[gwnn]

For people who don't know the show The Atheist Experience, they like the following two analogies for what atheism means:

1) In a criminal trial, the jury can decide that the accused is guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. I.e. not guilty=the accusation hasbnot convinced me that he is guilty. NOT "not guilty=the defence has convinced me that he is innocent"

2) Suppose you and your friend are standing next to a candy machine full of gums. He asks you 'do you believe there is an even number of candies in this machine?' You naturally say 'No, I don't believe so.' So now he asks you 'Aha, so you believe there is an ODD number?'

[blackshoe]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-09, 15:53, said:

For people who don't know the show The Atheist Experience, they like the following two analogies for what atheism means:

1) In a criminal trial, the jury can decide that the accused is guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent. I.e. not guilty=the accusation hasbnot convinced me that he is guilty. NOT "not guilty=the defence has convinced me that he is innocent"

2) Suppose you and your friend are standing next to a candy machine full of gums. He asks you 'do you believe there is an even number of candies in this machine?' You naturally say 'No, I don't believe so.' So now he asks you 'Aha, so you believe there is an ODD number?'

In Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven. As I understand it they mean roughly and respectively "he did it", "he didn't do it" and "there was insufficient evidence to decide either way".

How come no one has brought up deism in this discussion?

[mikeh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-09, 17:29, said:

How come no one has brought up deism in this discussion?

Duh....what do you think gwnn, Trinidad and I, and maybe others, have been alluding to?

I don't believe in the god of Xianity or the Allah of Islam or the Yahweh of Judaism or any of the members of the Greek pantheon or any other 'gods', in the sense (as we have striven to show) that I see insufficient evidence to warrant the supposition that they or any of them exist.

I dislike religion because it is a tool used to control those who accept the tenets of the religion, but I 'believe' religion exists. I wish I could say about religion what I say about gods...that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the supposition that it exists but even in this relatively secular country that I inhabit, there are an astounding number of churches and other places of that bizarre practice known as 'worship'. However, my dislike of religion is only related to and not identical to my lack of belief in gods...thus I guess I could be called an a-deist, as well as an a-theist (please refrain from any other a-names that may occur to you )

[sharon j]

very funny mikeh

[nige1]

 onoway, on 2013-October-08, 20:42, said:

Einstein is known to be an atheist

Great post onoway. Quibble:

Wikipedia said:

Einstein's views about religious belief have been collected from interviews and original writings. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist. Toward the end of his life, he said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized.

[onoway]

 nige1, on 2013-October-09, 18:43, said:

Great post onoway. Quibble:

another quote from the internet..
Albert Einstein is sometimes claimed by religious theists seeking the authority of a famous scientist for their theistic views, but Einstein denied the existence of the traditional concept of a personal god. Was Albert Einstein therefore an atheist? From some perspectives his position would be seen as atheism or no different from atheism. He admitted to being a freethinker, which in a German context is much the same as atheism, but it's not clear that Einstein disbelieved in all god concepts.

