The God Delusion discussion

Shaun wrote: "Plus, the question specifically mentioned disagreements that had been resolved, so that both science and religion are now in agreement. Such as Heliocentrism, the causes of natural phenomena like ..."

I have replied to this more than once, you did not seem happy with my reply. Since then I have asked you a couple of questions which you have not answered. May be you missed them may be you do not have an answer.

But I will ask one of them again, this statement....

in every single historical case where science and religion were once in conflict but are now in agreement, it has always been the scientific view that was accepted by both sides.

....which as I said I replied to; what is your reason for wanting an answer to it anyway, what were you trying to prove. Your statement is a non-question. If, instead of giving you a reply I said I am not able to think of an answer, have you then somehow proved that there is no god?

he's not trying to prove there is no god, thats not the purpose of the question. He made a statement, he gave examples to back it up, You then stated that he was wrong, and have as yet to provide an example to back it up,. Provide an example for something that in the past religion and science have disagreed on and that they now agree on for which the religious answer is the one accepted by both groups. Do that, and we'll drop it. If you can't, then retract your claim that such a thing has happened. Your initial reply was "creation" which, as was pointed out, is not an example at all, as the jury is still out, and both groups don't agree on it.

This is simply another example of you making a claim and not providing evidence to back it up.

Also, you haven't answered shauns question about when he claimed to have absolute knowledge.

Hazel wrote: "he's not trying to prove there is no god, thats not the purpose of the question. He made a statement, he gave examples to back it up, You then stated that he was wrong, and have as yet to provide a..."

absolute knowledge? I don't recall that one, but if he has then I guess you will have put him right about that.


I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy.

cs wrote: "I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy."

Let me ask this: Is it even possible that it's not a good example at all and you are simply mistaken in thinking it is? Is it possible that it isn't that we're bad at accepting examples, but that there are no good examples?

I know you'll avoid these questions, but I'll ask another anyway. Is it possible that you are wrong about there being a god and just don't realize it?

[Before you jump to your go-to move and avoid the question by trying to flip it over and ask us the reverse, please bother to read any of the many posts we have made that already answer this question.]

cs wrote: "absolute knowledge? I don't recall that one, but if he has then I guess you will have put him right about that.

you can't even retain internal consistency, YOU accused Shaun of seeming to have absolute knowledge. He challenged you on it.


I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy. "

I don't think its an example at all of something that religion and science once disagreed on and now agree on, never mind both parties accepting religion as the correct answer. Both parties do not agree on it, thus it is not an example of the sort that shaun asked for.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy."

Let me ask this: Is it even possible that it's not a good example at all and you are simply mistaken in th..."

ah, Daniel, let me bring you up to speed, on a seperate thread cs agreed that theres a chance that he could be wrong, but he says its a good answer in the absence of anything better.

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy."

Let me ask this: Is it even possible that it's not a good example at all and you are simply..."

Why does there need to be "an answer" right now? Why make something up just so you have something to answer it with even if there's no reason at all to believe it's actually the right answer?

I appreciate the general civility of this discussion, which isn't always easy when discussing religion. I've read Dawkins book and found it really interesting and well argued, but utlimately unsatisfying. For one thing, Dawkins seems to take on straw men. There are many serioius people of faith, for example, who don't believe the Bible is history, biography or factual information, but who see it as a record of the effort of humans over a long period of time to explain their sense that the world is greater and more mysterious than they are able to understand - and are able to find wisdom and poetry in these ancient texts. Scientists, of course, are just as full of wonder. But science necessarily has to deal with the things that can be measured, can be accurately reproduced and quantified. (And science, like religion, has created its own set of horrors - the atomic bomb, the Tuskegee experiment, the Nazi Mengele, to name just a few.) And sometimes, it too has to move beyond what can be considered through reproducible experiment. String theory, for example, is a curious new exploration for scientists because it seems to be very real to a lot of researchers, but is bizarre, inherently unpredictable (since it includes the idea that simple observation of "strings" can make them behave differently), and may be unprovable. While I accept the argument that Dawkins makes that someday there may be a way to prove string theory, or what set off the big bang in our universe, or the theory of multiple universes which is so interesting to many scientists now, I find it unlikely that it will ever be able to understand everything, an idea that Dawkins seem to support. I'm an agnostic (that much maligned word!) because it seems unlikely, if not presumptuous, that an animal with a 6 pound brain on the third planet from the sun in an insignificant solar system, in an average sized galaxy, in a vast universe, perhaps multiple universes, will ever be able to explain all the possible levels of reality beyond its own concrete one. In other words, I choose not to be an atheist because I think in general it's healthy to leave a lot of "don't know" in my thinking, to leave the possibility open that there are levels of reality my 6 lb brain can't quite grasp. I don't see much benefit in being "positive" that there is a god or positive that there isn't. It's inherently more interesting to me to live in the cracks between two kinds of certainty.

