Oh, I guess my cynicism can be forgiven: Chili is even worse than me.

No, in fact, we're not cynical: we're lucid. ;)

Lucid? Don't know about that. I myself can be exceptionally obfuscantist when the inclination arises amidst my multifarious whims.

Perchance you mean perceptive.

Maybe. Was this an English mistake? Sometimes French and English have similar words that don't quite mean the same thing.

What I meant was that we see the world as it truly is and not as we'd like it to be. No delusions.

If, in English, someone (or more often someone's words) is/are described as 'lucid', it means they convey their ideas very clearly. I called Dawkins lucid in the book review thread because he is able to explain to me, a budding physicist who dropped Biology when he was sixteen, some very complicated evolutionary ideas and get me to understand them well (or so I hope).

Well, I'd challenge that, but the board crash has deprived me of evidence by hiding all the lovely quotes I could pull out of that God argument, so it would be a tad pointless. Suffice to say that, since we see the world very differently, how can we 'both' see it how it 'truly' is?

That is a great shame. I would rather enjoy reading your God argument at this current moment in time.

Oh please, let's not start this debate again...

I'm just going to repeat that even though a part of my belief in God is based on hope, most of it is based on reason. I see how extraordinary and mysterious the universe is, and this leads me to the idea that some intelligent consciousness must have created it all.

But it's no point trying to convince you, and you know you won't convince me.



What's your favorite animal?

[/ lame attempt to change topic]



Thanks for the explanation about the word 'lucid', though. My English will improve with time. ^_^


.

What contradictions! Anyhow, I myself will actually resist starting the debate again, rather than making a token gesture towards doing so... I merely wished to point out that your claim that we both saw the world as it really is could not logically be true, regardless of which of us is right.

I will, however, leave you with a thought from The Blind Watchmaker - a book which you should read, and can do so without fear of losing your 'hope', as it's a biology book, not a theological one.

Merry Xmas to all. I have a Dawkins Fairy to cut out for my tree, so I must leave you now...

Odd, I read this exact argument during a wikipedia trawl earlier today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

:huh:

...


Chili, let's not start talking about philosophy, it'll last for days and lead nowhere. Why did you have to bring the God thing? It wasn't related in any way to what we were talking about. Philosophical opinions and the way we see the world are not quite the same thing. What we see as truth differs from one person to the other, but sometimes we can agree on one thing.

And we both agree on the fact that Christmas ain't what it used to be. And that it has now become a day of materialism and is no longer one of love. Whether or not the Christ existed isn't the point. I myself don't believe Jesus was the son of God and did miracles (though I do believe he existed, and I also believe he must be praised as one of the greatest moral teachers in History). But I think that even if the Christ weren't the son of God (or even if he never existed), Christmas is still a good day to be friendly, generous and all. But now we've become corrupted by gifts and consumerism...


Let's avoid this slippery slope: we're hijacking the thread. Merry Christmas, or Xmas if you want to call it. Or Wal-Mart-mas, if you're feeling so cynical.


.

Despite @ztech complaining the whole time, we did end up with anundeliberate thread Hijack. Good thing Burp isnt here to get annyoed.

Reading what you said about your belifs in Jesus, you seem to have dismised the whole reason for Christianity, which was the Jesus was the son of God, and thus that is what Christians belive. without that most important clause, what religion do you consider yourself @ztech?

Burro Boskov

None, I'm a deist. Deism is a philosophical idea. It cannot be called a religion because there is no moral code, no religious practices (celebrations, prayers, etc.), no traditions... But I don't feel Chili's systematic hostility towards all forms of cult.

I believe in Jesus, but I see him from a historian's point of view, not a Christian's. But I recently discovered the moral code of Buddhism, which values tolerance, non-violence, honesty and detachment from material goods. I think I'll try to follow Buddhism's moral code, without believing in its philosophy or practicing its cult. ^_^

Merry Boxing Day.

May I further probe an ask why you dont wish to follow the practices of Buddhism, if you so readily belive in it?

Burro Boskov

I believe in the wisdom of its moral code, but not in its Gods or in the idea of reincarnation.

Merry belated Christmas and St. Stephen's Day. To all.

I'm happy, I got The God Delusion for Christmas. The irony. ^_^ (Among other things, such as the 7th ed. rules, O&G book, other books, CDs and lots of Monty Python stuff, rather inexplicably ...)

Anyway, @ztech, you don't need to believe in Jesus from a historical point of view; you just have to acknowledge his existence.

As for Buddhism - for a "cult" it's rather old, older than Christianity to take one example.

Anyway, I have a question for anybody who was raised as an atheist: did you or do you celebrate Christmas from the present-giving point of view?

yes: to put it simply, Christmas is not a purely religious holiday (any more).

Firstly, something on topic: Merry Atheismas, Burp! It's been a little while since we've seen you here, so welcome back. I do enjoy your painting and hilariously orcish body humour.

Secondly, a few words of wisdom for @ztech:

Buddhism is not a 'cult.' 'Cult,' in it's modern English usage, denotes a small religion, often a splinter group from a larger. It is also quite a derogatory word, used by adherents of major religions to sneer at those members of smaller (or occasionally by atheists/rationalists/brights to encompass all religions, but that's not the impression I get here, given that term seems to only be applying to Buddhism). Buddhism, as an entity, is far older than Christianity and while it may not be particularly large in the so-called 'West,' amongst the Japanese (for example) it is far larger than Christianity. Buddhism is assuredly NOT a cult.

Secondly, you mentioned Buddhism's Gods and theory of reincarnation. Most Buddhisms do not HAVE Gods. Or Goddesses, or spirits of any kind. Some do, yes, notably the famous Tibetan Buddhism variant, but many others do not. The Buddha's original teachings specifically state that there is no need to worship, believe in or acknowledge any deities in order to achieve Nirvana. Indeed, the Hindu (a different religion, in case you were wondering) believe that their Gods are merely beings of a different sort, who must also deal with the wheel of Samsara and aim for Nirvana.

You can certainly follow the Buddha's teachings without believing in Gods (he encouraged it) or reincarnation: neither of these things are necessary to benefit from meditation and/or the Buddhist philosophies of life. It is for these reasons that Buddhism is commonly termed an 'atheist religion' or a ('Eastern') philosophy rather a religion, per se. For that matter, there are medical benefits to various forms of Buddhist meditation ('Mindfulness,' for example- I can send you a short paper I wrote on that once, if you'd like, based purely on medical research conducted in the United States) and you need not believe a single word of the Buddha's teachings in order to gain the physical and mental benefits.

