stance on the environment, and encouraging others to do the same. Besides the conspiracy theorists are not only theists. People just like a good conspiracy.

And I don't even think I can count how many times I've been told that I am wrong for being a vegetarian

I really hope a christian did not tell you this. Yet another example bad theology because people don't study scripture. God created man as vegetarian, Gen 1:29. It wasn't for a LOOONG time, see a couple thousand years at least, that god made eating meat permissible, Gen 9. Not to mention the chapters on Daniel being a vegetarian and because of that outperformed fellow students. So if your people are Christians telling you this, go ahead and show them that they are full of crap. And no I am not a vegetarian, but I highly respect people that are.

Helped build up modern science and a realistic understanding of how the world actually works.

Sorry there buddy, science is not an atheistic thing. It isn't even a belief, it is an understanding of how the world works, not exclusive to any one world belief. As I said earlier, Christianity in general gave the western world its universities, charitable foundations, and encouraged scientific thought with the exception of some major blunders.

What good did religion do for society?

See the link above, religion has done wonderful things, immeasurable, whether or not their God is real is besides

Both atheism (typically, rejection of theism) and agnosticism (typically, belief that certain unknowns are inherently unknowable--godel incompleteness, anyone?) are not necessarily irreligious, and agnosticism may even be theistic.

The use of these terms in contemporary speech is rather vague, however. Scientific skepticism a better-defined description for what most people mean by "atheist", and could be essentially described as a belief that a logical explanation for any unknown exists (note that this does not require that the explanation is known or even knowable within the scope of human-activity and observation past and future, nor does it require the explanation to fit within current scientific theory, but merely that it is derivable in *some* well defined theory). This is faith in science--and not to be confused with faith in *scientists*.

There is nothing wrong with discussing this stuff in the classroom, but it belongs in the philosophy class, not the science class.

The problem here you are seeing is your own close mindedness, well maybe not close mindedness, but your hate for theism is over shrouding your reason by defining ID == 'Omnicient, Omnipotent, diety type spaghetti thing'. Which ID doesn't always imply. ID can be genetically engineered just as easily as it can be some form of theistic creation. What you want to say is that creationism by diety cannot be a scientific area, that is why we have theology and philosophy.

>The difference I'm drawing is between purely physical vs. physical and spiritual

given that all of science done so far has succeeded by being purely physical, it seems far more reasonable to me to continue that trend than to stop, introduce spirituality for the start of the universe, and then have to explain why this spirituality doesn't manifest itself anywhere else.

>How do you know God is infinitely complex?

Christians claim God is everywhere, knows everything and can do everything. If you're willing to discard theism and adopt a purely deistic point of view then fine, but the moment you make any claims at all about your God then all the responsibility is on you to explicitly prove all those claims.

>My ultimate point is that a simple, monotheistic God (let's not even bring religion into the picture) is no less absurd, complex, or provable than...

if you add 'for the moment' and provide a clear definition of 'God' then we might start to approach agreement, but as I said above, the moment you make any other claims about this 'God' is where the trouble starts. If you just mean 'God' to be purely 'first cause' with no other constraints (or theological baggage) then that's just an argument about definitions of words and has nothing to do with science/religion at all.

While the same metaphorical names can be used to signify the god of science and religion, the theist speaking in the context of religion and the scientist speaking in the context of science are using symbols that happen to have the same name but are pointing at very different ideas. The god of the theist has very definite properties that lie completely outside the domain of scientific discourse and method. The god of the scientist is an idea whose properties are still mostly hidden from us but are being gradually defined by the scientific method. So these two ideas inhabit domains that are completely disjoint.

You mentioned that these ideas are stupid things to fight about. Most scientists will agree with you, but a large percentage of theists will not. As science (evolutionary theory in this case) advances, it slowly rolls away the cloud of mystery surrounding facts and events in the physical world and offers logical and physically testable explanations for these facts and events, and the supernatural explanation that formerly appeared so solid always does poorly (in the marketplace of ideas) when compared to the scientific explanation.