cs wrote: "If, instead of giving you a reply I said I am not able to think of an answer, have you then somehow proved that there is no god? "

No, since that was never the focus of the claim, but I *will* have proved that you are willing to take a stance on an issue without having *any* evidence to back up that stance.

Which, frankly, is a strangely irrational habit to have.

****

Creation is a fine example?

How does it remotely fit the criteria of the original statement?

The only way that it could would be if science and religion have now agreed over the root cause of creation, and the scientific concensus is now that a religious creation story is actually the correct explanation.

Are you suggesting that is the case? No? Then what *are* you suggesting?

cs wrote: "absolute knowledge? I don't recall that one, but if he has then I guess you will have put him right about that. "

Dude, it was only yesterday, can you not remember that far back? Let me refresh your memory.

Shaun wrote: "we can't "know" absolutely that there isn't a god that created everythingy"

cs wrote: ".... but you seem to know absolutely.. "

Shaun wrote: "Really? Where have I stated that I know, absolutely, that there is no god?"

cs wrote: "absolute knowledge? I don't recall that one"

Zoe wrote: "I choose not to be an atheist because I think in general it's healthy to leave a lot of "don't know" in my thinking, to leave the possibility open that there are levels of reality my 6 lb brain can't quite grasp. I don't see much benefit in being "positive" that there is a god or positive that there isn't. "

Do you do the same for gravity? Are "agnostic" about it because a negative can't be proved? Do you prefer to live in the cracks between certainty on it because it's more interesting?

Are you agnostic about tiny elves being responsible for every mysterious kidnapping in the world? No one can prove that they aren't, after all. Wouldn't that mean we have to surrender to the mystery of it and pretend that there's a 50% chance that tiny elves are responsible for every mysterious kidnapping in the world?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that if someone asked you, you would say that gravity is real and the child-stealing elves are not. I don't think that if one person suggested that people kidnap children and another suggested that tiny elves do that you would say there is equal probability that people or elves are to blame. I think you would simply say that people kidnap children unless/until there was some reason to think some mysterious elf clan was real and involved. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's nothing else for a reasonable person to do, is there?

So why the double standard? Why have one standard for every area of your life and a separate one for this issue?

Zoe wrote: "It's inherently more interesting to me to live in the cracks between two kinds of certainty."

I think you've misunderstood atheism. Atheism is not certain. It simply makes a reasonable assessment based on the information we have. It recognizes that we can never be absolutely certain about anything but that we have to live according to the information we do have. If a person can do that with a little honesty, then the choice becomes both simple and obvious. Not easy (social and cultural barriers abound), but simple.

Zoe,

You might find this thread interesting.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I think creation is a fine example, but any example I give will not satisfy."

Let me ask this: Is it even possible that it's not a good example at all and you are simply mistaken in th..."

Well, I have read most of the posts here, from where I come in anyway and I have already answered these questions, if not here then on the Angels and Demons thread.

I don't know why you think I would not answer them.

It's possible it's not a good example and it's possible I'm wrong.

It's also possible that it not a good answer to you because you are looking at it from an atheists point of view.

cs wrote: "It's possible it's not a good example and it's possible I'm wrong.

It's also possible that it not a good answer to you because you are looking at it from an atheists point of view."

Well, lets explore those possibilities.

How does creation remotely fit the criteria of the original statement?

The only way that it could would be if science and religion have now agreed over the root cause of creation, and the scientific concensus is now that a religious creation story is actually the correct explanation.

