Summer means no religion or politics?

[Khris]

Edit: Thanks Mr Matti, exactly.

Misj':
1. My argument about countries' religiousness, crime rate and living standards is about the strong correlation between 'good behaviour' in a broad sense (A) and not being religious (B).
Another way to put that: If most of the people of a country don't believe in a god, accept evolution, don't go to church, etc., then that country is also likely to have little crime, great social and health services, etc. (I'm not suggesting a causal relationship here!)
2. Lionmonkey mentioned communist countries and I told him why they neither fit category A (in general) nor B (for purposes of the argument). Then I added that my examples are to my knowledge Social democracies, in case he didn't know.

Then you come along and commit the following crimes against common sense:

1.Regarding crime, you use the map you posted.
First of all, while the numbers may be correct, an analysis that concludes that Iceland and Sweden are the least safe countries (C) is bound to suffer from some inherent fallacy. This is (or rather, should be) obvious to anybody who hasn't two moldy buns for brains or has lived in Europe for the last twenty years watching the news occasionally.
The statistic is maybe interesting but also pretty worthless (at least in relation to my argument).
The reason is simple: it compares reported crimes. Realizing that there probably is a vast difference between actual crimes and reported ones, especially in third world countries which in turn lead the statistics in terms of homicide and other violent crimes, together with a statement C that makes every intelligent person pause and wonder should have led you to the same conclusion.
And needless to say, my original argument about the correlation is concerned with actual crime (and its effects on / relation to the living standard), not just reported crime (which is only a more or less small part of actual crime).

Because I feel like it, here's an analogy: My argument states that countries with high deposition also sell most of umbrellas. You try to refute it by comparing the sales of blue umbrellas while aware (I hope/fear) that many countries also sell many umbrellas of a different color.

What irks me is that I'm sure you see it exactly the same way yet still used the map as an argument against mine. Also, when called on that, you wanted scientific evidence without providing it for yours.
I did mention/link to the scientific study backing my argument, you just posted a meaningless statistic with a very dubious conclusion.

2.Regarding religiousness, you mention political parties.
You justify your line of argumentation with my casual remark about the political system in my examples (which I used to correct an unrelated misconception). Even you should realize that this alone is weak at best.
Plus, and much more importantly, I'm sure you're aware that the leading party having a "Christian" in their name doesn't say anything about the general religiousness of the citizens, especially not in the 21st century.

Again, I hope/fear that you are indeed aware of all this.

What irks me even more is that both of your bad arguments and my long explanation could have been avoided if you had bothered to check the study (or at least the article that stated its results).


So in short, when I compared the living standard and religiousness, you refuted with unrelated statistics and parties' names. And that's precisely why I called you an idiot.



On to whether the "god hypothesis" is equally likely as the alternative:
You said:

Yes, I regard both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true. That is also why most scientists (at least that I know) consider themselves to be agnostic. And even those who are atheists (and there are very few) or religious (which are less few) agree on this particular point.

Here's a quote from the results of a fairly recent (1998) study:

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Keep in mind that these are US numbers; comparing the number of atheists in Europe and the US in general strongly suggests that European scientists are even more atheistic.

While that doesn't say anything about your personal regard concerning the likeliness of both claims to be true, I'd say it at least hints at the possibility that a majority of scientists would disagree with you.

[smiley]

No, as shown in a previous post the 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable (let alone by means of science). As a result, both claims have to be marked as 'unknowns'; thus leading to agnosticism.

The fact that "God doesn't exist" can't be proven is totally irrevelant.
The earlier claim "God exists" (and that isn't a chicken or egg problem) isn't valid by any means. The following one only declines the earlier.

Let's say I'd propose the idea of very very tiny men living in every cell of our body, making the cell work.
But, they are so tiny, they can't be seen by anything that can possibly be invented.
Would you also be agnostic towards this idea?
Of course we can wait 2000 years, while in the meantime people kill each other over the dispute whether the colour of their hair is brown or red, or wheter the majority of them is called Frank or Pete. (And eventually George Lucas makes some shitty movies about them.)

[Misj']

Then just pretend we're talking about research, not science. Otherwise we'll never accomplish anything.

Do you want me to 'pretend' or are you actually willing to do so? - Because the first case is basically that you are telling me that you wish to stay in a comfortable fantasy world of your own, in the second case you show that you are willing to correct false views (which KhrisMUC has stated to be one of the key-features of rational behaviour). If indeed the first is the case and you want to stick to a definition that is incompatible with the things you claim to talk about then I'll be more than willing to get out of this discussion immediately, because then there is apparently no rational behaviour (and nothing will be accomplished anyway; except you justifying yourself in the same way you accuse believers of).

