Yes, Dags, religions exist even if their various truth claims are false. But what I am saying is there is very little evidence for the truth claims that are central to each religion. As far whether atheists affirmatively believe there is no God, I guess it's possible there is God but I don't see the evidence for it. Put another way, proponents of religion advocate that human beings should live in a certain way due to their religion, so the burden is on them to prove their truth claims. I am not making any truth claims about the non-existence of any deity, not advocating for people to live differently because there is no God , so I have no burden to prove anything. If you insist on my taking a position I'll say I don't believe there is a god because I don't see the evidence for one.

It less "belief there is no God", than "no belief in a God".

Bbauska - "Good" and "Evil" are white and black, while doing good or bad things are shades of grey.

danivon wrote:It less "belief there is no God", than "no belief in a God".

Bbauska - "Good" and "Evil" are white and black, while doing good or bad things are shades of grey.

Thank you. I understand you even more now.

Thanks for the clarification.

To say...

I guess it's possible there is God but I don't see the evidence for it.

sounds a lot like agnosticism to me.

In my mind the agnostic is someone who neither confirms nor denies the existence of a god. An agnostic basically holds that there is insufficient evidence to support either position. The agnostic is open to being won over by either side but until that day arrives, is unconvinced either way.

An atheist is someone who denies the possibility of the existence of god(s). This is a belief that is held for a variety of reasons, many of which you've already pointed out. I say "belief" because the atheist believes his/her position to be true. This is worth noting for reasons we can continue to discuss. That may ultimately lead to a discussion of hermeneutics and so called objective or revealed truth subjectively perceived.

A deist believes god(s) does exist and is responsible for the cosmos, however, whoever it is or whatever it is, is not a personal god(s) that intervenes in time/history or the lives of those he/she/it has created. We've all heard the "clock maker" analogy whereby the god of the deists sets up the universe and then walks away from it leaving it to play itself out, ticking as it were, until it one day stops....or not.

A theist is obviously someone who believes that there is a god(s) and that this god(s) is a personal god(s) concerned with the well being of the cosmos and all life therein, especially sentient beings who possess a life spirit.

An anti-theist is an interesting chap indeed. The anti-theist believes that god exists and knowing, or rather believing this, sometimes sets about living in such a way that would offend or obstruct god's design for the cosmos and/or sentient beings possessing a life spirit.

These 5 groupings, in my view, sum up an important part of human cartography and the human experience.

Freeman, you mentioned:

proponents of religion advocate that human beings should live in a certain way due to their religion, so the burden is on them to prove their truth claims

It's true that proponents of some faith traditions either offer or suggest to others that their specific way of living and acting are positive, healthy ways to enrich one's life for the better. It is also true that, in some extreme cases, some proponents of some faith traditions insist that all adhere to their specific rules or belief system or else. It's much easier for me to agree with you on the second part of your statement if it's applied to this latter group.

I don't agree that there is necessarily a burden of proof placed upon those faith traditions who simply offer or suggest to others their worldview. There are many faith traditions who simply make known their central truth claims, hope and pray that others will come to know these truth claims as well, and then simply get on with living their lives. If someone comes along and desires to know more or belong then great. If not, that's perfectly ok too.

Insisting that others adhere to one's truth claims is another matter entirely. It only seems fair that a burden of proof should be placed on someone who is insisting that I accept a particular worldview with all of the ramifications of how that impacts my actions. Almost every religion throughout history as you know has, at one time or another, taken this approach with disastrous results.

It seems as if you may still identify with agnosticism more than atheism but only insomuch as you are still open to the possibility that a god exists. If that is in fact still the case, I would be interested in continuing the discussion.

In most cases, the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is so slight as to be unworthy of making. Not even Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would say that there is definitively no God. What they say is that there's absolutely no evidence for it, that it's a wholly untestable and improbable hypothesis that adds nothing to the sum of human understanding and that as such they don't believe the God hypothesis to have any validity. Technically this would make them (and me) agnostics rather than atheists, but it's a distinction without a difference. I call myself an atheist but I'm open to the idea that there might be a God. I'll believe it when I see it, and I don't ever expect to see it, but I guess it's always possible.

Agnosticism = not knowing, or believing we cannot "know" if there is a God. It is not exclusive with Atheism - I would say I am both, on the basis that we cannot prove there is or is not a deity, and so the null hypothesis is more likely.

There are agnostics who get very superior about how they are not atheists. But stuff 'em

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:It less "belief there is no God", than "no belief in a God".

Bbauska - "Good" and "Evil" are white and black, while doing good or bad things are shades of grey.

Thank you. I understand you even more now.