Theism is a foundational idea, on which many theists have constructed their entire world view, and these theists derive meaning and comfort from these ideas, which makes life bearable. In a very real sense, as the domain of scientific knowledge expands, the domain of the supernatural contracts and theists can feel this in their gut, and react against it. So when these theists perceive that the foundation of their world view is under attack on all sides by the seemingly inexorable and atheistic progress of science, they of course search for any means to halt its progress and regain some lost ground and metaphysical breathing room for their own domain.

In the case of evolutionary theory, which threatens the very foundation of their creation story and hence strikes at the root of their belief, they try to exclude evolution from the marketplace of ideas. In this country, that effort has been, so far, futile. So in desperation the theists try to present an alternative "theory" which (apparently) inhabits (and appears to reconcile) the domains of science and monotheism. If they are successful in introducing this alternate "theory", then they can relax a little and rest assured that their children and future generations can at least learn a "theory" that will allow them to comfortably follow the theistic path.

Finally, I can't let this go unsaid. When the theists are unsuccessful, some of them react like any desperate animal and strike out physically against their tormentors. That's why scientists generally do not oppress or kill theists for their beliefs or statements, but history is full of theists oppressing and killing those whose ideas threaten their belief system.

Well, I call myself an aignostic because there is the very distinct possibility there is *something* out there. But he might be completely unlike anything we have ever seen before. Something totally outside of our understanding. And we might have as much chance understanding it as your average amoeba does understanding Humans.

If "God" were really like that, Christians would have a real serious problem. He doesn't answer prayers, he didn't send his son to die on a cross, we made all that up.

Consider this.

Lets say, 500 years from now we are a space faring species and in our exploration of the universe we find a big unknown energy "thing" out in space, and it claims that was the very first organism in our universe to achieve sentience after we find this thing. (and after we find out how really to communicate with it.) That it really is observable and "there." and it has to operate within the boundaries of our universe. It just has been around so long it knows how things work and how to make things we don't.

What have we found?

I'm not saying thats the way it "really is" I'm saying that if in our future we start really encountering other organisms more advanced than Humans, the three religions are going to have a serious problem. Because, no God didn't create Humans in thier Image. And the whole Christian, Muslim and Jewish theism falls apart.

No, Tolkien grew up a devout Catholic. So that's definitely not it. :)

I hate to appeal to Wikipedia, but the article there does mention Lewis's falling away from Christianity as a teenager and then returning to theism and then Christianity when he in his early 30's.

C.S. Lewis was definitely one of the great Christian apologists of the 20th century, and it's no wonder that you remember him as such.

It seems to me that the issue is not with any public display of religion, but with state-sponsored displays of religion. You see, a government having a religion is the same as a government enforcing a religion.

No, it isn't the same. A state can sponsor displays of religion without enforcing it, especially if the display is provided by non-government employees, aka regular citizens. Enforcement still denotes coercion. There is no coercion on the part of the U.S. government to institute any religion. Favoring a particular religion does not enforce a religion either which is good since the government (locally in places, not federally) is favoring Islam all too much lately.

For example, in many U.S. states, atheists are barred from holding public office. This gives atheists less rights than theists. This is an example of government enforcing religion. It's nowhere near as extreme as Iran ("if you abandon Islam you'll die" is much worse than "if you're not religious you can't take part in governing"), but it's the same concept.

I'm not sure why they are being barred or what law/regulation is being used to bar them. Care to provide references? I'm curious to read about it b/c I hadn't heard of that happening until you mentioned it. However, it isn't an example of a government enforcing a religion. They are not enforcing anything other than who can be in that public office which isn't out of the ordinary. Are you going to accuse the federal gov't of enforcing ethnic bias by requiring a U.S. President to be a native-born U.S. citizen? If you aren't a citizen you pick a different job.

