Slashdot Mirror

Atheism ... does not mean lack of "cause, principle, or [a] system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Nor does it mean the opposite. Some atheists, including myself, do not see any need to apply ardor, or faith, to a proposal without any evidence. Nor do we have a cause or principle involved, except the several-intellectual-layers-removed principle that confidence in a proposal requires evidence -- Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a good summing up of the problem with theism from my point of view. Not only do we not have extraordinary evidence, we have no evidence at all. I do not find the various theist arguments for a god or gods compelling for this specific reason.

I never said that an atheist couldn't be religious; I said that atheism isn't a religion. They're not the same thing at all. Just so we're clear.

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.

(The last point about Buddhism not strictly being a religion requires strictly definining religion as theism--I used a more reasonable definition that it is a system of beliefs held with faith.)

It does take "more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion" but an atheistic viewpoint does not preclude being a religion.

even atheism is a religion.

• a -- this prefix means without
• theism -- means belief in a god or gods
• atheism -- means without belief in a god or gods

Nothing religious about it. Simply a lack of belief.

Saying that atheism is a religion is precisely like saying a lack of belief in the healing power of pyramids is a religion.

It takes more than an atheist viewpoint to make a religion. Count on it.

* A substantial majority of Americans (about 7 in 10) believe the scientific Theory of Evolution is compatible with a belief in God - one does not preclude the other. linky

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. linky

The USA blew up the World trade Centre by pissing off one person too many.

If you insult someone, and they retaliate, it's your fault. If you insult someone, they retaliate and an innocent third party suffers, it's {at least partly} your fault that that third party suffered -- because they would not have, if you had not made the original insult in the first place.

It's all about oil, or money. There isn't a lot of difference. The Arabs have oil and want money for it. The USA begrudges the amount it is paying for oil, and adds insult to injury by insisting to pay for it in US dollars -- so the Arabs have to change US dollars for local currency, at whatever exchange rate the USA chooses. The USA and UK also sell weapons to anybody who wants them.

The USA has been throwing its weight around, and the UK has been its pathetic little lap-dog, for too long. We should get our arses in gear and move ahead right now with trying to go oil-free. We're going to have to do that eventually anyway, one day -- and things are only going to get bloodier and messier for countries that insist to use oil right up to the end. So why not save ourselves the bother right now? Stop using oil, leave the Arabs alone, stay out of their messy business. And while we're at it, let's take the radical step of outlawing theism. I don't imagine for a minute that it will stop terrorists altogether, but at least they will have to be honest about their motives.

Ah, there you are. There is always one of you in the crowd. I had no idea athEIsts broke the i before e except after c rule. Look how stupid I am! I mean, it even sounds spelled that way (to help you out, that is called "sarcasm"). You must have great faith in your argument to need to point out a poster's spelling errors and grammar problems.

I thought I pointed it out rather politely. I didn't call you stupid. Many people spell the word wrong. It's not because atheists break a rule, it's because it's related to THEology and THEism. You're awful touchy.

None of this invalidates the existence of God, but it sure does make people like yourself bitter because you chew what they shove into your mouth.

I'm bitter? I simply disagreed with something you wrote. You're the one getting all excited. Or pretending to be.

If you refuse to lift your head up from the grass and look around with wonder, you are nothing more than cattle.

I probably am being trolled, but this rant sounds so much like the stuff I used to regularly read on Usenet so many years ago...

The really great trollers throughout history had a talent for writing something that sounds insane enough to be plausible, but had a few nice little nuggets of hyper-absurdity that gave it away to the sharp-eyed. Just ranting and foaming doesn't really measure up. There are too many real rants and foams like this. A good troll needs something extra.

Think. Look around and think. Did this happen by accident? You don't even have to feel: think! You don't even need instinct: think!!! Spit out that grass and join the living.

Hey, great. This is looking more and more like a not very clever troll. There are so many fallacies and weird assumptions here it can't be real.

Someday I'll learn when it's pointless to try to dialog with someone.

Get the terminology right yourself. "Deitist" is a pretty new coinage, not found in Webster's or wikipedia, and poorly represented in a Google search.