1. Albert Einstein: From a Jesuit Viewpoint, I am an Atheist

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
~~~ ~~~ ~~

Guess I'll take his word for it. Note he didn't say heathen, he said atheist.

[RSClyde]

Regarding the notion of atheism is if it carries loads of unintended side effects, seems to require special pleading for whatever god humanity happens to be believing in at the time. Nonstampcollector articulates this point better than I: behold it's pretty short.

My link

[RSClyde]

32519:
You seem very concerned with over population. Hans Rosling did a TED talk some time back where he addressed the issue. The earth's population is projected to level off at 9 billion. The birth rate has basically stabilized, we still witness an increase in population (and will continue to for some time) because the high birth rates of recent years have created a "youth heavy" population. So it will still take some time for the birth rate to match the death rate. But we aren't doomed to swell indefinitely.

Here's the talk

[Vampyr]

 RSClyde, on 2013-October-10, 03:44, said:

32519:
You seem very concerned with over population.

His comments to this effect confused me. The earth has too many people on it, and is otherwise *****ed up, but that doesn't seem to bear any relation to a "purpose" that we are all collectively intended to fulfil, unless it is to try to do something about the problems of the planet.

But that doesn't even seem to be what 325 is saying. He has a vague idea of a "purpose" for humanity, but cannot articulate it beyond the suggestion that we should all break out our old vinyl collections.

[gwnn]

"We live to glorify God" is what Christians usually say. Hope this helps (??).

[helene_t]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-09, 15:53, said:

2) Suppose you and your friend are standing next to a candy machine full of gums. He asks you 'do you believe there is an even number of candies in this machine?' You naturally say 'No, I don't believe so.' So now he asks you 'Aha, so you believe there is an ODD number?'

I would answer "I don't know". Of course if I only have the choice between "yes" and "no" I would say "no" but I think that most people would interpret "I don't believe X" to be equivalent to "I believe (not X)". I take this more as one of many illogical features of our language than as a sign of lack of recognition of the agnostic option.

In many situations the distinction is important. For example if I say that I disbelieve (to distinguish from merely "don't believe") in astrology, I mean to say that I strongly believe that in the unlikely event that there is a correlation between month of birth and personality type, the correlation is not likely to work better for the zodiac calendar than for any other calendar, and certainly not caused by annual variations in cosmic radiation.

But whether someone disbelieves in god or merely "doesn't believe" in god doesn't matter except if that someone has a very precise idea about what god would look like and would like to know whether that particular god exists or not.

Do I disbelieve, or merely "not believe", that the epitome of love and goodness exists? Well, it is an abstract concept so it exists for you if you find it useful to think of the world in terms of such concepts. I don't but that's just me.

What about the creator of the universe? Well I don't think much about cosmology so it isn't an issue that I would think about if you asked me to write an essay about my world view. As for what, if anything, predates the Big Bang, I have no clue. And the question doesn't give me sleepless nights.

[Fluffy]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-07, 20:26, said:

Your ignorance is showing, despite your attempt to mask it as humour with that emoticon.

I'd prefer to say that your arrogance is showing, as usual on religious threads BTW.

The only good thing about fanatic atheists that want to get rid of all of us is that at some point, hopefully soon, religious leaders will realice there is no point in fighting each other any more, and will finally realice that all religions are essentially the same ending up with most of the stupid culture-related customs long time obsolete.

[WellSpyder]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-10, 05:05, said:

... at some point, hopefully soon, religious leaders will realice there is no point in fighting each other any more, and will finally realice that all religions are essentially the same ...

I'm happy to share your hope, but I must admit that as a forecaster I won't be putting any money on it happening soon!

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2013-October-10, 04:54, said:

I would answer "I don't know".

Yes, I thought that analogy was very strange.

Quote

What about the creator of the universe? Well I don't think much about cosmology so it isn't an issue that I would think about if you asked me to write an essay about my world view. As for what, if anything, predates the Big Bang, I have no clue. And the question doesn't give me sleepless nights.

I think about this a lot; perhaps not to the extent of sleepless nights, but it is fascinating and frustrating for me. There must have been a "beginning" but there couldn't have been a "beginning"... AARGH! Another thing I think about is that, surely, "nothing" is overwhelmingly more likely than "something", yet a whole lot of "something" exists.

I can see why a person would resort to a god to explain these mysteries, but adding another entity seems the last thing that would help!

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2013-October-09, 12:49, said:

The people with the power will find other ways to justify and exercise that same power, and the people wanting the power will find other ways to invigorate the people and justify the actions required to get it, and the same things will happen.

