Look, ma, no dogma!

July 21, 2006 5:09 AM

"It's Beyond Belief!" Right here in red-state central, a summer camp for atheist kids.
posted by tizzie (189 comments total)

Ohio isn't a red-state. It voted for Clinton twice, and Bush, Reagan, Carter, and Nixon. Ohio votes for winners, apparently.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:24 AM on July 21, 2006

That's interesting. I never thought that atheist kids would have trouble finding camps to go to. How is this different from say, science camp or sports camp (or, er... band camp) though?
posted by arcticwoman at 5:27 AM on July 21, 2006

Articwoman, they need a special camp because they're all going to hell.
posted by slimepuppy at 5:36 AM on July 21, 2006

Arcticwoman. D'oh. Apologies.
posted by slimepuppy at 5:36 AM on July 21, 2006

I'm all for non-religious camps, but this looks just as obnoxious as Christian Camp. Just teach kids to think critically, don't brainwash them.
posted by empath at 5:37 AM on July 21, 2006

They'd better be careful. The Giant Superhero in the Sky is likely to smite them.
posted by Malor at 5:41 AM on July 21, 2006

They even have t-shirts.
posted by emelenjr at 5:44 AM on July 21, 2006

I believe in that shit.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:50 AM on July 21, 2006

Yeah, and they sell them via a site called tshirthell.com.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 5:50 AM on July 21, 2006

The best part is when they row canoes across the river to fool around with the Christian summer camp kids.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:58 AM on July 21, 2006

Also see Camp Inquiry.
posted by TedW at 5:59 AM on July 21, 2006

As someone who loved summer camp growing up and got a lot of good out of it, I am glad to see this. This is different from band/science/space camp in that it looks to be a more generic, traditional summer camp with things for everyone rather than focusing on a specific activity.
posted by TedW at 6:03 AM on July 21, 2006

tizzie also gets bonus points for the subtle reference to Sleepaway Camp in the tags.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:04 AM on July 21, 2006

Children and teens learn about the canons of rational thought, critical thinking and scientific inquiry. They're also taught to stand up for their secular beliefs while living in a world of religious believers who might question their values.

How about a camp where they don't proselytize to you one way or another? Maybe the kids should make up their own damn minds.

Also, I'm imagining them singing, "Kum-ba-yah, my nonexistent deity, Kum-ba-yah."
posted by fungible at 6:05 AM on July 21, 2006

"Nonbelievers make up about 14 percent of the U.S. population,"

Holy fucking christ.
posted by silence at 6:08 AM on July 21, 2006

Also see Camp Inquiry.

For a minute there, I thought that said "Camp Iniquity".
posted by orange swan at 6:18 AM on July 21, 2006

I'm raising 3 kids in a thoroughly agnostic household in one of the larger cities in North Carolina, and I never have experienced all of this persecution the article alludes to. In fact nobody seems to give a shit. Could be the circles I run in - but for example my 2 year old goes to pre-school at a standard-issue Methodist Church (it's a really, really good school). We formally requested that Ada not attend the monthly 'Chapel Service' that they take the kids to - and this request was granted without any headaches or bad-mouthing.

Could it be that the kind of folks who send their kids to "Atheist Camp" are of the in-your-face, prostheletizing brand of "non believers"?
posted by glenwood at 6:21 AM on July 21, 2006

Segregation, yay!
posted by furtive at 6:23 AM on July 21, 2006

Campers play the "human knot" game. At far right is Hensley Akiboh, 18, a former camper and now a camp counselor. The campers said they like the intellectual games, including an "invisible unicorn" exercise. Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns - as a metaphor for God - don't exist.

Oh jesus christ.
posted by glenwood at 6:23 AM on July 21, 2006

Segregation, yay!

Exactly.
posted by glenwood at 6:24 AM on July 21, 2006

Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns - as a metaphor for God - don't exist.

Good luck with that.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 6:31 AM on July 21, 2006

"Kum-ba-yah, my nonexistent deity, Kum-ba-yah."

Good one!
posted by tizzie at 6:43 AM on July 21, 2006

prove that imaginary unicorns don't exist.

They did. Until the Flood.
posted by yeti at 6:45 AM on July 21, 2006

Still, the kids in the pictures look a lot happier than the ones at that Kids On Fire camp. Well, a little happier. Actually, a lot of them look kinda bored...
posted by Cookiebastard at 6:46 AM on July 21, 2006

Just teach kids to think critically, don't brainwash them.

What makes you think they're brainwashing them?

"Children and teens learn about the canons of rational thought, critical thinking and scientific inquiry."

Personally I don't have a problem with that. Although as a Brit the whole concept of camps is thoroughly alien to me anyway.
posted by Decani at 6:53 AM on July 21, 2006

I've gotta add, proving imaginary unicorns don't exist is a piece of piss.

1. Look up the word "imaginary" in the dictionary.

2. Quod erat, matey.
posted by Decani at 6:55 AM on July 21, 2006

Woah... now this is my kind of Summer Camp.
posted by yeti at 7:07 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Decani: Have you considered setting up an atheist Pontin's?
posted by biffa at 7:22 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Oh great...another generation of religion-intolerant militant athiests. Who out there is teaching their kids to live and let live?
posted by rocket88 at 7:25 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

...or spell? (atheists)
posted by rocket88 at 7:26 AM on July 21, 2006

Nonbelievers make up about 14 percent of the U.S. population, according to the American Religious Identification Survey conducted by City University of New York in 2001.

This is misleading. 14% of Americans report no specified religion or affiliation, which means a lot of things, and certainly not just that they are "nonbelievers". Only 0.4% of Americans actually identify as atheists, and 0.5% as agnostics; so 1% is closer to what they want to suggest. (ARIS PDF, p. 13)
posted by dgaicun at 7:34 AM on July 21, 2006

thank you, dgaicun. I was just about to suggest that.

When you put it to much of that 14% - "Do you believe there is a force in the universe more powerful than yourself?" you get "Oh, yeah. I totally believe there's something, I just don't think it's your Christian god or whatever."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:48 AM on July 21, 2006

And how the hell is this different from science camp? Seems like a marketing ploy.
I'm gonna start a summer camp for kids who don't like horses. I'll call it "Camp No-Horses." It'll be especially for kids who are afraid of horses and don't want to be around them. We'll do everything those other camps do, just without horses.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:50 AM on July 21, 2006

I've always thought that deep down, at the true core of our souls, we're all agnostics. I mean, how can anyone not wonder?
posted by davebush at 7:59 AM on July 21, 2006

There ought to be a distinction between between atheist and anti-theist.

theist: "In God We Trust"
agnostic: "If God exists, we trust in Him"
atheist: (this space left blank)
anti-theist: "God does not exist."
posted by LordSludge at 8:01 AM on July 21, 2006

We'll do everything those other camps do, just without horses.
Or without dogs, in the case of dyslexic atheists.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:10 AM on July 21, 2006

glenwood : "Could it be that the kind of folks who send their kids to 'Atheist Camp' are of the in-your-face, prostheletizing brand of 'non believers'?"

I think the odds of that are between 99% and a bazillion %.
posted by Bugbread at 8:11 AM on July 21, 2006

davebush: Agnostic does not mean, "I wonder if God exists?" Agnostic means, "I cannot know whether or not God exists."

LordSludge - "atheist: (this space left blank)
anti-theist: "God does not exist."

That doesn't make sense. Atheism = No God. With certainty. Anti-theist (though I suspect you just made that word up) would have to mean that ... you believe in God and you are in opposition to his/her practices?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:12 AM on July 21, 2006

exterminate all rational thought
posted by matteo at 8:15 AM on July 21, 2006

I think this is called Smug Camp.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:15 AM on July 21, 2006

I've always thought that deep down, at the true core of their souls, Christians don't really believe what they profess to believe.

If they did, they'd be ecstatic about a ("saved") loved-one dying, because they're going to heaven. Man, that's like they just won the biggest lottery prize imaginable. Bigger, even -- infinitely big. Hurray, big party!

While you're at it, why leave anything to chance? Go coerce the kids into accepting Jesus as their personal savior, then immediately slaughter them to ensure their eternal bliss!! Sure, you might burn in Hell, but wouldn't any good parent sacrifice themselves for the eternal well-being of their children? And besides -- your motives are pure, so I'm pretty sure God would be cool with it...


And 1%? Wow. That's so depressing.
posted by LordSludge at 8:16 AM on July 21, 2006

LordSludge : "If they did, they'd be ecstatic about a ('saved') loved-one dying, because they're going to heaven. Man, that's like they just won the biggest lottery prize imaginable. Bigger, even -- infinitely big. Hurray, big party!"

I dunno. If my wife won a trip to Mars, and a giant plasma TV, and a life's supply of Jelly Belly jellybeans, but I couldn't see her or have any contact with her for 30 or 40 years, I would be happy for her, but depressed for myself. That doesn't mean I don't think trips to Mars are cool, it just means that I'd be lonely. I suspect that that's the same dynamic. I don't think believing in Heaven makes you impervious to loneliness, any more than believing that your mouth will feel better after your cavity is drilled makes you impervious to the pain of having a root canal.
posted by Bugbread at 8:22 AM on July 21, 2006

Oh great...another generation of religion-intolerant militant athiests. Who out there is teaching their kids to live and let live?

My wife and I are trying our best, dude.
posted by glenwood at 8:36 AM on July 21, 2006

Ditto glenwood.
posted by Mr_Zero at 8:44 AM on July 21, 2006

Sheesh, what a bunch of assholes. They should go to regular summer camp and join the Boy Scouts and join organizations that are run by Christians how dare they be a majority anywhere ughhhhhhh
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:44 AM on July 21, 2006

B_B: Agnostic does not mean, "I wonder if God exists?" Agnostic means, "I cannot know whether or not God exists."

Rationally/scientifically speaking, that's the equivalent of atheism. I think there's more an element of uncertainty to agnosticism -- not-sure-haven't-made-my-mind-up -- rather than a certainty that such knowledge is un-knowable.

That doesn't make sense. Atheism = No God. With certainty. Anti-theist (though I suspect you just made that word up) would have to mean that ... you believe in God and you are in opposition to his/her practices?

Yes, I made it up. But give me credit -- I threw together a wikipedia page just for you:
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a direct opposition to theism. The word has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity, while in theistic ones, it sometimes refers to opposition to the actual entity God.

I am intending the first (underlined) definition. The second, an actual opposition to God Himself, does not make sense if one is certain that God does not exist. (I suppose it's "anti-theism" vs. "antithe-ism"...)

So, IMO, an atheist camp would be teaching science. (God doesn't exist, so He is not an influence in the universe.) An anti-theist camp would be actively teaching that God does not exist, religion causes X problems, teh church must be stopped, etc.

Just to be clear: My point is that, too often, atheism is equated with anti-theism. I think there's an important distinction between the two.
posted by LordSludge at 8:47 AM on July 21, 2006

...rational thought, critical thinking and scientific inquiry.

How about a camp where they don't proselytize to you one way or another? Maybe the kids should make up their own damn minds.

How can they without critical thinking? And when they really have grasped scepticism, they can question their own atheism or whatever it's called. I don't like the idea, that critical thinking somehow spontaniously emerges. Of course it shouldn't be beaten into them either.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 8:48 AM on July 21, 2006

exterminate all rational thought
posted by matteo at 8:15 AM PST on July 21 [+fave] [!]

