Slashdot Mirror

Stop doing your research in Christian publications (yes, most dictionaries meet that standard... especially English dictionaries.) Do your research in the atheist community. The definitions of Christians applied to atheists are inherently invalid and biased.

Now, instead of the little "sound bites" you get from these dictionaries, do some real work: A good starting point would be if you read George H. Smith's scholarly "Atheism - The case against God", 340 plus-pages of actual research, exposition and background. And of course, this work includes the correct definition of atheism (on page 7.)

Or here, or here, or here (though as usual, in Wikipedia, this article is badly tainted by the opinions and errors of non-atheists... it still lays out the idea and a close approximation of the boundaries), or here, or here, or here, or here, or here. And in tons more, just go google it. On the one hand, you will find the atheist community, repeatedly explaining what the situation actually is. On the other, you will find religionists (and many agnostics), trying to apply a set of outlooks to a set of people who do not agree that they hold said outlook.

You'll note that these sources pretty much all treat the subject in some detail, explaining not only what is, but why. These sources come from the atheist community, and when an atheist tells you what they stand for, you're a lot better off taking them at their word and intent than you are trying to fit some religionist's preconceptions on top of what they actually think. But it is, after all, your call. You certainly won't be alone; religionists (and again, many "agnostics") try really hard to misconstrue the atheist position. it is pretty obvious why they do so. In the case of the religionists, they want to apply the idea of faith to the entire set of atheists, when this only applies to the hard atheist subset. They do this in order to try and demonstrate that "faith" is "required" to take the atheist view, when the actual situation is that this argument only applies to the hard athiests — of whom, by the way, I have met very few. In the case of agnostics, they do this so as to try to stake out an imaginary middle ground between belief and lack of belief. There is no such middle ground, and agnostics are upset by this idea because, I think, they're trying to avoid the issue. This can always be resolved by a simple question: Do you believe in a god or gods, or not? The answer is "I do" or "I don't", and the answer clearly defines one who embraces theism (theist) and one who does not embrace theism (atheist.)

I am atheist. I hold absolutely no belief in a god or gods, nor do I ever expect to, nor do I ever expect to run into any evidence to the contrary that would cause me to embrace the idea that the idea of a god or gods rises above the standard of any other fairy tale. Given the complete and utter lack of evidence made available to me to date, my confidence that the idea of a god or gods is a completely human construct is extremely high. None of this is disbelief. It is lack of belief. I find the cup of evidence to be empty. Like any assertion for which no evidence can be found, asking for belief is asking far too much. Is the idea interesting? Certainly. Is it entertaining? Yes, that too. Is it woven throughout history? Yes. Has it affected the course of human lives? Sure. Should I therefore pay attention to it? Indubitably. Might it affect my own life? Yes indeed. Does any of this make t

Coryoth,

If I'd known you don't believe in absolute truth or universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic--I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to reason with you. What is the point? I mean, why don't I just adopt the logical convention that says "Theism is true" and then just declare myself the winner of this little slashdot debate?

Yes, logicians differ and prove things using different methods, but that doesn't mean that logic is merely convention. You don't treat it as if it were a convention when you disagree with a colleague, calling a statement irrational.

You are clearly a very intelligent person. You have studied Philosophy and you are aware of Epistemology. That's why I'm so surprised that you make claims that you don't know the laws of logic will change in the future, and that absolute truth does not exist--or at the very least, is unknowable.

You have admitted that within your worldview (your presuppositions that you take as self-attesting) knowledge isn't truly possible.

You have a pragmatic approach to logic: it works, but if it stops working, the laws could change in the future. That assumption about laws of thought and reason make this debate (and all debate) worthless.

You are inconsistent. You have the knowledge of God within yourself which makes it possible to know things about the world and about yourself. Because you know God, you have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes. You can then pursue science and other aspects of life with some measure of success--even though you cannot account for that success. You cannot provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of logic, science or ethics.

