London Bombings

[QED]

Soon after the news channels started covering the four bombings on the London Underground and Bus last week, all the media channels started wheeling-in Christian and Muslim spokesmen for comment.

What am I to make of this? I am always arguing the danger of letting people grow their own set of rules around imaginary concepts so making it a no-go zone for reason and logic. This I've pointed out provides a loophole through which fanatics are able to invade the minds of people accustomed to the unquestioned acceptance of whatever it is that they're being told by their spiritual leaders.

In every other sphere people are expected to justify their beliefs and actions. But this single exception is made for religion. I deplore this fact.

[harvey1]

I keep forgetting to call you on this sort of argument which is clearly an appeal to consequences. Whether the universe has meaning or not, the fact that it might be considered worse off in one case does not justify it being restricted to the other.

Well, here's the deal. We don't possess all knowledge of the world. What we have are reasons to believe T and reasons to believe A. I believe T has stronger evidence than A, and conversely, you feel that A has stronger reasons to believe than T. By showing that A is a meaningless belief, I have given you a pragmatic reason to believe T has more utility over A. If over time (e.g., the fall of communism, etc.) A looks like it is extremely non-efficacious such as reasons I cited, then this gives us good reason to doubt A.

We have the great western scientist [Albert] Einstein and the part-time philosopher harvey1 to thank for showing us that god does not play dice and sits instead in judgement of all events taking place in his glorious creation.

I didn't say God doesn't play dice with the universe. I would suppose that God does play dice. In fact, I think it is likely that God must play dice with the universe. Otherwise, if there is nothing separating God from the universe how is it that God is perfect and the universe is not? In fact, I would say there's a whole bunch of chairs and sofa's in the doorway between God and the universe that explains how an imperfect world can exist in the presence of a perfect God.

This shows us how very unjust it is for the imperial infidels to pass judgement on us by appealing to their puny and subjective notions of right and wrong -- of which only god alone can be the judge. Our confidence in his infinite mercy allows us to carry out his will in the knowledge that we will please him by following the path he has set us on. This mercy will allow him to judge those we are about to bring before him so that he may grant them his richest rewards or condem them to eternal suffering as he sees fit. God is great!

Of course those people can say that, but they are going to say that regardless. The difference, though, is that I have a reason as to why they are wrong. I have a pragmatic theory and Peircean theory of truth to stand on which states that over time societies tend to produce moral truths. Since most societies have laws in place that forbid terrorism, there are good reasons to believe that such a person is crazier than a looney bird and should be punished harshly for any pain and suffering they inflict on others. Since atheists would have a hard time justifying that there is meaning in the world with a Peircean account, I have a leg to stand on that atheists don't.

[NGR]

My definition of human meaning: the intent of a sender whose message can only be understood if the sender has sent a message that would take human capability to understand. It's obvious that you think the universe itself is meaningless even by your definition (significance), it seems.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that when I specifically stated that I found the Universe meaningful(significant). I have had an interest in Astronomy since I was about twelve years old and have had a telescope since around the same time. I currently use a Meade 10" schmidt cassegrain scope although I don't get to use it as often as I'd like these days. I point out also that I have several desktop images for my computer that I rotate through every so often. The current desktop image is a Hubble Deep Space image of a small patch of the sky showing untold galaxies, and every time I look at that image I am in awe at the size of the Universe and our insignificance. That's another reason that I adopt a sceptical stance when someone tells me its all created for our little old benefit.

But, if meaning or significance is purely a subjective property inside the mind of the individual, then this raises many problems for society. For one, sociopaths and psychopaths are entitled to their view of meaning as much as the next guy, which I would argue shows that the term "justice" and "morals" are on very shaky ground. I think in your philosophy, there is no moral objectiveness in the London bombings. It was the terrorists own individual expression of doing what they found meaningful. Who are you to condemn what they did under your own subjective frame of reference? Afterall, it is just a configuration of gray matter in your brain which differed slightly from the configuration of gray matter in the terrorist brain. There is no justification for one configuration or another, it just "is." How do you avoid this conclusion based on your own subjective definition of meaning?