?
posted by Stauf at 9:02 AM on July 21, 2006

Is it lonely up their on their high summer camp horse?
posted by geoff. at 9:06 AM on July 21, 2006

I am good friends with Amanda, who is quoted in the article as president of the board, and her husband August, who is the camp director. (If I can track her down on IM today I will send her a link and see if she wants to participate in the thread.) There is really no political agenda at this place beyond the basic goal, as she says in the article, of helping people hold their own in a country where god-belief is an unquestioned norm rather than simply a cultural tradition or common personal belief. In other words, we live in a society where the prevailing notion is "Duh, of course God exists." The point is not to counteract this with "Duh, of course God doesn't exist" but find ways to challenge this presumption with reason, science, and all that good stuff you learned in seventh grade.

I understand the view that this just kind of smacks you in the face with a particular point of view. But most kids are intelligent enough to think for themselves. In any event, better Camp Quest or "Kids on Fire", where the religious point of view is obvious, than a camp that promises you sports and fun and games and then casually throws Jesus at you before breakfast, lunch, and dinner and 6 times on Sundays.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:07 AM on July 21, 2006

Rationally/scientifically speaking, that's the equivalent of atheism. I think there's more an element of uncertainty to agnosticism -- not-sure-haven't-made-my-mind-up -- rather than a certainty that such knowledge is un-knowable.

As someone who actually considers herself agnostic: no. I am agnostic because I think whether or not god exists is inherently unknowable. I tend towards the atheistic because frankly, I doubt it and I think most religious folks are kinda loopy, but I mostly think it's impossible to be sure. But please don't contribute to agnostic = wishy-washy.

That said, this camp seems like a nice enough idea. I went to regular camp quite a bit and the whole assuming everyone believes in god thing did get rather old.

Also, Decani, what do Brisih children do in the summer?
posted by dame at 9:09 AM on July 21, 2006

If they did, they'd be ecstatic about a ("saved") loved-one dying, because they're going to heaven. Man, that's like they just won the biggest lottery prize imaginable. Bigger, even -- infinitely big. Hurray, big party!

While you're at it, why leave anything to chance? Go coerce the kids into accepting Jesus as their personal savior, then immediately slaughter them to ensure their eternal bliss!! Sure, you might burn in Hell, but wouldn't any good parent sacrifice themselves for the eternal well-being of their children? And besides -- your motives are pure, so I'm pretty sure God would be cool with it...

You know, there exists the very slight possibility that you misunderstand Christian belief. Most Christian demonominations don't believe in the "accept Christ as your savior -> go to heaven" theology. But whatever makes you comfortable...

What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*. How do you know?

God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Does this define the universe itself? The universe created itself and has the power to destroy itself. Everything that is known is known within the universe. And the universe is obviously everywhere in the universe. Under this defintion God could have created the universe 5 seconds ago exactly as it is now, including objects that are very old. So how can you really know, one way or the other. Isn't God supposed to be unknowable?

In fact, what atheists must admit is that they don't believe in God, which itself constitutes a form of belief. Why many atheists are ashamed or reluctant to admit this makes for fascinating psychology.

*full disclosure - I don't really know one way or the other, and my beliefs swing regularly from one side to the other.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:12 AM on July 21, 2006

"Rationally/scientifically speaking, that's the equivalent of atheism."

No, it's not the same.

How is "I am incapable of knowing whether or not God exists" the same as, "I am certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist?"

Agnosticism leaves room for the possibility of a higher power, albeit an unknowable one.
Atheism states that one has 'proved,' so to speak, that God does not exist. (I find that Atheists tend to respond negatively to statements like, "Atheists have faith that God does not exist.")

"I think there's more an element of uncertainty to agnosticism -- not-sure-haven't-made-my-mind-up -- rather than a certainty that such knowledge is un-knowable."

I think you're failing to grasp the definition of the word, "Agnostic."

"not-sure-haven't-made-my-mind-up" is not agnosticism. It's "searching" or "seeker" or "wanderer" or "transient hippie" or something. Agnosticism is a philosophy or belief-system or whatever you want to call it, and using the word to describe yourself implies just as much surety regarding the nature of God as Atheist or Christian or anything else.

I despise the way the word has been degraded in common parlance. I love my agnostic friends, I love the way they have a sort of comfortable peace with their own mortal shortcomings, I especially love the way they approach the divine - as just that - divine. Should it exist, it would be so far above our ability to identify as to be utterly incapable of grokking.

It doesn't mean, "Oh, jeez. Yeah. Haven't really made up my mind yet."

I appreciate your 'antitheism' stuff - I'll read your article, but I suspect you are creating solutions to problems that don't exist.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:14 AM on July 21, 2006 [2 favorites]

I find the "ZOMG MILITANT ATHEISTS" folks in this thread interesting, because they're operating on the assumption that a subtle (and often blatant), continual Christian/religious bias does not currently exist in the United States.

We have "In God We Trust" on our money. Our politicians and our courts swear on Bibles. The Christian right dominates political discussion in conservative circles, and thus, because conservatives dominate political discourse for the moment, Christian conservatives dominate political discourse.

We are in an era where "Godless liberal" has, again, become an epithet. This is also an era where religious belief has become so dominant in both personal and political discourse that there is a de facto demand for explanation if you reveal that you are in fact areligious. Those who attend church are viewed, in general, as more trustworthy than those who do not.

I'm not telling anyone breaking news here, but under these conditions, I am completely unsurprised that someone's trying to create an environment where not only is atheism not judged adversely, but celebrated. Frankly, those of us who don't believe have to put up with having religion shoved in our faces every single day, and I'm surprised that it's taken this long for people like me to get pissed-off enough to be confrontational.
posted by scrump at 9:15 AM on July 21, 2006 [4 favorites]

yeti: Agreed.
posted by wilberforce at 9:16 AM on July 21, 2006

Pastabagel: "God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Does this define the universe itself? The universe created itself and has the power to destroy itself."

First - Many Christian do not believe that God is omnipotent. In fact, God specifically relinquishes His omnipotence to grant us free will, a luxury He denied His earlier creations.

Also, "the universe created itself" is a pretty gigantic leap of faith, in itself.

Have you read Anselm and the Ontological or a priori argument for God's existence? You're making many similar points, and so are in the company of many great minds. Here's an obligatory wiki link.

Also, re Atheists 'belief' that God does not exist, I've found, when talking about deeply personal beliefs with professed non-believers, it helps to work from the assumption that these individuals have utilized their powerful critical reasoning and the scientific method to empirically prove that God does not exist. This eliminates any pesky 'faith'-type issues.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:24 AM on July 21, 2006

So, for all you semantic experts here, what would you call someone who must admit (as any scientist must) that it is impossible by definition to disprove the existance of an omnipotent entity and thus can not have any certainty in atheism per-se but considers Christianity in its modern state (or indeed any religion based upon any version of the bible I am aware of) to be completely morally reprehensible?
posted by Riemann at 9:26 AM on July 21, 2006

So, for all you semantic experts here, what would you call someone who must admit (as any scientist must) that it is impossible by definition to disprove the existance of an omnipotent entity and thus can not have any certainty in atheism per-se but considers Christianity in its modern state (or indeed any religion based upon any version of the bible I am aware of) to be completely morally reprehensible?

Rational.
posted by scrump at 9:29 AM on July 21, 2006

I think this is great, and teaching kids to defend their beliefs using critical thinking is never a bad idea. They aren't going to get that in school.

I think this is called Smug Camp.

Yeah, Pastabagel, unlike the smug little Job's daughters who told me I was 13 that I, as a Catholic, wasn't going to be raptured to heaven as they were. Ever seen the bumper sticker 'not perfect, just forgiven'? To think oneself 'saved' or 'purpose driven' in contrast to non-believers seems utterly smug to me.
posted by tula at 9:34 AM on July 21, 2006

scrump : "I find the 'ZOMG MILITANT ATHEISTS' folks in this thread interesting, because they're operating on the assumption that a subtle (and often blatant), continual Christian/religious bias does not currently exist in the United States."

I don't read it that way. I read it as "there is a continual, blatant religious bias, a 'pushing down of throats' that exists in our country. That sucks. This is also a blatant 'pushing down of throats'. This also sucks."

Regarding atheism, theism, and agnosticism, MeFi always seems to want to make the definitions so complex. The way I've always understood it is:

Theist: Thinks God exists.
Atheist: Thinks God doesn't exist.
Agnostic: Doesn't know if God exists or not.

Past that, it's just different flavours.

"I'm an agnostic because I haven't made up my mind." "I'm an agnostic because I don't think it's knowable." "I'm a theist because I believe somehow there must be a god." "I'm a theist because I've talked to God himself." "I'm an atheist because there is no evidence of God." "I'm an atheist because I've scientifically proven there is no God in any of the 17 time dimension portals."

Those don't all get their own separate terms, they're just different flavors of "atheist", "theist", and "agnostic".
posted by Bugbread at 9:42 AM on July 21, 2006

tula : "Yeah, Pastabagel, unlike the smug little Job's daughters who told me I was 13 that I, as a Catholic, wasn't going to be raptured to heaven as they were."

No, the problem here is, very much like that smug little Job's daughter. That's the whole problem: not that people think that these atheists are being smug and didactic unlike the theists, but that they're being smug and didactic like the theists.
posted by Bugbread at 9:44 AM on July 21, 2006

I'm still searching for Camp Can't-We-All- Just-Get-Along.

Yes, tula, it would appear that smugness is a quality that crosses all ideological boundaries. I've come to find that I can pretty much tolerate anyone as long as they are not convinced they have The Definitive Answer and that I Need It. Unfortunately I've found no difference in the prevalence of this belief over a wide diversity of belief systems.
posted by nanojath at 9:45 AM on July 21, 2006

"We really pride ourselves on inclusion," said Taylor. "We are firmly committed to promoting a summer camping experience to all children despite their backgrounds."

Hilarious.
posted by sellout at 9:47 AM on July 21, 2006

Pastabagel - hey, also. For the 'universe created itself' stuff. Here's a couple theories I really dig:
...wow! Totally couldn't find anything useful on the internet about Vacuum Genesis. My google fails me. I guess... go to a library. I'm sort of stunned here.

Anyway, here's another 'universe-creating-itself' theory,
The Strong Anthropic Principle. I know any lurking physicists might jump all over me for even bringing it up - but I really like reading about it, even though I have no physics background.

riemann (on preview), you find Quakers to be completely morally reprehensible? That's pretty rough. I'd say my religion is based on the bible, and I don't feel morally reprehensible.

In fact, fuck off.

Your whole "as any scientist must" is about the smuggist thing I've read in this entire thread. Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything - other than removing a stupid phrase from a dollar bill.
Wait, I'm wrong. I do remember atheists fighting for something, now.

You can take your "morally reprehensible" and shove it. Everyone gets all up in arms when you tell an atheist he's going to a hell he doesn't even believe in, but it's totally fine to tell a Christian his life's work and belief system are "morally reprehensible".
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:47 AM on July 21, 2006

A minority cannot, by definition, force its beliefs upon anyone else. That makes the "they're pushing their agenda just as hard as the militant religionists" comparison invalid on its face.

The confrontational attitude may bear some resemblance to that of evangelicals, but the two attitudes come from drastically different places. The areligious attitude originates as a defensive measure against a culture that has overwhelmingly subscribed to theism and tacitly endorses outright bigotry against the areligious. The religious attitude originates in the confidence that no matter how incivil or frankly condemnatory the language used against nonbelievers, most of the country will back it up.
posted by scrump at 9:51 AM on July 21, 2006

What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*. How do you know?

I know it with the exact same level of certainty as the believers who claim there is a God. If their level of certainty is good enough for them to ram their beliefs down my throat, then turnabout is fair play.
posted by daveleck at 9:58 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

What does the definition of a minority have to do with its ability to force its beliefs upon another group?

