Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
A-theist. As in, I don't believe that theism is the way to arrive at an understanding of God/the universe. I think that physics is much closer, though I think established science is almost as political as religion.
By Techno-Pagan, I mean that I hold Nature to be sacred, and believe that we, as humans, our language, and our technology are all part of a path to a more ordered universe. That, in essence, we are the ancestorsof God.
"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 religionsgive 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.
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.
Not at all. Atheism is the absence of theism - the absence of a belief in a G-d on the middle-eastern monotheistic model. Agnosticism is the absence of gnosticism - the doctrine of direct knowledge of the divine. Quite different things.
The irony is that 'orthodox' religious folks are agnostics, although they generally don't realise it.
exactly what did happen? we may never know...in fact, i dont think it's at all possible to "know" exactly what did happen. but, despite the plethora of "evidence", one cant but help to consult anchient texts. they were the ones closer in time to those happenings, right? well, then maybe there actually was a flood. i mean, it would explain for alot of the deep earth wells that are still settling deeper, but should be much deeper had the earth really been so old. also, most fossils are easily explained due to the millions of tons of water pressure, not to mention the formation of the grand canyon. of course, a flood may suggest a young earth, due to the erosions that havent happened...but even that is speculative. really, all we can do is look at the facts of our current state, and make an assumption based upon them, so there really is no purely "scientific" way to do history. there will always be a bias firmly placed by initial orientations, just as Evolution pushes atheism, Creationism pushes theism. with that said, there really is no way to properly decide for everone which is correct. this is the exact reason why i feel deeply uneased at the development of Evolution accepted as "fact" among the scientific/educational ranks, despite the numerous holes and inconsistencies that are present, rather than placing the proper "Theory" label to it, as there is no way to prove history like the rest of science.
there may never be a settlement on this issue, but those are my 2 bits for now
I would tend to agree. Atheism is not anti-theism. An atheist understands the universe as not requiring God to explain it, putting a scientific standard above a religious one. An agnostic tends to give both views more-or-less equal weight and is looking for evidence to tip the balance.
The scientific view of religion is not atheism. The scientific view is agnosticism and simplicity.
Dude, set down the bong, and step away from the keyboard. Lets take a look at that statement.
First, the scientific view of religion is that it exists. Heck there is even a whole scientific study of it... It's called theology...
There are a lot of scientists who belong to and practice religions. All sorts of religions...
What you are arguing is "the scientific view of God (theism) is not that God doesn't exist (atheism), but that they don't know (agnosticism), and that simple explanations for the universe tend to be correct (Occams razor).
Many scientists argue from the premise of "God", Einstien "god doesn't play dice", Sagan "Otherwise it would be a waste of space", and plenty of others especially, when attempting the big physics questions of the very large and the very small.
As to religion, the practice and rituals around a persons relationship with thier diety, has naught to do with science, but may very well have everything to do with reality (Pascal's wager).
Some do, some don't, assuming by "awfully religious" you mean "irrational and emotional", and not actually "religious".
Agnostics are actually a subset of atheists. Atheists are those without theism. Agnostics (according to the original definition, at least) aren't theists either, but they further believe that they can't make a default assumption one way or the other. Most people who choose to call themselves atheists consider the existence of god(s) to be less likely than most who choose to call themselves agnostics, but it's not necessarily the case. And I think it's more accurate to say that people are born atheist, and not specifically agnostic: if you haven't even heard of the idea of a deity, you can be an atheist (without theism), but you can't be an agnostic (someone who has heard of both positions and can't choose between them).
Why would you only mention that the Greek's theism was "mythology"?
:-)
Simple. I have no other name for it. Should I call it "Greek Religion"? No one would know what I'm talking about. How about "Greekism"? Still, not on target. "The teachings of Homer" would be the closest I could get.
To a atheist (myself included), these other theisms are also mythological.
Fine. Then have a discussion about how they arose, their effect on society, and why people believe in them.
Whether you like it or not, Christianity, Muslim, Jewish, Greek Mythology, Buddism, and other religions all have played a strong part in history.
Why would you only mention that the Greek's theism was "mythology"?
To a atheist (myself included), these other theisms are also mythological.
Trying to imply otherwise is a (thinly veiled) attempt at providing them legitimacy.
Unless this is your goal, I suggest you cease giving any theism its desired authority by differentiating their collective mythology as anything more than that.
No, it isn't. It's a lack of belief in the existence of God -- that's what atheism means -- "without theism". To an extent, the term "agnostic" has encroached on that definition (which is different from its original meaning; "agnosticism" was more of a belief that the question is intrinsically unresolvable). The typical atheist doesn't think he can prove God doesn't exist or something, or even that he necessarily believes that God doesn't exist; he just hasn't seen any evidence for it, and in the absence of evidence, you choose not to believe it.
Would you people please quit repeating this stupid crap?
Pretty please.
It is absolutely false.
A - without
theism - belief in god(s)
An atheist is somebody without a belief in a god or gods. That's it.
Some people might be more militant about it, but that has nothing to do with what the word means or how it fits into reality.
Everybody is born an atheist. Everybody. The Pope, those people on your college campus yelling at you that you're going to hell, Bush, everybody.
It is the natural state.
At some point everybody who now believes in some particular god was taught about it through some means ( most often their parents tell them it's absolute truth from the time they're born ) and they started believing that that was true.
I personally, have never seen anything to convince me that an all powerful, all knowing creature who is at the same time good is even possible in this universe. If you choose to believe that, then that is your business, but the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one claiming such a thing exists. This isn't to say that you have some burden to try and convince me, just that the fact is that you are the one who is proposing something as true, not me.