You look at it as if the person has to change religions to be in public office while others may view it as the person just changes which position in public office he/she wants to be in or they choose a different position outside of gov't altogether. Yet some others view atheism itself as a religion and therefore those states are definitely not enforcing anything remotely close to what you are accusing them of. Would you care to specify which religion they are enforcing? Theism itself isn't a religion. Atheism is historically counter to Christianity however it really is counter to any religion that has a God figure so with that said, which religion are they enforcing? Since the person isn't being forced to be in public office it can't be said that religion is being enforced especially if no religion is ever specified such as by saying "Mr. Smith, you are barred from public office in Utah because you are an atheist, however if you convert to Mormonism we'll let you have any position you want, subject to the usual terms of hiring state employees." Mr. Smith has alternatives so nothing is being forced on him.

That's because religious crazies aren't so influential in Germany. They're the ones that accept no criticism but their own. A scientific mind will by definition encourage free debate and freedom of thought, but theism is the contrary of freedom.

"...supposed to be all-inclusive..."
As a Buddhist, I respectably reject your 'god' related parameters dependent on theism. That's totally a non sequitur from my perspective.

Theism: God exists.
Atheism: God doesn't exist.
Agnosticism: I don't know if God exists.

Take your pick, but I'm pretty sure you're in there somewhere.

(Yes, if we're being technical, I realize agnostics believe it's impossible to know if God exists. But that would make them intolerant sons of bitches, and intolerance is the unpardonable sin, right?)

this appraoch does not impress anyone or sway anyone from their beliefs

Hate to break it to you, but it did for me, and for anyone else who was a theist and is not anymore. You are denying reality.

offering something better always works. taking away leads to a resistance fight

Offering something better most certainly does NOT always work. "Better" is highly subjective. And anyway, if atheism presents something closer to the truth than theism does, is that not something better? As for resistance fight, why is that my problem? The anti-slavery movement led to a resistance fight also. So? Does that mean they were wrong? That their ideas were not worth fighting for?

the problem with atheists is they only attack. they offer nothing superior.

Again, if what an atheist is offering is the TRUTH, is that not superior to falsity and fantasy? How is clarity not superior to haze?

that is why atheism is doomed to eternally fail in the face of religion

Is that why, by most measures, secularism is on the rise?

you never sway a single person by attacking their beliefs.

You can say this over and over and over if you want, but that does not make it true. The reverse, in fact, IS true. It IS entirely possible to change people's beliefs by deconstructing them (again, I am one of those people). And it is the most desirable method, for me. I do not wish to win anyone over to my particular worldview. I merely wish them to NOT choose the ones which make baseless assertions about reality.

But that has always been my problem with Theism. It obfuscates things. We should be believing in ourselves, in our potential, in our possibilities, in the future. But instead people close themselves off from the possibilities and instead project that energy into an over-simplified invisible man in the sky. One who wants gays put to death or who tries to fool our senses to see if we're faithful enough to cling to the idea that earth is on 6000 years old.

Believing in a greater whole, a bigger picture, an endless potential, is wonderful and an essential part of humanity, one that I feel should be explored at great depth with a mind wide open to the possibilities. Religious faith is the opposite, it dumbs down the wonder of the universe into "some guy did it" and encourages, even demands, that you cling to one subset of possibilities (otherwise you're not being "faithful").

If you want to believe in something greater, in the possibilities, in humanity's future, great! Do that! Why put god in between you and that goal?

And a follow-up - atheism is NOT a belief system, it is merely a categorization of them. There are billions of belief systems; some are atheistic, and some theistic. That is to say, some have gods and some do not. People who adhere to any belief system, even if it is highly individualized, are either theists or atheists. If you believe in gods, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. There can certainly be shades of gray here, but the basic idea is to help classify all the various belief systems according to some common characteristics.

Moreover, that there are social movements and organizations present in today's society which are against theism, or against one particular manifestation thereof, does not make it a belief system. If anything, these people should be classified as "anti-theist"; beyond being merely without theism, they are actively opposed to it. Yet still, anti-theism is not a belief system anymore than anti-war, or anti-fur, or anti-slavery. It is merely several diverse people coalescing around a common cause.