As for the rest, Chili has covered that quite nicely. There are contradictions in you world view, and you certainly do not see the world as Chili (and I, although I'm not sure if Chili and I are entirely identical on these matters) do.

Thirdly, for Thragka:

I wasn't brought up atheist (that's a different conversation), but I am a 'currently practising' atheist, as it were. I celebrated Christmas as a chance to spend time with my girlfriend and her family and do nothing much except snuggle up together and watch Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and The Lord of the Rings. I also spent the afternoon in my girlfriend's brother's pool, getting beaten up by her 5-year-old niece.

What larks.

Finally, for whoever said they missed 'the God thread:' Me too. I loved re-reading that thing.

Thragka: I celebrate Xmas from the 'let's have a party to cheer ourselves up when it's cold and raining and everyone's ill' standpoint. Gifts are part of that. @ztech's Christmas message of 'love' features nowhere... happiness and a break from work is the important point. Indeed, if I could, I'd rename it the "Winter Piss-Up", both for the truth value of the name and to watch the journalists at the Daily Mail explode from confusion (for non-Brits: the Mail and other right-wing papers are constantly complaining about 'political correctness gone mad' in the 'war on Christmas').

Although I would hasten to point out that I was not 'raised' an atheist, and that no valid atheist would say they had been either. One of the central points that atheists have to make is that you should not inherit your beliefs from your parents.

Matthew, Chapter 15, Verses 22-27

Right on, Jesus! Eugenicise those Canaanite untermensch!

Jesus' morals were ahead of his time. Unfortunately, that still only makes them medieval.

Oh, thanks. ;) Once again, I show my lack of knowledge of English. In French, the word culte refers to any religion and is in no way derogatory.

Thanks also for the info about Buddhism. I knew that old Buddhism didn't have gods, but many current Buddhist cults have lots of them. I don't know, however, what percentage of Buddhists believe in deities.


I'd appreciate, though, if you could be more open-minded about religion. I don't follow any religion, but I have no problem with them either (unless they lead people to murder and such). In my History class, we have a course based on the French anthropologist René Girard's books, and according to him, Mankind could have destroyed itself long ago without religion. Following his theories, religion is, despite all the blood it spilled, what has restrained men from exterminating each other.

He notes that all great massacres and genocides were committed under atheistic governments (Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, etc.). So, even though there are wars and sacrifices in the name of religion, it would be even worse without it. Girard's theories are arguable, of course, since anthropology is a social science and not a logical one. But I've read one of his books, and I think what he says makes sense.

I don't have the time to explain all of Girard's theory about that: it would be far too long.

Some stay the same as ages pass. Generosity, non-violence and forgiveness are still highly valued in most modern societies.

*sigh*

That argument is so hackneyed it sometimes makes me angry. However, I have the quotes to hand:

Which is not even to point out the fact that Hitler tapped into a very strong existing vein of anti-Semitism in Germany at that time... a vein of anti-Semitism which came from Germany's history and culture... particularly the Christian roots of that culture which had persecuted Jews as God-Killers and led to purges and ghettoes across Europe as far back as the Middle Ages. You may find it surprising, living in modern-day Canada as you do, but when Hitler first came to power a lot of Europeans (and I don't exclude my own country) thought "Finally! Someone's going to show those Jews their place." (In fact, one of the clearest places to look for evidence of this attitude reaching back through time is Dickens... F a g i n [stupid swear filter], Smallweed... practically every Jewish character in Dickens books is irredeemably evil and greedy.)

That fallacy aside, both the Nazis and the Stalinists adhered to dogmatic, irrational belief systems - both of them had an extraordinarly strong cult of personality, and in Communist Russia the doctrine of Marxism was elevated to religion-like status. To claim that there was some cause-and-effect relationship between their atheism and their atrocities is ludicrous, especially in the context of the daily religious wars we see waged around us, and through history. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the Crusades, or modern-day Jihadism, or the countless other examples of religious barbarism to make my point here.

Furthermore, the only reason that Stalin and Hitler were so terrible in comparison to past tyrants is that they had access to modern technology (by the standards of ancient times, neither were so very evil. Even Stalin's morals come out favourably compared to those of Genghis Khan, who said that his greatest pleasure in life was seeing the widows of his enemies bathed in tears). If Richard the First and Saladin had all the weapons and methods of the 20th century at their disposal, do you honestly think that the Crusades wouldn't have been just as bad?

Essentially, not only is Girard's argument oft-repeated and just plain wrong, it's also a revolting view of the human condition that any liberal should revile - that we would all go out tomorrow and rape and murder and generally not be very nice if we did not believe that we were being watched by a giant spy-camera in the sky. The implication is that non-theists are immoral. Do you believe that I am a godless b***ard who would readily stab someone for their shoes the second a policeman's back was turned? Or that our countries, which have rising rates of agnosticism and atheism, are falling into pits of depravity because of it?

In the end, no wars have ever been waged in the name of atheism. Hitler fought for National Socialism, which was mainly about nationalism, racism and fascism. The USSR fought for Marxism, which had become something of a religion in itself. Stalin mainly fought for himself, being intensely paranoid. And people followed them because they had bought into cults of personality that mirrored 'real' religion in an awful lot of ways.

Whereas a degree of racism that compares humans to dogs and refuses them medical attention until they accept that comparison is generally despised.

Even seventeenth-century pirates had moral codes with things like forgiveness and non-violence acknowledged in them. They're not exactly that hard to come up with. Picture two cavemen:

Ug: "Hey, I've had a great idea! If we stop murdering each other all the time, maybe we won't have to live in constant fear!"
Thog: "Wow! Why did I never think of that before? Um... please could you stop stabbing me with that flint knife then?"
Ug: "I need time to adjust to such groundbreaking concepts. Give it a minute."

Religion rests on exactly the same basis of proof as fairies: no evidence, but no way to positively disprove it (proof of a negative generally being impossible). If you want me to be 'open-minded' as you put it about religion, then I insist that you are open-minded about fairies, unicorns, ghosts, Thor, Poseidon, Zeus, Fred the Badger and all the rest. That's only fair, as none of them can be disproved, either.

As Professor Dawkins puts it: "There's a thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out".

I'm not sure than at anthropologist who doubles as a Christian apologist is a good author to use for your defence, @ztech. He's a believing Christian. Of course he's going to say that the Judeo-Christian tradition is full of sunshine and lollipops, rainbows and everything that's wonderful. Of course he's going to claim that without 'religion' (and by religion, mean his) is the sole cause for humanity not having annihilated itself by now.

