and Only A Few in this World can Keep Their Mind from Wandering towards GOD.

Don't talk utter rubbish! Non believers. 10% of 7 billion is 700 million. Only a few?

Not to mention the people that are counted as 'religious' when the only reason they are counted in that group is because they happened to be born there and not because they spend any time wondering about God.

Many of those educated guesses, if using the correct data, often turn out to be correct.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still guesses. At some point we are going to get into trouble because we pilled guess after guess, with each layer of guesses adding more unreliability, until at some point the educated guess stops being educated. Just look at what positivists in social sciences have achieved in terms of theories and how unreliable and abstract they are.

But then we're back to: it's OK to be wrong so long as we correct our understanding after new data is made available.

Quite the contrary. We have reliable evidence that gravity and evolution have taken place. We also have shown light on many areas where God was the previous best explanation, so much so that we are left with a "God of the gaps". With every discovery we learn more and more that the possibility of a deity existing is pure nonsense.

No, we have reliable evidence that if there is a God, his direct involvement in the day to day workings of the universe is not as far reaching as we once thought. That is not the same as having reliable evidence to prove that the whole idea of God is just nonsense.

You say "if" as if there's still a reason to believe that the stories are correct. We have still made no observations that God exists outside the stories of man. Given that we have made no observations in favor of the existence of God, it may as well be nonsense at this point.

Agreed with the exception that there are areas which can't be debunked. It is merely an inability to provide a better physical explanation given the lack of available data from the time frame in question where many of the stories take place. I'm certain that if we had the ability to gather more physical evidence, most of the debates about these "unexplainable" occurrences would not be occurring.

Of course. But we have to realize that we are four dimensional creatures living on what amounts to a speck of dusk in an ocean of space. Our ability to gather physical evidence as well as our ability to comprehend it are inherently limited to a significant extend. Thats not to say that we shouldn't try and gather as much data as we can, but those limitations are something to take into account.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we can't build a foundation from what we have observed, tested, and falsified thus far. While we should always allow for the unknowable, we should be mindful of the data in front of us before jumping to conclusions such as using the supernatural to explain the physical.

Those are excellent questions, and ones that I'm not sure we will be able to answer - but maybe we can given enough time and research. However, just because we cannot come up with an explanation, doesn't mean the default correct answer is the metaphysical or a deity. Again, those are merely explanations used by those that don't know, so they make up an answer. For those questions, I prefer to stick with "I don't know, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't God, given the available evidence on this "god" thus far."

I'm sure that we will find answers on questions like what caused the big bang (pretty sure we already have some pretty good ideas on that). The problem is that one can keep asking this question. And every time we find an answer the question then applies to that answer. There are two ways this can go on, one is that it turns out you can actually ask this question an infinite amount of times and still get new answers, effectively making existence infinite or you reach a point where no more answers are possible making it appear that the root cause did quite literally pop into existence. In both cases I can quite safely insert God and never be proven wrong while at the same time accepting all the physical answers science came up with.

Agreed that each answer proposes more questions. Such is the nature of our existence. However, I'd rather keep looking for those answers than to stop and say "It was God". Sure, you can never be proven wrong, but again, that's not exactly how the natural sciences work. If you say it was God, you must then prove your claim if you want it to be taken seriously as a science. Otherwise you are turning to theology, which is perfectly fine for people that just want to have an answer, but it shouldn't be passed off as empirical fact until observation (science) has proven it.

And again, you make the same mistake of using the god delusion to answer things which we currently don't have an answer for. Sure, saying "God made the rules and God is the reason why everything works as seemingly perfect as it does" is one possibility, but we're back to: what reason do we have to believe this deity exists when we have no representative samples to use, or available evidence to draw upon such a conclusion.

Again, that depends on how you look at it. Scientists also believed that there was this Higgs Boson particle way before they had actually seen it. They inferred its existence because that way all their models made sense. It wasn't until they turned on the LHC that they actually got some more direct evidence of its existence.

The inference was based upon good data, which is why they were able to predict the Higgs Boson. Thus far, there's no reason to apply the same to God as we've still seen no reason (have no available data thus far) to attribute any rational explanations to Him.

One might say (depending on how you look at it) that God is implied throughout the universe, much like the Higgs Boson particle. God is implied in the way there are rules on which everything else rests, rules that go back with every answer you find on the question of how we got to were we are.

To infer that the Universe works the way it does because of the existence of God would be a large jump of a conclusion based upon no available evidence. It is quite likely that there is a perfectly natural explanation for the reason why the Universe works the way it does, and given that we cannot prove that God or the supernatural exists, I'd take a natural explanation over a supernatural one any time. Sure, it would be easy to point to the workings of the Universe and say "that's God", but that would be a theological conclusion and not a scientific one based upon any available evidence.

Agreed, but that is not the case here. A survey is merely polling popular opinion, not evidence of fact or reason. Not to mention surveys are some of the most unreliable data you can gather. This is not, however, a proper comparison of arriving at a conclusion that God doesn't exist.

You just passed off much of what social sciences are based on as 'popular opinion' :P

I don't really have much respect for the social sciences. Sorry. :-/

But no, surveys, if given to a properly representative portion of the population gives you fairly accurate indication to how the population of an entire country answers the questions you asked in the survey. And a sample size does not have to be much more then a 1000 people (though more is obviously better). Of course, the validity of the survey depends on what questions you ask and what you hope to answer with those questions.

Precisely. A survey is only as good as the questions asked, and in my view it is nearly impossible to create a survey without some sort of bias put in by the creators of the survey. As an anecdote, nearly every survey I've taken has never asked the right questions IMO, and I'm always left frustrated because I feel my true voice wasn't heard over whatever it was the surveyor wanted to ask.

But the example was sample sizes and statistics. Sure, the larger the sample size, the better the data. In the current context of our discussion, that still leaves us with a sample size of 1 for life existing and zero for a deity existing. Because of this, we cannot infer that the Universe works the way it does because of the existence of a god.

I'm not sure I can agree that deductive reasoning provides more accurate results. Both logics are tools used to arrive at conclusions, and each tool has an appropriate use. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of deductive reasoning, but there's a reason why it's not always the correct tool for the job. Again, deductive reasoning (or top-down logic) still starts with what we believe we know, and still is fallible once a previously held belief proves to be incorrect, everything under it begins to crumble. Personally, I'd rather build a framework of reality based upon inferred data than assumed data from deductive reasoning. I think deductive reasoning is better suited to situations where we have an excellent track record of data, such as troubleshooting problems.

I suppose I should rephrase my position on this a bit in order to avoid a potential misunderstanding. Like you, I'm a fan of both forms of logic, just a bigger fan of deductive reasoning. You are right, they both have their place in science and gaining knowledge in general. I however am also aware that inferential logic may lead to some misunderstandings or even wrong ideas about a given subject (as you pointed out earlier when I falsely assumed to know your position based on inferential logic).

At least we are coming around to an agreement of some sort. :-D

I'm quite familiar with Karl Popper's work, and his unorthodox approach to the scientific method. I cannot agree with his commentary, particularly on metaphysics, truth, and the origin and evolution of life. I also find his position of tolerance and his regard to show anybody with belief respect (which I agree with him on), yet he refers to Atheism as arrogance. His position seems far more sympathetic toward religion, even though he calls it a myth with a kernel of truth, yet Atheism is simply wrong. He exemplifies yet another incorrect view on Atheism and why the scarlet letter is so appropriately used by Atheists.

No, he referred to some brands of Atheism as arrogance. And honestly I can't really blame him when I see people like Dawkins or Hitchens or their 'followers' go off on Theism or religious people in general. Also, I think Popper was an Agnostic leaning towards Atheism himself.

That wasn't explicitly said as far as I can tell; that he only branded "some forms of Atheism" as arrogance. If he is preaching tolerance, he should have also preached it for Atheism as well. Personally, I like Dawkins and Hitchens, but I wouldn't call myself a mindless "follower" of theirs. Though, given the examples of religious fundamentalism I've seen recently, it is almost understandable why some Atheists might wish to go after the religious. Groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are just asking to be attacked for their brand of hate. You could call militant Atheism an equal and opposite reaction to such extremities, to balance out the equation. Just like the WBC unjustly advocates their views at military funerals, some Atheists attack all religious people in their fervor to counteract what they view as an abundance of fundamentalism. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it seems to be a natural balancing of the equation.