No, that wasn't logical at all. The ONLY reason Khris mentioned that these countries are social democracies was because Lionmonkey - for whatever reason* - talked about communist countries. And that was clear.
* I guess he didn't get the point either.

So...it was clear what KhrisMUC meant, but the two people who read it (and were not already preconceived by the truth of the idea) did not understand it. In other words: it wasn't clear at all. Or do you actually think that our intelligence is compromised? - Because if you really think that you are superior in logic and rationale (possibly associated with being a non-scientist-atheist) then good luck to you on your further journey of superiority.

See, that's why I think you're nitpicky and, yes, that you pretend not to understand what we're talking about. Khris made it clear that his point was, that in western countries (and Japan, New Zealand etc.), where the overall living standards are higher, the percentage of atheism is higher too. The better you live, the lesser you (need to) believe in The One. Got it?

When I went to the university they had an example about statistics based on two actual studies from the beginning of the previous century. The first showed that in cities the number of born babies was lower than in the villages. The second was that the number of storks sighted was lower in the city than in the villages. Up until now the level of logic that you* have shown regarding this subject equals that of someone saying: the less storks the less babies; got it? - Because it's clear that babies are brought to us by storks (it's as simple as that).

* KhrisMUC's logic does exceed yours in this case as far as I can see, because his goal was to show that atheism does not lead to lawlessness (or anarchy). While I fully agree with the thing he wanted to show (and I've said that numerous times throughout this thread), I find his arguments flawed to 'prove' it. What I did not expect - and that may be of my wrong-doing - is that some of you appear so insecure** about your opinion that as soon as the argumentation is questioned, this is considered a personal attack on one's personal believes.

** I used the word 'appear' on purpose.


Ps.

Of course it's less safe then, say Denmark.

You use 'safe' again in stead of 'crime'. I never claimed any of these European countries to be less safe. But that doesn't mean there's not more crime. Crime also includes illegal downloads, stealing pin-cards, identity theft, driving too fast(all of which is more likely in western countries at the moment). While these crimes may be less severe than murder or rape, KhrisMUC was talking about 'atheism leading to anarchy'; and within that setting each of these crimes should be included. As stated earlier, if the idea is to change every aspect of the hypothesis (that spoke of 'crime' not 'safty') as soon as it's critically viewed upon and then claim that the hypothesis did not change at all, then it is impossible to have an intelligent, logical, and rational conversation.

Then you come along and commit the following crimes against common sense:

That is your opinion. And everyone - even you - has the right to has his own wrong opinion.

1.Regarding crime, you use the map you posted.
First of all, while the numbers may be correct, an analysis that concludes that Iceland and Sweden are the least safe countries (C) is bound to suffer from some inherent fallacy. This is (or rather, should be) obvious to anybody who hasn't two moldy buns for brains or has lived in Europe for the last twenty years watching the news occasionally.

And my crime against common sense is that when I talk about 'crime' I'm not talking about safety. Crime includes many things including illegal internet piracy (I wonder in what country 'the pirate bay' was located), ignoring traffic signs, killing people, identity theft, stealing a can of beer in the supermarket, etc etc. You however present a link concerning murder-cases which is merely a very specialized type of crime and anyone with some common sense (and who does not possess your described brains) would know that.

The statistic is maybe interesting but also pretty worthless (at least in relation to my argument).
The reason is simple: it compares reported crimes. Realizing that there probably is a vast difference between actual crimes and reported ones, especially in third world countries which in turn lead the statistics in terms of homicide and other violent crimes, together with a statement C that makes every intelligent person pause and wonder should have led you to the same conclusion. And needless to say, my original argument about the correlation is concerned with actual crime (and its effects on / relation to the living standard), not just reported crime (which is only a more or less small part of actual crime).

And my crime against common sense is that from the moment I quoted that map I distinctly said: "and while I would agree that the map concerns the reported crimes and not all crimes, nor does it differentiate between lesser and bigger crimes (which is valid to this particular discussion of course)", thus showing that I was fully aware of the limitation. Anyone with at least a little common sense now realizes that you repeat exactly what I said when I first introduced this map.

