Slashdot Mirror

"Christianity has no pantheons, no idols, no sacrifices, no oracles. . . . In short, it has none of the hallmarks of a religion."

The properties you have not listed are not common to all that most people consider religions, which rather defeats the point of using them to classify religion, but then, I think your point was just to list things that atheism doesn't have that other religions do.

Even some of the things you list are applicable. There is some dogma/declaration of faith--or, at least, I don't suppose you can be an atheist without a professed belief that God does not exist. Which equals or exceeds the opposing theistic assertion in that, while it's conceivable for their to be proof of God, there can never be disproof, so theism provable but neither are disprovable. There is indeed an atheist hierarchy/leadership, as much as there is Protestant or Muslim hierarchy/leadership, in so much as their are atheist organizations. Having no moral code is itself a moral code, and there are atheist sects.

This question always comes up, and it's always fun because it always boils down to people with agendas trying to set the terminology to their favor. (as if the way you classified things had any effect whatsoever on their logical properties)

But a simple flip to the dictionary reveals the startling truth of the matter: The word "religion" is not so absolutely defined as to favor one side over the other. There is plenty of room to interpret atheism as either being or not being a religion, and no reason to say that either view is illogical. The whole debate is nothing more than a political fiction.

Of course atheism is a religion, it is a system of belief about the supernatural nature (or lack there of) of this universe.

I don't like the word agnostic, because I consider it an evasion. I'm agnostic about God to the extent I'm agnostic about Mithra, or for that matter Mothra. Are you agnostic about Bigfoot and ESP? I don't believe in them, but I'd hardly call myself agnostic about them--I'd just say that I see no reason to believe in them, which is my approach to religion. What word do we use for people who just don't believe in religion? If only we had a word already that meant "lacks religion." Hmm.

Beyond the pedantic, assuming you mean evangelize in an arguing-for-X sense, I still don't buy that as a reason for labeling X a religion. I can yak someones ear off about how great tivo is, but that doesn't make tivo ownership a religion. It seems to me that calling atheism a religion is a childish attempt to derail the discussion (I'm rubber and you're glue, etc etc). It belittles atheism by making it into exactly what is arguing against.

-Ted

Atheism is the disbelief in God.

I think this whole evolution vs. ID (creationism) debate has blown so far out of proportion that many feel it is now a science vs religion, or theism vs atheism debate. Basically, us vs. them, and you have to be one or the other, so if you aren't with us on any one opinion, you're against us. That's probably not a very realistic a view of the debate, but it seems to be a growing perception. Scientist = evolution = atheist, so teaching evolution is teaching atheism (which is false, but that seems to be the perception).

I agree logic and philosophy are obviously important, and part of that is theology. But in the example you describe, firstly the answers are still found by following logic and reasoning, and not by religious faith or accepting something written down in a book or said by a person, which is what I meant by "religion".

Obviously, I'm taking a broader and, I think, much more fair view. Religion is not all about accepting something written down in a book, And, to cap things off, it has made real, useful discoveries.

Secondly, the answers come from attacking the claim that God must exist.

No, this answer comes from attacking a specific, wrong claim. Which also, I might add, effectively refutes the claim that you hear sometimes that theology is not falsifiable.

It's not clear here that theological thought should be put under the religion camp anyway, since this discovery came from disproving the proof - arguably therefore it's more atheism than theism.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you're allowed to claim that the best of religion isn't really religion, then religious people are allowed to claim that the worst of religion isn't really religion either. And if you're allowed to claim that the worst of religion is "real" religion, then religious people are allowed to claim that the worst of atheism (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot) is "real" atheism.

Alternatively, we could all learn to get along. Just a suggestion.

I agree logic and philosophy are obviously important, and part of that is theology. But in the example you describe, firstly the answers are still found by following logic and reasoning, and not by religious faith or accepting something written down in a book or said by a person, which is what I meant by "religion". Secondly, the answers come from attacking the claim that God must exist.

As I said in my previous post, there are obviously things outside the domain of science, simply because what we usually refer to science is usually only concerned with physics, chemistry and biology, and not say history - or logic and theology. But this doesn't mean that religion has any answers. It's not clear here that theological thought should be put under the religion camp anyway, since this discovery came from disproving the proof - arguably therefore it's more atheism than theism.

Agnostics just think the debate is pointless.

You are thinking of apatheism, or perhaps ignosticism. Both of these can overlap with atheism (just as agnosticsm can) - these are words for seperate concepts that are not mutually exclusive.

The rest of your post is just a tired string of strawman arguments - I find it sad that atheism sometimes seems to attract most criticism and abuse not from theism, but agnostics who also don't believe in God, but think that because they are less vocal about it, or because they misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism actually mean, they have a logically superior position.

Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either.

The only thing I think I'm right as an atheist is that (a) there is currently no evidence for God, and that therefore (b) I reject believe in God.

Agnostics also vary in their vocality - both agnostics who criticise atheism, as well as those who claim that we can never know if God exists. That's a positive statement of belief. I guess by your logic, this makes all Agnosticism "just another religion".

If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter.

Yet you are the one stepping in first, getting all confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that someone is an atheist, not an agnostic.

Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).

