Imagine no religion/atheism.

[Hitsumei]

You think something else can come along and replace the creator of the universe in people's minds? Nothing did for me. For 14 years, I believed in an ultimate power and intellect in the universe, and then I didn't. For those first 14 years, had god appeared before me and asked me to kill someone, I would have seriously considered it. Nothing has even close to that power over me now.

Well, that is you. Don't project from your mindset to everyone else's. If god appeared before me, and told me to kill someone, I would look into seeing how medical science could remedy that for me. Though, even if it really did turn out to be god, I would not be willing to do anything immoral that it told me to do. I'd gladly go to the fundamentalist's hell before I'd adhere to their moral outlooks.

I'd have to deny who I am, and live a subservient lie for all of eternity -- which would be more torture than I could bare. I'd rather be a hero in hell, than a coward in heaven.  

Nope, my allergies are still going strong. It may have been my little brother, though, he cured his asthma. Still, remove one cause and the allergies decrease. They may not disappear, but they decrease.

No, I meant there was a thread, and someone was saying that their allergies magically disappeared for some reason, it is in this thread.

In his case? It was the cause. Unless he lied to me, which I kinda doubt.

Because it is impossible that they would be wrong? Or other things influenced them? This is why the humanities, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and other such fields exist. Because we are not fully aware of the things we do, or why we do them.

There's a ton of justifications that have nothing to do with violence. We were just concentrating on the hatred/violence aspect. I'm glad to expand this to the whole kitten kaboodle.

Whether it is false or not does not imply that it needs to be eradicated, or that people should even stop being religious. There is nothing illogical about continuing to adhere to the rituals, precepts, and guidelines of a religion that you don't accept the metaphysical, or ontological claims of. In fact a large amount of religions have adherents like that. Only some 60%-80% of Hindus accept the metaphysical, and ontological claims of Hinduism. Far less Shintoists accept that the traditional Shinto gods, or heaven and hell are real. Most of these people accept their religion in no more sense than I do.

I am a cultural Christian, and Christianity is deeply rooted in my culture, and in yours. In other areas of the world their culture is deeply rooted in other religious traditions, and adhering to those traditions implies nothing more than an acceptance of this.

So, it does not follow that if the metaphysical, and ontological claims of any religion are false, then it ought to be removed from the world -- so I am not rationally obligated to defend the truth of any given religion to make my case. Beyond, "it's bad" and "it's false" I don't know what else you could throw at me.
 

Correlation with causation? It's neither; it's enabling, or passive causation.

You completely ignored my argument against this. If this were true, then superstition would disappear with religious adherence, but it does not. How can you account for that given this position?

While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable. It's been done on this very forum hundreds of times in myriad ways.

Reason is merely a system by which we validly infer conclusions from premises. A belief in a god maybe unreasonable from several philosophical positions, but not all. You can't claim something to be categorically unreasonable, that is meaningless.

What is "founded" and "unfounded" is largely a matter of opinion after a subjective evaluation of information. If someone feels that intuition is foundation, then you can merely disagree, you can't say that they are wrong. There are no objective standards to judge when a belief is and isn't founded. That is a philosophical question, and largely up to person discretion.

Lastly you do not account for revelation. A surprisingly large amount of Christian that I have spoken to claim to have experienced one. I personally don't believe that they did, but I can't prove that they didn't, and if they did, then they have more than evidence or reasoning, they have proof. They can't share it, and can't show it to us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it justifies their believing it.

[Will]

Well, that is you. Don't project from your mindset to everyone else's.

That wasn't my point. I was simply stating that if it's that way for me it's not that way for noone.

No, I meant there was a thread, and someone was saying that their allergies magically disappeared for some reason, it is in this thread.

Well that was clearly magic. Still, in real life, allergies can dissipate. With my little brother and his asthma, it was exercise and staying properly hydrated. Still, if he had only exercised or only stayed properly hydrated, it would have at least helped to alleviate his asthma. I think it illustrates my point about religion being one mechanism for enabling bad behaviors or beliefs. If, in a person, it's a combination of his religion and his politics that support his irrational hatred of a group of people, then removing religion would at least lessen that hatred.
Imagine no religion.

Because it is impossible that they would be wrong? Or other things influenced them? This is why the humanities, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and other such fields exist. Because we are not fully aware of the things we do, or why we do them.

No, it's just likely that he has a better handle on what happened than you or I.

Whether it is false or not does not imply that it needs to be eradicated, or that people should even stop being religious.

It's not a call for eradication. It's a call to imagine; to think outside the box, to challenge previously unquestioned beliefs.