Are you suggesting that is the case? No? Then what *are* you suggesting?

cs wrote: "It's also possible that it not a good answer to you because you are looking at it from a reasonable point of view. "

FTFY

I don't understand how someone can be so scared of admitting that they're wrong. I mean we're all capable of digging ourselves into a hole, but there comes a point where you simply have to admit that you were wrong.

The answer "creation" does not meet the criteria that Shauns question set out. This is demonstrably the case, this has been repeated several times on both this thread and the other thread. Is there going to be a point when you accept that you have provided an answer that does not satisfy the criteria requested?

Zoe wrote: "I appreciate the general civility of this discussion, which isn't always easy when discussing religion. I've read Dawkins book and found it really interesting and well argued, but utlimately unsat..."

I do agree with you and you have explained the science/god thing better than I have done. I am a little more to the right of the fence and for me the creator option makes more sense, partly because I do not want to 'not know' why we are here and science, I guess on a 24 hour clock is 23 hours,59 minutes and 58 seconds away from an answer.

A few atheists here do come across as agnostic to me.

Hazel wrote: "I actually found the messages relating to shauns question, and summarised at the top of this page. You haven't asnwered him. Lets not move on until you've answered him.

Quotes: using a quote to ma..."

You are sounding like a politician, and that's a sort of compliment.

cs wrote: "for me the creator option makes more sense, partly because I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

The difficulty there is that unless you have a very specific view of what that creator is, and it's motives, then you *still* do not know why we are here.

And how do you know the motives of your mystery creator? Unless of course you subscribe to a specific religion that tells you who it is and what its motives are (something that you have previously denied) or the creator has spoken to you directly and clarified the situation, which I don't think is the claim you are making.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "It's possible it's not a good example and it's possible I'm wrong.

It's also possible that it not a good answer to you because you are looking at it from an atheists point of view."

W..."

I thought so, you are asking but not answering.

I'm here because my parents did the nasty approximately 31 years and 8 months ago.

Hazel wrote: "I don't understand how someone can be so scared of admitting that they're wrong. I mean we're all capable of digging ourselves into a hole, but there comes a point where you simply have to admit th..."

Am I allowed four goes? I hope so. You are doing a Shaun, also not answering.

As for criteria I think it does satisfy but I am looking at it from my side not yours. And anyway what is the reason for setting this criteria in the first place?

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "I thought so, you are asking but not answering. "

Answering what? What did you ask?

And yes, I'm asking - because you have still not really answered the question - merely responded to it with a glib one word answer which does not appear to actually answer the question.

I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning as to how "creation" answers the original question. Maybe it *is* a good answer, and I'm just misundertanding you. I'm offering you the chance to explain, to clarify, to expand your answer. To promote understanding in others, to try to change the mind of your reader with the power of your intellect and mastery of communication.

So, please:

How does creation remotely fit the criteria of the original statement?

The only way that it could would be if science and religion have now agreed over the root cause of creation, and the scientific concensus is now that a religious creation story is actually the correct explanation.

Are you suggesting that is the case? No? Then what *are* you suggesting?

the criteria, cs, are that
a) it must be soemthing that science and religion disagreed on historically. Ok, check
b) it must be something that science and religion now agree on. nope, not happened
c) if the answer is agreed on by both science and religion, the religious answer must be the one both groups have accepted as correct.

So, it fits the first criterion, but it doesn't meet the second, and by dint of this, does not meet the third. There is no opinion about this, it either fits the criteria, or it doesn't, and it demonstrably does not.

I'm amazed you are asking what reason there was for settingt he criteria in the first place, as it was your claim - that shaun was wrong in his assertion that every historical example of a case of something that religion and science have disagreed on previously, bu that now agree on, has in every case ended with both parties accepting the scientific explanation as correct - was incorrect. So because you challenged this, shaun asked you to provide an example of when something was previously disagreed about by the two groups, and is now agreed on by the two groups, and that has the religious explanation as the accepted explanation. You have as yet, failed to do so.

Seperately, what am I not answering? If theres a question I've missed, please remind me of it.

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "for me the creator option makes more sense, partly because I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

The difficulty there is that unless you have a very specific view of what that cr..."

