As you have done a wonderful job of missing the point and misunderstanding clear statements I shall bow out a leave you to your delusions.

In the last response, all I did was ask you to support some of the statements you made. Whether or not you respond here, you should at least take the opportunity to discover on your own whether or not some of your earlier statements were justified. If it turns out that some of the things you’re saying are simply incorrect, you would just be tossing around unjustified slander and harming your own reputation as a communicator.

I am a better orator than writer and these discussions would have been over in minutes had they taken place verbally. I seriously have better things to do.

But rather than respond to requests that you support your claims with data, will you now just go back to making more uninformed statements on your blog about other people’s beliefs and practices?

The time it takes to word an unambiguous query only to the have it completely and most probably intentionally misunderstood is frustrating at best.

I was being 100% serious when I said the the religious should have no rights over the irreligious just as no one would advocate letting the lunatics run the proverbial asylum. Letting the irrational make decisions that affect others is highly irrational.

I am a better orator than writer and these discussions would have been over in minutes had they taken place verbally. I seriously have better things to do.

Atheism doesn’t need to be taught, it is the default position. Someone who has no knowledge of religion is automatically an atheist

Citation needed. Can you back up this claim with any evidence? The evidence from all sides seems to be to the contrary. Even neuroscientists are discussing the possibility of biological basis for religion. If religion isn’t natural to humans, why has it been the default in all (?) human cultures?

Who ever heard of arguing more than one side.

Academics, among others.

even the best science that the future has will never be able to prove there is no god but it can prove that the god as described in your bible does not and can not exist.

I don’t think you’ve studied enough to understand “god as described” in the bible. It’s a complicated question, and there’s a LOOOONG line of theologians that played a part in informing various modern understandings of God. (More to follow). Also, after all of our discussion, you should have picked up on the fact that I’m not a Christian, and I’m responding to you as a scholar of religion. So in any case it isn’t “my bible”.

I am an Anti-theist because the belief in a god is perhaps the most harmful thing humanity has ever engaged in. Theists do the most heinous things, things no Atheist would ever be interested in. Whether it is attempted genocide, ethnic cleansing or slaughter of all those with differing opinions on whose god/s exists or whose prophet accurately represents that god. Millions of people slaughtered in the name of a delusion. Theists will commit the most evil crimes on one another in the name of their god/s and then say completely straight faced that ‘God is love’ and never see the hypocrisy.
Maybe if there were no such childish superstitions humanity would find another excuse to behave so badly but at the moment it takes religion to compel people to be truly evil and until we grow out of this religious phase, and it is only a phase, we’ll never really know.

It’s clear that your sentiment is admirable: we should all get along and be nice to each other. I agree. That’s also a main theme of religion. But your attempt to simplify all conflict to fighting over beliefs is naive. It just takes a little bit of investigation to understand it a little bit more clearly.

One of the very few things I find confusing is that there even exists a christian biblical scholar. To me they are mutually exclusive. If you have studied the bible, you are aware it is patently ridiculous. Therefore you are now an ex-believer.

Biblical scholars don’t need to start out “believers” and they generally have no interest in statements about whether or not “the bible is true”. That’s what makes them academics.

only the seriously mentally challenged could believe it. How can one be able to believe two direct opposites at the same time for there are several direct contradictions in a book that is promoted as infallible.

In the history of the world, have there been NO religious people that you would approve of as incredible and wonderful people? Why not find a religious person you can admire as a good person, and try to understand how they can believe what they do. just listen completely once and ask questions without arguing. you might learn that you had misunderstood a few crucial things.

“Buddhism has plenty of gods”
Um, No. It has no gods at all. There is a huge difference in believing someone has achieved enlightenment and ascended to a higher plain of existence than believing in a god. If you have studied Buddhism and come to this conclusion you have misunderstood it completely. No Buddhist will ever claim Bodhisattva created everything or is omnipotent e.t.c.

I didn’t say that Buddhism shares the same concept of “God” with any of the monotheistic religions. But Buddhism(s) often have dharma gods, deities, and even popular “buddha worship” among people who have not been highly educated within the tradition.

If you knew someone that was pro genocide in the Sudan or pro slavery wouldn’t you try and change their opinion? Your beliefs are the most destructive force humanity has ever encountered and your ability to be easily convinced of the truth of absurdities is the most embarrassing aspect of humanity.

Who exactly are you speaking to here? Which beliefs of mine are you referring to? Would you like to hear about a religion proclaiming the equality of all humans and forbidding slavery, abuse of women, and mistreatment of animals in the distant past? These problems all persist, even though good religious people and good non-religious people are working to stop them. Rather than attack people based on poorly understood labels, why not just make your point clear and say that you’re anti-violence, etc? Say WHAT you’re against, and then let the WHO’s fall where they will, without discrimination.

Could you respect an otherwise seemingly intelligent adult that believed in fairies and trolls? Probably not.

You’ve obviously never seen a troll… They’re huge, you know… Some of them…

We are not against your belief in a god, we are against what you will do in the name of your god.

Try to make yourself aware of what someone does “in the name of God” before you take a stand against it. Take a survey of people who live nearby to you who are religious. Ask if they’ve murdered or suggested any murders, abused any people or animals, or set any fires as a religious activity lately. Then ask what they do for the sake of their religion. THEN you can decide to take a stand for or against.

If I was in a position of power I would never let a believer vote, stand for any political office, be in a position of power over anyone else, be on a jury or do anything that required rational thought that affected others.

I know you’re exaggerating here, but it still sounds creepy.

It would be easier to believe some Arkansas hick’s story of alien anal probes than the crap in the bible. I’m sorry if this is offensive, I really am, but perhaps if you knew how we (I’m generalising) think of you, you might be a little more likely to be a little more critical next time you open the bible.

You seem to spend a great deal of time drafting up comments intended to offend — the occasional apology doesn’t seem genuine.

Their brains were less evolved and their knowledge was severely limited. Before science brought us understanding things that seem so simple to us now like the tides or lightning or lunar eclipses must have scared the hell out of them so with what mental faculties they had they rationalised gods.

I’ve heard that theory, but it hasn’t done so well standing up to criticisms. Why do religions continue to appear despite the modern setting and more evolved brains, for example?

“Do you think everything you do is based on pure logic and reason, with nothing being sacred; no superstitions or taboos? What do you do when a loved one dies, and why don’t you do something utilitarian with the meat and bones?”

No superstitions and no taboos. None that I’m aware of anyway. I do nothing when a loved one dies. Firstly, “Love” is nothing more than evolutionary, once-relevant, targeted OCD. (Chemically and electrically identical in the brain.) If one didn’t ‘love’ their partner one wouldn’t commit to raising the young, if one didn’t ‘love’ their young we wouldn’t bother to raise them as life is obviously simpler without the responsibility.
I don’t cry because it achieves nothing and everything dies yet all molecules are recycled. If I believed my life will be somehow lacking that would only demonstrate that I am incomplete without the deceased person. I am complete on my own.

BS.

The most sickening platitude I have ever heard is “You complete me”. If you are incomplete on your own you are faulty.

You’ve been hanging out too much with Seven-of-Nine (Star Trek Voyager) or something. That statement was just waaaay too robot.

This is another example of indoctrination. How many songs have you heard that state “I’m nothing without you” or “Everybody needs somebody to love”? This is false and teaches people that for them to have value they must pair up. It is nothing more than genetic programming to continue the species and has been irrelevant since about five and a half billion humans ago. Hopefully sometime soon this behavioral anomaly will be dropped from our gene code as no longer relevant. In this sort of detachment I know I’m a little different but that in no way makes it wrong and being emotionally fragile has no benefits.

You’re anti-Love now? If you’re anti-emotion, why the sentimentality earlier?