Plenty of minorities have forced their beliefs on others. The Bolsheviks, South African whites, the Taliban, lots of minorities.

You're defending the militant atheists' behavior because their group is smaller??
Both (obnoxious) groups hold the same underlying tenet - "The world would be a better place if everyone believed like I do." And that is the problem. Being a part of a minority doesn't make it ok to shove your 'areligious' attitude down anyone else's throat.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:58 AM on July 21, 2006

sorry - that last comment was in response to scrump's.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:59 AM on July 21, 2006

Rationally/scientifically speaking, that's the equivalent of atheism. I think there's more an element of uncertainty to agnosticism -- not-sure-haven't-made-my-mind-up -- rather than a certainty that such knowledge is un-knowable.

Well, that's due to linguistic drift. The term was made up for the specific purpose of meaning a person who does not believe it's possible for people to know if god exists. But lately it's been used to mean, "I don't know". Languagehat would probably tell you the second form is just as valid.

I prefer the term "non-religious" I mean grammatically it would mean the same thing as "a-theist" but without all the baggage.
posted by delmoi at 10:00 AM on July 21, 2006

Could it be that the kind of folks who send their kids to "Atheist Camp" are of the in-your-face, prostheletizing brand of "non believers"?

Yup.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:04 AM on July 21, 2006

What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*

Well, how can you be certan of anything at all? What does "Certan" even mean?

Certainly, no 100% true statement can ever be made about the real world. There is always some possibility that it could be false, but yet we deal, and we talk about people being "certain" so certain, really, must mean something slightly less then perfect knowledge, otherwise it would be a somewhat useless word.
posted by delmoi at 10:05 AM on July 21, 2006

Past that, it's just different flavours.

I don't think that works for the agnosticism example, bugbread. People who do or don't believe in God have at base the same belief, regardless of how they got there. Saying "I don't know whether god exists" is fundamentally different from saying "I don't believe it's possible to know whether god exists."
posted by dame at 10:07 AM on July 21, 2006

Anyway, the problem with hanging out with atheists is the preponderance of fucking Objectivists in their ranks. The more militant the Atheists, the more Objectivist Rich the group. And objectivists are the most annoying people in the history of the world.
posted by delmoi at 10:08 AM on July 21, 2006 [3 favorites]

Camp Metafilter: snark hunts on a nightly basis
posted by pyramid termite at 10:08 AM on July 21, 2006

Here are the definitions I use;
Theism is the belief in one or more gods.

Atheism is the opposite of theism; absence of belief in one or more gods.

Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of whether or not the one or more gods exist or do not exist is unknowable.

Like scrump I'm tired of having the having the Christians push their beliefs at me everywhere I go. They express shock and dismay on those infrequent occasions when I disclose my atheism. I've heard "I feel sorry for you." in response to identifying my beliefs one too many times. It's not necessary to feel sorry for me because I don't happen to believe in your God, or anyone elses god. I've had a fine life, thank you. I've earned my US citizenship by taking an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (...so help me ___.) and serving in the military. I've done civic duty, it doesn't require a Christian belief to help others. Christians don't hold exclusive ownership of charity. I'm not a militant atheist but I sure would appreciate a little more tolerance from the Christians around me. No doubt I would have appreciated the opportunity to attend a camp free of the religous claptrap that has been pushed at me in the past.
posted by X4ster at 10:10 AM on July 21, 2006

Like scrump I'm tired of having the having the Christians push their beliefs at me everywhere I go.

Me, I'm sick of people who don't close their tags.
posted by nanojath at 10:21 AM on July 21, 2006

man, religion. how'd that ever happen?
posted by jimmy at 10:21 AM on July 21, 2006

What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*. How do you know?

Some of the them know because they're right, as far as their thinking goes. What they envision, as constantly exampled in these threads, is a superhero in the sky, old man with beard, dude up there, etc. Obviously absurd, limited, and dare I say, rather childish notions in some cases, quite correctly and easily not believed in.

You're defending the militant atheists' behavior because their group is smaller??

Yeah, this is relativism. Look they're either right or wrong, their not righter because they're smaller or more or less justified to run camps. When the program succeeds and sufficient campers have grown up to answer polls and represent a 51% majority are they suddenly wrong in their beliefs and not justified in running camps?

Camp Metafilter: snark hunts on a nightly basis

Heh, oh yes, best part. (no I'm not being ironic)
posted by scheptech at 10:34 AM on July 21, 2006

You know who else had camps? Hitler.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:36 AM on July 21, 2006 [4 favorites]

Plenty of minorities have forced their beliefs on others. The Bolsheviks, South African whites, the Taliban, lots of minorities.

Don't conflate "raw numbers" with "power". And power is what defines majority versus minority.
posted by scrump at 10:39 AM on July 21, 2006

No, scrump, raw numbers define majority vs. minority.

I feel like I'm in third grade.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:41 AM on July 21, 2006

exterminate all rational thought

Matteo has inspired me. I'm going to start a William S. Burroughs summer camp. I'll call it Camp Junkie Beat and it will be high in the Atlas Mountains south of Marrakech. Activites will include smoking hash, writing non-linear narritives, mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, smoking hash, stealing goats from Berber villages, smoking hash and smoking hash.

Also, all campers must eat their lunch naked.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:42 AM on July 21, 2006

Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything - other than removing a stupid phrase from a dollar bill.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:47 AM PST on July 21

The history books also don't show legions of one-legged turnip salesmen fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything.

How can't do much when you're 1% of the population and the other 99% thinks you shouldn't even count as a citizen or human being.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:43 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

An alternate name for it could be Camp Surreal Narco-Eroticism.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:44 AM on July 21, 2006

No, scrump, raw numbers define majority vs. minority.

I feel like I'm in third grade.

Allow me.

Feel free to cue up the "Wikipedia links mean nothing in the real wordl!!!!1one" arguments any time, if it'll make you feel better about yourself.
posted by scrump at 10:46 AM on July 21, 2006

"How can't do much when you're 1% of the population and the other 99% thinks you shouldn't even count as a citizen or human being."

Yeah, 1% of the population has never really accomplished much of anything.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:46 AM on July 21, 2006

riemann (on preview), you find Quakers to be completely morally reprehensible? That's pretty rough. I'd say my religion is based on the bible, and I don't feel morally reprehensible.

In fact, fuck off.

Your whole "as any scientist must" is about the smuggist thing I've read in this entire thread. Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything - other than removing a stupid phrase from a dollar bill.
Wait, I'm wrong. I do remember atheists fighting for something, now.

You can take your "morally reprehensible" and shove it. Everyone gets all up in arms when you tell an atheist he's going to a hell he doesn't even believe in, but it's totally fine to tell a Christian his life's work and belief system are "morally reprehensible".

Ah, I see the confusion. I meant the "as any scientist must" statement only about the fact that by definition one cannot disprove (at least using the scientific method) the non-existance of an omnipotent entity.

The second bit, about finding religions based off the bible to be morally reprehensible, is of course my own opinion (as any statement of morals must be) but I firmly stand by it.
posted by Riemann at 10:47 AM on July 21, 2006

And, here in the blue, the atheists represent a _____ .

I'm overheating. I'll see you guys after a bit.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:49 AM on July 21, 2006

Good lord I never thought I’d be defending the atheist POV on this.
“What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*. How do you know? God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.”

(getting this out of the way to address that) - 1. I find having an “atheist camp” per se, rather stupid. But if it’s as Saucy Intruder says and they’re dodging the deceptive “just games and fun...oh, by the way Jesus...” schtick than solid. The find the unicorn thing is loads of ass, but they’re kids, and schools are already teaching them to deride ideas outside the endorsed reality sphere so, meh.

2. - (also - getting this out of the way) - there’s some support for the vacuum energy theory. In particle physics the strong force (binds quarks into little groups) gets stronger when you try to pull the little bastards apart. When a quark gets strong enough to get the hell out the kinetic energy of the particle goes into forming a jet of particles formed from the strong force’s gluons which are bound to the quarks and decay when they can’t connect with a quark fast enough - so you particle formation and mass springs forth from motion (let there be...well, not light, but..)
The universe is also flatter than recent studies have suggested it should be. There is microwave background radiation all over the place and studies suggest the universe is too flat to be as young as it is and for matter to be so evenly distributed. It should be (estimated) many more hundreds of billions of years old. We know the universe is expanding because we can see red shifts in galaxies as you look futher out (the rough equiv. of looking back in time) Theoretically this is due to vacuum energy which causes the expansion to accelerate because more expansion creates more vacuum. If the expansion continues to or close to the speed of light it will pull appart galaxies, pull planets out of orbit, tear them down to atoms, rip the electrons off nuclei, dogs and cats will live together, and it will pull those quarks apart.
Given that happening (’member what we said about quarks in the first place?) perhaps there was a universe, perhaps several that had more curved space and pre-dates ours. The much curvier universe would cause atoms to coalesce faster, evolve the cosmos faster, and expand faster. This faster expansion would have gone to the same point where it rips the quarks apart (keeping in mind our buddy the strong force - which it overcomes). Under (Fermi) lab conditions the particle jet is observed and gets pats on the back, but has no impact on anything really. But if that were to happen to all the quarks in the universe the particles that spring from those jets would very quickly fill the entire universe with a vast amount of new particles. The initial new state of the universe would resemble the inflationary universe posited by Alan Guth (fairly standard theory). The new matter would put the brakes on the rapid expansion of the universe by gravitation attraction between these particles and their influence on vacuum energy. - or so I’ve heard from a physicist buddy of mine.

None of that requires “God” in the equation - which brings us to addressing your point. I happen to agree with that definition of God (omnipresent, et.al). Mostly because that definition doesn’t require any change in A posteriori knowledge (or knowlege derived from experiance). Things are as they are whether “God” is there or not.
The argument then becomes one of meaning and A priori knowledge (or knowlege derived from reason alone). This doesn’t mean (I would argue) that A priori knowlege is useless (or trivial). Logic, for example, is a type of and method by which we can derive A priori knowlege and is plenty useful.

Given all that - I would assert that the atheist camp, if it indeed is teaching critical thinking skills of the type that allows one to think and reason more clearly - is in fact more conducive to understanding “God” than a religious themed camp which typically centers on dogma. I would add that dogma often interferes with A posteriori knowledge (examples abound from Galileo on).
I would rather have knowlege derived from experiance neutral on “God” - as has been done here (’you can’t prove God exists’ - ‘you can’t prove God doesn’t exist’) and more importantly - vice versa, because there is less chance of any perspective attempting to invalidate what has been experianced.
One can apply this to religious thought and how A priori knowlege interacts with other A priori knowlege in terms of perspective, for example “God” and “Allah.” Neither can be proven as a repeatable common experiance can (such as directly observing (scientifically) the properties of something) and so must be treated as equally valid.
This is typically where atheists derisively use the “unicorn” phrase, which is a valid enough assertion, but fails to take into account the usefulness and complexity of the piece of thought in comparison. The entire body of christian thinking contains many useful concepts and does not equal a unicorn - in much the same way anything that is “beautiful” does not equal every other beautiful thing. Your kid’s finger paint is beautiful, and that is a kind of truth. It will not hang in the Louvre any time soon however.
So when we talk about “God” we’re talking not about provability, but of concept and perspective relationship - quite unlike the investigation of the nature of the universe.
Investigating how the universe came into being can be an investigation into how “God” created the universe if and only if “God” does not interfere with the investigation. In the same way, scientific investigation does not impart any meaning into man’s relationship with nature or his “place” in the universe or what we are to think of all these complexities beyond our current understanding. That term will always be an indefinate, indescribable one outside our experiance. But it shouldn’t get in the way of experiance. That diminishes our knowlege - internal as well as external.