However, saying that, I do believe that most religious people are good people and do not deserve to be attacked.

On a lighter note, to laugh at ourselves and the way the world perceives our views, I thought I'd share the Uncyclopedia's entries on Atheism, Agnosticism, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible complexity, and God. Please note that these links are for mature audiences only. I hope you laugh as much as I did. (The links for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Irreducible complexity show why turning to God for things we cannot explain in the Universe are very incorrect in a humorous way.)

I'd agree also with that view.

But if ET did land on earth one day, one question they might ask is "Why do 90% of you human beings need or want to believe in a god or ultimate being, to have any sort of fulfilling life? None of you have ever seen your god, and you don't even have any proof that he/she/it exists, yet you carry on as if they do by simple blind faith. And added to that you have wars and kill each other because of it. This does not seem logical to us.

I wonder what answer as a planet we would give?

Just to say that the whole 'religious wars argument' is a little silly. Most wars so far have been fought over political and political-ideological reasons. Of course, some wars have been waged over religious disputes, but compared to all the wars and their reasons religious wars do not stand out in any particular way. So ET might just as well ask why we have waged such destructive wars over the question whose piece of real estate was better.

That may be true, but usually such arguments such as "we need their oil" are not great rallying cries. Whereas nothing gets an army on the move like calling it a holy war. Plenty of wars over land and resources have been dressed up as holy wars to get the populace on side. Religion has been used to control people for thousands of years.

Its not a silly argument at all because everything about religion is in opposition to critical thinking. Critical thinking (the best defence against war) undermines religion and is strongly discouraged by believers.

---

Reality Internet Personality

But then we're back to: it's OK to be wrong so long as we correct our understanding after new data is made available.

Yes, but even scientists sometimes have trouble admitting that their pet theories are wrong or so abstract they have no real baring on reality anymore. So for that reason, I prefer to minimize the chance on that happening by trying to go for the right answer from the start. Inferential logic may help you get there, but it does carry a bigger risk of getting it wrong then deductive logic.

You say "if" as if there's still a reason to believe that the stories are correct. We have still made no observations that God exists outside the stories of man. Given that we have made no observations in favor of the existence of God, it may as well be nonsense at this point.

Again, I'd like to point out the Higgs particle. Prior to the LHC experiments there had been no observations of the Higgs particle either, yet a lot of scientists already assumed he existed because it fit so nicely with their models. Of course, you had scientists who were more critical point out that the Higgs particle had never been observed. So, should all those scientists have worked on the assumption that the Higgs particle wasn't a thing?

I have given you reasons for why I believe the idea of God is not so impossible as you say it is. I believe it fairly neatly answers some questions that science cannot answer. At least, not yet. So for now, I'm operating under the assumption that there is a God somewhere out there, and I need proof of the contrary before I discard the assumption.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we can't build a foundation from what we have observed, tested, and falsified thus far. While we should always allow for the unknowable, we should be mindful of the data in front of us before jumping to conclusions such as using the supernatural to explain the physical.

I agree. But then again, this is using God to answer questions that do not have any physical data at all. Once science finds physical data to answer my questions, I will reevaluate and take this into account. Good chance it will change my stance on God once I see a physical explanation for what caused rules to exist. But until then, there is no harm nor fault in operating with the assumption that there is a God.

Agreed that each answer proposes more questions. Such is the nature of our existence. However, I'd rather keep looking for those answers than to stop and say "It was God". Sure, you can never be proven wrong, but again, that's not exactly how the natural sciences work. If you say it was God, you must then prove your claim if you want it to be taken seriously as a science. Otherwise you are turning to theology, which is perfectly fine for people that just want to have an answer, but it shouldn't be passed off as empirical fact until observation (science) has proven it.

Well two things here. First, just like when you said that its perfectly acceptable to claim that something does not exist, but still remain open to evidence of the contrary, so to does it work with God. For now I believe he does exist, but if you can show me hard data that clearly shows it doesn't, I will accept that and change my believes. Second, I'm not trying to push God as an empirical fact. All I've been trying to do is argue that an Atheist claim that the possibility of God existing is zero also does not count as an empirical fact.

The inference was based upon good data, which is why they were able to predict the Higgs Boson. Thus far, there's no reason to apply the same to God as we've still seen no reason (have no available data thus far) to attribute any rational explanations to Him.

I fear we have to agree to disagree on this point.

To infer that the Universe works the way it does because of the existence of God would be a large jump of a conclusion based upon no available evidence. It is quite likely that there is a perfectly natural explanation for the reason why the Universe works the way it does, and given that we cannot prove that God or the supernatural exists, I'd take a natural explanation over a supernatural one any time. Sure, it would be easy to point to the workings of the Universe and say "that's God", but that would be a theological conclusion and not a scientific one based upon any available evidence.

A natural explanation for why natural laws come into existence already implies a larger framework of mechanisms and rules that interact and form new rules. In which case the next question is where did that larger framework of mechanisms and rules came from? Which (as far as I can tell anyways) can either go infinitely with ever bigger frameworks or reaches some sudden stop where it seemingly appears that the framework just materialized out of nothing. If you can think of a third way of how this might work out, I'd love to hear it!

I don't really have much respect for the social sciences. Sorry. :-/

Yeah, we are the little weird kid in class :P

Though then you should be able to see the problem. Natural science has always worked so neatly because particles or celestial bodies react in pretty predictable ways. But look what happens once science starts trying to explain something as complex as human behavior. The whole natural sciences model completely falls apart.

Precisely. A survey is only as good as the questions asked, and in my view it is nearly impossible to create a survey without some sort of bias put in by the creators of the survey. As an anecdote, nearly every survey I've taken has never asked the right questions IMO, and I'm always left frustrated because I feel my true voice wasn't heard over whatever it was the surveyor wanted to ask.

I agree. But its impossible to remove bias completely, even if you're not doing research that involves the use of surveys. Scientists are only humans, they have their preferences and preconceptions, and its a little naive to think that researchers are somehow capable to turn all those things off once they start writing an article detailing their research. And even so, having a little human bias is not always a bad thing, especially not in social sciences. I mean, imagine what kind of worthless description one would get if they tried to write a description of the holocaust completely bias free. The best we can ask is that people are aware of their biases and detail them in the introduction of their article/book.

But the example was sample sizes and statistics. Sure, the larger the sample size, the better the data. In the current context of our discussion, that still leaves us with a sample size of 1 for life existing and zero for a deity existing. Because of this, we cannot infer that the Universe works the way it does because of the existence of a god.

Well, then there is still the problem of sample selection. Plenty of people have experienced religious revelations, plenty have even claimed to have seen God. Yet those samples are always disqualified because they are deemed unreliable. By science. The problem here is that since science created a bit of a catch 22 for God to 'prove' itself to science. At the one hand science has declared that anything metaphysical falls outside of its field of inquiry, so any metaphysical experiences are ignored by default. At the other hand, if God would act through physically observable means, science would never seek God behind it as it would be to busy looking at the physical action behind it and would come up with a rational explanation for why the thing they just observed happened. God could quite literally write a message in the stars, and science would come up with a nice rational explanation like 'random chance' or something like it.

That wasn't explicitly said as far as I can tell; that he only branded "some forms of Atheism" as arrogance. If he is preaching tolerance, he should have also preached it for Atheism as well. Personally, I like Dawkins and Hitchens, but I wouldn't call myself a mindless "follower" of theirs. Though, given the examples of religious fundamentalism I've seen recently, it is almost understandable why some Atheists might wish to go after the religious. Groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are just asking to be attacked for their brand of hate. You could call militant Atheism an equal and opposite reaction to such extremities, to balance out the equation. Just like the WBC unjustly advocates their views at military funerals, some Atheists attack all religious people in their fervor to counteract what they view as an abundance of fundamentalism. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it seems to be a natural balancing of the equation.