I’d be happiest if I thought someone would benefit from my death. Soylent Green comes to mind. And yes I would eat someone if that was their wish but I wouldn’t do the butchering and I certainly have no qualms about being eaten.

Ok, now you’re just being creepy.

Christianity, can be fairly accurately described as belief in what one is told about a book.

You have a far too limited understanding about this subject.

Less than 0.001% of christians have ever studied the bible or know anything of its creation.

Citation needed. Making things up and then publishing them (even on the internet) is not reasonable and honest.

You aren’t seriously bring up “Neurotheology” are you that’s on a par with I.D. and about as respected as Scientology’s e-meter. Quackery at its worst.

Why don’t you tell a little bit about what that term refers to, which bits you took issue with. What do you think about the credentials of the relevant authors?

Any American preacher who has ever said “America is a Christian nation” or “America was founded on Christian beliefs” and has actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is either a liar or has a learning disability.

So what were the beliefs of the founders? Why include all the religious terms spicing up the prose? And which beliefs might someone have been referring to when they made the above comment? Probably they weren’t just talking about the crucifixion. There might have been some other “Christian beliefs” that could have come into play.

Jimmy Swaggert: “Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.”

I don’t even understand the basis of that guy’s comment.

Pat Robertson: “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians.”

That’s clearly a ridiculous statement.

Jerry Falwell: “The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”

I’d be interested in hearing the arguments he would give in support of the latter half of this statement.

either way they give your religion a bad name yet they are popular, with imbeciles.

It’s clear that you’re not aware which religion is mine.

Do you believe your god is perfect? Most people seem to think a god must be perfect or it isn’t god.

Sounds like a definitional issue.

Use the rational part of you brain and mull over this. If god is perfect it cant be male. The only possible purpose in having a gender is for breeding and it has no mate. So either god is male and there are other gods, making the bible wrong, or god is imperfect, making the bible wrong. Now take that seed of rational doubt and nurture it with knowledge.

It’s my understanding that many Christian theologians have suggested clearly that God does not have gender. This issue has already been thoroughly discussed, so your question really isn’t new. Probably most of the issues you have with religion(s) are similarly based on a lack of education about religion. Learn more.

I know this sounds disrespectful of you personally but it is unavoidable as your what you believe and your choice to believe it deserve no respect.

Until you learn what I believe, you have no way of evaluating whether or not those beliefs deserve respect.

If you respond again, which of course you’re still welcome to do, how about going after specific issues rather than vague generalizations, citing the source of questionable statements and figures, and doing enough research to comment on what the followers of a religion really think and do, rather than what you imagine them to be doing.

Some of the other respondents have done an excellent job at this, and those conversations seem to be more productive and interesting.

Brendan doesn’t suffer fools.

Thanks for the friendly response!

Sorry I’ve been so long in replying – things have been very busy recently,
_________Begin Quote_________
I would have to say that your logic is excellent. My primary response is that in Islamic theology, as given by Imam Al-Tahawi, God is entirely without need of anything; self-sufficient.
________End Quote___________

I find this is a very common first response from believers when I suggest a line of argument that includes God’s existence (negatively) as the conclusion.

When a believer opens their response with ‘In theology…’, what they are usually doing is presuming God’s existence (positively) to justify the conclusion that God exists.

I understand your objection, and I agree with your reasoning on this point. Just to clarify, I wasn’t using theology as an argument (that wouldn’t even make sense, as you rightly pointed out). What I was doing with this comment was to qualify this troublesome term “God” a bit. Basically, I was saying that as long as I’m using the term “God”, I’m using it according to the theological definition given. If we are to discuss the possible existence/nonexistence of something, we need to agree on what we’re talking about. For example, if you were arguing against the existence of “God” (a bearded sky-man who gets jealous and smites people) then I will immediately agree with you that I find the existence of such a thing highly unlikely. More directly, I understood you to be discussing the probability of a kind of “God” that relies upon a cosmos in which to locate his existence. I gave the theological tidbit just to indicate that my own discussions on this topic will not relate to such a definition, because a God reliant upon an existential backdrop (universe, cosmos, etc) doesn’t fit the working definition for “God” which I use. I also haven’t made any arguments FOR the existence of God (I’m just not in that business), I have only pointed out what I perceive as some shaky points in your argument AGAINST the existence of God. (My point being basically that we have no way of scientifically investigating the matter, and therefore no basis for claims of “probability” either way).

However, since God’s existence is the conclusion in both my argument and the theist’s response, it is bad logic for us to presume his existence – either positively or negatively – in the premises on which that conclusion is built.

Sorry to get all lecture-y on you regarding what was actually a minor point. I have found it irritatingly common for me to engage a theist in fruitful and interesting discussion, only to have that theist fall back on two related cop-outs:

1) If I [the theist] presume my conclusion, my argument shows that God exists. Therefore, He does.
2) I [the theist] presume my conclusion, therefore you [the atheist] are presuming yours as well.

I don’t mean to suggest you intend to pull either of these fallacies on me – but I have found it to be (unfortunately) prudent to deal with these issues as early as possible the second theology is mentioned. I have never been able to convince a theist to retract either of these fallacies, so I can only rely on a preventative approach.

Not to worry. I’m not writing here in a role of “theist” even if I happen to be someone you might define as one (personally I don’t use the term, and find it a bit too overgeneralized to be useful). This blog is written under my real name, and it’s primary purpose is to host my academic writings as a scholar of religious studies. In this capacity, I don’t even WANT to convince anyone of anything, or to argue for any conclusion. I’m only here for the discussion itself. I’m interested in YOUR opinions and arguments. (Particularly yours, U-Che, as I have appreciated your logical, informed, and professional-respectful tone.)

The problem is that there are (at least) two uses of the word ‘universe’.

1) Everything that exists.
2) The realm of space and time in which we live.

I understand your reason to avoid a problematic term. Ibn ‘Arabi, an influential character in 12th century Islamic thought, has been translated as discussing “Cosmos”. I think the translator is using this term as you would want to use it, but Ibn ‘Arabi discusses Cosmos in opposition to “God”. God-Cosmos is the primary relationship of existence for him. In his writing, you could say that he discusses “God & Cosmos” as constituting ‘everything that exists,’ without placing God inside of the concept Cosmos. Rather, the point is that if anything (universe, cosmos) is said to encompass God, the definition of God has been violated. God, as believed in by Muslims who would follow these theological interpretations, is precisely that which is not encompassed by anything, but encompasses all existing things. I’m not offering theological definitions as argument, only as qualification for the term “God” as it relates to concepts of things like “cosmos”.

It’s unfortunate that most people think that something like the meaning of a word can be legislated. Dictionaries do not give definitions – they give usage.
*shoves language-nerd-self back into box*

EXCELLENTLY SAID!

Anyway, I’ve found it prudent when defining a term precisely for the purpose of conversations founded upon disagreement (an argument, in fact – arguments are not zero-sum games unless we make them into -
*shoves language-nerd-self back into box*
*locks box*

Some of these words are particularly troublesome because everyone has their own definition in mind while they engage in dialogue with others. God, Cosmos, atheist, agnostic, theist, religion, culture… Part of my reason for bringing “atheist bloggers” over to discuss religion is because I think that voice can be useful in understanding the common usage of these words, as opposed to various technical usages within academic or religious contexts. For the most part, I hear atheists arguing against X, while the religious respondents argue for Y. Apples and oranges. I’m hoping to better understand exactly what atheists are promoting/opposing about religion, because: (1) they might provide valuable constructive criticisms, highlighting real problems in the way people are doing ‘religion’ and providing creative solutions, (2) they might be able to help identify where the breakdown in communication is happening that prevents both sides from understanding each other, (3) it’s interesting.

I have found that whenever I need a precise meaning, it’s better to use a word to which people don’t already have an attachment.