So, why the hell not a camp?

/sorry that's so long.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:12 AM on July 21, 2006

I know it with the exact same level of certainty as the believers who claim there is a God. If their level of certainty is good enough for them to ram their beliefs down my throat, then turnabout is fair play.
posted by daveleck at 12:58 PM EST on July 21 [+fave] [!]

Turnabout is never fair play. Turnabout is a strategy of last resort. And you don't argue with idiots by becoming an idiot. You address their certainty by demonstrating how it is incorrect. "In your arrogance, do you really think you know God?" etc. Keep 'em guessing.

Have you read Anselm and the Ontological or a priori argument for God's existence?
Yes, but Ansalem's argument implies that human can imagine everything up to but not including God. I think the upper bound on the human mind's ability to conceive is way, way below whatever level a supreme entity might be operating on.

To wit - physics. Physics tries to describe everything we see in the physical realm. Great. But it is fundamentally imprefect in that it is possible there will be things that go unobserved that invalidate the law. So the laws of physics may never fully describe the entire physical world. By some measures the Universe is 70 billion light years across, but we can only observe about 15 billion. We can never ever know about the rest of it. There could be delicious quantum pies. You never know until you look. There could be a pissed off 55 billion light year wide God. Who knows?

Now consider that most definitions of God place him above/outside/beyond the mere physical realm. He can hear your prayers even if you only think them, etc. Therefore physical law can't prove or disprove him. (NB: it can't prove him in his entirety because there are at least some aspects of him that physics wasn't constructed to include).

So where does that leave us? Faith, belief, emotion. So, no, no one knows either way. You can form an opinion, but if that opinion is not subject to revision every time the discussion comes up, then you're mind is closed, and thus cannot be illuminated.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:18 AM on July 21, 2006

I went to Girl Scout camp every summer as a kid. I didn't really get why the other kids cared so much about bowing our heads in silence before lunch, and the identity of the mysterious "he" in the song "He's got the whole world in his hands" escaped me, as well. I figured it was "camping stuff", much like the heavy emphasis on Peter Pan and The Lorax was. Later on, when I was old enough to understand what these acts meant, I felt kind of betrayed. When I quit doing some of the religious stuff, I felt even more betrayed because I got teased and ostracized for not participating.

Personally, I'd be more likely to send my hypothetical children to Science Camp or the like, but I don't see why it's so bad for kids to have a camp where religious teaching is guaranteed not to go on, ever. The "invisible unicorn" game that so many of you groan at teaches atheist kids that they CAN'T prove that they're right, because it's impossible to prove a negative. It may be couched in silly terms, but it's a useful exercise in logic, and I don't see how teaching logic is equivalent to the sort of subtle religious indoctrination that goes on in mainstream camps. Like Saucy Intruder says, I ran into an awful lot of "Jesus before breakfast, lunch, and dinner" at camps that ought to have been about camping, not Christ.
posted by vorfeed at 11:27 AM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Good lord I never thought I’d be defending the atheist POV on this.
“What I find amazing about atheists is how certain they are that there is no God*. How do you know? God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.”

Ok, let's back up. The commonly accepted definition of God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. That's what's in the Bible, "I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, etc." That's waht Ansalem argued "Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined".

So, when aethists argue against the existence of god, this is the definition of God they should be focusing on.

I was simply conducting a logic exericise to conclude that the nonexistence of a three-O concept can never be known to any non-trivial certainty, because he can always be defined as the sum total of everything that is known, the denial of which is absurd.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:31 AM on July 21, 2006

“Therefore physical law can't prove or disprove him.” -Pastabagel

One contention - I’d argue that the absence of something within physical law disproves the existance of that thing as a factor (given you have all the factors).
And that wiggle room at the end doesn’t allow for “God” only something not currently quantifiable.
There’s a nifty far side cartoon where a physicist has a whole line of calculations then a big circle with the phrase “AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS” and the rest of the equations.
That can’t happen.
So for all intents and purposes in terms of reliable repeatable occurances - God doesn’t exist.
(Again - doesn’t invalidate the concept, which, I think, is what you’re saying, but in terms of proof/no proof - invalidity in terms of affecting the outcome of anything, yes, that factor isn’t there)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:32 AM on July 21, 2006

Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything...

In order to get "legions" of atheists doing something, it's first necessary that "legions" of atheists exist. They have historically been a tiny and despised (if not actively persecuted) minority in the US.

Maybe atheism just doesn't lend itself to organization the same way that ethnic or religious background does. That doesn't really mean much of anything. You don't seem "legions of left-handed people fighting as abolitionists," either. People simply don't organize or identify themselves that way.

It's really odd that you'd pick the abolition of slavery as a distinctly non-atheistic cause, seeing as how slavery is endorsed in the Bible and had many vocal and devoutly Christian defenders, some of whom went so far as to accuse (rightly or wrongly) abolitionists of atheism.

"Atheist" was once a terribly insulting thing to say about someone. It was used as a smear tactic to discourage thought and debate, very much like "liberal" is used today.

Under such circumstances, it's actually a rather bad PR move to associate one's advocacy group with atheism. History doesn't have many high-profile groups like "Murderers For Women's Suffrage" or "Child Molesters Against Slavery," either.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:36 AM on July 21, 2006

There could be delicious quantum pies.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:43 AM on July 21, 2006

“he can always be defined as the sum total of everything that is known, the denial of which is absurd.” - posted by Pastabagel

I’ve argued a similar position myself. So I agree. But again - within one sphere of knowlege. And one can define the sum total of everything as “the sum total of everything” without the term “God.”
Tao works well for me (because it’s indefinate). But there are others or lack thereof. Anyway - yeah, but that’s my contention, it’s a conceptual framework, and valid within that conceptual framework, not a physical reality. But that lack of physical reality doesn’t disprove the concept.

Which leans me toward thinking the camp is a good thing. Too often religious folks allow their ideas (many of them quite good on occasion - MLK f’rinstance) to lean on other folks experiance, etc. I think the more rationally trained minds - on either side - the better. If something is a good idea, it’s a good idea, whatever sphere of thought it’s grounded in.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:43 AM on July 21, 2006

Did somebody mention pie?
posted by sciurus at 11:51 AM on July 21, 2006

You know who else had camps? Hitler.
posted by monju_bosatsu

Awesome.
posted by tula at 11:51 AM on July 21, 2006

dame : "I don't think that works for the agnosticism example, bugbread. People who do or don't believe in God have at base the same belief, regardless of how they got there. Saying 'I don't know whether god exists' is fundamentally different from saying 'I don't believe it's possible to know whether god exists.'"

How so? They're both saying "I don't know whether god exists". The first group is saying it because they think it may be knowable, but they don't happen to. The second group is saying it because they think it's unknowable. So they have their different reasons for thinking the same thing. Saying that they are two different positions because people hold the positions for two different reasons is like saying that a you can't call two people "theists" if one worships God because he think God loves him and the other worships God because he thinks God hates him and wants to appease him.
posted by Bugbread at 11:52 AM on July 21, 2006

Which leans me toward thinking the camp is a good thing. Too often religious folks allow their ideas (many of them quite good on occasion - MLK f’rinstance) to lean on other folks experiance, etc. I think the more rationally trained minds - on either side - the better. If something is a good idea, it’s a good idea, whatever sphere of thought it’s grounded in.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:43 PM EST on July 21 [+fave] [!]

Actually, this is why I think the camp is stupid. A mind becomes rational through repeated argument, over and over, often on the same topic and on the same side of that topic but with a different opponent. There are no opponents to this thought in the camp, and based on the camp's about page, no one to even suggest that what is rational may not be all there is.

On a side note, this is why I think anyone here who snarks in abortion, gay rights, religion, or other oft posted topic threads about "oh great another ____ thread" is dim. These threads are not all the same because the people in them aren't the same, and usually when you get about halfway through the thread, people have exhausted their cribbed arguments from the latest New Yorker/Daily Show or National Review/OpinionJournal, and they have to start responding on point and thinking on their feet, and that's when it gets interesting.

And if you read a lot of those threads, you start to see some drift in people's positions as well as the clear emergence of prejudices and biases.

It's a hell of a lot more worthwhile and interesting to argue this than yet another single link fpp to the colbert report.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:55 AM on July 21, 2006

Yes, but Ansalem's argument implies that human can imagine everything up to but not including God. I think the upper bound on the human mind's ability to conceive is way, way below whatever level a supreme entity might be operating on.

In the heavily Neoplatonic-influenced worldview of the middle ages, this is not a problem. Human thought, like everything else created, is only a consequence and creation of the One, which is beyond all expression, yet apprehendable (by grace) by the human soul.

Materialist or positivist philosophies cannot accomodate this proposition.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:58 AM on July 21, 2006

and I don't see how teaching logic is equivalent to the sort of subtle religious indoctrination that goes on in mainstream camps.

Well, you can teach logic using other subject matter, so they're not really just teaching logic any more than the religious camps are just teaching teamwork or some such.

In order to get "legions" of atheists doing something, it's first necessary that "legions" of atheists exist.

And they'd have to care enough about something to get organized on it. Atheists are much more usually apathetic about God since to them he she or it doesn't exist. Understandable. One thing you have to give the camp operators, apparently they're concerned enough about the general welfare to do something practical based on their beliefs. Although I suppose it could be more a market opportunity thing than belief-driven.

It's really odd that you'd pick the abolition of slavery as a distinctly non-atheistic cause

I believe the point here is atheists typically don't organize as a self-identified group and do much of anything as such. People are unlikely to get involved in doing anything about something or based on something that, for them, obviously doesn't exist. Logical enough.
posted by scheptech at 11:59 AM on July 21, 2006

Oh great...another generation of religion-intolerant militant athiests.
posted by rocket88

So ... what is the secret signal that will cause all these religion-intolerant militant atheists to rise up and overthrow the religiously fanatical militant fundamentalists? I wish someone would tell me ...
posted by kaemaril at 12:07 PM on July 21, 2006

“There are no opponents to this thought in the camp, and based on the camp's about page, no one to even suggest that what is rational may not be all there is.”

Perhaps they honestly explore the ideas, maybe not. Maybe it’s just a “no jesus, mohammed, moses, buddha, etc.” zone. I really don’t know, I prefer to go with Saucy Intruder‘s dynamic knowlege of the situation rather than my interpretation of what the other (static) stuff is saying.
Opponents to the thinking taught in the camp abound in society. So if they come out and are willing to stand up for ideas derived from cogent principled thinking, all the better. I’m just remembering how much flak the guy who opposed the pledge of allegence’s “under God” phrase got. And there does seem to be a great deal of religious oriented thought in government lately. Being strongly committed to a separation of church and state, I would think kids raised with secular thought would only help that situation.
I’d agree though that if there is an indocrinational aspect to the camp, that’d be stupid.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:10 PM on July 21, 2006

Instead of impaling the counselors with garden implements while they're fucking, Jason Voorhees ties them up and plays audio recordings of the Left Behind series until they repent.
posted by bardic at 12:11 PM on July 21, 2006

Hm, bugbread, I don't think I did that well. Let me try again.

Saying that they are two different positions because people hold the positions for two different reasons is like saying that a you can't call two people "theists" if one worships God because he think God loves him and the other worships God because he thinks God hates him and wants to appease him.