From m-w.com:

Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

The term I wanted and stand by is "theist", which, as you can see, has a general meaning (coincidentally, nearly identical to your definition of "deitism"), as well as a more specific meaning, which itself appears to be a bit more general than the term "deist". I didn't want to make a more specific representation because I honestly don't know how many of them shared Jefferson's personal views, which were certainly deist.

Who is denying the connections to Christian teachings, or their influence on the framers of the Constitution? Could it not be the principle of mercy, taught them through "the Christian teachings", that led them to see the wisdom of a clear separation between church and state? Or perhaps it was the oppression of minority-sect Christians in Anglican England that led them to that conclusion. You see, there is no such thing as THE "Christian teachings", only many different "teachings" that all claim to be inspired by Jesus of Nazareth. At times, adherents of different brands of Christianity have disagreed strongly enough over the precise nature of "the Christian teachings" to go to war with one another over the issue.

In its turn, Christianity was certainly not founded on Hellenistic religion itself, but to deny the connections between the myth of the virgin birth of Jesus and the myth of the virgin birth of Mithras is to rewrite history in a rather bold way. (Of course, that particular rewriting was pretty much complete by the time of the Emperor Constantine.) Should we have statues of Mithras slaying the bull in our courthouses?

Maybe you should get the terminology right. They were deists, not deitists. And a deist is a theist. Theism is a Greek-derived word which means belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings). Deism is a Latin-derived word which refers to a particular school of religious thought (I don't know if I'd characterize it as a religion as much as a theological philosophy).

So, deists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., are all members of the set theists.

I have several friends and an uncle refer to themselves as "atheists". I also have several relatives who truly are atheists, although would not claim it if you asked them. Most of those people who apply the term atheists to themselves are actually agnostics, because they cling to some residual idea of Morality or god ... or at least spirituality. In order however to practice true atheism ( the philosophical ideal). You must reject any notion of theism-" the idea there is a god" Otherwise you are claiming a philosophy but not adhering to it, further if you claim there is a universally accessible absolute you are implying the existence of a frame of reference from which all morality can be judged. That in turn implies the existence of some kind of transcendent absolute, a type of god. It is just as illogical to call oneself an atheist and then claim their is some kind of universally accepted morality as it is to claim you are a Christian but that there is no such thing as God. That being said, I have found a very few people in this world who's beliefs actually are derived logically.

Fair enough. However, that is not the impression that I typically get. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting, but atheists (at least the particularly vocal ones) typically seem (to my perception) to claim the logical higher ground, and I do not think this is justified.

Also, I do think that the question of theism/atheism is significantly less clear cut than the petrol/pink elephant situation. It is a good analogy, but the determination of which is simpler is, no pun intended, not that simple. On the surface, I suppose it is "universe runs on universeness" vs. "universe runs on universeness + God"? Presented that way, it would seem quite obvious, but there are certainly other ways to state the matter. For example, one possibility for theism is "universeness runs on God, universe runs on universeness". (nobody seems to have trouble adding more layers, so long as each layer is simpler than the one before, to wit, atoms, then nucleus, then protons/neutrons, then quarks, then ?strings?) Or, breaking down "universeness" into physical laws and such, one might argue that it seems a lot more complicated than just God running it. (Not that I would take that position, actually, I think simpler physical laws tend to point to God, rather than the other way.) And of course, that is not comprehensive, nor does it include various rebuttals to those arguments, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

Just in case you're curious, yes, I am a Christian, and also a scientist. (I just finished my undergrad junior year of physics, and I'm working at Fermilab for the summer.) Additionally, one of my beliefs which results from my more basic Christian beliefs is that what I am called by God to do is to oppose, by means of decent arguments, atheism, specifically in academic and scientific communities.

What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism.

I'm beginning to see what you mean. I was assuming the discussion was about which of atheism or theism one should choose if there is no evidence, not about proof. Because, of course, you can't really prove anything.

Perhaps it is better to say that the argument is about having to 'justify' or 'back up' a choice, not prove it is correct.

Given two choices, we tend to choose the simplest. This does not prove anything, it is simply a useful way to think and live.

My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".

Can I put this in a better way? What I mean is that, given the choice between the explanations 'my car runs on petrol', and 'my car runs on petrol and pink elephant pushing', if you chose the second explanation, you should definitely expect people to be surprised by it and for people to ask you lots of questions about why you chose it. You would not be entitled to say 'why aren't you asking all these questions to those who did not mention pink elephants'!

