Slashdot Mirror

Both theism and *atheism* require faith in the face of a lack of evidence.

Atheism is a-theism, non-theism. Anyone who doesn't believe in God, is an atheist.

Agnosticism is a position of logic based upon a lack of evidence. Logic is more characteristic of science.

Belief you can't logically support any other position is still belief. The "evidence" points to all positions being right, just depending on you weight the evidence, and there's nothing "logical" about how to weight the evidence.

"Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?"

That's a deliberate conflation of Communism with a-theism. Being theism-free does not imply ANY other ideology or spirituality at all.

Communists wanted power, saw theism correctly as a competitor for power (The Tsars and church were what ruled and ruined Russia to the point that Communism looked like a good solution), and used ANTI-theist Communist ideology to justify destroying their opponents. Communism only takes hold when its predecessors fail, so one might rightly blame the Tsarist state and the church for bringing on the deluge.

Buddhism is sometimes described as "non-theistic", but since the "a-" in "athiesm" means "without-", the difference between non-theism and a-theism is pretty darned subtle.

"Atheism" (or A-Theism, for clarity, for those who have never thought about it) is NOT "the absence of belief in the existence of God" but is rather the belief that no God exists. These are VERY different ideas. YOUR (incorrect) definition is more closely related to "Agnosticism".

Try again.

Atheists are not intellectually honest and tend to be simply people who are hostile toward the religious people in society. Agnostics are intellectually respectable, asserting that they do not personally believe there is a God but admitting they cannot prove that case.

A fantastic comment modded down. So sad. We truly are living in the age of reputation. Even a scoundrel should be applauded when he speaks truth to power.
Not that you are a scoundrel, but that the person who modded down this comment is probably doing so because of your username and reputation rather than the comment itself (or it's a ZOG astroturfer, which is always a possibility).

Your comment is right on the money. Most people, on both sides of the aisle, have become accustomed to and have developed a taste for legislation from the bench. I have been guilty of that in the past. In addition, witch hunts are as popular as ever and the media, being fairly controlled at this point, decides truth. Tribalism is growing stronger; it's obvious to anyone who has been actually watching to see. Even your comment is downvoted, because someone assumed, based on your background, that it supports the side they don't like. The merit of the content was not even a consideration. The majority of people are not even using that part of their brain on a routine basis.

Real talk: where do we go from here? I don't have strong tribal feelings; never have. I feel allegiance to righteousness and truth. All men are my allies unless they determine to be an adversary. Social structures like cities and countries are a logistical boon, especially as a hedge against tyranny, and loyalty has value but only within reason. That's why it was: God then country. First loyalty is to truth and righteousness, then country. But today, it doesn't work like that, Is it because God is dead? I though a-theism was all about "good without God". Did the secularization of the West miss that step? I digress.

Is there a solution, or should I just stuff some gold under my mattress until I can run off with enough to live the rest of my days on an island or secluded in the woods, separate from the unhuman modern world (ironically, in less human world myself)?

Thank you, you're very kind. (Wow, don't get to say *that* here very often!)

The only solution I see is to try to find those who are at least willing to listen, and attempt to find things we can agree on and work on those things while searching for the next thing(s) we can agree to work together on.

We need to work starting from the most basic of principles, those simple principles we learn in kindergarten and pre-school, things which are the least difficult to agree upon, and gradually work from there to build bridges to those whose minds are open enough to logic and reason to make it possible.

We must keep in mind that it is identity politics and "intersectionality" which are the enemies, not those who are their victims.

Strat

A fantastic comment modded down. So sad. We truly are living in the age of reputation. Even a scoundrel should be applauded when he speaks truth to power.
Not that you are a scoundrel, but that the person who modded down this comment is probably doing so because of your username and reputation rather than the comment itself (or it's a ZOG astroturfer, which is always a possibility).

Your comment is right on the money. Most people, on both sides of the aisle, have become accustomed to and have developed a taste for legislation from the bench. I have been guilty of that in the past. In addition, witch hunts are as popular as ever and the media, being fairly controlled at this point, decides truth. Tribalism is growing stronger; it's obvious to anyone who has been actually watching to see. Even your comment is downvoted, because someone assumed, based on your background, that it supports the side they don't like. The merit of the content was not even a consideration. The majority of people are not even using that part of their brain on a routine basis.

Real talk: where do we go from here? I don't have strong tribal feelings; never have. I feel allegiance to righteousness and truth. All men are my allies unless they determine to be an adversary. Social structures like cities and countries are a logistical boon, especially as a hedge against tyranny, and loyalty has value but only within reason. That's why it was: God then country. First loyalty is to truth and righteousness, then country. But today, it doesn't work like that, Is it because God is dead? I though a-theism was all about "good without God". Did the secularization of the West miss that step? I digress.

Is there a solution, or should I just stuff some gold under my mattress until I can run off with enough to live the rest of my days on an island or secluded in the woods, separate from the unhuman modern world (ironically, in less human world myself)?

"[...]agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic"

You have asserted this, but have not provided any valid argument as to why it is the case.

