Slashdot Mirror

"Atheism and Evolution seem to go hand in hand on a great many points, and as such, they often get lumped together."

Atheism cannot go hand in hand on a great many points, as it only has one point. Atheists do not beleive that God exists. That's all. Not only is it impossible to prove it either way, but anyone who even claims to have compelling evidence either way is full of it, and doesn't understand what evidence is. Atheism vs. Theism is not a scientific debate, nor, if you ask me, a very interesting one: "Does Too!" "Does Not!" "This other guy agrees with me!" "Doesn't matter" "Does too!", see what I mean?

Evolution, or not, is a scientific debate. As such, it is impossible to prove anything one way or another. Science doesn't do that. Science looks at available evidence and decides whether it supports a conclusion; it finds testable consequences of a theory, and sees if they pan out. There are vast mountains of evidence that seem to support evolution. Jonathan correctly points out that it is mostly taught by arguments from authority, which is too bad. But it's not at all difficult to think about what evolution should imply, and look around. Critics like to pick out tiny details, and hold them up like they were great revelations. Radio carbon dating is a statisticaly based technique who's error margin increases rapidly with the age of the sample? Yeah, thanks, we knew that. Most experts would put the useful date for RC dating back further than he has, to maybe 50,000 years, but either way, WTF does that have to do with evolution? RC dating is for anthropologists. RC dating could not exist at all, and it wouldn't impact the support for evolution in the slightest.

Oh, wait, I get it: he's a young-earth creationist?!? Sorry, I won't bother. If you've thought about it at all, and still beleive the Earth is 6000 years old, you're just not succeptable to logic.

In any case, Evolution or not is a scientific debate, and while I'm pretty sure which way I think it should go, the real point is we can talk about it based on evidence and implications. But the scientific debate is "Evolution or not" not "Evolution or creationism". Creationism isn't a scientific theory; it cannot be supported by evidence and it doesn't have any implications. Even if it were, it wouldn't be the automatic alternative to evolution. So I really wish creationists would get off their inept critiques of evolution.

You are reaching and in doing so trying to redefine the theism in atheism as refering to a supreme being rather than just a god. No one would consider the religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans or the Norse as being atheistic, yet none of the gods in their respective pantheons are supreme.

Whether Garuda is a single entity or one of a race creatures makes no difference, it is of divine origin and that's all it takes to be a god. One or multiple gods, they are still gods and recognized as such by a large enough proportion of buddhists.

Scientists are increasingly concerned about the White House's pandering to the religious right at science's expense. From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'"

All you have to do is point at legalized abortion to see just how indifferent to "scientific data" the science community has become and how dominated it is by politics. "The fetus isn't human." say seven elderly lawyers in medieval robes, and for over three decades the scientific community has said nothing against that biological nonsense. In compairsion to the illogic of "an unborn baby isn't a baby," the Flat Earth Theory was brilliant.

As for Intelligent Design, evolutionary biologists are displaying the classic response of a dogma on the way out. What other scientific theory from 1859 remains so rigidly unaltered and so hostile to challenge? Do string theorists demonize their critics? As Gandhi put it, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." We're midway between the laughing and attacking. The winning will take another decade or two.

If you'd like to follow the ID debate uncensored by journalists who're clueless about science, visit ID the Future and Evolution News.

I love science. In college I almost changed my major from engineering to physics. But many of the 'baby boom' scientists I went to school seem too blinded by their creaky sixties politics to think clearly.

--Mike Perry, Seattle, Editor Eugenics and Other Evils and Theism and Humanism

What's the difference between not believing in God and believing God doesn't exist? They're the same thing in my mind, and the very definition of atheism.

I don't think there's really a difference - but if you accept that there's no difference, then how on earth is "not believing in God" a "baseless assertion", or "accepting things without proof", as you stated? Sure, there's no proof - but there's also no acceptance or assertions.

If you ask someone if God exists, you should get the following responses:

You're confusing belief with knowledge. Many athiests, and even some theists, are also agnostics. Atheists might say "I don't know" - but they're still atheists, because they don't believe. Some theists might answer "I don't know, but I believe he does".