I would suggest that when atheists say 'prove it', what they really mean is that theists are the ones who have to justify their choice, not atheists, because theism is more complicated - it is the 'pink elephant' choice.

I don't mean any disrespect if you have beliefs; I am just trying to explain a point of view.

Alright. So does Occam's Razor constitute proof, pure, logical proof, of atheism? If not, then why should theism require proof when atheism doesn't?

I certainly admit that people have reasons why they are atheists. This does not puzzle me. What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism. After all, I do not see atheists presenting proof, but only arguments for, atheism. And yes, I am well aware that not all atheists do this. But some do, as we have recently seen.

I do not think that assumptions are unreasonable. If I did, I would be a solipsist. But I do think that someone in an unprovable position should not ask someone who claims to also be in an unprovable (but incompatible) position for proof of that position.

I most certainly use Occam's razor, and I don't take issue with people using it to decide in favor of atheism. In the case of the car analogy: if someone were to claim that there were a pink elephant, I suppose I might demand evidence of this statement. However, I don't think that I would ask for a proof. Yes, asking "prove there isn't an elephant" is silly. My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".

The burden of proof (if proof is applicable) lies with whoever makes a claim. You're quite correct that it does not lie with agnostics, because agnostics don't claim anything (about the theism/atheism issue).

I claim that no proof can be made that no god exists. This is simple to prove: there are definitions of god which include the property that his/hers/its/their existence is unprovable.

By asking for proof from theists, atheists implicitly claim that proof is required. This claim can be proven, of course, from the idea that one should only believe in things which are proven. So I challenge that idea. Can anyone prove it? (lots of people seem to make this claim, so the burden of proof lies with them) If so, I challenge the fundamental assumptions involved in the proof. Can anyone prove those? You can never get away with making no unprovable assumptions. So, any and every choice of assumptions to make is arbitrary (from a pure logic standpoint). Since your choice of theism vs. atheism is dependent upon the assumptions that you make, that too is arbitrary.

One might thus decide that the only logical decision then is in fact agnosticism... but taken to its logical extreme, this leads you to... precisely nothing. No assumptions, no claims, no beliefs, no actions, no logic, nothing. Most people find this uncomfortable, and wind up making assumptions. However, I find it very odd that some people (who have decided to make unfounded assumptions) ask for proof from others without a) considering that if you really and truly look for proof, you wind up with pure and total nothing, and b) asking for proof from themselves.

It must have been a very strange philosophy class that you took that ignored all this. Perhaps you should sue the university and get your tuition refunded.

If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision.

This is only the case if both alternatives are equally simple. They aren't. In this situation most people apply Occam's Razor - choose the simplest option. The simplest option is probably atheism.

Let's see... Show proof that a god exists. And please don't use any circular logic, like "it says so in the Bible" or "you can see it in His creation". . . .If you claim that something exists, I guess it's on you the burden to prove it.

Why? I claim that no proof can be made for either position. The statement that only proven things should be thought to exist is itself either unproven, or based upon unproven assumptions.

If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision. Or, as it is frequently referred to in religious circles, faith.

The lack of a proof against the existence of any god is not compelling reason to believe in any god, but neither is the lack of a proof for the existence of any god compelling reason to disbelieve in any god. Unless independent, and arbitrary (as all pure assumptions, or first axioms, are) assumptions are made, the only logically viable position on the question of religion is pure agnosticism.

Of course, that could be taken to its logical extreme. Because assumptions cannot be proven, we must throw them ALL out! Which leaves you with solipsism.

Or, the assumption that unfounded assumptions are bad could be thrown out instead, which leaves you with a much more usable life and philosophy (of course, the idea that a life and/or philosophy should be usable is an assumption in itself). Then, you are free to make assumptions as you like, but you should always be aware that the results of those assumptions are, in a very fundamental way, faith.

Sure, a Pink Elephant God would be improbable,

And there's another assumption. Where do we get the idea that a Pink Elephant God is unlikely? Moreover, you seem to implicitly claim that no god at all is quite likely, by not even investigating the likelihood of that option. Yes, one could say that the likelihood of no god is 1 - (likelihood of the union of all god possibilities)... but is that really a feasible evaluation? Are you really going to evaluate the likelihood of all possible gods? It seems much more reasonable to evaluate all the likelihoods in question individually, including that of no god at all. Not that I think this is a particularly good way of going about things in any case...

