AJP,

"If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs." - O

- "Well, yes. That being said, I guess it comes down to lack of evidence for me too." AJP

Their are many kinds of religion [theisms], Jesus "may" have been a historical person with some [borrowed] worthwhile teachings, the Churches differ between themselves. Several forms of Christianity historically have been more political and more warfaring and more wealth hungry than the advice from the Sermon on the Mount. The throne of Saint Peter does seem meek to me. Monarchical "defender of the Faith" from a Palace isn't exactly Shoes of a Fisherman, either.

Historians have plenty of edividence: e.g., how godheads are developed in societies or how tribal socities [Hebrews] promote their tribal god in status in pantheons or how polytheists use yncretion... Amon-Ra. Jesus [C1 CE] can be articulated in terms of his teachings about the Kingdon of God within Massianic missions. Christianity [C2-4 CE], Hellenision of the several "selected" gospels, accretions including Roman religions/cults and the Serapis-Isis godhead.

Type; "secular humanist" + massacre into a search engine and compare this to Christian + massacre --or-- Islam + massacre; to indicate, who old the moral ground in history.

Oliver,

Too be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at in that last post. I don't see how any of that is any sort of solid evidence that a God exists.

I'm also not sure what you're trying to say in regards to your suggested Internet searches.

I searched Google for your suggested terms, but all it did was help to confirm my fundamental point about religion being dangerous. The vast majority of the results were web pages about Islamics, Christians and Hindus massacring each other.

I couldn't find anything about “Secular Humanists” massacring Theists though...

"Too be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at in that last post. I don't see how any of that is any sort of solid evidence that a God exists."

--- My point was we should be not looking for evidence of the non-existence of God:

--- By way of analogy, Bertrand Russell [1952] states we cannot prove the non-existence of a China teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Contrarily, today, with space-craft and powerful radar might be able to prove the China teapot's non-esistence. If not today, what about the thirtieth century CE? [In his essay, Russell cunningly side-steps the issue of technology, by stating, there is no a telescope [in 1952] suffiently powerful to make a determination: A disappointing & slack special condition to be applied by such a great thinker.]

--- Whether we are Theists or Atheists; we should apply a null hypothesis to our Thesis.

"I searched Google for your suggested terms, but all it did was help to confirm my fundamental point about religion being dangerous. The vast majority of the results were web pages about Islamics, Christians and Hindus massacring each other... I couldn't find anything about “Secular Humanists” massacring Theists though..."

--- Good. You found or did not find, as I expected. The record of immoral actions -on the Internet at least- appears greater among monotheists than amongst secular humanists. {provided like terms are used by authors}

--- My belief is that "what is good for the [Theist]goose is good for the [Atheist] gander". Else pt, the Atheist should not just sit and wait for [another's] proof. They should test the existence or subsistence of the alternative proposition. Provactively, will either strengthen their case or lead to revelation. I think the former more likely, though.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I’m reasonably sure that the word “cunningly” in reference to Bertrand Russell’s tea pot thought experiment was not warranted. He could have picked a celestial object that humans may never be able to evaluate at close hand. By the way, a china tea pot orbiting between Earth and Mars is most likely not detectable by any technology in existence today. We are finding it difficult enough in detecting large bodies capable of damaging the Earth if they collide.

Your insistence we as Atheists have some kind of duty to prove a negative is unreasonable as well as being irrational.

The problems with religions are known and they are the important things we should be investigating and reacting against.

David

“ ‘Atheists need to adopt a more investigative approach maintaining and testing tenative hypotheses, as do Theists. Neither, should preach, rather debate the evidence’, says Oliver.”

...”Oliver, that is rubbish.” - AJP

-- Argumentum ad Hominem.

"Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans? The burden of proof lies with the believers. All we have to do is show that they are wrong [sic. tentatively wrong] in their belief. Can you prove to me that Bertrand Russell's Brown Teapot does not exist? Further, I would not even ask you to "adopt a more investigative approach" in proving that it does not exist."

“Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans?" –

--- Antitheists can show that is likely that the Trinity was borrowed from the Serapis godhead, the Gospels were written, 80-120 CE and the parting of Yehwah from the Cannanite El Baal. None of this, of course, proves or disproves the existence, but it does allow for the testing of tentative hypotheses. Proof, better, evidence does not have to definitive. Either party can merely have a conviction.

-- The issue of black or white swans comes from a sub-set of philosophy, relating to the formulation of propositions, called Logic. Bertrand Russell would not formulate a question in this fashion. His approach to subject-predicate forms is different to main stream philosophies, where there are atomic [ultimate] and molecular [connected] cases.

--- Herein, Russell would not say “God exists”. He would take the subject in statement and make it the predicate: xxx xxxx xxxx [god’s attributes]. Thus, now put: Something exists that is omnipresent and omniscient”. Alternatively, “God does not exist” might become, “Nothing exists that is omnipresent and omniscient”. The background radiation from the Big Bang –after Planck Time—would seem to meet the first criterion.

- Space .. TBC

...Cont.

--- “Troy does not exist”. People in the nineteenth century felt that Troy did not exist, until Schlemann produced evidence it could have exist. Perhaps, most archaelogies would say [tentatively] proved.

-- “Atlantis does not exist”. There is growing acceptance Atlantis might have been an exaggerated tale [Homer] based on a real Mycenaean city-state, which sank during a volcanic incident. A peninsular sunk not an island.

The tenet of non-existence can be proven, once something is shown to exist. The tenet of non-existence can formulated into a hypothesis and tested for fallibility. The search for God’s existence, for the open atheist, as a null hypothesis. People can visit celestial bodies in search of tea pots and atheists can study science, history and anthropology, to “try” or “disprove” their positive hypothesis. Just maintaining a positive hypothesis and sitting on it is a poor methodology.

David,

We, today, might not be able detect a teapot ten million kilometres away. But we might a kilometre, from a spaceship. And, if can’t, some more advanced civilization in thirtieth century, very well, might. Wherein; “ We”, would be Russell’s “ancients”. The future civilization 3,952 as us in Russell’s 1952.

Likewise, to people a one, two, three thousand years from now, we would be ancient and say the Gospels of NASA and Carl [Sagan], speak of a gold plate with recorded Whale Song; way, way beyond Sole’s heliosphere. Some people, the Platists, might believe the NASA and Sagan Gospels. Other people might say, “I do not believe in golden plate, yet I am prepared to look holding the plate’s existence in deep space as a null hypothesis: the ‘non-Platists’”. Others might say, I do not believe in golden plate” I am not prepared to look for evidence myself: The burden of investigation rests solely with the “platists”: the “anti-Platists”.

Bert in absentia,

The technology is highly relevant knowledge discovery. Finding and drilling for oil, for instance. Creating condition sets reduces the possibility of falsification… that action is not good science.

Cheers,

O.