The more I think about this, the more I think we could be similar. I think there is evil/bad things in everyone; and virtue/good things in everyone. The mixture of those two things are a light vs dark blend, or a shade of grey. Let me know if that is different that your ideas.

bbauska wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:It less "belief there is no God", than "no belief in a God".

Bbauska - "Good" and "Evil" are white and black, while doing good or bad things are shades of grey.

Thank you. I understand you even more now.

The more I think about this, the more I think we could be similar. I think there is evil/bad things in everyone; and virtue/good things in everyone. The mixture of those two things are a light vs dark blend, or a shade of grey. Let me know if that is different that your ideas.

The conclusion seems to be similar. All these concepts are human - they do not exist in nature, and so are either from us or a supernatural source which I don't believe in - so perhaps it is a circular argument about where the "start" is.

To me, we are - like all other things - essentially inherently neutral in terms of good and bad. As we grow, we develop motivations for our actions and apply a morality to them (both the actions and the motivations). Is doing a good thing for the wrong reasons part of "Evil"? Or doing a bad thing for good reasons?

With all of those considerations, I find the use of absolutes unhelpful.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:so, people are good for evolutionary reasons; and people are good to propagate their dna. Yes, but if you are in a situation where you are not helping your kin, and when there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit to doing the right thing, and you know that there will be no repercussions to behaving badly, why do you? Why do you care about the wellbeing of some random dude? The cameras are off; he can't hurt you; why do you view his life as, shall I say, sacred?

How would one "know" that there will be no repercussions?

I'm not sure which point you are trying to make: Are you saying (1) you are an agnostic, and not an atheist, or (2) you don't understand hypothetical questions?

freeman3 wrote:RJ, we have a cerebral cortex, we have free will, we can decide right and wrong whatever evolutionary driven tendencies or socialization we might have. As Sarte said we should try to live an authentic life driven by our notions of what we think should be done and not controlled by the views of others.

So as to your notion of why bother doing the right thing if there are no consequences I guess it all comes to what kind of person you are. I have a conscience and it would bother me to do something wrong. It's pretty much that simple. Even from a costs-benefits analysis I would incur more mental anguish from doing something significantly wrong than any benefit I would receive. Of course to be fair would that anguish just be related to concerns about punishment or reputation? I would like to think it has to do with my self-opinion but who knows. I'm not sure a person can adequately visualize a no-consequences hypothetical.

That all makes sense to me, and I think ultimately I agree and am agnostic. It's probably not G-d, but rather we have empathy for others, and as a result we have a conscience.

The empathy is very interesting to me. My nature is to empathize with the vast majority of the 7 billion people on the planet, who in turn have the same nature. (In fact, our empathy extends to trillions of living things, many of whom also appear to have the ability to empathize; we can also empathize with people who are no longer living, and even fictional characters, but let's not go there just yet.) Our ability to empathize to such a great extent is one of the key evolutionary traits that may be part of the reason we have taken over the planet.

So, we 7 billion people empathize with each other, creating trillions of empathy connections (would 7X10^9! be the mathematical expression? Note that the "!" is very important to the equation). Kind of like gravity, this powerful force cannot be seen, but here it is running our lives; sure we do the right thing to propagate our DNA, and for reciprocity, but clearly it goes beyond that (which was the point of my questions). I was at a religious service with 400 people singing and up close you can feel the empathy power with merely 400! people.

So, with this many unseen empathetic connections is it any wonder that people have developed religion? There is something unseen and powerful going on here on planet earth, and perhaps beyond.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:so, people are good for evolutionary reasons; and people are good to propagate their dna. Yes, but if you are in a situation where you are not helping your kin, and when there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit to doing the right thing, and you know that there will be no repercussions to behaving badly, why do you? Why do you care about the wellbeing of some random dude? The cameras are off; he can't hurt you; why do you view his life as, shall I say, sacred?

How would one "know" that there will be no repercussions?

I'm not sure which point you are trying to make: Are you saying (1) you are an agnostic, and not an atheist, or (2) you don't understand hypothetical questions?

Well, if you read a later post of mine you'd see I had already addressed (1) as a false dichotomy and that I consider myself to be both.

I do understand hypothetical questions, but I question their relation to reality.

But again, even if there is no God, how do you "know" there would be no repercussions? How likely is a "perfect crime" where no evidence can tie back to you?

Ray Jay wrote:The empathy is very interesting to me. My nature is to empathize with the vast majority of the 7 billion people on the planet, who in turn have the same nature. (In fact, our empathy extends to trillions of living things, many of whom also appear to have the ability to empathize; we can also empathize with people who are no longer living, and even fictional characters, but let's not go there just yet.) Our ability to empathize to such a great extent is one of the key evolutionary traits that may be part of the reason we have taken over the planet.