Eh, I got that from the wikipedia page. Its apparently a quote from an interview he gave. You would have to check the wikipedia page for yourself and decide whether you find it reliable or not. And preaching tolerance does not mean that you can't criticize something for its perceived arrogance anymore. And sure, I get why people would get angry because of hatemongers like the WBC, but those people only represent a tiny faction of religious people. Hell, most religious people would get angry at people like the WBC. As for the abundance of religious extremism, lets not overstate that group. They are a vocal minority, which makes them insufferably annoying, but thats no reason to start treating all religious people like they are extremists.

Which is kinda what someone like Dawkins does when he comes up with things like 'moderate religion inevitably paves the way for extremism' like all religious people eventually evolve into bitter hate-spewing monsters. And trying to balance one kind of extremism with an opposite form extremism does not sound like a very sustainable solution.

I get that Atheists want to debate Theists (and vice versa), but I believe that such a debate should be respectful in tone. I mean, we are having an interesting discussion and we do it without insults or disrespect towards the others point of view. Now I also get that this is to much to ask from some internet dwellers. But Dawkins is a respected evolutionary biologist, I think he of all people should know better.

On a lighter note, to laugh at ourselves and the way the world perceives our views, I thought I'd share the Uncyclopedia's entries on Atheism, Agnosticism, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible complexity, and God. Please note that these links are for mature audiences only. I hope you laugh as much as I did. (The links for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Irreducible complexity show why turning to God for things we cannot explain in the Universe are very incorrect in a humorous way.)

Hah, thanks for the links. I'm going to enjoy those :)

That may be true, but usually such arguments such as "we need their oil" are not great rallying cries. Whereas nothing gets an army on the move like calling it a holy war. Plenty of wars over land and resources have been dressed up as holy wars to get the populace on side. Religion has been used to control people for thousands of years.

Well, if we look at Europe alone, we don't even see religion being used as a rallying cry for war that much. The crusades and the 30 year war. Other than that, wars were waged mainly by states employing mercenaries who fought for whoever paid the most. Then as states became more centralized and bureaucratized, mercenaries were ditched in favor of standing armies, which were either conscripted or professionals fighting for money. Aside from that, wars were waged by kings and other absolute rulers. They didn't need a rallying cry to get popular opinion behind them. They did what they wanted and the people were expected to deal with it. It wasn't until the end of the 18th century that this started to change. And even then, the rallying cry wasn't 'For God!' but 'For the father/motherland!'. That once again changed in during the second half of the 20th century, when the rallying cry for man's latest atrocities became 'For Communism/Capitalism'. And that one got replaced the moment the wall came down by 'For Democracy/Freedom'. Really the only contemporary example of a group using religion as a justification for organized violence on a larger scale is Al Qaida. And even that is only a thin coat to cover their political message.

Of course, there are more wars that were waged where religion clearly played a big role. But again, compare it to all the other motives over which humans waged wars and you will find that religion is not used exceptionally often. To single out religion and then say that it causes people to fight each other is simply misrepresenting the bigger picture, namely that humans just love to wage war on each other for loads of different reasons.

Its not a silly argument at all because everything about religion is in opposition to critical thinking. Critical thinking (the best defence against war) undermines religion and is strongly discouraged by believers.

Critical thinking is only the best defense war in a liberal democracy where everyone has a vote. Not only that, but even then you are assuming that war by itself is always the irrational choice. Which is certainly not the case. More often than not, war is actually the rational choice.

Aside from that, you seem to be assuming that all people who follow a religion turn of their brain the moment they walk into a place of worship, mindlessly accepting everything the priest says. Maybe if you go to one of those extremist churches in the Bible belt. But walk into any 'moderate' church (the vast majority of churches) and you'll find that the people are not discouraging critical thinking, nor will you find the priests to be preaching blind obedience and unquestioning behavior. Do not take religious extremists as the norm for religious people, or you will find that it is you who is uncritical in his approach to religious people.

That may be true, but usually such arguments such as "we need their oil" are not great rallying cries. Whereas nothing gets an army on the move like calling it a holy war. Plenty of wars over land and resources have been dressed up as holy wars to get the populace on side. Religion has been used to control people for thousands of years.

Well, if we look at Europe alone, we don't even see religion being used as a rallying cry for war that much. The crusades and the 30 year war. Other than that, wars were waged mainly by states employing mercenaries who fought for whoever paid the most. Then as states became more centralized and bureaucratized, mercenaries were ditched in favor of standing armies, which were either conscripted or professionals fighting for money. Aside from that, wars were waged by kings and other absolute rulers. They didn't need a rallying cry to get popular opinion behind them. They did what they wanted and the people were expected to deal with it. It wasn't until the end of the 18th century that this started to change. And even then, the rallying cry wasn't 'For God!' but 'For the father/motherland!'. That once again changed in during the second half of the 20th century, when the rallying cry for man's latest atrocities became 'For Communism/Capitalism'. And that one got replaced the moment the wall came down by 'For Democracy/Freedom'. Really the only contemporary example of a group using religion as a justification for organized violence on a larger scale is Al Qaida. And even that is only a thin coat to cover their political message.

Of course, there are more wars that were waged where religion clearly played a big role. But again, compare it to all the other motives over which humans waged wars and you will find that religion is not used exceptionally often. To single out religion and then say that it causes people to fight each other is simply misrepresenting the bigger picture, namely that humans just love to wage war on each other for loads of different reasons.

I think you'll find that a lot of wars still fought globally along religious lines. The Yugoslav conflict, the Northern Ireland Conflict, the divisions amongst different types of muslims in the middle East, the Jewish/Palestine/Iran conflict to name just some of the recent ones. You named a some of the worst, but religion seems to play a key role in a lot of more recent conflicts. It also plays a key role in keeping the oppressive cast system going in India.

Its not a silly argument at all because everything about religion is in opposition to critical thinking. Critical thinking (the best defence against war) undermines religion and is strongly discouraged by believers.

Critical thinking is only the best defense war in a liberal democracy where everyone has a vote. Not only that, but even then you are assuming that war by itself is always the irrational choice. Which is certainly not the case. More often than not, war is actually the rational choice.

You and I will certainly have to agree to disagree on that one.

Aside from that, you seem to be assuming that all people who follow a religion turn of their brain the moment they walk into a place of worship, mindlessly accepting everything the priest says. Maybe if you go to one of those extremist churches in the Bible belt. But walk into any 'moderate' church (the vast majority of churches) and you'll find that the people are not discouraging critical thinking, nor will you find the priests to be preaching blind obedience and unquestioning behavior. Do not take religious extremists as the norm for religious people, or you will find that it is you who is uncritical in his approach to religious people.

I am sure that most religious people are fairly moderate, however any critical thorough examination of their beliefs will by necessity undermine those beliefs. If they are happily holding onto them it is because there is no pressing need to discard them however much they might conflict with the reality around them.

Anyone who clings to their beliefs simply to hedge their bets isn't really a believer. According to most religions god/gods will see through them and send them to hell or purgatory who whatever postmortem gifts a particular religion has to offer. This seems highly unpalatable to me, I've seen nothing in any of the main religions to think that the offered gods are nice, or benign or sane. They are certainly not gods I would consider worshiping. That leaves me with the option of reinventing god to fit my view of what a god should be, which sounds like what you are doing. If a god can so easily be changed and altered to fit the picture I want of god then it isn't really god at all is it?

A god I could get behind would judge people on who they are and what they do, not what god they claim to believe.
The god would treat all members of his/her congregation equally. There would be no rules about how women should be treated differently, (that includes not allowing them to be priests or any of the other misogynist controlling BS that these gods seem to enjoy so much)
Just with those two minimum standards I've ruled out any god described by any current holy text.

I can now chose to believe that god is the god I want and the god I think god should be, but then that is just being like everyone else who invented god to suit their needs.

So either god is a crazy psychopath who hates women (gays etc) or god doesn't exist. I know which one makes sense to me. Especially as all the evidence I've ever seen for god is made up.

---

Reality Internet Personality

But then we're back to: it's OK to be wrong so long as we correct our understanding after new data is made available.

