Why do people persist with arguing with the author of this article? Argument is about logic and reason – it has certain rules. If these rules are not applied then it goes nowhere and is just talking for its own sake.

His arguments are all based on a fundamental premise that cannot be proven. He himself accepts this. It is based on faith which by definition is a belief that cannot be proven. If his premise cannot be proven then what a complete and utter waste of time it could turn out to be to argue against him as if it could be proven. Wait until his fundamental premise can be proven then argue against the arguments he derives from that premise. Send him back to get proof and then listen to him.

People who continue to argue against him have little integrity. It is unbecoming of human beings to use their rational faculties in such a way. They are not arguing with a rational purpose such as the desire to create a better society. If they truly wanted a better society then they would spend their time on arguing against people who have arguments based on proof.

This guy gets oxygen on OLO only because others lack the integrity to ignore him. He gets published because he gets lots of responses to his articles. That is not a sign that he has anything interesting to say. It is just a sign that people who respond to him are seeking to meet some other need than the creation of a better society.

Phanto

You are right in saying religion is not based on rationality

It's like trying to convince a smoker who doesn't want to quit to
stop smoking. The bottom line is they choose to smoke or believe
in religion because it somehow gets them through the day or the week.

But Religious delusion is a huge threat to the world right now because
it divides countries into warring groups and it must be challenged or
else kept out of Australia and Western countries as much as possible or at least only one religion should be mainly allowed in one country at a time to avoid civil war at some point in the future.

Fundamentalist religions don't marry outside of their religious
groups and so they become huge blood related tribes over time following different laws and dictates to the rest of society.

The world population is ridiculous and threatens the extinction of
many animals including the tiger and the elephant. Religious
laws that won't allow contraception are behind a lot of this.
I see a million people some of them crying in the streets as the
Pope goes by. And I think these people are crazy. They don't
know this man from a bar of soap yet they stand in the street crying
over him.

Religions practice their own form of Apartheid and sooner or later
that practice will lead to conflict. If as you say you want
peaceful communities then religion is the biggest threat around the
world to peaceful communities and is in fact tearing a lot of communities and countries apart as we post online.

Dear David,

It would be nice indeed if Peter joins this discussion. As a religious person and Christian who consistently opposes dumb/literal interpretations of the bible, I think he will also recognise the heresy and absurdity in claiming an existence independent of God. He would likely enrich the debate by using Christian symbols/flavour, yet essentially saying the same.

It matters not whether one declares themselves a bright all-powerful super-star or a miserable clod: either way is an egoistic assumption of separation from God, hence sin. Whether in outright pride or in false humility, theists and atheists alike commit this mistake.

Dear Cherful,

Within the scheme of nature, humans are what humans are: vulnerable and limited indeed. Let humans survive or fail-to-survive, live a short or a long life, all in accordance with their nature - but what's that to you? Anyway, that's getting away from the topic at hand - I am talking about us, you and me, not about the humans we currently assume to be.

What keeps us under the illusion as if 'I am human', more accurately 'I am this particular man/woman', is our bad and irrational habit of enslavement to the genes of that particular body. Consequently, so long as we identify with that body we also consider ourselves to be vulnerable and limited. So long as we do, we'll also suffer when this body is in pain and experience constant horror at that body's unavoidable demise.

Humans are unimportant in the scheme of things anyway (with or without medications etc.) and would be dead sooner or later anyway.

<<As far as life on this planet goes, you and I are certainly not Gods in status we are very expendable.>>

Indeed. from the perspective of life on this planet, we are expendable. Life could go on without us in its ever mechanical way, following the laws of nature. OTOH, as far as WE go, you and I, life on this planet is expendable.

Just as religion is not based on rationality, so is the identification with humans and serving their genes.

Cherful
It is true that religion is a real threat to society and we should do everything in our power to curtail any of its activities which contribute to that threat. Engaging in argument with religious people is a futile waste of time but opposing their activities which threaten the well-being of society is definitely not a waste of time.

Whenever any group tries to change society in their favour they should have to present good arguments as to why that should happen. Without good arguments the changes they seek should be rejected. This is the way a civilised society works. A society which changes its laws or institutions without subjecting the proponents for change to rigorous scrutiny as to their arguments is only asking for trouble. Religious people will never have good arguments because all their arguments begin with a fundamental premise that cannot be proven.

If religious people are exempt from showing the proof of their fundamental premise then so should everyone else – and we should simply give everyone whatever they want. Society would be given over to whoever exhibited the most force. Politicians and all other decision makers should never make changes to society unless reasonable and logical arguments can be made for those changes. If we want to stop the incursion of religion into society or dismantle the hold it already has then we need to force decision makers to adhere to the principles of requiring valid arguments. If they do not then we use our democratic power to remove them from decision making roles.

Challenge politicians as to why they give tax exemptions to religious groups. Challenge them as to why religious rallies should be allowed to impinge on the rights of society to freely move about their city. Challenge them as to why church schools are given government funds. Even challenge them as to why they waste taxpayer’s funds reciting the lord’s prayer before parliament. Form a political party with the express purpose of reigning in the power of religion when it impinges on anything that curtails the freedoms of non-religious citizens.

>>Whenever any group tries to change society in their favour they should have to present good arguments as to why that should happen. Without good arguments the changes they seek should be rejected. <<

Well, this is what all conservatives - including the Catholic Church for the past centuries - have been saying, without explaining who decides what arguments are “good”. I suspect this quote is also what opponents of gay marriage would claim.

>>If religious people are exempt from showing the proof of their fundamental premise then so should everyone else<<

Well, I do not know about “everyone else”, but you certainly would not have much mathematics (and probably not much science and technology) if you asked mathematicians to “show the proof of their fundamental premises” (know also as axioms).

You can prove something only if you can build your proof on some self-evident (for those expected to accept your proof) “fundamental” concepts that cannot be defined, because any definition is built on some other definitions, or concepts that are self-evident; and on some “fundamental premises” that cannot be proved for similar reasons.

So “fundamental” in whatever context means just that: fundamental, i.e. what cannot be derived, even less “proved” from other things.

"This guy gets oxygen on OLO only because others lack the integrity to ignore him," says Phanto. I agree.

That he writes an article but doesn't bother to join in the conversation about it suggests that he, Sells, is rather arrogant.

He obviously thinks that he doesn't have to justify his claims, that what he says is beyond criticism or questioning.

I guess the point is that he can't justify his claims. He has no proof. None. He is used to dealing with gullible people who don't question but, like children and Santa, just believe.

We should ignore him, Phanto, him and Singer!

They are both frauds.