Because I feel like it, here's an analogy: My argument states that countries with high deposition also sell most of umbrellas. You try to refute it by comparing the sales of blue umbrellas while aware (I hope/fear) that many countries also sell many umbrellas of a different color.

And my crime against common sense is that you talked about 'umbrellas' but meant only 'blue umbrellas' (rather than all umbrellas), and that I thus indicated that your hypothesis about 'umbrellas' (in general) wasn't true (but that different colours of umbrellas were not taken into account).

What irks me is that I'm sure you see it exactly the same way yet still used the map as an argument against mine. Also, when called on that, you wanted scientific evidence without providing it for yours.

And my crime against common sense is that I ask the person who proposes the hypothesis but did not accept the argumentation against said hypothesis to argue as to why said hypothesis should not be discarded.

I did mention/link to the scientific study backing my argument, you just posted a meaningless statistic with a very dubious conclusion.

And my crime against common sense is that when you used murder-rates to argue a case (that you made yourself) concerning general crime-rates I doubted the relevance, since murder-cases can hardly be considered the only crime or even the most general crime.

2.Regarding religiousness, you mention political parties.
You justify your line of argumentation with my casual remark about the political system in my examples (which I used to correct an unrelated misconception). Even you should realize that this alone is weak at best.

And my crime against common sense is that when you spoke of the political system I assumed that you believed that said political system has a great impact on the crime-rates said countries, making it thus valid to question whether said political system was - at least for one of the countries mentioned - based on a religious or a secular view.

Plus, and much more importantly, I'm sure you're aware that the leading party having a "Christian" in their name doesn't say anything about the general religiousness of the citizens, especially not in the 21st century.

And my crime against common sense is that in a country like The Netherlands views and opinions of the people - at least to a certain level - are represented in the political system; particularly since atheists since atheists generally do not vote on parties with 'christian' in their name.

Again, I hope/fear that you are indeed aware of all this.

And my crime against common sense is that I either addressed your 'attacks' initially myself, or that your attacks are invalid because they contradict your previous statements (that were under discussion).

And that's precisely why I called you an idiot.

It's a good thing that one of your argumentations is that atheism does not lead to 'worse people'...

On to whether the "god hypothesis" is equally likely as the alternative:
You said:

Yes, I regard both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true. That is also why most scientists (at least that I know) consider themselves to be agnostic. And even those who are atheists (and there are very few) or religious (which are less few) agree on this particular point.

Here's a quote from the results of a fairly recent (1998) study:

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

And my crime against common sense is that I indicated from the beginning that I was talking about the scientists that I know (personally) - hence the words 'at least that I know' - and wasn't making a general remark.

While that doesn't say anything about your personal regard concerning the likeliness of both claims to be true, I'd say it at least hints at the possibility that a majority of scientists would disagree with you.

And my crime against common sense is that I have actually discussed this subject with a number scientists. All of these agreed with me (on this particular part) even though they have different world-views and believe-systems. It is a big crime against common sense indeed to share those scientists' views.

The fact that "God doesn't exist" can't be proven is totally irrevelant.
The earlier claim "God exists" (and that isn't a chicken or egg problem) isn't valid by any means. The following one only declines the earlier.

When did I ever say anything about proving that 'god doesn't exist'? - I said that if god doesn't exist then men has created god. The claim that men has created god has not been proven (and might be impossible to proof), and it is therefore an equally invalid claim as the one stating that god does exist.

Let's say I'd propose the idea of very very tiny men living in every cell of our body, making the cell work.
But, they are so tiny, they can't be seen by anything that can possibly be invented.
Would you also be agnostic towards this idea?

Yes. This claim doesn't change any of the mechanisms of the cell and is therefore irrelevant to the mechanisms of the cell and to science, but as a scientist I answer you that: yes, I'd be agnostic towards that idea.

[smiley]

When did I ever say anything about proving that 'god doesn't exist'?

[...] 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable [...]

You've stated here, that "God does not exists" is not provable. My response was only in regard of the unnecessarity of this claim being provable.

The lack of ability to prove the initial claim "God exists", seems for me to be a strong indication(not proof) that somebody invented it.

]Yes. This claim doesn't change any of the mechanisms of the cell and is therefore irrelevant to the mechanisms of the cell and to science, but as a scientists I answer you that: yes, I'd be agnostic towards that idea.

But it at least gives you an explanation of the origin of these mechanisms. And since it's a valid idea (and even complementary to the scientific belief) it should be included in textbooks, so that everybody who studies biology should know about it.