I am a cultural Christian, and Christianity is deeply rooted in my culture, and in yours. In other areas of the world their culture is deeply rooted in other religious traditions, and adhering to those traditions implies nothing more than an acceptance of this.

I don't have a culture to speak of as I'm a white person born and raised in the US. The closest thing I have to a culture is rooted in consumerism, so it's not really important to me.

So, it does not follow that if the metaphysical, and ontological claims of any religion are false, then it ought to be removed from the world -- so I am not rationally obligated to defend the truth of any given religion to make my case. Beyond, "it's bad" and "it's false" I don't know what else you could throw at me.

The false/true thing is sort of important, but I don't think it's central to the argument for religion to have a decreased influence on our species. A more central argument might be how important it is for our species to mature intellectually, how religion has historically hindered scientific discovery and social evolution. Another might be a discussion about the effects of groupthink on large numbers of the populace. Another might be an argument about futility and how better to spend one's time. There are a dozen arguments I can think of.

Still, I'm not calling for religion to be eradicated or even reduced. All I ask is people think for themselves and try not to hurt others and themselves. If someone wants to believe in God or Shiva or Mork, that's their business. Live and let live.

You completely ignored my argument against this. If this were true, then superstition would disappear with religious adherence, but it does not. How can you account for that given this position?

I think it's fallacious to suggest that because some intelligent people have been religious that somehow religion or superstition isn't counter-scientific or is acceptable in any way (necessarily). Plenty of very, very smart people are also incapable or even dysfunctional in other areas. Einstein was quite the wiz with math and science, but I wouldn't take relationship advice from him. Or style advice.

Reason is merely a system by which we validly infer conclusions from premises. A belief in a god maybe unreasonable from several philosophical positions, but not all. You can't claim something to be categorically unreasonable, that is meaningless.

It's unreasonable based on a system in which verifiable evidence is used to demonstrate the positive existence of a thing. Considering this is the system by which a vast majority of humans use on everything in their life besides god, it would make sense to use it as a method to determine whether belief in god is or isn't reasonable. If I told the average person there was an invisible dinosaur in his or her garage, he or she would naturally be very suspicious. Aren't dinosaurs extinct? How could it be invisible? Why is it in my garage? Who is this guy in my living room making illustrations about reason?  

For those rare people that wouldn't doubt my claim that there was an invisible dinosaur in their garage, that's fine, but they don't represent the vast majority of people.

What is "founded" and "unfounded" is largely a matter of opinion after a subjective evaluation of information. If someone feels that intuition is foundation, then you can merely disagree, you can't say that they are wrong. There are no objective standards to judge when a belief is and isn't founded. That is a philosophical question, and largely up to person discretion.

Why believe anything, then? If you throw verifiable evidence out the window, you're throwing out everything you've ever experienced in your life. We're not talking about philosophy, though. We're talking about the real world, real people, and real consequences.

Lastly you do not account for revelation. A surprisingly large amount of Christian that I have spoken to claim to have experienced one. I personally don't believe that they did, but I can't prove that they didn't, and if they did, then they have more than evidence or reasoning, they have proof. They can't share it, and can't show it to us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it justifies their believing it.

That's not proof considering that schizophrenia can sometimes be treated successfully with drugs and therapy. There's evidence for schizophrenia, there's none for divine revelation. It's more telling and to the point that the church will embrace someone that spoke to god whereas a psychologist might recommend that the person see a psychiatrist.

[Hitsumei]

If, in a person, it's a combination of his religion and his politics that support his irrational hatred of a group of people, then removing religion would at least lessen that hatred.
Imagine no religion.

That's a non sequitur. It would lessen their support for their hatred, not their hatred, and if their hatred is irrational -- as you say -- then it doesn't have any valid support to begin with.

No, it's just likely that he has a better handle on what happened than you or I.

I'm not telling you that I know better. I am merely saying that since other plausible explanations exist, I see no sufficient reason to base anything on an anecdote.  

I don't have a culture to speak of as I'm a white person born and raised in the US. The closest thing I have to a culture is rooted in consumerism, so it's not really important to me.

I find that an incredibly strange thing to say...

A more central argument might be how important it is for our species to mature intellectually, how religion has historically hindered scientific discovery and social evolution.

That is highly debatable.

Another might be a discussion about the effects of groupthink on large numbers of the populace.

That is unavoidable. Developing group mentalities is an artifact of our evolutionary heritage. We all do it.

Another might be an argument about futility and how better to spend one's time. There are a dozen arguments I can think of.

