Draugnar, by no means am I singling you or any else out. It's definitely a blanket statement but one that I think holds enough water to justify saying it.

What I mean by intellectually lazy is that people have a built-in excuse to not think. "God's will" is a convenient excuse for anything really.

I know some very smart people who absolutely will not explore certain ideas because they are blasphemous.

While we are talking about religion and Dawkins...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cH2bkZfHw4

That was cool Darwyn - I wish you would have given a content warning as I had just gotten my lunch out of the microwave before watching it ... but still very cool.

For anyone else who thinks they'll be eating while watching it, it's a video of a giraffe disection - You've now been warned!!

I think you will find the (silent) majority of religious folks to be more than open to concepts like evolution and a universe billions of years old. It's just that the minority is so vocal they come across as the majority.

I will not be ale to respond to the plethora of replies that have been posted since my last comment until the weekend at the earliest, but here is another quote I found, this time in BigZombieDude's profile page (userID=15832):

"
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion." - Weinberg
"

That's another brilliant comment that really gets to the heart of the whole controversy and helps illustrate why religion is not a neutral force.

Draugnar: Quick comment: It's about 20% of the U. S. population that beleives those sorts of things. That's hardly small.

...no, it doesn't illustrate anything, in fact it does nothing but make a claim; it demonstrates nothing

Also: Approximately 3/4 of the US population is Christian. Even if all 20% of the population that believes that nonsense is Christian, the majority of Christians do not believe it.

@Darwyn

"With money being a close second, religion is the root cause of nearly every human conflict in the history of civilization and is responsible for the deaths of millions of people."

I strongly disagree with your statement, it is absolutely false. It's a great sound bite and is so often repeated that few people really look into the evidence to show how wrong it is. Take one war (WWII for instance) and show how religion is "root cause" of it. Its causes were numerous. There was some religious rhetoric on both sides to help recruit soldiers, but was religion wasn't the "root cause" in any way shape or form. The data has been compiled and it's something like 7% of the world's conflicts that can be attributed to religion. For an American, combat over religion is second to dog bite as a cause of death.

Let me go a little further into the statement because I didn't really do anything more than make the statement and did not present the evidence. While researching his book the author Vox Day took a random samling of more than 1,200 wars in history. By applying the simple test of whether the war was begun to further religious aims (spread a religion, defend a faith, restore claim to a holy land, etc.). Less than 7% of the wars could be shown to be religious if you really look at them like that. Most wars further governments not religions. The book that I cited this from is:

http://irrationalatheist.com/

it can be downloaded for free.

@JECE: This was on the first page, but I have to reply to it: "This latter claim begs the question of what created this being. Because that being couldn't have just been formed (because the evolutionary or spontaneous start of life theory is claimed to be too unlikely to have created us), some other being must have created this supreme being. It's a never-ending cycle."
You forget the fact that us theists believe that God existed before the universe, where there probably isn't time. So obviously God need not be created, as creation would need cause and effect, which requires time. God was just there, and then he created the universe (the cause happened in the part before time, the effect happened in the first instant of time).
I would also like to point out a funny atheist contradiction:
Atheists say God could not have been created by nothing.
Atheists say the universe WAS created by nothing.

That's because most wars were fought when religion was very much a state issue. While politics could be the obvious reason, religion was very important. Look at renaissance/early modern Europe. The whole Mary, Queen of the Scots problem started mainly because she was Catholic; the ruling Protestant minority wanted Britain to stay a Protestant, despite much or most of the peple still being Catholic. One could say that modern wars are less about religion, but look at the rhetoric through the Cold War and most of the wars in the Middle East (including Iran-Iraq). Even now, look at such people as Ann Coulter or Eric Prince, and their 'crusade' against Islam. Even if politics is the most obvious problem, I can guarantee many people will see war as a religious issue (except Richelieu).

"•In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined"
This is from Irrational Atheist, and this gets my goat. The so-called communist, atheist regimes were not atheist. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc removed the established relgion, and then installed a new one, one based on themselves as god. The cults of personality were new religion. Like Robespierre installed a new calender to break down old traditions, so new gods of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao were installed to break down old traditions and mould society how they saw fit. Also, thats because in this century we have created much more efficient ways of killing people, if Europe had the same level of technology in the 1600s that we have now, imagine the Thirty Years War.

Anyway, what is the point of religion? I see no reason for God/dess/etc in my life.

Vis a vis the whole "can't know anything" argument the wonderful Thucy is pushing forward, I don't think that anyone disagrees with it on its most basic level: It is possible that we are all a part of MadMarx's dream (in fact, even likely... how else does he win so much?), but there is nothing useful about saying that. We don't KNOW anything, but this should not be a paralyzing force. In order to live we have to make assumptions and decisions or else life is not livable.

For example, we cannot "know" whether or not we have free will; in fact, it seems likely that if we knew enough about science we could prove that we didn't. But I still believe deep down at my core that we have free will because to believe otherwise would mean that life is meaningless. Whether or not we have free will is essentially a non-choice; we must assume that we do.