[Khris]

I talked about crime rates and living standards. The former being low contributes greatly to the latter being high, as far as crimes are regarded such as mugging, murder, armed robbery and the like. I'll go out on a limb here and say that illegal downloads or stealing a beer can don't lower a country's living standard significantly.

So given the context, it's pretty clear which crimes should be considered here and which shouldn't (to everyone except to you, it seems).
Having said that, things like low corruption, universal health care, social care, well maintained hospitals, kindergardens and similar institutions and equal rights also contribute greatly to a country's living standard.
I singled out the factor crime (which I deeply regret by now) because I thought looking up crime rates is an easy way of getting a general idea about the social health of a country, should anybody want to make up his own mind.

While it's true that you said you are aware of the limitations of the map you posted, this in no way kept you from using its obviously non-relevant information in your argument.
Again: your crime against common sense is basing an argument of yours on a statistic that declares Iceland and Sweden to be the least safe countries worldwide. Can't you see that...?
(Edit: and when Mr Matti mentions the Congo to illustrate that, you expect him to back up his statement with proof that he spent several months there. Seriously, how lost in definitions, tidbits, nitpicking and general narrow-mindedness are you?)

Put yourself in my shoes: how would you react if I argued that all dutch science is wrong, and to back it up posted a statistic that showed that dutch scientists are more likely than others to take the last cookie from the cookie jar in the university's kitchen and then deny it, and thus concluded that dutch scientists are thieves and liars?

And my crime against common sense is that when you spoke of the political system I assumed that you believed that said political system has a great impact on the crime-rates said countries

Yep. Exactly. Nowhere did I hint at, much less state such a thing. I explained twice already why I mentioned that my example countries are Social democracies. It wasn't part of my argument. It was part of a correction of Lionmonkey's understanding of my argument. Again, this was apparently clear to everyone except you.

This lead me to assume that you're obsessed with little details and thus fail to see the gist of my arguments. Plus, it appears that using common sense could have spared you (and me) from having this tiresome argument.
__

Have you read the study? At least read the article I linked to. Then, if you finally understood what my argument was / the study is about, you're of course free to dismiss it using e.g. statistics that show that countries full of atheists have a significantly lower living standard than mostly religious ones.
I'm looking forward to finally getting to the core.

And my crime against common sense is that I indicated from the beginning that I was talking about the scientists that I know (personally)
[...]
And my crime against common sense is that I have actually discussed this subject with a number scientists. All of these agreed with me (of this particular part) even though they have different world-views and believe-systems. It is a big crime against common sense indeed to share those scientists' views.

(Before I continue, no, I didn't regard either as crime against common sense. Those I did were using the map and political parties' names.)
I'm left to see two possibilities: either you think of scientists you know as representative for all scientists (based on your answer, I'm inclined to think that's not the case) or you mentioned an irrelevant, extremely small portion of scientists to emphasize an argument you made (which, as you can imagine, I find questionable).
If there's a third possibility, please do enlighten me.


"Men invented god" is a conclusion from "There is no god". While "Men invented god" might require evidence (I don't think it does), "there is no god" still doesn't.
Postulating that there's a powerful supernatural being is the extraordinary claim here, exactly like "Men didn't invent religion, it was brought to us by a powerful supernatural being" is an extraordinary claim. Both require extraordinary evidence, their respective alternatives don't.

[Matti]

So...it was clear what KhrisMUC meant, but the two people who read it (and were not already preconceived by the truth of the idea) did not understand it. In other words: it wasn't clear at all.

Misj, this was the start of that politic thingy:

(In case you're wondering, the last statement is based on the fact that the countries with the lowest crime rate and best living standard are also the least religious ones.)

You mean the Communist ones?

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

Did Khris talk about politics or the influence of parties on the living standard? No! Was anything unclear? No! Why did Khris mention that these countries are social democracies? Because Lionmonkey asked a rather stupid question..

Then just pretend we're talking about research, not science. Otherwise we'll never accomplish anything.

Do you want me to 'pretend' or are you actually willing to do so? - Because the first case is basically that you are telling me that you wish to stay in a comfortable fantasy world of your own

I'm not staying "in a comfortable fantasy world of [my] own". You came here and told us that what we call "science" should be called "research". Does that effect the content and validity of the discussion that lastet a dozen pages before you made your claim about the definition? No. If the term is the only problem you have, then please call what we're talking about research. That's it.


Regarding your other paragraphs: I think Khris made once and for all clear what his point is and what he's talking about (see the post above for example).

