Slashdot Mirror

I'm going to nit-pick here.

You're describing an agnostic - someone who is not certain of the existence of God or Gods (though they may be ALMOST certain of it, based on available evidence or the lack thereof).

An atheist is making a positive statement that they do not believe in God or Gods, period. Atheism is as much a belief as theism - it's a belief that the person in question *knows* the truth about the existence of God or Gods.

I don't think that it is possible to know the truth, for certain, about the non-existence of God or Gods. It isn't possible to prove a negative in the case of God. God, if one exists, would by definition have powers that violate any logical framework we can devise, and thus would be perfectly able to handle the paradox of existing in a universe where it's possible to prove that God does not exist. God is beyond paradox, by definition. So, for someone to say that God or Gods cannot and do not exist - true atheism - they are stating a belief. A belief based, ironically, on faith that there's no validity to the other guy's faith.

Personally, I'm an apatheist/agnostic. I'm not being glib - but I really don't know if God or Gods exist, and even if they did and could prove it, I still wouldn't care to worship them. I'm pretty sure that God or Gods don't exist in any ways that matter outside of being concepts used by some human beings for various purposes. I have no evidence for the existence of God or Gods, and as explained above, it's not possible for any real evidence for the non-existence of God or Gods, so I just choose to leave the question open as being more or less irrelevant. If something changes - if there were to be discovered some kind of irrefutable proof that God or Gods existed, that would be interesting, but I still don't know that I'd feel compelled to worship them or do what they say.

I will say that I've always found the poles in these discussions to be interesting. Absolute theists and absolute atheists alike are convinced that their understanding about God or Gods is the only correct one and that anyone who disagrees with them is an awful, pathetic creature that's ruining things for everyone else. Same behavior, slightly different window-dressing.

For what it's worth, I think that the real problem isn't theist vs. atheist, it's true believers (of whatever sort) vs. skeptics.

I think most of the people that reject Creationism have two other issues with it. They simply don't believe it in the same way they don't believe Santa Claus can shimmy down every chimney on Earth in one night. They're annoyed by it because it's voiciferous advocates want others to abandon reason as well. I don't think most who would find the Creation Museum ridiculous or offensive feel that way because they are loath to have a God-ful universe cramp their style on Sunday morning.

If I've overreacted it's because your take on the topic hit a nerve with me. It seems a common conceit of Christians specifically if not Theists generally that a moral life is only available to believers. When Bertrand Russell debated theism with a Christian Theologian his opponent had the gall to ask him how he would know Good from Evil. (Answer: "The same way I know red from blue.") Still, their mission to turn mere animals into God-aware Humans easily slips into hypocritical irony. A co-worker once told me with the tone of a man discussing his 401k plan that he saw, "So many people walking around with guilt", and that, "God takes care of that". Apparently, belief in God is a kind of theraputic get-out-of-jail-free card that just makes things easier. One can always put an end to self-reflection, put it all in "God's Hands", and claim if only to one's self that it's all part of "His Plan".

It just seems to me that there is an assumption that if human societies just stopped propagating religion, then many social ills would be resolved. If that's not the case, then why argue for atheism over theism.

It just seems to me that there is an assumption that if human societies just stopped propagating religion, then many social ills would be resolved. If that's not the case, then why argue for atheism over theism.

My argument isn't that atheism causes societies to support mass murdering tyrants.

It just seems to me that there is an assumption that if human societies just stopped propagating religion, then many social ills would be resolved. If that's not the case, then why argue for atheism over theism.

If that is the case, why isn't there any evidence that an atheist populous would result in a better society? What is that argument based on? Theory? Hypothesis? Faith?

Don't worry so much. All of our ancestors started out as nature worshiping morons. We managed to get this far without anyone protecting us from learning new (and possibly ignorant) things. Have a bit more respect for your fellow intelligent beings in this information rich world we live in. Myself, I was raised as a pretty scary fundamentalist type, studying books on creationism and taught all about science's "big lie", but have managed to become and adult who relies on the scientific method and accepts evolution and modern cosmology without too much fuss and muss. Heck, the only thing wrong with me is a nagging case of deism that every once in a while threatens to break out in a virulent case of weak theism, but other than that, right as rain.

isn't this atheist / partially agnostic ?