Oh if only… But in this topic, everyone is VERY attached to their own understandings of the terms. You want to use “cosmos” to encompass everything that exists, including (if existing) God. But in the topic I study, “God” is said to exist, but not be encompassed by anything. If I enter into the discussion following your usage, I have nothing to talk about: Muslims also don’t believe in a God that is encompassed within the cosmos, yet they still believe in God as they understand the word. But if you enter into the discussion using my usage, it seems nonsensical because all of a sudden “existence” is a relative term and it doesn’t make any sense to you to talk about God not being “within” the cosmos and also not “outside” of it (outside being still a place-term, therefore not applicable to Islamic theological definitions of God.)

Hopefully, at least we can come to understand each other’s points of view, so that we’re not mistaken about what each side is actually believing or disbelieving. (eg. Your disbelief in a God within the cosmos agrees with the Islamic disbelief in such a God.)

________Begin Quote________
There’s also a problem with describing cosmos as ‘everything that exists,’ because religious claims about God specifically challenge the nature of existence. Namely, God exists in a way that is MORE exist-y than the “existence” that we have. So God can’t be said to exist in the same way that everything else does. Cosmos could very well be everything that ‘exists’ but still be discussed in contrast to God.
________End Quote________
I’ve only recently been coming across this line of argument from believers – that there are different kinds of existence.

It’s not argumentative, it’s definitional. (I jumped in a bit early and described this stuff above) The thing is, this distinction is nothing new; it’s been the majority theological understanding within the religious context since the inception (at any rate, texts that discussed theology in such detail have always made this distinction). In other words, Muslims, even though they believe in God, have generally agreed with your point that God wouldn’t both exist within the cosmos and still create the cosmos. If someone was interested in arguing against the existence of God (as Muslims believe in), they would have to address the Muslim concept of God in their arguments. (Or the Christian definition, or etc.)

For a craaaazy example, Thor, Zeus, Hades, and Ganesha might all ‘exist’ according to Muslim theologians (who would probably not comment on these specific beings, having no basis for such knowledge — Zeus isn’t mentioned in the Quran, Hadith, etc) but if they did exist they wouldn’t be called “God” or even “gods”, although they might be “jinn” (non-human beings from whence we have the word “genie”).

I’ve always found this to be a bit of a foreign idea – it’s hard for me to be confident of what any given believer means when they say this, especially since they will often mean completely different things.
The best method I have for interpreting the concept that there are different kinds of existence is in a sort of hierarchy, such that each specific kind of existence falls within the parent-group of ‘existence’.
So within ‘existence’, we find ‘mortal existence’, ‘divine existence’, and perhaps others – ‘Platonic existence’ is a good one, because Platonism is often the conceptual foundation for belief in the divine that believers unknowingly -
*shoves philosophy-nerd-self into the box along with language-nerd-self*
Is this kind of hierarchy is a good way to conceptualize what you mean when you suggest that ‘God exists in a way that is MORE exist-y than the “existence” that we have’?
If so, then my definition of cosmos still holds so long as we’re careful not to fall prey to the fallacy of composition. Specifically, this would mean assuming that just because something is true for the ‘mortal’ existence that we have, it must also be true for the parent group, and that because it is true for the parent group, it must be true for the ‘divine’ group.
Are you content with this additional nuance as applied to the term ‘cosmos’?

This is precisely why the terms “believers” or “theists” are too general. If they have totally different understandings, it’s problematic to clump them together.

I wish I could make the discussion easier at this point and go with the hierarchical thing, but it has a problem. “Incomparable” is part of the definitive description for God. (Assume I’m always attempting to give a majority-of-scholars ‘orthodox’ Islamic viewpoint unless I specify otherwise). This means that God’s existence can’t be “similar to our existence, but a degree higher”. It has to be incomparable to our existence. Furthermore, one of the “99 names of God” given in the Quran is “al-Haqq” (the True/the Real). God’s existence is of the kind that rightfully earns the term “existence,” whereas other things can be said to ‘exist’ in only a metaphorical or loose-usage sense, but not in a manner similar to God.

SORRY! I know it’s complicated and all this insistence on technicality makes discussion difficult! The good news is, I’m not making this up as I go along. If you’re interested, you can just find out what exactly this “God” thing is that Muslims are believing in, and then decide what you’d like to say/conclude about it. It’s a matter of information-about-belief, not argument.

________Begin Quote_______
I wouldn’t impose a label on you, but how do you feel about the term ‘agnostic’? I think admitting that we don’t know (in any universally agreeable sense, or even scientific sense) anything at all about whether or not God exists is a very appropriate stance to take for religious and non-religious people alike.
________End Quote________
This is an incredibly respectful thing to say! I am impressed and surprised. I don’t find myself in disagreement with theists alone. I also get into a great many philosophical disagreements with people over a range of issues. I’ve gotten so used to people labeling me off-handedly, that this paragraph came as a pleasant little shock. Perhaps I’m overreacting to such a common courtesy, but nonetheless – I do appreciate it.

Just common courtesy. You’ve been just as respectful, I think.

You’ve touched on one of the very areas in which I find myself in disagreement with almost everybody, theist and atheist alike.
To me, agnosticism and atheism deal in different things. Gnosticism or agnosticism deal with beliefs on what can or can’t be known. Theism or atheism deal with beliefs – in particular, belief in God.
However, I find that on these scales, there needs to be a third position. For example, we have a theist that believes in God, and an atheist that lacks that belief. We need a third term for someone who believes that God doesn’t exist.

Interesting. I thought that third term was often the use for “atheist”. Some people have used “radical atheist” but I understand now that there’s still different usages for these terms. And if we’re not going to hijack a term someone has grown attached to for describing themselves, we’ll have to just ask what they mean by the term, rather than impose a definition upon them. The word “religious” is probably even more difficult and more debated.

Also, on the scale of knowledge, we have the gnostic (who knows), and the agnostic (who doesn’t know). We need a third position for the one who thinks it is impossible to know. The philosophy-nerd in me calls this position Gorgian skepticism, after the rhetor/philosopher Gorgias. It is the position that I hold regarding all metaphysical claims – including the metaphysical claim that there is such a thing as a metaphysical ‘truth’.

What if a person thinks it’s impossible to know scientifically, but believes that they have access to a sacred source of knowledge? In other words, they believe in the source, and then what is related from the source is called “knowledge”.

When a scientist publishes fraudulent results, those results become “knowledge” for other scientists until the fraud is discovered, because they believed in the source of the information. Credentials, an apparently miraculously cloned duck, or a past history of honesty and academic integrity are taken as “reasons to believe”. In this case “using the faculty of reason” to evaluate the probability that the information is correct has nothing to do with the result. However untrue it was, you were still being reasonable when you accepted the information provided, until fraud is demonstrated conclusively.

Religious believers also have their reasons for believing. First of all, there are no scientific means of evaluating the existence of God. All we have are philosophical arguments – logic applied within a philosophical understanding of the topic. The philosophical starting point for these arguments and the path the logical process follows is absolutely a matter of personal belief and understanding. It’s entirely subjective, with people arguing opinions and beliefs against each other. We have absolutely no scientific or non-belief-based knowledge of how this universe came into being, whether created by a Deity or sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. All we can say scientifically is that it seems to have happened “with a bang~!”

However, even in the absence of such knowledge, I have to take action to live my life, and I need some kind of framework I can use to decide which actions to take. From necessity and boredom, I need to hold or abandon tentative beliefs about the world. Evidence-driven critical reasoning is the filter I use to determine whether a belief will be tentatively held or tentatively abandoned. The belief in God’s existence is yet to make the cut.
Normally at this point, the believer I am dealing with will charge me with choosing the evidence-driven critical reasoning filter precisely because it would permit me to ‘keep the belief in God at bay’. It’s an annoying distortion. If you wish, I can discuss why evidence-driven critical reasoning is my filter of choice – however, this is already getting long enough, so I’ll leave it aside for now.