And my crime against common sense is that from the moment I quoted that map I distinctly said: "and while I would agree that the map concerns the reported crimes and not all crimes, nor does it differentiate between lesser and bigger crimes (which is valid to this particular discussion of course)", thus showing that I was fully aware of the limitation. Anyone with at least a little common sense now realizes that you repeat exactly what I said when I first introduced this map.

No, the 'crime' was that you still posted the map, despite your awareness of its invalidity.

[Intense Degree]

Mr Matti:

I'm not saying I disagree with everything you have said but I can't accept two things.

1. Lionmonkey's question was not stupid. If you asked me to think of the "least religious countries" then I would think first of communist ones and I do not see why anyone would expect these would be excluded from any group of "least religious countries".

2. There was ambiguity on the political parties point, Khris said he was talking about social democracies, which sounded like he was suggesting these were the the ones with the lowest crime rate and best living standards just by the fact of them being social democracies. Since that time Khris has cleared this up but the initial misunderstanding seems reasonable to me.

I am not suggesting that either you or Khris are wrong in this argument, but you must recognise that the argument has changed, perhaps not from how it was meant but from how it was stated. i.e. "lower crime rate" becoming "safer", and "crime" itself going from the general to the specific and I think it may be for this reason that Misj did not initially address it properly.

[Matti]

1. Lionmonkey's question was not stupid. If you asked me to think of the "least religious countries" then I would think first of communist ones and I do not see why anyone would expect these would be excluded from any group of "least religious countries".

2. There was ambiguity on the political parties point, Khris said he was talking about social democracies, which sounded like he was suggesting these were the the ones with the lowest crime rate and best living standards just by the fact of them being social democracies. Since that time Khris has cleared this up but the initial misunderstanding seems reasonable to me.

But Khris did NOT talk about social democracies, he was talking about the countries with the highest living standard. Since Lionmoney asked if Khris meant the communist countries (which IS a rather stupid question, since they aren't the ones with a high living standard), he added that they are social democracies.

Also note that the communist countries aren't necessarily countries with less religious people. In Cuba and Vietnam for example are many religious people. Edit: Okay, not true. Just read that about 81% of the Viatnamese consider themselves atheists . And if religion is opressed in certain countries, then it's a totally invalid issue, because we're talking about people not being religious, not about people not being able to live a religious life because it's forbidden

I am not suggesting that either you or Khris are wrong in this argument, but you must recognise that the argument has changed, perhaps not from how it was meant but from how it was stated. i.e. "lower crime rate" becoming "safer", and "crime" itself going from the general to the specific and I think it may be for this reason that Misj did not initially address it properly.

No, the argument didn't go from general to specific, because the total crime rate clearly wasn't what KhrisMUC was aiming for. The point was very general, precisely that countries with a high living standard aren't as religious as others. Khris mentioned the crime rate as a factor of the living standard, but it's nothing else than nitpicking to focus on the crime rate and throw in some dubious statistics, because we all agree that the mentioned countries are the ones with the highest living standard.

But let me add that - if there was a misunderstanding - then let it be, it doesn't matter anymore. I think we should just finally end the current discussion because things should be clear by now. We could dicuss if countries with a high living standard are less religious than others and why that is so, but not how high different (reported)crime statistics about first-world countries are, since that doesn't really matter.

Misj': No, I'm not arrogant and therefore I don't see myself superior to others. And though some things that have been said in this thread made me angry, I don't pretend being able to make myself a picture of the people who post here, at most about some attitudes they have.

Also, my connection sucks and I'm tired of going trough all the pages to reread things and quote old stuff 

[Khris]

I think it is also worth noting that Misj' has posted four times AFTER I linked him to the article/study about this issue. In these posts, he attacked a misinterpretation of what I was saying, although even a casual browsing of the article would have immediately cleared that up.

[Misj']

I think it is also worth noting that KhrisMUC has posted six times AFTER he linked me to the article/study about this issue. During that time he has not critically looked at said article, although even a casual search on (his beloved) wikipedia would have immediately cleared up most if not all of his misconceptions (several of which I pointed out).