You have claimed that a non-thiestic philosophy is not compatible with a society valuing personal integrity or analytical skills. Why is this? Can you provide examples?

(by examples, I refer to ones where the non-theism is the cause, not the correlate, the behaviour in question)

The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".

Aside from what the AC said - etymology is not the end of word knowledge. (A-theos)ism is an ism that is about a without-ness of god. A(theos-ism) is a lack of an ism about existence of god. Word coiners didn't consider scopes of their prefix a- or suffix -ism : so it can be used in both senses. If you want to be clear, be clear instead of harping on a single word. Not only can it be used in both senses, it is, if you read the literature.

Both gnosticism and theism effectively describe the same thing - religious beliefs and religious knowledge

Highly mistaken. In as much as gnosticism refers to religious ideas, God (and similar entities in different religions) is neither sufficient nor necessary for a religion. Original Buddhism was an atheistic religion. Clearly it was not agnostic, because it had religious ideas. On the other hand, belief that there is a God but doesn't ask you really to do anything particular is a largely held belief. This is a theism mixed with agnosticism.

Gnosticism has also referred to spiritual knowledge, not just religious ideas. In that sense too, it is compatible but not inseparable with theism.

> No, atheism is the lack of a belief. The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".

Well, without bickering about the various definitions of "atheism" (whole books have been written about it), historically is has meant denial of the existence of God, up until around the Enlightenment.

The root is "a-theos" ("without God") with an -ism attached to it.

I'm all for considering different viewpoints and nuances, but the upshot is the same, in that if you ask a small-a atheist (lacking belief) or "strong" (explicit) Atheist "do you believe in God?" they will both answer "no."

Atheism is a belief based on an unsubstantiated claim and as such is no different than religion.

No, atheism is the lack of a belief. The prefix "a" means "without". A-theism. Literally "without theism".

Agnosticism: being smart and sane enough to admit that you don't fucking know.

And in this case, the prefix "a" still means "without". A-gnosticism. Literally " without knowledge".

Ironically enough, the term "gnosticism" itself refers to religious ideas. Both gnosticism and theism effectively describe the same thing - religious beliefs and religious knowledge. So saying you're an atheist is saying you have no religious beliefs, and saying you're agnostic is saying that you have no religious knowledge.

Unfortunately you don't get to be a smug holier-than-thou douche if you acknowledge that the terms are essentially identical, so many people like to pretend that atheism is some strong antireligious ideology, while agnosticism is a middle-of-the-road kind of "open mindedness".

They also like to ignore the fact that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can have belief but not knowledge, or have no belief and no knowledge.

The Inquisition killed about 3,000 people over the course of 350 years.

"The inquisition" comprises a combined series of undertakings beginning with Pope Lucius III's instigation in 1184 CE and terminating in 1834 CE - a span of about 650 years. The Spanish Inquisition was one chapter of this, but by no means can be reasonably considered an isolated or peak event.

Perhaps you'll find this of interest.

Historically speaking, Christianity, between the inquisitions, the crusades, the pograms, blood libel, and just general oppression of various and sundry kinds, has a great deal of theism-based violence to answer for.

Except it doesn't.

A - without
theism

a-theism

> Yes. Atheism is a belief about the nature of god

Incorrect. You are failing to understand the etymology of 'a'

variant of an-.before a consonant, meaning âoenot,â âoewithoutâ:
amoral; atonal; achromatic.

not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial
Word Origin
from Greek a-, an- not, without

Theism: has belief in God
A-Theism: has no belief in God

Gnostic: has experiential knowledge
A-Gnostic: has no experiential knowledge

--
The Atheist is the blind man saying "There is no such thing as color because I can't see it or prove it." From his limited perspective he is correct !
The Theist is the color-blind man saying "I have Faith there is more then monochromatic color because others says so."
The Agnostic is the blind man saying "The Theist or Gnostic could be right but I personally don't know. "
The Gnostic is the man who fully sees in color. Everyone else thinks he is crazy because others lack the frame of reference to even understand the answer let alone the question.

Atheists believe there is no god or equivalent higher being

You're committing the same fault as the post you are replying to - except with the other half. A-theism means lack of belief. Atheists don't believe there is no god, they just don't believe there is one. *Some* atheists are convinced there is no god, others hold the question open, like they would for e.g. the existence of extra-terrestrial life - "I'll believe it when I see it".

It is a belief. It is an affirmative belief. It might qualify as a religion or creed depending on how you define those words.

There are traditionally philosophical distinctions made between "strong" (or "positive") atheism vs. "weak" (or "negative") atheism. "Strong atheists" have a positive belief that no gods exist. Most atheists are merely "weak atheists," who don't actively believe in gods -- and may think they sound unlikely -- but don't have an (unprovable) belief in their non-existence. Lack of belief in something doesn't necessarily entail a positive (and equally unprovable) belief in an opposite.

It is a belief because you can't prove something doesn't exist. It's a consequence of logic. All reason is necessarily based on a foundation of beliefs.

