One of the delights of OLO - the gift that keeps on giving - is the insight it provides on the way in which people think.

"What" they think is fascinating enough. But the never-ending flow of insights into the process that delivers that outcome, is priceless.

Trav is my latest hero in this educational process.

>>To prove my point on a practical level, allow me to provide two examples... these same atheists REGULARLY come up with all kinds of ridiculous old canards...<<

And we get two examples.

>>Religion is a primary cause of war and/or most wars are caused by religion and therefore the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion<<

A canard? That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable, let alone be a "canard"?

Even leaving aside outright war for a moment, how can anyone dispute that for several hundred years Europe was a permanent battleground between Protestant and Catholic? Talk the wrong talk in the wrong Belfast pub, and tell me religion isn't divisive. Try being Sunni in a Shiite country, or a Shiite in a Sunni country, and tell me that religion doesn't put lives in danger, every day.

So in what way, pray, can you even remotely object to the notion that - and I quote you exactly, "the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion"?

Canard? You are kidding.

And the other?

>>A historical Jesus never existed.<<

It may be that you mix in the sort of circles where atheists say this all the time. I don't. Most of my acquaintance have a completely open mind on the subject. (Which is of course one of the true delights of atheism: the open mind)

Thing is, though, it is totally irrelevant to atheism-the-concept, whether he did or not.

After all, he only represents one aspect of one religion. There are all the other gods that we - and you, by the way - don't believe in either.

A brilliant response as usual, Pericles.

And a timely one too considering I haven’t found the time, not to mention the motivation (which has been waning in recent days) to respond with a line-by-line rebuttal that covers every point.

Trav,

One clarification I should make is that reason, in itself (when correctly applied to logical absolutes), is infallible. Our ability to apply it is not.

But eventually we do get there with a little trial and error and in fact; religion has been one of the predominant forces throughout history that has proven itself to hold us back from applying our reason to logical absolutes correctly - ironically.

Everything we enjoy, in our civilised modern society, we have thanks to evidence and reason; which makes you sound very ungrateful considering what little credit you give it. But that’s understandable when one takes into consideration that your worldview is derived via means that do not adhere to it - I’m sorry to say.

You scoff at reason, yet you provide no other alternative. So I’m genuinely interested in what you think a viable really alternative is.

What is it?

Or do you think that it is by pure dumb luck that we have achieved everything that we have?

I’m curious. Do tell.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but is a long way from reality does that make the argument… far canard?

Atheism is the new "religion".

And like all those before it, it must attack and crush its rivals.

Thankfully since their potential fanaticism is based on "nothing", hopefully we'll be spared the inquisitions and witchhunts, since "nothing" isn't much of motivating force.

We won't be spared the arrogance.

With respect, Pericles, to imply an absence of religion would result in an absence of war -which I accept you haven't strictly done- is to oversimplify the case.
I would suggest the demarcation between religions or religious factions merely serves as convenient pigeonholes, masking underlying causes. I would further suggest the 'Catholic/Protestant' troubles in Ireland are an excellent example.
As I understand it, the conflict began when an English King started to run out of land to award a growing aristocracy, and so started awarding Irish lands (and the attached yeomanry) to Protestant nobles. The indigenous Catholics were -I think rather naturally- a tad resentful.
Likewise the current war in Iraq could be classified as a religious conflict, as it was nominally an act of reprisal for a Muslim atrocity by a supposedly fervent Christian President, but does anyone really believe that?
It is rather peculiar that religious war mongers so often stand to benefit in more material ways.
The wonder of the Bible is that anyone can find something in it to justify almost anything.
As to 'Shockadelic' (and Yuyutsu), call me an old pedant, but nothing annoys me more in these discussions, than people who use totally arbitrary definitions for common words. Yuyutsu insists on her own definition of the word 'religion', which is simply an extension of the 5 year old's unbeatable argument: “I don't care what you say, I'm right and you're wrong, so there nyah!”
Anything Yuyutsu likes or approves of is 'religious', and anything Yuyutsu doesn't like is apparently irreligious.
Now Shockadelic comes out with 'the old canard' that Atheism is a religion.
For the record, I'm happy to accept this definition from dictionary.com:
“-a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
By this -or any, that I am aware of- definition atheism, in and of itself, can never be described as anything like a religion.

i agree with shokkers
athe-ism..[not only contains theism in its name]

but look close at grims definition

""“-a set of beliefs""

say no more
what is religeon but faith in a certain belief[creed]

set of beliefs...""concerning the cause,
nature,..and purpose of the universe,""

personally i fel thats giving ignorant athiests an easy out
you dont actually need to prove your vieuw...""as to cause
nor the nature and purpose...of the universe''

..this serves the god haters an easy out
let their high priests be quoted
klet their highpriests explain

lol

by any other name
you got yourself a belief systemised
upon basic faith..of non god creation
[but cant validate your beliefs...thus get to use the name calling of radicles even as the autordoxy/proxey....calling others deniers]..

""while only holding a faith especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,""

..'"usually involving devotional and ritual observances,""

god free ritual/creed...recognising othwer lesser gods like elders..or the land..or mother nature..[anything but the one true good/god]

>>""and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs.”

statute law...
like criminalisation of drug users
but bailouts for bankers
grants for greenies

By this definition atheism,
in and of itself,can be described
as..being egsactly..like a religion....

ahh men

in the beginning waas a huge bang

[let there be light
let the firmament arise..from the waters]

let the beasts emerge from the seas
cold/blood fish..into warm/blood mammal..lol

and let them breed a-like

let like produce like
except...when it evolves into not-like....lol

realise atheism
is a neo form of religious zeal-outry
the belief you have when you got no belief...lol