Slashdot Mirror

> Atheists have no ground to stand on fighting irrational beliefs. The belief that there is no higher power is just as irrational as believing that there is one.

Bullshit. Atheism itself is not an irrational belief, but the lack of a very particular irrational belief. Is it irrational for me not to believe in unicorns?

I think when you think of atheism, you're thinking of strong atheism, which states that the existence of a particular god/class of gods is provably false.

>The only "rational" answer to the question is that the answer is unknowable, or that you do not know the answer, which is agnosticism.

Agnosticism is hardly more rational than atheism, since it treats the two options as equally likely. You don't meet any agnostics regarding the existence or non-existence of merpeople, yet when somebody talks about an eternal space pixie, people say "it's a valid proposition".

The only "rational" answer to the question is that of the skeptic: disbelief until it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

> When people try to denounce theism with science, they are abusing science and simply engaging in sectarian disputes.

When people try to denounce theism with science, they simply misunderstand the scope of science. This is why atheists traditionally stick to logic to denounce theism, since poking holes in definitions is a lot easier than the impossible feat of disproving the existence of .

Now denouncing a religion with science typically works, since religions make ad hoc explanations of the world, most of which turn out to be wrong, and demonstrably so. But gods are conveniently not subject to any of the standard rules of the universe, such as the tendency of things that exist to leave evidence of their existence.

Atheists have no ground to stand on fighting irrational beliefs. The belief that there is no higher power is just as irrational as believing that there is one. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, you cannot prove the non-existence of God. Atheism is just a different answer to a metaphysical question. Neither answer is rational since the question cannot be rationally answered. The only "rational" answer to the question is that the answer is unknowable, or that you do not know the answer, which is agnosticism.

Just remember that there are "No Good Reasons". Rationally speaking, there is no basis for doing or believing anything. Yet we know that we have goals and act on goals since we act. Our goals are utterly and always irrational, but the objective method most likely to allow us to reach those goals is our "truth". We when act in accordance with meeting our own goals (including goals like self-preservation, or following one's conscience) we are said to be acting rational. When we act against our own goals (throw logic out the window, etc), we are called irrational.

Belief or disbelief in a higher power is no less a rational fulfillment of a goal than using scientific knowledge to cure cancer. Science simply has very specific and well-defined goals, to objectively describe the physical world, including it's contents, history and future.

When people try to denounce theism with science, they are abusing science and simply engaging in sectarian disputes. In other words, there's no difference between an Atheist admonishing a theist and the Deist Thomas Jefferson calling John Calvin a false prophet who is most suredly burning in Hell.

That being said, anytime you have a debate about what ought to be done or believed, you're fighting against something that doesn't exist.

I had a discussion with a housemate on the words atheism and agnosticism: The word, "atheism" comes from the Greek roots for "no/negation/away from" (the "a") and "deity, god or goddess" (the "the" as in "theos"). If one wanted to claim that one didn't know, the word "agnostic" would seem to be more correct.

In the word, "agnostic", we have the Greek prefix, "a" again ("no/negation/away from"), in front of "gnostic" or one who "gno"s (knows) -- Greek word for knowledge. An "agnostic" claims not to know, one way or another.

It didn't follow that belief in "no-god" was somehow "better" for an educated scientist than simply claiming "I don't know". Other that in this society, "I don't know, is given little weight". It seems much more "vogue" to assert
the negative than admit "I don't know".

My housemate seemed to believe that "0", "black", "no" or "a" was the natural state of things, and thus didn't need to prove any belief structure which adopted the negative stance by default. I see that view as her belief system. In the same way I can't help but see "atheism" as "just another belief structure" that is equally proven correct as the other "faith based" belief systems.

It doesn't appear to be provably logical to believe in "atheism" anymore than some "theism". Instead, "agnosticism" seems more accurate description of what we seem to be able to "prove" (scientifically).

Is there a way of proving we don't exist in a matrix, ala Tibetan Buddhism and pop-adaptation of the movie of the same name (note prequel, "Tron"...et al ;-) )? Just as an example. Seems to be lining up more with findings of physics of everything (all matter) being luminous creations of light against a tapestry of black. I don't see those types of view as excluding evolution or "intelligent design". Maybe it depends on what one defines as "intelligence"? Does an amoeba have "intelligence" in a drive to reproduce and live? One can find one is disagreeing in the minutia of word semantics.