Actually, I think that’s probably the most reasonable filter to use… I think even most religious people, like you, are using that filter to the best of their ability. It’s just that we all interpret our evidence subjectively. Different numbers of dots are required before we are willing to conclude that a line has been defined. As for evidence, the language enthusiast in you should enjoy this: it comes from “ex-videns” (“from what was seen”). There have been all these people throughout history giving “evidence, witness” etc. that they have seen spooky stuff going on, so what do we do with all those reports? We’re not being purely scientific and reasonable if we simply disregard them. We also wouldn’t be correct to accept them at face value. What we can say definitely is only that “so-and-so claims to have seen such-and-such”. No matter the number, they don’t add up to scientific proof of the content of the claim, but they do demonstrate that something may be going on that is affecting large numbers of people from different social and historical contexts. Some people suggest it could be because of glitches in the brain, other say it’s because of God(ess)(es). But aside from human witness accounts (the content of which can not be verified to any universally satisfactory degree) many believers take “the miraculous nature of the universe,” or the precision/beauty/”improbability”(?)/cromulence of natural phenomena as reasons to believe in the existence of something more COOL than what they see around them. It’s all using the same faculty of evidence-driven critical reasoning, it’s just that the handling of the information is different for everyone.

It’s even conceivable that someone could follow a religion out of practicality more than actual belief, saying that the benefits arising from “belief” were enough: meditation/prayer as stress relief, fasting/dietary restrictions for health, religious services for community connection, social structure, personal cultivation, etc…

____________Begin Quote______
Also: you mentioned the “initial implausibility of the God hypothesis.” I would just point out that we have no access, scientifically speaking, to any information at all about “First Cause” or “God” theories. If there’s no way to study them (as yet?) I don’t think they even qualify as hypotheses. Like String Theory, since there’s no known way to investigate or falsify the claim, they have to stay in the ranks of ‘theories’. With no information whatsoever about “First Causes,” on what could we base the claim that one or another theory was implausible?
___________End Quote_________
I tried to give my reasoning for why the God hypothesis (a hypothesis must be disprovable if it is to be scientifically useful – however, there is such a thing as a scientifically useless hypothesis) is initially implausible earlier on.
I consider that explaining the ’source’ of the cosmos is the primary intellectual foundation for belief in God. I tried to give a very brief summary of why I think the problem of the ’source’ of the cosmos is too difficult a question – that although I don’t know a satisfactory explanation for the cosmos, I do know that God is an unsatisfactory one (though it still could be true, as I do not possess perfect knowledge).

If it could be true, …. if it WAS true, what sense would it make to call it unsatisfactory? It would be like saying that the world being round was unsatisfactory. We’re without knowledge of the situation, and our satisfaction or dissatisfaction wouldn’t change the way they actually are. Besides, to evaluate what we think about one of the various “God hypotheses,” we would have to first understand it thoroughly. This would mean some amount of study (if one were interested). Once you know what exactly someone is believing, your belief can agree or disagree with theirs.

The first step I find the God explanation to be unsatisfactory is that I find it unreasonable to look for the source of the cosmos inside the cosmos.

The religious people I know would agree with you… So they don’t. (As discussed at probably-way-too-much-length above).

That ‘first’ position – that the existence of God is implausible, but could be true anyway, but the evidence had better be good – still holds. By redefining the term cosmos in the way we have done here, we have expanded the potential for evidence. All that is needed is additional evidence that there is another ‘kind’ or ‘realm’ of existence, and the whole thing becomes a lot more plausible.

Here’s the place where I find the argument to need some work: There isn’t any evidence (of the kind you’re talking about) AGAINST the existence of God either. What basis is there to subject one point-of-view to criteria that the opposing point-of-view isn’t subjected to? In fact, with a lack of any sort of strong evidence whatsoever on either side, there is at least hearsay on the side claiming God (or gods, ghosts, aliens, or werewolves) exist. Clearly I’m not suggesting that hearsay accounts are a basis for belief. I’m just pointing out that the evidence AGAINST the existence of God is like the evidence that “No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer.” It’s a belief formed by a subjective evaluation based on the information available. But there’s no such thing as proof when a thing can’t be objectively investigated. Neither for nor against, Right?

But even once we expand the potential for evidence, there isn’t any. Not. A. Shred. There’s anecdotes, analogies, and hearsay galore. But these things are not evidence. In short, to the best of my observations, the universe looks and behaves exactly as it would look and behave if all our postulation of metaphysics and deities were just an idle and pleasant fantasy.

I jumped ahead again, and answered this in a few place up above. Basically said that there’s no evidence either way. So it’s not a question of evidence/scientific proof. It’s still a matter of belief… Everyone makes their own.

Once again – I do not claim to know that God does not exist. Not only do I claim that I don’t know – I’m pretty damn sure that it’s impossible to know in the first place, that all claims to such knowledge – either positive or negative – are lies.
But by evidence-based critical reasoning, I let the evidence do the driving. The universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if God was just an idea. If we source our premises in this evidence, the critically reasoned conclusion is that He is just an idea.

I agree, I don’t think there’s any possibility of scientific access to the investigation of God. So it’s not a scientific idea, and beliefs about it either way are non-scientific.

We have no way of “expecting the universe to look” like anything, because we have just the one to look at. It just IS this way and we don’t know why. We can try to study what it is and does, but not why.

IF we accept:
1) That there are other realms of existence than the one we know, and;
2) That these realms are not subject to causality, and;
3) That because they are not subject to causality, they could themselves have been the ‘uncaused cause’ of the realm of space and time,
THEN it still does not follow that the ‘uncaused cause’ of the realm of space and time need possess any of the qualities by which we would recognize it as a God. For example, the ‘uncaused cause’ need not have any capacity for thinking.
Indeed, there is an argument against such and uncaused cause being sapient. Thinking requires a succession of thoughts over time – thinking is a temporal phenomenon. If we suggest that the ‘uncaused cause’ need be in an atemporal realm of existence to avoid the causality problem, then it would follow from this that the ‘uncaused cause’ cannot possess any other temporal qualities, like thinking.
Even more problematic is the temporal quality of language – a sequence of phonemes in a temporal sequence. If the ‘uncaused cause’ must be atemporal, it can neither speak nor author a text. The inability to author a text should make the argument that the existence of God is not confined to time and space to be very problematic to any religion centered on an allegedly divinely-revealed text.

These questions have also been discussed in classical Islamic texts. The discussions are really interesting, and my summary will not be very good… but briefly, the endpoints:
God isn’t in another realm of existence. Not contained/non-spacial/non-reliant. Nothing relating to God has temporal quality; language/thoughts don’t develop because God is unchanging/eternal. And the question of the textual/vocal nature of “God’s speech” was a HUUUUUGE issue back in the day in the Islamic world. The common understanding is that the Quran is God’s speech, an aspect of God, non-created, eternal. The revelation of the Quran, on the other hand, necessarily happened over time.

I’m not offering these points as arguments, just letting you know it’s maybe not what you thought you were arguing against. It’s also not as simple as just saying meaningless stuff to get out sticky rational arguments. There’s a point in any theological questioning in which the traditional Islamic answer is simply “Allahu ‘alim” (“God knows,”) meaning “there’s no way a human could possibly know the answer to that question, as far as I know.”

So that’s my best try at clarifying some of those points. As far as I know we have yet to disagree about anything. All this so far has just been us clarifying what exactly it is that we would be discussing if we were to discuss the existence of God.