Yes, but even scientists sometimes have trouble admitting that their pet theories are wrong or so abstract they have no real baring on reality anymore. So for that reason, I prefer to minimize the chance on that happening by trying to go for the right answer from the start. Inferential logic may help you get there, but it does carry a bigger risk of getting it wrong then deductive logic.

Inferential logic presumes. Deductive logic assumes. You can't build a framework of reality from the top down. You can only build something from the bottom up.

I tend to disagree and assert that, as a whole, scientists actually try to prove each other's pet theories wrong as they want to be the one known for rebuking a well-known theory.

Again, I'd like to point out the Higgs particle. Prior to the LHC experiments there had been no observations of the Higgs particle either, yet a lot of scientists already assumed he existed because it fit so nicely with their models. Of course, you had scientists who were more critical point out that the Higgs particle had never been observed. So, should all those scientists have worked on the assumption that the Higgs particle wasn't a thing?

Again, the Higgs particle was inferred from the best current fit model in physics. It wasn't assumed that it existed. It was presumed to exist. That's the difference between science and theology.

I have given you reasons for why I believe the idea of God is not so impossible as you say it is. I believe it fairly neatly answers some questions that science cannot answer. At least, not yet. So for now, I'm operating under the assumption that there is a God somewhere out there, and I need proof of the contrary before I discard the assumption.

Then you are starting with a framework of reality from the bottom down, which bases itself off of assumptions. You assume that a God is likely the best explanation for the universe, even though there's no evidence to believe He exists. I, myself, would rather not assume, and I see no reason to presume He exist outside the stories of man. I would strongly disagree that reaching to the supernatural to explain the physical is a "neat" answer.

I agree. But then again, this is using God to answer questions that do not have any physical data at all. Once science finds physical data to answer my questions, I will reevaluate and take this into account. Good chance it will change my stance on God once I see a physical explanation for what caused rules to exist. But until then, there is no harm nor fault in operating with the assumption that there is a God.

There is no harm or fault in operating under the assumption that God exists. It is however, IMO a bad basis to form a framework of reality, especially if taken too far in the assumption (as religious fundamentalists tend to do). Again, I'd rather not assume that a God exists, and I see no reason to presume He exists without any evidence.

Well two things here. First, just like when you said that its perfectly acceptable to claim that something does not exist, but still remain open to evidence of the contrary, so to does it work with God. For now I believe he does exist, but if you can show me hard data that clearly shows it doesn't, I will accept that and change my believes. Second, I'm not trying to push God as an empirical fact. All I've been trying to do is argue that an Atheist claim that the possibility of God existing is zero also does not count as an empirical fact.

Fortunately for science, we don't start with "I believe it until you can disprove it". Science doesn't inherently attempt to disprove, but if often does during it's search for evidence. The difference between faith and science is exactly this: science doesn't "believe" unless there's evidence and reason to. Faith believes from the start, and frequently refuses to let go even in the face of evidence because they say you can't "disprove". As I said previously, Atheism isn't an empirical fact. It's a side effect of not believing until there's reason to.

The inference was based upon good data, which is why they were able to predict the Higgs Boson. Thus far, there's no reason to apply the same to God as we've still seen no reason (have no available data thus far) to attribute any rational explanations to Him.

I fear we have to agree to disagree on this point.

I don't see how we can agree to disagree. Our best model of physicals predicted (presumed) the existence of the Higgs Boson as it was required to make everything work the way we believe it does. We have no standard model that does the same for God, because as you said previously, any being would have to lie within the realm of the supernatural, and we have no reason to believe the supernatural even exists, so it would be an assumption to conclude that God exists as the best explanation for the Universe and not an inferential explanation based upon other observed data.

A natural explanation for why natural laws come into existence already implies a larger framework of mechanisms and rules that interact and form new rules. In which case the next question is where did that larger framework of mechanisms and rules came from? Which (as far as I can tell anyways) can either go infinitely with ever bigger frameworks or reaches some sudden stop where it seemingly appears that the framework just materialized out of nothing. If you can think of a third way of how this might work out, I'd love to hear it!

Nope. I think you've summed it up quite well. And until there's a reason to believe all this framework and mechanisms were put in place through observation of data suggesting otherwise, it only stands to reason that it all happened by chance, and the rules we see are merely the way the Universe happens to work. The idea of random often doesn't sit well with people that want to believe we're somehow special in our existence, so the frequently refuse to believe random chance based upon their own bias in favor of the latter ideal.

Though then you should be able to see the problem. Natural science has always worked so neatly because particles or celestial bodies react in pretty predictable ways. But look what happens once science starts trying to explain something as complex as human behavior. The whole natural sciences model completely falls apart.

Certainly there's a need for different types of sciences. Some have more reliable data than others. When you consider the human factor, there's a great amount of chaos happening that natural science can't predict (presume) neatly.

I agree. But its impossible to remove bias completely, even if you're not doing research that involves the use of surveys. Scientists are only humans, they have their preferences and preconceptions, and its a little naive to think that researchers are somehow capable to turn all those things off once they start writing an article detailing their research. And even so, having a little human bias is not always a bad thing, especially not in social sciences. I mean, imagine what kind of worthless description one would get if they tried to write a description of the holocaust completely bias free. The best we can ask is that people are aware of their biases and detail them in the introduction of their article/book.

You're right that we all have our biases and preferences. That's why peer review works so well. It removes the individual bias from the equation. Factor in that each group of scientists want to be the one famed for a discovery, and therefore have a vested interest in finding flaws in another scientist's theories, and there you have the framework for peer review and why it works so well.

Well, then there is still the problem of sample selection. Plenty of people have experienced religious revelations, plenty have even claimed to have seen God. Yet those samples are always disqualified because they are deemed unreliable. By science. The problem here is that since science created a bit of a catch 22 for God to 'prove' itself to science.

More often than not, those "religious" experiences have perfectly natural explanations. In my personal "spiritual" experience, I believe I saw God. Through personal research I've concluded that I in fact had a rather common experience brought on by delusions of grandeur and too much marijuana. :-P

Near death experiences have been replicated, completely by accident, during the testing of pilots to see how their bodies can withstand a great amount of G-forces, thus providing a perfectly natural explanation for a relatively common "spiritual" experience.

The thing is, "God" doesn't need to prove itself to science. Rather, if such a thing existed, IMO it would be tangible and measurable in the physical world. If it doesn't exist in the physical world, then it exists in a realm that can be neither proven nor disproven - but again, in science we don't start with that type of hypotheses that something can't be proven or disproven then work backwards from there. We start with the physical and tangible and build our inferences from there.

At the one hand science has declared that anything metaphysical falls outside of its field of inquiry, so any metaphysical experiences are ignored by default. At the other hand, if God would act through physically observable means, science would never seek God behind it as it would be to busy looking at the physical action behind it and would come up with a rational explanation for why the thing they just observed happened. God could quite literally write a message in the stars, and science would come up with a nice rational explanation like 'random chance' or something like it.

So we're still left with the metaphysical and supernatural not being tangible. The scientifically correct view, and frequently the Atheist view, is that there's no reason to believe either exists until we can observe it. Again, we don't start with the assumption that something exists and work to disprove or prove it. We start with a hypothesis, make observations, collect data, and keep building until we have our framework. We can then infer the existence of something through the hypothesis once our confidence reaches a certain level, and we can begin looking for evidence that this inferred item exists.

The more important and obvious question is: if God existed in the metaphysical or supernatural world, but is capable of interacting with our physical world rather easily, He could just as easily do something that science cannot ever explain away, not even by random chance.

Therein lies the crux of the faithful view vs. the non-faithful view. The faithful start with such preponderances as "God could do this and science would ignore it", whereas the non-faithful would say "God could just as easily prove Himself if He truly existed and wanted to be known." Faith works off of assumptions that something is correct and true at the start, and refuses to disbelieve until proven otherwise. Atheism starts with the tangible, and refuses to believe something could be true until there's a reason to do so.

This is why science must use inferential logic and not deductive logic when building the framework of reality. This is what also makes the Atheist view more rational-based and not faith-based.