This is just a matter of personal preference and tastes. I wouldn't presume to tell you how best to spend your time.

Still, I'm not calling for religion to be eradicated or even reduced. All I ask is people think for themselves and try not to hurt others and themselves. If someone wants to believe in God or Shiva or Mork, that's their business. Live and let live.

Well, I personally think that religion has little do to with the actual metaphysical and ontological claims. I think that superstition has merely become institutionalized within them over the centuries that they have existed. Religion also evolves, and changes with the times, and I see no reason to think that the expulsion of the institutionalized superstition would necessarily destroy them. I would like to see a gradual move towards this, but I wouldn't want to force it, and destroy the religion in the process.

I think that superstition, violence, fear and hatred are the love-children of ignorance and unreason, not religion. I think that education will help our species' intellectual woes, and communication, interaction, and the development of a global community will work towards helping our social woes. I don't think that either are solvable, and I'm not even convinced that "progression" is a real thing, from a philosophical standpoint, but I'm willing to work towards what I think is an improvement regardless.

I am admittedly deeply worried with conservative, right wing political, societal, economical, religious, and moral positions -- they frankly terrify me -- but I lack the strength of conviction to hold to the opinion that my views are necessarily "better", and where society should lead. Though, Susan B Anthony once said: Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.

Which I admittedly find powerful.    

I think it's fallacious to suggest that because some intelligent people have been religious that somehow religion or superstition isn't counter-scientific or is acceptable in any way (necessarily). Plenty of very, very smart people are also incapable or even dysfunctional in other areas. Einstein was quite the wiz with math and science, but I wouldn't take relationship advice from him. Or style advice.

I wouldn't suggest that the fact that many very excellent philosophers, and scientists over the centuries being religious implies a link between religiosity and philosophical or scientific insight, nor would I suggest that the relative fear and distrust of the general public of science, philosophy, art, and most of academia, is necessarily linked with their religiosity. Again, I think that it is unreason and ignorance.

It's unreasonable based on a system in which verifiable evidence is used to demonstrate the positive existence of a thing.

This opens a huge can of worms, that I don't think you want to get into here. What is "verifiable", "evidence", what constitutes a "demonstration", and what it means for something to "exist" are not themselves uncontroversial, or universally agreed upon things, by no means. All of this presupposes a plethora of philosophical positions.  

Considering this is the system by which a vast majority of humans use on everything in their life besides god, it would make sense to use it as a method to determine whether belief in god is or isn't reasonable.

The standard theological position on this is that the ontology of immaterial, supernatural beings and things requires a different epistemology, and methodology to establish than material, natural things. So saying that they can't establish the existence of a god using the same methodology that they would use to establish the existence of a material thing in the universe is not something they would disagree with, or find a problem with. They would argue that you are misapplying a tool, and then arguing that the job can't be done because your tool doesn't fit.

If I told the average person there was an invisible dinosaur in his or her garage, he or she would naturally be very suspicious. Aren't dinosaurs extinct? How could it be invisible? Why is it in my garage? Who is this guy in my living room making illustrations about reason?  

A homage to Sagan's garage residing dragon? Perhaps not, but then this dinosaur is not a metaphysical explanation, or part of a long standing tradition of culture and writing which depicts, and gives countless anecdotal accounts of it, and it's qualities and attributes. So they are hardly equivalent. Take away the math, and the explanatory power, and assert the existence of dark matter, or of the other theoretical constructs in physics. There is no direct evidence of those, they are inferred from other observations, and then mathematical formulas are devised to see if it can explain the observations.

Now I am of course not saying that supernatural assertions are in the same league as theoretical physical entities, but am merely pointing out that when you caricature something that cannot be physically verified, without appreciating the whole picture, it of course is not at all the same thing. It is a false analogy for this reason.  

Why believe anything, then? If you throw verifiable evidence out the window, you're throwing out everything you've ever experienced in your life. We're not talking about philosophy, though. We're talking about the real world, real people, and real consequences.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Discussing whether something is founded or not is philosophy. I believe things when I think it is reasonable to do so, like most people. I'm not infallible, I make mistakes, but I do my best. What constitutes evidence, and verification is not obvious or clear. These subjects are not easy. One can't just intuitively decide on these matters, we need real philosophical frameworks to explain and justify them to the best our reason allows.

I most say here, that I find anti-philosophical sentiments no less off-putting than anti-scientific ones.