1. i strongly support your right to voice your opinion, and i greatly respect/echo your notion that legislation isn’t the proper means to effect a social policy (decreased/eliminated drinking). i agree, social change should be voluntary.
>>Reflect on the violence that occurs in ANY society and in ANY religious context, which is aggravated by alcohol abuse. Is it something you want to contribute to, however small your part?<<
(a) i disagree with what appears to be your underlying motivation for change– you indicate that alcohol (ab)use contributes to violence, and thus any facilitation or encouragement of alcohol (ab)use necessarily imputes SOME responsibility for some/any/all resultant violence. (mas o menos?)
you seem to suggest a very socialist perspective, with a perceived communal responsibility for the good of society…

I read your last sentence as “a perceived societal responsibility for the good of society.” The reflexivity of the statement makes it inarguable. Also, I would leave the loaded word “socialist” to discussions of political ideology, rather than using it so loosely as to make it describe any topic related to society.

if he chooses to harm himself, he should be allowed to do so, (unless he is mentally incapable of understanding his decisions).

How are we to define his mental incapability? Often the useful line for making such a definition is precisely his desire and likelihood of harming himself or others.

if he chooses to harm others, then there should be consequences for his actions, but i should not suffer for the crimes of another; by “suffer” i mean i should not (indirectly) bear any guilt for his sin, nor be (directly) punished for his misdeeds.

I understand that you used the word without intending a technical meaning, but just for the sake of clarity in case some other reader might have misunderstood you, I should mention that I’m not at all interested in discussing “sin” in this post.

To some extent, encouraging someone to perform an action earns some amount of responsibility for the action, (even in a legal sense if the action was a crime that would not otherwise have been committed). The gray area is in how much encouraging was done, how much the encouragement contributed to the decision to perform the action, and the intended and actual results of the action. Alcohol consumption is not a crime, so we don’t use the word ‘incitement’ in the legal sense (maybe in a social-ethic sense), but the principle is the same: If you encourage someone to do something, you are partially responsible for what they have done. This also doesn’t seem very arguable, and the principle is at least agreeable enough to have been applied in law.

if i see abuse happening, i may have a duty to intercede, but i should not automatically presume that anyone who buys a six pack of beer is logically going to beat children or kill cats.

I agree. I’m not writing about an individual’s likelihood of committing violence after consuming alcohol; I’m writing about a society’s likelihood of committing violence after drinking alcohol.

I’m here to post my opinion based on what information I have, not to devote my life to the research, so I’m not providing statistics. Still I think the research is already available to demonstrate that alcohol is a significant contributing factor to domestic violence and other violent crime. To move your example of Mr. Sixpack into the context of what I’m talking about here, I would say that for every X thousand people that buy the six-pack/bottle, at least one of them (maybe more?) can safely be presumed to be on their way to kill some cats/beat their spouse or kids/drive drunk/etc. Or, to put it more directly: for every society that buys the bottle, many many many people are hurt or killed.

people are innocent until proven guilty, and things not prohibited are allowed: people are presumed to be capable of safely using alcohol, religious texts, and guns, even though all three have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

First of all, I reject that any religious text on its own has ever been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. I know the kinds of historic events/ongoing situations you’re most likely referring to, but there is a lot going on there beyond just the mere existence of a religious text. Usually it has to do with intensely difficult living circumstances such as oppression/poverty/hardship that inhibits a group from living a normal and free life that drive people to extreme measures. And the religious text only serves as a common language of encouragement and justification after the decision to act has already been made.

Also, I would say that the potential for guns and religious texts to prevent violence is much higher than their potential to cause it, while the potential for alcohol to cause violence is higher than it’s potential to prevent it. Your example of the belligerents below could possibly be a counter example of my point… but would those two have begun to fight if they were sober in their workplace, or might the intoxicated pub setting have contributed to their initial belligerence?

if you drive drunk, we take away your driver’s license; if you practice wahabism we may subject you to additional scrutiny at borders; if you have a domestic violence conviction we won’t let you buy or possess firearms.

I advocate more thorough education about all of these things as a preventative measure. Gun safety education is helpful to prevent accidental deaths. Education about the ways in which Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab al-Tamimi departed from ‘orthodox’ theological/religious and legal/social views in Islam (and the potentially dangerous results of those departures) could prevent problems that may arise directly from lacking that knowledge. Education about the results of societal alcohol consumption that aren’t included in the happy beer commercials might lead a society as a whole to reconsider the costs and benefits of popularizing drinking as a social habit.

(b) i take issue with your reasoning, because it’s an imperfect factual fit:
alcohol, like water, like sand, like guns, like big heavy religious books, like tylenol, like weed…
can be used for good or evil, can cause violence or prevent it, can improve medical conditions, can relieve pain, and can cause pain. ( i really can give you examples for all of those things being true, but i imagine it’s unnecessary)…
all of these things are simply tools, and how they are (ab)used depends on who is (ab)using them (and how). alcohol was (and still is) an old-school health remedy, because of its usefulness to numb pain, to enhance the immune system (when used in small doses), to decrease arthritic shaking in the elderly (though bloody marys taste gross to me), etc…

There are no factual problems here. Dynamite is a tool that can be useful or harmful. So we interpret it as a good/bad thing to encounter based on context: at the demolition site next to the safety guy it’s good, but on any busy street in the city it’s bad. Your above comment generally demonstrates that potentially dangerous things can sometimes provide benefits/harms in unusual situations. Water becomes harmful in floods, but is usually not dangerous. Tylenol, weed, and alcohol might all provide benefits in an acute medical context, but my main point here is that in the normal-life societal-scale context alcohol leads to more harm than good. Even in a bar, is it really the alcohol (directly) that makes a person happy, or is it the company of friends? The direct benefits of alcohol, on the societal scale, are far outweighed by the severity of problems that arise directly from the social use of alcohol.

i’ve used alcohol numerous times to actually PREVENT violence: as a bartender, i would step between two belligerent fools and offer free shots if they’d drop their fists and join me at the bar. it NEVER failed to quell the dispute, and often resulted in drunken hugs between two people who otherwise might have wound up bloody and arrested. alcohol is a unique and valuable TOOL.

(Response given above).

(b) it seems almost hypocritical to advocate for the (voluntary) end to alcohol consumption without advocating for the end to ALL drug consumption, on the basis that drug consumption (e.g. oxycontin, weed) is also sometimes associated with violence. i get the impression you’re not exactly advocating the USE of drugs, but you’re probably not opposed to people purchasing and using oxycontin for medical reasons…? are you opposed to people using marijuana for legitimate medical reasons as well? is your position that alcohol (an arabic-derived word, incidentally) despite its recognized uses for positive purposes, is simply an unacceptable tool, due to its potential for abuse, unlike other drugs?

This article was specifically about alcohol because I perceive alcohol use-as-abuse to be a bigger problem. I don’t know the statistics relating to violence/death resulting from oxycontin/marijuana/etc, but if those statistics were to be comparable to the ones connecting alcohol with violent crime, I would be willing to include them in my argument. However, I just have not (as of this writing) come to think of those drugs as creating as much of a societal problem as alcohol has created. More relevant to your question, though, is that I’m writing specifically about the societal-scale popular use of the substance as being harmful. Since I’m not a doctor, I have nothing valuable to contribute to a discussion of the usefulness of alcohol, oxycontin, or marijuana in a medical context. So I have not intended my opinions to extend to any context other than the popular practices of society.

i guess my question is this– where do you draw the line in terms of which drugs you want people to not have? the arabic world has provided us with many things; is coffee okay? what about the stimulant khat? is the (intentional) omission of the term “khat” from the quran logically equivalent to an explicit allowance for its consumption? what about hash, smoked by the original (persian) assassins, who smoked (in part) to numb their morality as a means of facilitating killings? i imagine all of these drugs might hinder one’s remembrance from god and prayer… does that mean they should ALL be skipped? what if my pain is so great that i need certain drugs to function, and what if some drug use facilitates my remembrance of god and prayer? doesn’t that justify its use?