Sheesh. Given the number of deaths that can be solely attributed to religious brainwashing, his argument holds absolutely no water. Leaving aside the issue of 9/11 for a moment, let's examine any religion that advocates human sacrifice (most of the 'pagan,' non-Christian traditions of the West and Mesoamerica). Or any religion that advocates slaughtering of unbelievers (the Abrahamic religions, at one time or another, all have). Or any religion that glorifies death (certain Hindu sects, the Norse gods). Of all the 'religions' of the world, few have anything cheerful going for them save a general appreciation that it's better not to hurt other people: something atheists (and indeed, anyone not mentally scarred) are capable of coming up with on their own and without all the (nonsense) baggage associated with religions.

Gah. This was meant to be a brief reply. Chili has addressed your other points nicely, but let me just point out how offended and horrified I am that you would equate atheism with Stalinism or Nazism. Especially given that Girard, as a Christian, would consider you just as bad as us, what with you being a deist and all.

Okay, now that I've yelled at you, let me address some specific points you've mentioned:

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting you're not a native speaker. Well- the negative connotations of 'cult' in English aren't officially part of the definition of the word (AFAIK), so you can be forgiven. Anyway, now you know. And knowing is half the whatever.

Tssk. That's not what I said. Tibetan Buddhism is an ancient form of Buddhism- just because it's not the original form doesn't make it any less ancient...nor, for that matter, any less Buddhism. It is, however, one of the more commonly known 'types' of Buddhism in the West, thanks to the 60s fascination with the Tibetan Plateau and the Dalai Llama.

Anyway- Buddhism is complicated. A heartily adaptable philosophy/religion, it tends to mutate to conform with local traditions. In Tibet, it accepted the local deities. In China, it moulded with the native Taoism and Confucianism and then emigrated to Japan where it moulded with local practices. In India, it was absorbed by Hinduism to a greater or lesser extent.

So on and so forth. The whole thing is fascinating- I did a course on Eastern religions in first semester 2006 and only know a very little bit about Buddhism as a whole.

You say you don't know how many Buddhists believe in deities- well, the problem is that Buddhism is a fairly atheist belief structure. You can believe in God, Odin, Quetzalcoatl or whoever you like, but you don't need to and neither is there any harm in doing so. This means that someone who otherwise identifies as a Christian could easily be a Buddhist as well. Or a Buddhist could regard the Buddha as divine (even though he wasn't; some Buddhisms do regard him as a divine being, or say he became one) but otherwise not believe in gods/supernatural beings. One can follow the Eight-Fold Path without believing in one iota of supernaturalism (including reincarnation or Nirvana), as the teachings are to improve life here on this world and are not focused on the next.

Like I said above, there have been quite a few medical studies on the benefits of various forms of meditation, so a wholly rational person could follow the Buddha's teachings without needing to believe in something without evidence.

Why should I? While individual followers of religion may be open-minded about atheism, I cannot think of many religions that do. While I can be open enough about a friend or relative of mine being a believer (and, yes, I have several Christian friends and a close friend of mine is Neopagan- hell, my ex-wife was Wiccan), religions that promote death or promote a false view of history or are simply unpleasant do not deserve my respect nor my open-mindedness. The Abrahamic religions fall nicely into all of those, but they are not alone.

At any rate, I used to be open-minded. I used to be open-minded enough that I took religious subjects this year at university, just to get a better feel for these religions. You may note that I am now an atheist. It's interesting, don't you think, that learning more about religion just made me more contemptuous? There is nothing that religion can teach humanity that we are not capable of learning on our own.

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion mentions a chap who came up with ten new commandments. I'll list them below for convenience, but don't you think that these are much more palatable than Yahweh's commandments, most of which are to do with jealously and rage rather than protection and community-building?

First Commandment: Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

Second Commandment: In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Third Commandment: Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

Fourth Commandment: Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

Fifth Commandment: Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

Sixth Commandment: Always seek to be learning something new.

Seventh Commandment: Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

Eighth Commandment: Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

Ninth Commandment: Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

Tenth Commandment: Question everything. [source]

However, my dear lad, they do. And as long as they continue to do so, they are not worth the effort you go to to defend them.

No. Well, yes- anthropology is a 'humanity' rather than a 'science,' but that does not make it any less logical. I'd like to see someone write an essay for an anthropology class that was not logical and manage to pass- that would be something to see. The liberal arts, the humanities, the social sciences: whatever you want to call them, they are firmly grounded in logical discourse.

Girard's theories are indeed arguable, but not because they aren't logical- they probably are. But you can argue with him because he (from what you've said here and from what Wikipedia has to say) uses his evidence selectively, or has a noticeable bias towards Judeo-Christian mythology, or whatever you like.

A better argument than Girard's would be that irrespective of religion or the lack of religion, humanity tends towards violence and "could have destroyed itself long ago." This is a more sensible hypothesis, which admits that atheism does not lead to sunshine and lollipops (after all, there is no evidence that it does). However, the counter argument is that atheism does remove some of the incentives to violence- heaven, forty virgin girls and adds incentive to assist your fellow men right now rather than hoping God will sort it all out later.

Phew. That was longer than expected. P'raps we should split out a new thread, hmm?

There, have your new religious discussion. Now let's leave the Christmas topics for Christmas discussion, and keep this in here.

And keep it civil, as well. So far so good, but if it gets too heated it'll be closed.

Not sure about that. Read the news and learn history, and you will come to the conclusion that the human mind is far from logical. And it's what social sciences are all about: the human mind.

And you think what Wiki says isn't arguable? :P

One more thing: don't you think Richard Dawkins has a bias towards atheism? Why is it worse to have a bias towards a religion than one towards atheism? After all, atheism is a belief.


Fanatical religious leaders, who thirst for war and power (like Bin Laden for example), are probably not so religious themselves. They probably just want to use religion as a throne. Similarly, many 'religious wars' were fought only for power, money or else, using religion merely as a reason. With or without religion, humans will butcher or enslave each other. Religion is just a false reason, and I don't think many wars were really fought for it.


There's one thing Richard Dawkins and I can agree on: children shouldn't be indoctrinated in a religion from a young age. Their beliefs should be their own to choose.

Then argue against it. Disprove the point, don't just say that it's possible to argue because of the source.

Rather, Atheism is a lack of belief, a willingness to let facts speak for themselves. Atheism means you don't try to force these facts into the handy little containers you had pre-made for them before you had any idea what you would get, regardless of their shape or size.

Therefore:

Yes, he has a bias towards a lack of bias. Good one.