That's not proof considering that schizophrenia can sometimes be treated successfully with drugs and therapy. There's evidence for schizophrenia, there's none for divine revelation. It's more telling and to the point that the church will embrace someone that spoke to god whereas a psychologist might recommend that the person see a psychiatrist.

Not necessarily, it is not logically impossible that the revelation comes with the direct knowledge that the information received is genuine. The standard theological position on revelation is that it varies from hallucination, or other types of anomalies in that it is accompanied by revealed knowledge, not just visions, and the sound of voices.  

Although, I think we are getting off track here, I am delving far more into theological defenses than I would like too. Mostly because I don't personally buy them -- but they are not so weak that they can be easily refuted in their strongest form.

[Hitsumei]

I made tons and tons of typos in my previous post. It is now 3 AM, and I haven't the energy, or time to correct them. I apologize if anything is impossible to decipher on account of them.

[SSY]

As to the point of this thread, if there were no religions, it would be impossible to incite barbaric acts in religions name, ie 9/11, crusades/ spanish inquisition etc, no?

Tautologically so, but that doesn't mean that such events could not take place, or even that they would take place less often.

Such events could still take place, but removing something that incites and preaches so much hatred and derrision would, I am willing to bet, reduce occurance of such terrible acts.

You may think that it intuitive that that be the case, but I do not. So a demonstration is in order. Of course the best way to do that, would be to remove religion from the world, and then discount all relevant variables that may skew results, and see what happens. Too bad that is not possible. The next best thing is through deduction, and I have suggested in my above post how it can be deduced: by demonstrating that religion has unique qualities that result in violence and hatred that nothing else shares.

If neither of these can be accomplished, then your guess is no better than mine -- and I was under the impression that you'all rationalists require evidential and rational basis to believe things. Without an inductive or deductive demonstration, you have neither.

Let me present some evidence.

The 9/11 Hiajckers were all devout muslims. They beleived in the Koran, they beleived what their preachers said. The preacher's interpretation of the koran instructed holy war against heathens and unbeleivers ( in this case, the USA ).

The acts they carried out, in preperation for the attacks, and the the attacks themselves were religiously motivated. If these mens had not been religious, had not had such faith in their clerics, then they would not have carried out these attacks. This is my deduction that shows how religion can cause violence, and how removing would lessen the occurance of violence. It contains the assumption that the attackers beleif in the koran was nessacary for their decision to attack, something I think is entirley reasonable, given the stated aims and motivations of their organisation.

Demonstrating that religion has the unique ability to cause violence is not required. For example, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but that other things also cause lung cancer. Yet, you would accept that removing smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer ( significantly ).

[Hitsumei]

Let me present some evidence.

The 9/11 Hiajckers were all devout muslims. They beleived in the Koran, they beleived what their preachers said. The preacher's interpretation of the koran instructed holy war against heathens and unbeleivers ( in this case, the USA ).

The acts they carried out, in preperation for the attacks, and the the attacks themselves were religiously motivated. If these mens had not been religious, had not had such faith in their clerics, then they would not have carried out these attacks. This is my deduction that shows how religion can cause violence, and how removing would lessen the occurance of violence. It contains the assumption that the attackers beleif in the koran was nessacary for their decision to attack, something I think is entirley reasonable, given the stated aims and motivations of their organisation.

Demonstrating that religion has the unique ability to cause violence is not required. For example, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but that other things also cause lung cancer. Yet, you would accept that removing smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer ( significantly ).

None of this follows. The fact that violence has occurred that was justified, or motivated by religion in no way implies similar events are impossible without religion -- and since similar events do happen to take place without religious motivation or justification, the assertion that they would not take place without religion is wholly unjustified.

Implying that if religion were to have disappeared off of the face of the earth the sole outcome would be that any negative events related to religion would not have occurred is an incredibly simplistic view to take. If religion never existed the world would be an wholly different place in all facets of life and history, and none of us possess the necessary deductive powers to say what such a world would be like.

This is tantamount to saving that the removal of politics from the world would result in nothing more than the disappearance of all of the negative things associated with politics, and the world would otherwise be the same.

What a world where religion never existed would be like is not currently knowable -- but I think that it is trivially false to say that the only way in which it would vary is by subtracting all the negative events that are associated with religion.

[Will]

That's a non sequitur. It would lessen their support for their hatred, not their hatred, and if their hatred is irrational -- as you say -- then it doesn't have any valid support to begin with.

You're discounting the significant pressure from social norms. I think it was Nelson Mandela that famously said, "No one is born hating." It's true, hatred and ignorance are learned and developed. If they can be integrated from the environment, they can be removed the same way.

