[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="iaosoir"] I'm not using the word religion as a "thing", but as a verb. It is an undesired way of thinking. It is anti-reason, anti-evidence, and pro-dogma, things that do not help in making the world a better place. I'm not sure it works that way.... That portion doesn't work without the rest of my post, which I will add back into your quote. I am discussing the way of thinking that religion entails... subjective experience, authoritative belief system, and premises built on a lack of verifiable evidence.
We wouldn't be having these petty problems if religion weren't around anymore and everyone practiced rationality and science. Maybe then we could start diverting our focus on more serious matters like combating AIDS, finding a solution to the impending population problem, poverty, hunger, etc.
LJS9502_basic
Since religion is the issue in very few conflicts....I'd imagine we would still be having these problems. If religion weren't around, we wouldn't have this atheist "group" suing over a religious symbol being displayed at the memorial. Those are the sort of issues I was talking about in my first sentence. Surely you can't disagree that we wouldn't be having this little fight over the cross if religion weren't around in the first place. It is a waste of effort. My second sentence was a CONJECTURE (hence the use of of "maybe") that ridding of religion (more specifically, the way of thinking that religion endorses) would aid in working on building a better world. And religion is the issue in many big conflicts. It is absurd to disagree with that.
We wouldn't be having these petty problems if religion weren't around anymore and everyone practiced rationality and science. Maybe then we could start diverting our focus on more serious matters like combating AIDS, finding a solution to the impending population problem, poverty, hunger, etc.
worlock77
Ehh, I'm not that optimistic. Whether it's because of religion, or patriotism/tribalism, or race, or nerds vs jocks people will always find some reason to lash out against those different from them.
I'm not using the word religion as a "thing", but as a verb. It is an undesired way of thinking. It is anti-reason, anti-evidence, and pro-dogma, things that do not help in making the world a better place.
We wouldn't be having these petty problems if religion weren't around anymore and everyone practiced rationality and science. Maybe then we could start diverting our focus on more serious matters like combating AIDS, finding a solution to the impending population problem, poverty, hunger, etc.
As I said before, any specific claim about God is improbable, because God can be a million different things. It is highly improbable that God will turn out to be as you believed.
spacesheikh
Then let's throw the notion of "god" out of the picture entirely...it is wholly unnecessary. There is absolutely no viable reason to posit the existence of a god.
The statement that "God does not exist" is a specific statement about God. Therefore, it is highly improbable that it is true.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Probability does not even come into play here. Looking at your argument: A: The statement that God does not exist is a specific statement of God. C: It is not likely that God does not exist. In other words. If A, then C. I will grant that A is true, fair enough. But a problem arises in C. It is flat out wrong... There is no objective evidence to posit the existence of a god, especially in this day and age. This is the null hypothesis on the existence of a god. No evidence of, no reason for, so it should be assumed by default that a god does not exist. Until there is evidence of a god, this will remain. So the "burden of proof", if you will, rests on those who wish to posit the existence of god. If you are able to gather up evidence and prove that a god exists, then the position that there is no god will be rejected. Until then, it will be assumed that no god exists. So this is a logically invalid argument. Furthermore, you neglected to explain how because one made a specific stance on A, it is unlikely it is true. There is a hole in your reasoning.
Log in to comment