I don't avoid that conclusion because you are absolutely correct. A lion gnawing at my leg is just enjoying a tasty morsel but I'm undergoing considerable horror and pain. When I swab a wound with alcohol I'm simply preventing infection, but to the bacteria that have been destroyed, I'm undertaking genocide. I have stated previously that meaning can only be subjective but that is no reason to denigrate it. The problem with you is that you are too tied up with your theoretical constructs and avoid dealing with reality. The sociopath's are entitled to their meaning but if their actions upset the balance of society then society will ensure that they are held in check. I don't agree that we have free will either but despite the fact that I may think that the sociopath is genetically disposed to his behaviour do you really think I would or should treat such a thought as any more than a philosophical rumination as I went to defend my family from his attack. Do you honestly believe that there has to be some external objective set of values for any action to have validity?

Notice though, you isolate one particular belief of all the collection of beliefs that humans are also fed as a young children. To isolate one specific belief means that you have already decided that this one belief needs to be isolated. You made that isolation not on the basis it was starting from a clean slate (otherwise you would have to included all the other beliefs as well). This is my objection.

The point is that we were talking about religion and the God construct as a specific point because that is after all the focus of this forum. On every occasion that I have tried to discuss this point you have muddied the waters by extending the discussion to sundry other matters which are irrelevant to the point under examination.

You cannot isolate a belief based on a justification that it is starting with a clean slate, while including all the rest that would also fall under the clean slate justification. There must be some other justification that you are using to isolate the God belief and it isn't the clean slate justification. So, what is it? Well, it is your own conception based on an atheist paradigm. Now, I say the atheist paradigm is wrong and I've given good reasons in this forum why I think that is the case. So, we don't have good reason to isolate the God belief in our set of beliefs as a belief that we ought to junk.

We have good reason if we are to examine aspects of the God construct and their relevance to our current society. We come out of the womb completely devoid of any notion of a God, as are we devoid of a whole host of other knowledge. But we are discussing God specifically here because that is what the thrust of this forum is about. We are arguing God, theism and atheism etc here aren't we harvey1?

Removing the notion of a God from our society is hypothetical, as the God concept permeates our society, but the point I am trying to make is that God was inherited from our ancestors and the condition of humanity at the time, in terms of their view of the Universe, was so much more limited than our perspective provides. The God construct arose out of a need for primitive people to explain away their world and provide various psychological support mechanisms. But none of that means there is an actual God, only that we had need for one, and the imagination to create it. By removing the God concept from our current society while retaining our other knowledge we get to ponder the notion of whether we would have any particular reason for reaching for a supernatural explanation for the Universe now, without the baggage of existing religions.

As far as your justification using the scientific method, I don't deny that humans aren't learning more of the world around us. The former beliefs passed down from eons ago are in need of constant revision and discarding. However, the God belief deserves as much right to be considered for improvement as any construct.

The thing is that the important issue here is not the existence of a God belief but the existence of a God. Is there any string attached between the believer and their God? As an atheist I believe there is but it is a very short string residing as it does in the mind of the believer. The fact that discarded Gods litter mans history is indicative of the fact that Gods are created by man and not the other way around.

We improve scientific ideas without casting aside a particular scientific concept (e.g., gravity), and similarly we are well within our rights to improve on our concepts of God and religion. This is what you miss.

Scientific investigation deals with real world matters and can be empirically dealt with. Religion is nebulous in nature and in the mind of the believer.

What you miss is that these are not theoretical concepts to the believers. Gods are fought for and died for. In the mind of the believer these things are very real. The problem is that the instructions of the mountain God disseminated by the local shaman are every bit as relevant to the believers as those instructions from the bible and they derived as much meaning from them. But beliefs are not the issue, the issue is the object of the beliefs. Is there a God or not. The fact that people have worshiped everything from a mountain to the Universe over the course of our history shows that the importance does not lie in the object itself but simply any perceived benefit from the process of the worship. This points to a psychological basis for God and not an objective basis for God.

In fact, I would say you are just being prejudiced in your isolation of the God belief simply because it doesn't strike your fancy. My contention, though, is that you have not thought it through using all the modern concepts at our disposal. Or, for many others, they simply refuse to think it through because they want to believe they are right about God not existing.

The worshipers of the mountain God did not have any modern concepts at their disposal nor did the Egyptians when they worshipped Ra yet they come up with a belief system that was suitable for there needs. Do you think that if they had modern concepts at their disposal they would have come up with Yahweh and Allah instead?

Perhaps they want to distinguish themselves from the crowd of people they don't think as smart as themselves, or perhaps they are enjoying their own unique set of subjective morals, or perhaps they like imagining all sorts of silly possibilities which make them feel smarter. I suppose there's many reasons to be an atheist, but one of them is missing--which is that the arguments are better. They are not.