-l

You misunderstand me. I did not mean atheists don't fight theism, ignorance, and superstition (though some don't). But you cannot fight something that does not exist.

You misunderstand me. I did not mean atheists don't fight theism, ignorance, and superstition (though some don't). But you cannot fight something that does not exist.

As an aside, I'd like to register my profoud relief that you are not a dictator.

Atheists do not and never will fight against "God".

Since when has their tax-exempt status stopped churches from making demands of the government?

For the same reason that other organizations don't get taxed, neither do churches for the donations they receive.

Don't be dense. If it were for the "same reasons," then all charitable organizations, religious or otherwise, would apply for tax-exempt status under the same rules, and the words "church" and "religious" would not appear in the tax code. Churches get special treatment, and don't need to provide any reason why they deserve to be tax-exempt.

If a group of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. wanted tax-exempt status, first of all, they would be required to apply for it. Churches get it automatically. Furthermore, the atheist group could lose their tax-exempt status for, say, endorsing or opposing a political candidate. This has never happened to a church in U.S. history. (Although it has been illegal since 1954 for nonprofits to endorse or oppose political candidates, even if you revoke a church's IRS letter ruling [which has happened exactly once in 51 years], the special rules for churches render this a purely symbolic gesture; they are still a church, and therefore ipso facto untaxable). The special rules for churches in the tax code clearly favor theism over nontheism, and are therefore unconstitutional.

Why is not being an atheist considered a joke on Slashdot?

I can't speak for all of Slashdot, but I don't consider theism a joke.

Egregiously poor reasoning is a joke. No-one assumes that God is going to fill their bellies, do they? With no effort at all on their own part? Well, maybe some people have believed that at some time or another, but I'm sure that they all either changed their minds or died.

We don't turn off the heat in the winter and say "don't worry, God will keep us warm", do we? No. We use heat and blankets, or we move to warmer climes. If we don't, we die.

Why, then, would we look at a galaxy full of asteroids and comets and all kinds of other mean and nasty things, and historical viral pandemics, and all of the evidence that, on several occasions, massive numbers of species have died off simultaneously in what are apparently especially bad worldwide disasters, and say, "don't worry, God will save us"?

God intends for us to survive, without having to flee to other planets.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You not only know that God exists, and something about his nature (powerful enough to keep us alive in a harsh universe) but know that it is His will that our species survive without our having to put forth any special effort to save ourselves? Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous. You see, there are all these other fellows with all these other ideas about what God is and what He wants us to do and how we may please Him, and they all claim monopoly on the truth, too. Whom do I trust? What, you've got a book that says you're right? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but so do they. So much for that, huh?

Well, while I'm pondering which of these evidence-starved mutually-exclusive belief systems is the correct one, I think I'll hedge my bets and work to preserve the species. You know, just in case your particular "truth" turns out not to be the right one. No offense, really. I'm sure you understand.

You going to talk about entropy and how the Earth, and us, will all cease to exist by necessity?

If so, explain how the original order entered the Universe.

As soon as you explain how God entered the Universe. Not created, was He? No, surely not. Can't just say He developed naturally from nothing, or that puts us right back where we started.

Oh, I know! He always existed! And he's somehow outside the universe!

Oops, we could just apply that (or a similar) argument to how order began and reduce by one level the complexity of our explaination for this phenomenon. As there's no evidence for either, neither should be taken as fact and the simpler should be used if an explaination is absolutely necessary for some reason.

It's as if a person said "God created order, and God's God created God." As long as we're speculating, why have the second God be part of the explaination? And once we've got it down to one, why have that one, when we can just say "Order exists". No, it doesn't really give us any answers, but neither does "God did it", for reasons that should now be plain; in fact, that simply raises more questions.

This, of course, goes against the Laws of Biogenesis [wikipedia.org], and is a fundamental tenet of Atheism.

Atheism is simply the lack of theism. It is the abscence of god-belief. It has no "fundamental tenents", and you sound like you have some kind of agenda when you make false claims like that. Well, that and making one claim about the "Law of Biogenesis" and linking to a Wikipedia article that directly contradicts you (see "They did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.")

Actually I've studied it a great deal. As I said... If you can teach it without going into how it is an explanation for origins then feel free to teach it without it's conterpoint. When you go into a school however and listen to the curriculum it is all about origins. And if you insist on teaching origins in that setting then you better be prepared for the counter arguments. Evolution does indeed exist as a method for biological change. It is observable. It is not however the only possible explanation for "the origins of all life" and if you intend to present it in the classroom as such then don't get upset if someone want's to present the only possible counter argument. I can see where you got confused though.

