Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

There's no difference between the two
Deities = gods. Two different words for the same thing. Synonyms in the dictionary.

That's not the difference, just an inconsistency of terminology leading to your confusion. What is being referred to is the difference between a negative belief and an absence of belief.

Most science evangelicals have a belief that there are no deities. Many others haven't had a reason or desire to consider it enough to form an opinion as to whether a deity might exist or not, and thus lack any belief at all. Both are forms of atheism.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

As been mentioned before on this forum, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Correct, but since neither can be proven by scientific method, that issue becomes moot.

That said, why believe in something if there is lack of evidence either way? And, if one must think that they should believe in it, how could they dismiss anything else? Like, say, believing in elves but dismissing the Easter Bunny?

*shrugs* Why does anyone believe anything? Why do people believe in natural human rights? Or that Karl Marx was correct? Or that Glenn Beck's political ideas are awesome sauce?

Answer: Because they feel like it and it suits them to do so. There's no other reason. All religion, philosophy, and political ideology fall in this camp: they're systems of belief with no factual basis, all with their own dogmas and doctrines.

As for your bit on hypotheses, even though the God hypothesis fails under scientific testing, there are other things that have been hypothesized and theorized that carry more weight, like gravity or electricity.

And here we have the difference. The God hypothesis fails because it is a system of belief not dependent on fact in any way, shape, or form.

Gravity and electricity? Objective physical theories based on fact and evidence. You could compare electricity and the luminiferous ether and show why evidence for one was wrong and the other was right, but that's because it involves fact.

Belief? It's just the stuff of dreams, like all such.

[FArchivist]

This is a straw man. Before trying to argue against someone's standpoint, make sure that it is actually their standpoint.

That's not a strawman. That IS the definition as is standard for all discussions on atheism. If you have a different definition that has substantial difference, by all means, lay it out. I can point to my source. What's yours?

I'm making a distinction between "lack of belief" and "a belief." Atheism is properly defined as "a lack of belief in a god or deity or deities (or any other claim)." Trying to define atheism as "a belief" in anything is misrepresenting what atheism is.

Again, from Wikipedia: Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

The position that you are taking is not what most people consider atheism, but instead call agnosticism.

Not only have I not encountered a militant atheist as you define it, I have never even heard of one. I have never heard of an atheist advocating "wip[ing] out all forms of religious belief."

I refer you to the LJ communities 'atheism' and 'antitheism' for representative examples on the internet. The snark journal atheist_fail has a decent log of events involving such. Although, to be fair, Dawkins himself has advocated the eradication of all religion and religious works in the past (though he has since modified his stance).

When you previously said

I would disagree with this stance saying that there is no universal 'good' and that 'good' is solely defined in the eye of the beholder. That there is only "good to me", thus allowing things such as "just war".

were you saying that you were saying that there is no universal good, etc., or were you saying that you thought I was saying there is no universal good, etc.? My response was based on the former. If I misunderstood, I apologize. Still, you say a lot about what you are not, but nothing about what you are.

I say there is no such animal as universal good, that universal good cannot and does not exist. If it did, we would be able to define that which is universally good. No one has simply because 'good' is relative and is defined in different ways by different people in accordance to cultural influence and life experience.

Are you saying that Catholics don't listen to the pope unless he's speaking ex cathedra? That's absurd.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that if the Pope pronounces something and he is not speaking ex cathedra, I am not required by the rules the Church set down a few thousand years ago to be bound by it.

The weight which I have to give to the pronouncement depends on many factors. For instance, type: is it a bull, a decretal, a missive, a statement, a declaration? Which title is he using? Is he speaking as the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, the Primate of Italy, the Archbishop & Metropolitan of the Roman Province, the Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, or the Servant of the Servants of God? Is this endorsed by the Curia? The Council of Bishops? The Holy Office? What do the various orders say about it?

A lot of non-Catholics think "If the Pope says it, all of Catholic Christendom follows." That's a whole bunch of hooey. There are more factions and divergence of belief in the Catholic Church that are legitimate than there are factions outside of the Catholic Church. The monolithic Church is a myth; it doesn't exist.

