Pericles, Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your post to Trav yesterday, 25th, when you posted the following, which appeared to be in substantial agreement with something AJ posted just before you on comments page 22, and to which I was in process of responding:

"If it helps, let me say categorically that i) I believe that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable, and ii) that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence."

My aim was to try to elevate the discussion away from the bashing of Christianity for an endless procession of age-old conflicts, and bring the discussion into consideration of present day concerns. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that you were then involved in responding to OUG.

My comment meant that the only religious violence of which I am aware currently is mostly between Sunni and Shiia factions, or Taliban against whoever they choose, apart from some bashing of Christians and their businesses here and there. I see these conflicts as being largely internal, and of jealous and covetous origin rather than being of religious origin, save that continuing fundamentalist hatred going on from the Taliban and their like.

I just don't see Christians waging warfare against anyone anywhere anymore, and don't expect to see this change, ever. Why would anyone think otherwise in this day and age? Are people really so worried about the ruckus from some U.S. evangelists or whatever, for that looks like a lot of lobbying for political considerations, and just a lot of hot air, nothing more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My other meaning was that Buddhism, Hinduism and various other moderate religions are seen to be beneficial by their followers, who must number in the billions, and who profess no ill to anyone, quite the contrary. So, where is the great damning religious threat today? Is it only in some people's minds?

Yes, but it only works for spherical christians in a vacuum.

AJ,

Many of your comments are somewhat similar to Pericles, so I’ll only comment on the newer stuff to avoid doubling up with my arguments (unless I only have one brief comment). I’m not interested in discussing with two people at the same time on the same topic.

[If you take one of the motivations/excuses for war and terrorism out of the equation, the chances are the occurrences of those atrocities will drop.

Regardless of what this Vox Day joker, with his Swiss-cheese-model criteria for a war to be considered religious, says.]

What about what the group of history professors who penned The Encyclopedia of War, say? Are they also jokers?

[Sure, some theists don’t take any of the above into account when doing their good deeds but I’d be willing to bet that those people would be devoting their time to charity whether or not they were believers.]

There is strong evidence that the religious give much more to charity than non believers. So what evidence do you have to back up this statement?

This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.

(cont'd)

[Funnily enough, though, every time a study is done on the correlation between religiosity and societal health, religion doesn’t appear to be the positive force you want it to be:]

I can quote you studies that show that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer than the non religious. And that they are good for society by spending their time, both professionally and otherwise, in activities that benefit society.

There was a study a few months ago which quantified the dollar figures of social benefit provided by churches.

But we must remember we are dealing with complex factors here. I would think that the overall structure of a society in terms of its history is also very relevant, and you’d need to map history through hundreds of years to even attempt to figure out those sorts of things. Modern day studies can, at best, show what influence religion or otherwise has in a given place at a given point in time, GIVEN the structure that the society ALREADY has, which of course, could be already positively (or negatively) influenced by religion to varying degrees.

Pretty much all of Western Civilization has a history that is greatly influenced by Christianity and that historical influence remains regardless of how far away some of these societies have shifted in the last 50 years. What will the impact be 100 years from now? That’s the big picture question.

Regarding your views on evidence for God, a couple of questions: What would convince you of God’s existence? In other words, provide me a specific hypothetical scenario that could result in you believing in a God.

And 2ndly, since I’m a Christian: We Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. I, and others, argue that this claim is supported by evidence, to one degree or another. If Jesus DID in fact rise from the dead 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, with all other things being equal, what positive historical evidence would you expect to see

Dear Grim,

I did not claim that atheism is impossible. Of course it is. An atheist may in some cases be more religious than the average believer and vice-versa and I do not claim to be an authority to judge who is more religious than another (I may have an opinion in some cases, just like anybody else, but I could be wrong).

Most religious orders/organizations were initially formed with the intention of promoting religion, e.g. to bring us closer to God. Some were purer than others, some were wiser than others, some made less mistakes than others, but ultimately due to human nature degeneration is inevitable. Two common forms of degeneration are:
1. Seeking worldly power.
2. Attempting to provide information about the physical world.

Knowledge about the physical world is the responsibility of science. Historically, religious orders sadly erred and overstepped their limits by involving themselves with geography, history, astronomy/cosmology, biology, chemistry, even physics.

Much chaff has been added to religious thought over the ages, so sorting is necessary, but there is still a live religiosity-core beneath that chaff and I am often inspired and learn a lot from the teachings of sages and saints of many religious-orders.

Take for example, "consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin", a great lesson of faith, but is it supposed to be a botanical statement? What if science discovers that lilies after all do toil and spin - would that make any difference to this teaching? Should it then become a cause for war? Or what about that guy who constructed a gigantic needle and passed a camel through - does it change in any way the teaching that attachment to possessions is an obstacle to reaching God? Of course not!

A change of pace, at last, thank you Trav.

>>What would convince you of God’s existence? In other words, provide me a specific hypothetical scenario that could result in you believing in a God<<

That's is a superbly silly and pointless question.

There is no "test" for the existence of God.

Even theists can't think of one, despite the fact that they, unlike atheists, actually believe that there is a God.

How you expect someone to do so, without even the advantage of that starting-point, is beyond the realms of silly. It's like asking an intelligent adult "what would convince you of the existence of the Easter Bunny?"

This one is closer to the requirements of normal discourse, though.

>>If Jesus DID in fact rise from the dead 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, with all other things being equal, what positive historical evidence would you expect to see<<

I'd expect some contemporary, first-hand reports, for one thing. Assuming that "rising from the dead" was as unusual an occurrence back then as it is today, it is pretty amazing to find that no-one actually noticed.

Even the tiny fragments of comments by historians, that Christians latch onto with such tenacity when asked to "prove" the existence of Jesus, don't feel it necessary to report the news.

So in the absence of confirmation from a reliable source, it all remains within the realms of legend. One that just grew.

A sort of Robin Hood figure, as depicted by Errol Flynn. Or King Arthur, complete with Excalibur rising from the lake and the quest for the Holy Grail (but not Graham Chapman).

While the baseline characters (Robin, Arthur) are reasonably documented as being actual people, their exploits owe more to romantic idealism than to the establishment of historical facts.

The need for stories like these has been with us for many millennia, and in all likelihood will continue.

Because... we like stories. Our imagination, and the way we use it, is a major part of what differentiates us from the animal kingdom.