You are right to say that agnosticsm is the only position without faith - but that's only compared with those who claim to know. You are wrong to suggest that agnosticsm is mutually exclusive to theism or atheism.

The question to ask regarding atheism and theism is: "Do you believe in God?". Theists answer Yes, Atheists answer No. Some people might answer Don't Know/Care. Either of these three groups may or may not be agnostics.

You're trying to use a modern definition of the word "atheism" to include "weak atheism," while requiring that "agnosticism" be used in its classical, "strong agosticism" sense. Aside from cherry-picking, your loose use of the term effectively precludes the strong atheists, who most certainly hold a belief on the subject.

Your broad definition of atheism can either include agnosticism or strong atheism, but not both

Wrong on every count.

• Atheism naturally and logically includes both weak and strong atheist positions. It always has; it always will. The phrases "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" should have clued you in that it does before I ever said anything.
• When you say that "strong atheists, who most certainly hold a belief on the subject" you're conflating "lack of belief in a god or gods (atheism)" with "belief that god does not exist (strong atheism)" which are not two sides of the same coin. Atheism can exist perfectly well within the strong atheist position. Ask any strong atheist: "Do you hold a belief in a god or gods?" and they will answer, no. So they're atheists. Well, of course they are, that's why they call themselves "strong atheists." :-)
• You (and I) can use "Agnosticism" in any sense you like; I challenge you to use it in such a way that I cannot legitimately ask you if you believe in a god or gods.
• My use of atheism (which is the correct use, by the way, in all of the etymological, logical, and social senses) does not "effectively preclude" strong atheists (or lock them out in any other way.) Strong atheism is disbelief in a god or gods. Atheism is someone who does not hold a belief -- not someone who does not hold a disbelief. You can:
  • Not hold a belief that there is a god or gods, and...
  • Further disbelieve that there is.

  What you can't do is the latter without the former -- in other words, you can't disbelieve any particular god or gods, while believing in the same god or gods.

• My definition of atheism includes weak and strong atheism perfectly, and I challenge you to show why it wouldn't. Lay it out for everyone -- try to show where my definition fails the strong or weak atheist. Go ahead. ;-)

Only if you if you ignore the stance of the strong atheists. The strong atheists believe, it is just that their belief is that the theists are wrong. If you're going to limit atheism to a lack of belief, then you are trying to put strong atheists and theists into the same camp.

I would never put theists and atheists into the same camp. theism is a belief in god; atheism is the lack of same. Strong atheists lack a belief in a god or gods, so they're atheists, plain and simple. Theists hold a belief in a god or god, so they're theists. Completely opposite sides of the coin on the subject. the terms theist and atheist exist for one reason only, and that is to delineate the sides of the coin. There are variations on both sides, but there are only two sides.

Then what if I were to use the word "apathetic?" Your "lack of belief" mantra seems to equate to those who don't care enough about the healing powers of pyramids enough to either believe or disbelieve the claims. And so as not to mince words, I am using "disbelieve" here to mean "believe the powers do not exist."

Ok, let's see. Here's your statement, with apathetic substituted, for reference:

Lack of belief in the healing powers of crystals/pyramids is called

"apathy." Belief of lack, however, is what is supportable through science.

Other than using "apathy" for apathetic so your grammar wouldn't be faulty, there you have it.

Apathy is "not caring." Agnostics say they don't know, which is not dependent upon, or required for, apathy.

You can certainly not know and

Because what you described is agnosticism

No. Absolutely not. You're mistaken about what agnosticism is. Look it up.

An agnostic claims that they cannot know if there is a god or gods.

An agnostic does not say "I hold no belief in god or gods." They're trying specifically to avoid that position and the position of holding a belief. I am of the opinion that this is impossible, and agnosticism therefore must be a wholly included subset of atheism or theism.

The choice between a theist and an atheist outlook is a completely black-and-white question and issue; either you believe, or you don't.

