Yuyutsu,

As much as I don’t buy a lot of what you say, no-one can accuse you of not being thoughtful. One point though…

I never said that a claim becomes less accurate because a religious person made it.

In regards to supernatural claims specifically, there are atheists out there who make claims about the healing powers of crystals and other such nonsense. But these people aren’t affiliates of groups that lobby to legislate against the interests of the majority and nor have they acquired themselves a privileged and unearned status in society that gives them an unbalanced ability to enforce their dogmatic beliefs onto the general population. So until they do, I’ll leave them alone.

Saltpetre,

I think you’ve very much missed where I’m coming from.

<<You stated "the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?" But, you have it back to front and confirm this in your following "The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become.">>

So are you now just saying that religion was a necessary foundation? The rest of your response to me would suggest otherwise but if so, then why have you dodged my challenge to name a benefit that could not have possibly come about through secular means?

<<…religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork … and now a growing segment of society feels less need for the reassurance of religion - but it is development that has enabled society's relative comfort and complacency…>>

Groundwork for what exactly? And more to my point, why couldn’t this groundwork have possibly been laid by non-religious means?

<<You state, without any real foundation, that a world without religion is both possible and preferable.>>

Not quite.

I only said that “broadly speaking”, the statistics “suggested” that a world without religion would be preferable.

I wasn’t making an absolute statement and if you want to assert that this world would not have been possible without religion, then please tell me what religion has provided that could not have possibly come about another way?

Continued…

…Continued

But since you reject every “foundation” I provided (without any foundation ironically), what do you consider a “real” foundation..?

<<I'm afraid there would be a few billion people who would strenuously disagree.>>

Oh, an argument from numbers. How fallacious. So consistent trends and statistics are not “real” foundations for a point-of-view but strenuous disagreement is?

<<Your predisposition to refer to age-old conflicts…>>

It’s a “predisposition” of mine, is it? Well we could use the decline in intolerance and segregation in Western societies if you’d prefer? I’d be willing to bet that racism and homophobia are at an all-time low in those countries where religion is in rapid decline.

It all helps to support my argument.

I like how you threw in the “age-old” bit too. It makes is sound as though it’s irrelevant despite the fact that being age-old is precisely what makes it relevant to my point.

<<… clutching at hollow straws to support an insupportable criticism of the constructive role religion continues to play in the lives of billions of followers in a multitude of denominations worldwide.>>

I haven’t criticised the “constructive role” religion has played in the lives of billions and nor does such a role necessarily negate what I’ve been saying. I have, however, highlighted the not-so-constructive role of religion to put your rose-coloured view of its role in this world into context.

<<You ply your obvious vindictiveness towards Christianity to encompass all the world's religions in your irreligious zealotry, and it serves you no favour.>>

If you could point to anywhere where I have been unreasonable than I will cop this criticsm on the chin but until you can, you do yourself no favours by using emotive language to attack someone for raising valid questions simply because you don’t like the answers.

Trav,

I’m really not enthusiastic about covering ground we’ve already covered many times before.

I’m sorry if my “joker” comment rubbed you the wrong way, but I had a skim through the PDF and was pretty unimpressed by his inability to understand the arguments of Sam Harris et al.

<<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?>>

I don’t doubt that and I even gave some reasons that I know of from experience as to why that is so. What’s your point?

And evidence? I said, “I’d be willing to bet”, for a reason. You’re only asking because it’s something that would be impossible to gather evidence for.

<<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.>>

Pure speculation that, again, goes against what we observe to be the case.

<<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.>>

I’m sure you can, but it doesn’t change what I’ve said nor the stats that I’ve provided.

Not only can our behaviour as individuals be quite different to our behaviour in groups, but Joe Blow’s devotion to the soup kitchen every Saturday morning doesn’t necessarily stop him voting to discriminate against gays, promoting gun ownership, fighting to have creationism taught in schools and promoting abstinence to his children as a form of contraception, only to forbid his daughter from having an abortion when it fails.

<<But we must remember we are dealing with complex factors here.>>

Exactly, which is why I haven’t offered anything I’ve said as proof that religion is bad for societies, only as a way of countering the claim that we’d be worse off without it.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Regarding your views on evidence for God, a couple of questions: What would convince you of God’s existence?>>

We’ve already been through this twice before.

I don’t have a specific answer for you, sorry. But what I can be quite sure of is that if something like a god - that created all that we see - really did exist, then its greatness would be so overwhelming that belief wouldn’t be required. It wouldn’t manifest in such a way made it appear as though its followers had made it up.

<<…what positive historical evidence would you expect to see [for Jesus’ resurrection]>>

I don’t think such an event could ever leave behind any reliable evidence. Especially since miraculous events, by their very nature, defy our only means of investigating reality; which goes back to my point about god’s poor communication skills:

He sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that we may be saved from himself then disappears, only to talk to people in obscure abstract ways that have other more rational reality-based explanations

It’s completely nuts, Trav, and it’s embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent people like yourself taking this stuff seriously. I look back to my Christian days and want to sink into the floor and I can only hope one day you’ll find out what that’s like.

Dear Trav,

What an excellent question:

"What would convince you of God’s existence?"

For the love of God, Nothing.

Evidence can only be acquired about objects.
All objects are limited.
God is not limited, so God is not an object.
A god that can be shown - is not God!

Evidence could convince me, for example, that the world has a creator; or that Jesus was the son of this creator and that he rose from the dead. Evidence could even convince me that the creator rewards good people and punishes the evil - and I will then say "what a jolly good fellow!"

However, none of that could reveal anything about God.

Any creator is subject to Time - God is not, so if this world was indeed created by some being, then I admit that physically this being would likely be by far stronger, more knowledgeable, more intelligent and more durable than humans. From a material point of view, such a being would be far greater than us, but from a spiritual point of view, this being and us would be equivalent.

AJ,

It is frustrating when you write hard evidence off as “Pure speculation”. This kind of rhetoric may help you win a debate but it doesn’t help thoughtful discussion. You seem fond of evidence, but only when it supports the case you’re making.

When history professors write that less than 7% of wars have been religious wars, I consider this to be relatively few given the billions and billions of people who, throughout history, have been devoutly religious and taken their faith to be the guiding force for their conduct and behavior.

If religion (especially monotheistic religion) is the divisive force that you have claimed it is, then surely we would expect there to have been more religious warring than that!

I detest your implication that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters. That is a claim that I do not see any evidence for.

It’s a similar claim to what OLO user Squeers made recently, and our lengthy discussion concluded with us realizing that we have differing views of what a “thinker” is. Squeers stands by his statement that “The essence of thinking is uncertainty” whilst I claim that his statement is more of an epistemological claim and that thinking itself is an act which is definitely compatible with religious belief (pending evidence/arguments to the contrary which Squeers failed to provide). Do you have any arguments to support your implication here, AJ