Eh, I got that from the wikipedia page. Its apparently a quote from an interview he gave. You would have to check the wikipedia page for yourself and decide whether you find it reliable or not. And preaching tolerance does not mean that you can't criticize something for its perceived arrogance anymore.

But the same could be said of Atheism's critique of religion. Why point out Atheism's arrogance solely, while completely ignoring religion's arrogance in their own correctness and faith? Either you preach tolerance for all positions, or you critique all positions equally if you want to not alienate on group, as Karl did with Atheists.

And sure, I get why people would get angry because of hatemongers like the WBC, but those people only represent a tiny faction of religious people. Hell, most religious people would get angry at people like the WBC.

Agreed, they are only a tiny fraction. Still, they are a tiny, vocal fraction. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

As for the abundance of religious extremism, lets not overstate that group. They are a vocal minority, which makes them insufferably annoying, but thats no reason to start treating all religious people like they are extremists.

I don't believe I did overstate that particular group's size. I do believe I said a "perceived" overabundance of fundamentalism, which indicates that I feel isn't very large, but some Atheists seem to focus strongly on that small group and become militant from there. Again, I didn't say it was right, I just said it was the way it seems to be.

Similarly, the same thing could be said of Atheists. Just because a vocal few are militant, is no reason to cast off all Atheists - yet everyone seems to rebuke Atheism without reservation.

Which is kinda what someone like Dawkins does when he comes up with things like 'moderate religion inevitably paves the way for extremism' like all religious people eventually evolve into bitter hate-spewing monsters. And trying to balance one kind of extremism with an opposite form extremism does not sound like a very sustainable solution.

I would say that would be an example of "devolving into bitter hate-spewing monsters." :-P But seriously, perhaps to better understand why Dawkins would say such a thing, we would have to understand the fuller context of the statement. Based upon what I understand, Dawkins said that from the viewpoint that, if left unchecked, religion would continue down an intolerant path of others. Thankfully, most people these days seem to respect other people's rights, which seems to override their religious teachings (using homosexual marriage as one example).

However, in the end, I agree with you that fighting extremism with extremism is not the best solution. In fact, I don't believe I suggested it was. I believe I was merely offering an explanation for why such a thing happens - not a judgment on whether it was right or wrong, which I emphasized as much as I could.

I get that Atheists want to debate Theists (and vice versa), but I believe that such a debate should be respectful in tone. I mean, we are having an interesting discussion and we do it without insults or disrespect towards the others point of view. Now I also get that this is to much to ask from some internet dwellers. But Dawkins is a respected evolutionary biologist, I think he of all people should know better.

You should also take into account that because of Dawkin's views, he has attracted criticism from the extreme opposite end. Take Ted Haggard, William Dembsky, or Pat Robertson, or various other people that he has angered by his views and have had public debates with him.

However, I think you're laying the blame for bitter Atheism at the feet of Richard when I don't think he should be responsible for their behavior, even if they cite him in their arguments. I've seen that Richard, while strong in his positions and convictions, doesn't approve of unnecessary bitter and angst.

I mean, wouldn't that be the same as everyone blaming God for violence, wars, and hate merely because they cite His name?

That leaves me with the option of reinventing god to fit my view of what a god should be, which sounds like what you are doing. If a god can so easily be changed and altered to fit the picture I want of god then it isn't really god at all is it?

...

I can now chose to believe that god is the god I want and the god I think god should be, but then that is just being like everyone else who invented god to suit their needs.

Such is my response when I am confronted by a believer that wishes to convert me to a belief, any belief, as long as I believe in a God. Back when I considered myself Agnostic, I did precisely that: created my own God and religion around my own ideals of what God should be. Then I slowly realized that such a belief was just as premature as the rest of the religions out there with no basis in the reality around me.

I think you'll find that a lot of wars still fought globally along religious lines. The Yugoslav conflict, the Northern Ireland Conflict, the divisions amongst different types of muslims in the middle East, the Jewish/Palestine/Iran conflict to name just some of the recent ones. You named a some of the worst, but religion seems to play a key role in a lot of more recent conflicts. It also plays a key role in keeping the oppressive cast system going in India.

The Yugoslav conflict was fought over ethnic lines, where each ethnic group happened to be of a different religion. Had they been of the same religion, they still would have bashed each others head in. The Irish conflict was fought over Northern Ireland not wanting to be part of the UK. Sure, religion played a role, but to say that religion was the only rallying cry or the most important rallying cry is to oversimplify the whole conflict. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict again has little to do with religion. Its about one group wanting to have its own state and kicking out what they see as an occupying force who has stolen their land from them. Israel on the other hand sees its struggle with the Palestinians as self defense against Palestinian aggression. While there is a bit of a religious side to the conflict, the main gist of it is political. And to say that Iran-Israel conflict is about religion is utter nonsense. Did you know there is a huge group of Jews living in Iran who are left alone? The new Iranian president even wished them a happy something on Twitter. Now if Iran really was the overly zealous religious extremists hell bent on murdering Jews (as the media tends to portray them) do you think they would leave the Jews living in Iran alone?

Again, I'm not saying that religion never plays a role in conflict, I'm saying that such a role should not be overstated. Humans fight for lots of reasons, religion is just one of the many reasons.

You and I will certainly have to agree to disagree on that one.

I suggest you read up on some Neo-Realist theory. And familiarize yourself with the ideas put forth by Clausewitz. You'll see what I mean.

I am sure that most religious people are fairly moderate, however any critical thorough examination of their beliefs will by necessity undermine those beliefs. If they are happily holding onto them it is because there is no pressing need to discard them however much they might conflict with the reality around them.

If you followed my discussion you would see that the belief in God does not necessarily conflict with reality. In fact, thats the nice thing about a metaphysical entity, it never really conflicts with reality. Besides that, there might be good reasons for someone to believe in God.

Anyone who clings to their beliefs simply to hedge their bets isn't really a believer. According to most religions god/gods will see through them and send them to hell or purgatory who whatever postmortem gifts a particular religion has to offer. This seems highly unpalatable to me, I've seen nothing in any of the main religions to think that the offered gods are nice, or benign or sane. They are certainly not gods I would consider worshiping. That leaves me with the option of reinventing god to fit my view of what a god should be, which sounds like what you are doing. If a god can so easily be changed and altered to fit the picture I want of god then it isn't really god at all is it?

So what you are telling me is that if I want to believe in God, I MUST believe in everything the bible says and take the bible literally? And why must I do such a thing? Why must I conform to what the church made out of God (which most likely suited their personal views of God).

But no, I do not agree with you there. Just because everyone can have a different idea of God does not make God any less of a God. Like people have pointed out, we have no observations or proof of God. So we have no idea what he is like. Which gives us the possibility to invent our own that suits our needs. Nothing wrong with that.

A god I could get behind would judge people on who they are and what they do, not what god they claim to believe.
The god would treat all members of his/her congregation equally. There would be no rules about how women should be treated differently, (that includes not allowing them to be priests or any of the other misogynist controlling BS that these gods seem to enjoy so much)
Just with those two minimum standards I've ruled out any god described by any current holy text.

Where in the bible does it say women can't be priests? And where does it say that God only judges people on what they believe? Pretty sure that Jesus's message was 'love everyone no matter what'.

I can now chose to believe that god is the god I want and the god I think god should be, but then that is just being like everyone else who invented god to suit their needs.

So either god is a crazy psychopath who hates women (gays etc) or god doesn't exist. I know which one makes sense to me. Especially as all the evidence I've ever seen for god is made up.

I'm sorry, but I do not follow the leap of logic here. Just because everyone invented their own particular image of God, that somehow makes God impossible? But it is possible if God is some kind of hateful monster (which given the lack of evidence for God is just as made up as your God of love and equality)?

Inferential logic presumes. Deductive logic assumes. You can't build a framework of reality from the top down. You can only build something from the bottom up.

I tend to disagree and assert that, as a whole, scientists actually try to prove each other's pet theories wrong as they want to be the one known for rebuking a well-known theory.

Point taken.