I was specific in what I thought god was/is but that may have been on the other thread. God would be unimaginable. But if a person believes Jesus was who he said he was then one would believe in the god he spoke about.

cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "for me the creator option makes more sense, partly because I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

The difficulty there is that unless you have a very specific view..."

So, you have a god that you cannot imagine? You thus have no idea of its motives in creating the world?

How does that help you with your desire to "not want to 'not know' why we are here..."

we covered that in the last thread too. You claim god is impossible to understand, and then contradict yourself by asserting that god is the abrahamic god, and is the father, the son and the holy spirit. How can you claim god is impossible to understand and then give a definition to god?

WHo did Jesus say he was?

Hazel wrote: "the criteria, cs, are that
a) it must be soemthing that science and religion disagreed on historically. Ok, check
b) it must be something that science and religion now agree on. nope, not happened
..."

....every historical example of a case of something that religion and science have disagreed on previously, bu that now agree on, has in every case ended with both parties accepting the scientific explanation as correct....

But you nor Shaun have said what that statement is trying to prove, regardless of what criteria is set?

Not being Shaun, I can't say for certain what he was "trying to prove", so instead of trying to hypothesise what his intentions were, I'll let him answer. I was just interested in seeing you answer the question instead of avoiding answering it. You still haven't given an answer that fits the criteria, by the way.

Still not answering the question I see.

cs wrote: "But you nor Shaun have said what that statement is trying to prove, regardless of what criteria is set?"

That's largely irrelevant at this point. Originally, it was to demonstrate one very good reason for backing a scientific answer over a religious one.

Now, at the time, you could have ignored the statement. Or, you could have declared it irrelevant.

Instead, you chose (nobody forced you) to refute the statement, to declare that it was not so.

In the face of such a declaration, that runs counter to every thing I know about the history of science, I feel justified in asking for your evidence.

Its an easy task, surely? My statement was so broad that a single relevant counter-example that fits the criteria is all you need.

It's too late, now, to claim that it is irrelevant, or that the criteria are unfair. You made an assertion based on the given criteria. You were called out to back up that assertion and have not, as yet, been able to do so.

So, as of now, what is the statement trying to prove? Its trying to prove (and currently succeeding) that you made an assertion about science/religion that you cannot factually support. That you pulled a disagreement out of thin air based on what you felt should be so rather than what provably is.

So, either admit that you have no evidence, or provide your evidence. It has already been explained, at least twice, why "creation" does not fit the criteria even remotely, unless you can explain:

How does creation remotely fit the criteria of the original statement?

The only way that it could would be if science and religion have now agreed over the root cause of creation, and the scientific concensus is now that a religious creation story is actually the correct explanation.

Are you suggesting that is the case? No? Then what *are* you suggesting?

Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "for me the creator option makes more sense, partly because I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

The difficulty there is that unless you have a very spec..."

It does. Because either there is a God or there is not. If there is not and you are correct then I guess we will never know that you were correct. But if there is, then trying to prove god does not exist, which is what atheists here are basically doing will not alter things.

This scenario could be compared to the 'speed of light'. Science says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But it then says that distorted regions of spacetime might permit matter to reach distant locations in less time than light could in normal or undistorted spacetime.

So science is allowed 'speculation' in these matters. This is what allows more investigation to find the evidence that atheists need before they can accept.

But if someone speculates about there being a god this is wrong to the atheist yet the scientist who speculates about the speed of light gets the thumbs up.

No. Your reason given for wanting there to be a creator was because "I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

But if you then postulate an unimaginable god, who must needs thus have unimaginable motives for his creating, how does that help you to know why we are here?

It merely gives you an answer for "how", not "why" - and even the "how" is pure speculation without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I'm just pointing out that your allaged reason for believing in a creator doesn't hold up to the most cursory scrutiny if your god can't be imagined.

cs wrote: "But if someone speculates about there being a god this is wrong to the atheist yet the scientist who speculates about the speed of light gets the thumbs up."

Just using the same word for both doesn't make them the same. Do you really not understand how these two are totally different? (I'll give you a hint: One has math to support it.)

Did science say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light or nothing we know of (yet) can travel faster than the speed of light? Science rarely talks in absolutes as science "knows" that knowledge is provisional.

