On 4 Jul, 07:14, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:21 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho
...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I didn't "simply" do that. Benign means not harmful.
> > > I dealt with the one argument I know of for why theist
> > > belief in and of itself is harmful. The absence of
> > > evidence of X (theism/God) being Y (harmful/in existence)
> > > means we should consider that it is not Y (not harmful/
> > > not in existence).- Hide quoted text -
> > But this has nothing to do with wants, you are now trying to address
> > the point of whether theism is actually harmful, which was the central
> > point all along. So lets deal with this. You say that there is an
> > absence of evidence that theism is harmful, and that therefore we
> > shouldn't consider it to be harmful, but why is your default position
> > to assume that it isn't harmful? Why are you biasing yourself like
> > this, this isn't an unfalsifiable proposition which automatically
> > makes it very unlikely apriori. We can only look at the data and
> > decide what the most likely explanation is.
> Why is your default position that God does not exist
> without some evidence that God does exist?
Well a default position is by definition without evidence. You only
move from your default position if there is some evidence, so your
question doesn't really make sense. However, the reason that God not
existing is my default position is because God (andI'm talking about
any God that is more than merely an act of creation, I'm talking about
one that involves a purpose and especially the idea of faith being
good) is an unfalsifiable explanation of the universe. And
unfalsifiable explanations are very unsatisfactory in science and
deemed very unlikely especially when there are countless ways to
explain the beginning of the universe if there even was a beginning.
> > I would say that for the available evidence, the most parsimonous
> > explanation, is that religion is harmful. You see many different
> > correlations between crime rates, divorce rates, education levels,
> > intelligence, as well as under-representation in prison, terrorist
> > organisations, and over representation in lists of 10 biggest
> > philanthropists and science. You have people manipulating politics
> > and fighting wars and they are telling you directly, it is because of
> > their religious ideas and that criticism will not be tolerated.
> Could it just be that people with problems need
> God more than poeple without as man problems?
It's less likely. For example with greedy people, there isn't an
obvious reason why they would need or want God. Or murderers, there
isn't a obvious reason why they would need God either. And I highly
doubt that suicide bombers are just blowing themselves up only because
of personal problems. Also the Christians against stem cell research
are not doing that because they are "troubled", it's because of what
their religion teaches them.
You see, religious beliefs have consequences for your actions. I'm
not saying that people with problems don't go to religion, im saying
that my explanation doesn't contradict with yours, but mine is a heck
of a lot more explanatory. Even a "troubled" terrorist leader will
have a much easier time manipulating people if they believe that
evidence is not needed.
> You are also infering characteristics to a group based on
> some members of the group.
No I'm not. I'm ascertaining whether promoting faith as a good thing
is a good thing to do. The only characteristic that I am infering
that is that faith is something to be valued.
> > It could be that all the terrorists are lying and blowing themselves
> > up for some other purpose that makes no sense, science is a big
> > conspiracy, atheists all pretend to be christians when in prison (even
> > to researchers who have nothing to do with their sentencing),
> > christians are too concerned with moral intelligence and too poor to
> > score well in IQ tests or go to college, the stifling of scientific
> > research and what is allowed in the classroom is because of bad people
> > who just happen to be religious etc., etc.
> There have been underground atheist terrorist groups, like
> the Red Army Faction. And who was a bigger terrorist than
> Stalin?
That's a grey area. I was talking about the organised terrorist
groups we have today. The reason why I didn't mention Hitler or
Stalin, etc., is because it's not obvious whether their acts were
motivated by their views on God/supernatural. To conclude it was
Stalin's atheism, you first have to assume that his actions where due
to some trait that is common among atheists. Saying that atheists are
united by a disbelief in God isn't good enough though, that's a lack
of a trait or idea. It would be like saying a human and a tortoise
both reproduce because niether of them are icebergs. If atheists did
have anything it could possibly be a value of evidence and
rationality, but I would hardly say this is a plausibe explanation for
Stalin. A far better explantion lies in the ideology that he did
have, rather than the one he didn't.
> > But isn't the following more likely? That the concept of faith as
> > perpetuated by "moderates" that isn't constrained by rationality and
> > is essentially beyond question, gives bad people the power to get away
> > with controlling others for their own purposes without criticism. The
> > mechanism here is clear and plausible, and even without evidence, I
> > would argue that this should be the default position rather than its
> > politically correct negation that promotion of the concept of faith
> > makes it no easier for bad men to take advantage of peoples faith. So
> > please tell me why a priori I should take religion being beneficial
> > instead of harmful as the default position. And then please tell me
> > how my explanation isn't the most likely explanation for all these
> > religious issues.
> > And this is just some present day data...
> Thomas putting his finger in Christ's wounds refutes
> your notion that Christianity consider's itself
> beyond question.- Hide quoted text -
Bible evidence against a strawman argument that wouldn't even
contradict the strawman even if it were true? That's even worse than
wrong. I am saying that faith is beyond rational criticism, not
Christianity.
> - Show quoted text -