In your example, both theists believe that God exists and worship him. Why they do is different, but it doesn't matter in the case of creating categories of belief. However, both agnostics are not saying "I don't know if God exists." One says "I don't know," the other, "It is impossible to know." I think that is a distinction big enough to make separate categories worthwhile.
posted by dame at 12:12 PM on July 21, 2006

Mefi keeps telling me that this comment is blank. Post damn you post!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:39 PM on July 21, 2006

I'd rather go to the apatheist camp, where the principal activity is likely to be getting stoned and saying, "Whatever."
posted by goofyfoot at 12:41 PM on July 21, 2006

Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything - other than removing a stupid phrase from a dollar bill.

You're wrong. Here is a small sample of some atheists who's positive contributions to history cannot be denied.

Two atheists, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cody Stanton, certainly fought for civil rights. I'd say its shameful that Anthony's face was put on a dollar coin with "In God We Trust". She didn't, and yet she is widely considered the single most important figure in the history of women's rights in America. Yet according to Bush Sr. she's not a patriot, nor should even be considered a citizen, because she is an atheist.

David Hume is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and made a massive contribution to the field of moral philosophy. Without Hume, the Enlightenment would be dimmer.

John Stuart Mill, another great moral philosopher, was also a non-believer. He was a passionate activist for countless causes both as a writer and philosopher, and as a member of Parliament.

It can do truth no service to blind the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected the Christian faith.
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Bertrand Russell, another noted atheist philosopher and ardent activist for equality and peace. Also a Nobel Laureate.

Other accomplished atheist philosophers and activists include Simone be Beauvoir, Jeremy Bentham and Charles Bradlaugh, and that's just atheists who's last names start with the letter B.

Now let's look at accomplishments in science. There's no shortage of atheists there. Perhaps not activists, but they certainly contributed positively to society.

Watson and Crick are both atheists, so is Marie Curie. All won the Nobel Prize, Curie won it twice. Their collective contributions to science are immense, and the contribution Watson and Crick have made to medicine is perhaps the most significant of all time. I could mention others, but as we already know, people who are rigorous enough thinkers to be eminent scientists are frequently atheists.

Can I stop now? Atheists have contributed to society vastly out of proportion to their numbers, especially considering their historically and presently denigrated or even hated status among the general public.

Stop insulting the character and belittling the accomplishments of non-believers.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:44 PM on July 21, 2006 [6 favorites]

Great comment [expletive deleted]. From the standpoint of US history, I'd add Jefferson and Franklin. OK, they were deists--but it isn't too much of a stretch to think that for many prominent figures in the 18th century, deist was code for atheist. Indeed, many of the faithful back then were happy to remind people of this fact.

Yes Virginia, you can accomplish much without belief in a vengeful sky god.
posted by bardic at 12:48 PM on July 21, 2006

You know who else contributed to society vastly out of proportion to numbers? Hitler.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:51 PM on July 21, 2006

I understand what you're saying, dame, but I just don't see them as saying different ultimate things. In my theist example, it would be like saying "the two theists are not saying 'I believe there is a God', one is saying 'I worship God out of love', the other 'I worship God out of fear'". From my point of view, when describing whether they do or don't believe in God, they would both fall into the "do" camp, and hence I'd call them theists. Two people who fall into the "don't" camp I would call atheists. And two people who fall into the "don't know" camp would be agnostics.

I understand what you're saying, but what seems to you a huge distinction seems, to me, to be a huge distinction but not huge enough to affect the word agnostic. It's not to say that the distinction is minor or unimportant. Think of the difference between, say, your believer in YHWH, white guy in clouds, burning bush, single god only person and your animistic "multiple gods who live in large rocks and trees, with no teachings or holy books, who we present offerings to" person. That's a big difference. A huge difference. But it isn't big enough that one of the two would fall out of the scope of "theist".

So the two agnostics in question may have massively, wildly different views on the whole god question, but when it comes to whether or not they believe, their end answer, "I dunno", is the same.

But, again, I understand what you're saying, and you understand what I'm saying, so us bandying about examples isn't going to get us anywhere.

One last question though (not a leading question, but sincere): if the difference in why they don't know is big enough to prevent the term "agnostic" from being applied to the two groups, what should we call them individually (avoiding answers like "I-don't-knows-ists" and other phrases that could only be understood in context), and what word should we then use to indicate the whole group of people who don't know whether there is a god or not (that is, the group composed of the subgroups "agnostics" and "I-don't-knows-ists")
posted by Bugbread at 12:51 PM on July 21, 2006

I would call them agnostics & undecideds. Because I guess in the end the difference to me is that the undecideds are thte only ones who haven't made a choice. And I wouldn't group them together because they haven't made a choice. It has now become apparent to me that choice is key. Silly me.
posted by dame at 12:59 PM on July 21, 2006

Bardic, I was taking for granted the beliefs of people like Jefferson and Franklin, who like Hume, likely concealed their atheism as deism, but were generally considered atheists by their contemporaries anyway. I wanted to compile a short list of people who are typically not thought of as non-believers, especially people who are remembered as principled social activists. I also wanted to emphasise how vitally important atheists have been to moral philosophy. I kinda assumed most people taking part in this discussion recognize the role secularism played in the United States' founding principles and origins, and that any debate would be about whether Jeffersonian secularism was a positive or negative influence, or the extent of that influence.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:02 PM on July 21, 2006

14% is not a lot c=in comparison with other advanced country ???

National Academy of Sciences, 517 members, half responded,
72.2% > Personal disbelief in god
20.8% > Doubt or agnosticism


American states with anti-atheist laws ???

I didn't find statistics by american states ???
but i found this :
1997 Atheist in Prison 0.209% > 156 of 74,731
posted by luis huiton at 1:04 PM on July 21, 2006

You know who else contributed to society vastly out of proportion to numbers? Hitler.

God bless you, Smedleyman.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:12 PM on July 21, 2006

I think the mental exercise of trying to prove an imaginary unicorn does not exist is an excellent one for kids that age.

The whole idea that you can't prove a negative, and where the burden of proof for claims not originating from prima facie experience should lie is not so obvious at age 12 -- hell, there is certainly no shortage of adults who seemingly fail to grasp it.
posted by lastobelus at 1:19 PM on July 21, 2006

Also, Decani, what do Brisih children do in the summer?

Annoy their parents, mainly. Of course, when I was a lad it was all catching sticklebacks and tadpoles, and eating cucumber sandwiches with Wigglesworth minor, and long, hot days on our bicycles going to see the RAF jets at Binbrook crash gate... and strawberries and cream... and cricket on the green......NURSE! The screens!
posted by Decani at 1:29 PM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Oh great...another generation of religion-intolerant militant athiests

Infinitely preferable to a generation of irrational, prinitive nincompoops who think their idiotic beliefs should be ring-fenced and protected from the aggressive attacks they so richly deserve, and who whine like little pussies when that doesn't happen.
posted by Decani at 1:32 PM on July 21, 2006 [8 favorites]

I'd rather go to the apatheist camp, where the principal activity is likely to be getting stoned and saying, "Whatever."
posted by goofyfoot at 12:41 PM PST on July 21 [+fave] [!]

I'd guess at least half the kids wouldn't show up for it.
posted by Stauf at 1:34 PM on July 21, 2006

Infinitely preferable to a generation of irrational, prinitive nincompoops...

There's a generation of Russians who would disagree with you.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:46 PM on July 21, 2006

David Hume is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and made a massive contribution to the field of moral philosophy. Without Hume, the Enlightenment would be dimmer.

i read that as "Without Hume, the Enlightenment would be dinner."
posted by dubold at 2:00 PM on July 21, 2006

Can we stop with this canard that communists were atheists, and therefore, atheists have to defend Stalin?

The Soviet Union was basically a secualr theocracy where the orthodoxy of Bolshevism replaced a state religion. Stalin invented the modern cult of personality as a ruling paradigm for tyrants, calling on the proud tradition of Old Testament patriarchs. In the Soviet state, a cabal of a few old men held absolute authority, and claimed this authority stemmed from their claim to be the only people who could interpret and impliment the texts of Marxism-Leninism. The state was purged of suspected heretics, and people were indocrinated to believe the state and its leaders were flawless. That sounds more like Iran than a truly secular state.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:03 PM on July 21, 2006

dame:

Ok, that makes sense. I wish there were a slightly better word than undecided (don't get me wrong, it's a great word, but if someone walking down the street shouted "I'm an atheist!", I would know what they were talking about, but if someone out of the blue shouted "I'm undecided!", I'd be lost.). Perhaps "religiously undecided"?
posted by Bugbread at 2:06 PM on July 21, 2006

That is to say, they claimed this authority stemmed from their unique ability to interpret the canon of Marxism-Leninism. My writing needs to be less redundant. That is, I need to judiciously edit my prose for unnecessary words and phrases. This is a problem of mine. It has needlessly complicated my writing. As a result, my writing has become bloated and convoluted.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:10 PM on July 21, 2006

Exact, idem for Maoism ! it's called personality cult.
The line is between Rationalists and Believers,
posted by luis huiton at 2:12 PM on July 21, 2006

Because I guess in the end the difference to me is that the undecideds are thte only ones who haven't made a choice. And I wouldn't group them together because they haven't made a choice. It has now become apparent to me that choice is key.

Why? What does that do? You've decided you don't know something, but the veneer of decisiveness is important? I mean, I am an agnostic, but I'm not inclined to stick to the idea that the supernatural is unknowable out of general principle if a pantheon should pop up in Nebraska next week, which is the kind of thing I hold as a really really distant possibility, about as likely as a Southern Baptist God actually. You could divide things up as "never gonna know" and "don't know yet" and "will know someday," but honestly the idea of a sectarian view of agnosticism is pretty funny.
posted by furiousthought at 2:15 PM on July 21, 2006

I should state for the record that I had nothing to do with creating that "anti-theist" wiki page. I was trying to make a point. And a little joke. Nevermind.
posted by LordSludge at 2:18 PM on July 21, 2006

Baby_Balrog: Agnosticism leaves room for the possibility of a higher power, albeit an unknowable one.
Atheism states that one has 'proved,' so to speak, that God does not exist. (I find that Atheists tend to respond negatively to statements like, "Atheists have faith that God does not exist.")

Well, that depends. Atheist thought (literally "without deity") is quite broad. Although some atheist philosophers raise ontological arguments against the existence of god, most atheist philosophers of the 20th century have raised an epistemological argument against belief in god. The argument goes like this:

1: Belief is justified by evidence.
2: In the absence of evidence the best position is provisional disbelief or doubt.
3: The absence of evidence for god demands a rejection of positive claims to god's existence.

Note that this mirrors the epistemological principle used in science. You can't prove the null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis. Contemporary atheists argue that theists have failed to provide sufficient evidence that makes it reasonable to reject the null hypothesis.

Agnosticism is a philosophy or belief-system or whatever you want to call it, and using the word to describe yourself implies just as much surety regarding the nature of God as Atheist or Christian or anything else.

I despise the way the word has been degraded in common parlance.

I do as well, which is why I think you are badly wrong. Huxley's original formulation of agnosticism was a provisional position. He was explicitly open to the possibility that God was knowable, but he considered it a waste of time until someone came up with unequivocal evidence. Other formulations of agnosticism do explicitly reject the idea that the God question can either be answered.

So just as an example of how the two overlap, you have Bertrand Russel who labels himself an agnostic in that he can present no proof as to the non-existence of god, but also as an atheist in that his default position is one of disbelief or doubt.

Pastabagel: God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Does this define the universe itself?

Well, here the argument comes down to one of semantics. You can't be omniscient without being sentient. While someone like Albert Einstein may have used "god" to describe such an impersonal and abstract pantheism; others can argue that treating the term "deity" as synonymous with "universe" is pointless and meaningless.

delmoi: Well, that's due to linguistic drift. The term was made up for the specific purpose of meaning a person who does not believe it's possible for people to know if god exists. But lately it's been used to mean, "I don't know". Languagehat would probably tell you the second form is just as valid.