I know in your mind the idea of making up all sorts of frivolous motives to explain away someone's disagreement with your views is psychologically satisfying for you, at some stage however, you will need to deal with the reality that atheists simply look at the evidence presented and consider it lacks merit

This is like saying that science is a ball and chain for humanity and the cause of untold misery through history (Hiroshima anyone?).I find that to be an argument that overlooks a lot meaning that people have gained by being religious in their lives. Just think of all the old ladies who miss their deceased husbands, or who miss their deceased sisters, or what have you. It is very clear to me that if atheism were prevalent, old age would not be enjoyable years to watch the grand kids grow up, it would be the time of life when you watch for grandma to jump from the Brooklyn bridge.

No one kills in the name of science but they certainly do kill in the name of religion, just ask Giordano Bruno. Religion has also directly had a hand in various nefarious acts of torture and maiming throughout history. All these acts have been directly in the name of religion, Hiroshima was destroyed by man for his own reasons but not in the name of science.
As to your comments on old age, atheism and elderly people jumping off bridges the point is lost on me.

Of course, this is your prejudice showing again. Remember, you haven't thought it through in my view. So, it's very easy for you to think of the mass majority of humans as stupid. I find it very sad that a small percentage of people look down on the rest of humanity with so much intellectual superiority floating around in their heads. Very sad.

I don't think of the bulk of people as stupid although no doubt some are. I do think religion is delusionaly based, as I must if I believe there is no God, but I'm not trying to be derogatory in doing so. It is simply an automatic product of believing God does not exist. We are all delusional though Harvey1 in other aspects of our lives so I would not take it too much to heart.

Don't be so sure of their contempt for religion. You simply do not know what they would believe and it is not wise to venture a guess.

Why not? I don't even know if aliens exist but I can speculate on their appearance and motivations just as hundreds of science fiction writers have done in the past. Concepts such as their religions if any are also fair game.

All of their beliefs were struggling with an understanding of nature, not just their beliefs on God. They found meaning in those beliefs in God, and I think their lives were all the better for it. Similarly today, we find meaning in a belief in God, and our lives are all the better. However, our notions of God have improved drastically, and that is something we can all take great pleasure in. We are gradually coming into contact with God through our persistence to learn about the divine will in the world.

You mean all those worshipers in ages past who felt a communion with their God were mistaken? All those current day theists who have a communion with their God are going to be equally pissed that they still haven't got it right.

Absolutely. The path was paved at an early stage of human development to learn about God. Keep in mind, if there wasn't a God, we could just as well lived in a universe that there's no way that one could believe in a God. For example, I can conceive of a universe where the evolutionary path favored worshipping children. As children got older they would no longer be worshipped, so more children would be needed to keep their worship at an all time level. This would certainly encourage having children and I think natural selection would be pleased. I don't see how you can possibly rule out such a world.

Harvey1 I think sex works adequately for this don't you?

Fortunately, we live in a world that does have a God, and there were good reasons for people to develop a belief in God. Just like today we have good reasons to believe in a God. And, more reasons keep coming forward. The atheist has no reason to why that is (e.g., coincidences in the physical constants, big bang, etc.). They just go along saying an expletive every time some new reason to believe in God pops up. They are simply on the wrong side of the tracks and need to stop their resistance to a very natural concept that even nature teaches throughout our investigation of it.

You keep saying that but this is simply part of your delusion. Atheists look at the arguments and see no merit, all your foot stomping and pouting doesn't shed any additional light on the subject.

God is order. We find more about that order through scientific investigations. For example, we have learned that the universe is such that it is extremely unlikely and this requires either a God or some state space big enough to explain the unlikeliness of our universe.

You mean there is an alternative to your God. I thought your investigations pointed unambiguously to a God. You haven't been holding out on us Harvey1 have you?

The state space is not only preferred by atheists, they won't even consider the possibility of a God. Now if that isn't a prejudice based on unwarranted reasons I don't know what is. If God were a certain color of skin, I'd say they were racists.

Seems that the wheels are falling off your argument harvey1. Do you really think resorting to racial prejudice connotations improves your argument? Sad really.

No, actually it's pretty straightforward and easy. The atheists don't like to call too much attention to what they found. You see, they don't like God because the carnal mind is at enmity with God. That's what you do not see.