I do not presume here to give a mechanism for choosing which possibility is correct, I am merely trying to show that if you really throw out the assumptions, that atheism is on an equal footing with a great many religions. I am glad you do not think that the existence of any god is disprovable, but I question your requirement that any religion must offer proof, when you don't require it of your own beliefs.

Whether or not it is obsolete now is rather a question of whether it is true or not, and that has very much not been solved definitively one way or the other. Face it, atheism is as much a position of faith as theism, in that both assert something about the existence of God without proof.

IF a religion (say, Christianity, for sake of argument) is true then there is a heaven and a hell and we're all going to one or the other, depending on whether you believe or not. If, on the other hand, there is no god, no heaven, and no hell, then we all just cease to exist and you've not really lost anything.

OK so I've just outlined Pascal's wager.

There is also less metaphysical argument on obsolete. Look around at the world you live in and the people you know. Do they seem happy? Do they seem joyful? Is society free from crime and violence and anger and hatred? Are people only living in happy stable families with children growing up with both parents? Is no one being murdered or raped, robbed or abused, oppressed or discarded? Are you truly happy?

Looking around at where I live and my co-workers, I'd argue that religion has never been more relevant, or more necessary. People are in the grip of a mania to fill the void in their lives with something. Money, sex, power, academic respect, shopping. People are in therapy trying to learn to love themselves and be totally self reliant. Huge numbers of people today in the west are on anti-depressants and are stressed out by the pressures of consumerism, or by the demands of unreasonable bosses. People are becoming isolated and lonely, and more and more in denial of their own misery.

Religion is not obsolete. It's vital.

To me atheisim suffers from the same problem religion does, the unexplained.

There are two versions of the meaning of atheist. One is the technical one, as the word is really a-theist meaning not theist or without theism. So if you are not a theist, you are an atheist. Similar to amoral (not moral), atypical (not typical), asexual (without sexuality), etc.

The other is the non-technical one which some label themselves and claim "I believe there is no God". Since that involves active belief, it is faith-based (just of an opposite nature) but isn't strictly atheism.

Since I do not hold the belief that there is one or more gods or goddesses, I am not a theist therefore I classify myself as an atheist.

The anti-theism argument is always a fun one to watch, although you can't carry it nearly as well as in OCG's epic threads.

But I'm willing to try.

You're not trying to answer the one little thing she asked. That whole biblical self-contradiction thread, while amusing, is just irrelevant to Planesdragon's simple question. You made the counter-intuitive statement that "Good/Evil" != "Right/Wrong", which many people would dispute just as a matter of semantic definitions, regardless of their personal regliosity.

Indeed, the only way I can justify that statement is to say that Good/Evil deals with perception, while Right/Wrong is about reality. An attempted good deed is actually wrong if honest mistakes bring it to a bad outcome.

Wrongness can come from either evil or incompetence.

What's "good" about creating a spirit which will lead a person into doing wrong things to another person?

That's an interesting question, but separate from the topic of "Good!=Right". Because it relates to a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent being, there can be no question of incompetence or inadvertent results, so in that context, "Good" is exactly equal to "Right".

Just as I'm interested in seeing more "noneuclidean" geometry - which is like saying "more nontriangle shapes".

No, "noneuclidean" certainly doesn't mean "nontriangular". Circles and duodecahedrons, for example, are perfectly euclidean. And, noneuclidean triangles exist as a hypothetical math concept, although they are substantially different from triangles as we know them, since the sum of the 3 angles wouldn't equal 360 degrees.

To "see a noneuclidean shape" is the kind of thing that sends Lovecraft's protagonists to Arkham Asylum... it's something that's just not possible in our known physical reality.

hairstyle
noun
a particular way in which a person's hair is cut or arranged.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

You're still wrong though ;-)

Theism is faith in the existence of God.
Atheism is the *lack of* faith in the existence of God.

There is no faith involved in atheism.
It's actually the natural state of man. If you choose at some point to believe in a deity, then you have chosen to start believing in some god or other and hence are no longer an atheist.