I'm not telling you that I know better. I am merely saying that since other plausible explanations exist, I see no sufficient reason to base anything on an anecdote.

Because there aren't verifiable statistics readily available, you have to fall on the best information available. For me it's personal experience.

/snip, for the sake of space

Religion provides organization to superstition, which amplifies it's ramifications (I still can't use affect and effect correctly...gah) and it provides a great deal of protection.

The standard theological position on this is that the ontology of immaterial, supernatural beings and things requires a different epistemology, and methodology to establish than material, natural things. So saying that they can't establish the existence of a god using the same methodology that they would use to establish the existence of a material thing in the universe is not something they would disagree with, or find a problem with. They would argue that you are misapplying a tool, and then arguing that the job can't be done because your tool doesn't fit.

There's a standard theological position on this? Is it written down somewhere? Because every single time I discuss this with a Christian, I either get "it's the mystery of god" or "i can prove god" and then they give me a bunch of crap about how pretty trees are or how one time they were almost hit by a Kia in a parking lot. Or I get the scary one, "God spoke to me." The only Christians that seem to have their act together on the subject are agnostic. "Look, I honestly don't know, but it makes me happy to believe there's something and I'm not hurting someone." If they were to honestly stick to the whole "it has nothing at all to do with science or logic or evidence" thing, I'd be fine. Most don't.

A homage to Sagan's garage residing dragon?

Of course! I love Sagan. I forgot that it was a dragon.

Perhaps not, but then this dinosaur is not a metaphysical explanation, or part of a long standing tradition of culture and writing which depicts, and gives countless anecdotal accounts of it, and it's qualities and attributes. So they are hardly equivalent. Take away the math, and the explanatory power, and assert the existence of dark matter, or of the other theoretical constructs in physics. There is no direct evidence of those, they are inferred from other observations, and then mathematical formulas are devised to see if it can explain the observations.

Now I am of course not saying that supernatural assertions are in the same league as theoretical physical entities, but am merely pointing out that when you caricature something that cannot be physically verified, without appreciating the whole picture, it of course is not at all the same thing. It is a false analogy for this reason.

Dragons are a part of long standing culture. And dinosaurs were (are, in some cases) actually real. So dinosaurs have a leg up.

[Hitsumei]

You're discounting the significant pressure from social norms. I think it was Nelson Mandela that famously said, "No one is born hating." It's true, hatred and ignorance are learned and developed. If they can be integrated from the environment, they can be removed the same way.

Whether some people are naturally predisposed towards hatred and violence is a scientific question, and Nelson Mandela's opinion on the matter holds little weight. "Ignorance is learned" is an oxymoron.

Because there aren't verifiable statistics readily available, you have to fall on the best information available. For me it's personal experience.

Sounds like a religious argument if I have ever heard one.  

Religion provides organization to superstition, which amplifies it's ramifications (I still can't use affect and effect correctly...gah) and it provides a great deal of protection.

I don't think that it is obvious that organized formalized superstition is worse than whimsical unleashed superstition.

There's a standard theological position on this? Is it written down somewhere? Because every single time I discuss this with a Christian, I either get "it's the mystery of god" or "i can prove god" and then they give me a bunch of crap about how pretty trees are or how one time they were almost hit by a Kia in a parking lot. Or I get the scary one, "God spoke to me." The only Christians that seem to have their act together on the subject are agnostic. "Look, I honestly don't know, but it makes me happy to believe there's something and I'm not hurting someone." If they were to honestly stick to the whole "it has nothing at all to do with science or logic or evidence" thing, I'd be fine. Most don't.

Most Christians aren't theologians. The majority of any group that holds a position are by no meres experts on it, or even able to offer a modicum of defense for it. It is trivial to defeat any position presented weakly.

It is fallacious to assume that because an argument is invalid, that its conclusion is false. If an argument is invalid, then that merely means that it is unable to demonstrate its conclusion -- which in no way implies that its conclusion is false.
 

Dragons are a part of long standing culture. And dinosaurs were (are, in some cases) actually real. So dinosaurs have a leg up.

Invisible dinosaurs weren't. People exist too, I thought that it was the supernatural aspect of the person purported to be god that got your goat.

[Will]

Whether some people are naturally predisposed towards hatred and violence is a scientific question, and Nelson Mandela's opinion on the matter holds little weight. "Ignorance is learned" is an oxymoron.

The resistance to learning and have an open mind is a trait and one can acquire that trait. You're not born hating Muslims. Or women.