I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.

Here is your problem, you havent' assualted the theory, you only state you object to it's implications. This has nothing to do with the science behind it, only your inability to accept it as part of you belief system.

It does in fact give a possible origin of life. The exact origin is nebulous. Either life evolved here on earth, or else it evolved else where and was transported here via meteor. As far we know both cases are equally valid. There is somewhat mroe unlikely possibilities that is was intentially transported. Biologists/chemists have been workign on the viability of it just happening and according to our modern organic chemistry, over large periods of time it is very likely.

This does not say that god didn't create it all, since the universe is apparently deterministic and that at some point it was "created" he/she/it problably set it up so that life would be favorable. You can't prove or disprove that though so it has no place in science.

Your problem isn't with "evolution as a origin theory" your problem is that you need to have god directly intervene to create people or else your religion has somewhat less meaning. You can't just say "well evolution is a origin story so it must be lumped in with other origin stories". The chinese origin story abotu a lotus blossum on the sea of the universe is a quaint story, evolution is a well supported branch of biology. Not theory, it's a whole freaking branch. It's actually the lions share of biology.

I wasn't referring to evolution the observed phenomena. I was referring to Evolution (The proof that we don't have a creator). If you don't think it's taught that way then your either blind or self-deluded.

Evolution explains a mechanism. This mechanism removes the need to have a "origin" story or to have direct divine intrvention. This upsets you. This does not however change anything. God is God. Whether he used evolution to create things or he blinks them into exsistance with the wriggle of his/her/it's nose is of no consequence. You are argueing for confusing and denying a valid scientific idea because it doesn't fit with your particular brand of theism. This is stupid. Evolution should be taught, ID/creationism should not. If you deny there is a god and use evolution to support you claim fine, I'll simply state that god works in mysterious ways, and that since the universe is deterministic it meant that the liklihood of some external force causing it all to happen is not provable/disprovable and that I will continue beliving in a god thank you very much.

You however must have some sort of weak assed faith that folds like a house of cards when faced with uncomfortable facts. I suggests you try and find truth instead of comfort.

"you can tell them that it was God / Jesus who brought you there"

Yes, exactly. You can tell them that it was God who sent the hurricanes into the Gulf. God is responsible for the devistation you see around you... right? Right?

Instead of spreading ignorance and complacency (theism), why dont you convince them to take responsibility for themselves and their community's future.

"Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

No, he should had said "Is AOL the missing link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?". That way, it bear a vague link to evolution, which would cue some besserwisser into making some crack at creationism in some way that would show his own complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular, and acting as the opening salvo in an atheism-theism war on Slashdot, raising message numbers to thousands and giving the new Slashcode a real stress test.

Unfortunately, the editor missed this perfect opportunity, so now we'll have to wait until some troll gets creative - a rare occasion nowadays. Trolls aren't what they used to be :(.

What's wrong with anti-religious sentiments? Religion is a pretty silly thing--really, who still believes in stuff like a guy named Atlas holding up the world? Although many religious people know laugh at this notion, all modern religions are filled with similarly stupid and ridiculous stuff, so I see no reason not to make fun of them.

The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". If you held the necessary academic qualifications and were able to frame an argument correctly, people might care.

All true agnostics are atheists and so was Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell coined the term "agnostic" because he was sick to death of Atheists who treated Atheism as a religion of no God. And so, the language evolved, and the lower-a atheists ceeded the anti-theism word to the capital-A Atheists.

You of course are free to use whatever terms you wish. But the common usage does force a meaning upon "Atheism" of "the belief that there is no God and no group of lesser gods."

Atheism is not the belief that a god does not exist nor does it require any proof of the non-existence of a god. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. A-thiesm means 'without theism' and nothing more. Atheism is not the positive belief "Gods do not exist". Atheism is not the opposite of Theism.

Agnosticism is more of a statement about the limits of human knowledge than a stantement about the existence of a god. Agnosticism is the belief that humans can never have knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of gods. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. More importantly, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. All true agnostics are atheists and so was Bertrand Russell.

In "Is There a God?" Russel writes:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?"

As a scientist you are not required to prove that pink unicorns do not exist. A scientist does not believe in pink unicorns because there is not enough evidence or proof to justify that belief. Scientists that require a higher level of proof for religion than they require for science are making a mistake.