If pain/medication is the issue, then I have not given any opinions. I will leave that discussion entirely to the proper experts who know something about the topic. Also, I wanted to be clear that I haven’t advocated any legislative means (or any other means, eg. total lack of supply) of preventing people from accessing any substance. We have agreed that even things that are potentially dangerous have their beneficial uses. I am advocating a general social preference to avoid (1) excessive (2) public consumption of alcohol (3) for mere entertainment purposes.

(1) excessive: the person’s ability to control their anger, body, or mind is directly inhibited by the alcohol consumption. The law has limits established for “how much is too much” when driving, but for the purposes I’m talking about here, there’s no way to draw a line, because we can never know what amount will lead to someone having a problem. Since there’s no way to know if that first drink might not be the one that causes someone to be harmed, the safest choice would be to not drink alcohol at all without a good reason (maybe medical, but I don’t know).
(2) public: because only public consumption can be understood as encouraging others to drink (thereby giving rise to harmful results), I see it as doubly dangerous, whereas private drinking is an individual –rather than a societal– matter.
(3) purpose: I can’t evaluate the medical costs/benefits of alcohol, but I can speak about the social costs/benefits. If the primary benefits are social relaxation and the sometimes pleasant experience of intoxication, while the costs include situations of ongoing abuse, harm, intentional and accidental deaths, I encourage the collective recognition of those costs as a prerequisite to making an informed evaluation of the value of using alcohol in this way.

I was writing to make my own opinion clear: The number of people who suffer directly because of other people’s (society’s) frivolous use of alcohol, and the nature of their suffering (physical harm, death, grief for lost loved ones), make alcohol, like dynamite, something unworthy of frivolous general use.

IF we accept:

1) That there are other realms of existence than the one we know, and;
2) That these realms are not subject to causality, and;
3) That because they are not subject to causality, they could themselves have been the ‘uncaused cause’ of the realm of space and time,

THEN it still does not follow that the ‘uncaused cause’ of the realm of space and time need possess any of the qualities by which we would recognize it as a God. For example, the ‘uncaused cause’ need not have any capacity for thinking.

Indeed, there is an argument against such and uncaused cause being sapient. Thinking requires a succession of thoughts over time – thinking is a temporal phenomenon. If we suggest that the ‘uncaused cause’ need be in an atemporal realm of existence to avoid the causality problem, then it would follow from this that the ‘uncaused cause’ cannot possess any other temporal qualities, like thinking.

Even more problematic is the temporal quality of language – a sequence of phonemes in a temporal sequence. If the ‘uncaused cause’ must be atemporal, it can neither speak nor author a text. The inability to author a text should make the argument that the existence of God is not confined to time and space to be very problematic to any religion centered on an allegedly divinely-revealed text.

Sorry I’ve been so long in replying – things have been very busy recently,

I would have to say that your logic is excellent. My primary response is that in Islamic theology, as given by Imam Al-Tahawi, God is entirely without need of anything; self-sufficient.

I find this is a very common first response from believers when I suggest a line of argument that includes God’s existence (negatively) as the conclusion.

When a believer opens their response with ‘In theology…’, what they are usually doing is presuming God’s existence (positively) to justify the conclusion that God exists.

However, since God’s existence is the conclusion in both my argument and the theist’s response, it is bad logic for us to presume his existence – either positively or negatively – in the premises on which that conclusion is built.

Sorry to get all lecture-y on you regarding what was actually a minor point. I have found it irritatingly common for me to engage a theist in fruitful and interesting discussion, only to have that theist fall back on two related cop-outs:

1) If I [the theist] presume my conclusion, my argument shows that God exists. Therefore, He does.
2) I [the theist] presume my conclusion, therefore you [the atheist] are presuming yours as well.

I don’t mean to suggest you intend to pull either of these fallacies on me – but I have found it to be (unfortunately) prudent to deal with these issues as early as possible the second theology is mentioned. I have never been able to convince a theist to retract either of these fallacies, so I can only rely on a preventative approach.

You extended the concept of universe to include the possibility of multiple universes and called that ‘cosmos’. I don’t see this as making any substantial change to the nature of the thing, though. I would be very interested to hear more about your notion of cosmos – how it doesn’t involve space and time. At this point I probably just don’t understand your idea. Please do explain more.

There’s not much more to explain, really. I was using the multiple universes example as an illustration, I’m not committed to it.

To clarify where I’m coming from: I am fairly certain that this realm of space and time is all that exists – certain enough that I comfortably believe it to be so. Precisely because I believe it to be so, I have to keep an open mind that I could be wrong – I do not want to fall into the trap of presuming my conclusion. This means that, as much as possible, I must not define existence in terms that confirm my beliefs about existence (or anything else for that matter).

The problem is that there are (at least) two uses of the word ‘universe’.

1) Everything that exists.
2) The realm of space and time in which we live.

I find that people have an annoying way of switching their meanings of words half-way through an argument. If I try and get someone to pick a definition and stick to it, they’ll usually get stubborn and start ripping out dictionary definitions. It’s unfortunate that most people think that something like the meaning of a word can be legislated. Dictionaries do not give definitions – they give usage.

*shoves language-nerd-self back into box*

Anyway, I’ve found it prudent when defining a term precisely for the purpose of conversations founded upon disagreement (an argument, in fact – arguments are not zero-sum games unless we make them into -

*shoves language-nerd-self back into box*

*locks box*

I have found that whenever I need a precise meaning, it’s better to use a word to which people don’t already have an attachment.

There’s nothing else to explain. I was just trying to bang an early nail down on a term to mean everything that exists for the context of our discussion.

There’s also a problem with describing cosmos as ‘everything that exists,’ because religious claims about God specifically challenge the nature of existence. Namely, God exists in a way that is MORE exist-y than the “existence” that we have. So God can’t be said to exist in the same way that everything else does. Cosmos could very well be everything that ‘exists’ but still be discussed in contrast to God.

I’ve only recently been coming across this line of argument from believers – that there are different kinds of existence.

I’ve always found this to be a bit of a foreign idea – it’s hard for me to be confident of what any given believer means when they say this, especially since they will often mean completely different things.

The best method I have for interpreting the concept that there are different kinds of existence is in a sort of hierarchy, such that each specific kind of existence falls within the parent-group of ‘existence’.

So within ‘existence’, we find ‘mortal existence’, ‘divine existence’, and perhaps others – ‘Platonic existence’ is a good one, because Platonism is often the conceptual foundation for belief in the divine that believers unknowingly -

*shoves philosophy-nerd-self into the box along with language-nerd-self*

Is this kind of hierarchy is a good way to conceptualize what you mean when you suggest that ‘God exists in a way that is MORE exist-y than the “existence” that we have’?

If so, then my definition of cosmos still holds so long as we’re careful not to fall prey to the fallacy of composition. Specifically, this would mean assuming that just because something is true for the ‘mortal’ existence that we have, it must also be true for the parent group, and that because it is true for the parent group, it must be true for the ‘divine’ group.

Are you content with this additional nuance as applied to the term ‘cosmos’?

I wouldn’t impose a label on you, but how do you feel about the term ‘agnostic’? I think admitting that we don’t know (in any universally agreeable sense, or even scientific sense) anything at all about whether or not God exists is a very appropriate stance to take for religious and non-religious people alike.

This is an incredibly respectful thing to say! I am impressed and surprised. I don’t find myself in disagreement with theists alone. I also get into a great many philosophical disagreements with people over a range of issues. I’ve gotten so used to people labeling me off-handedly, that this paragraph came as a pleasant little shock. Perhaps I’m overreacting to such a common courtesy, but nonetheless – I do appreciate it.

You’ve touched on one of the very areas in which I find myself in disagreement with almost everybody, theist and atheist alike.

To me, agnosticism and atheism deal in different things. Gnosticism or agnosticism deal with beliefs on what can or can’t be known. Theism or atheism deal with beliefs – in particular, belief in God.