I think religion is very similar to such a "forced assumption." I, personally, consider myself agnostic perhaps even leaning toward atheism (although less so that when I was younger). But at the same time I do have this belief at my core that my life is going to work out and that I will be successful as long as I work hard. This is absolutely faith, and is in many ways religious. I also have many friends and even family members who find belief in God a near forced assumption because to think something else leads to despair. This is highly logical, and not dogmatic at all.

Oh, and the whole religion was necessary to the rise of civilization is BS in my opinion. Fairly clearly to be honest. But I do believe that the rise of civilization necessarily leads to the rise of religion. It is not something that can be logicked away.

@Thucy: I have a problem with this statement you made: "1) You can't know anything."
That is not true. I know that on a perfectly flat plane, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. That was proven through a theorem. Now you would probably say that the theorem uses postulates, or other theorems that then use postulates. And there could be something, somewhere in the universe, that contradicts that postulate. For example, let's take the postulate that says that through every two points there lies exactly one line. You would say there possibly could be two points on some random flat plane that have multiple lines going through them. But, I ask how is that possible? Your example of a unicorn existing on a planet 20 parsecs has a simple answer to that question: It evolved there. But there is no answer to the question of how two points could have multiple lines going through them. Therefore it is false. Now, both Christians and atheists give the 'how' about there beliefs. However, I argue that the atheist's 'how' is scientifically impossible, unlike the Christian's 'how'. That is why I am a Christian.

"I know that on a perfectly flat plane, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees."

How does one know they add up to 180 degrees?
Simple. One observes the numbers and add them together.
So one looks at the numbers and relies on one's senses to attain the numbers?
Yes.
How does one know that his senses are ever reliable?

Go for it, CM.

@President: I know that my senses could be unreliable, but I also know that they are very likely reliable, just like I know it is very likely that the universe exists. So I believe that there is a 99.(a lot of 9s)% chance that God exists, and a 0.(a lot of 0s)% chance that God doesn't.

Honestly we can debate this all day. Research wont get many people anywhere on a debate like this. If there is ever proof it is never "credible". I can honestly say that science will tell if God exists or not. Setting my religious fervor aside i would say it is more probable He is. Evolution will always bring up nature. Nature picks the best traits, and nature this nature that. But what is ignored is what IS nature? How does nature know whats best. Is it based on some cognitive reward system? I dont think Love (and i dont mean sappy or sexual man-woman love, but genuine Love) can exist without God. It is a very important part to the human beings mind, body, (and soul). But plays a minor part, if a part at all, with human survival. Why love one another, isnt it supposed to be survival of the fittest? Love would work against that wouldnt it? Love wants to give its own life for others. It would be a self destructive trait.

"I know that my senses could be unreliable, but I also know that they are very likely reliable, just like I know it is very likely that the universe exists."

Nay, sir. You have no clue if your senses are ever reliable.

How would one go about demonstrating something is reliable? One would look at that something's prior history for consistencies in behavior that would indicate reliability, of course, as with any examination of reliability.

How does one look at the prior history of one's own senses? One can remember instances in the past where his senses functioned properly, or perhaps ask another person. Remember, observing evidence is useless, because to do so one must presuppose one's senses work -- begging the question fallacy.

OK, so we try remembering prior uses of our senses. And let us say that we have indeed found that, if memory serves, our senses are reliable. But how do we know memory serves?

Truth is, there's no way to test one's own memory for reliability. After all, to do that we'd have to remember previous times where it was reliable, and, well... begging the question. And since our own memory's reliability cannot be verified, we cannot use our own memory to say our senses are reliable.

So let's ask someone else if they remember something. ...same problem, on two fronts. The same argument applies for the memory of another individual, and even if their memory were somehow proved reliable, you would still have to remember that their memory is reliable.

So memory is shot as a source. And any empirical data would be begging the question.

Now, tell me again... how does one know that his senses are ever reliable?

@Eden: Whether my senses are reliable or not has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. You are ignoring my main point, which is that the universe most likely exists, and using that, I can show that God most likely exists (as I don't particularly see how the universe could be created without God. If you do, tell me).

"uclabb (1650 )
09:30 PM
Vis a vis the whole "can't know anything" argument the wonderful Thucy is pushing forward, I don't think that anyone disagrees with it on its most basic level: It is possible that we are all a part of MadMarx's dream (in fact, even likely... how else does he win so much?), but there is nothing useful about saying that. We don't KNOW anything, but this should not be a paralyzing force. In order to live we have to make assumptions and decisions or else life is not livable.

For example, we cannot "know" whether or not we have free will; in fact, it seems likely that if we knew enough about science we could prove that we didn't. But I still believe deep down at my core that we have free will because to believe otherwise would mean that life is meaningless. Whether or not we have free will is essentially a non-choice; we must assume that we do.

