Atheism or antitheism?

[Achilles]

Well, UFO and faerie believers call the rest of us all non-believers. Atheism is just a fancier term for 'non-believer in God'. People who don't believe in God are going to get called something, and 'atheism' is a lot shorter than 'people who don't believe in God'.

Right, but before those people adopted beliefs in UFO and/or fairies, they didn't have a belief either way. They didn't come out of the womb believing in UFOs or fairies; it was a belief they acquired during their lifetime. When they adopted the belief they gained the label. It seems a little weird that we have a term for someone that goes back to that initial state (or never leaves it in the first place).

[Nancy Allen``]

Is there something you would rather be called? Or not called anything at all? Any ideas?

[Jae Onasi]

Right, but before those people adopted beliefs in UFO and/or fairies, they didn't have a belief either way. They didn't come out of the womb believing in UFOs or fairies; it was a belief they acquired during their lifetime. When they adopted the belief they gained the label. It seems a little weird that we have a term for someone that goes back to that initial state (or never leaves it in the first place).

 

The difference is that we have an innate sense of God from birth. We don't have an innate sense of UFOs. Take a lightswitch analogy--you're saying the belief switch is there or it's not. I'm saying the belief lightswitch is either on or off, but it's always been there. Hence the reason and need for the atheist term.

 

Getting people to drop the term now is about as possible as you dropping atheism and me dropping theism anyway. People simply aren't going to stop using it since it's too much a part of culture. Besides, it sounds better than something like 'raniskran' or 'fanortner'.

[Achilles]

The difference is that we have an innate sense of God from birth.

Source?

 

We don't have an innate sense of UFOs.

Was this taken from the same poll where we asked babies about their innate sense of god?

 

Take a lightswitch analogy--you're saying the belief switch is there or it's not. I'm saying the belief lightswitch is either on or off, but it's always been there. Hence the reason and need for the atheist term.

Ah, so it's your opinion then?

 

Getting people to drop the term now is about as possible as you dropping atheism and me dropping theism anyway.

Ah, but theism isn't a natural state though. It's a belief that aquired via enculturation. So it's not the same thing.

 

People simply aren't going to stop using it since it's too much a part of culture.

If I recall correctly, my suggestion was that we started a list of other natural states that need "non" terms. I agree that stopping it probably isn't very realistic.

 

Besides, it sounds better than something like 'raniskran' or 'fanortner'.

No doubt

[Jae Onasi]

Source?

 

Was this taken from the same poll where we asked babies about their innate sense of god?

 

Ah, so it's your opinion then?

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant. You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

Ah, but theism isn't a natural state though. It's a belief that aquired via enculturation. So it's not the same thing.

Source? No Dawkins, please, he and other antitheists are too biased.

 

If I recall correctly, my suggestion was that we started a list of other natural states that need "non" terms. I agree that stopping it probably isn't very realistic.

 

Anti-UFOarians

Afaerieists

Nonflyingspaghettimonsterists

The possibilities are endless!!

 

@TK-8252--at the risk of causing another eruption of the Mao/Stalin hate-fest, these men did systematically exterminate people solely for their belief in God, and tortured others until they recanted God. Their goal was an atheistic communist state. Regardless of whether their motivation was perfect communism or atheism--and the two can't be separated since communist doctrine requires one to be atheist in the first place in order to also be communist--they still killed many specifically because of their theism and for no other reason. Their basis is Marx's statement: "The suppression of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the premise of its real happiness."

 

Lenin mentions in this writing , views which Stalin shared: "These masses should be supplied with the most

varied atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts

from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every

possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious

torpor, stir them from the most varied angles and by the most varied

methods, and so forth." and "In the second place, such a journal must be a militant atheist organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism must carry on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight. The literature on the subject in all languages should be carefully followed and everything at all valuable in this sphere should be translated, or at least reviewed."

 

Boris Souvarine's history of Stalin stated: "Official irreligion was transformed into systematic de-Christianisation by violence: churches of the various faiths were closed and demolished or taken over, as were chapels and monasteries, sacred books were seized, and proselytism forbidden, icons were burnt and priests deported or condemned to death. Under pretext of a militant materialism, by methods which were a caricature, adults suspected of "idealism" were forcibly inculcuated with atheism, which was already obligatory in the schools."