Actually, Huxley staked out "I don't know (but future evidence might settle the issue)" at least by 1889.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889]

The "knowledge about god is impossible" meaning originated elsewhere at a later date (perhaps Leslie Stephen 1993?) Linguistic drift has little to do with it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:21 PM on July 21, 2006

Baby_Balrog: Agnosticism leaves room for the possibility of a higher power, albeit an unknowable one.
Atheism states that one has 'proved,' so to speak, that God does not exist. (I find that Atheists tend to respond negatively to statements like, "Atheists have faith that God does not exist.")

Well, that depends. Atheist thought (literally "without deity") is quite broad. Although some atheist philosophers raise ontological arguments against the existence of god, most atheist philosophers of the 20th century have raised an epistemological argument against belief in god. The argument goes like this:

1: Belief is justified by evidence.
2: In the absence of evidence the best position is provisional disbelief or doubt.
3: The absence of evidence for god demands a rejection of positive claims to god's existence.

Note that this mirrors the epistemological principle used in science. You can't prove the null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject the null hypothesis. Contemporary atheists argue that theists have failed to provide sufficient evidence that makes it reasonable to reject the null hypothesis.

Agnosticism is a philosophy or belief-system or whatever you want to call it, and using the word to describe yourself implies just as much surety regarding the nature of God as Atheist or Christian or anything else.

I despise the way the word has been degraded in common parlance.

I do as well, which is why I think you are badly wrong. Huxley's original formulation of agnosticism was a provisional position. He was explicitly open to the possibility that God was knowable, but he considered it a waste of time until someone came up with unequivocal evidence. Other formulations of agnosticism do explicitly reject the idea that the God question can either be answered.

So just as an example of how the two overlap, you have Bertrand Russel who labels himself an agnostic in that he can present no proof as to the non-existence of god, but also as an atheist in that his default position is one of disbelief or doubt.

Pastabagel: God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Does this define the universe itself?

Well, here the argument comes down to one of semantics. You can't be omniscient without being sentient. While someone like Albert Einstein may have used "god" to describe such an impersonal and abstract pantheism; others can argue that treating the term "deity" as synonymous with "universe" is pointless and meaningless.

delmoi: Well, that's due to linguistic drift. The term was made up for the specific purpose of meaning a person who does not believe it's possible for people to know if god exists. But lately it's been used to mean, "I don't know". Languagehat would probably tell you the second form is just as valid.

Actually, Huxley staked out "I don't know (but future evidence might settle the issue)" at least by 1889.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. [" Agnosticism," 1889]

The "knowledge about god is impossible" meaning originated elsewhere at a later date (perhaps Leslie Stephen 1993?) Linguistic drift has little to do with it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:27 PM on July 21, 2006

Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh
Greetings from Camp Ain't-No-God-Uh!
posted by jrossi4r at 2:28 PM on July 21, 2006

I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's getting a little too close to "existence of God" for this thread. (I'm not sure if there's a specific AskMe thread that covers this..?) I'm tryin really hard to stay outta this one!

Although it's kinda funny to see the agnostics (vs. anti-agnostics) going at it -- only on Metafilter.
posted by LordSludge at 2:39 PM on July 21, 2006

bugbread: How so? They're both saying "I don't know whether god exists". The first group is saying it because they think it may be knowable, but they don't happen to. The second group is saying it because they think it's unknowable. So they have their different reasons for thinking the same thing. Saying that they are two different positions because people hold the positions for two different reasons is like saying that a you can't call two people "theists" if one worships God because he think God loves him and the other worships God because he thinks God hates him and wants to appease him.

Well, belief and knowledge are two subtly different but distinct concepts which leads to much of this confusion. You can believe that a claim like the Riemann hypothesis is true or false, and still admit that there is no firm proof as to its truth or falsehood. Huxley's original agnosticism was actually an argument for humanism. In effect he said that lacking knowledge as to the existence of god was a good reason provisionally favoring philosophical systems that didn't depend on God. This would be echoed by the first Humanist Manifesto which argued for ethical and political philosophy based on human terms.

Much of modern and post-modern philosophy has to do with how to deal with a lack of certainty. So you have agnostics on both sides. Agnostic theists argue that in the absence of evidence you should exercise faith. Agnostic atheists argue that in the absence of evidence you should exercise doubt.

Pastabagel: By some measures the Universe is 70 billion light years across, but we can only observe about 15 billion. We can never ever know about the rest of it. There could be delicious quantum pies. You never know until you look. There could be a pissed off 55 billion light year wide God. Who knows?

Bertrand Russel made a great analogy for this. Perhaps there is a tea set in orbit around the planet Mars. This is not outside of the realm of possibility, but very improbable given what we know about tea sets. Given this improbability, why should I believe claims in the Martian tea set in the absence of evidence?

This is a basic application of Occam's razor. There are an infinite number of possible things that might exist beyond our vision of the universe, so we should exercise skepticism (or doubt) about all of them equally.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:51 PM on July 21, 2006

Can we stop with this canard that communists were atheists, and therefore, atheists have to defend Stalin?

The Soviet Union was basically a secualr theocracy where the orthodoxy of Bolshevism replaced a state religion.

Canard! That's a good one. The sort of militant atheism discussed here is certainly as much a dogmatic "orthodoxy" as Bolshevism, as far as belief in something is concerned. It just doesn't happen to wield the same kind of power at the moment.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:02 PM on July 21, 2006

Krrrlson, could you name two or three militant atheists, either in this thread or IRL?

As for Stalin, it's interesting that as a youth he studied for the Orthodox clergy. Up through the end of his life he was fond of singing religious songs. Ironically? Perhaps, but religion had a profound affect on him, even as he worked to stamp it out. But as others have mentioned, he wasn't pushing an atheist agenda--he was pushing his version of Communism.

Maybe you're thinking of that guy in California who brought a suit so that his kid didn't have to be indoctrinated every morning with words inserted into the pledge during the 1950's. Filing a lawsuit against something he thought was wrong, and allowing courts to decide! How offensively militant! Burn him!
posted by bardic at 3:15 PM on July 21, 2006

The sort of militant atheism discussed here is certainly as much a dogmatic "orthodoxy" as Bolshevism

Yeahhhhhhhhhh
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:18 PM on July 21, 2006

No, Krrrlson, you are completely wrong. The kind of atheism professed by most people in discussion who identify as such is one of skepticism of positive claims to God's existence in the absence of convincing evidence.

As such, atheists such as myself profess no belief in God's existence or non-existence, but tend towards doubt in the absence of evidence.

Personally, I think that if God is defined as a sentient force responsible for the creation or properties of our universe, then the chance for the existence or non-existence of god is not something I can speculate on. I simply don't have the information necessary to make that judgement. As for the specific claims to the existence and character of a God or pantheon of gods made by specific religions, I highly doubt the truth of those claims. I think the Holy Trinity as a God concept is significantly less likely than the existence of Aunt Xorgnax's Delicious Quantum Pie Stand orbiting Proxima Centauri. The latter would at least be somewhat feasible under the laws of physics as we understand them.

Now I'm off to buy and promptly consume a whole pie.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:22 PM on July 21, 2006

Right on, goofyfoot. Let It Be.
posted by emelenjr at 3:51 PM on July 21, 2006

The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed because of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangable with the actual belief system of communism.

apatheism is funny, in a big modern city...
posted by luis huiton at 4:17 PM on July 21, 2006

[expletive deleted] : "As such, atheists such as myself profess no belief in God's existence or non-existence, but tend towards doubt in the absence of evidence."

How does that differ from agnosticism or undecidedness?
posted by Bugbread at 4:29 PM on July 21, 2006

How does that differ from agnosticism...

It doesn't. Agnostics apparently don't understand science.
posted by LordSludge at 4:35 PM on July 21, 2006

I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's getting a little too close to "existence of God" for this thread.

Of course, this is Mefi. Anything post remotely related to religion stands a good chance of becoming tributary to the ongoing meta-discussion: Does God Exist.

This is a basic application of Occam's razor. There are an infinite number of possible things that might exist beyond our vision of the universe, so we should exercise skepticism (or doubt) about all of them equally.

Occam's razor has been used to argue for the existence of God. As in: what's more likely, we and the universe are the result of an extremely long and extremely fortuitous series of random events (the coin comes up heads about a billion times in a row for us to happen) or God did it?
posted by scheptech at 4:38 PM on July 21, 2006

Of course, this is Mefi. Anything post remotely related to religion stands a good chance of becoming tributary to the ongoing meta-discussion: Does God Exist.

Of course God exists, but what does quonsar's pantsfish have to do with this discussion?
posted by scrump at 4:48 PM on July 21, 2006

scheptech: Occam's razor has been used to argue for the existence of God. As in: what's more likely, we and the universe are the result of an extremely long and extremely fortuitous series of random events (the coin comes up heads about a billion times in a row for us to happen) or God did it?

Except that (and this is a flaw in some formulations of the anthropic principle) no one really proposes that we and the universe are the result of a large number of random events. In many cases phenomena that previously seemed to be arbitrary miracles of fate turn out to be events that are predicted, even mandated by systems of physical law.

300 years ago, people believed that lightning strikes were acts of divine provenance. Ben Franklin changed all that with a theory of electricity and a practical application.

But this to me is a misapplication and fundamental misunderstanding of Occam's razor. It has nothing to do with probability, but with minimizing the number of entities that are necessary to explain a phenomenon.

bugbread: How does that differ from agnosticism or undecidedness?

It does not, because atheism and agnosticism involve related but distinct concepts. One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:55 PM on July 21, 2006

And the more I engage in these discussions, the more I'm convinced that:

1) Few people have actually read the arguments for agnosticism.

2) Developments in epistemology have rendered agnosticism obsolete. In 2006 it is acceptable to take a position that all knowledge is provisional based on the weight of current evidence, and also say that some claims are stronger than others.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:11 PM on July 21, 2006

no one really proposes that we and the universe are the result of a large number of random events.

A lot believe that what we have now is the result of a long series of events which 'just happened', guided by physical laws yes, but still allowing for a huge variation in possible outcomes, enough to make us extremely unlikely.

The alternative is to believe we are inevitable as determined by what, the arrangement of atoms which existed at the big bang? If one is not careful this sort of thinking leads perilously back around to some sort of God concept.

It has nothing to do with probability, but with minimizing the number of entities that are necessary to explain a phenomenon.

Yes exactly, and in this application of the razor God = 1 entity. This would be indeed be the idea.
posted by scheptech at 5:26 PM on July 21, 2006

KirkJobSluder has basically laid out my position for me.

Developments in epistemology have rendered agnosticism obsolete. In 2006 it is acceptable to take a position that all knowledge is provisional based on the weight of current evidence, and also say that some claims are stronger than others.

This is basically how I feel about god. The burden of proof is squarely on any believer to prove that their specific god concept is real. Why should the burden of proof lie with the person who doesn't believe a particular religion's claims? That seems absurd in a world of countless contradictory and quarreling sects, all claiming to know the divine truth. I don't believe any of these claims for the same reason I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job: because there simply isn't the solid body of evidence necessary to validate such an extraordinary claim.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:45 PM on July 21, 2006

No, Krrrlson, you are completely wrong. The kind of atheism professed by most people in discussion who identify as such is one of skepticism of positive claims to God's existence in the absence of convincing evidence.

As such, atheists such as myself profess no belief in God's existence or non-existence, but tend towards doubt in the absence of evidence.

