Slashdot Mirror

To lack a belief tells says nothing about what you do believe, and unless you play semantic games, "atheism" means either you do not believe in god or you believe there is no god.

Correct! "Atheist" is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of the lack of a belief.

Those who have a belief that no gods exist are also atheists, but only because they must inherently lack a belief in gods. That doesn't make their additional belief a part of atheism, though, just like gnosticism is not a requirement of theism.

I only disagree that the statement "I do not believe in god" is equivalent to lacking a belief in god(s). In order to make the statement you have to have at least considered the concept, whereas a newborn baby or heathen may be entirely unfamiliar with the concept.

Why you lack the belief isn't relevant to whether or not you believe, though. A newborn baby is an atheist. So is a "heathen unfamiliar with the concept". The reason they're atheists may be different than mine, but they are still atheists. Just like two theists might have different reasons for being theists, but they're both still theists.

Of course if everyone agreed on these points, there'd be no debate. Yet there is, even after millennia of argument on the topic.

With 7 billion people on this planet it would be a goddamn miracle if we all agreed on pretty much anything. I mean, there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

Okay, but then you're not talking about atheists anymore, you're talking about agnostics or 'non-theists.'

And we have come full circle. As I said earlier, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive. And "non-theist" is the same as "atheist".

I think you're confused because you don't realize that the two terms answer different questions. As I said earlier, "theism" refers to belief, "gnosticism" refers to knowledge. If I ask you "do you believe there's a god" and you answer "I'm agnostic", you haven't actually answered the question. I didn't ask what you know, I asked what you believe.

It's nonsensical for you to say "you're not talking about atheists, you're talking about agnostics". A person can be both, or neither, or some combination of the two. Examples:

1. Don't believe in a god, don't know if there are any gods - atheist agnostic.
2. Do believe in gods, don't know there are gods - theist agnostic.
3. Do believe in a god, know there's a god - theist gnostic.
4. Don't believe in gods, know there are no gods - atheist with a very loose definition of the word "know".

Most people whom I've spoken to who identify as "agnostic" are both atheist and agnostic. They just don't like the word "atheist" because it has negative connotations due to centuries of demonization by various religions.

Atheism also states that we were not created by deities, but instead they were created by us. This becomes problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that the individual atheist has not studied the full set of deities that are accepted by one or more of the multitude forms of theism around the world, so they cannot speak objectively to this statement: it is just a statement arising from worldview (a religious assertion). The second is that atheism demands that there be no god or gods at all, not even the ones that nobody believes in. Otherwise, there could be god or gods that nobody believes in. So arguments about the deities that people believe in get's us nowhere down the path to a rational foundation for atheism.

You sure talk a lot of nonsense. My children are atheist not because they were taught to be so, but because they were never taught that there is some supreme being controlling everything. In all of their youthful wisdom they find other children's belief in a god as just strange but what they have been taught is to tolerate the folly of these 'believers'. Atheism is the default state. Theism is taught. It is not innate. Personally, I had to reject and unlearn a childhood of religious bullshit and so I'm left with baggage I never want my children to have. If they want to find some form of religion for themselves, that is their choice, but for their own good, I really hope they do not.

The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin.

So he (or she) was off topic. Gotcha. Because I wasn't talking about atheism vs theism, but rather that banning religions would necessitate banning atheism. This comes down to our universal rights enjoyed by theists and atheists alike: losing those rights means we all lose.

Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior.

Pretty sure that's not right, I know a lot of Christians and they tend to be outraged by rape, and I've never heard of anybody being stoned. Also, by generalizing the behavior of some catholic priests to all religions, the OP is effectively assigning that behaviour to atheists as well - the argument he/she makes is nonsensical.

Your comment makes no sense to me.

The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior. In Catholicism, pedophilia is widespread and actively covered up. If you cover up something, rather than acknowledging and dealing with the problem, for all intents and purpose you condone the behavior. Pedophilia probably rises partially from taking vows of celibacy which go directly against animal nature. So, what I'm saying is, accept your animal nature or don't, which is better? Make more sense now? Get educated.

theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

atheism: belief that there is no god or gods, specifically no creator who intervenes in the universe.

theism
ËÎiËÉz(É(TM))m/
noun: theism
        belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
        "there are many different forms of theism"

a-
prefix â /eÉ/
ânot, without:

Which part of 'without belief' infers 'faith' to you? Just that, I'm pretty confident in backing my understanding of atheism against your provably flawed one.

Similarly, all children don't believe in math when born, and, eh, I can't come up with an idiotic self-serving lying ending to that as quickly as you.

Theism doesn't exist solely due to "belts". Get past your rationalization of whatever shitty moral issues you have that provides all your motivation to your stupidity here.

You'll feel better just cutting back on the porn or whatever and being less of a moron. I promise.

