Slashdot Mirror

A disbelief is not a belief. It is the negation of a belief. Agnosticism is compatable with atheism. People have this misconception that there are three possilities that cannot overlap: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. That's not true. An agnostic simply thinks that he doesn't know if god exists or not. It is still possible to believe god exists while admitting that said belief is not knowlege, so an agnostic can still be theistic. It is also possible to refuse to believe god exists while admitting that it is not certain knowlege that there cannot be a god. One can be both an atheist and an agnostic. I am both.

I've also spent a lot of time exploring Zen..

I'll let you in on a little something -- I am Zen Buddhist.

Science is another attempt to understand the world around us, to find a deeper truth. It rules out the usage of blind faith and tries to stick to what is externally provable. As such it can be seen to be a step onward, and progress from our earlier attempt - religion.

I don't disagree that science is useful in uncovering some essential truths that benefit us throughout life, but it too takes a lot on blind faith. In all that I have read, no scientist has explored the possibility that time, for instance, might not be a physical property, but a property of mind. You have string theorists attempting to unify the high and low discplines of physics -- quantum theory and general relativity -- into an impenetrable accounting for of all phenomenae in the universe. All the while, indestructible Father Time and all the matter and space in the cosmos that are inseparably meshed with it are destoyed the moment man suspends mind. When he sleeps! For all one may know, mind may be another dimension of the universe that cannot be overlooked in our pursuit to full understanding of the things around us.

When simple experiments like this demonstrate the lack of constancy in what are supposed to be unassailable universal properties; when time can be stopped by closing one's eyes and falling into deep sleep, I believe humanity should not ignore consciousness' factoring into the whole equation, despite it not being quantifiable enough to satisfy hardcore scientific types.

Moving in the other direction, from rationalising and attempting to objectify our understanding of the world, towards a subjective belief, would clearly be a step backwards. So no, I do not believe that the other direction can be called progress.

It is the logical foundations of science that cannot escape subjectivity. Every unit of logic attempts to cut apart a reality that boldy resists to be put into neat little categories. Science observes and measures in a thoroughly digital manner while reality is analog, so there is always bound to be something missing when science moves to conclusion.

I used to be agnostic, but over the years I have become firmly atheist in my views. I believe that there is no god. No esoteric spirtual reality in which this one is embedded. At heart it is a simple case of Occam's Razor.

Atheism asserts as much as it denies. In my opinion you may as well believe in god. Atheism and theism are identical in that they purport to have a solid basis for their assertion or denial of the existence of a creator; that you have had access to the most basic, final and irrefutable facts. But then again you say it's your belief that god doesn't exist. I figure that doesn't place you far from the realm of esoterics at all.

Of the experience of enlightenment: time again again, I have heard people say that this state is the most simple of states, the most utterly basic of states, yet they have come to full understanding of something to the point where the fundamental questions of existence they've had to that point simply vanished. Perhaps this describes the true Occam's Razor.

Good discussing things with you. Send me some e-mail sometime.

icephreak AT lycos DOT com

- IP

Any God who wants my worship needs to do something to deserve it. "Worship me or you go to Hell" is insufficent. Why should I put up with any crap for a diety that I wouldn't accept from a human?

> This is a basic Occams Razor type thing. If you
> want be to believe in God, he'd better show
> himself. And when he does, he better be ready to
> answer some of my questions, too.

God certainly has shown himself. Occam's razor
requires theism. Occam himself was a theist.
As for your questions, I think you've inverted
the relationship. You seem to have mistaked yourself
for God.

"A-the -- ism" = "Lack of God -- belief"

Theism is belief in God. Atheism is lack of theism.

At the end of the day, this is just word definitions. If you want to use the word atheism like that, fair enough, but you have to accept that it is a fact that many atheists (if not most of them) do not use it in the same way.

I don't believe in God. That isn't a belief system just like Christianity etc. If you say I'm not an atheist (and I'm not agnostic either, by your definition - and incidentally, many people use agnostic in a different way to the way you define it too), then I'm left with no word to label myself with.

Is not believing in unicorns a belief system too? We never nitpick between "not believing" and "believing not" with things such as unicorns, ghosts and so on, so I don't see why an issue of this is always made with believing (or not) in God. I think the only reason it is done is so that theists can make out atheists to be no different to them in terms of having faith, when really they're just attacking a strawman idea of what they think atheists believe.

I'm curious... are there Hindu Cows? And if so, do the Cows in Texas believe that all Hindu Cows will go to hell about their different beliefs, and misunderstood MONO-theism? What about them thar Mormon cows?....