I think religion is very similar to such a "forced assumption." I, personally, consider myself agnostic perhaps even leaning toward atheism (although less so that when I was younger). But at the same time I do have this belief at my core that my life is going to work out and that I will be successful as long as I work hard. This is absolutely faith, and is in many ways religious. I also have many friends and even family members who find belief in God a near forced assumption because to think something else leads to despair. This is highly logical, and not dogmatic at all.

Oh, and the whole religion was necessary to the rise of civilization is BS in my opinion. Fairly clearly to be honest. But I do believe that the rise of civilization necessarily leads to the rise of religion. It is not something that can be logicked away."

Wow, props to uclabb for saying the smartest thing in. This thread so far. I agree 100% with this. We need to make certain assumptions, even if they are false, in order to live. That is why I believe in God, because if I didn't I would be a suicidal wretch. I'm not saying everyone needs to believe in I'm in order to be sane, but for me personally, it is 100% necessary.

"Whether my senses are reliable or not has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. You are ignoring my main point, which is that the universe most likely exists, and using that, I can show that God most likely exists (as I don't particularly see how the universe could be created without God. If you do, tell me)."

Yes it absolutely does have everything to do with your main point. If your senses are not reliable, you cannot make ANY assumption of likelihood regarding the existence of God or the universe because you have no reference point on which to begin.

Ok. I guess I really started something here. All very philosophical, the whole 'can we ever really know anything' stuff! 'Cogito ergo sum' and all that malarkey...

Personally, I like to put my faith in science. I still believe there is no God. I guess you could argue I can never really know that (although by that logic, you have to admit that the chances of god are very slim), but if I believe it just as I believe there is no Santa or Unicorn. Besides, that whole Unicorn argument falls a little flat for me. On another planet? Come on!? I think we all need to get a grip on reality and admit some things just don't exist, otherwise there is a slim possibility that everything exists! How can we live in a world like that.

Also, I didn't really get the society relied on Religion to progress argument. Was there an argument there? As it seems like you were just saying that because religion was present at the dawn of civilisation, then it must be necessary. Is there actually any proof there?

So I guess going back to my original question, I'm going to take it as a yes that declaring yourself an atheist can really offend people!

Keep at it. This thread is very interesting reading.

Any other atheists feeling victimised for their beliefs?

I personally am an atheist but I never feel victimised for my beliefs. Maybe that's because I react aggressively to being told that I am wrong. I've read Hitchens and Harris and a few books of the Bible so I find myself fully loaded with ammo for the Christians out there who feel inclined to attack my beliefs. I am no New Atheist preacher, though. I don't run around saying that those who believe in God are stupid and I certainly don't say that I hate God because that is absurd for me to say (he doesn't exist in my view.) It has been my experience that if someone comes after me for being an atheist all I have to do is ask them why God allows young children to die painfully of cancer or starvation if he is really such a nice guy. A flawed argument I realize but most people don't know that. :)

Has anyone here read His Dark Materials? The series presented the rather interesting idea that God does in fact exist, however he has not always existed. He simply arose from Nothing(through processes as yet unidentifiable and incomprehendible to our simple human minds) before the rest of us and claimed he had been there all along.

@Eden: I don't think it was possible for the universe to form on it's own. That is why I believe in God. That has nothing to do with my senses.

@CM: I don't believe in what I'm about to say but someone could present this argument so here it goes: Are you sure the universe exists? Just because you see it doesn't mean it exists because as we have already established that your senses are fallible. I feel that it is a poor argument but that's what you'll get from your statement.

The way I see it, the lack of a definitive explanation behind the creation of the Universe is the last barrier to be removed before religion can be fully dismissed. Before the theory of evolution was developed, the complexity and variety of life on earth was used as a valid argument in support for the existence of God. Before the Miller-Urey experiment provided a (possible) explanation as to how organic materials may have arisen on earth without the intervention of God, the lack of an answer to the question of earth's organic beginnings served to demonstrate the "necessity" of God's existence. Once we have a decent explanation of how what we perceive to be "something" could have arisen from what we perceive to be "nothing" (which could arrive sooner than expected, what with the LHC and everything else), religionists will have very little to fall back on.

Of course, that doesn't mean there won't still be hordes of people insisting that science can't account for everything.

Just as an asides; as I mentioned earlier, my wife is a Catholic. However, I'm pretty sure if I asked her to explain the Holy Trinity, The Assumption or why Christ died for our sins, I very much doubt she would be able to articulate these fundamental theological beliefs. In fact, I think I have a better grasp of the bible than her and she spent every Sunday of her youth attending church!

@Turi: We've established that my senses COULD be fallible. Now the universe obviously COULD be just in my mind. Now my senses could be fallible but the universe could be real at the same time, while for the universe to be fake, my senses would have to be fallible. So if establish the odds of my senses being fallible at 50%, then the odds of the universe not existing would have to be less than 50% which means it is safe to assume that the universe is real (although it is still possible it isn't).