I don't think that it is obvious that organized formalized superstition is worse than whimsical unleashed superstition.

Compare unorganized superstition with organized superstition. Throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't have any effect on the FDA, but Christian superstition prevented many years of stem cell research.

Most Christians aren't theologians.

You said the standard theological position. I doubt that the "standard theological position" you referenced is the position of the rare theologian or experienced apologetic.

It is fallacious to assume that because an argument is invalid, that its conclusion is false. If an argument is invalid, then that merely means that it is unable to demonstrate its conclusion -- which in no way implies that its conclusion is false.

It's perfectly fine to assume that because an argument is invalid or illogical there's no reason to believe the conclusion. Like I said before "While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable." Because they're unable to demonstrate a conclusion, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism.

Invisible dinosaurs weren't. People exist too, I thought that it was the supernatural aspect of the person purported to be god that got your goat.

My goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

[Hitsumei]

The resistance to learning and have an open mind is a trait and one can acquire that trait. You're not born hating Muslims. Or women.

Perhaps not, but the predisposition to hate and fear things very well could be. If the justifications for doing so are irrational, than anything can serve as one.

Compare unorganized superstition with organized superstition. Throwing salt over your shoulder doesn't have any effect on the FDA, but Christian superstition prevented many years of stem cell research.

It's an unfair comparison. Compare racist notions to immaculate conception.

You said the standard theological position. I doubt that the "standard theological position" you referenced is the position of the rare theologian or experienced apologetic.

You're right, that was a misleading way to word that. I meant it in the sense that it was the position of a number of history's most prominent theologians, and is the position taken today by the majority of philosophically literate theologians. Not exactly as I worded it of course, I simplified it.

It's perfectly fine to assume that because an argument is invalid or illogical there's no reason to believe the conclusion. Like I said before "While it's true I can't disprove god, one can absolutely demonstrate that a belief in god or gods is unfounded and unreasonable." Because they're unable to demonstrate a conclusion, the only logical conclusion is agnosticism.

There are of course valid theological arguments for the existence of god, but they require making an assumption at some point. All arguments do. I have to first assume that an external world exists before I can trust my senses, and then make arguments that follow from my assumption that my senses are at least somewhat accurate.

So denying the assumption doesn't make the argument invalid, it makes you unconvinced. Not everyone is. Because you are unconvinced it does not follow that no one should be. Again, this largely relies on the epistemological and methodological positions that you hold, when you consider it justified to consider something knowledge, what you consider evidence, and what kinds of assumptions are justified and when. Things like that. Not on the validity or invalidity of the arguments. All positions at some point require a certain amount of assumption. Given, some far more than others.

My goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

It isn't the same evidence. Just as you accept personal experience, and anecdote on occasion, so do they. They have neither for the propositions that you suggest. You mean the same physical evidence, but a large amount of theists already agree that there isn't any, and do not rely on there being any.

Anyway, I think we are gravitating away from the thread topic. As I said, I would rather not defend theological or religion positions, largely because I don't hold them.

[Will]

Perhaps not, but the predisposition to hate and fear things very well could be. If the justifications for doing so are irrational, than anything can serve as one.

A predisposition to hate things? Like we're born to hate other races? Or something more general, like a predisposition to simply hate what's different?

It's an unfair comparison.

It's completely fair. Organization gives strength and influence to superstition. To illustrate that I compared the effects of unorganized superstition to the effects of organized religion.

You're right, that was a misleading way to word that. I meant it in the sense that it was the position of a number of history's most prominent theologians, and is the position taken today by the majority of philosophically literate theologians. Not exactly as I worded it of course, I simplified it.

Very few of history's most prominent theologians agree on anything. Meister Echkart, one of my favorite theologians, was essentially atheist, but is still regarded (among more honest circiles) to be a great Catholic teacher. You should read The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart by Bernard McGinn, btw, it's out of this world. Actually, the same could be said of Tillich, Spinoza, and Hegel, come to think of it. I could argue that they represent something a lot closer to my beliefs than the beliefs of what you might consider an average position of theologians.

I'm left wondering if you intentionally baited me into making that argument, because it takes some of the steam out of my previous argument that the average Christian can't mount the kind of defense you attribute to the theologians. I digress.

There are of course valid theological arguments for the existence of god, but they require making an assumption at some point. All arguments do. I have to first assume that an external world exists before I can trust my senses, and then make arguments that follow from my assumption that my senses are at least somewhat accurate.