It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, and beliefs which do not render science, logic, or ethics intelligible. OTOH, the Christian Theistic worldview demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity.

The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything. This is the boat you're in. Within your worldview, you cannot prove anything. You actually oppose yourself.

So how many sects of people who don't believe in Santa Claus?

That's the problem, isn't it? I can take a concept that's impossible according to natural law (i.e., magic required), and just state that I see utterly no reason to believe in it. What do I call myself? Neither choice is good.

If I said I was an asantist all of the Santa-believers would say "ah, but then you have to PROVE that Santa doesn't exist before you can say that... otherwise you're just another blind believer like us!"

Well, because Santa uses magic, perhaps he is actually personally providing children presents, but magically inserting memories into the parents' minds, making them think *they* bought the presents. And the poor kids who got no presents just all happened to be bad at some point during the year. Can I actively *disprove* that?

But I'll be damned if I say I'm santagnostic. If I do the Santaists will say, "ah hah -- even YOU admit that Santa may exist! Look, everyone -- even hard-core science people believe that Santa may exist!".

Same thing with God. I'm not "agnostic" -- we have plenty of knowledge about many of the things people say God did, and none of that knowledge actually supports the God suggestion. Of course I can't prove that God *doesn't* exist because you can't prove the non-existence of anything, but science is about levels of certainty based on evidence, and that level is plenty high in the "sorry but there's no God" camp to say "atheist". ...but people seem to think that implies a definitive proof.

Is atheism a sect? Of course not, any more than there's a "sect" of people who did well in biology class in high school. It's just a question of "do you consider the evidence" or "do you ignore it".

I'm the sort of asantist who, if suddenly there *were* a ton of valid evidence that appeared, directly supporting the existence of Santa, would update my viewpoint. Same thing with atheism, though in both cases it's extraordinarily unlikely to happen. This is NOT like theism, where in fact there already IS a ton of evidence contradicting their faith, yet they persist.

Technically, atheism is the belief that there is no god. I would think agnostics are more in line with science. Not sure until we get some real data on the matter.

Wrong. An a-theist is someone who lacks the belief. You describe an anti-theist over. Anti-theism is as unscientific as theism. The scientific reality is that the question of the existence of God is absurd. Absurd questions are in and of the self unscientific. Both claiming that there is a god and claiming that there is no god is unscientific. The scientific attitude is to respond with: Stop asking stupid questions.

You can certainly claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) provides the necessary preconditions for logic--however, the Scriptural evidence for the FSM utterly pales in comparison to the Christian God.

Irrelevant. The number of times a statement has been written, as well as the age of said writing, has no bearing whatsoever on its truth, from a logical standpoint. Even if you still wanted to use this measure of authority, then there are just as ancient and widespread writings that deny your Christian texts, and you would end up losing anyway.

And lastly, the FSM worldview is not available to you today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not a true adherent to the FSM religion--you don't really believe in it. If not, you cannot use it as a worldview in order to try to disprove the Christian worldview.

I was under the impression that we were arguing by logic here. My personal subjective beliefs should at no point be relevant.

Remember, the Christian claim is that if you reject God, knowledge is impossible. What happens when you construct a worldview that is obviously false to refute Christian Theism? To what worldview do you return if you were to show that the FSM provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Do you become a FSM follower?

I am not sure what your argument here is - you seem to have misunderstood my intent. I am making the argument that the FSM does not provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, in just the same way that Christianity does not.

Now, when you must invent a worldview in order to defeat mine--I ask, why aren't you willing to defend your own worldview? Why won't you put your worldview up to the challenge?

My worldview is that it is, indeed, impossible to find solid logical ground for knowledge. I have no way of trusting even my own senses, so how could I ever make a statement about the "real world", when I might be being continuously deceived about its nature? It might even be your christian god who is deceiving both me and you, and neither of us can ever know.