I'm always rather surprised that I have to explain this. But then, most non-Catholics don't bother to learn the actual history of Christianity from when the New Testament ends to today. *shrugs*

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the pope to begin with is that he has many more followers than Fred Phelps, and thus has the ability to spread his brand of superstition to many more people. And since you agree with me about the shuffling of pedophile priests, I don't understand why you're arguing with me about this one.

I would revise that to say that the Catholic Church has many more followers than Fred Phelps. The Catholic Church =/= Pope. The Pope is just the guy at the very top. He doesn't do much of the work, is mostly a figurehead, and is the result of a popularity contest.

If you want to talk about who REALLY runs the Roman Catholic Church, I would say it's a combination of the Curia, the Council of Bishops, and the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith.

I mean that the central Christian beliefs are unsupported. No one has yet demonstrated that the Christian God exists.

*shrugs* No one has demonstrated that ANY god exists. Or that they don't exist.

What? Where? You mean my mention of memes? Actually, memes were introduced in "The Selfish Gene," (an excellent book - I'd recommend it to anyone) and that's where most of my introduction to memes comes from. Yes, memes are mentioned in "The God Delusion," but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

What you are using is basically Dawkins' theories on religion, which he believes is a memetic virus. That memes exist at all is a subject that is disputed by semiotic theorists, but memes are a popular idea of the day.

At any rate, you do a good job of presenting Dawkins' arguments, but you don't seem to have developed any other arguments from another source. I recommend you to "The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer" as an excellent starting point.

Until a belief system makes a testable claim. Then it moves itself into the realm covered by science and can be tested using science.

A belief system can make a testable claim about a scientific fact, which can then be tested.

However, a belief system ITSELF cannot be tested at all. If it can, it stops being a belief system, period, and becomes a factual hypothesis. The very nature of ANY belief system, as all are completely subjective and without objective underpinning, prevents testing.

Or more succinctly: "There is no way to scientifically measure faith. Or love. Or happiness. Or..."

Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

I recommend trying torrents. I personally use Demonoid.

No, charity work is one of the reasons other organizations are given tax-exempt status. I don't consider any of the reasons you listed as valid reasons to give an organization tax-exempt status.

Except we're not talking about other organizations, we're talking about why churches are tax-exempt. As I said, a church is made tax-exempt purely in recognition of separation of church and state. You can consider that to be an invalid reason, but you haven't told me WHY recognition of separation of church and state is an invalid reason to provide tax-exempt status.

I would also like to note that charity work is NOT the only reason tax exemption is given for non-churches. You can become tax exempt if you are a governmental entity, a pension scheme, an educational institution, or any other type of "not for profit" entity. Charity work isn't a requirement. That's why classes 501(c)(4) through 501(c)(27) exist. Also, this is why churches must also conform to 509(a)(1), 509(a)(2), and 509(a)(3). See the IRS documentation on tax exemption for full details.

Duh. But since that's not what atheists are actually claiming, that's irrelevant. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. That's all. Did you actually watch the video I linked?

1) Actually, yes, that is what the standard definition of atheism claims.

2) The video that you linked is very sophomoric and does a great job of confusing agnosticism with atheism. It wouldn't make it in a college-level discussion of what is atheism.

Look, it's like this: I don't believe in Yahweh, Jehovah (those two are the same, as far as I can tell), Allah, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, or any other god that's ever been described to me. Nor do I believe in angels, demons, ghosts, dragons, unicorns, or fairies. You said you were Catholic, so you believe in at least one of those. You are an atheist towards all the others. I am an atheist towards one more.

Wow, no, that's totally wrong. I can't be "atheist toward all the others." Atheism allows NO belief in religion, period. That is the definition of atheism.

As a Catholic, I would consider Vishnu or the Greek gods or whatever as pagan. Pagan, from the Christian perspective, refers to any religion outside of the Abrahamic (or if you prefer, Judeochrislamic) religions.

Allah as seen by the Muslims or Yahweh as seen by the Jews would be considered heretical or at the very very best heterodox.

If I wasn't sure that ANY deity or religion actually existed, but I couldn't say for sure that they didn't, then I would be defined as an agnostic.

I don't know where you got your definitions from, but they do not match the standard terminology used in comparative studies of religion and philosophy, including the philosophy of atheism.

What you are broadly painting as atheism is actually atheism, nontheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, antitheism or secular humanism depending on the argument used.

