Are attacks on evolution just the beginning?

[drkitten]

However some of this I don't get, ie:

1. How are atheism and militant fundamentalism "opposites?" One says there is no God. The logical opposite of an theist is of course a theist, not Fundamentalists, who are but one sect of theists.

Militant fundamentalism requires as a condition of sect membership total adherence to all of the beliefs associated with the set, including as a matter of course the "ludicrous" ones that no rational human being would be able to entertain for a moment. For sheer lunacy, check out the militant Protestant fundamentalists who not only reject the notion of a round earth, but also Copernican astronomy (your web browser can find them, although it will probably want to go out for a stiff drink afterwards).

An atheist, on the other hand, rejects all of the beliefs associated with a sect. There are a number of theists of various stripes who nevertheless reject many of the beliefs that their particular theistic sect demands. These thesist come in many forms, including so-called "cafeteria Catholicism," "reform Judaism," "modernism," and so forth. But you can see this rather clearly in the various interpretations of Genesis :

A hard-line YEC would believe that the statement "God created the universe in seven days" must be interpreted literally, and similarly would use the ages of the patriarchs to obtain a date of creation on the order of six to ten thousand years ago. An atheist, of course, would simply deny that God created the universe, rendering the question of the date of non-creation moot. But a cafeteria Catholic might accept that God did in fact create the universe, but not insist that it happened either over a six-day period or that it happened at the time specified.

Picking and choosing among the Biblical beliefs is, at least in my mind, a legitimate middle ground between unqualified acceptance and unqualified rejection.

2. Apostasy means abandoning one's faith, which could mean any number of things (ie going from an atheist to Christian or vice-versa, or even going from Hindu to Islam, etc etc).

Going from Hindu to Islam is not typically regarded as apostacy, but as conversion. The more conventional meaning of apostacy is abandoning one's faith for some degree of unbelief. But it also is widely used to mean either abandoning the intellectual and spiritual aspects of one's faith while maintaining the ritual (as many Christian modernists have been accused of doing), or alternative (but less commonly) abandoning religion-specific practices (as Reform Jews have often been accused of doing).

In either case, the person who attends church only on Easter and Christmas and denies interest in the question "is there a god" is demonstrably less a theist than a practicing, fervent, Christian -- but is also demonstrably not an atheist.

Perhaps the more common usage is a sort of shoulder shrug when it comes to a belief in God, ie a lack of any strong belief in either direction, but I'd say that's an agnostic.

Then your terminology is incorrect, sir.

I would say atheists and agnostics do the same. I don't know too many "religious" atheists.

No. Here's a sample question :

What is your religion?

• Christian
• Jewish
• Islam
• Pagan
• Atheist
• Agnostic
• No religon
• Other or not specified

People who select the "No religion" choice are clearly not self-idenfitying as either atheist or agnostic. It's very reasonable to distinguish the people who self-select as atheist from the simple "no religion" group. And, as I pointed out earlier, the number of people selecting "no religion" on similar questionaires is increasing at the expense of the various religoius groups, while the number selecting "atheist" is (separately) increasing.

"Cafeteria catholicism" is losing out. The idea of being able to be "moderately religious" is rapidly falling out of fashion.

 

[drkitten]

In terms of their religious belief itself....no, there aren't. Again, being an atheist means you don't believe God exists. Period. If you believe he does exist, or believe he might, you are by definition no longer an atheist.

RIght. And if you believe that God exists, then you're a theist. So there shouldn't be any sects of theism, either, right?

Basically, you're raising a false (and quite frankly, stupid) dichotomy. There are degrees of atheism (look up deism some day) and there are also different approaches to atheism, which can be formalizes as "sects" with some abuse of terminology.

For example, we can distinguish (following Granelli, between "humanists," "freethinkers," and so-called "American Atheists." If you don't like that taxonomy, I can find others. But a typical "sectarian" distinction might be about the ultimate source of morality. If not given by God, then what? Can morality be found by reason alone ("rationalism")? Is it inherent in the nature of life ("humanists")? There are even a small group of people who believe that the being Christians call "God" exists, but that He is not God -- and specifically that he is a being of evil who exists only to spread pain and suffering, and that morality comes from disobeying His instructions. (Look up "demiurge" sometime.) Again, none of these people believe that "God" exists -- but they're all intellectually incompatible with each other.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...No. Here's a sample question :
What is your religion?