Probably? What evidence do you have to support this? You can't just make a guess at peoples' motivations and use it to counteract an argument with evidence. Same for the rest of that paragraph.

Well, Vriish hit the nail on the head. To claim that atheism is a 'belief' in the sense that theism is a belief is positive nonsense. If it were true, then I could accuse you of 'believing' in a-fairyism, and a-unicornism and a-Thorism.

The argument that "religious tyrants are all cynical atheist manipulators really, because religion is warm and cuddly" is one usually put forward by liberal Western moderates, living religiously sheltered lives and somewhat scared of the idea that these people might really believe what they say. Myself? I don't deny that not all religious tyrants may have been devoutly religious. But I do find it a laughable proposition that religion has no influence on their actions, or even that it has only a minor one. In the majority of cases, these people will believe in what they are doing, and that is what makes them so dangerous - as religites, they have been brainwashed from birth to accept 'faith' - belief without evidence - as a virtue, rather than as a massive error of intellect. As a supposed student of history, you should be able to look back through time and see the sheer number of rulers who inflicted oppression and murder in the name of religion alone, with little or no practical benefit to themselves. Bloody Mary springs to mind as a mild example.

But even if it were true, the fact remains that religion is the enabling tool that allows these men to command armies of faith-driven crusaders/terrorists/psychopaths. The idea that there is some kind of 'inner truth' available through personal revelation and unassailable by rational debate or empirical analysis can be used to motivate any injustice and justify any atrocity. As Steven Weinberg put it:

Or, if you want a more eminent name, Blaise Pascal:

I'm going to leave this argument (and probably end it by doing so), but I'll make one thing clear: I'm not trying to say religion is good. But still, I don't think it's all that bad if it stays relatively moderate (like going to church on Sunday). There will always be excesses, but there are excesses in everything, and nothing will ever put a stop to that.

The problems with religion are the structure and the practices. The structure (for example, the hierarchy) is what brings religious wars. The practices lead sometimes to abuses, like in Iran, where they stone women who have committed adultery "because it's written in the Quran that it must be done". But if you keep only the philosophical beliefs and the moral code by secularizing all governments and all laws, then you'll see there's nothing wrong.

Of course, there will always be people believing in dumb things, like those Americans who say the Earth has been created in six days. Do a Google research, and you'll even find people who say that the Earth is flat. No kidding. But as far as I know, ignorance and stupidity are not crimes. Let them believe whatever they want: they're just idiots.

Here's my opinion about religion, in as few words as possible: individual people should have the right to follow the religion they want, as long as society (governments, laws, justice, etc.) stays secular. Then there will be little trouble, if any.

Anyway, whether or not you like religion is irrelevant. Religion has existed in all human cultures for as long as Mankind can remember, and the vast majority of humans have a religious belief. So, unfortunately for you, I think religion will always exist: it's probably engraved deep in the human mind, like instinct.


What I find a bit of a paradox is the fact that Benedictus has accused me of being closed-minded when I said in another thread that I hated heavy metal, and now he seems to want to ban religion. We're both closed-minded, but about different things.

No offense meant, Benedictus. I just want you to consider the concept of open-mindedness from an impartial point of view.

People may belive in whatever they want, just that they dont force it on me and all is good. Thats my view on religion :).

Um, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Benedictus say that he dislikes religion because of the research and learning he's done? In other words, he was open-minded, took in the information, and made an informed decision.

Also, kudos on not addressing a single point that was raised with any of the issues you put forth. That's some fine debating.

From the top, then.

An' a one, an' a two, an' a one-two-three:

I didn't say the human mind is logical, I said the study of the human mind (culture, history, literature; the things that make up the humanities) is logical. The actions humans take are not entirely logical, no (an excellent example would be believing in a creator deity against all evidence), but the methods used to study it are. Psychology, anthropology, history- even theology uses logical argument, even if it's basic premises are flawed. When you make an argument, be it in ecology or anthropology, you present your evidence and your hypothesis and make an argument from there- step A to B to C to QED.

Of course Wiki is arguable. The folk who write Wikipedia articles have their own biases and flaws. Everyone does, after all. That's what the Wiki project is about- if each person has individual biases and blind spots, surely 50 different people will be able to balance that out.

Of course, Wikipedia doesn't always work that way.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, however. What I was saying is that Girard's theories can be argued with. I then said that based on what YOU and his Wikipedia entry say that one could argue that he uses selective evidence, and has a noticeable bias towards the Judeo-Christian mythos. If I read his arguments, I may even have other means with which to argue with him- illogic, perhaps, or an non-academic tone. I haven't read him, so I'm not going to argue his points except in the broadest terms- which I notice you haven't bothered to counter. I'll quote myself again, just so you can see what I think would be a better hypothesis:

Ugh. I'm so glad Chili saw this before I did. What he said, in bold.

Nonsense.

I've heard this theory before, usually from Christians who try to claim that Charlemagne or Richard Lionheart weren't 'really' Christian. Powerful tyrannical figures in history often cynically use religion as their sceptre, but that doesn't mean they are not believers. There is overwhelming evidence that Charlemagne was a devout Christian, generosity to the Church, extended efforts to convert various pagans, etc, etc. Some of these olitical and military decisions were undoubtedly influenced by his faith which, if it were a façade, he would not necessarily have made.

You are a student of history. If you wish to claim that these historical figures did not truly believe, cite me evidence. Bin Laden quotes from the Qu'ran, firmly believes in the Prophet's words and gives every indication of being a fanatical, conservative Muslim. But even if he is not, he gives such a strong impression that his followers, lieutenants and supporters do believe he is genuine, so the truth of his devotion is irrelevant.

The Crusades, to use a common example, were fought for military, financial and simply power-hungry reasons. But religion was the catalyst that allowed the reagents to react and was also the reason it drew so many people, of all classes, into the wars.

Yes. But religion adds an additional dimension to these wars. An additional (for some individuals, only) reason for fighting in the war, a further incentive to fight to the death, etc, etc. If the main reasons for war are economics, military (power), greed and religion, removing religion from the equation is one step closer to peace.

Even an ostensible reason is still a reason. The Crusades alone disprove your hypothesis.

---

What Vriish said.

---

What Chilli said, but to emphasize the point:

---

It certainly seems that way.

Actually, you're right: you're not. What you're saying is that atheism is bad, and that's a very different proposition. It all makes sense now- the snide remarks at Chilli and myself, the comments about a cold, unfriendly universe, the obsession with claiming religion has caused no harm...you are claiming that atheism is bad.

Well. At least now I know where you're coming from. This, I can argue with.