In fact you are proposing something as true with zero evidence and a built in requirement that it shall have zero evidence and that it has to be accepted as such.
That is a religion. Not choosing to believe such a thing is in no way, shape, or form religious.
So nobody chooses to be an Atheist (at least initially. Some people have gone back and forth) they just are until and unless they make some other choice.
Do you get it?
Please stop repeating that mindless mantra which has no basis in reality.
Yeah, maybe if you scroll down to like the fourth definition. Try, for instance, "The service and worship of god or the supernatural". (Heck, most nominally religious people don't pursue their religion with zeal or devotion.) The definition you use is a very broad sense, such as a "a religious Linux zealot", not what most people mean if they ask if someone is religious.
Even accepting your definition, that's nonsense. While there are militant atheists, "atheism" isn't something that the average atheists "pursues with zeal or devotion". It's not any more a religion than "not-believing-in-purple-unicorns" is a religion.
Of course, atheism has interesting relationships to religion, i.e. theism, and they are interesting to discuss, but that doesn't make it a religion.
Actually, atheism cannot be considered a religion at all; it's very name a: not and theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods excludes it from religion: belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator of the universe altogether.
/pedantic diatribe
If you want to call it a belief system, I'm happy to agree with you; atheism is very much a belief system. it is not, however, a religion.
I think you are suffering from logical problems.
Your definition of atheism is false because it fails to exclude or distinguish itself from agnosticism (which is the lack of belief in the existence of gods).
You must say "atheists do not believe in the existence of god(s)". You may not say "atheists lack the belief in god(s)" because that definition would include agnostics.
Your definition would require that we provide the same convenience to the theists, whereupon agnosticism will disappear entirely.
Please stop trying to reform Atheism. It's as dead as Theism.
I think your getting lost on a semantic difference.
Belief in 0 gods is different than 0 belief in gods. The first is a specific belief, the second a lack of belief.
Consider amoral vs immoral the two are often confused yet amoral means without consideration for morals wereas immoral means in violation of morals.
It's the difference between without a thing and against a thing.
Many religeous types decide if you don't explicitly support a god you must therefore be against god, this failure of understanding (often deliberate) is what he assumed in your case.
Agnostic, IIRC, implies a lack of sufficient knowledge/understanding know/believe for or against theism in specific or general. Which logicaly is where all interested parties (those that care about theism) should place themselves given that the premis usually put forth require far more capability than a human mind is capable of. Personaly given what the major religeons state about thier gods and doctrines I find it all a bit silly to claim to have THE answer moreso than any other religeon when no-one is capable of evaluating the claim.
Mycroft
Last time I checked, you do what you would ordinarily do without bothering with religion. It's relaxing.
That aside, I do think that strong atheism gets fairly close to religion, in that it's a firmly held belief with no factual base - just like theism. But weak atheism is nowhere near that, it's as much a religion as baldness is a hairstyle. You should at least make a distinction between them.
There is a sort of middle position which, while at its core is weak atheism, dismisses the existance of god(s) as so improbable as not to be worthy of serious consideration. See Invisible Pink Unicorn for a good example of this kind of thinking.
As usual, Wikipedia gives good information.
And that, friends, is how this conversation is somehow vaguely on topic. I was starting to wonder.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
How exactly does one pursue atheism?
That aside, I do think that strong atheism gets fairly close to religion, in that it's a firmly held belief with no factual base - just like theism. But weak atheism is nowhere near that, it's as much a religion as baldness is a hairstyle. You should at least make a distinction between them.
As usual, Wikipedia gives good information.
I think it would be nice if we could all agree on our definitions of atheism and agnosticism.
I'm coming in pretty late to this discussion, I know, and others have already made very good points in an effort to distinguish the essential difference between agnosticism and atheism, but let me just add my $0.02 to the kitty:
atheism has long been held as a stance in opposition to theism and is definable as a belief system. As someone already pointed out, it is a simple negation of the belief.
Agnosticism takes a neutral stance and, as Huxley has so adequately described, abjures from statements that are unknowable.
The "weak atheism" is, to me, a revisionist effort of atheists that have over time become aware of the weakness inherent to a strong stance against the existence of god but are too stubborn minded to simply change adjectives. Who knows, maybe they just don't want to give up a nice domain name or something.
My point exactly. Which one(s) you choose is a related but separate issue.
Whether or not these fall into the category of 'theism,' or how the various subvarieties should be defined would be an important part of any such discussion.
Really, Theism? Gosh the founding of this country was by those who escaped religous persecution, but 200 yrs later they suffer the same fate from a panel of judges from their own nation. A-Fing-Mazing. The Founding Fathers (and Mothers) must be spinning in thier graves. It is well known that the Founding Fathers wished this nation to rely on spiritual guidance as did they. I gueess the next thing to go will be the opening Prayer for Congress. Can't have any religous aspects in Government can we? I surely can't see RESPECTING the ROLE of Relgion in our nation past and present that the Gov't is PROMOTING any TYPE of Relgion. That Amendment was written so that ANY legitimate sect or organization could practice Religion in the US of A. In other words, Bhuddists and Baptists are both welcome. This amemdment , along with the First Amendment ("free speech") are so misunderstood. I lay that at the feet of the liberal History teachers and also at the feet of the parents who don't correct the doggerel taught in the schools. What's next, the Nazi's and 9-11 Terrorists were the "good guys"?