So denying the assumption doesn't make the argument invalid, it makes you unconvinced. Not everyone is. Because you are unconvinced it does not follow that no one should be. Again, this largely relies on the epistemological and methodological positions that you hold, when you consider it justified to consider something knowledge, what you consider evidence, and what kinds of assumptions are justified and when. Things like that. Not on the validity or invalidity of the arguments. All positions at some point require a certain amount of assumption. Given, some far more than others.

You're assuming they aren't being inconsistent, though, which leads into my next point about God vs. Mithros:

My goat and I are got by the inconsistent burden of proof. A person readily accepts the Judeo-Christian God or Muslim Allah, but when presented with the same evidence for Mithros or Thor, they dismiss it outright. The invisible dragon/dinosaur is simply a more extreme illustration of that. They're fine using a reasonable and common burden of proof for Athena, but when it comes to the god they were raised and conditioned to believe in, no such burden exists.

It isn't the same evidence. Just as you accept personal experience, and anecdote on occasion, so do they. They have neither for the propositions that you suggest. You mean the same physical evidence, but a large amount of theists already agree that there isn't any, and do not rely on there being any.

Wait a second, in the instance I accepted personal experience, I was still able to share that experience with the person that shared it with me and even to an outside observer, that evidence would likely be compelling. You can't compare that to a vision of an angel. Someone retelling a story of a religious experience cannot be observed objectively and have the evidence weighed in the same way my experience can. Apples and oranges.

[Hitsumei]

A predisposition to hate things? Like we're born to hate other races? Or something more general, like a predisposition to simply hate what's different?

As in some are more predisposed towards certain emotionally states of mind than others. Hatred is an emotional state of mind.

It's completely fair. Organization gives strength and influence to superstition. To illustrate that I compared the effects of unorganized superstition to the effects of organized religion.

No, you didn't. You compared a benign unorganized superstition with a malign organized one. That is an unfair comparison. Compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.    

You're assuming they aren't being inconsistent, though, which leads into my next point about God vs. Mithros:

Not necessarily, any argument that they put forward for a god, can conceivably work for several different ones. I assume that many theologians must agree to this given the number of Greek arguments for god that many of them have adopted.

One single argument doesn't have to demonstrate every aspect of what they believe. Arguments for why they think that it is their specific god can thus just presuppose the existence of some kind of god as is supported by other arguments that they have. No single argument can demonstrate every single assumption that it makes. That requires independent arguments.

Wait a second, in the instance I accepted personal experience, I was still able to share that experience with the person that shared it with me and even to an outside observer, that evidence would likely be compelling.

The first assertion is false, you can't share another person's experience, you can be around them when they experience it perhaps. Also, I was not there, so this is no different than a religious argument made by someone claiming to have experienced, or been with someone who had the experience (e.g. the Penn and Teller video that was recently linked about near death experience, where a woman claimed to rise out of her body, and a man claimed to have witnessed it). The second is just an assertion, based on opinion, and personal discretion.

You can't compare that to a vision of an angel. Someone retelling a story of a religious experience cannot be observed objectively and have the evidence weighed in the same way my experience can. Apples and oranges.

If I already accept that some type of god exists, then anecdote should be fine to compel me to accept their accounts. I don't need their anecdote to prove the existence of anything to me, I must merely decide if I think what they are telling me is plausible based on what I think I know about the world.

That is in no way different than accepting any anecdote. You assume that it must all come together in one massive narrative from a single source. Of course if someone tells you an anecdote involving things that you don't think exists in any sense, then you are far less likely to believe them, than if they tell you one involving things that you accept that at least something like that exists.

[Will]

As in some are more predisposed towards certain emotionally states of mind than others. Hatred is an emotional state of mind.

But you're essentially saying that some people are prone to hatred, innately. Are you sure that's a case you want to make?

No, you didn't. You compared a benign unorganized superstition with a malign organized one. That is an unfair comparison. Compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges.

I was comparing an unorganized superstition with an organized superstition. And of course throwing salt is benign, it isn't backed by a large and devoted organization. If it were, it would be religion.

Not necessarily, any argument that they put forward for a god, can conceivably work for several different ones. I assume that many theologians must agree to this given the number of Greek arguments for god that many of them have adopted.

And yet none of these theologians worships Apollo. That's my point.

One single argument doesn't have to demonstrate every aspect of what they believe. Arguments for why they think that it is their specific god can thus just presuppose the existence of some kind of god as is supported by other arguments that they have. No single argument can demonstrate every single assumption that it makes. That requires independent arguments.