My worldview is that this does not matter. I apply Occam's razor liberally, and accept the universe at face value. I do not feel the need to create a greater authority than myself to make the universe absolute. I accept that the world will always be ambiguous, and I adapt to it. I live by morals of my own choosing, and I am "good" out of my own free will. I see all acts of kindness as being made by humans, and I do not devalue them by assigning their existence to some outside influence.

I can easily make the exact same claim as you, but replace "God" with the oh-so-popular Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other than the paragraph in the old book, the argument is exactly the same, and exactly as valid.

You can certainly claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) provides the necessary preconditions for logic--however, the Scriptural evidence for the FSM utterly pales in comparison to the Christian God.

There are Scriptures in evidence for Christianity--not so with the FSM.

There are thousands of manuscripts that textual critics can use to have a certain level of confidence that we can reconstruct the autographa.

And lastly, the FSM worldview is not available to you today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not a true adherent to the FSM religion--you don't really believe in it. If not, you cannot use it as a worldview in order to try to disprove the Christian worldview.

Remember, the Christian claim is that if you reject God, knowledge is impossible. What happens when you construct a worldview that is obviously false to refute Christian Theism? To what worldview do you return if you were to show that the FSM provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility? Do you become a FSM follower?

At the end of the day, you still live inside a non-Christian worldview that cannot account for the preconditions to logic that I specified earlier. That is, you are being inconsistent. You are living inside a worldview that contradicts itself.

Now, when you must invent a worldview in order to defeat mine--I ask, why aren't you willing to defend your own worldview? Why won't you put your worldview up to the challenge?

Again, you're tying things into reality. Of course it's silly that unicorns are running around upside down - we know about earthquakes and why they happen because we can observe those things.

Actually, we don't. We just observe the consequences and have crafted a theory to fit. The unicorns want you to think it's "natural"; they're embarrassed about the dildos, of course. You've never been underground to observe them run, nor have you been underground when your imaginary "fault" slipped.

Now, I ask you again -- same question. No evasions. Why, when you have story A and you have story B and neither one has a shred of evidence, do you go atheist on the one and agnostic on the other? Why do you feel it is inapropriate to fail to believe in god (atheism) and instead retreat to "I don't know" instead of the same healthy reaction you had to the unicorn?

Actually, atheism as you described it is really agnosticism. Atheism is the "disbelief" in a god or gods. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief. Disbelief is the opposite of belief, therefore and athiest doesn't just not believe in a god or gods, he/she believes that there is no god or gods. See the difference? It's kind of like speeding down the road thinking there probably isn't a cop hiding in the bushes waiting to write you a tick versus speeding down the road knowing there is no cop waiting in the bushes because you've got some sort of detecting device telling you so (proof). Therefore atheism and theism are two belief systems, one having faith in the existence of a god or gods, the other having faith that there is no god or gods.

You said that theists have set back science more than any token advances they may have done. I just made up some equally preposterous bull for atheists. Einstein, Newton, Descartes, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Maxwell, Copernicus, Heisenburg, Lavoisier, LaGrange, Faraday, Dalton, Planck, Fermi, Euler, Bohr, Schrodinger, Born. Just a short list of theist scientists. Comparing accomplishments objectively is nigh impossible, but I would feel relatively safe saying that the advances made by those on this short list outweigh the advances made by every athest scientist who ever lived. Not that this justifies theism or unjustifies atheism, but it certainly rebukes your claim.

Most Christians spread the Gospel not to fill up their church, but because we were commanded to share the one thing in life that we have discovered and that has been life-changing for us. Alright, there are Christians who do preach just to fill up their church. There are always people with corrupt motives. But majority does it out of pure concern for their fellow humans.

I don't have a problem with "spreading the gospel". That's fine. If you think you're helping people, great.

But don't hijack another forum with a captive audience and threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't start living like you.