[Ipecac Drano]

Correct, but since neither can be proven by scientific method, that issue becomes moot.

What I had said was a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.

*shrugs* Why does anyone believe anything? Why do people believe in natural human rights? Or that Karl Marx was correct? Or that Glenn Beck's political ideas are awesome sauce?

There are differences between a set of morals and a fantasy animal.

Answer: Because they feel like it and it suits them to do so. There's no other reason. All religion, philosophy, and political ideology fall in this camp: they're systems of belief with no factual basis, all with their own dogmas and doctrines.

Well, you're 67% correct.

[Ghel]

FArchivist, your definition of atheism is a straw man. You're mauling the English language. Until you accept the definition that atheists themselves use, we have nothing to talk about.

How can we have a conversation when I look at an overcast sky and say, "It's not raining," and you respond, "You're telling me the sky is clear"?

Wow, Andara, I almost agree with you. But what is a "science evangelical"? From the words, I'd guess it was "a person who promotes science as the best way of learning about the universe." But that doesn't make sense from the context.

It's true that scientists tend to be less religious than the general populous, but that doesn't mean that they have a positive belief that no gods exist.

[FArchivist]

FArchivist, your definition of atheism is a straw man. You're mauling the English language. Until you accept the definition that atheists themselves use, we have nothing to talk about.

No, it is not a strawman. I am GIVING the definition atheists use and commonly agree on. Proof follows:

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition:

Atheism: 1a) a disbelief in the existence of deity 1b) the doctrine that there is no deity

This definition is backed by:
- Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
- Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359
- Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
- "Definitions: Atheism". Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama.
- Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael T. ed. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 56

Stated by the following prominent atheists:

- Omar Khayyám
- Thomas Hobbes: Of Religion, from Leviathan
- David Hume
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
- John Stuart Mills
- Karl Marx
- Charles Darwin
- Anatole France:
- Mark Twain
- Joseph Conrad
- Thomas Hardy
- H P Lovecraf
- H L Mencken
- Sigmund Freud
- Albert Einstein
- George Orwell
- Bertrand Russell
- Carl Sagan
- John Updike
- Michael Shermer
- Charles Templeton
- Richard Dawkins
- Elizabeth Anderson
- Penn Jillette
- Salman Rushdie
- Karl Rove
- Richard Stallman

I can cite the EXACT passages where these atheists follow the definition I give. I have personally heard it from the lips of Richard Dawkins and Penn Jillette. I have NEVER encountered an actual atheist who uses the definition you use.

If your definition is correct, I want the dictionary you got it from and/or the sources who give it that way.

Some words to the wise:
- It's not a strawman.
- If you're going to take a position in an argument/debate, don't weasel your way out using deflection, redirection, and
- Don't think that just because I'm a theist that I don't know what I'm talking about; I've argued FOR atheism before and I've researched it well.
- If you're going to take Richard Dawkins' position, don't contradict the definition of atheism Richard Dawkins uses.

Y'know, you might want to learn what the difference between agnosticism and atheism is, the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and the difference between strong and weak atheism.

Wow, Andara, I almost agree with you. But what is a "science evangelical"? From the words, I'd guess it was "a person who promotes science as the best way of learning about the universe." But that doesn't make sense from the context.

A "science evangelist" promotes the scientific method and products of science as being the only relevant mode of thought. In its most strict form, science fundamentalism excludes any thought or media involving fiction or belief not founded in science fact, such as most art, fantasy novels, etc.

[Ghel]

Y'know, you might want to learn what the difference between agnosticism and atheism is, the difference between implicit and explicit atheism, and the difference between strong and weak atheism.

Actually, you might want to learn the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Gnosticism/agnosticism discusses knowledge claims, while theism/atheism discusses belief claims. They are different, but overlapping, realms. Someone can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist (though they're rare), or an agnostic atheist.

I don't have a problem if somebody wants to label themselves "agnostic," even if I consider them atheist. But I will not have someone who doesn't even share my philosophy dictating to me what I can or can't label myself.

Throughout this thread, you have been trying to tell me that weak atheism isn't atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the default category for all people, before they are introduced to the concept of gods. You must understand this if you're asking me to understand the difference between strong and weak atheism.