So since he's not going to do it, I will:

Wikipedia:
Paul authored a paper in 2005 entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look".[2] He states in the introduction that the paper is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".[3] This paper has been criticized on statistical grounds, for conceptual ambiguity , its indirect measure of "religiosity" (the author's term) and its "chi-by-eye" interpretation of scatterplots rather than quantified measures. Summing up in a published article in the same journal, Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach from Cedarville University wrote that "[Paul's] methodological problems do not allow for any conclusive statement to be advanced regarding the various hypotheses Paul seeks to demonstrate or falsify."[4] At the time the paper was published, Paul announced plans to write a book on the subject, claiming that the findings are strong enough to justify further study.[5]

Gary F. Jensen of Vanderbilt University is one of the scientists who criticizes the methods used by Paul, including that "Paul’s analysis generates the 'desired results' by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion". In a response [6] to the study by Paul, he builds on and refines Paul's analysis. His conclusion, that focus only in the crime of homicide, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualistic Christian beliefs, something Jensen defines as the strong belief in all of the following : God, heaven, devil and hell. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it."

[2] Gregory S. Paul (2005), "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion and Society. Vol. 7.
[3] Paul 2005, p. 2.
[4] "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
[5] "Religion and social problems". MSNBC. 2005. Retrieved 2009-02-19.
[6] Jensen 2006.


And two quotes from the article by Moreno-Riaño, Smith, and Mach concerning the work of Paul. (reference 4 above):
"What one can state with certainty is that one cannot in any way be certain as to the effects of religiosity and secularism upon prosperous democracies at least as based upon the methods and data of Paul’s study."
"Yet one can be certain that any future examination in this important topic that implements these “rules of thumb” will be on a more sure footing and will make a contribution to our understanding of the role of worldview commitments to social health by avoiding the methodological pitfalls that can damage even the most noble of efforts."

[Misj']

When did I ever say anything about proving that 'god doesn't exist'?

[...] 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable [...]

You've stated here, that "God does not exists" is not provable. My response was only in regard of the unnecessarity of this claim being provable.

My apologies, I now see the reason for the confusion. My intention was not to focus on the question whether or not 'god does not exist' can - or has to be - proven, on the contrary. I wanted to focus on the fact that similar to the question of 'god does not exist', the question 'men did not invent god' cannot (and doesn't have to be) proven.

The lack of ability to prove the initial claim "God exists", seems for me to be a strong indication(not proof) that somebody invented it.

However, similarly, the lack of the ability to prove the initial claim (initial from another point of view) 'men invented god' can be an equal strong indication (also not proof) that he exists and revealed himself. It's simply looking at the same question from the other side: if god was not invented by men, then he does exist, or if god does not exist then he was invented by men.

Hence, atheists who claim to have no assumptions at the basis of their believe-system (using the word 'believe' as always in a non-religious sense) have to show that 'men invented god'. Otherwise any claims that are based on this assumption are assumptions themselves. From an agnostic point of view, that is not a problem, and even from the point of view of most atheists and religious people it is not. Only those atheists who claim to have no assumptions at all will have to prove that men indeed did invent god, while those theists who claim to have no assumptions have to prove that 'god exists'.

]Yes. This claim doesn't change any of the mechanisms of the cell and is therefore irrelevant to the mechanisms of the cell and to science, but as a scientists I answer you that: yes, I'd be agnostic towards that idea.

But it at least gives you an explanation of the origin of these mechanisms. And since it's a valid idea (and even complementary to the scientific belief) it should be included in textbooks, so that everybody who studies biology should know about it.

Not in my opinion. Because if I had it my way non of the 'origin' ideas should be thought in science-class. That does not mean that I would not teach people in each of these ideas, since I think that schools should teach people in all possible 'origin' ideas (unless is can be proven that they were made up by men...the spaghetti-monster is quite a good example of this). But then again, I believe that an education - even of ideas that are not your own - should be as broad as possible. And even though I may disagree with KhrisMUC, I would have no problem having him as a teacher at my school (if I had a school)...

Ps. My apologies for the double post; I felt it would be clearer.

[Khris]

In my opinion, the findings of the study strongly suggest that religion is not necessary for a healthy society to develop and thrive. The correlation is also pretty obvious, even without the study. Anybody can look up the figures and see for themselves. Plus, it's my impression that the critics of the study merely want to dismiss the notion that there's a causal relation from the start.

It's simply looking at the same question from the other side

Alright, I'll humor you for a sec here.
Prove to me that humans invented stories about unicorns. If you can't, then the claim that there are unicorns who revealed themselves is equally valid as the claim that there aren't any unicorns. Right...?

[Misj']

Plus, it's my impression that the critics of the study merely want to dismiss the notion that there's a causal relation from the start.