• Christian
• Jewish
• Islam
• Pagan
• Atheist
• Agnostic
• No religon
• Other or not specified

.

My problem here is that I don't have a religion. And a religion doesn't have me.
So how should I reply to the above?

 

[bigred]

RIght. And if you believe that God exists, then you're a theist. So there shouldn't be any sects of theism, either, right?

Wrong. That's like the old "when it rains I get wet, so if I'm wet, it must be raining" oversimplification.

Why would you have "sects" of something you DON'T believe in?

There are sects of theism because people believe God has manifested in different ways, ie through Jesus Christ, or Muhammed, or what have you (although in fairness I think it's worth pointing out that most religions are more the same than they are different, basically talking about being moral and believing in God). How does something "not manifest" in different ways? If it isn't, it isn't. That's it.

Basically, you're raising a false (and quite frankly, stupid) dichotomy. There are degrees of atheism (look up deism some day)

Quite frankly, take a look in the mirror. I suggest you do some looking up yourself.

Deists are not atheists. Deists believe God exists. Atheists do not.

If atheists believe that morality comes from different places, fine, but then we're not talking religious beliefs anymore.

sheesh

 

[drkitten]

Wrong. That's like the old "when it rains I get wet, so if I'm wet, it must be raining" oversimplification.

Which is exactly the mistake you are making!

Why would you have "sects" of something you DON'T believe in?

To discuss/determine/act upon what you do believe in, instead.

Deists are not atheists. Deists believe God exists. Atheists do not.

That's your opinion. Many theists differ and have accused deists of being atheists. Perhaps more to the point, many deists self-identify as atheists. Even more to the point, many deists consider themselves to be neither theist or atheist -- for example, see this page by "deism.org", from which I quote:

There are two basic features that distinguish Deism from either Atheism or Theism.

If a relatively authoritative site on Deist apologetics describes Deism as different from theism, why should I believe your description instead of theirs?

Similarly, a relatively authoritative site on comparative non-belief, defines deists as atheistic, and in fact, specifically contradicts your claim that Deists believe that God exists:

Like atheists, deists do not perceive a God around. But the deist does see evidence to suppose that the deity once was, whereas the atheist sees no such thing.

According to their analysis, they do not believe that a God exists, but accept that one existed in the past. By your own definition above, Deists are not theists.

I see no way to put this politely, and no reason to try : your beliefs on atheism are the ignorant caricature of an outsider describing (and dismissing) beliefs that aren't his. There's no reason you should be expected to be an expert in all things atheistic -- but you should at least be able to shut the hell up and let the people who are experts, including the practitioners and adherents, be the ones who describe the belief systems.

Your description of "atheism" is no more accurate than the medieval Christian conception of Jews killing unbaptized babies to put into their Passover wafers. And the error stems from the same xenophobia and ignorance.

 

[AWPrime]

Deist =!= Atheist =!= Theist

 

[bigred]

quote:

Why would you have "sects" of something you DON'T believe in?
To discuss/determine/act upon what you do believe in, instead.

That makes no sense. We're talking about something they DON'T believe in, ie the existance of God. People establish groups/sects to discuss what they do believe in (ie morality nature etc), not what they don't. That would be like Christians creating sects based on why they don't believe in Muhammed. No, they create sects based on the ways their beliefs manifest regarding what DOES exist, in their opinion (Christ).

quote: Deists are not atheists. Deists believe God exists. Atheists do not.
That's your opinion.

No, that's a fact:

"DEIST: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
(American Heritage Dictionary)

"DEIST: the belief in a single god who does not act to influence events, and whose existence has no connection with religions, religious buildings, or religious books, etc."(Cambridge Dictionary)

etc.

Nowhere does it say they believe He no longer exists; only that he no longer exerts influence.

Many theists differ and have accused deists of being atheists.

And that makes it so? You're kidding right?

Perhaps more to the point, many deists self-identify as atheists. Even more to the point, many deists consider themselves to be neither theist or atheist

In other words, many are confused. They can't both be right. Sounds like many deists need to invest in a dictionary. sheesh

Denying the universally accepted definition of something also doesn't make it so. And PS, in fairness, I'm not even saying dictionaries are infallible (I've gone round and round more than a bit on that topic alone, lol)…but given a choice between believing what multiple dictionaries tell me or what a particular deist web site tells me, esp. when others contradict it, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the dictionary is a much safer bet.

for example, see this page by "deism.org", from which I quote. If a relatively authoritative site on Deist apologetics describes Deism as different from theism, why should I believe your description instead of theirs?