If you do, you're theist; if you don't, you're atheist. End of story.

Lack of belief in the healing powers of crystals/pyramids is called "ambivalence."

Ambivalence is not being able to decide, which is something else again. It certainly isn't "a lack of belief" as you claim here. Look it up. Lack of belief is the no confidence position. Disbelief is a position of confidence; one is saying "this is not so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the negative, or "anti-whatever" position. Belief is also a position of confidence; one is saying "this is so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the positive, or "pro-whatever" position.

The supernatural, by definition, is something that exists outside the natural universe.

You're mangling the definition to fit your understanding. That something is purportedly supernatural means that it exists outside the universe, yes. That is what limits our understanding and our tools to measure the supposed thing, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean such a thing exists entirely outside the universe, nor does it mean that it cannot have effects inside the universe.

If that were so, the term supernatural would be completely irrelevant and no one would use it -- it would mean absolutely without effect, in any way, shape or form. Ghosts could not manifest, gods could not make worlds and turn people into pillars of salt, banshees could not scream. And the supernatural is the domain that these things are conceived in. Are you willing to redefine "supernatural"? If so, what domain are the superstitious (again, derived from supernatural) talking about when they talk about, for example, ghosts? Do you see what you've done here? You've not only made the word "supernatural" meaningless, you've disenfranchised "superstitious", "superstition" and "" as well.

I honestly think that you need to do some reading. You have made three separate claims here based on significant misunderstandings of well-known and commonly used words; atheism, ambivalence, agnosticism, supernatural. If you want to argue a position, you're going to at least have to use the same language everyone else does. If you want to re-define a word, I might accept that, but you have to justify why you're doing it. is the etymology misunderstood? Is the common understanding other than what is being portrayed by the other party? In either of those cases, you can find backup for your assertions. For instance, I simply checked dictionary.com before I replied to you to make sure that I was rock-solid in my understanding of the words that your argument was based around; that puts me in a very strong position in our discussion, because both the etymology and the common definition back my assertions.

So, theism is also not serious philosophy? I don't agree with 'em, but the god question has been one of the most important ones in all of human thought, and its place is firmly in philosophy.

Agreed. Intelligent design would merit nothing more than a very short mention, if at all, in a discussion about theism, if it were in a philosophy class.

Intelligent Design does deserve mention in science class, as it is a valid science (if you think otherwise, please take the time to educate yourself). Even if it was proven wrong, it at least deserves mention.

"I think the problem is that people are claiming that human beings have evolved from animals. This is undeniably an unproven theory, and until you can show me the so-called 'missing link', it will remain unproven." Direct observation, though the best form of proof, is often not conclusive actually (as observations can be misleading) nor is it the only kind of proof. If I drive by someone who looks like my friend walking home and stop up ahead to wait for him and he arrives, you can't say I can't know it was the same person because without asking, I don't know about the "missing link" from his previous position to his current one. This analogy is imperfect, but think it through. We understand in a very general way the laws of motion of evolution, and we can predict what humans would look like if they had evolved from a common ancestor of other apes. The human body matches those predictions, in ways that wouldn't make sense if it had been "intelligently designed." It's actually debated whether Einstein believed in God. His famous "God doesn't play dice" quote wasn't a statement about theism, but about his view of the universe. He definitely wasn't a creationist.

Sigh

I can't see the arguement that atheism gets you out from consequences of actions. If you believe that the only thing that stops someone from hitting someone else is that they believe that their god said "don't do that", then I worry. Our decisions are NOT driven by "ultimate consequences" , they are more short-term. I do not kill, not because I was told that someone found stones with that instruction on it, but because I am aware of the nature of life, and its irreplaceability.

Your last statement do atheists have a "God-given" conscience is arguable. I have a conscience. I do not believe it was "god-given". A conscience is derrived from the human ability to empathize. Our conscience is not bothered by trimming the lawn, because we don't empathize with the grass. Our conscience is activated to prevent us from driving over the curb, through people, just to get home from work early. The ability to tell right from wrong does not require a belief in a god. And, as a note, what you and I believe as right and wrong are not universal, even for those of the same religion.