 

Mao said: "Firstly, we will conduct a struggle to criticize thoroughly and eradicate completely his erroneous ideology. Secondly, we will help him. One, to struggle; two, to help. Starting from this, we will help him to correct his mistakes so that he will have a way out. It will be different to treat another type of people. People like Tito and China’s own Ch’en Tu-hsiu. Toward them there is no way to adopt a helpful attitude, because they are beyond remedy. People like Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek and the Czars are also incorrigible and there is nothing to do but knock them down. This is because, as far as we are concerned, they are not of a dual nature, but of a sole nature. In the final analysis, it is also like this with regard to the imperialist and capitalist systems. In the end, they will certainly be displaced by the socialist system. The same with ideology. We will substitute materialism for idealism and atheism for theism. This is strategically speaking"

 

When a fundamental part of a political philosophy is entire removal of religion from culture and society because it's just 'the opium of the masses', why is there a persistent disbelief among atheists that these men did _not_ persecute Christians and other theists purely for religious purposes? Atheism may have been a part of a larger political viewpoint, but it still was a significant part for these men. Artificially separating these two is like artificially separating the nucleus from the cell.

[SilentScope001]

We have an innate sense of believing in no God.

 

We also have an innate sense of believing that if you want food, you cry. We also have an innate senes of believing that crawling is awesome. We have an innate sense of believing that our parents are #1. We have an innate sense of eating anything in our path, including Legos (they're tasty, why not eat it).

 

Just because we got an innate sense of something does not mean it's "right". We're talking about a baby here! Do we ask babies about gravity? Babies don't believe in gravity either, therefore, we must naturally assume that gravity does not exist, since being natural is so great.

[Pavlos]

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant. You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

 

Actually... with social animals like humans an innate sense of morality is perfectly explainable without bringing a god into the equation. The first reason is that ethics and morality are very much social constructs, things taught from an early age to a child - I very much doubt that cannibals on small islands in the middle of the Pacific think what they are doing is wrong.

 

The second: let's take a small society, a village in the middle of a forest. In this village, everyone lies - to further their own ends, they lie about (let's say) where food is, keeping it all a secret. This breeds a society where one person has everything and the rest are starving. That one person will benefit but when the rest die due to malnourishment then the community, and the protection gained from such a community will be stripped away - leaving the person unable to breed and without protection. The same is true of hurting others, or killing them - it removes the group and thus destroys the individual. Initially, being selfish or cruel is advantageous and that person's genes will be selected for, but once we reach a stage where more and more people are greedy, or evil, then it is disadvantageous and the genes are removed from the pool - likely taking others with them, if they destroy communities.

 

Selfishness does exist because when it is a small fraction of the population, as it is today, it's an advantage. Or, at least, this is my understanding of it.

[Prime]

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant. You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

What age are you talking about here? Are you saying that a child who (somehow) grew up without any teaching from others about what is right and wrong would inherently know about it?

[tk102]

The difference is that we have an innate sense of God from birth.

Source?

The God Gene? (somewhat dubious)

 

Ah, but theism isn't a natural state though. It's a belief that aquired via enculturation. So it's not the same thing.

Source? No Dawkins, please

Tarzan of the Apes?

 

 

>_> oh? what's that? not helping? ...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Are you saying that a child who (somehow) grew up without any teaching from others about what is right and wrong would inherently know about it?

Yes. Altruism and morals are inherent in many species in the animal kingdom, including humans. The evolutionary explanation is that as humans are pack animals and such form societies, and societies with more well-behaved, kind citizens are better than those without altruism and kindness, natural selection has held onto moral instincts, which are then passed down from generation to generation.

[PoiuyWired]

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant. You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

 

Anti-UFOarians

Afaerieists

Nonflyingspaghettimonsterists

The possibilities are endless!!

 

To be fair spirit(faerie) believer and such are just people beliving in spirits, which is about the oldest kind of belief system(or basis of) out there. Though having a belief does not always lead to theism.

 

As for the "kids get upset" are the kids getting upset due to its "wrongness" or simply due to the fact of "conflict"? Its like, often kids would get upset while people are argueing, while argueing might not be a wrong thing.

 

And yes, as said, even if kids do have an innate sense of right/wrong this does not help on the theism/atheism/etc issue. Since innate goodnes(or badness) can also be explaines in an "atheist belief system" like buddhism etc, or even the "alien ant farm" / "the sims" theory..

[Achilles]

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant.

I consider any source that can make a sound argument relevant.

