.

Dear Dan,

.

Here are my answers to your questions - and I hope, this time, I have not overlooked anything :

« If you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then wouldn't all believers be wasting their time in believing? »

No. I am convinced that “faith”, like “love”, is a powerful human ability. Religious faith is absolutely indispensable to some people to help them through the shocks, difficulties and dramas of life and death. It gives them a reason to live, to endure, and to hope. The fact that there is no god is of no consequence provided they have their faith.

It is their faith that is important, not the existence of a god. It is their faith that can sometimes work miracles, not some god, virgin Mary, or so-called saint.
.

« Wouldn't chatting to them about their beliefs consequently be a waste of time. Maybe you think it worth your time discussing these things for the goal of trying to win some people over to the enlightened position held by you or your fellow unbelievers? I still don't understand why you bother. »

I already answered this question :

« Religious beliefs and biases are present everywhere in our daily lives. There is no escaping them whether we like it or not. We all have to deal with that. It’s better if we try to understand each other rather than simply ignore each other. »

I learn a lot from these exchanges and appreciate them. I hope my fellow debaters get something out of it as well. I approach this with an open mind and consider that nothing is definitive. I cannot speak for the others.

I have no desire to become the mentor or guru of anyone.
.

« And also, why do you find Paley's argument amusing? »

I am sorry if I have offended you in some way, but It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s famous teapot analogy. Like so many others, it seems to me that Paley’s teleological argument is a logical fallacy :

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/design.htm

.

Banjo,
You haven't offended me. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to ask the same question twice. Thanks for making the effort to address these questions. Not surprisingly, I disagree with the angle you take on some of your answers.

I see Paley's watch argument as a powerful analogy. While obviously, you see it as far less, and not something terribly meaningful.

You seem to have respect for religion with regard to the practical benefits it brings believers, such as courage and hope. I too see some of the practical benefits. However, speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. If we're pleasantly living a fantasy or a lie, then we'd rather opt for something else. (I think this was covered in the theme of the well known movie, The Matrix.)

Earlier you spoke of how you thought religion was self serving and designed to bring personal advantage. You said this after I quoted the line,
'it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.'
I would like to clarify that I interpret the 'rewards' spoken of here as being spiritual rather than temporal rewards, such as the peace of knowing truth and seeing the revelation of God himself.

As for religion being a 'trade-off' in order to obtain a desired advantage, this is not my experience. I would say that part of the reason I am a believer comes from the testimony of those I've seen gone before me who gave much sacrificially in love, faithfulness, and loyalty to God without regard to themselves.

You say your not a fan of Dawkins. But the content of the link you put in your last post was quite Dawkinesque, in my opinion.

Did I hear my name being called?

>>It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. In some ways, it's a healthy thing; discussion promotes understanding, I suppose.<<

Hello again Dan S de Merengue.

I obviously cannot speak for other atheists, but I tend to engage with you, specifically, on the topic of young-earth creationism. Contrary to your suggestion that I "come here and discuss religion in some detail", I contribute solely in order to try to elicit from you, as an individual, some idea of how you actually arrived at the conclusion that the earth was formed by someone you call "God", a mere handful of millennia ago. A concept that flies so contrary to that of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who argue for a figure closer to 4.5 billion years, that it must take an extraordinary effort to maintain such a belief for longer than a lunch-break.

The other persona with whom I occasionally conduct a (very one-sided, it must be admitted) conversation is Peter Sellick. In that instance again, I am far more interested in the intellectual gymnastics involved in his articles, than in the beliefs themselves. Which, interestingly, do not seem to fit with any of the other orthodoxies presented here. Including, of course, your own.

In a world of increasingly polarized religious views, understanding in abstract form the dynamics involved in the acquisition and maintenance of religious belief is, I would suggest, a valuable skill to acquire.

For me, there is nothing about religion itself that is at all worth discussing, except for its strange impact on, and hold over, the individual believer.

Pericles,
I'll give you a tip. Science isn't about counting noses. It's not a popularity contest.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote:

« …speaking for myself and most believers I relate with, what we are more concerned with is finding truth. »

If you don’t mind, Dan, you can add me “and most of the non-believers I relate to” to your list. We all share the same objective.
.

You recall:

« … it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. »

I interpret that to mean that God only “rewards” those who place their faith in him. A “reward” is an advantage. If you want that advantage, you have to place your faith in God – which is why I consider that the “raison d’être” of religion is to obtain some advantage, be it spiritual, material or otherwise.

.

You add:

« I would say that part of the reason I am a believer comes from the testimony of those I've seen gone before me who gave much sacrificially in love, faithfulness, and loyalty to God without regard to themselves. »

Naturally, I respect your opinion of the people of whom you speak. You knew them. I didn’t. Though I ignore their particular religious denomination I imagine they were Christians.

In most Christian denominations, heaven, defined as “eternal union with God”, is a reward for the faithful after they die. Judging from the description of the people you mention, the prospect of gaining “eternal union with God” must surely represent an inestimable reward.

What greater advantage could religion offer, particularly if they were reunited, for eternity, with their loved ones ?

While I understand and admire your veneration for these people, IMHO, you may well have known much (but not all) of what they did and said but you could only have guessed, or had a fair idea, of what they actually thought. Nobody could possibly have had access to their most profound, inner motivations.
.

You conclude:

« … the link in your last post was Dawkinesque. »

I prefer Russell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8h-xEuLfm8

.

Banjo,
Those are some very wise words there from Russell. Though I've never read or studied anything from him. He says, let's keep to the facts. So, here are the facts as I perceive them:

There were four gospel writers who have described the life, the teachings, and the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. These accounts have been proclaimed, analysed, and often believed by countless millions over the centuries.

I choose to believe in these accounts as reliable and true. You choose otherwise. There is certainly an amount of faith entered into on my part, for I cannot know everything and the thoughts and motives of all involved.

Yet I deny what you've said earlier about blind faith. Those who have believed upon the message invariably have done so after thoughtful and considered reasoning. While our knowledge is not complete, for we can only see things in part and imperfectly, our faith is not blind. We acknowledge a body of facts, which is consistent with our experience.

Thanks for sharing those words of Russell. Though I don't follow in his path, I do know the facts which form the basis of my trust.