And yes, they do. So other scientists stop following those theories once they have been proven wrong or insufficient. But there is always the group of people that was already so invested in their theory that they do not accept the evidence and continue carrying on with their theories. I believe it was Kuhne who wrote a very interesting piece about change within the scientific community, referring to 'paradigm shifts' and essentially stating that on the whole, the science community adapts to the paradigm shift, while the old guard who are to invested in the old paradigm remain stuck there. The old paradigm quite literally has to die out with the remaining scientists who remain stuck there.

Just saying, that scientists are humans. We as a species hate being proven wrong, especially if whats proven wrong is something we are heavily invested in. You know, cognitive dissonance.

Then you are starting with a framework of reality from the bottom down, which bases itself off of assumptions. You assume that a God is likely the best explanation for the universe, even though there's no evidence to believe He exists. I, myself, would rather not assume, and I see no reason to presume He exist outside the stories of man. I would strongly disagree that reaching to the supernatural to explain the physical is a "neat" answer.

Eh, for various reasons I personally prefer a supernatural explanation over 'I don't know'.

There is no harm or fault in operating under the assumption that God exists. It is however, IMO a bad basis to form a framework of reality, especially if taken too far in the assumption (as religious fundamentalists tend to do). Again, I'd rather not assume that a God exists, and I see no reason to presume He exists without any evidence.

Obviously one should not take it to far. But that's true for pretty much everything in life. Also, I wouldn't say that this belief in God forms the basis of my framework of reality. I accept sciences answers and its educated guesses. That forms the basis for the framework of my reality. God is just somewhere in there as well, in a place where he and science do not come into conflict.

I realize that this is not the case for a lot of other religious people (especially the extremists). But then again, I'm not part of that group, so I'm not going to defend their views on reality as I wholeheartedly disagree with them on pretty much everything.

Fortunately for science, we don't start with "I believe it until you can disprove it". Science doesn't inherently attempt to disprove, but if often does during it's search for evidence. The difference between faith and science is exactly this: science doesn't "believe" unless there's evidence and reason to. Faith believes from the start, and frequently refuses to let go even in the face of evidence because they say you can't "disprove". As I said previously, Atheism isn't an empirical fact. It's a side effect of not believing until there's reason to.

Don't you? I mean sure, before you believe something you generally want a good reason for it first. But once you have that, you do believe (or you know) until some other scientist comes along with a much better theory or data that proves your theory (belief, knowledge) is wrong. The only difference here is that my belief in God does not have any reasons that empirical science would accept as such.

And doesn't science work towards trying to disprove itself? I agree with Popper on this, falsification is one of the most important things in science. Every single piece of evidence that confirms my theory is pointless in forwarding science, while every piece of evidence that disproves my theory gets me somewhere. More importantly, the whole idea of being critical thinkers is that you actively try to prove yourself wrong. Someone who only looks for evidence to support his view is not a critical thinker.

I don't see how we can agree to disagree. Our best model of physicals predicted (presumed) the existence of the Higgs Boson as it was required to make everything work the way we believe it does. We have no standard model that does the same for God, because as you said previously, any being would have to lie within the realm of the supernatural, and we have no reason to believe the supernatural even exists, so it would be an assumption to conclude that God exists as the best explanation for the Universe and not an inferential explanation based upon other observed data.

You have no reason to believe it exists because science never looks for it. It inherently assumes it doesn't and leaves it at that. Well, that is not entirely true. Science makes no claims about the supernatural and assumes that because it can't be observed it has no real impact on reality. At least not one that is important enough to notice.

Nope. I think you've summed it up quite well. And until there's a reason to believe all this framework and mechanisms were put in place through observation of data suggesting otherwise, it only stands to reason that it all happened by chance, and the rules we see are merely the way the Universe happens to work. The idea of random often doesn't sit well with people that want to believe we're somehow special in our existence, so the frequently refuse to believe random chance based upon their own bias in favor of the latter ideal.

There is one problem with random chance however. Namely that you can't prove that something is actually random. My calculator can appear to spawn random numbers, but what it actually does is follow a complex algorithm which results in apparent randomness. Thus far we have reduced the things that are presumably really random to the decay rate of certain particles. The problem here though, is that we are not sure if this is random, or actually the result of some incredibly complex algorithm. For now we think its safe to assume that its actually random, but again, we can't know for certain.

Random chance in a lot of ways, is similar to God.

But the same could be said of Atheism's critique of religion. Why point out Atheism's arrogance solely, while completely ignoring religion's arrogance in their own correctness and faith? Either you preach tolerance for all positions, or you critique all positions equally if you want to not alienate on group, as Karl did with Atheists.

Well it was an answer in an interview. I don't know the question, but it could have been that the interviewer specifically asked him about his view on atheism. But that is speculation. And he did critique religion basically condemning it as a whole bunch of falsehoods.

Similarly, the same thing could be said of Atheists. Just because a vocal few are militant, is no reason to cast off all Atheists - yet everyone seems to rebuke Atheism without reservation.

Hmm, I suppose thats true.

I would say that would be an example of "devolving into bitter hate-spewing monsters." :-P But seriously, perhaps to better understand why Dawkins would say such a thing, we would have to understand the fuller context of the statement. Based upon what I understand, Dawkins said that from the viewpoint that, if left unchecked, religion would continue down an intolerant path of others. Thankfully, most people these days seem to respect other people's rights, which seems to override their religious teachings (using homosexual marriage as one example).

Even in that context its a silly argument. Just look at history and see how far the church has come since its heretic burning days. If anything, religion has consistently moved towards greater tolerance, not more extremism. But right, I should save that argument for if I ever get to speak to Dawkins in person (unlikely).

You should also take into account that because of Dawkin's views, he has attracted criticism from the extreme opposite end. Take Ted Haggard, William Dembsky, or Pat Robertson, or various other people that he has angered by his views and have had public debates with him.

Which is not actually to his credit imo. He is a scientist, he should know the utter pointlessness of getting into a debate about evolution and atheism with extremists like that. He might as well have tried to talk to Osama Bin Laden.

However, I think you're laying the blame for bitter Atheism at the feet of Richard when I don't think he should be responsible for their behavior, even if they cite him in their arguments. I've seen that Richard, while strong in his positions and convictions, doesn't approve of unnecessary bitter and angst.

I mean, wouldn't that be the same as everyone blaming God for violence, wars, and hate merely because they cite His name?

While to some extend you are right, I do think that Dawkins has a bit of a bitter streak when it comes to this. Going off calling people ignoramuses is not exactly language that should be used in a civil debate, no matter how much you disagree with the other persons point of view. And from such highly regarded scientists, I do kind of expect a civil debate. Point being, I think Dawkins should have stuck to being a scientist and trying to explain to the masses why they should absolutely accept evolution theory is the valid explanation for why life on earth is the way it is. But yeah, thats just my opinion of him.

Geez, these replies take a long time to write. Sorry I had to skip over a few points, but I am running out of time (I have to go to a lecture), and I had no real argument against those parts.

Limited reply.
Why in the Yugoslav conflict did different religious groups that had been living side by side in the same region kill each other, if religion was not one of the underlining reasons for the conflict.

Your idea about Northern Ireland is false. The conflict was about the RC's wanting to have the whole of Ireland as one country, ruled from the South. The mainly Norths mainly Protestant population opposed this and wanted to stay with the UK.

The others you mention have everything to do with religion.

How many Jews are still in Iran, there used to be at least 30,000, some reports say there are now less than 6,000 and all the Jewish schools have been taken over and now only teach an Islamic faith.

With that little bit out of the way, then I can only say that the rest of your post is probably filled with just as many inaccuracies. I just don't have the time at present to go further.

Limited reply.
Why in the Yugoslav conflict did different religious groups that had been living side by side in the same region kill each other, if religion was not one of the underlining reasons for the conflict.

Because Yugoslavia was not a country until after the second world war. After the war Marshall Tito united the place, but what he did not take into account was the fact that before the war the place was rife with tensions between each ethnic group. And while Tito managed to keep the peace, after he died that quickly changed. A number of groups didn't wanted to be their own country again and at the same time Serbs were taking over all the positions in the federal government, essentially ensuring that Yugoslavia became dominated by the Serbs. Tensions rose, a number of states seceded and thats when the civil war happened. In essence Yugoslavia was simply a failed state, and failed states have a tendency to go down in flames. Especially since the Balkans have always been a powder keg.