Shaun wrote: "No. Your reason given for wanting there to be a creator was because "I do not want to 'not know' why we are here"

But if you then postulate an unimaginable god, who must needs thus have unimagina..."

is pure speculation without a shred of evidence to back it up.

That's an Oxymoron
Dictionary: speculation; Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "But if someone speculates about there being a god this is wrong to the atheist yet the scientist who speculates about the speed of light gets the thumbs up."

Just using the same word fo..."

Tell me the formula then.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means" Inigo Montoya

ox·y·mo·ron   [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA
noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] Show IPA, ox·y·mor·ons. Rhetoric .
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

The idea of an indefinable god that can give you the reason for everything fits the bill better.

spec·u·la·tion   [spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2.a single instance or process of consideration.
3.a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4.conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5.engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.

I think definition 4 is the relevant one. However, this is simply more avoidance tactics, in which you point out the error in semantics, instead of answering the question or addressing the issue at hand.

Hazel wrote: "Not being Shaun, I can't say for certain what he was "trying to prove", so instead of trying to hypothesise what his intentions were, I'll let him answer. I was just interested in seeing you answer..."


Shaun has made a statement

I also stated that I believe in a god.


For some reason I need to prove my statement to be true, yet Shaun does not have to.

I am required to give an answer to his statement to disprove it.

So does the same rule not apply. He should disprove my statement.

Because I have not given you an answer that you both require does not make my disagreeing any less valid.

cs wrote: "Because I have not given you an answer that you both require does not make my disagreeing any less valid. "

It does call your credibility into question, though. At the very least it makes it look like you make statements (regarding facts) without bothering to have a basis for them.

when has shaun made a statement for which he has not provided evidence? I was there for these conversations too, Shaun backed up what he said with evidennce.

We not asking you to prove your statement true, we're suggesting that if you wish to make a statement, you should be prepared to back it up. At least present your evidence for edification. If you don't wish to do this, stop making the statement where people who will ask for you to back it up will see it. Believe what you want, as long as it makes you happy, and hurts no-one else, but if you're going to make the statement of belief where others see it, if you're going to make that claim, you have to be prepared for people to ask you to back it up.

You are not required to give an answer to disprove his statement, you are asked to provide evidence for your statement. He made a statement, he gave evidence. You stated that you felt he was wrong, and he asked you to justify why. You gave an answer that did not justify your statement that he was wrong, Your statement that there is something that was previously disagreed upon by science and religion, and is now agreed upon by both, in which the religious explanation was the one both parties agreed was correct, needs to be backed up, or retracted. Creation does not cut it, as it is not aggred on by both science and religion to be the correct answer, there is no agreement, it does not meet the criteria that you are being asked to provide an example for.

He does not need to disprove your statement, we do not need to disprove that god exists, because we reject the claim, the onus of proof is on you, and other religious people, who are making the claim. We have disproved that creation is a good answer for those criteria, as it quite patently isn't, I will not repeat the reasons again.

If you cannot provide an answer, then no, your disagreement isn't as valid, because you can't explain, with evidence, why you disagree. As such, your disagreement is insubstantial and untenable.

bedtime now, see you later

CS,

What I don't get is why you seem to be trying to use reason to win a debate on these issues.

What's wrong with just admitting that you believe in a god because you want to even though you know there is no good reason to do so?

I don't think anyone is disputing your right to think whatever you want regardless of how unreasonable it is.

Thanks to Hazel for the link. I enjoyed it. You may have guessed, from my posts, that I am not a philosopher or a scientist. I tend to view things from an historical and/or political perspective although I'm admittedly not an expert in these either.

In the video, they discuss the witch hunts of the 15th c. as religious but the historical reality was that they were not about religion per se. They were about the breakup of the Church and the very slight glimmerings of the secular state.

And that's the thing for me - whenever so-called religious events are examined closely, there is always something much more pragmatic happening and it is almost always about economics and who has power and who wants it. That it is done in the name of religion says only that religion makes a great smoke screen.

If, in fact, when viewing any event which is purportedly religious, you take God's name out of the equation ie if you look behind the curtain of religion solely as a separate entity, without discussing what is done in its name, there is nothing but dead air.

Yes, one can argue that religion spawned great art and music but I think I'd be on pretty solid ground if I said that Michelangelo would have been just as talented with or without the backing of the Medicis who were a pretty secular bunch by the way.