[Cata]

Actually, you might want to learn the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Gnosticism/agnosticism discusses knowledge claims, while theism/atheism discusses belief claims. They are different, but overlapping, realms. Someone can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist (though they're rare), or an agnostic atheist.

Throughout this thread, you have been trying to tell me that weak atheism isn't atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the default category for all people, before they are introduced to the concept of gods. You must understand this if you're asking me to understand the difference between strong and weak atheism.

What you're saying is correct in only the most narrow, pedantic of definitions, and only within the framework provided by those definitions. In the broader sense, you're wrong.

In common usage, atheism is a clear, specific position taken by the affirmative refutation of the existence of gods. The position is, quite simply, that there is no god or gods.

Similarly, in common usage, agnosticism is a broader term, covering both nonspecific belief ("I believe that there is a god, but not as any religions define him/her/it") and a general sense of acknowledging possibilities ("I believe that it's possible that a god, or gods, exist").

Strictly speaking, only agnosticism is a logical position - every other religious-based position, including atheism, requires faith to sustain it. That's not to say that the other positions are inherently "wrong" or "bad" - just that they require more than just logic to reach that position. It requires a leap of faith to go from, "There might not be a god," to, "There is no god." There is no proof of this lack, and therefore there is no evidence with which to form a logical statement.

[FArchivist]

What you're saying is correct in only the most narrow, pedantic of definitions, and only within the framework provided by those definitions. In the broader sense, you're wrong.

And Cata gets it in one. Ding, we have a winner.

Ghel, if you want me to take you seriously, you have to use the terminology that EVERYONE ELSE in the wide world uses, not your own definition of what is and is not atheism. Otherwise, you're just straight trolling.

[FArchivist]

What I had said was a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.

Science itself can deal with philosophical considerations, as can anthropology and psychology.

There are differences between a set of morals and a fantasy animal.

But both are made-up creatures of the mind, figments of imagination. That is all that matters to me.

Well, you're 67% correct.

Don't tell me; you think political ideology ISN'T a matter of belief, correct?

[Hyena Dandy]

Ghel, I've given up arguing the definistion of Atheism with you, because that's a zero-sum game. But could you possibly tell me what strawman you see us tilting at now?

[Gravekeeper]

This is a fascinating, but headache inducing thread to read through. Which really has flown off the rails of the original intention me thinks. This particular sub forum also has a propensity to de-evolve into debates over semantics and terms it seems. >.>

I will offer only a handful of points for consideration:

1) Extremism is bad regardless of the viewpoint or belief in question and is never excused by said viewpoint or belief.

2) Pointing out how much odour the other side's shit emits in no way perfumes your own side's.

3) Every belief or viewpoint will end up having extremists. They may be drafted by different teams but they all came from the same training camp. I look at them as their own little team onto itself regardless of what they're trying to champion.

4) Glenn Beck is a fantasy animal.

[Ipecac Drano]

Science itself can deal with philosophical considerations, as can anthropology and psychology.

To a point.

But both are made-up creatures of the mind, figments of imagination. That is all that matters to me.

Then your world should be a lonely one.

Don't tell me; you think political ideology ISN'T a matter of belief, correct?

Don't tell me; you think that the whole world is based on set logic and absolutes, yes?

[Ghel]

Ghel, I've given up arguing the definistion of Atheism with you, because that's a zero-sum game. But could you possibly tell me what strawman you see us tilting at now?

The strawman is exactly that: that the theists in this thread keep trying to tell me how to define my own philosophy. Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.

Here's my last attempt to get you guys to see it correctly. The prefix "a-" means "lack of" or "without." The word "theism" means "belief in a god or gods." Therefore, "atheism" means "lack of or without a belief in a god or gods." Even if you go back to the original greek "atheos," which literally means "without gods," still says nothing about a positive belief that there are no gods.

If you guys refuse to learn the English language, then we have no basis on which to have a discussion.

[Gravekeeper]

The strawman is exactly that: that the theists in this thread keep trying to tell me how to define my own philosophy. Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.

This is not a strawman, this is a strangely vehement argument over semantics and terminology that even I gave up following a few pages ago. I'm not even sure what either side is arguing about anymore. Nor do I want to be informed. -.-

Atheism, or specifically the root atheos is "Without god". Can we not just agree Atheists don't believe in the existence of anyone's Sky Wizard and resume whatever the original debate was? -.-