This is a bit of a different issue, which is more related to the traditional definition of agnosticism. A traditional agnostic is someone who has a positive belief that the answers to some questions are unknowable. ("Gnostic" refers to knowledge, an agnostic believes that one can't have that knowledge.)

These days the word "agnostic" is often used for weak atheism, but it's actually a separate issue. An agnostic traditionally is someone who believes we CANNOT know whether God exists -- it's just not a question that can be verified one way or another on the basis of normal empirical evidence. (Philosophers sometimes draw a distinction between "strong" and "weak" agnosticism too.)

An agnostic is someone that neither believes in the supernatural nor does not believe in it. They are undecided or uncommitted.

Again, that's not the word traditionally meant. What you're describing is what philosophers and theologians would generally call weak atheism (i.e., lack of a "theist" belief, hence a-theism). Agnosticism is about what we ALL could possibly know on the basis of evidence, and whether we have sufficient grounds to justify belief, not about whether an individual believes or not.

People colloquially use the label atheist when they mean a person that atheist or agnostic since to them both are guilty.

Agreed, though as I noted -- there are even more distinctions that you make. Using these terms the way philosophers would, it's quite possible to be a gnostic atheist (i.e., a person who has a positive belief that God by definition doesn't exist and believes that he has certain knowledge of this fact), or an agnostic theist (i.e., a person who believes that God exists, but believes it is outside the possibility of science to prove it), or even other stranger combinations.

Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.

This is again a separate issue. If I were dying of starvation, I'd definitively prey on animals to survive... sure.

I am not confusing "there is no god" (said an atheist) with "there is no god" (objectively).

You did confuse them when you said (emphasis mine):

Ask these atheists who "lack belief": "Is there a god?"
Anything other than "No" makes them an ex-atheist.

When you said the emphasized text, you were claiming any other answer to "is there a god" would automatically make someone not an atheist. My contention is if you asked an atheist who is giving a perfectly accurate response, it would almost never be NO. Saying NO would be a very common but also slightly inaccurate answer. (inaccurate in the sense that it isn't really what most atheists believe)

While it is only a slightly inaccurate answer, that small discrepancy is actually very important when comparing theism to non-theism. One side makes an absolute statement: There is a god. The other does not make an absolute statement, like any answer based on available evidence instead of faith should almost never do. It is one of the big differences between an unsubstantiated belief that anchors a full misguided belief system, and a well educated belief.

A true and sincere Atheist would have simply ignored the comment.

And a true and sincere non-stamp collector would never lick the back of their stamps but only use a wet sponge...

The problem with categorizing atheism (a-theism) as a religious belief, is that it invariably leads to everybelief, and every non belief, being classified as a religion, and that's simply not a useful taxonomy.

"a-theism meaning non theism is not the same as atheism the cultural construct" No it doesn't. Unless its you constructing it, in which case you're just changing it to fit your claim. That's tautology at best.

atheism isn't am Etymological Fallacy. It's a fact that it isn't a religion, it isn't predicated on anything other than the lack of belief in god.

"atheism as it exists" is the lack of belief in a god. Someone doesn't believe in god, but DOES believe in Spirits. Or Astrology. Or homeopathy. NONE of those manage naturalism nor empiricism, but aren't beliefs in god.

Atheism as it exists is the lack of belief in god.

You can become atheist solely by the fact that you've never experienced god as claimed should be happening. Nothing about naturalism there.

You can become atheist solely by the fact that the religion you USED to be in, when investigated, made absolutely no moral sense whatsoever. Nothing about empiricism there.

Culturally, everyone is an atheist at birth. We need indoctrination in "God's Existence" before we become part of a religion.

The only method that is atheism is asking someone "Why should I believe your faith is correct rather than someone else's?". And that cannot be "personal revelation". It can't be reference to a Holy Book. It can't be that because THEY have just as valid a claim to those things as YOU do.

And the ONLY reason for doing that is because we *want to find out if we're wrong*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

a-theism meaning non theism is not the same as atheism the cultural construct. When people talk of atheism they mean the cultural construct, atheism as it exists not atheism as it might exist in theory.

" No, atheism does NOT constitute a set of beliefs

Of course it does."

No it does not.

"Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism."

No it doesn't. It states that there is no belief of a god in that person. Just like being bald doesn't mean a belief in empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism, because they're relying on accepting what they can see on the subject of their head of hair.

"I don't think you know what the definition of a religion is."

You went on about what atheism was in your completely made up opinion, based on your misapprehension of it, and your desire to make it conform to your expectations, then leapt to definitions of religion????

You don't seem to know what theism is: it's belief in a god personality. A-theism is the lack of belief in any god. Virgin birth doesn't define theism, nor does it define atheism. Virgin birth doesn't even define what Christianity is, since Christianity is merely the assertion that Jesus Christ was the the messiah from god. Virgin birth merely defines ONE SECT of christianity.

I do know what religion is.

religion/rld()n/
noun

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

And I know what atheism is.

atheism/ez()m/
noun

        disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And atheism isn't a religion.