And, yes, it can be argued that science has caused great suffering or, more accurately, great suffering has been caused by the use of scientific discoveries. But splitting the atom didn't, in and of itself, cause the bombing of Hiroshima; the discovery could have, and has, been used for less destructive purposes. But, regardless of its use, it can be shown that the atom was, demonstrably split; proving the existence of God, on the other hand, not so much, and I don't see it as the job of atheists to do so - the burden of proof, as far as I can see, lies with the believer.

But, here's the kicker for me. I, as an atheist, can deny religion as loudly as I want and I feel pretty safe in assuming that my portion of the sky, at least, will not come tumbling down upon me (although my neighbours might object). Religious fundamentalists denying climate change, on the other hand, has dire consequences for the planet - just ask the people of the Muldives but you'll probably want to do it quickly.

In other words, and in the simplest terms, science exists regardless of how it is used or whether it is used at all - once you split the atom, you can't unsplit it; religion, on the other hand, has no empirical existence beyond its use. Thus, it seems to me, and here I paraphrase Star Trek (I think), 'Belief is futile'.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Because I have not given you an answer that you both require does not make my disagreeing any less valid. "

It does call your credibility into question, though. At the very least it ma..."

But nobody has said that they are facts. Or proved they are.

Shanna wrote: ""I do not think that word means what you think it means" Inigo Montoya

ox·y·mo·ron   [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA
noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] Show IPA, ox·y·mor·ons. Rh..."

You cannot have 'pure speculation without a shred of evidence'


An oxymoron (plural oxymorons or oxymora) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: ""I do not think that word means what you think it means" Inigo Montoya

ox·y·mo·ron   [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA
noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] Show IPA..."

Got you now, sorry, misread that. I took your second sentence as your definition of oxymoron, which was just above.

Hazel wrote: "spec·u·la·tion   [spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2.a single instance or process of..."

You are listing 4 definition and then picking one you like regardless if it is relevant or not. The relevant definition is the one that applies to the sentence it was in.


It's not an error in semantics, it is using the word as it was intended.

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: ""I do not think that word means what you think it means" Inigo Montoya

ox·y·mo·ron   [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA
noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] ..."

Ok :)

Maxine wrote: "And that's the thing for me - whenever so-called religious events are examined closely, there is always something much more pragmatic happening and it is almost always about economics and who has power and who wants it. That it is done in the name of religion says only that religion makes a great smoke screen."

Reza Aslan makes this case (compellingly) regarding terrorists. He might even be right. The interesting thing is that even if he is right, all he has succeeded in doing is proving that no one actually believes in their holy books, not that the holy books are not bad.

The great danger of religion is that people might actually believe what it teaches.

I acknowledge that most only pay it lip services, but also think that in doing so, they provide cover for people who teach what the books actually say (whether they believe it themselves, or, as you suggest, that they don't).

Teaching people to have no respect for facts is dangerous. This is fundamentally a teaching of the religious right (climate change, evolution, etc). The really sad part is that this is not even among the top 100 dangerous things taught in holy books. The Bible and Koran are filled to the brim with hateful, horrible, monstrous immoral beings and they are constantly rewarded for their monstrosity. Oh, there's beautiful poetry in there, too. No doubting that. But you don't need to actually believe anything in those books to appreciate the poetry.

Like I said, you might be correct that the people who use religion to do terrible things don't actually believe what they're saying, but does it really matter? They still create a world where people are taught to believe in and do horrible things. And none of that has any bearing on whether or not the abrahamic holy books (in particular) are full of evil teachings.

My issue with the argument that religion is a smokescreen is that it requires us to believe that a book that teaches (for example) that women should be stoned to death for being raped and the leaders who teach that from that book and the people who carry out those things because it's in that book all do so without there really being any blame on the book itself or the teachings of the book.

Surely somewhere along that line of events (book to leader to executioner to society that allows/condones it) some blame should be placed at the feet of those horrible teachings (the book and religion itself).

cs wrote: "But nobody has said that they are facts. Or proved they are. "

So you're saying we shouldn't actually believe anything you say unless you explicitly say that you "intend the remarks to be truthful"?