I was told that the Chinese said they would bury me by the Western Lake and build a shrine to my memory. I have some slight regret that this did not happen, as I might have become a god, which would have been very chic for an atheist.
-- Bertrand Russell, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1967-1969)

Traditionally, Atheistic regimes have been responsible for several times the death tally of all Theisms combined. Your point was?

The only thing I can think of that comes close to an "Atheistic regime" was the USSR under Stalin, and even he brought back the Russian Orthodox church during WWII. So who exactly do you have in mind?

So we should lie to people to get them to behave?

beleivers in a Big Daddy in the Sky who beleive that nothing we do here on earth matters - it's all about the afterlife, baby. So blow up some infidels, or wreck the planet, whatever

There's no connection between professed belief in a Big Daddy in the Sky, and ethical behavior.

Cite your source for this, please.

I've seen probably about half a dozen studies, and could probably relocate some for you if you thought it was important. One, from a while ago, was in Scientific American. Another one was posted recently on Slashdot by a religious organization, and even they (including things like "computer science") had a 38% atheism figure, in an article trying to show that theism and science aren't mutually exclusive.

What leads you to deduce cause and effect rather than correlation?

What leads you to believe that I deduced cause and effect rather than correlation?

The most common objection to this argument would be, I believe, that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Which, if accepted, leads us to the conclusion that there is no such thing as right or wrong - which leads to its own set of conclusions. But I consider (2) to be true. Take this example (which is not my own):

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independent of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good, and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won WOrld War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. On classical theism God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind and so forth.

Now explain why a creator would have built brains that are so subject to misdirection, geometric optical illusions, etc. Why would he/she/it have done so?

Is there reason to believe that this hypothetical creator should have designed brains incapable of being tricked? Why didn't this creator make us able to fly, breath underwater, or stick to the walls? What else are you going to ask me to explain, and why should I be obligated to provide an answer?

And if a creator built our reasoning capabilities, how do you know that he/she/it programmed it to accurately reflect reality?

We don't. We still wouldn't know that we have the capacity to arrive at true conclusions, but we could certainly dream up schemes that aren't self-defeating. The most obvious being, "God created our minds, perhaps through the process of evolution, so that we would have the ability to arrive at true conclusions."

Pointing out that evolutionary theory itself can't guarantee the accuracy of our reasoning faculties (which is true)

That's an understandment. You seem to be insinuating that we've been given minds that get things a little wrong. (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.) But it seems to me that having a mind that gets things close to right is only one possibility among a huge number if natural selection is all that's responsible. If that's true, it's pretty improbable that our minds provide us with anything like the truth.

Prove the above statement wrong.

I definitely can't prove that wrong. But if Plantinga's argument is true, then that statement is preferable to the theory of evolution because it at least is not self-defeating. It may not be the best theory for one reason or another, but it is at least logically consistent.

As soon as you invoke a creator, falsifiability is utterly gone, your conclusions can be ANYTHING, and future argumentation is pretty much futile. Thus creation mythology serves primarily as a tool for a person to project their own emotional needs and desires into their own understanding of reality.

Frequently made but false assertion. Yes, we can make up stories like yours that can never be falsified. But that doesn't mean that every explanation involving a creator is unfalsifiable. Dembski, for example, argues for a creator on the basis of what he calls complex specified information. His argument can be attacked from many different directions - CSI isn't a good criterion for design, CSI isn't present in nature, etc.

Fortunately, there are other ways to evaluate the accuracy of our reasoning capabilities than evolutionary theory or creation mythology.

Actually there are not, not without begging the question. You are measuring the instrument with itself to verify it's accuracy.

End note: Your sig links to a story about Antony Flew "converting to religion".... How does this bolster any point in favor of creationism or any other branch of post-Enlightenment fundamentalist thought?

It may surprise you to learn that I can read and have read the article, so the fact that Flew is now more like a Deist than a Christian isn't news to me. Neither the story nor my sig says that Flew has become religious.

Regarding your question about "post-Englightenment fundamentalist thought," I'm not sure what all you would include in that.

If you are talking about creationism, Flew's change of mind lends at least a smidgen of support to it, I think, in spite of the differences. Deism seems closer to theism than to atheism, to me. I wouldn't press the point too hard, though.

If you are talking about Intelligent Design (which is in no sense a form of "fundamentalism"), some of the people Flew credits with influencing his decision are in that camp.