I am not an atheist, but I do believe that theism is a crutch for many.

The problem with ID isn't the idea itself, it is the track record of those who are promoting it.

The idea that evolution alone cannot account for the development of life on earth is not that crazy of an idea. The problem is that those who are espousing it would really much rather be promoting biblical creationism and attacking darwinian evolution.

The very existence of ID as something these guys are pushing to be taught is proof positive that they're losing the debate. They have to go with creationism-lite because they can't sell the full strength version to anyone who isn't drinking the same kool-aid that they are.

One of the real problems that this whole debate reveals is that utter ignorance that most people have about science. I'm not talking about your creationists either. I'm talking about atheists who try to use science to back up their own religious beliefs. Science is not an athiest philosophy or discipline. The most that science can say about the existance of God is that his/her/it's existance has not yet been disproven. Naturally there are various mythologies whose tenets can be disproven, but that is not the same thing as proving that there is no God.

At the end of the day, this entire debate is largely between athiests who think they have science on their side, and christian true believers who think they have the truth on their side.

Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. There is a mountain of evidence that supports it, and not a single speck of evidence that refutes it. But that does not mean it is the whole story. There are some questions about the development of life on earth that it has trouble providing adequate answers for. It is not unreasonable to suspect that some intelligence was involved and that it nudged things in one direction or another from time to time. This is not the ONLY idea that is worthy of consideration, but it is definitely one such idea. When the athiests attack this notion, they're no better than the bible thumpers who attack evolution.

If this whole debate were between intellectually honest individuals without ulterior motives, then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. There wouldn't be any slashdot articles about it. In fact it wouldn't even be newsworthy in any way.

But because the people involved on both sides are extremists with pet theories that they will not let go of and prejudices they'd like to see promoted, any approaching meaningful discourse goes right out the window. Instead we have two groups assembled who spend their time making rude intimidating noises at one another and throwing rocks.

This dispute, just like so many others, is little more than an arena where the loony left and the religious right duke it out. A lot of the emotions involved are due to issues outside of this debate but which nevertheless drive its intensity. When you see people getting emotional about this debate, you can rest assured that some other unspoken issue is the reason why. In fact, this entire debate is really just a proxy for theism vs athiesm. The arguments about creationism/ID vs evolution are really just a proxy for the debate about whether there is a God or not.

I personally have no patience with people who are full of shit, regardless of which brand and flavor that shit happens to be. Devout athiests are full of shit and so are the bible thumpers. Comparing them is not an exercise in separating the truth from non-truth. Rather it is a process of separating one non-truth from another non-truth that is equally untrue. What few kernels of truth there are left remaining can be accounted for by the broken clock rule, which states that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, yes, people try to flee from guilt in many different ways. Alcohol, religion, etc., etc. can be misused.

But, for a lot of people, atheism is an attempt to get out from under the consequences of their actions. And I think it is subconscious, not a conscious decision.

Are there any ultimate consequences under an atheistic philosophy? No. There can't be. That's part of its charm. Otherwise, why would so many atheists be openly hostile to even the possibility that God exists? Why would they care?

Plenty of atheists feel no qualms about saying theism is a crutch for the weak, etc. I think atheism is a crutch in many respects as well.

Do atheists still have a God-given conscience? Yes. They still can tell right from wrong.

In the same way that Theism is a way to justify bad decisions.

Why did you fly the plane into the tower killing thousands? It was in the name of God.

Why do you demonize atheists? Must be a calling from God.

I'm note sure I want to bother with this post, but I'll give it a go.

The reason this debate is happening at all is because 'faith' IS being taught in the schools. specifically most books and teachers teach what is called Darwinist atheism as opposed to Darwinist theism( the later is considered within the range of acceptable beliefs by the catholic church btw the previous is condemned). The fact is that neither should be taught if your intention is to not teach "religion" in publicly funded schools. The problem is more difficult then you would think however. The reason for the difficulty is the fact that if you study science at all it must be implied that you believe in an objective reality that can be determined through experimentation. Some atheists and even some theists reject the idea of objective reality so if you are truly not going to bring philosophy (a pre condition for theology ) into the debate your only option is not to teach the scientific method.