Considering that they state: "Paul’s efforts and “first look” should be applauded since they bring to the attention of religious studies scholars and social scientists a very important and timely subject of study." and based on further reading of their article I would disagree with your assumption. To me it was clear that not the conclusion itself but the method was challenged.

In my opinion, the findings of the study strongly suggest that religion is not necessary for a healthy society to develop and thrive.

I've stated several times that I agree with that overall opinion (though I don't believe this study is of high enough quality to support the claim). But this in the end relates to Nacho's comments early on in this thread where he - justly - stated that religious people aren't better (ethically at least) than atheists. I therefore have no reason to assume that a religious state would be better (ethically) than a secular state (I also have no reason to assume it the other way around).

It's simply looking at the same question from the other side

Alright, I'll humor you for a sec here.
Prove to me that humans invented stories about unicorns. If you can't, then the claim that there are unicorns who revealed themselves is equally valid as the claim that there aren't any unicorns. Right...?

Exactly!

Whether or not unicorns exist somewhere (or have ever existed somewhere in the past) is something that I simply don't know, but indeed accept as a possibility. Yes, I'm agnostic about unicorns. Whether or not they were magical - should they (have) exist(ed) - is of course another question...but a lot of medicine is based on nature, and in such a sense it might be possible that unicorns excrete some sort of sludge from a gland close to their horn that had some sort of healing power (which one could define as magical)...again I don't know, again I'm agnostic about this; although my personal believes are doubtful about it, I accept it as an unknown that might be possible. As for their shape, considering that the earliest known images of unicorns showed a greater resemblance to goats (including a goat's beard) than to a horse I would be inclined to consider a goat-like unicorn more likely (since it matches the earlier descriptions) than a horse-like appearance...but yes, again: I don't (and can't) know, so I'm agnostic about it. I have to add, that I've seen weirder creatures though than horned-horses though.

I know you expected me to reject the existence of unicorns (now, or at some point in time), but I'm sorry, I can't. That's the whole point of making as few assumptions as possible, and making sure that you know the assumptions that you do make. How could I ever be a scientist if I automatically rejected stuff that I don't know whether it is true or not? - That would severely hamper any kind of progression, because I could never study anything that I don't already know.

[Khris]

Sure, but I don't reject the claim "there is a god" either; I just think it to be much less likely than the alternative. This is the point of smiley's argument, I take it: It is unknown, but it isn't 50-50.

You said your personal beliefs are doubtful about it, i.e. more like 5-95 or similar. I assume it's the same regarding goblins, invisible unicorns and Santa Claus. Atheists just take one step further and extend that doubtfulness to the god hypothesis.

[Misj']

You said your personal beliefs are doubtful about it, i.e. more like 5-95 or similar. I assume it's the same regarding goblins, invisible unicorns and Santa Claus. Atheists just take one step further and extend that doubtfulness to the god hypothesis.

But I accept the doubtfulness as my personal belief (or interpretation) and not a fact. Atheists* consider the non-existence of god as a fact rather than the personal belief that it is.

* by no means all atheists...but those who feel the need to convert others, exclude religion from schools*** (I'm not talking science-class here), save people from the 'delusion', etc. in my opinion do**. Many other atheists simply say 'while I can't know for sure, I believe there is no god (for various reasons)'...they consider it their personal business; and as far as I can see this group consists of the majority of atheists.

** the same goes for religious people who feel the need to exclude other origin ideas (including but not limited to the big bang), want to convert everyone in sight, and want to save everyone's soul. These people too consider their personal believes to be facts that should be forced upon everyone-else's lives; and those people too should be opposed to. Fortunately this group reflects only a limited percentage of religious people, and most religious people accept that their assumptions are their personal believes rather than facts.

*** of course it should be left to the place of 'objective' education, and I consider forcing religious rituals onto people (like for example a forced morning-prayer) to be an 'evil'...a more practical education about religion at home is - in my opinion - not an 'evil' though, and I cannot oppose to it (in general...for some people's 'education' is to me (at least ethically) doubtful...but then again some people's way of raising their children in general (whether religious or not) sometimes border the ethical in my opinion)

[InCreator]

Let's jump onto bandwagon!... or rather not?

Anyway.

I believe that there is no God (atleast, whatever the word stands for) and religion is one biiiig pile of bullshit. Might be taken seriously as political system (middle ages), psychological method/tool (since beginning of the man) for motivation/soul aid,  historic tale, superpowerful way to form a civilization and everything else nice and useful, but in a core, I see it as a fairy tale.