Just for reference, this is the comment I originally responded to:

Infinitely preferable to a generation of irrational, prinitive nincompoops who think their idiotic beliefs should be ring-fenced and protected from the aggressive attacks they so richly deserve, and who whine like little pussies when that doesn't happen.

The above is the militant atheism I was referring to, and it is arguably closer to the fundamentalist religious stance than even Bolshevism. The atheist camp in the FPP positions itself with similar arrogance, which is why I suspect it is the brainchild of similar people. If your atheism has the passive qualities you describe, then more power to you, but, sadly, the loudest and most noticeable atheists are usually as intolerant as their opposition.

Finally, I'm not sure what the tunes Stalin sang in the shower have to do with the fact that atheism, in the sense of prohibition of religion and denial of the existence of the divine, was a clearly stated part of the Bolshevik doctrine. Regardless of the allegedly quasi-religious nature of the Soviet system, atheism was forced on the population. If you wish to redefine atheism to exempt that, then let's start with a clearly formulated definition of atheism.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:52 PM on July 21, 2006

Yes exactly, and in this application of the razor God = 1 entity. This would be indeed be the idea.

No, God is one extra entity. If you can prove that the universe literally couldn't exist in its current form without God, then you've proven that God exists ---congrats. Failing that, God is an extra element to a description of the universe.

As for the "long series of events" stuff, who's to say that it's important that the universe be exactly as it is today? How close could it be and still be acceptable? To make this argument convincing, you'd need to show what the purpose of the universe is, how much variance is possible while still satisfying this purpose, and then cap off this tour de force with a calculation of the probability of these constraints being satisfied randomly. If you don't do this, you're no more convincing than if you walk out onto the street, see the license plate WZG-1462 and assume that due to the extreme unlikelihood of observing that particular tag, that there must be a God.

Finally, atheism doesn't exclude Stalinism, but it doesn't include it either. Atheism is a rejection of religion, not the endorsement of cults of personality. Atheism isn't an endorsement of anything. It's not a philosophy. There are many philosophies that are technically compatible with atheism. Stalinism may be one of them, but I've never met an atheist who advocated it. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to prove. If you're trying to prove that there have been unethical atheists in the past, you're successful. That's not much though, because atheism entails virtually nothing except the rejection of religion. If you want to pit your religion against an atheistic ethical philosophy, I suggest that you try to find genocidal humanists.
posted by Humanzee at 6:06 PM on July 21, 2006

There's a generation of Russians who would disagree with you.

Krrrlson, you're a fucking idiot.
posted by Decani at 6:26 PM on July 21, 2006

Krrrlson, you're a fucking idiot.

Harsh! Also possibly wrong.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:55 PM on July 21, 2006

No, no, let's be fair. It's on the Internet, so it must be true.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:58 PM on July 21, 2006

In the course of human history, it's the theists who have a lot more oppression re: religious practice to answer for than atheists. Think Spain ca. 1492--forced conversion, murder, and expulsion of Muslims and Jews.

So Krrrlson, try again.
posted by bardic at 7:05 PM on July 21, 2006

Yeah, but it's always other religions doing the opressing. They deserve each other. Vicious cycle and all.
posted by IronLizard at 7:11 PM on July 21, 2006

In the course of human history, it's the theists who have a lot more oppression re: religious practice to answer for than atheists... So Krrrlson, try again.

What exactly should I try again? I'm not sure what you're responding to.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:13 PM on July 21, 2006

If you can prove that the universe literally couldn't exist in its current form without God, then you've proven that God exists ---congrats. Failing that, God is an extra element to a description of the universe.

And carrying on from there, if you reach the point where you decide/agree that the universe could exist without "God", then God is just as arbitrary an additional belief as any other. Flying pigs? Check. Superintelligent carniverous Dodge Caravans? Why not.

It's nice to be respectful of all beliefs, but I don't see theists holding their beliefs on a level with other equally improbable (or unnecessary) alternatives. Instead, these unprovable beliefs are supposed to be raised above the rest for no reason seemingly other than that they provide comfort. Teaching critical thinking automatically relegates a belief in God to the flying pig arena, so as respectful as you want to be, at that point it borders on "I'll respect your opinions even if they're irrational" which isn't very respectful at all.
posted by dreamsign at 7:14 PM on July 21, 2006

You argued that atheism is of a piece with any ideology that actively seeks to keep people from worshipping as they please. I called bullshit, given that historically it's religion X that tends to suppress religions Y and Z.

I also asked you to name some militant atheists, and you didn't. I'll grant that the suppression of religious practice was a part of Communism, but not the driving force of Communism by any stretch of the imagination.

Want to practice your faith peacefully and as you wish, as long as you don't harm others or interfere with someone else's religious practice? Live around atheists. They might think you're silly or misguided, but guess what? They won't picket outside your church. They won't try and pass laws against your religion of choice. They won't tell you when, where, and how you should have sex. They won't murder you while screaming "God is great."
posted by bardic at 7:23 PM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

The way I look at it, I respect anyone's right to believe whatever one wants, but that doesn't mean I need to respect everything people believe.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:24 PM on July 21, 2006

Harsh! Also possibly wrong.

Possibly! If you believe that people who habitually spout indolent, fallacious arsedribble aren't likely to be fucking idiots!
posted by Decani at 8:03 PM on July 21, 2006 [3 favorites]

A mind becomes rational through repeated argument, over and over, often on the same topic and on the same side of that topic but with a different opponent.

Unless, of course, one of the participating viewpoints is itself irrational to a degree that it nullifies the debate's adequacy. Which almost all religious arguments are.

Unless I'm wrong, history books don't show legions of atheist fighting as abolitionists, or fighting for Civil Rights, or fighting for much of anything - other than removing a stupid phrase from a dollar bill.

By the same token, they do show militant armies of religious fanatics destroying everything in their path. With your logic, you can justify the superiority or inferiority of religiousness in any context, just because most people are religious.

I'm sick and tired of the eternal atheism vs. agnosticism classification debate. You want to quantify my disdain for religion and religiousness and bend that to your own ends, be my guest, but I'm certainly not going to help you by pigeonholing myself. I dislike personal religiousness because it's intellectually weak and communal religion because it amplifies that weakness to a degree where it's ludicrously rife with opportunity for abuse. Playing philosophical games based on ludicrous assumptions conceived to prove the existence of one's imaginary friends is not my style.
posted by azazello at 8:05 PM on July 21, 2006

And what bardic said. I get fucking sick to my guts when I hear these dreadful, ignorant, piss-witted religious apologists trying the old "OMGWTF you militant atheists want to round us all up and put is in gas chambers OMG you're just as intolerant as the worst Islamicterroristinquisitionbastinadostakeburner!!!!!!" ratshit.

Not, you fucking pathetic, whining, retrograde imbeciles. "Militant" atheists like me wouldn't inflict a centimetre of violence on anyone for merely having a belief. No. Put that desperate, straw-clutching thought right out of your fuzzy little heads. It won't happen. But by the dumbass, childish, blueblanket deity you cretins persist in clinging to in spite of all reason and evidence, we will mock, harry, abuse, ridicule and disdain you subhuman vermin utterly. Because to respect shameful cuntslime like you is to deny human progress and human potential. It is to shut down the finer, more evolved part of our minds and cleave to the passions of the cave, the sacrifice, the eucharist, the terror of shadows and lightning and spoiled crops and random death. Fuck you vermin. Fuck you; you disgrace humanity. Enough. We'll fight you idiots with words and the infinite red depths of our disgust. That's all. Stop whining and deal. You are not martyrs at our hands, much as your polluted, weak, spastic souls might desire it.
posted by Decani at 8:16 PM on July 21, 2006 [28 favorites]

Well we're on a roll now.

If you can prove that the universe literally couldn't exist in its current form without God,

For me, this avoids the point. "Proving" is not something do-able either way as anyone who's plodded through the many related posts here can see. No one has yet delivered the final winning remark resulting in everyone else agreeing to their view.

What I'm interested in is what people think, what they really believe. And so far I find, if they allow themselves to think about it at all, that the situation for most is really quite binary. There are variations but it all comes out either one way or the other: the universe is either a fluke or a plan. I haven't yet heard a third option seriously offered or explained.
posted by scheptech at 8:20 PM on July 21, 2006

I was under the impression that quite a few of the people calling militant atheism on this were not theists.
posted by Bugbread at 8:31 PM on July 21, 2006

You argued that atheism is of a piece with any ideology that actively seeks to keep people from worshipping as they please. I called bullshit, given that historically it's religion X that tends to suppress religions Y and Z.

Actually, I argued that if we consider Bolshevism a quasi-religion (based on expletive's comment), we can also consider militant atheism a quasi-religion. My original point was that an atheist society is not always preferable to a fundmentalist religious society. Russia's communist experiment is of course a relatively novel historical occurrence preceded by centuries of comparable atrocities in religious societies, but that doesn't invalidate it as a counter-example.

I also asked you to name some militant atheists, and you didn't.

I named the one I was responding to. If the florid speech above doesn't qualify as militant (though I guess raving mad would be a better choice), then I'm not sure what does.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:32 PM on July 21, 2006

Actually, I argued that if we consider Bolshevism a quasi-religion (based on expletive's comment), we can also consider militant atheism a quasi-religion

You fallaciously try to compare Bolshevism with militant atheism. Uh-huh, And your evidence for this is...?

You're a fucking idiot, Krrrlson. I find that generally to be the case with the kind of drivelling, knee-jerk, tosspost arsehead who thinks it's WOAHKEWL to have three consecutive consonants in his handle. How old are you?

Jesus fucking Buddha on an inverted cross, boy. The old "Communism/atheism" canard? What next? "You can't disprove God?" Ya that dense, sonny? Shit. Surprise me, dumbass. Go on.
posted by Decani at 8:48 PM on July 21, 2006

scheptech:
No, it's at the heart of the point. Occam's razor is about removing nonessential axioms in a theory. You previously attempted to apply Occam's razor to argue in favor of God because "God = 1 entity", but this is a misapplication because God is a nonessential entity (at least towards explaining the nature of the universe). To give an example, quantum mechanics is an essential axiom ---we have plenty of proof for it. If God was essential to explain the universe, that would be a proof of God.
posted by Humanzee at 8:52 PM on July 21, 2006

Actually I have six consecutive consonsants in my handle. And you're psychotic.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:53 PM on July 21, 2006

Wow. You sound like a rabid anti-pope, Decani.
posted by IronLizard at 8:56 PM on July 21, 2006

MeTa
posted by IronLizard at 8:58 PM on July 21, 2006

This is basically how I feel about god. The burden of proof is squarely on any believer to prove that their specific god concept is real. Why should the burden of proof lie with the person who doesn't believe a particular religion's claims? - [expletive deleted]

Right. But I don't think anyone is actaully required to make the proof. In any case, what I've been arguing is that both the existence and non-existence of God are unprovable.

Pastabagel: God = omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. Does this define the universe itself?

Well, here the argument comes down to one of semantics. You can't be omniscient without being sentient.

Not quite. The definition comes fro mthe foundational religious texts and ahs been reiterated by logicians and theologians throughout history. Thus, I think there's more going on than semantics.

And something can be omniscient to the extent that it contains all knowledge, it doesn't have to be sentient (and what would that word mean to an intelligence beyond ours? The universe has all knowledge because the knowledge is in and part of the fabric of that universe, but the universe isn't sentient.

In any case, atheism in the "There is no God" is as much a belief as "there is a god". Atheism of the "I don't think that God exists" is more of a rational conclusion based on evidence, or lack thereof.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:13 PM on July 21, 2006

schleptech: A lot believe that what we have now is the result of a long series of events which 'just happened', guided by physical laws yes, but still allowing for a huge variation in possible outcomes, enough to make us extremely unlikely.