Oh dear harvey1, has it come to conspiracy theories now. All cosmologists are atheists and are hiding the truth. The truth is out there though isn't it harvey1(cue theme from the X-Files). Aren't we all fortunate that we have harvey1 available to rummage through the freely available published material to show us the way.

I'd tell them about God and that morals are not just human constructs that we can choose to believe or not. I then would tell them that if they do not follow morals, then they will reap the consequences because there are principles in life that will see to it that they do. I would ask them to consider this even though they would pay the least bit of attention to me (afterall, they're bratty kids).

I said previously I did not see the point to your question and I am still of that opinion. What is exactly the point of highlighting the fact that people, in this case young people, can ignore advice from their elders regardless of what philosophy its based on?

But lets look a little closer at a theistic viewpoint.

You could give them your theist line about retribution in the afterlife. I mean its such a well know fact that young people are so cognizant of their mortality. You could threaten them with the wrath of your invisible friend but I suspect they would be a little put off considering you tried to deter them in their belief in an invisible companion as a kid. Their invisible friend then provided companionship in the playground and never hurt them, yours now is intolerant and full of retribution. I'm sure that would win them over. Perhaps you could point out that your God came to visit us a couple of thousand years ago and died for our sins. They may of course look askance at the notion that the creator of the Universe needed to arrange his own unjust execution so that he could persuade himself to forgive the failings of his own creations. Not terribly convincing Harvey1 is it. Then maybe they will be convinced that it is better to be safe than sorry and will toe the line, but when they find out that they can leave it till the last minute to make the commitment they may well decide to spend the majority of their life living it up. Of cause if all else fails harvey1, you could drag out the latest paper on particle physics. I'm sure they would see the relevance in that.

I think your explanation would be laughed at too. Although, they would have nothing to consider later in life as they are sitting in some jail cell.

Actually the jails are full of theists I believe. Atheists are very under represented behind bars. Perhaps as well as their non belief in a God they are a tad more rational than theists. Perhaps you could add that to your consistent atheists knapsack.

Unfortunately, I think there are an increasing number of non-religious people in the world, and they are adopting what I label as the consistent atheist approach.

I seem to remember you stating on several occasions that atheism was on the way out. You weren't spinning us a line earlier making bold claims you knew were incorrect. Tut tut harvey1 not very honest debating tactics is it?

I realize that you're quite moral and a good person, as well as every atheist here. But, you do not realize the consequences that atheism would have on the world. Well, I fret not. I think these things have a way of working themselves out. But, I hate to think that way, since I already have a long list of such items (nuclear weapons, environment, etc.).

I don't know what the outcome of a purely atheist world would be and we are not likely to find out in the near future considering the hold religion has on the world. However I think you have more to fear than rational old me and my atheistic kin. I point out that the USA is currently run by a very religious oriented administration and they are not making great strides in reducing nuclear weapons or looking after the environment.

[harvey1]

do you really think I would or should treat such a thought as any more than a philosophical rumination as I went to defend my family from his attack. Do you honestly believe that there has to be some external objective set of values for any action to have validity?

You miss the point. If are moral values are subjective, then what gives you the right to tell someone like Hitler not to act on their own moral impulses. You ae both equally justified. You have no moral basis to condemn the London bombings. They were just wrong to your own subjective perspective, isn't that right?

On every occasion that I have tried to discuss this point you have muddied the waters by extending the discussion to sundry other matters which are irrelevant to the point under examination. We have good reason if we are to examine aspects of the God construct and their relevance to our current society. We come out of the womb completely devoid of any notion of a God, as are we devoid of a whole host of other knowledge.

Sigh. Your reason has nothing to do with the fact that we come out of the womb "completely devoid" of any notion of God. You point out the God belief just because it is seems like a vunerability to you. But, this is not your reason for identifying a God belief versus a belief in how to reason effectively. Your reason for identifying a God belief has to do with your atheist prejudices. So, let's talk just about your atheist prejudices and ignore your red herring argument of having a "clean slate" of knowledge .

[quote="the point I am trying to make is that God was inherited from our ancestors and the condition of humanity at the time, in terms of their view of the Universe, was so much more limited than our perspective provides.[/quote]

Of course, this assumes an atheistic world. It is this assumption that I reject. You must justify this assumption.

The God construct arose out of a need for primitive people to explain away their world and provide various psychological support mechanisms.

That's just an efficient cause. You have to show that there are final causes in order to show that there aren't any other reasons as to the God belief arose to prominence.

