AJ,

You ask me: "please tell me what religion has provided that could not have possibly come about another way?"
= The bible, Koran, Talmud, Jesus, Saint Mary McKillop, Israel..
(Now you'll ask - equivalents possible without religion?)
= Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Hitler ..

You state: "I haven’t criticised the “constructive role” religion has played in the lives of billions.."
But then say: "nor does such a role necessarily negate what I’ve been saying." And then: "I have, however, highlighted the not-so-constructive role of religion..."

To Trav, you put: "... 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."

And then: "... name a benefit that could not have possibly come about through secular means?"

But, I have to counter: What proof Do You offer that society WOULD NOT be worse off without religion, any religion - not just Christianity, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Voodoo, The Dreamtime, etc.?

You have a disposition to pose questions in the form of "could/ could not, possibly....? I can only suggest that anyone can pose a question that no-one can possibly answer, but what does that prove? Prove God exists, or prove God does not exist? Prove planet Earth is the only place in the universe where life exists as we know it, or even in any form? Prove life does exist elsewhere in the universe? Prove that evolution on Earth, and without any external influence, including without any input from any external cosmic matter, completely explains the origin of initial life on Earth? Prove that mankind is the only sentient life-form that has ever existed in the universe? Prove that life of some form did not exist on Earth before what we know as "evolution" even began? Prove that aliens did not help design or build the pyramids? TBC..

AJ, Continued:
You ask:
"Prove" that our world today would have been better, or would have been the same, or would have been worse, with/without the part, any part, religion has played (all religion - including heathen or indigenous ...) throughout the entire span of mankind's existence on planet Earth (as Homo Sapiens)? Why not ask someone to "Prove" that "it will be impossible, always impossible, absolutely impossible, for pigs to be able to fly, under their own power, ever."

So, what is the point of asking such questions? Particularly, when the question you are really asking is "prove to me why I am convinced that Christianity has been a terrible and evil force in the development of society through a long period of mankind's history, and therefore does not deserve any place in modern Earth society, and certainly not the privileged position it currently holds"; or "convince me why I am wrong, or even partly wrong, in this conviction"

You need to answer such questions yourself. For they are a matter of personal belief or conviction, and only your own study and insight will give you the clarification you seek.

Haven't criticised? Does not necessarily negate? All I can answer is I am an alien life-form living on a distant planet outside your solar system, and I have hacked into your Earthly Internet, and I'm sorry but I don't understand your question or interest. Would you like me to pass you on to another Intelligence in another time-phase in our outer galaxy, and Which you seem to refer to as God, and Which may be better able to assist you?

a recuring implied/question seems to be
""There is no "test"..for the existence of God...""

any such test would nessesarilly relate to what we chose to believe..or what we chose to disbelieve..as such it is enough for me to declare my certainties

there is life..
because previously life egsisted
[thus must have lived before/after..the big bang]

man
as clever as he claims to be
has not made life..'appear'..from non life...

and if he ever does..AND WE HAVNT..
then it would still be life...lol..from life

gods sure signs are life love logic light..
[choice/ability/will/good]

these arnt god...
but signs he/she.[life*]..egsists..
[thus they..pre-egsisted]

yes man CLAIMS he made life[by making a short string of dna]
inserting 'it'..into a LIVING cell..
and allowing the cell{bacteria]..
to replicate..

but life is more than just living
life is change...[micro change/micro evolution]
because of smakll changes..some of us speculate big changes

[to wit macro evolution..as in a fish becomming a bear..
or lol a wolf a whale...which is what evolutionists
sustain as fact..but is pure fiction]

but even in these are signs of good[god][..to wit logic
immagination..[see nature of itself is just natural..
the un-natural..that takes god]

there is so much more...*signs'..of good [god]
but those ignorant of the only good cause..

*will invent delusions..not knowing
eVEN within their delusions..
their root cause proves god

not by design
but by sign

AJ,

Reading further in your posts, I realise I should have been more understanding in my responses. Sorry for that. On reflection, I think you may be misinterpreting who we ordinary, imperfect Christians are.