Your idea about Northern Ireland is false. The conflict was about the RC's wanting to have the whole of Ireland as one country, ruled from the South. The mainly Norths mainly Protestant population opposed this and wanted to stay with the UK.

Yeah, thats called nationalism and anti colonialism. Just because both groups have a different religion does not make this a religious conflict. And in this case you even admitted that the reasons for conflict are political. In both this and the Yugoslavian conflict correlation does not imply causation, please keep that in mind.

How many Jews are still in Iran, there used to be at least 30,000, some reports say there are now less than 6,000 and all the Jewish schools have been taken over and now only teach an Islamic faith.

The US state department estimates there are about 20.000-25.000 jews living in Iran in 2009. (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2009/127347.htm)

Iran census 2011 gives Jewish population as 8,756. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juj_KhuuT0v7aaT3PPDmJFbQYrtw and http://www.khalije-fars.com/en/item/1215

Iran census 2011 gives Jewish population as 8,756. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juj_KhuuT0v7aaT3PPDmJFbQYrtw and http://www.khalije-fars.com/en/item/1215

It seems you are right. They are migrating towards Israel and the US. Still no proof that they do so because Iran is hunting them down because of their religion or because there are better economic opportunities in Israel and the US.

Aside from that, the Iran-Israel conflict is for now little more than a cold war and is being fought for strategical reasons, not religious reasons. Israel is a nuclear power, and has a clear military advantage in a region it considers to be mostly hostile. The whole threat of conflict is about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, making Iran another great power in the region and a direct threat to Israel's military superiority. To say that this conflict is fought over religious reasons is just total nonsense.

Iran census 2011 gives Jewish population as 8,756. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juj_KhuuT0v7aaT3PPDmJFbQYrtw and http://www.khalije-fars.com/en/item/1215

It seems you are right. They are migrating towards Israel and the US. Still no proof that they do so because Iran is hunting them down because of their religion or because there are better economic opportunities in Israel and the US.

Aside from that, the Iran-Israel conflict is for now little more than a cold war and is being fought for strategical reasons, not religious reasons. Israel is a nuclear power, and has a clear military advantage in a region it considers to be mostly hostile. The whole threat of conflict is about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, making Iran another great power in the region and a direct threat to Israel's military superiority. To say that this conflict is fought over religious reasons is just total nonsense.

Nonsense? Israel is a country that only exists because of a claim to the land as promised to them by Abraham (in the BIBLE). Israel wouldn't even be there if it wasn't because of religion.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The Yugoslav conflict was fought over ethnic lines, where each ethnic group happened to be of a different religion. Had they been of the same religion, they still would have bashed each others head in.

Its a bit more complicated than that, but religion certainly played a part in the genocide.

The Irish conflict was fought over Northern Ireland not wanting to be part of the UK. Sure, religion played a role, but to say that religion was the only rallying cry or the most important rallying cry is to oversimplify the whole conflict.

You go there and tell them that. When people are sleeping with baseball bats under their pillows because they have a 'mixed' marriage (Catholic-Protestant) I'd say religion is intimately involved.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict again has little to do with religion. Its about one group wanting to have its own state and kicking out what they see as an occupying force who has stolen their land from them. Israel on the other hand sees its struggle with the Palestinians as self defense against Palestinian aggression. While there is a bit of a religious side to the conflict, the main gist of it is political. And to say that Iran-Israel conflict is about religion is utter nonsense. Did you know there is a huge group of Jews living in Iran who are left alone? The new Iranian president even wished them a happy something on Twitter. Now if Iran really was the overly zealous religious extremists hell bent on murdering Jews (as the media tends to portray them) do you think they would leave the Jews living in Iran alone?

Yes, the creation of the state of Israel right there has nothing to do with religion. <-- sarcasm.

Again, I'm not saying that religion never plays a role in conflict, I'm saying that such a role should not be overstated. Humans fight for lots of reasons, religion is just one of the many reasons.

Religion allows them to be controlled and complex conflicts to be simplified enough so that you can get the general populace involved.

I suggest you read up on some Neo-Realist theory. And familiarize yourself with the ideas put forth by Clausewitz. You'll see what I mean.

I am glad you are enjoying your philosophy courses. You aren't the only one here that's read Popper, Kuhn etc. I'm aware of all the justifications of war, I just will never agree that many are justified. Its not even an argument I'm going to waste my time on. You've stated your position. That's sufficient for me.

If you followed my discussion you would see that the belief in God does not necessarily conflict with reality. In fact, thats the nice thing about a metaphysical entity, it never really conflicts with reality. Besides that, there might be good reasons for someone to believe in God.

Yes thank you, I've followed your discussion. I suspect you are completely unaware how humorous I find the above statement. I am sure your self confessed made up metaphysical entity gives you great comfort. If it gets you through the day, go for it. You are right, some people need that.

So what you are telling me is that if I want to believe in God, I MUST believe in everything the bible says and take the bible literally? And why must I do such a thing? Why must I conform to what the church made out of God (which most likely suited their personal views of God).

You don't have to do any such thing, but once you start editing what was once the primary proof of god to suit your own needs it becomes obvious that its not really any real thing that exists in reality. Surely you can see that?

But no, I do not agree with you there. Just because everyone can have a different idea of God does not make God any less of a God. Like people have pointed out, we have no observations or proof of God. So we have no idea what he is like. Which gives us the possibility to invent our own that suits our needs. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with it, but nothing actually right with it either. Either god exists, in which case he/she exists in some state that can be defined whatever you wish him or her to be. If god exists, you have nothing to do with it. If god is made up, then you can make up whatever god you want. Which is what you are doing, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to describe what god actually is. In fact, if there is a being in charge of creation, its at best indifferent, at worst cruel.

Where in the bible does it say women can't be priests? And where does it say that God only judges people on what they believe? Pretty sure that Jesus's message was 'love everyone no matter what'.

The old testament is pretty clear on how women should be treated. The new testament was written by people long after Jesus' death. There is some agreement on some of the cool things he said, but its been translated a lot since then. Its hardly definitive. Jesus claiming he was the son of man to fit in with some ancient prophecies written in the old testament doesn't mean he actually was. So you are putting yourself in the new testament camp for your religion. The Koran was written much more recently. Perhaps Mohammed was right? A TV sports presenter in the UK called David Ike came out a few years ago as the son of god. Do you follow his teachings? I seem to remember he liked turquoise.

I'm sorry, but I do not follow the leap of logic here. Just because everyone invented their own particular image of God, that somehow makes God impossible? But it is possible if God is some kind of hateful monster (which given the lack of evidence for God is just as made up as your God of love and equality)?

No, god is not impossible. Just incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely. And if there is a god, he might not be a god we like or the one you imagine. Considering the evidence of how cruel and indifferent the world is, if there is a god.. well...just look around... When something is that unlikely I'm not going to waste time believing it and adjusting my life around it. That's the definition of insanity. If if gives you comfort, go for it, but it doesn't mean its real.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Nonsense? Israel is a country that only exists because of a claim to the land as promised to them by Abraham (in the BIBLE). Israel wouldn't even be there if it wasn't because of religion.

No, religion only made them pick this piece of land in particular. The reason they got the land was guilt mixed with post war geopolitical considerations. The reason a war broke out was because other groups of people felt that they had a much better claim on the piece of land which resulted in them trying to kick the Israelians out of their new country. There is nothing religious about that.

Look, if you want to make a claim that religion is a cause of war, it means that two sides wage war over the interpretation of their religion. It means they fight a war because one side says the pope is the human representative of God while the other side says the pope is not. It means they fight because one side says that this guy is a prophet while the other side says hes not. Its a war where the sole subject of conflict is whether God is called God or Allah. Thats a religious war.