You advocate moderate 'social religion' (Church on Sunday) as being okay, but then admit that there will always be excesses and nothing will ever put a stop to it. Put another way, this reads:

Moderate religion is okay. Sure, extremist fanatics come with moderate religion, but that's okay as well.

It makes no sense.

You also wouldn't have religion any more. You'd have a secular philosophy such as the religion-neutral 'New Ten Commandments' I listed above and secular law. What makes a 'religion' is a belief in all that insanity about an incarnated God crucified who arose again three days later. Or that a merchant heard the voice of God a few centuries ago who told him and his people what to do for the rest of time.

[I would like to point out that the Qu'ran, while it does advocate stoning a woman to death if she committed adultery, does so with defence laws written into the passage. The Old Testament, while advocating the same punishment, is not nearly so lenient. The OT also orders rapists to marry the woman they've raped- how wonderful for the woman in question.]

Strip Christianity of everything but the (palatable to a modern audience) message and you have nothing that Buddhism or Islam (once they are suitably stripped as well) don't have. What you are advocating is scarcely different to what Chili and I are advocating: the only difference is that we don't think you need to respect a belief in fairies at the same time.

How is that any less stupid than believing that Jesus rose from the dead?

I would also like to point out, in defence of the US, that it's not only Americans who believe that tripe. Plenty of conservative Christians do, worldwide.

When they believe their ignorance and stupidity is the only truth and they are willing to enforce this belief with murder, war and torture, it becomes crimes. When they are willing to enforce their idiocy by demanding that Congressmen and MPs ban the teaching of evolution in schools, it should become a crime. When quiet belief that homosexuals are as bad as murderers becomes the reason for hate speeches and murders, it should become a crime.

Ignorance and stupidity are not crimes. But they lead to crimes.

That's a very good paraphrasing of the relevant sections of the US Constitution.

Yet, is there only 'little trouble' in the United States?

Psah. The vast majority of humans also used to hunt with stone spears. Things change. The vast majority of human history involves monarchies and tyrannies and absolute rule, or rule by the few, or rule by the priests. Democracy is a new thing.

Such a silly, nonsensical argument.

You hated heavy metal without ever having listening to it or its many variants. I hate religion after studying it, after being friends with Christians, Neo-Pagans and Wiccans for years. After spending years torn between agnosticism, believing in and yet hating the Christian God and toying with neopaganism (in no particular order). I have tried religion -studied it, briefly- and come to the conclusion that it offers nothing that I cannot have on my own. More importantly, believing in any deity or collectable set of deities involves a degree of intellectual suicide that is mentally and physically painful. I know: I tried.

If no offence is meant, then do not say something that will cause offence.

The entire concept of open-mindedness IS from an impartial point of view. If I have stated that I used to be more open-minded, then you could do me the courtesy of impartially considering that I am telling the truth. I would encourage YOU to be more impartial in your own observations regarding religion or the lack thereof. Read Richard Dawkins, read (at least on Wikipedia) some definitions of atheism. Seek out evidence for God/s. Question everything. Don't just accept that you think atheism is a cold mindset, actually learn about it.

---

A fairly enlightened view. However, let me argue with it anyway. For starters, let us replace 'religion' with 'politics' in your sentence:

"People may believe in whatever they want, just that they don't force it on me and all is good. That's my view on politics."

Now imagine that you are a white, heterosexual male member of the middle class in Germany, circa 1930s.

Do you see my point?

The Nazis may not harm you, but they certainly harm Jews, Roms, gays and foreigners. They go on to harm millions in a brutal war.

Religion may be harmless for most people, but anyone who has been harassed by members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, or their local crazy city preacher knows that religion does not entirely 'live and let live.' There are religious groups in Africa and South-East Asia proselytizing to the indigenous inhabitants. Anyone from country formerly a European colony will know the history of their own native peoples encounters with preachers: disease and death.

Some of this groups are operating as charities but refuse to give the humanitarian aid to the people unless they convert to whichever religion it is they are peddling. Others refuse access or assistance to groups following a different religion.

And these are the helpful of the case examples I am making. This is ignoring Islamic extremists or the terrorists of Ireland or the American fundamentalists who execute abortion doctors. This isn't mentioning (well, I guess it is now) that some Catholics, to unfairly name one group, actively discourage the use of condoms even in HIV stricken areas, claiming that they do not help prevent the disease.

Religion may not be harming you. But it is harming other people. And occasionally religionists will flare up and cause brutal wars. See Also: Ethiopia and Somalia, Current Events.

---

Thanks, Vriish. Very nicely said.

EDIT: Sorry about the open quote boxes. I can't figure out what the problem is. I'll leave it as they are for now and hope the problem fixes itself. *shrug*

Edit by Vriishnak: Whee, quotes fixed. Had to remove a couple of the double quotes from the start, I think the problem was with your formatting, quotes within quotes and such. Also, I'm tired. Think I'll sleep now.

Wow. Long reply. And this is me saying that.

I'll just add a few short points, since you covered everything else so comprehensively, Benedictus; @ztech, you take the usual Western liberal stance of "Moderate religion is lovely, extremist religion is eeevil."

This ignores one very important thing: both moderate and extremist religion come in the form of believing in a 'revealed truth', through the Bible or the Qo'ran or what have you, without evidence. The differences between them lie in the interpretation of that set of beliefs or holy text. This leads to two problems:
1. By holding their faith up as virtuous and nice, moderates allow the glorification of faith, which creates an atmosphere in which fundies can survive.
2. With no evidence either way, how can you say that a 'moderate' interpretation of the Bible - cherrypicking the bits that a liberal finds agreeable and ignoring all the genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. - is any more valid than a fundamentalist interpretation? Of course, fundamentalists often use their interpretation as a licence to harm others, but they have drawn it from a belief system that uses exactly the same mental toolbox as moderates, and which has gained society's approval through the influence of moderates, not through the actions of fundamentalists.

If 'faith' and 'spirituality' were regarded by society as I see them (i.e. on a part with fairies, unicorns and young earth creationism), do you honestly believe that we would have as many fundamentalists and crackpots as we do now? Instead, even in the secular west, we have societies that are essentially make faith out to be a good thing. That creates the climate in which religion's problems show themselves.