To put it another way. If all that was being taught in the school was the known facts and not 1 and only 1 possible interpretation for those facts, when there are actually many possible interpretations no one would have a real problem. The difficulty is that it is a proper place of science to try and interpret the facts and in this particular case you can interpret the facts to suggest that there is a god or you can interpret the facts to suggest that there is not god and only one interpretation is being taught. (in reality neither interpretation is fully testable so they are both a matter of faith )

As a side note I think modern science, especially physics and biology, support theism better then the do atheism so it seems to be it take more faith to be an atheist then it does a theist.

As another completely useless observation ( because the supreme court does whatever it wants despite what the intent of the authors of the constitution might have been) the constitution of the united states was never intended to prevent the teaching of theist philosophy in fact it invokes theism as part of it's primary foundation for supporting it's arguments. What was meant in the constitution by "religion" was that the federal government should not force people to adhere to any specific religious practice. It was also not intended in any way to prevent their from being a state or city endorsed religion ( because there was some at the time and the constitution was not meant to outlaw them ).

The easiest solution is to put an end to federal funding of public schools then their would be no constitutional argument and the local municipalities could decide the issue for themselves based on the biases of the voters/ parents/ taxpayers in the region.

Taking the same pool of scientific knowledge, a scientist can interpret the elegance of the universe as one of either two things, depending on which axiom, theism or atheism, he or she has chosen.

1) Theism: design implies intelligence. One could argue this is the Accum's razor path.

2) Atheism: design implies nothing, because if there wasn't design, we wouldn't be here to see it. Instead of arguing for God then, one would instead have to argue for the existence of multiple universes, where some universes fell apart in chaos as their physical laws didn't weave together in either the one (or one of many possible) neccessary perfect balance(s). Or they may need to believe in a fundamental law of physics that supercedes even the universe, which ends up sounding a lot like God anyway.

3) And of course, there is the third path, that a scientist is just content with science as a modular, disconnected concept, as many mathematicians are content with proofs that throw out the axiom of choice, since it causes so many contridictions.

Having no belief in god or gods is agnosticism.

I missed that, sorry -- I think I tuned it out as "signature space."

Agnosticism is generally -- by declared agnostics -- asserted to be the position that one cannot know if there is a god or gods, usually followed by a refusal to take a stand on belief.

Personally, I tend to view everyone as either in the atheist camp, or the theist camp. I've never met an agnostic to whom I couldn't legitimately say:

You're agnostic? OK, fine, you don't know if there is a god or gods. Now we've got that handled. Fact is, I don't know either. We're comrades! So, aside from that, I'd like to ask for an answer to this other question: Taking into full consideration your professed lack of knowledge as to whether there is a god or gods, do you hold any shred of belief in a god or gods? Like the way you or your friends might have believed in Santa, or the easter bunny when you were kids? I mean, you didn't know those were real... but you believed. So, do you believe, even a little, in a god or gods today?

They can either fail to answer (which makes me laugh, usually to myself simply to be polite), or say no (the typically offered rationale being they don't know, so why hold a belief?) or say yes, perhaps a little -- or some other similarly lukewarm level of assertion.

Well, if they answer no, then they're squarely in the atheist camp. If they answer yes, they're squarely in the theist camp. If they waffle, they're either irresolute, confused, or outright lying. Also, irresolute or confused is where I place someone who goes so far as to interpret agnosticism as meaning to tell me that they don't know if they believe which is again quite a different proposition than not knowing if there is a god or gods. If you don't know what you think about a subject, you probably need to think a little harder. Unless you're simply too dim to achieve a reasonable and successful level of introspection (and then we're back to confused, though now we have a biological cause for it.)