However, I find that on these scales, there needs to be a third position. For example, we have a theist that believes in God, and an atheist that lacks that belief. We need a third term for someone who believes that God doesn’t exist.

Also, on the scale of knowledge, we have the gnostic (who knows), and the agnostic (who doesn’t know). We need a third position for the one who thinks it is impossible to know. The philosophy-nerd in me calls this position Gorgian skepticism, after the rhetor/philosopher Gorgias. It is the position that I hold regarding all metaphysical claims – including the metaphysical claim that there is such a thing as a metaphysical ‘truth’.

However, even in the absence of such knowledge, I have to take action to live my life, and I need some kind of framework I can use to decide which actions to take. From necessity and boredom, I need to hold or abandon tentative beliefs about the world. Evidence-driven critical reasoning is the filter I use to determine whether a belief will be tentatively held or tentatively abandoned. The belief in God’s existence is yet to make the cut.

Normally at this point, the believer I am dealing with will charge me with choosing the evidence-driven critical reasoning filter precisely because it would permit me to ‘keep the belief in God at bay’. It’s an annoying distortion. If you wish, I can discuss why evidence-driven critical reasoning is my filter of choice – however, this is already getting long enough, so I’ll leave it aside for now.

Also: you mentioned the “initial implausibility of the God hypothesis.” I would just point out that we have no access, scientifically speaking, to any information at all about “First Cause” or “God” theories. If there’s no way to study them (as yet?) I don’t think they even qualify as hypotheses. Like String Theory, since there’s no known way to investigate or falsify the claim, they have to stay in the ranks of ‘theories’. With no information whatsoever about “First Causes,” on what could we base the claim that one or another theory was implausible?

I tried to give my reasoning for why the God hypothesis (a hypothesis must be disprovable if it is to be scientifically useful – however, there is such a thing as a scientifically useless hypothesis) is initially implausible earlier on.

I consider that explaining the ’source’ of the cosmos is the primary intellectual foundation for belief in God. I tried to give a very brief summary of why I think the problem of the ’source’ of the cosmos is too difficult a question – that although I don’t know a satisfactory explanation for the cosmos, I do know that God is an unsatisfactory one (though it still could be true, as I do not possess perfect knowledge).

The first step I find the God explanation to be unsatisfactory is that I find it unreasonable to look for the source of the cosmos inside the cosmos.

I think I can see the shape of your next cut. As I stated earlier, I don’t mean to fall into the trap of the fallacy of composition. If we presume that causality is a phenomenon limited to the subset of the cosmos that exists within space and time – not unreasonable, as causality links cause and effect are linked in a necessarily temporal way – then we cannot commit the fallacy of composition and assert that because it applies to this realm of time and space, it therefore would apply to the cosmos itself, or even any other subset within the cosmos.

If we accept that the cosmos is not limited to causality, then my ‘first’ reason for finding God’s existence to be implausible goes away.

The key word, the important word in the paragraph above is the word if. If we accept, then.

Considering that I am a Gorgian skeptic regarding metaphysical claims, and my belief-filter is evidence-driven critical reasoning, the problem here should be obvious.

That ‘first’ position – that the existence of God is implausible, but could be true anyway, but the evidence had better be good – still holds. By redefining the term cosmos in the way we have done here, we have expanded the potential for evidence. All that is needed is additional evidence that there is another ‘kind’ or ‘realm’ of existence, and the whole thing becomes a lot more plausible.

But even once we expand the potential for evidence, there isn’t any. Not. A. Shred. There’s anecdotes, analogies, and hearsay galore. But these things are not evidence. In short, to the best of my observations, the universe looks and behaves exactly as it would look and behave if all our postulation of metaphysics and deities were just an idle and pleasant fantasy.

Once again – I do not claim to know that God does not exist. Not only do I claim that I don’t know – I’m pretty damn sure that it’s impossible to know in the first place, that all claims to such knowledge – either positive or negative – are lies.

But by evidence-based critical reasoning, I let the evidence do the driving. The universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if God was just an idea. If we source our premises in this evidence, the critically reasoned conclusion is that He is just an idea.

It could be the case that the universe looks the way it does, and God exists anyway. I’ve taken pains to point out that I do acknowledge that this could be true, and I’m trying to treat the possibility respectfully (if somewhat verbosely).

However, dealing in could be doesn’t get past the evidence-based filter on which I insist. The standard I use – for what I feel to be good reasons – is the evidence shows that, not it could be so despite the evidence.

This is getting waaaay too long. Sorry for the huge block of text – but you’ve asked difficult questions in need of very specific, precise answers. Hope I didn’t overdo it.

Looking forward to your response.

Atheism doesn’t need to be taught, it is the default position. Someone who has no knowledge of religion is automatically an atheist and if you are going to debate me you need to step up your game. Who ever heard of arguing more than one side.
I accept that there does need to be a word that adequately describes those who, like me, are currently labelled Strong-Atheist but that definition is both wrong and inadequate.

I am at once an Atheist, an Agnostic and an Anti-theist.

I am an Atheist because I believe there is no god. I am an Agnostic because no one can possibly know with 100% certainty that there is no god. Just as you cannot prove that I don’t have an invisible pink fire-breathing giraffe playing backgammon in my garage, I cannot prove that your god doesn’t exist, it is just so ridiculously improbable that without any credible evidence the only rational conclusion is that it doesn’t, even the best science that the future has will never be able to prove there is no god but it can prove that the god as described in your bible does not and can not exist. Therefore the only rational position is to believe there is no god.
I am an Anti-theist because the belief in a god is perhaps the most harmful thing humanity has ever engaged in. Theists do the most heinous things, things no Atheist would ever be interested in. Whether it is attempted genocide, ethnic cleansing or slaughter of all those with differing opinions on whose god/s exists or whose prophet accurately represents that god. Millions of people slaughtered in the name of a delusion. Theists will commit the most evil crimes on one another in the name of their god/s and then say completely straight faced that ‘God is love’ and never see the hypocrisy.
Maybe if there were no such childish superstitions humanity would find another excuse to behave so badly but at the moment it takes religion to compel people to be truly evil and until we grow out of this religious phase, and it is only a phase, we’ll never really know.

“Atheist opinions on the probability/possibility of the existence of God are related and passed on”

This is true but only in the same way a parent would dissuade an adult offspring from continuing to believe in Santa Claus. Have you ever specifically taught someone that the invisible pink fire-breathing giraffe doesn’t exist or would you consider it unnecessary?

“You certainly didn’t invent the concept of atheism. So when did you first learn about it and become an adherent of Atheism?”

I first heard the word from my mother’s Anglican minister. After one of the many times I had been kicked out of Sunday school for asking rational questions he shoved his finger into my chest and screamed “What do we have here then, one of them, oh so clever, Atheists? It was 1970 and I remember it like it happened five minutes ago. I was four years old.
I had not heard the word before but I felt immediate relief because if there was a name for what I was there must also be more people who felt like I did, up until then I was starting to get the impression no one else knew how silly this all was. I was completely unable to understand what was wrong with the other kids that stopped them from seeing the ludicrous nature of the absurdities they wanted us to believe. I mean Noah’s ark. Really? Jonah? In a whale for days? How retarded did they think I was?

“You could make a much stronger argument if you would investigate a little bit before publishing questions that make you seem entirely uneducated about your subject matter.”

I agree I wasn’t clear. What I meant was this statement you directed at me seemed much more applicable when directed at you. One of the very few things I find confusing is that there even exists a christian biblical scholar. To me they are mutually exclusive. If you have studied the bible, you are aware it is patently ridiculous. Therefore you are now an ex-believer. All one needs to know about the bible is how it came to be. One can have absolutely no knowledge of its content whatsoever and still be aware that nothing put together in this way could possibly be cohesive, but when one adds to this knowledge the actual content it becomes crystal clear that only the seriously mentally challenged could believe it. How can one be able to believe two direct opposites at the same time for there are several direct contradictions in a book that is promoted as infallible. Please don’t expect me to list them for you for if you are a religious scholar you would know of many.