Of course, you may say that your own misty deism has none of the nasty tenets of those books. But it rests on the same base of belief sans evidence. So how is it any more valid than Christian or Muslim belief? Stephen Roberts put it best:

On a separate point: neither I nor Benedictus want to ban religion (at least, I hope he doesn't). In my ideal vision of the future regarding this problem, I would like to see a world in maybe 100 years' time where a believer in a supernatural god is regarded as something of a crank, as we in Britain or Canada would currently regard a flat earth believer. Banning ideas is wrong: killing them through force of argument is fine. We don't oppose the personal practice of religion, we oppose the idea of religion, and the unduly privileged 'respect' it receives. I think I would probably be in agreement with everyone else here when I said that a world where atheist dictators threw away individual rights in order to coerce others into their beliefs would have just as many problems as our current, religion-riddled state. However, I don't believe that those two choices are the only ones available.

Finally: just because there may be a strong instinctual imperative for religion (Dawkins has even done a fine job of speculating as to Darwinian origins for that particular drive) does not mean we should bow down to it. When you see someone you dislike, or are forced to talk to them, do you just give in to your anger and punch their teeth out? We are alone among the animals in having the power to break free of the brutish, bloody world of nature, as the results of progress and civilisation all around us attest. It's natural for humans to eat their meat raw and sleep in trees too, but that doesn't mean we still do it.

I knew I left some things out. Thanks, Chilli.

Just for the record:

Word.

I don't like religions and I want them to go away, but I don't want them banned.

I'm not here to contribute to the argument. I just want to thank Swordsalot, Benedictus and LCP for the answers they supplied.

Right. Got it.

That actually made me laugh.

Indeed I do Benedictus. Thats an intresting point of view. Jehovas has been knocking on my door aswell. They can be a bit pushy, that is true, but mostly they are just annoying. But I do see what you mean, politics and religion has so many times gone and are going hand in hand. It´s quite ironic how many (if not all) religions have "noble" means, but still is (ab)used they way they are.

Did any of you guys happen to see the episode of bullsh*t. They really tore the bible apart :).

:blink:



Edit: Last thing (I hope). I don't think atheism is bad. I think intolerance is bad. I don't care whether people are religious or atheistic, as long as they tolerate each other. But as contradictory as it seems, I'm intolerant towards intolerant people.

I don't tolerate people who wage war in the name of religion because they think theirs is the only one acceptable, and I don't tolerate people who systematically wage war on religions because they think they're always bad.

But in-between, there are believers who tolerate atheists and atheists who tolerate believers. If everyone fitted in those categories, all would be fine.

If you think that more than one religion is acceptable, then how do you decide which one to believe, especially when some, if not many, of them dictate that theirs is the only true one? Do you just stick with the one you were born into? Seems a bit lazy to me. And if you think that one religion should be favoured above another, then why do you think more than one should be allowed to exist? In case you're wrong? In that case, I'd say you're not much of a believer anyway.

Perhaps some of the religions about today are alright in principle (or, indeed, in some principles, such as being nice to everybody in the ways that you would like them to be nice to you, as opposed to the principles of the Old Testament), but in practice they cause harm. That, I think, was demonstrated in the Do You Believe In God thread, if I remember correctly, and has already been covered in this thread.

Why don't you tolerate people who systematically wage war on religion because they think that they're always bad? From a certain atheist point of view, all religions (by which I mean the worshipping and veneration of a creator who can perform miracles, etc., as opposed to Buddhism or Confucianism) are bad in that they promote false expectations of an afterlife, and so on and so forth, remembering the old thread. Surely these people are entitled to voice their opinion.

I think I should say that I do agree with LCP and Benedictus that religion should not be banned.
I also believe that Nazism should not be banned.

[By the way, if anyone's interested in hosting a Christian podcast, the advertisements are showing up for it. Just, y'know. In case.]

Vriishnak: Aha! So that's what the problem was. Heh. Well, some BBCode websites allow quotes within quotes, so I thought I could do that here. Bah.

Thragka: You are very welcome. I glad I made you laugh.

Tyrion: Excellent. I prefer to avoid using Nazi metaphors where I can, but it is perfectly apt in this case, given how many folk in Germany (and elsewhere) were content to let the Nazis slide, 'slong as it wasn't harming them.

@ztech: That's it? All you have to say after that tremendously long post is :blink:? What a wasted effort on my part. If you had tried heavy metal before dismissing it, you should say so and counter my point. I'm only going by what I recall from the music thread in question, and if I recall incorrectly, you should point that out.

Regarding your edit, you should take another look at what I said to Tyrion. It was a pretty effective, if short, deconstruction of a 'live and let live' attitude towards religions, even as I missed out such loving sects as the Exclusive Brethren. The problem with religion isn't just the extremist, it's the fact that once you accept truth by revelation you open the door for every crackpot which hears voices in his head. And not all such crackpots are benign.

As for 'waging war on religion,' neither Chilli, myself nor Dawkins are doing any such thing. We are simply tired of religion having the upper hand in any debate. Tired of religious people being able to say, "But that's just what I believe and you have to respect that," no matter how insane or dangerous it is. Tired of religious folk trying to prevent scientific research, or science being taught in schools. Tired of lies about life, the universe and everything. Tired of being told that looking at the garden with wonder without needing to see the fairies is cold and heartless perception. Tired of being told that astrology is true and amazing and astronomy is boring and commonplace.

We are tired of all these things and have decided that religion needs to be shown that it is wrong. We are not seeking a ban on religious practice, nor are we demanding that universities remote theologians or believing professors from their ranks. We are demanding that atheists stop being regarded as second-class citizens. We are demanding that we stop being forced to give greater time to the Jesuit priest than to the microbiologist. We are demanding that religion stop proclaiming itself the 'truth and the way' when the evidence makes it clear that it is not.

For my part, and I am sure for Chilli's as well, I am perfectly happy to call my Christian (or Neopagan, or whatever) friends 'friend.' I do not 'tolerate' them and they do not 'tolerate' me. We engage in other conversations- or when we do argue, we do so politely and not at risk of our friendship. Equal time. However, I'm Australian and these are my friends. As a whole, particularly in the United States, Christians are much less polite, particularly on the political stage.

More to the point, you speak of 'tolerance' when you constantly attack Chili with snide remarks. Unfortunately with the site crash, many of the posts have vanished, but I am sure you are aware of the numerous times in various threads when you will sneeringly call him "Professor Chili" or make mention of his lack of hope, or what have you.

Thragka: Well said, old chap. Particularly:

No genuine discussion should be banned. That merely drives it underground and creates resentment, etc, etc. If allowed in the open air and debated publicly, it can be extinguished easily if it is wrong- and if it is right, well. Nazi ideals are particularly difficult, though, as a key feature of Nazi political rhetoric is hate-speech. And hate-speech (except the religious) is rightly condemned in most of our countries. So it is complicated, and probably a good topic for a different thread.