And I'm fine taking on more than one, but they all lead to the same place and that place can just as easily lead to a god or deity that the individual doesn't believe in. There aren't arguments for Jesus that don't exist for Apollo.

The first assertion is false, you can't share another person's experience, you can be around them when they experience it perhaps.

I witnessed a resounding change in behavior and thought processes. He also shared thoughts with my along the way, and I gave him input. So yes, I shared it.

Also, I was not there, so this is no different than a religious argument made by someone claiming to have experienced, or been with someone who had the experience (e.g. the Penn and Teller video that was recently linked about near death experience, where a woman claimed to rise out of her body, and a man claimed to have witnessed it). The second is just an assertion, based on opinion, and personal discretion.

You weren't there for my friend, but can you honestly say that you've never known anyone that went from being ignorant to being enlightened?

If I already accept that some type of god exists, then anecdote should be fine to compel me to accept their accounts. I don't need their anecdote to prove the existence of anything to me, I must merely decide if I think what they are telling me is plausible based on what I think I know about the world.

That is in no way different than accepting any anecdote. You assume that it must all come together in one massive narrative from a single source. Of course if someone tells you an anecdote involving things that you don't think exists in any sense, then you are far less likely to believe them, than if they tell you one involving things that you accept that at least something like that exists.

I don't think that's true. Not everyone has the same level of cognitive bias. Some people are very biased and other people are very objective.

[Hitsumei]

But you're essentially saying that some people are prone to hatred, innately. Are you sure that's a case you want to make?

I'm not making such a case. I am saying that it is a plausible possibility. I don't think that it is reasonable to just make an assumption about which is the case, that is why I said that it is a "scientific question". One which I leave up to science, and do not pretend to know the answer to.

And yet none of these theologians worships Apollo. That's my point.

Then you missed mine. They don't only have a single argument.

And I'm fine taking on more than one, but they all lead to the same place and that place can just as easily lead to a god or deity that the individual doesn't believe in. There aren't arguments for Jesus that don't exist for Apollo.

Yes there are. There are millions of anecdotal accounts of Jesus from Christians throughout history, and by people that are still alive. The accounts of Apollo just kind of trail off at one point. Perhaps he went on holiday.

I witnessed a resounding change in behavior and thought processes. He also shared thoughts with my along the way, and I gave him input. So yes, I shared it.

Again, sounds a awful lot like a religious argument. I hear this argument for why Paul was telling the truth all the time. He was a historical figure, and did completely change his position and behavior. So people infer that he must be telling the truth about his revelation.

I see no difference.

You weren't there for my friend, but can you honestly say that you've never known anyone that went from being ignorant to being enlightened?

No, I can't say that. I am not apt to judge what qualifies one as being "enlightened".

I don't think that's true. Not everyone has the same level of cognitive bias. Some people are very biased and other people are very objective.

Which is why we establish people's credibility in court, and is why people are far more likely to accept the anecdotes people that they trust, like friends and families whom are far more likely to belong to the same religious traditions, than they are to accept anecdotes of people that they don't know, and can't judge the credibility of, or are not members of a community that they have grown to trust.

[SSY]

None of this follows. The fact that violence has occurred that was justified, or motivated by religion in no way implies similar events are impossible without religion -- and since similar events do happen to take place without religious motivation or justification, the assertion that they would not take place without religion is wholly unjustified.

i never said getting rid of religion would remove all violence, but that it would reduce violence.

Implying that if religion were to have disappeared off of the face of the earth the sole outcome would be that any negative events related to religion would not have occurred is an incredibly simplistic view to take. If religion never existed the world would be an wholly different place in all facets of life and history, and none of us possess the necessary deductive powers to say what such a world would be like.

You're right, it would be vastly different. One thing we could be sure about though would be that the crusades would never have happened, the spanish inquisition would not have happened, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened, i could continue. Other things, like the invention of the light bulb may not have hapened also, but they also, may well have happened, the same cannot be said for the religious atrocities as they are specefically ruled out in this hypothesis. In summary, many bad things would be removed, while positive things may or may not be ( though really, the lightbulb would have been invented sooner rather than later, probably sooner without the dark ages brought on by religion ). Note, the positive things religion has done ( I am straining to think of many though ) would also be removed, though I think religion does more harm than good, so still a worthy trade off.

This is tantamount to saving that the removal of politics from the world would result in nothing more than the disappearance of all of the negative things associated with politics, and the world would otherwise be the same.

What a world where religion never existed would be like is not currently knowable -- but I think that it is trivially false to say that the only way in which it would vary is by subtracting all the negative events that are associated with religion.

See above.