 

You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

How much time did you spend researching evolutionary behavior before coming to that conclusion? It would seem that you've taken two options, neither of which well-researched by you, and then declared the one that you deemed less incredulous the winner. I realize that happens all over the world every day, but that you think that should be sufficient for us is almost insulting.

 

Source? No Dawkins, please, he and other antitheists are too biased.

Wiki on enculturation.

The information here is a great primer. Unfortunately, all the other sources I could find are academic (apparently there isn't a great demand for leisure reading on anthropology and sociology).

 

Anti-UFOarians

Afaerieists

Nonflyingspaghettimonsterists

The possibilities are endless!!

We'll probably need more help then.

 

@TK-8252--at the risk of causing another eruption of the Mao/Stalin hate-fest, these men did systematically exterminate people solely for their belief in God, and tortured others until they recanted God. Their goal was an atheistic communist state. Regardless of whether their motivation was perfect communism or atheism--and the two can't be separated since communist doctrine requires one to be atheist in the first place in order to also be communist--they still killed many specifically because of their theism and for no other reason. Their basis is Marx's statement: "The suppression of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the premise of its real happiness."

Jae, you have a communist doctrine that promotes violent revolution and persecution of theism. Until you can I identify an atheist doctrine that also promotes these values, your argument is completely without merit.

 

The God Gene? (somewhat dubious)

I had an opportunity to listen to the author speak the other week on The God Show (gotta love local right-wing radio programming). Unfortunately, his argument, like so many other faux-scientific/religious arguments, is based almost entirely on the goddunit principle. For those unfamiliar with the goddunit principle, it is where theists observe something in nature, spend about 2 seconds thinking about it, and then naturally conclude that since they (being the pinnacle of human thought and understanding) cannot determine the cause, then there is no other possible explanation other than "god-dun-it".

[Darth InSidious]

Sweet. I've always wanted to be replaced by a symbol.

 

Seriously though. We don't have terms for other natural states. It seems rather bizarre to me that we do for this one.

 

We should start a list of all the other natural states that need a term to distinguish them from non-natural states.

 

Agnosticism (actual agnosticism - the position that at present we cannot know either way to a satisfactory degree) is the default position, because it relies upon a relative, contingent truth. Your position requires investment of belief, or whatever synonym you would like to dress it up in.

[Achilles]

I think you may be confusing "natural position" with "neutral position".

 

No doubt that agnosticism tends to be completely neutral (within the specific context of evidence) to the question of god, but before the position of neutrality could be adopted the question first had to be posed, thereby leaving the natural position which is atheism.

[Crahsystor]

Absolutely, since you don't consider any theological sources as relevant. You've undoubtedly watched your kids get upset over very basic wrongs when they were very little e.g. someone taking someone's toys, my son got upset at another kid for pushing a little girl down, that kind of thing that doesn't have a good evolutionary explanation, but does have a good explanation if you include God giving us a basic knowledge of good/evil.

 

The belief in God and the belief in good/evil are two totally different beliefs and each can occur independently without the other.

 

As for the natural feeling of good/evil – it can be easily explained through a variety of theories that do not involve God. The most simple explanation is that we humans are social creatures and to successfully cooperate in a group a certain level of altruism and compassion for your fellow man is needed. Also be mindful that to function in a stable way a society has to have common ethical values. The more ethical discrepancies and moral arguments, the less stable and thus weaker the society becomes (vide the end of the medieval period in Europe or China in the 1920s).

Stable, altruistic and yet competitive societies are generally more successful in adapting to changing conditions and thus become more widespread and dominant.

Religion is one but not the only way of creating and maintaining such a stable society.

There is no "basic knowledge of good and evil". Some beliefs (such as the belief that murder is an act of evil) are widespread among the vast majority of human cultures because they proved to be beneficial for the society and thus easier and more commonly accepted.

[Darth InSidious]

I think you may be confusing "natural position" with "neutral position".

 

No doubt that agnosticism tends to be completely neutral (within the specific context of evidence) to the question of god, but before the position of neutrality could be adopted the question first had to be posed, thereby leaving the natural position which is atheism.

Yep, misread your post >.<

 

So what do you define as the 'natural position'? The natural position on heliocentricism is aheliocentricism. The natural position on dark matter is antidarkmatterism. The natural position on bacteria is abacterialism. A natural position is therefore only existent if its the uninformed position, and while I've criticised you in the past, uninformed you aren't, and so you are investing this position with belief (or other synonym you prefer), by saying that it IS the correct answer to the question which you have posed to yourself. On a scale, you would be at about -99, an agnostic at 0, etc.