First off, how about because it isn't "my" definition, but rather the one that is generally accepted, as I've given examples of above? Second, how about because I'm not saying theists and deists are exactly the same thing, which you seem to be implying....?

Similarly, a relatively authoritative site on comparative non-belief, defines deists as atheistic, and in fact, specifically contradicts your claim that Deists believe that God exists:

That's quite debatable. Read that again: nowhere do they say Deists don't believe God exists, and they certainly don't say deists are atheists. They only say they don't think he's "around," ie not controlling or "overseeing" things today. And even if we concede your interpretation is correct and they don't believe God does exist anymore but just went *poof* at some point (? whatever), I see other Deist sites which disagree with that as well (for ex. check deism.com). So these supposedly authoritative sites are already questionable as to their definitions of Deism anyway.

I see no way to put this politely, and no reason to try : your beliefs on atheism are the ignorant caricature of an outsider describing (and dismissing) beliefs that aren't his.

No, I think this is you getting all in a huff - and probably the pot calling the kettle black (again). In fact, that describes most atheists, at least the ones I've run into, who seem to think that most theists (Christians at least) are Fundamentalist "Bible thumpers." I would be very happy to know that that sampling I've experienced is incorrect, but so far it sure doesn't look like it.

There's no reason you should be expected to be an expert in all things atheistic

Never said I was.

-- but you should at least be able to shut the hell up and let the people who are experts, including the practitioners and adherents, be the ones who describe the belief systems.

Like you? lmao. I see…so if I disagree with you, I should shut the hell up." How Jerry Fallwell can you get??

Excuse me if I dare to challenge your points. You want to disagree, fine, but if you can't discuss it without throwing a tantrum, maybe you should move on.

Your description of "atheism" is no more accurate than the medieval Christian conception of Jews killing unbaptized babies to put into their Passover wafers. And the error stems from the same xenophobia and ignorance.

More childish insults and general gibberish. Would you like to pound on my kneecap now?

PS: I defined atheism as one who does not believe God exists. I hate to break it to you, but that is in fact completely accurate. But thanks for playing.

 

[Ryokan]

I don't know too many "religious" atheists

Greetings, bigred. I'm Ryokan, a Buddhist AND an atheist.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hardly the beginning, let alone "just the beginning".

All sorts of nonsense is taught in school.

 

[Bill Burke]

Wolverine, I think the problem is much broader and more serious than just science literacy, but I also think the problem is in principle fairly easy to solve.

Judging by the large numbers of people who believe so many unproven things with great certainty, there's at least prima facie evidence that most of us just don't reason well, and that we --without realizing it -- judge whether or not something's true by an intuitiive feeling of belief based usually on some proof but not on conclusive proof.

The central problem seems to be that most people don't know how to infer correctly, and delude themselves, -- either in inferring from bits of facts to whole facts, or from whole facts to conclusions -- into thinking that it's perfectly logical to leap to conclusions beyond the evidence.

And so except for the mundane everyday things which have have proven over and over in practice, most people can't reason well about new or fairly profound issues in science, in politics. or in anything else.

Correct reasoning involves a number of vital thinking steps, which we often alerady carry out but in an essentially unconscious way. These can easily be illustrated to even kids just by pointing out to them why and how a number of things they believe are in fact true and knowable to be true -- that's my school, that's my friend, that's my home, that's my dog, 1+1=2 and so on.

And once the basic facts and other inference steps are revealed in a relatively small number of specific cases, a general method can be seen as a logical framework, and this general method of commonsense reasoning can then be applied across the board, to science, religion and so on. At least by people with basic mental faculties, provided these faculties haven't been seriously damaged by delusions such as "faith" as being a valid route to knowing.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[bigred]

Greetings, bigred. I'm Ryokan, a Buddhist AND an atheist.

lol. Well I could argue that religion by definition includes a belief in God (ie "religious" and "spiritual" aren't the same thing), but some definitions would support it while others wouldn't. So I grudingly concede your point.

 

[bigred]

Here we go again


http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/02/life.evolution.reut/index.html

 

[StaticEngine]

and this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html

 

[bigred]

From that article:

"It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena."


The idea that any "scientist" would freak out over such a definition is unbelievable.