Oh, and that sig ("Banning all religious displays "establishes" Atheism...") is wrong for another reason: atheism is not incompatible with religion. You can have a religion without theism. For example, Zen Buddhists don't believe in God, but are very religious (and sometimes they even erect displays)

No, that's atheism - "without theism". Agnosticsm is about lack of knowledge, not belief.

Anyhow, the fact that some people use agnosticsm to talk about lack of belief doesn't change the fact that many (if not most) atheists use the term to indicate simply that they don't believe in God, and they do not have "just as much a beleif as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, or any of the other major religious beleifs in the world". That's a strawman argument making assumptions on people based on what they call themselves, and is no better than me claiming that anyone who calls themselves a Christian believes in creationism and takes the story on Genesis literally.

* Bushism is a form of theism that holds that the American people, under the great leadership of George W. Bush are the only to believe in the one true God. Not the ragheads!

(From your wiki link to monotheism.)

Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.

I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.

Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.

BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.

*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.

Franco was a Catholic. However, it was very clearly Franco in charge of Spain, not the Pope. While Franco's Catholic beliefes may or may not have influened the policy of his government, that is irrelevent. The Church was not running Spain. Franco and the falangists were running Spain. Having government policy founded in a religion is not the same thing as having the Church run the State. Clearly, you do not know what a theocracy is. Plus, fuck what Jesus said. he was a god damned hippie. I'm Catholic, but whatever. Jesus also hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and terrorists. No gays tho'. And the Old Testiment said gays were bad. It boils down to this, IMHO: Sex is for reproduction. Marraige is to make legitimate children. Gays can not have children, thus have no issue of legimimacy. Therefor, gay marraige is pointless. Also, gay sex, as it can produce no chidlren, and thus is not a benefit to society in any way, is merely throwing off reason and become a desent into base animal passion, and is selfish and inhuman. This is what makes it a "sin" -- also the ass is for out only, please thankyou. Further, here is the definition of theocarcy. You don't seem to be useing it correctly:

\The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.] 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.

2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.

T-ism!? Unless there's now a religion devoted to Mr. T (who, incidentally, is now appearing regularly on a local religious station here in the south-west--I see him often as I flip past it), I believe you mean "theism." You know, the opposite of atheism.

"Co-exist, certainly" -Original post- Why couldn't God have created Evolution? This is the most plausible solution. The two ideas are not diametrically opposed. diametrically opposed ideas cannot co-exist so you and I are not so far apart. Plausible solution is a matter of opinion and as for God's ability to create evolution it would depend upon the definition of God. Thank you, "Co-exist, certainly" was my only point, and unrelated to any of the other rants proposed such as an expectation that I am a Fundamentalist Christian or that Einstein believed in anything other than theism or that science and religion are linked. We were never at a disagreement in the matter specifically at hand. "Co-exist, certainly" And as you can tell, I am interested in this. The Question I posited was one of Philosophy not Science. It is very interesting to me that the responses expected and in some cases nearly demanded certain positions from me, which I do not necessarily hold to be true. If Einstein proposed such a philosophical question, the response would be equally closed-minded. I would be interested in understanding any and all scientific truth, even if it seemed objectionable to my religious belief. I have read nothing here contradicting my beliefs. Thank you for being a steadfast opinion in this conversation but open and fair.

Why can one not believe that Creation and Evolution coexist logically? You said yourself that "belief is a personal thing" The separation of religion from science is simply the scientific process at work. Please tell me how Einstein remained a theist and produced good science? It wasn't because he was a theist or an atheist. He used reason and even his reason was motivated by a desire for theistic truth! This motivation however didn't have to destroy the scientific process. I will admit that there were times that his theism tainted his work, but any belief in any theory alters perception. The tendencies we have taint our work no matter what our design. If you would not recognize that a religious truth is possible then you eliminate the possibility from the question. This undermines the scientific method.

Atheism is equivalently irrational to theism.

I am so sick of hearing this completely ignorant and idiotic lie being spread by people who are so insecure in their faith that they need to try and drag everybody else down to their level.

A theism without belief in a god.

You were born an atheist, I was born an atheist and everybody else in the entire history of the world was born an atheist.

People who believe in a god made an active decision at some point in their life to blindly and without evidence of any sort whatsoever start believing in some god.

I have seen zero evidence for any all powerful being, and the Judeo Christian is in fact logically inconsistent. All knowing all powerful and good is a fallacy.
Further to accept that god, you have to take as gospel that he loves you, and wants you to believe in him but the only way to get on his good side is to believe blindly or he will torture you forever.

The very idea that a being who could create the universe is hung up on whether or not you will accept his existence without proof is patently ridiculous.

The idea that he made us the way we are and then said he'd fry us for eternity if we acted in accordance with that design but he's really loving so much so that in order to forgive us for acting the way he made us he would torture and murder his own son is so utterly ridiculous that were it not shoved down the throats of little children from birth, it would have died out a long time ago.