That's the problem people have with Fundamentalist Christians. And no, it's not all Christians, it's those that want to control what our kids are taught in school, that want to get involved in the government and tell us all how to live, who we can or can't marry, what we can or can't do with our genitals, what kind of science we can study, what kind of movies we can watch, what kind of books we can read, and even what kind of vaccinations our kids can get.

-If- Christianity in fact was true, however, it would the atheist society that was committing child abuse. The atheist society today does alot more to try to spread atheism than the Christian society does to try spread the Gospel.

Name 4 atheist churches. Name 4 atheist political groups. Name 4 atheist anything. I could come up with at least 20 so-called Christian groups that want to influence the government or the media or do something else to "spread the gospel". There is no organized atheist movement of any consequence.

People falsly accuse only Christians of being overly opinionated and biased.

I'm sorry, did I hear a victim? Let me get out my violin and play some music to go along with the moaning.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone accuse Christians--especially in the general sense--of being overly opinionated or biased.

Anybody who chooses to have faith in a belief has an absolute right to it. My problem is when they use their unproven beliefs to control how I'm allowed to live. That's not being overly opinionated or biased. That's being tyrannical.

Well then, since we can't really prove which of the two (atheism or theism) is correct, that means atheists -also- are as opinionated- as it is right now, they are even more opinionated and biased.

I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a Christian, so this dichotomy strikes me as rather silly. But that's fine. You've framed the discussion so let's go with it.

Atheists are not the polar opposite of Christians. The fact that neither can be proven does not mean that either is just as or more opinionated than the other.

Letting people make their own unbiased decisions of what to believe or not believe in can never be done by only spreading one side of it as fact.

Um, ok. So keep your nose out of it and let people make their own decisions. Public schools don't "teach atheism". There is no atheism class. There are no "atheist teachings" sprinkled throughout the curriculum. There is no statement on whether there is a god or not a god in a public school or even generally on television. There is generally no atheist thought projected in music or movies either. I've never seen a movie proclaim that there is no god. The only examples of music declaring a non-existence of God can be found in a couple of heavy metal songs.

There are, however, Christian music, Christian movies and Christian television. There are Christian schools if you want to send your kids there. I've never heard of an optional Atheist school to send your kids to, but maybe one exists... somewhere.

"That's damn close to child abuse."

This would be true if Christianity was false. Now, one could debate whether or not a teacher should bring it up in the middle of class. However- just think about this:

-If- Christianity in fact was true, however, it would the atheist society that was committing child abuse. The atheist society today does alot more to try to spread atheism than the Christian society does to try spread the Gospel. People falsly accuse only Christians of being overly opinionated and biased. Well then, since we can't really prove which of the two (atheism or theism) is correct, that means atheists -also- are as opinionated- as it is right now, they are even more opinionated and biased.

Letting people make their own unbiased decisions of what to believe or not believe in can never be done by only spreading one side of it as fact.

Most Christians spread the Gospel not to fill up their church, but because we were commanded to share the one thing in life that we have discovered and that has been life-changing for us. Alright, there are Christians who do preach just to fill up their church. There are always people with corrupt motives. But majority does it out of pure concern for their fellow humans.

Well said. I'd disagree with you on a few points, but I want to acknowledge you first for being possibly the only Christian on Slashdot who's not afraid to follow some of the better teachings of Christ -- love thy neighbor as thyself. We need people like you more than we need people like me, if we're to become a truly enlightened, truly secular society.

I say this because I may get a bit brutal here...

The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion

Lots of big words, but I would put it simply: God is no more true or false than most fairy tales. I am, however, equally agnostic about fairy tales. Who am I to say that there could never have been a little girl in a red cape who was eaten by a talking wolf pretending to be her grandmother?

I realize that this isn't what you mean -- most atheists use the "fairy tale" argument to support hard atheism, whereas I'm just more thoroughly agnostic than most.

God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral?