So, we 7 billion people empathize with each other, creating trillions of empathy connections (would 7X10^9! be the mathematical expression? Note that the "!" is very important to the equation). Kind of like gravity, this powerful force cannot be seen, but here it is running our lives; sure we do the right thing to propagate our DNA, and for reciprocity, but clearly it goes beyond that (which was the point of my questions). I was at a religious service with 400 people singing and up close you can feel the empathy power with merely 400! people.

So, with this many unseen empathetic connections is it any wonder that people have developed religion? There is something unseen and powerful going on here on planet earth, and perhaps beyond.

Your numbers are along the right lines, but a bit on the high side.The number of connections (person to person) between a population is n(n-1)/2. So for 400 people it would be 79800.

However, it is some extrapolation to go from the feeling of empathy to it producing some kind of effect akin to gravity - a force or wave or something.

Just as a religious service can be very moving, so can a single unaccompanied voice. And just as a lot of people joined together for a positive purpose can be uplifting, a mob that riots is a terrifying thing. Perhaps you may put that down to the same "force", but I don't see anything to suggest it is really much more than what is in us as people.

danivon

Your numbers are along the right lines, but a bit on the high side.The number of connections (person to person) between a population is n(n-1)/2. So for 400 people it would be 79800

Could you explain this please?

Rayjay

So, we 7 billion people empathize with each other, creating trillions of empathy connections (would 7X10^9! be the mathematical expression?

As media evolved the ability to form "connections" increased. The printing press was the biggest reason that the Christian religion evolved as it made the scriptures accessible to more people. Without the control that exclusivity gave the priest hood and the catholic hierarchy many competing ideas grew quickly.. well, quickly compared to the previous 1000 years.
Today modern media connects millions in seconds...
Perhaps all these connections are making religious connections less important?
There's a correlation between the growth of agnosticism and atheism and unaffiliated or non-religious people and the growth of media and the exchange of ideas. There is a particularly strong correlation between the strict belief in the literal truth of religions and the growth of media connections. (books, newspapers, journals, broadcast and internet).

Societies have provided a separate space for religion and the expression of the ideas that religion communicates. In a sense this space protected religions from assailing ideas and criticisms. At the same time, churches did offer the connectivity and the community that almost all people seek.
As people leave organized religions that connectivity and connection will be provided in other ways.
Its not unique to religion.
(Its a reason the the authors of Soccernomics theorize that soccer team support grew up in industrializing England first with the new generations leaving rural society and settling into the the new urban centres.... People found a common community activity and affiliation that fed the same human needs that Church did and does. So soccer is a kind of religion...)

rickyp wrote:danivon

Your numbers are along the right lines, but a bit on the high side.The number of connections (person to person) between a population is n(n-1)/2. So for 400 people it would be 79800

Could you explain this please?

Sure. It works the same way as fixtures in a round-robin sports tournament. As you mentioned soccer, let's use that.

If every team plays every other team once, then you get the same number of total games as my formula would produce.

Eg: in a World Cup group there are 4 teams. Each one of them has to play the other three. But as each game involves both teams, you halve the product of the number of teams and the number of games each plays. 4 x 3 / 2 = 6. And lo, there are six games in each group.

Scale it up to the EPL. Every team plays each other twice (home and away) so you don't divide by two. 20 * 19 = 380. And you can check this because every team plays 38 games over a season, and in each normal week/round there are 10 games where each team plays once.

Extrapolate up to bigger groups and the number of unique 1:1 connections is the same - n time (n-1) divided by 2. If connections are directional (so between each pair there are two connections, to and from each other) then don't divide by 2.

RJ used "!" for factorial, which means multiplying every number from one to n together. 4! is 24 (4x3x2x1). 400! is 6.4 x 10^868 - in other words, 6 followed by another 868 digits because it's 400x399x398x397x396x... 4x3x2x1. http://coolconversion.com/math/factoria ... of_400_%3F

7,000,000,000! would be an incredibly huge number - the site I linked to will only let you put in up to 10,000 and that has over 30,000 digits.

Ricky:

danivon


Your numbers are along the right lines, but a bit on the high side.The number of connections (person to person) between a population is n(n-1)/2. So for 400 people it would be 79800


Could you explain this please?

Danivon thinks:

If there are 2 people, there is 1 connection: 2 X (2-1) / 2 = 1
If there are 3 people, there are 3 connections: 3 X (3-1) / 2 = 3
If there are 4 people, there are 6 connections: 4 X (4-1) / 2 = 6

He has correctly expressed the number of lines between n dots.

What I think he misses is that the connection goes both way; each person empathizes with the other. You care about them, and they care about you. So, I don't think we should divide by 2 as he advises. These are (usually) 2 way connections.

(cross posted with Danivon)