No. Atheism literally means a (without) theism (belief in god or gods.) Agnosticism is about knowledge; knowledge in turn refers to nature and things within nature, not the supernatural, which can only gain mental traction through belief. Agnosticism does not define a third position, it isn't even in the same domain. There are only two sides to the issue: Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you do not. There is no middle ground between the two. if you want to know where someone lands in this polarized spectrum, just ask them if they believe in a god or gods. If they do, they are theist, if they don't, they are atheist. It isn't about why or how much or reservations. It's about belief, or non-belief.

The atheist community makes a distinction between two primary subdivisions of atheism: First, those that hold a firm, assertive position that there is no god. This is a belief based on lack of evidence; a very large preponderance of a failure to find evidence in the face of trying to for thousands of years, specifically. And of course, these people hold no belief in a god or gods. Secondly, those that simply don't hold such a belief, some fraction of whom aren't very concerned about it, but don't find it any more important to declare "there is no god or gods" any more than they do to declare "there is no Santa Claus." Religion just isn't important to everybody, at least, insofar as personal outlook goes. Religion interferes with everyone's lives when it forces social limitations based upon its precepts onto those who wish to be free of said religion's ideas.

Atheists tend to have naturalistic views and that should lead them toward determinism pretty easily. If the universe is governed by immutable laws/forces then there is nothing truly random that occurs and no room for "choice" as conceived of by any kind of "free will" concept. It's somewhat interesting that consistent naturalism leads to a very similar view of "choice" as does consistent sovereign theism: determinism.

Atheism is the belief that there is nothing in existence but the material

What utter crap.

A: without
theism: belief in god or gods.

You believe in a magical invisible fairy.
I think that's a patently ridiculous belief and you don't have one damn thing to back it up.

It is that clear and simple.

You believe insane nonsense without a single reason.

I do not.

That's the difference between theism and atheism.

There's absolutely no logical reason to believe atheism over theism.

Which is a flat out bald-faced lie..

There is no reason whatsoever to believe in god. Therefore Atheism is the default position.
There is no reason to be anything except an atheist until one of you nutjobs after thousands of years of lies and manipulation comes up with one single sane rational reason to think for a split second that there might be any possibility to your insane ravings.
Over the entire course of human history nobody has come up with a single one.

So, since you need to lie about something as simple as that as a defense of your position, your position is worthless.

I'm sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality.

I agree that agnosticism is probably the best place to begin the analysis of theism versus atheism.

But why would you limit yourself to the Hebrew god? Isn't he the angry, jealous god that tried to kill humanity with the Flood? I prefer hero gods, personally. But as for belief in existence, the question isn't whether any one particular god exists, its whether such a thing as a god or spirit or any such thing incorporeal exists. Belief in anything beyond the mundane, material world would be considered theism, and disbelief of the same is atheism (and hiding your head in the sand would be agnosticism). I think the question is very interesting and important, without having to bring in the Bible.

"And experience tells us that there is no reason to invoke giant beardy men in the sky to explain the world around us. This is nothing to do with logic and everything to do with reason. Logic would in fact support your position that athiesm is no "better" than theism. Reasonableness, however takes account of probability. Is it a logical possibility that there are 10 purple crows in my garden as I type this? Yes. Is it reasonable to believe you if you tell me that was in fact the case, but they've all flown off now? No." Who said anything about any beardy guys in the sky? By theism, I'm merely talking about existence outside of the physical, mundane world. And furthermore, you make the common mistake of putting your faith in probability, when neither reason nor logic can provide any basis for believing that probability is ever a proper basis for justifying anything. All probability says is that what has happened before will happen again, with the ASSUMPTION that the universe will always continue in cycles, even though change appears to be the rule. As for purple crows in your garden, any probability applied is completely made up. Either your garden exists or it doesn't. The probability could only tell you, X is true, unless it's false. Which isn't really telling you anything. You perceive your garden, so the experience of your garden is true, but there's no reason to believe that phenomena equals substance, or that the existene of substance is significant in any way. It's like playing a game of Super Mario Brothers, wherein Mario stands still without any reason to proceed, because he cannot prove the existence of you, holding the controller. No matter how many boxes he breaks or Goombas he stomps on, he has no proof that there is anything outside of the Mushroom Kingdom. Would you argue that on that basis there's no probability of anything existence outside of Mario's world? No, you wouldn't, because your reason applied to intuition tells you otherwise.