Sure, the Israeli conflict has a religious side to it, but in the end its simply a war waged between groups of people who all want to have the same piece of land for themselves. And just because one side says their claim on the land is based on their holy text doesn't make this a religious conflict. Zionism and Jewish nationalism are political movements, not religious ones. It is partly inspired by religion, sure, but in the end its main considerations are political. Hence the conflict is political.

Nonsense? Israel is a country that only exists because of a claim to the land as promised to them by Abraham (in the BIBLE). Israel wouldn't even be there if it wasn't because of religion.

No, religion only made them pick this piece of land in particular. The reason they got the land was guilt mixed with post war geopolitical considerations. The reason a war broke out was because other groups of people felt that they had a much better claim on the piece of land which resulted in them trying to kick the Israelians out of their new country. There is nothing religious about that.

Look, if you want to make a claim that religion is a cause of war, it means that two sides wage war over the interpretation of their religion. It means they fight a war because one side says the pope is the human representative of God while the other side says the pope is not. It means they fight because one side says that this guy is a prophet while the other side says hes not. Its a war where the sole subject of conflict is whether God is called God or Allah. Thats a religious war.

Sure, the Israeli conflict has a religious side to it, but in the end its simply a war waged between groups of people who all want to have the same piece of land for themselves. And just because one side says their claim on the land is based on their holy text doesn't make this a religious conflict. Zionism and Jewish nationalism are political movements, not religious ones. It is partly inspired by religion, sure, but in the end its main considerations are political. Hence the conflict is political.

As soon as religion becomes organised it becomes political. Any institution starts to advance its own agenda for its survival. I am not sure why religious ideologies get a special pass. So special that you are doing a semantics dance to get out of admitting that religion is a huge part of a lot of global conflicts. No one said anything about those conflicts having to be Jihads.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Religion allows them to be controlled and complex conflicts to be simplified enough so that you can get the general populace involved.

Sure, but so does nationalism and every other political ideology. In fact, literally everything that forms the basis of a cultural identity with which people identify themselves with makes it possible to frame any conflict in simple terms and make it an us vs them story. You could even use sport teams for that. So yeah, religions get abused like that from time to time. But just like they abuse people's religious identities, they also abuse all those other identities. And trust me, they use those other identities far more often. Nationalism has two world wars on its name, along with several other smaller wars. Ideological conflict resulted in the cold wars and the many proxy wars that were waged during the cold war. And ethical identities resulted in such things like the Rwanda genocide, the everlasting civil war in Somalia, the conflicts in Yugoslavia and pretty much every conflict in post colonial Africa, because as it turns out you can't just draw straight lines on a map and expect to have functioning states appear. During the war on terror, what was used to unify the population was fear/national security and liberal norms (democratization).

And well, I think I pretty much summed up most conflicts of the past century. Before then again there was far less of a need to unify the population to go to war. Most countries were not democracies back then and the few that were often still had not given voting rights to everyone. The wars themselves also had a far more limited character. They weren't the modern total wars that involved the mass mobilization of everyone. So, not much need for unifying the people.

I am glad you are enjoying your philosophy courses. You aren't the only one here that's read Popper, Kuhn etc. I'm aware of all the justifications of war, I just will never agree that many are justified. Its not even an argument I'm going to waste my time on. You've stated your position. That's sufficient for me.

You should know that Neo-Realism (or Realism in general) isn't a philosophy, its a theory of international relations. And Clausewitz was a famous Prussian army officer who wrote a big book(s) about war and how and why states should wage it. Both Clausewitz and Realists are big fans of rational choice and rational behavior by states, and as a result they show that wars are indeed often waged by states for seemingly rational reasons.

Yes thank you, I've followed your discussion. I suspect you are completely unaware how humorous I find the above statement. I am sure your self confessed made up metaphysical entity gives you great comfort. If it gets you through the day, go for it. You are right, some people need that.

You have no idea how much comfort and joy it gives me :)

You don't have to do any such thing, but once you start editing what was once the primary proof of god to suit your own needs it becomes obvious that its not really any real thing that exists in reality. Surely you can see that?

Have you read the bible? Its a great book, but I don't believe for a moment that it contains 'proof' for anything. They are just really good stories and some of those stories even have a pretty good message (while others...well not so much).

Aside from that, the bible got it wrong therefor the possibility of God does not exist? Again, I do not follow your leap of logic here.

Nothing wrong with it, but nothing actually right with it either. Either god exists, in which case he/she exists in some state that can be defined whatever you wish him or her to be. If god exists, you have nothing to do with it. If god is made up, then you can make up whatever god you want. Which is what you are doing, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to describe what god actually is. In fact, if there is a being in charge of creation, its at best indifferent, at worst cruel.

I really don't get what you are talking about here.

Oh, and if there is a deity in charge of the universum, you wouldn't know if its indifferent or cruel. You'd be grasping for the motives of a thing that is beyond your comprehension. Its motives are therefor forever unknowable to human beings.

The old testament is pretty clear on how women should be treated. The new testament was written by people long after Jesus' death. There is some agreement on some of the cool things he said, but its been translated a lot since then. Its hardly definitive. Jesus claiming he was the son of man to fit in with some ancient prophecies written in the old testament doesn't mean he actually was. So you are putting yourself in the new testament camp for your religion. The Koran was written much more recently. Perhaps Mohammed was right? A TV sports presenter in the UK called David Ike came out a few years ago as the son of god. Do you follow his teachings? I seem to remember he liked turquoise.

I do not follow any religion. I believe in the possibility of a God and I don't find the possibility all that unlikely. I don't need to sit in a church and have a priest talk about things (although churches can be beautiful buildings).

No, god is not impossible. Just incredibly, incredibly, incredibly unlikely. And if there is a god, he might not be a god we like or the one you imagine. Considering the evidence of how cruel and indifferent the world is, if there is a god.. well...just look around... When something is that unlikely I'm not going to waste time believing it and adjusting my life around it. That's the definition of insanity. If if gives you comfort, go for it, but it doesn't mean its real.

Hmm, saying its unlikely means that you have a basic idea of the actual chances. I'd say we as a species do not have nearly enough information to actually begin to make a rough estimation of the chances let alone being able to calculate the odds. Aside from that, as unlikely as something might be, the universe is a big place. The existence of life also has incredibly small odds, yet here we are.

And sure, God might turn out to be Azatoth, the swirling chaos at the center of existence, surrounded by his troupe of stupid flute playing jesters and the mere sight of it would make me completely insane. Or it turns out you were right and there is no God. Big deal, by the time I expect to find out I probably won't care anymore if I'm wrong because I'll be dead. You know, hope for the best.

As soon as religion becomes organised it becomes political. Any institution starts to advance its own agenda for its survival. I am not sure why religious ideologies get a special pass. So special that you are doing a semantics dance to get out of admitting that religion is a huge part of a lot of global conflicts. No one said anything about those conflicts having to be Jihads.

Yeah, except most religious institutions don't have armies they could use to wage war, and there are only a few theocracies in the world at the moment. Aside from that, these institutions generally do not get into a conflict because of their religious ideology. Christian ideology had nothing to do with all those conflicts the pope got into back in the middle ages. The pope got into those conflicts because he wanted worldly power and more money. The churches interests resembled those of a secular state namely power, territory and wealth, and its reasons for conflict also resembled those of a secular state, namely to secure the aforementioned three interests. How you can call these conflicts 'religious' in nature is beyond me as it has nothing to do with the content of the religious ideology.

Aside from that, your argument was that religion was used to get the masses behind a particular point of view. Sure, that happened during a few conflicts. Just not the ones that you mentioned. Bosnians and Croats weren't murdered by the Serbs because they belonged to a particular religion, they were murdered because they were identified as Bosnians and Croats. Catholics and Protestants don't attack each other in Northern Ireland because they each believe in a different version of the God, but because Catholics want to reach a certain political goal with which the protestants vehemently disagree, and they fight each other over reaching (or preventing from reaching) that particular political goal. Israeli's don't attack Palestinians because Israelis are Jewish and Palestinians are Muslism, they get into a conflict because Palestinians want the Israelis to go away and the Israelis don't want to go away. See how in each of those cases the people are mobilized along the lines of the political goal or the national-ethnic group they belong to. Again, correlation does not imply causation.