[PoiuyWired]

The belief in God and the belief in good/evil are two totally different beliefs and each can occur independently without the other.

 

 

QFE, SENSE of good/evil does not prove/disprove different sides of the argument.

[Achilles]

So what do you define as the 'natural position'?

Regarding religious belief? Atheism.

Religious belief is acquired via enculturation. Hence why you tend to see children raised to be muslim in muslim countries, christians in christian countries, etc. The child did not spring forth from the womb with any religious beliefs whatsoever, however he or she will very probably adopt the religious beliefs of his or her parents or whatever other powerful influences exist within the culture they are exposed to.

 

The natural position on heliocentricism is aheliocentricism. The natural position on dark matter is antidarkmatterism. The natural position on bacteria is abacterialism.

I don't know that I would agree with tacking an "a" onto the beginning of random words and then calling that the "natural position".

 

I think in the interest of making a witty point, you may have missed the gist of my argument.

 

Let's assume for a moment that life exists only on the planet earth. Based on that assumption we can say that every single thing in this universe, except about 54% of human beings, exists without belief in the abrahamic god. But we feel the need to have a term that encompasses everything that doesn't fall under that umbrella. I think that passes the asinine test.

 

A natural position is therefore only existent if its the uninformed position,

Hmmm...not sure how much I agree with that one. Odds are good that you are aware of the former existence of Elvis Presley. Furthermore, I'm assuming that you are aware that there are people that believe that his death was faked and that he's still alive. Do you feel the need to classify yourself as "non elvis faked death believer"? Or do you think it's more reasonable people that choose to adopt such a belief bear the label while you remain label-free? Is it reasonable to say that your status is the "natural" one? Would you lose your "natural" status the moment that you learned that a man named Elvis Presley once lived or would you retain it even though you were now "informed"?

 

and while I've criticised you in the past, uninformed you aren't,

Thank you for the compliment. I'm very glad to know that you and I can disagree without questioning one another's intelligence.

 

and so you are investing this position with belief (or other synonym you prefer), by saying that it IS the correct answer to the question which you have posed to yourself. On a scale, you would be at about -99, an agnostic at 0, etc.

I'm struggling with this section, so I'm going to respond and hope that I'm correctly taking your meaning.

 

I would tend to disagree. To continue with the dead Elvis analogy:

 

Your model (above) would imply that someone that said "Well I think it's possible that Elvis is alive and I think it is equally possible that Elvis is dead. There is insufficient proof for me to make a decision either way" is at 0. I would say that this person could not be at 0 because they have left the "natural" state by at least partially accepting the possibility of Elvis continued life. Where that puts them, I don't know but it isn't 0.

 

Someone that made a statement like "I hate Elvis. I know he's dead and I'm glad he's gone" would be a -99.

 

Someone that said "There isn't enough evidence to convince me that Elvis is still alive, therefore I do not accept your claim" is at 0.

 

Hope I was on the right track there.

[Prime]

For those unfamiliar with the goddunit principle, it is where theists observe something in nature, spend about 2 seconds thinking about it, and then naturally conclude that since they (being the pinnacle of human thought and understanding) cannot determine the cause, then there is no other possible explanation other than "god-dun-it".

You mean

[Achilles]

Crap! Never heard "the banana argument" before.

 

*skulks off to reconsider his worldview*

[Prime]

Crap! Never heard "the banana argument" before.

 

*skulks off to reconsider his worldview*

Before you do, you might want to watch this first.

[PoiuyWired]

<snap>

Thank you for the compliment. I'm very glad to know that you and I can disagree without questioning one another's intelligence.

 

I'm struggling with this section, so I'm going to respond and hope that I'm correctly taking your meaning.

 

I would tend to disagree. To continue with the dead Elvis analogy:

 

Your model (above) would imply that someone that said "Well I think it's possible that Elvis is alive and I think it is equally possible that Elvis is dead. There is insufficient proof for me to make a decision either way" is at 0. I would say that this person could not be at 0 because they have left the "natural" state by at least partially accepting the possibility of Elvis continued life. Where that puts them, I don't know but it isn't 0.

 

Someone that made a statement like "I hate Elvis. I know he's dead and I'm glad he's gone" would be a -99.

 

Someone that said "There isn't enough evidence to convince me that Elvis is still alive, therefore I do not accept your claim" is at 0.