"There's absolutely no logical reason to believe atheism over theism."

Atheism isn't a belief system. Nice try, though.

Why you've decided to bring Capt. Kirk into this is quite frankly bizarre and somewhat amusing.

I'm sorry if that was too advanced for you; I'll try again:

Your argument is that not believing that a character in a story (God/bible) is real requires the same level of faith as believing they are real. That is your actual argument which you suggest shows that atheism and theism are equivilent.

I pointed out that if that is your stance, then unless there is some objective gold-standard for judging stories then the same must be true of Captain Kirk. You dismiss this with an attempt at derision instead of argument because it cuts the heart out of your proposition.

Any child over 10 or so can see that for Captain Kirk to be real would require an enormous leap of faith compared to not believing. You are relying on a cultural bias in order to make the same argument applied to God seem more reasonable than it really is. That same cultural bias is why the same child might struggle with the same issue applied to God; they have been taught their belief from before they had the facilities to judge the likelyhood of it being true.

Anyone from completely outside your culture would have no way of determining which story (Kirk/God) is more reasonable, for the simple reason that neither is intrinsically more reasonable and it is just as ridiculous in both cases to say that belief/unbelief are totally equivilent demonstrations of faith.

Theists make an extraordinary claim about the world. Atheists do not make that claim; it is not their responsibility to demonstrate it to be true, in exactly the same way that the Trekie who wants to claim that Kirk is real has the responsibility to demonstrate evidence for such an amazing claim before any reasonable person accepts it.

TWW

And experience tells us that there is no reason to invoke giant beardy men in the sky to explain the world around us. This is nothing to do with logic and everything to do with reason. Logic would in fact support your position that athiesm is no "better" than theism. Reasonableness, however takes account of probability. Is it a logical possibility that there are 10 purple crows in my garden as I type this? Yes. Is it reasonable to believe you if you tell me that was in fact the case, but they've all flown off now? No.

Sorry, material guy, but your physical world isn't very real, much less the only thing in existence.

Yes, quite. How is Santa?

TWW

There's absolutely no logical reason to believe atheism over theism. Therefore, such choices can be made based on aesthetics and intuition, both of which favor the world of Spirit. What logic CAN prove is that there's such a thing as experience. That being the most provable thing, the transcendental take on existence makes the most sense. Sorry, material guy, but your physical world isn't very real, much less the only thing in existence.

Um, no. And for the fourth time you provide more evidence for my supposition; atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.

"My way of thinking is the one 'true' way."

Honestly the more you try to claim atheism is not like theism as I've suggested, the more you support my argument. Which, for the last time, is: atheists and theists are alike in the respect that they both feel the need to make others see the world from their single "correct" point of view.

Why you've decided to bring Capt. Kirk into this is quite frankly bizarre and somewhat amusing. The simple fact of the matter is the more you attempt towers of logic to disprove God, the more you support my argument.

Yes, no truth about the physical world can be proven logically, and thus there's no logical proof of theism or of atheism. However, that is not the end of the inquiry, since the analytical mind is not the only resource we have. As Spock used to say, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

As a religious person...

I should specify that I didn't mean to imply there's anything special about theism that makes it superior to atheism in this regard. I mean that I happen to be a theist and I can appreciate theist, atheist, secular (which I distinguish from atheism in that it simply ignores God as opposed to outright claiming he doesn't exist), spiritualist (Buddhism, Wicca, and other non-materialist world views that lack a traditional God-figure) viewpoints. Just as an example: I have a very high degree of respect for French atheist existentialists like Sartre and especially Simone de Beuavoir.

So I don't meant that because you're an atheist or a secularist or whatever you are somehow in an inferior position, I just mean that your lack of capacity to reciprocate an understanding for different world views is, in my view, a tragic impoverishment.