So believing insane, inconsistent things like that is a religion.
Looking at it rationally and deciding that it doesn't make sense is not in any way.

So please stop repeating those ridiculous lies.

A-ha! A deist. Though I did mean theism too, just in that grand-architect, semi-angostic way. Sorry for the ambiguity-

Your statements are misleading at best.

Geocentrism had almost nothing to do with theism or Christianity, and everything to do with the Aristotlian philosophy popular at the time. Copernicus was left entirely alone by the Church. Galileo was given a slap on the wrist mostly for having a big mouth and insulting people in high places. Both, incidentally, were theists.

The "received version" of the confrontation between Religion and Science embodied in Galileo's trial(s) is a fantastic example of a modern myth.

And in the same vein, just because we can explain it doesn't mean God didn't do it. Every natural phenomenon was once explained by saying "(a) god did it", we now have scientific explanations for most of those. There's no reason to resort to atheism just because we understand the natural process for some things.

One doesn't "resort to atheism" The default position is the one with the fewest assumptions. If phenomena can be explained equally well with and without the assumption of an omniscient being, then the intellectually honest will hold the latter position.

However you do have a point with your first statment. Just because we know that E=Mc^2 doesn't mean that we know why E=Mc^2. and you can push that back as far as you like. The question "why are the laws of physics the way they are" clearly cannot be answered with the laws of physics. However a "God" that fills this, and only this, role is dramatically different from that of any religion except perhaps taoism. That explanation is also question begging, since one may just as well ask "who created god", and "Why did god choose these laws of physics". "I don't know" is the only real answer to any of these questions.

In my mind, theism holds a place next to solipsism. You cannot disprove it, but it doesn't really get you anywhere interesting either.

Agnosticism makes perfect sense, since God as proposed by all major religions is defined as beyond proof (hence faith). Under those circumstances, saying "I don't know" is the only purely rational response.

Atheism, however, is a religion. Its adherents cling to the unprovable belief that there is no God just as vehemently as the religious cling to the unprovable belief that there is.

For all of those "they are both theories, why can't we all get along" types that have posted today :Check this out

and a repost in case of /. ing ;-)

"As of right now, neither creation nor evolution is provable. Period. I personally believe that neither will ever be provable."

This is incorrect. Evolution has been proven over and over again. The National Geographic has an excellent synopsis of Evolution by Natrual Selection in this month's issue. You should really read it. It lays out in plain language the evidence for evolution and how the theory gets confirmed over and over again by various branches of science (not just biology).

You do not take an unproven (or unprovable) hypothosis and then go looking for evidence to prove it (and ignoring evidence that does not prove it). This is not the scientific method. By this standard, Creationism is not science.

You examine the evidence, and develop a hypothosis that explains your observations. You use your hypothosis to make predictions. You let others test and examine your hypothosis. When you have a great deal of evidence, both observed and experimental, your hypothosis can then become a "theory" - a theory in scientific terms is just about equivilent to "fact" in laymans terms.

Gravity is a theory, Elctricity is a theory, Relativity is a theory. That I am sitting here typing this on the Internet proves all three.

You let the evidence take you to a conclusion, not the other way round.

Does that mean there's not God? No, not nescesarily, but it does show that the God that is portrayed in the Bible (and most other theistic religious books) does not exist. Darwin himself was studying to be an Anglican minister when he took his famous voyage on the Beagle. He followed the evidence and that evidence helped him build the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (in secret, over 15 years of gathering and examining the evidence). After that, he quietly renounced his faith. Although he was no longer a Christian, he was an agnostic, leaning toward theism - he believed that an impersonal God existed, but that once it created the universe it simply "moved on" leaving the mechanism of evolution to run.

And that is what really scares Creationists and why they cling to their beliefs so rabidly, despite the overwhelming LACK of evidence for their hypothosis - they are afraid to become Darwin. They WANT there to be a personal God of the Bible, that can interceed in our world. The idea that God doesn't exist or is impersonal takes away the psychological crutch that theistic religions give to those that need it. They WANT there to be a God so badly they will use any amount of sophistry and even violence to keep their world from being shattered. The possibility that God does not exist as they believe he should (or even exist at all) is too terrifying to even consider for them. They may have to take responsibility for themselves.

Think of the pat answer's of Creationists and Fundementalists less as arguments to people that support evloution than as mantra's sung to themselves to keep them convinced of that which the want to believe.

Of course all this simply proves that no matter how many well-supported arguments and reasons are presented, Creationists will ignore them and continue to drag out the same old arguements, no matter howmany times they are refuted.

And they dare to call themselves "scientists"..