Just an useful one...
That's religion.
By that, I claim disbelief in everything religious people study, such as Moses, walking through sea, angels, hell & heaven, Allah the prophet, Jesus or just whatever crazy stuff form the bio of different religions.

Sure, there might be historical characters who introduced religion and therefore became prophets, and were even named as they appear in books, but I don't think anyone fed 5000 with few fish and bread.

Religion.

Now, I said "I believe that there is no God" and pointed out that there's nothing what the word should stand for specifically.

What I DO believe is that man could have no idea of how higher power (what everyone calls god in their religion) could look like, be or even would it be anything we could describe, ever. But there COULD be something, that functions like God. Maybe it's unknown matter, energy, dimension, or maybe just a long and complex mathematical formula that makes world go around.

That unknown entity I believe and respect and it's something you could call "fear of god". Sometimes I think it's my own set of morals and conscience that makes me quiet down in church or stop & hesitate before committing something that would result with burning in hell by christian ideology, brings strange coincidences and gives life some unknown, strange, all-controlled, someone's-behind-the-scenes feel. But more often I feel that this cannot be my subconscious mind alone and there MUST be something else.

To sum up, I have some bits of religious mind in me, and to SOMETHING, I do respond. I definitely don't think what atheists do - that everything's up to us only and there's nothing else out there. Then again, I don't like religious people at all. In general, not personally. For example, Muslims sound plain crazy to me and Christians triple it with history long of slavery, inquisition and other savagery. Oriental religions, such as Buddhism sounds more peaceful but quite crazy aswell.

So, what I think is that man is not worth his god. Priests make me mad, because human being cannot represent god, ever. Whatever the god itsself would be... you can read that boring book of jew history and drink wine pretending it to be blood all you want, but you will never, ever get to know what god really is. No amount of water on the head will change anything but your own strength of belief. I don't understand how religions would in a common sense think that such circus would please something as mighty as god? For example, I see really no major difference in Christians praying at Jesus on the cross and scandinavian pagans sacrificing food to some holy trees 700 years ago at the same place I sit right now. It's all a ceremony, and benefits people performing it, but has very little to do with God itsself.

What does that make of me?
Did I start a religion? Smugism! Let's form a cult. Who's with me?

[Matti]

Amen.

[Lionmonkey]

you haven't exactly studied the field of Formal Logic, have you?

I never claimed, I have.

Lionmonkey:
See, that's the point. That's simply the nature of axioms. I don't know if A is true, but "A and B implies A", always.

But if you don't know for sure, that means you believe.

I take it you think of axioms as statements like "earth is round" or "gravity exists". Those aren't axioms.

What are they then?

So in essence, a god-fearing mob slaughtered unbelievers while taking back the "Holy Land" to get remission for sins. This could be called "territorial", but that really misses the point, doesn't it?

Well, there were some people who deliberatley casused this, right.

I don't know, but the situation wouldn't be much different if the husband were a catholic. It depends on his personal view on vigilante justice.
It doesn't matter though; you need to focus on crimes with a religious background, that's were the difference lies.
E.g. Ireland has outlawed public blasphemy. Nevermind the violation of the seperation of church and state, no sane atheist would want somebody thrown in jail because of ridiculing his world-view.
In several countries, homosexuals get death sentences if "caught", based on what's written in some holy book.
There simply aren't any equivalent atheist examples.
The important point is that if, say, a gay guy gets beaten up by somebody religious, chances are the person did it because he's deeply religious and therefore thinks that it's wrong to be gay ("do not lay with another man" or similar). If a gay guy gets beaten up by an atheist, there's no way he did it because he's an atheist. Got it now?

I don't know how to tell you this, but this couple of paragraphs of yours are freaking me out. I don't wan't to insult you in any way, but please tell me, don't you think the "the're no way he did that, 'cause he's an atheist" philosophy is a bit ... delusional.

There are millions of people who believe because they had "an experience". That doesn't count as evidence, yet that's why they do believe (in Jesus or whomever).
It's all the need, so tell that to them.

That's almost exactly what I meant.

[NsMn]

I take it you think of axioms as statements like "earth is round" or "gravity exists". Those aren't axioms.

What are they then?

Short answer: FACTS. As you said, if you don't know for sure, you believe - but we DO know for sure.

[Anian]

It would be a far better world if religion was more about faith and politics more about common good...sadly human nature gets in the way of both.