To riff off of Douglas Adams, the universe is huge, it is so big that it staggers the imagination. The Milky Way alone is not a very big galaxy, but it has in the ballpark of 300 Billion stars. The number of galaxies in the universe exceeds this magnitude. This makes a large chunk of the anthropic argument irrelevant.

And in fact, this makes for a strong argument against a personal God that created hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars just to produce a single schleptech.

Yes exactly, and in this application of the razor God = 1 entity. This would be indeed be the idea.

The problem is that God has historically been neither necessary nor sufficient to explain phenomena. Certainly Ben Franklin's theory of lightning has become highly complex, but it has predictive power. It can be tested through observation and experiment (like flying a kite in a thunderstorm). It has practical applications that allow us to protect structures, ships and aircraft from lightning strikes.

"God did it," certainly would be a lot more simple, which is why simplicity is not the only criterion for Occam's razor. Occam's razor forbids adding additional entities beyond what is necessary to explain a phenomena.

Humanzee: Atheism is a rejection of religion, not the endorsement of cults of personality. Atheism isn't an endorsement of anything. It's not a philosophy. There are many philosophies that are technically compatible with atheism.

Bingo! And likewise, theism just is simply the belief that there is a god. Theists have managed to adopt and accommodate almost every philosophical system humans have managed to create. One of the things I find rather irritating about these discussions is how it is assumed that one's position regarding the existence of a deity dictates an ideology.

shleptech: There are variations but it all comes out either one way or the other: the universe is either a fluke or a plan. I haven't yet heard a third option seriously offered or explained.

Well, I can't think of any theory of the universe which would fall into the category of "fluke" given any reasonable, fair, or sane definition of that term. Your classification scheme here is a set-up.

Why did the universe come into existence? Well, the basic answer is "we don't know."

If you are a materialist, you are likely to argue that the meta-universe, or multiverse, or whatever concept you prefer, is governed by logical and mathematical laws. The parameters of our current universe become not an arbitrary fluke, but a mathematical necessity just like the number Pi. The nice thing is that you have a wide number of potential theories you can explore.

If you are a supernaturalist, then you have a number of different theories, the primary one being "God did it."

The question is, why should I privilege "God did it" over the dozens of other potential theories? Does the fact that I can't prove God didn't do it mean I should believe in God anyway?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 PM on July 21, 2006

And in fact, this makes for a strong argument against a personal God that created hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars just to produce a single schleptech.

Heh, I see it exactly the other way. Btw, what's a schleptech?

Occam's razor forbids adding additional entities beyond what is necessary to explain a phenomena.

So the person who decides what's additional or necessary in effect decides what the razor does. Hmmph, I'm suddenly less impressed with the razor. Perhaps these razor angles are going to keep leading us back to expectations of 'proof', which we know will get us nowhere anyway.

but a mathematical necessity just like the number Pi.

To me, suggesting we're a mathematical necessity is an idea pointing toward some kind of god concept. (Is this where we start going in circles?).
posted by scheptech at 9:49 PM on July 21, 2006

Pastabagel: And something can be omniscient to the extent that it contains all knowledge, it doesn't have to be sentient (and what would that word mean to an intelligence beyond ours? The universe has all knowledge because the knowledge is in and part of the fabric of that universe, but the universe isn't sentient.

Except for the tricky problem that "knowledge" is not reducable to "facts" much less "phenomena." The minimum requirements for knowledge are that it must be justified, true, and believed. So if the universe has all knowledge, what is doing the believing?

And this is a pretty quirky definition of "omniscience" here. Most definitions of omniscient I'm familiar with uses the verb "know" rather than the noun "knowledge." The definition usually goes something like this: if p is true, then x knows that p is true.

In any case, atheism in the "There is no God" is as much a belief as "there is a god". Atheism of the "I don't think that God exists" is more of a rational conclusion based on evidence, or lack thereof.

Are there people who seriously argue otherwise?

scheptech: So the person who decides what's additional or necessary in effect decides what the razor does.

Well yes. Occam's razor is a guideline for the construction of theories and hypotheses. It does not determine the truth or falsehood of a theory.

Necessity is validated by proof or evidence. So for example, Einstein's relativity is certainly more complex than Newton's gravity, but some phenomena can't be explained using Newton's laws of motion and gravity alone. Einstein's relativity was necessary to explain the gaps in Newton's laws. (And apologies on mispelling your username.)

Perhaps these razor angles are going to keep leading us back to expectations of 'proof', which we know will get us nowhere anyway.

I'd just be happy with an answer to the question that I posed. Why should I privelege "God did it" over other possible explanations? I don't need "proof," I just need reasonable evidence or argument leading to a tentative and provisional belief.

To me, suggesting we're a mathematical necessity is an idea pointing toward some kind of god concept.

Which is one reason why I agree that it's impossible to prove to anyone's satisfaction that god does not exist. Sooner or later, someone will pull a "god concept" out of their arse, usually something like, "God is love" or "God is math" or "God is the universe." Why should I worship love/God or universe/God rather than just love and the universe? Why should I slap a meaningless additional term with athropomorphic connotations onto something that I experience with passionate awe?

This is why I'm profoundly irritated by neo-Paganism. Rather than just loving the universe as it is, they have to slap a bunch of archetypes onto it.

"God concepts" are a way to weasel around the entire subject by refusing to commit to anything of substance. At the end of the day, most of the "God concepts" just distil down to, "the universe is wonderful and amazing" or "love is good." Well, dang, I could have told you that.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:47 PM on July 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

God bless you ignorant fucks.
posted by quonsar at 10:55 PM on July 21, 2006

quonsar, in the bible, "fucking" == "knowing". There are no ignorant fucks.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:06 PM on July 21, 2006

And by the way, if God is omnipotent, then surely it is within the scope of his powers to not exist. Who are you believers to demand existence of God? Surely he exists or not at his will, not yours, and to claim that he exists is to presume to command God.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:45 PM on July 21, 2006 [3 favorites]

Why should I privelege "God did it" over other possible explanations?

I'm saying for me, there aren't other explanations plural, there's only one other explanation and that's some form of random chance however it's described or elaborated on. And when I think about that random chance I find it too unlikely to be taken seriously.

So, again my perspective, there's only two choices and not a multiplicity.

Then following on from that, if I allow myself to entertain the possibility of God and think about things from that perspective, I find a great deal more about life in general starts to make sense where it certainly didn't before.

Anyhow, that's me, your mileage may vary.
posted by scheptech at 11:48 PM on July 21, 2006

If there's a god, she's a cruel somovabitch.

Not worth your effort.

I suggest Kierkegaard, Epicurus (notice how his thought was co-opted into mere hedonism, but it's not), and William James.

Henry James is good too though.
posted by bardic at 2:59 AM on July 22, 2006

scheptech: I'm saying for me, there aren't other explanations plural, there's only one other explanation and that's some form of random chance however it's described or elaborated on. And when I think about that random chance I find it too unlikely to be taken seriously.

So, again my perspective, there's only two choices and not a multiplicity.

I suggest that if you seriously want to present yourself as "interested in is what people think, what they really believe," that you need to be willing to actually examine the theories that exist, rather than imposing your own arbitrary preconceptions and limits on them. Your perspective is limited, and unfortunately by chains of your own making.

"Randomness" and "theism" are two separate ideas about the nature of the universe. You can have a random theistic universe (discordianism), and you can have a structured atheistic universe (Buddhist metaphysics, Taoism).
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:18 AM on July 22, 2006

Now of course, you don't have to agree with views of the universe that are both atheistic and determinist. But to dismiss determinism from atheistic philosophy entirely is to fundamentally misunderstand large chunks of it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:29 AM on July 22, 2006

And when I think about that random chance I find it too unlikely to be taken seriously.

"Randomness" describes a state of knowledge, not a state of being. Events are called "random" to the degree measurements of them can be modelled by a given formal system.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:47 AM on July 22, 2006

you need to be willing to actually examine the theories that exist,

Yeah, for the record I've done a lot of examining including studying buddism, and what I'm offering here is a personal view in any case. We can certainly can and should argue theory, but I don't see how you can argue my personal experience. It is what it is.

My take on buddhism, after several years with it, is that it's the most amazing, insightful, uplifting and well-developed philosophy the world has ever produced. It really is a beautiful thing. But ultimately (again for me, relating my personal experience here) I find it insufficiently meaningful at center and unable to satisfy intellectually, emotionally, etc which is great surprise since it certainly didn't look that way going in.

unfortunately by chains of your own making.

Can you accept that Christianity for many, is exactly this: a removal of chains, in a word: freedom.

"Randomness" describes a state of knowledge,

Heh, ok. Well I think I've stated in clear enough terms what I'm getting at. But, I wonder, after we've bandied about all the terminology issues, touched bases with various philosophers and other systems of thought, and accepted that we can't 'prove' anything one way or another, what do you believe?

This is what I mean by being interested in what people think and why I'm intertested in this post. It's about people setting up a camp based on something they don't believe in, while I don't care about that especially and would much rather know what they do believe in.
posted by scheptech at 11:41 AM on July 22, 2006

scheptech: We can certainly can and should argue theory, but I don't see how you can argue my personal experience.

Which is fine when you are talking about personal experience. Instead, you are making a claim like, "There are variations but it all comes out either one way or the other: the universe is either a fluke or a plan," you are making a claim that extends beyond your personal experience.

Can you accept that Christianity for many, is exactly this: a removal of chains, in a word: freedom.

I wasn't talking about Christianity (and I an accept that). I was talking about your "fluke or plan" schema for viewing all other philosophies that make claims about the nature of the universe. One can be a Christian and not be confused as to the distinction between theism and determinism.

This is what I mean by being interested in what people think and why I'm intertested in this post.

Except that being honestly interested in what people think, means accepting a multiplicity of possible positions. Otherwise, all you are doing is viewing the mirror of your own prejudices.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:02 PM on July 22, 2006

Christian camp was where I learned to cuss as a young teen. Some of the older kids had sex right in the bunks in our cabin. Betcha atheist camp isn't as much fun. (We now return you to our regularly scheduled religious argument.)
posted by telstar at 3:09 PM on July 22, 2006

"psst, wanna sneak out after lights-out and sing hymns in the forest?"
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:45 PM on July 22, 2006

Heh. Some kids did sneak out in the surrounding forest for sex at night. How did we find out? A few got very bad cases of poison oak on unlikely spots of their anatomy.
posted by telstar at 4:02 PM on July 22, 2006

But to dismiss determinism from atheistic philosophy entirely is to fundamentally misunderstand large chunks of it.

To dismiss determinism from theistic philosophy entirely is to fundamentally misunderstand large chunks of it.

But then, I'm a determinist.
posted by dreamsign at 6:50 PM on July 22, 2006

dreamsign: To dismiss determinism from theistic philosophy entirely is to fundamentally misunderstand large chunks of it.

Exactly who has suggested this?

As I suggested before, there are three different questions involved:
1: Is there a god? (theism/atheism)
2: Can claims about god be called "knowledge?" (agnosticism and epistemology)
3: Is the nature of the universe deterministic or not? (questions about free will, determinism and randomness.)

My argument is simply that understanding people's thoughts on these issues requires an acceptance of multiple positions.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:49 PM on July 22, 2006

I can't believe I'm the first to note that the athiest summer camp rents the cabins from the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), according to the NYT article.

That's just funny.
posted by bugmuncher at 8:15 PM on July 22, 2006