I am unable and unqualified to speak knowledgeably, and Otokonoko has provided a worthwhile insight in his/her post on comments page 6 of the thread on the article titled "The Exclusivity of Jesus" by Peter Sellick. Otokonoko's post is worth a look.

It worried me when you posted the following to Trav:
"He sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that we may be saved from himself then disappears,.. "

Our belief is that Jesus sacrificed Himself for us, being for the world - to relieve us of sin, and to offer us a new and clean beginning. It is a misconstruction to believe that He died just to highlight His existence or His message and His teachings.

Though the church sets a high bar, and sometimes unrealistically so, we ordinary Christians are not homophobic or against abortion, and I don't think the church really expects otherwise, and to my knowledge the church has never been racist.

The church is imperfect, and some of its highest followers have proven to be very imperfect. That is indeed very unfortunate and very hurtful, to all, as it is a betrayal of trust, to all. Everyone is capable of failure and error, everyone of any faith or of non-faith.

I certainly consider everyone to be virtuous of nature, unless they should prove to me to be otherwise. I can only hope that this would be the general Christian view, as the church expects of us.

Trav,

Sorry I frustrated you but after trying to figure out how Saltpetre got to some of his/her conclusions, I was too mentally drained to put much thought and effort into my response to you.

<<It is frustrating when you write hard evidence off as “Pure speculation” … You seem fond of evidence, but only when it supports the case you’re making.>>

No, I’m fond of evidence when it is as objective as possible. The advantage of being a freethinking atheist is that I don’t need to interpret evidence in a way that fits my presuppositions. If I’m wrong, then so be it.

Anyway, speaking of the objectivity of evidence, let’s take a closer look at what you said…

<<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.>>

What YOU would expect? It doesn’t matter what you would expect sorry, Trav. Opinions don’t form evidence; evidence forms opinions.

Which brings us to this…

<<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.>>

YOU consider it to be relatively few? Again it doesn’t matter what any of us would consider it to be.

That aside though, with such Swiss-cheese-model style criteria for what constitutes a religious war, we can be confident that that’s 7% of the wars throughout history that would NOT have happened had we not had religion (and I think I’ve adequately demonstrated that there is no reason to think there would have been more without religion).

The premise of your “evidence” also relies on the assumption that devout religiosity should necessarily lead to a desire for war. War isn’t in the nature of everyone and there are many other ways we can be divisive even when our intentions are good.

Continued…

…Continued

I don’t see why you think one must always lead to the other. You go from, “Only 7% of wars are religious”, to, “It should be more”, then conclude, “So religion is the reason there aren’t more.”

That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there, Trav!

You start with an objective 7% statistic and then built assumption upon assumption on it. I’m sorry, but as well as being objective, evidence can’t contain assumptions. Like with arguments, assumptions can be built on evidence, but it's never the other way around.

Did you ever stop to think that there could be non-religious factors lowering the number of wars? No-one - no matter how devoutly religious - thinks 100% along the lines of their religion in absolutely every aspect of their lives.

But in spite of all I’ve said in the above - even if I was to grant that your evidence was reliable - it hardly constitutes “hard evidence”.

<<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.>>

It’s not so much that they switch their brains off. There are many Christian thinkers, but all the thinking in the world is of little use if you start with a premise that you simply cannot, under any circumstances, deviate from. This is why their thinking usually results in pure sophistry.

<<Do you have any arguments to support your implication here, AJ>>

Yes, I do. Three of them, in fact:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument;
The Ontological Argument;
The Argument from Transcendence.

All of which fall down at their premises and even if the last two didn’t, they can be applied to any mythical being and still work just the same.

Saltpetre,

Sorry, I thought I made it clear enough the first time I asked that I was specifically referring to a benefit, not just anything.

I’m not sure what Hitler has to do with anything, in fact, Hitler probably wouldn’t have been possible without the help of the Roman Catholic Church.

Continued…