This reminds me of the argument against gun control: If you take away guns, violent people will find other ways to kill people, so there's no point in it.

What both arguments miss is the quantitative difference. Just as guns make it easier to kill large numbers of people (when was the last time you heard of a "stabbing rampage"?), religion has long had much success at motivating large numbers of people.

It doesn't have exclusivity, I'll admit. Patriotism is also pretty effective -- Nazism was a patriotic movement. But examine history and contemporary society, and you'll see that religious fervor is most effective.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-10, 05:05, said:

The only good thing about fanatic atheists that want to get rid of all of us is that at some point, hopefully soon, religious leaders will realice there is no point in fighting each other any more, and will finally realice that all religions are essentially the same ending up with most of the stupid culture-related customs long time obsolete.

This would put the "Universal" in Unitarian Universalist, and would be a very good thing. It is difficult to see it happening, though, because members of religions believe not only in a god, but in the associated theology. And for many the theology and rites are very precious to the practitioners.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-October-10, 05:51, said:

This reminds me of the argument against gun control: If you take away guns, violent people will find other ways to kill people, so there's no point in it.

What both arguments miss is the quantitative difference. Just as guns make it easier to kill large numbers of people (when was the last time you heard of a "stabbing rampage"?), religion has long had much success at motivating large numbers of people.

Quite. In a country where even the police don't have firearms, we have a mass gun murder about once every 8-10 years, on average. The US seems to have one every 8-10 weeks (OK, probably more like months). There is knife crime, but when there is a fatal injury the number of victims is virtually always exactly one.

[ArtK78]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-09, 15:21, said:

pot: kettle: black.

Nomination for best post in the Water Cooler.

Awesome.

[ArtK78]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-10, 05:05, said:

........, hopefully soon, religious leaders will realice there is no point in fighting each other any more, and will finally realice that all religions are essentially the same ending up with most of the stupid culture-related customs long time obsolete.

Don't hold your breath.

[Winstonm]

 mycroft, on 2013-October-09, 12:49, said:

My argument is that I do not believe it would do that - and that there is being made no arguments that removing one type of violence would in fact, reduce violence. It is simply assumed without comment.

As the damage done to American liberty from the Communist witch hunts (and anti-communism in general) became "required", and expanded (as Communism retreated as a threat), to fight "the horror that is drugs in our community", which has seamlessly migrated (given that even most backers of the War on Drugs know that it hasn't reduced anything, it's not sellable any more), thanks to a spectacular failure of intelligence (not unreasonable, and failures of intelligence of that level happen every day; just that this one had spectacular results), into a huge expansion "to fight Terrorism"... my strong belief is that, after about 5 years, should religion go the way of the dodo tomorrow, the reduction in violence would be - zero at best.

The people with the power will find other ways to justify and exercise that same power, and the people wanting the power will find other ways to invigorate the people and justify the actions required to get it, and the same things will happen. Some will fall, and some will rise. Soviet Communism was a pervasive, destructive beast with power concentrated unnaturally. Since 1988, what has changed? Do not the people with influence still have influence? Do not the extra-legal ways things work not still work? Is there still not injustice and violence, at scales (if not by the same methods) as before? Even many of the people are the same.

Is there any reason to believe that that would be any different should Religion fall?

Of course, there is no way to know the answer. At the same time, there is at least a reasonable assumption that if you reduce the motivations for bloodshed by 1, there will be less bloodshed. To assume otherwise is to believe that man is a predominantly bloodthirsty animal who will always find a reason to kill or that "X" amount of deaths are preordained and will occur regardless of motivations.

I reject both suppositions. If there had been no belief in god, there would have been no Great Inquisition or Spanish Inquisition, and the people who died in those atrocities may have met another early death from another source but it is doubtful each of those deaths could be accounted for that way. The same thing can be said for any death caused by a religious belief in god and belief in an afterlife - some may have died by other murderous means but to think each one would die that way runs counter to our modern understanding of mortality tables.

When one argues generalities, quid pro quo murderous motivation tradeoffs can sound reasonable, but when one identifies specifics, a true quid pro quo tradeoff is highly unlikely. There is no evidence that removing the evil men do in the name of religion will only cause an increase in non-religious motivated evil unless your initial assumption is that evil is a constant. I do not think that is the case.