I'd say agnosticism, although I've had a few atheists tell me I'm wrong here, and that I should assume God does not exist until it's proven that he does. I do believe agnosticism covers a bit more ground than that, too -- for instance, I believe it's really impossible for the existance of God, or any other truth, to really be known.

Of course, there is a third position: God both exists and does not exist, in the same way that an electron can be in more than one place at a time -- his existance will only collapse when we can observe whether he exists or not. I don't believe that, I'm just throwing it out there -- most dichotomies are false. (Perhaps all, but I'm not ready to back that one up yet.)

Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.

Nope. If you're taking his quote in isolation, it simply means that religions should not have a seat at the table. It does not mean that "no religion" should have a seat at the table.

It's espousing secularism over theism, which is as close to neutral as we can get.

I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?

Oh, I welcome debate from either side. However, I reserve the right to laugh especially hard at creationists, and also at people who attempt to "prove" the existance of God, or the validity of theism, via any logical means. The only argument that still has any validity for me is "It would be nice to believe."

Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent.

As a Christian, I agree with this in a way. People bring up atheism and then expect me to conform to its supposed neutrality and superiority. I'm tired of having people spout off atheistic bollocks at me and keeping silent. ;-)

Seriously, though, we are both in the pursuit of truth here, we just happen to have reached different conclusions. More importantly, it's admirable that you're willing to make your views known. These days, people are often branded "intolerant" and "biased" when they speak up against falsehoods. "Tolerance" used to mean "respectful disagreement," but now it frequently means "never, ever criticize anyone's beliefs."

Christians are guilty of forgetting that we have an obligation to create a level playing field for all ideas to be aired. This is implicit in our duty to treat others better than we treat ourselves, and our conviction that this is the best vehicle for truth. Whenever Christians have failed to do this, throughout history, it has been disastrous. Whenever Christians have adhered to this, truth has been served.

Of course, atheists don't escape criticism here, either. There's a common misconception that atheism is an obvious, default, and neutral starting point; add "God" and you get theism. This "presumption of atheism" is only possible for "weak" atheism or agnosticism. The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion -- and since both assertions carry a number of nontrivial implications, atheism cannot be viewed as the "rational" subset of theism. They are distinct sets that are almost disjoint.

In other words, some propositions have no neutral ground. Occam's Razor does not apply to such situations. This is easy to see if you take certain other binary examples: humans are either equal, or they are not equal. The axiom of choice is true, or it's not. God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral? One of them will be true, but neither of them is neutral. But invariably, one position -- or its implication -- gets promoted as neutral, and is therefore taught in every grade school. Hmm.

Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.

Perhaps I'll dig at this a bit more: I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?

(Finally, though you may be sick of hearing this, it's relevant to note that the premier exponent of the presumption of atheism argument was ex-atheist Antony Flew. So even the "weak" position has come under well-deserved scrutiny. =)

--
Dum de dum.

That argument would only make sense if a sizeable number of people actually believed in unicorns or tooth fairies. I could just as easily argue that the word "vegetarian" doesn't make sense since (most) non-vegetarians also eat vegetables. It's a label, and it is useful to the extent that it helps support an idea.

Are you in favor of getting rid of ALL words that can be described by other words? Perhaps we should just reduce the dictionary to about 1,000 words and just replace all other words with some descriptive combination of those 1,000. Why wouldn't we? Because it's efficient to use words as shorthand for deeper concepts. Atheism and agnosticism clearly fill that bill. If you never (or at least very, very rarely) see the need to distinguish such people from others (as I don't with aquinist or adentite) than you have no need for that word, but I would submit that a lot has been written about atheism and agnosticism as it contrasts with various forms of theism, whereas one cannot say that about your words.

Nor is the existence of a God contradictory.

It is entirely contradictory if the attributes of a god are 'super' natural (ie 'outside' our normally understood realm) or infinite in any way.