Neither do I. War is bad. It kills people.

Debate is good. It kills bad ideas, or at least makes them look foolish. Barring the occasional punch-up at the pub afterwards, no-one ever got hurt in a debate.

Comparing my standpoint with that of a religious extremist would be offensive if it wasn't so laughable. All I seek to do is argue my case, and argue it well. Never would I coerce another into sharing my beliefs, or force my beliefs upon them indirectly by attacking them in the name of a 'cause'.

I think the fallacy in your stance, @ztech, shows up best when we use Benedictus' handy tool of imagining you were talking about politics instead.

Now, obviously there is a flaw there. We decry fascist governments. We even invade them and change their regimes in some cases. However, I'd like to use a more relevant tool: Benedictus translated it into the language of politics, which is all well and good for its practical applications, but I'd like to do the same with the language of science, which tackles the big question at the heart of religion - does a supernatural god exist? The answer to that question has huge consequences as to the physical nature of the universe, so it must fall within the category of objective truth - the domain of the philosopher and the scientist.

The last case there is probably causing physical harm to those who refuse to take real medicine: I put that in to show the continuum between the practical and the philosophical. But most of these would have little bearing on how we live our lives: their main value lies in their truth. Can you see how anyone with a desire to get at truth rather than delusion - the scientific passion - would fight against the attitude you describe? If you care about what's true, then sometime's that's more important than just what's convenient or comforting.

Let's be clear about this: I tolerate religites as individuals, no question about that. While many of the more extreme ones I would treat with undisguised contempt, that's more to do with how they behave than what they believe. What I'm arguing should not be tolerated are their ideas. Intellectually, it is an indefensible position to say "Well, Johnny has one point of view, and Gary has another that entirely contradicts Johnny's, and you're both right!". While, of course, ideas can't be banned, they can be defeated, through consciousness-raising, debate and constant critical analysis. And that's what I, Richard Dawkins and a whole bunch of other people are currently quite keen to do.

The problem you're still grappling with is the undue respect you've probably been taught to apply to religion from an early age, possibly by your parents and certainly by society. Religion is a pretty bold statement about the universe. It's only fair and rational that it should be as contestable and open to critical analysis as any other idea. As Dawkins puts it (I feel a bit like a salesman for Bantam Press here, but I haven't read enough Russel or anyone else to have such a deep repertoire of atheist material from other writes), people call atheists like him 'angry' and 'intolerant', but if you imagine that he or I were talking about politics instead, then the rhetoric employed is probably towards the mild end of the spectrum. It's only this hyper-sensitive attitude of "You can do what you like but don't step on my religion" that makes this kind of debate seem charged with hostility.

Benedictus:

Douglas Adams will indeed be sorely missed...

Sorry, I was trying to rip myself from the debate. If I had replied something too long, I'd have been drawn back in. But now I feel like stepping back into the arena. Chili and you are great debaters, and that makes this debate pretty addictive. I may look like I'm angry by the way I reply, but actually I'm having a lot of fun.

I've read all your post thoroughly, though.

So are we all. Scientific research and education, just like government and law, should stay 100% secular. We can at least agree on that point and on many others.

Not lies. Beliefs.

The problem we're talking about around here is not the absence of need to see the "fairies", as you call them. It's the way you seem to look upon those who see (or try to see) them.

I never said that. This might sound absurd to those who believe only in science: I don't see God in "miracles" and "revelation", but in the wonderful and perfect way everything in the universe goes round following a predetermined order. In other words, I see God inside the laws of the Universe, not out of them.

But here we have a social debate about religion, not a philosophical debate about God.

Are they really? I never noticed that.

No one forces anyone to follow a religion. I myself follow none.

I actually think the microbiologist is much more important than the priest.

Doctor Chili. And I was complimenting his extended knowledge, not sneering. But if it insults him, I can stop calling him so.

I beg to differ: I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech. Even Nazi's deserve to say whatever they want. The opinions of people like them should just be ignored.




To Chili, now:

Define "bad idea".

Agreed on both points. I have more respect for you than for religious extremists and I'm not trying to compare you to them. And you argue well enough to defend Bin Laden in front of a trial led by a Republican judge... and win.

Hope is not the only reason why people believe.

The more I think about it, the less I believe there is an afterlife. I also don't believe that God is good and cares about us. But I believe in Him, because I think the way the universe is made (including such extraordinary things as life and intelligence) is too perfect to be the result of no more than physical and chemical reactions.

Indeed, but the thing is that billions of people believe that Johnny is right and billions believe that Gary is right. How do we get the truth out of it then? Both sides have enough arguments to make the debate last forever.

And even if Johnny turns out to be right, does that make all of Gary's supporters a huge gang of idiots, ignorants or liars?

My family has never been much religious.

I've once been like you, very cynical about religion in general. But I realized that if we look past the noisy minority of extremist idiots, we tend to miss the silent majority of moderate people.

I never denied that. Everything can must be contested.

People indeed get excited when you step on their religion. But though I don't follow any religion (did I say it already?), I felt the need to defend it, since everyone around here seems to be against it. I wanted some balance, y'know...


.

The problem with "God created the universe and hasn't done anything since" is that it really doesn't achieve anything.

As an explanation for the creation of the universe, it is beaten slightly: if god created the universe, who created god. I think it is more tangible that the universe simply created itself than god creating himself then the universe. Also, by taking this argument god need not be a conscious force at all: it is too easy to say that the universe itself is god.

As for your reasoning that complexity means there is a designer, read the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
It sums up the problems with this line of thinking.

Also, if god did create the universe, but he hasn't been sending us prophets / miracles etc, there is no (and never will be) any evidence of his existence.

One that is based on faulty reasoning or no reasoning at all, and is therefore likely to be incorrect.

Well, I appreciate that this is what you think, and it might seem pretty convincing to you, but you're employing what Dawkins calls the Argument from Personal Incredulity - because you can't imagine it (and really haven't tried very hard to), you decide it is impossible. You haven't pursued a scientific education, you don't even seem to have read much of this kind of science in your own time, so how are you qualified to make judgements that contradict most scientists on this highly scientific matter? You say 'no more than' physical and chemical reactions without appreciating the elegant complexity of the laws that govern them, you demean the physical world because you haven't tried to understand it. We're getting back to the problem of open-mindedness here; you see science and its domain as dusty and prosaic, whereas in fact once you start to appreciate all the magnificence of the physical world, it even starts to look a bit of a cop-out to insert all this "God" stuff, because the religious explanation is so shallow and boring by comparison.