Know why I take this approach? It's because knowledge is not even remotely close to the same class of mental function as belief is. If you ask for a metric of belief, and accept in return an answer that supplies a metric of knowledge, I have high confidence that you've been had.

Mind you, I understand that some people want to opt out of the whole question of theism vs. atheism. I don't blame them. Society, principally theists within society, makes it more difficult to be a declared atheist. Some of that is because the unwashed masses and their prominent and vocal theist members have done a very good job at attempting to lump all atheists into the "those folks who say god doesn't exist" barrel, as you are trying to do here. Well, it just isn't so. Some atheists take that position, some don't. All are, regardless, atheist.

Atheism is not "no belief in a god or gods." It is a belief in no god or gods.

Assuming this was correct (it's not, neither in the etymological sense or the actuality of the range of atheist positions) I'm curious -- where does a person who does not believe there is a god stand? What are they? What would you call them, as distinct from someone who disbelieves? Or, is it your position that disbelief == lack of belief?

For instance, I do not believe that you (specifically you, the person I am replying to) can lift the bible using the power of your mind. That's an actual disbelief. I'm there right now, and I don't need any further evidence to get there. I bring numerous objective facts to my mental table that lead me to this disbelief; in other words, I have high confidence this disbelief agrees with objective reality. However, I do not have any such position with regard to theism. I have no contrary evidence (which is a data point of sorts, but one of quite a different nature than what I have gathered about the proposition of telekinesis to date.) Still, I have no more reason to believe in a theist proposition than I do in any other proposition offered without any visible means of objective support. They all go in the same box: Interesting. Come back when you can show me something concrete.

Just as an exercise: If we were to construct a word for a person who does not hold a belief in thiesm, we'd go for a prefix meaning without (that'd be "a") and then the thing that they are lacking (theism) and since we're talking about a personal outlook, we'd use "theist" instead. Having cojoined these, we'd have -- oh my gosh -- "atheist." :-)

On the other hand, if we were to construct a word for a person who holds a belief that thiesm is invalid, we'd go for a prefix meaning against (that'd most likely be "anti") and then the thing that they are lacking (theism) and since we're talking about a personal outlook, we'd use "theist" instead. Having cojoined these, we'd have antitheist. If you wanted to go there.

However, it is worth noting that the concept of an antitheist is subsumed in the word atheist; you can (a) not hold a belief in theism and (b) hold a belief that theism is invalid at the same time. This is the position of an atheist who has added some icing to the cake, as it were. That's why no one (well, very few) bandy words like "antitheist" around.

It is very convenient for theists to assume that atheists disbelieve, but the fact is, some do, some don't.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to concern yourself with belief in or against something that has no evidence. But in the case of much theism, we have an added twist that says one cannot measure or apprehend the domain in which the proposal has validity. Now I really think it's a waste of time to worry about how accurate the various theist views might, or might not, be. :-)

Atheism is a system of beliefs about a diety. Specifically, that there is no god. Not believing in god != having no beliefs in regard to god. A*theism (no belief in god) != A*religious (no specific system of belief about a diety. And yes, I know I made up the term).

So Atheism is a religion, but agnosticism is not? An agnositc may have no beliefs about a diety, one way or the other. But I guess there would be religious agnostics and non-religious agnositcs. Some firmly believe that one can't know for sure (which is a belief, even if wishy-washy). And others don't believe anything one way or the other. The Fence-Sitters would be non-religious, and the Can't-Knowers would be religious.

Atheism is a system of beliefs about a diety. Specifically, that there is no god. Not believing in god != having no beliefs in regard to god. A*theism (no belief in god) != A*religious (no specific system of belief about a diety. And yes, I know I made up the term). It's really semantics here, so I think at best we can get into a circular argument.

The parent post clearly uses the most correct definition of atheism: "without theism".

But we all know that in language, words acquire variations of meaning.

Although I don't really appprove atheism meaning anything other than a lack of theistic beliefs, when people insist on it, I use the following modifiers to distinguish between the two common meanings:

"lack of theistic belief" --> weak atheism
"belief in the falseness of theism" -> strong atheism