For example, God is infinitely powerful. Then is God so powerful that he can create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? If not, then he's not infinitely powerful. If he can lift it, then again, he's not so powerful that he can make the rock that heavy. Of course, what happens then is that supporters of infinitely <anything> gods start on the interpretation of 'infinite power' and so on. But you soon end down a rat hole of philosophical argument and contradiction. Even more so with 'super' natural attributes. Boundary problems all over the place with that.

A thorough treatment of all this is given in: 'Atheism: The case against God' by George H Smith. I quote from a review: "Smith's argument is plain and simple. Forget everything you've learned on the subject of theism (to remove bias and address the issue objectively). Now let the theist propose his theory of God. Evaluate each line of argument posited by the theist. Smith identifies the logical flaws, inconsistencies, and unclear definitions in the theist's arguments. His conclusion is that if the theist can't convince you, using logic and evidence, of the existence of a God, then if you accept the existence of God, you are doing so irrationally."

Now you get to use science to disprove God. That, as difficult as it is for you to understand, is how it works. Established beliefs get to stick around until disproved. Theism has been around a long time, so it's up to you to dethrone it.

You failed to answer the grandparents question, how the hell is he going to come up with proof for the nonexistance of a being?

Believer: Worship the invisible pink unicorn.
Atheist: Sorry, I don't believe he exists.
Believer: Prove it.
Atheist: Huh?? Why should *I* come up with proof? Ok, I can try: I don't see him.
Believer: That is because he is invisible. Also he is pink. That is one of his divine properties.
Atheist: I don't hear him.
Believer: He only speak to believers. I hear him answer when I pray to him, I'm convinced of that.
Atheist: Ok, here I have an infrared camera. I don't see anything.
Believer: He doesn't emit heat.
Atheist: Ok, I throw around flour and see if anything stick to him, or if we see any footprints appearing.
Believer: Sorry, he is immaterial.
Atheist: Ok, what is the difference between a totally undetectable creature and one that doesn't exist?
Believer: When rain falls, the invisible pink unicorn caused it, whenever a child laughs, the IPU caused it. Also 6000 years of belief shows I am right.
Atheist: ...whatever.

What could possibly be enough "evidence of nonexistance" for you - do you want a signed death certificate from his doctor? Face it, if you want us to believe something, it is up to YOU to give us some evidence.

Theism has been around a long time, so it's up to you to dethrone it.

Hold on there just a minute. You can't generalise. There have been thousands of mutually contradictory types of theism around for a long time, and even 'religions' which aren't even theist (such as some forms of Buddhism). You can't take combine Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and many, many others and try and call them one thing that needs to be 'dethroned' - they try and dethrone each other! All you might be left with is some vague feeling that 'there is something out there'. Is that what you want to defend? If not, what is your 'model' of theism you do want to defend? Monotheism? Polytheism?

As Dawkins so eloquently puts it, almost all theists are atheists about everyone else's religions. Do you believe in the Norse Gods? Those of Olympus? If you don't, what is stopping you from taking that one step further?

Atheism is not the opposite of religion. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. Its a very important distinction and the reason why the grandparent's post is bullshit.

Nonsensical as it may be, it is what you're up against. The more you whine about how theists dodge the issue, the more pathetic you look.

As for your discounting of historical beliefs through science, please notice that science disproved those beliefs. The earth is not flat and we know because we proved it to be round. The sun does not circle the earth (or does, depending on your perspective) because we developed a better model to more accurately describe the movement of celestial bodies.

Now you get to use science to disprove God. That, as difficult as it is for you to understand, is how it works. Established beliefs get to stick around until disproved. Theism has been around a long time, so it's up to you to dethrone it. (Well, I wouldn't leave the fate of atheism to *you* specifically. Atheism has more to fear from its proponents than it does from its opponents.)

I am an atheist - I reject theism, since I am against believing things based on faith, i.e. without evidence. I take the null hypothesis. Pretty straightforward and easy to understand, I think..