“Buddhism has plenty of gods”
Um, No. It has no gods at all. There is a huge difference in believing someone has achieved enlightenment and ascended to a higher plain of existence than believing in a god. If you have studied Buddhism and come to this conclusion you have misunderstood it completely. No Buddhist will ever claim Bodhisattva created everything or is omnipotent e.t.c. ( I can honestly say I’ve shaken H.H. the Dalai Lama’s hand. Long story.) Buddhist beliefs in the religious sense are just as absurd as yours and I don’t agree with the Lama class system but the teachings relating to peace and respect for all creatures are admirable and harmless. If I hadn’t been raised a meat eater I would definitely make the philosophical choice to be a vegetarian.

Quite a bit of what you have said relates back to my previous definitions of Atheism and Anti-theism. My definition of Atheism never changes as it isn’t my definition, it is the dictionary’s, and if stamp collectors killed and discriminated against people I’d be Anti-philatelist as well.

“You’re not only [not believing in origination (=passive)] but you are also [proselytizing your belief in non-origination (=active)]. It’s a far throw from just NOT collecting stamps.”

Well, yeah. again it comes down to the inadequate nature of the term Atheist. I don’t like the word, it doesn’t describe me anywhere near accurately enough. Although I am not asking you to be Anti-theist, I am asking you to be Atheist. I’m not asking you to fight a war. I’m asking you to hold a peace flag and protest the killing. Of course if after you have been deprogrammed I can encourage you to also deprogram others then I’ll proselytise away, as many ex-christians and ex-muslims e.t.c do. There are many sites by ex-christians now preaching logic instead. If you knew someone that was pro genocide in the Sudan or pro slavery wouldn’t you try and change their opinion? Your beliefs are the most destructive force humanity has ever encountered and your ability to be easily convinced of the truth of absurdities is the most embarrassing aspect of humanity. If an alien landed here today I would say to it go away and come back in a millennia as we aren’t evolved enough yet and are inherently dangerous. Not that there are aliens as your little book clearly states that gawd made the trillions of stars across billions of light-years of space just for little ol’ us. If he did he’s an idiot. If apes understood us they would laugh at believers. Believers often complain that we disrespect them and it is a fair statement. Could you respect an otherwise seemingly intelligent adult that believed in fairies and trolls? Probably not. But even if they did it would be fairly unlikely they would kill over their belief.
We are not against your belief in a god, we are against what you will do in the name of your god.If your belief affected nobody but yourself we wouldn’t care at all.

To those of us who choose reason over faith you beliefs would be incredibly laughable were they not so scary. If I was in a position of power I would never let a believer vote, stand for any political office, be in a position of power over anyone else, be on a jury or do anything that required rational thought that affected others. It cannot be stated clearly enough that to us you are an enigma. How can someone have the intelligence required to go to the toilet unaided yet believe the most ludicrous stories ever told? It would be easier to believe some Arkansas hick’s story of alien anal probes than the crap in the bible. I’m sorry if this is offensive, I really am, but perhaps if you knew how we (I’m generalising) think of you, you might be a little more likely to be a little more critical next time you open the bible.

“If a person on their own would be unable to come up with the concept of a god then how did stone-age man come up with the concept?”

Their brains were less evolved and their knowledge was severely limited. Before science brought us understanding things that seem so simple to us now like the tides or lightning or lunar eclipses must have scared the hell out of them so with what mental faculties they had they rationalised gods. If the answer to every unanswered question is god there are no unanswered questions. Life made simple, stone age (and modern christian) style.

“Do you think everything you do is based on pure logic and reason, with nothing being sacred; no superstitions or taboos? What do you do when a loved one dies, and why don’t you do something utilitarian with the meat and bones?”

No superstitions and no taboos. None that I’m aware of anyway. I do nothing when a loved one dies. Firstly, “Love” is nothing more than evolutionary, once-relevant, targeted OCD. (Chemically and electrically identical in the brain.) If one didn’t ‘love’ their partner one wouldn’t commit to raising the young, if one didn’t ‘love’ their young we wouldn’t bother to raise them as life is obviously simpler without the responsibility.
I don’t cry because it achieves nothing and everything dies yet all molecules are recycled. If I believed my life will be somehow lacking that would only demonstrate that I am incomplete without the deceased person. I am complete on my own.
The most sickening platitude I have ever heard is “You complete me”. If you are incomplete on your own you are faulty. This is another example of indoctrination. How many songs have you heard that state “I’m nothing without you” or “Everybody needs somebody to love”? This is false and teaches people that for them to have value they must pair up. It is nothing more than genetic programming to continue the species and has been irrelevant since about five and a half billion humans ago. Hopefully sometime soon this behavioral anomaly will be dropped from our gene code as no longer relevant.
In this sort of detachment I know I’m a little different but that in no way makes it wrong and being emotionally fragile has no benefits. When I die I will be buried at sea so I can feed some fish or perhaps recycled some efficient way. This pathetic self aggrandising need for a monument be it a headstone at a grave or a plaque at a crematorium is a great example of how humans are so impressed with themselves. What a waste of good real-estate as cemeteries and what a waste of fuel and what a lot of pollution for cremations. I’d be happiest if I thought someone would benefit from my death. Soylent Green comes to mind. And yes I would eat someone if that was their wish but I wouldn’t do the butchering and I certainly have no qualms about being eaten.

Christianity, can be fairly accurately described as belief in what one is told about a book. Less than 0.001% of christians have ever studied the bible or know anything of its creation. Don’t forget when Gutenberg published the bible the church tried in earnest to stop him as it was considered a crime for non-clergy to possess a copy. Obviously the church seriously over-estimated the IQ of their flock because even after it became obvious to anyone that wanted to critically read the bible what an unbelievable contradictory mess it was they went on believing it anyway because they were never taught to read it critically and were praised for having faith in it.
No Sunday school sermon ever started with “Here is a book that was assembled from multiple texts, written by hundreds of people, in multiple countries, in multiple languages with multiple translations filled with hundreds of myths ‘borrowed’ from previous religions but don’t worry it was inspired by god and is therefore sacred so take it as fact.

“I’m not sure what exactly you expect would be the result that would indicate that you had ‘won’ the argument.”

You hadn’t responded for a few days and unfortunately these days one can almost always be assured they have won when the opponent refuses to argue any more as they know they are defeated but don’t have the balls to admit it. Sad, but true.

You aren’t seriously bring up “Neurotheology” are you that’s on a par with I.D. and about as respected as Scientology’s e-meter. Quackery at its worst.

” Religious leaders and tele-evangelists lie every day
[Citation needed, or the claim is unsubstantiated.]”

You are kidding, right?

Any American preacher who has ever said “America is a Christian nation” or “America was founded on Christian beliefs” and has actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is either a liar or has a learning disability.

Jimmy Swaggert: “Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.”
Pat Robertson: “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians.”
Jerry Falwell: “The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”

Either they are liars or imbeciles, either way they give your religion a bad name yet they are popular, with imbeciles. Look up “Christian evangelist scandals” on Wikipedia.

Do you believe your god is perfect? Most people seem to think a god must be perfect or it isn’t god. Use the rational part of you brain and mull over this. If god is perfect it cant be male. The only possible purpose in having a gender is for breeding and it has no mate. So either god is male and there are other gods, making the bible wrong, or god is imperfect, making the bible wrong. Now take that seed of rational doubt and nurture it with knowledge.

I know this sounds disrespectful of you personally but it is unavoidable as your what you believe and your choice to believe it deserve no respect.