 

Hope I was on the right track there.

 

I think the mathmetical model used in this theory is problematic.

 

Ok, lets still define "Almost Total Believe in Theory" as positive, and for simplicity we keep it at the 100 scale. (don't want to get into infinity argument)

lets Define "Almost Total Disbelieve in Theory" as negative.

 

So surely a "believity" of 0 would be neutral, but not everyone can be fitted into a number in this scale.

 

Lets use the Elvis Example again.

 

if you ask "Do you Believe in Elvis being Alive?"

and Chuck answers "Who Is Elvis?"

Then Chuck's "Believity" on the case of "Elvis is Alive" is NOT ZERO.

 

His lack of knowledge of WHO IS ELVIS and the whole idea of "Elvis is Alive" would mean that his standing on this "Believity" attribute being UNDEFINED, or NULLITY.

 

To get a reading on Chuck first he has to have at least some knowledge of who Elvis is. And with these Chuck can formulate his own judgement, logically or not, via the information/misinformation he recieves.

 

Furthermore the "Accuracy/error margain" of Chuck's view on the "Elvis is Alive" issue would be affacted by the amount of information/misinformation he recieves related(or anti-related) to the matter.

 

 

If the sole knowledge of Chuck's information on Elvis is "Elvis is a Male Human" then any decision made by Chuck on the matter would have a huge margain of error.

 

Margain or error plays quite a significant role, representing the thinking process and change of mind over an issue, due to things of small relations to the preceieved viewpoint, hence margain of error. So, a person that is 75 on the scale shoudl be represented as 75+/- x. Where x being a number for the margain of error.

 

Take this statement borrowed from above "Well I think it's possible that Elvis is alive and I think it is equally possible that Elvis is dead. There is insufficient proof for me to make a decision either way"

 

The above sentence is close to 0. Yes, close to 0 does not really have to mean 0. It is more like a Zero-ish, like 0 +/- x. Where x would be his margain of error. Well, I am not saying it is impossable for x to be 0, but since the human mind is fluid and ever-thinking, and a person's viewpoint on one matter can be affected by things most seemingly unrelated(kinda like butterfly effect) the state of 0 on the scale in at best a event that exists on a split second(or whatever minure time scale you would like to use)

 

So, yes the unnatural state of an unknown matter is not 0, but undefined, Nullity, and being completely neutral is a split second event at best, though one can stay "Relatively Neutral" for a long time, with varying degree reguarding to margain of error, depending on the easiness to sway the person's believe for the instant.

[Achilles]

I think the mathmetical model used in this theory is problematic.

Wow...you really put a lot of time into this post.

 

Ok, lets still define "Almost Total Believe in Theory" as positive, and for simplicity we keep it at the 100 scale. (don't want to get into infinity argument)

lets Define "Almost Total Disbelieve in Theory" as negative.

(emphasis mine).

We certainly can, but I don't know that we should. The opposite or inverse of 100 is -100, not 0. Therefore, the inverse of complete acceptance of the theory is the complete rejection of the theory, not an absence of belief about the theory.

 

if you ask "Do you Believe in Elvis being Alive?"

and Chuck answers "Who Is Elvis?"

Then Chuck's "Believity" on the case of "Elvis is Alive" is NOT ZERO.

Why not?

 

His lack of knowledge of WHO IS ELVIS and the whole idea of "Elvis is Alive" would mean that his standing on this "Believity" attribute being UNDEFINED, or NULLITY.

In other words it would be zero.

 

To get a reading on Chuck first he has to have at least some knowledge of who Elvis is. And with these Chuck can formulate his own judgement, logically or not, via the information/misinformation he recieves.

And what if chuck is never approached about it in the first place? What if chuck was born in the 1800's and died before anyone had ever heard of Elvis? Where would he be on the scale?

[Totenkopf]

Actually, the natural state is one of abject ignorance (ie tabula rasa). Atheism, as many of you cling to it, is not in fact a natural state, but one whereupon you've come to a conclusion that there is insufficient material evidence to underpin anything resembling a rational postion backing the existence of a supernatural being. You might as well say that we're amathematical (asocial, etc..) at birth as well. If you wish to equate atheism w/abject ignorance, I'll not argue with you.

[Nancy Allen``]

Just because he never heard of The King doesn't mean he never existed. Did you know that Jessica Evan is a Senior Constable in Geelong before I told you? Does that make her existence any less valid?