For a good explanation for life and intelligence, read The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. It is a popular science book. It is not an attack on religion, indeed practically the only mention it makes of religion is its short consideration of creationism in the chapter where Dawkins considers opposing hypotheses to Darwinism. And there is a fascinating chapter on how life itself may have first begun, laying the path for evolution to kick in and produce everything we see around us today. I don't know if there are French translations available, but he's an extremely good writer, and is very good at making himself understood. You should find it interesting, and since your beliefs have been pared down to this tiny 'God of the Gaps' anyway, you will almost certainly still have places you can point and say "God!" afterwards. I could, of course, then point you to other books that offered potential explanations for those problems, or point out that it's more honest for a scientist to say "I don't know what did it yet" than to just make up the answer "God did it."

Before you say "many scientists are religious", here's a statistic that should show you beyond doubt the correlation between science and atheism: in the American National Academy of Sciences (The equivalent of the British Royal Society), 93% of the members do not believe in a personal god. By contrast, something more than 90% of average Americans believe in some sort of supernatural deity. Among less eminent scientists, the figure was somewhere in between: about 40% were religious. The correlation should be clear: the more science you do, and the better at it and more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to believe in God.

And, of course, this all comes back to that lovely argument about whether God is an explanation at all. You are trying to explain the organised complexity in the world - organisms and systems so beautiful and complex that you think they demand an explanation. And to form this explanation, you say there must be an intelligent, all-powerful being who designed and created it all in the first place.

Well... if that's true, then mustn't God be more complex and wonderful than the universe? Doesn't he in turn demand an even greater explanation? Cop-outs like "He always was, is, and ever shall be" don't work - because there's no explanation for those assertions, either. Unless you declare, in the manner of a zealot, "God did it and that is that, NO QUESTIONS," you find yourself in an infinite regress of explanations, until you get to God¹⁰⁰⁰ and find he still needs an explanation of his own and throw your hands up in despair, or, to put it the other way round - since you're assuming living intelligence and organised complexity in the form of God in your explanation, why not just assume living intelligence and organised complexity as it is here in the universe, and cut out the middle man?

Also, I'd like to ask you a question: if you don't believe in an afterlife, if you believe God to be a being that set the universe in motion and then ran from the scene of the crime never to return, how does your view of the universe hold any more of your much-touted comfort and hope than mine? In both, we pass out of and into utter oblivion in the blink of an eye, with no purpose in life other than what we assign to it ourselves. In both, no-one created us, because that would require bizzare repeated interventions on God's part - there were no humans in the Big Bang, and there were no humans when the first shards of rock that would form the Earth began to come together under the force of gravity in the accretion disc of the infant Sun. Indeed, there were no humans even as recently as when dinosaurs stalked the face of the planet. So where is the 'hope'? I am intrigued.

Except that, if you look at the evidence (something you repeatedly refuse to do), one side's argument is significantly stronger than the other's, and has been emerging as such over the last 200 years or so.

And of course, this does not make religites idiots because they are religious. I believed in the Loch Ness Monster until I was 11. Even for a child, that's pretty bad, and I have it on the word of others that I was a reasonably bright child, so why the hell did I believe what I did? Because I was a dinosaur nut, and wanted to believe that there still was a plesiosaur or two left in the world. It took me until I started discovering the scientific methods and practices that I use today until I realised what a fool I'd been, and how easy it was for other people to fool themselves. I don't hold someone in contempt or disrespect because of the ideas they hold (except in really extreme cases), I merely disrespect their ideas. As a liberal, I accord all human beings the same basic rights of respect. My grandmother is an agnostic, but she is also a firm believer in psychics. I find this specific belief ridiculous, but I still respect her as a (usually) highly intelligent woman, a human being, and my grandmother. And when she brings it up, while I do not let it go uncontested, I do not start calling her ignorant or an idiot. I contest the ideas, I don't attack the person.

I'd like to bring up a tangential point you made to Benedictus:

When Blair was questioned about our reasons for the Iraq War, the interviewer said "So, it was a lie then?" or something along those lines, discussing the claim of weapons of mass destruction. Blair responded: "Well, I only know what I believe."

His claim was that, since he had believed there were weapons of mass destruction, the war had been legitimate even though they turned out not to be there. Just because someone believes something doesn't stop it from being false: something can be a belief and a lie at the same time. It might not be an intentional lie, but as far as the objective scientist is concerned, it's still a lie.

Sometimes balance isn't necessary. If we were discussing the existence of fairies, I'm pretty sure that no-one would start defending fairy-believers on the grounds of "balance". And yet, as I have stated before, the weight of evidence for/against God is exactly the same as the weight of evidence for/against fairies.

I've already read about things like that, and I'm aware that life and intelligence have been created gradually through chemical reactions, not through a divine intervention. In fact, I see God as the "architect" who designed the laws of the universe, then let the machinery run itself following the rules of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. Sometimes, I consider the idea that God might be those rules. He (or It?) would be the natural order that prevents chaos, not the one who set this order in place ("Creator God") or breaks it to intervene through miracles ("fairy", as Benedictus calls it).

The "God¹⁰⁰⁰ argument" could be used against science: laws of chemistry are ruled by the laws of physics, which themselves obey to the laws of mathematics. How long until we reach the Science¹⁰⁰⁰ and realize that the end is still far?

I don't have much hope anymore. I haven't given up the idea of an afterlife entirely (yes, I know it's foolish), but what little hope is left for me is in the idea of a supreme consciousness that ensures the Universe doesn't go wrong, not that of a "Heaven".

I never said that God "ran from the scene of the crime". I see God through the fine weaving and perfect design of science and the laws of the Universe.

In fact, we believe in basically the same thing: we believe in the perfectness and beauty of the design of the Universe. The only difference is that I believe that this design has a consciousness whereas you believe that the design is an automated mechanism.

Some truths are as harmful as some lies. The problem is when you can't tell the truth from the lie. Anyway, is there such thing as an universal truth? Is truth relative or absolute?

Why not? All ideas, even dumb ones, deserve to be defended. I, for one, will not let the God idea go down without a fight. Someone else can take care of defending the fairies, and I wish him/her good luck even though I don't agree with him/her.

Except one thing: contrarily to my idea of a God, fairies have (theorically speaking) the power to break the laws of the Universe. And that's quite a big difference.

Ever wondered why so many people believed in a God and so few believed in fairies? Ever wondered why all civilizations, even the smallest, the most ancient and the most isolated ones, have Gods, while the belief in fairies is not nearly as universal?



Oh, we're drifting away... Now we've gone back to the old God debate.



.