What are all the same? Many atheists don't get "in your face or try to change your mind", where as some agnostics too. There are plenty of occasions where it is perfectly acceptable to be vocal - otherwise we end up with things like teaching Creationism in science lessons. Defending one's lack of belief is not the same as forcing your beliefs onto others. There is also nothing wrong with making an appeal to try to change people's opinions or beliefs - people debate all the time, and you're doing it too.

Exactly.
It is the same thing I use when trying to explain theism to somebody who doesn't "get it". We are humans. We are made of matter, and we exist in our universe. Comprehending things that have no entropy (and therefor no "flow" of time) in impossible for us. Also, trying to comprehend anything other than what exists in our own universe is, likewise, impossible. It would be like trying to explain color to a creature who was born without sight, or had lived its entire life in a dark cave. So in my argument for theism, I'm not saying that there IS a god, just that to rule one out because humans are incapable of wrapping our heads around it is a little silly.

Assuming the existence of God makes difficult questions go away

Aside from his excessive reliance on teleological reasoning, this level of argument marks him out as one of the most intellectually lazy philosophers ever to have defended the indefensible.

The question of why the universe is ordered on a macroscopic scale is indeed interesting, but bringing God into the matter is unnecessary and childish.

Well, you're simply stating ID is as it isn't, a) that it either necessitates or specifies the Christian God, or b) it definitionally denies either "macroevolution" or "microevolution" occurs.

Since you're simply making up what's under discussion, I suppose I'll need to leave your conversation with yourself to you. Unfortunate, since it was an interesting discussion.

Your strategy of simply asserting a straw-man version of ID aside, eventually, regardless of how much anyone tries to freight "Intelligent Design" with other positions of theism (in contrast to the process that would be intellectually honest, looking for the best argument in a domain--instead choosing to deliberately search for the worst), science simply will need a term to refer to "maybe some or all of this was designed", and actually deal with the issue.

Which brings us full circle to the question of the scope of science opened in my first post.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm predisposed to there not being a "reduction" of proposed instances of "irreducible complexity", though. My personal worldview can accomodate every single proposal being sufficiently explained, thus simply moving my notion of the point of design's "when" back to the Big Bang. I think, perhaps, your concern is that it is your worldview that fails outright, with the very first example that doesn't "reduce".

On a more serius note. The laws of nature were written by God. After writing them he set about building a Universe to the specifications allowed by those laws.

One of the more controversial elements of Swinburne's defence of theism is that he argues that moral laws are in a sense independent of God in that God is bound to them.

In the sense of the word as it is actually used, agnostic means that God is unknowable, or more precisely, that one *believes* that God is unknowable.

No, the word agnostic is actually used with the two distinct meanings of personal ignorance and intrinsic unknowability in the same context. They are distinguished when necessary with a qualifier.

WEAK agnosticism: I have no fucking idea who fucked this shit up.
STRONG agnosticism: Nobody has any fucking idea who fucked this shit up.

There is a certain confusion with weak atheism which could (and frequently does) arise, but that is properly reserved for the category of theological noncognitivists,

WEAK atheism: What the fuck do you mean with this God shit?
STRONG atheism: Didn't take any God to fuck this shit up.

which is different again from weak theism.

WEAK theism: Somebody fucked this shit up.
STRONG theism: God fucked this shit up.

An interesting cross-categorical theological belief not easily represented above is

DEISM: God set this shit up and it fucked itself.

And of course, theological Slashdotism,

SOVIET RUSSIA: This shit fucks YOU up!

Relax, it's a joke :p

Agnostic-theism is saying that we don't have enough evidence to make an informed decision about a creator God that listens to prayers and perform miracles. In general, agnosticism is just refusing to take a stand in something we do not have enough knowledge about. In the first sense, I think that the agnostics are nuts ( :p ), in the second, many people are agnostic including nearly all atheists.

Its in your bloody constitiution that ID is illegal in schools.
Yet there is a review to see if they should ignore it or not.

As well as there should. The US Constitution is not, after all, a holy book. It can and should be reviewed, questioned, and altered as needed. It is not the least bit rational to grant the US Founding Fathers a de facto divine status and declare their work to be beyond criticism. Yet that's the exact feeling many posts on Slashdot give me.

Then again, the Soviet Union worshipped Marx, Lenin and Stalin, despite being officially an atheist state. I guess humanity will always have religion, in one form or another.

The real question is, what form of religion is less destructive: theism or idealism ?

> the scientific method is constantly changing, theism is a static world view.

That is actually not true. The church admitted few years ago that Sun is the center of our solar system, not Earth as it was bulieved. Also few years ago in my country, women could operate as priests, which had been long forbidden.

So the theism also evolves. Religion is changed when they notice that people won't tolerate or bulieve the old story any more. First the stories in Bible are literal. After sciense proves them wrong, they became metaphoras or just stories that try to teach us some lesson, or they are simply interpreted differently.

Except science could change at any time with new research. Right now, that's the best idea we've got so we go with it. It was reached by the Scientific Method, not at random. When something better comes along, we admit we didn't have it all right the first time and change our ideas. Science also is able to tolerate the concept that, "We just don't fully understand this yet, but we'll keep working on it until we do."--Religion claims to have all the answers you'll ever need and they're perfect and they will never change. The body of knowledge created by the scientific method is constantly changing, theism is a static world view.

So yes, right now we think certain things are true, but with new evidence tomorrow it might be something totally different. You don't hear religious people talking like that.