There's no such thing as bad thinking. There's such a thing as not following the train of thought to conclusions. Thought experiments and sking "what if" is great, and we need that, but it needs to be followed with scientific discipline, like attempts at establishing a null hypothesis, whether this can lead to a falsifiable theory, and what steps can be taken to mitigate bias.
As this is presented, it smells of veiled theism, published without the scientific precautions in place. That's bad, but asking "what if" is not.

Being an atheist

There is a fundamental flaw in atheism, and it is precisely the same as the fundamental flaw in theism. Precisely like a theist has faith that God exists, an atheist has faith that God does not exist. Both theism and atheism are generic belief systems. Neither position is sound nor scientifically supportable. Both positions are absurd.

Only agnostics, those unsure if God exists (and their opposites, those unsure if God doesn't exist) have a position that makes any sense.

Most "atheists" are actually agnostic, in that they think or believe God does not exist, but they cannot be sure, and if they are not, and they are very sure, they have the same lunacy as theists, who are also very sure.

Smarter and more logical still than the agnostics are the mute. God bless the mute!

"Catastrophe" is meaningless without teleology (some way the universe is "supposed to go"), and teleology is meaningless without theism.

A whole lot of species died. Other species didn't. Wouldn't matter which, then or now with "climate change". Per naturalistic evolution, case closed, no basis for a value judgment about it.

Well I think it's safe to say it was fucking catastrophic if you were a dinosaur.

"Catastrophe" is meaningless without teleology (some way the universe is "supposed to go"), and teleology is meaningless without theism.

A whole lot of species died. Other species didn't. Wouldn't matter which, then or now with "climate change". Per naturalistic evolution, case closed, no basis for a value judgment about it.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why one would insert God, no matter how much of you've watered down the concept, into a scientific theory. This is nothing more than another iteration of Intelligent Design. The concept isn't scientific, at best it's just another iteration of the "god of the gaps" argument, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to try to whitewash theism by saying "it could have been an alien mad scientist!"

The word for "without theism" goes against theism?

Say it ain't so Doc!

Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism.

There is no repeatable, quantifiable evidence that there is not a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars, but if I said there was no such teapot people wouldn't call me unscientific. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I suppose I could come up with a fancy term for lack of belief in a particular teapot. Suspension of belief means not believing, so suspension of belief in a god is atheism.

"Not believing in something" (roughly, agnosticism) is not the same as "asserting that something positively does not exist" (atheism). Agnosticism doesn't require faith, but atheism most certainly does. Atheism is just as irrational as theism.

'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods tend to do in established religions. They don't necessarily invalidate each other.

Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism. Since metaphysics, by definition, is distinct from the observable universe, atheism requires you to base your beliefs on faith just as much as theism does. Suspension of belief until evidence is found is the most rational approach, but expecting evidence of the metaphysical to actually be found isn't very rational. Replacing that old time religion with a goofy science-as-religion where you "believe in the big bang so there's no god" isn't scientific either

Really, god and science are orthogonal concepts and no belief about god (for most definitions of god) can be scientific.

The real "silent majority" didn't bother to vote

"Didn't bother" implies apathy, but apathy is only one of three reasons to abstain from voting. The other two are agnosticism and atheism. Some people honestly don't know, and some people honestly don't believe. I dare you to attempt a proof that theism is more ethical than either apathy, agnosticism, or atheism when it comes to coercive authority.

Is that you, AC? Always good to know what "you" have said.

Atheism isn't a religion, and saying it infinity times won't make it be one. It is the absence of belief in a religion. A (without) -- theism (religion). It's what the word means.

It's also what atheists are. Most atheists require a mix of evidence and consistency with evidence supported belief in order to raise any old notion that somebody throws out there -- such as some incredibly detailed description of how the Universe was created by a mysterious infinite superbeing that is in almost complete contradiction with evidence-supported belief -- to the point where it can be taken seriously as a component of their worldview.

I can assert that on the dark side of the moon there is a rock that is a perfect replica of the head of Abraham Lincoln. I can probably even offer some sort of argument for why this should be so -- estimates of so and so many rocks, probabilities for any given rock to look like Abraham Lincoln -- and there is little doubt that the assertion could be true (and will continue to be at least possible until somebody examines each and every rock on the moon to falsify it) as it contradicts nothing in the Bayesian network of evidence-supported belief that we call "observational knowledge about the real world" -- stuff like the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology. But there simply isn't any good reason to think that it is true.

To believe that this assertion is true anyway, without consistent evidence to support it, to have faith that it is true in spite of substantial arguments against it, is the hallmark, the defining characteristic of religious belief. To hear the assertion, acknowledge that it is possibly true, and conclude that it is probably not true and that there is plenty of time to believe it -- if true -- once we have direct evidence, is the hallmark of the atheist.

As for "devout atheist" -- this is what we in the business of communicating call an "ironic self-description", not intended to suggest that he is religious, only that you won't convince him to become religious with any of the tired old arguments that carefully avoid confronting the simple fact that there is no even vaguely trustworthy evidence that any of the near-infinity of asserted religions are actually true.

rgb