By removing the God concept from our current society while retaining our other knowledge we get to ponder the notion of whether we would have any particular reason for reaching for a supernatural explanation for the Universe now, without the baggage of existing religions.

By removing the atheistic concept from our current society while retaining our other knowledge we get to ponder the notion of whether we would have any particular reason for reaching for a multiverse explanation for the Universe now, without the baggage of existing materialism.

The thing is that the important issue here is not the existence of a God belief but the existence of a God. Is there any string attached between the believer and their God? As an atheist I believe there is but it is a very short string residing as it does in the mind of the believer. The fact that discarded Gods litter mans history is indicative of the fact that Gods are created by man and not the other way around.

It shows that theists are willing to improve their conception of God. Look at science, scientists have been very willing to discard invalid notions of nature. Atheists, on the other hand, have been very slow to discard notions that justify their atheism. For example, to this day there are atheists who try to explain the coincidences in the physical constants by using the weak anthropic principle. This is not a rational approach, however it just shows how much the string is tied to their atheism.

Scientific investigation deals with real world matters and can be empirically dealt with. Religion is nebulous in nature and in the mind of the believer.

The models of science can be empirically dealt with, but the entities proposed in those models as well as the reality of the laws of those models (i.e., scientific realism) cannot be dealt with empirically. The scientific realist and anti-realist dispute continues to wage on. It is nebulous in nature and in the mind of the one holding the belief.

What you miss is that these are not theoretical concepts to the believers.

Polytheism gave way to monotheism. Anthropomorphism of God's body has largely been abandoned by even fundamentalists. As these changes happen, religionists are adapting to new theoretical concepts.

Gods are fought for and died for. In the mind of the believer these things are very real. The problem is that the instructions of the mountain God disseminated by the local shaman are every bit as relevant to the believers as those instructions from the bible and they derived as much meaning from them. But beliefs are not the issue, the issue is the object of the beliefs. Is there a God or not.

Exactly! And, here is the sum of it all. There are singularity theorems and large scale coincidences in the physical constants which need an explanation. You deny that God is an explanation. Okay, so what is your proof that this explanation is not a valid one? Why should the world be so confident in your accessment of this situation? Why not just chalk it up to your predisposition to see the world through atheistic eyes?

The fact that people have worshiped everything from a mountain to the Universe over the course of our history shows that the importance does not lie in the object itself but simply any perceived benefit from the process of the worship. This points to a psychological basis for God and not an objective basis for God.

Yawn. Do you want me to recall all the silly beliefs of atheists in the past? Will that prove atheism wrong? C'mon NGR. You know better than that. Put your arguments for a no-God world on the table as it relates to physical evidence and philosophical argument about that evidence. If all you are going to do is cite the beliefs of our ancestors, then it seems to me that you are more interested in social history of religion than anything else.

The worshipers of the mountain God did not have any modern concepts at their disposal nor did the Egyptians when they worshipped Ra yet they come up with a belief system that was suitable for there needs. Do you think that if they had modern concepts at their disposal they would have come up with Yahweh and Allah instead?

There's your atheistic assumptions running wild again. How do we know that God was not steering evolution toward belief in a God that would eventually reach a correct view? Why do you assume that this is not a possibility? I say it is because you have an outright prejudice in your views toward theism, and you justify your prejudice based on arguments that aren't even related to evidence. You just point to past beliefs and then use that to justify a random world. But, all that does is just point out that beliefs can evolve. It doesn't show whether they are evolving toward truth. As an analogy, it would be a similar argument to a scientific anti-realist saying that science was wrong many times, therefore quarks don't exist. Do you see the fallacy in that approach? I sure you hope you do.

I know in your mind the idea of making up all sorts of frivolous motives to explain away someone's disagreement with your views is psychologically satisfying for you, at some stage however, you will need to deal with the reality that atheists simply look at the evidence presented and consider it lacks merit

What evidence?? You're not citing any, that's why I am getting suspicious on this site about whether anyone are atheists for good reasons. All I hear about is multiverses without cause and errors of past religions. That's not evidence! If this is your evidence then please tell me why I shouldn't pin other motives to your belief. I'm running out of reasons to think that most atheists have thought any of this through properly.

No one kills in the name of science but they certainly do kill in the name of religion, just ask Giordano Bruno. Religion has also directly had a hand in various nefarious acts of torture and maiming throughout history. All these acts have been directly in the name of religion, Hiroshima was destroyed by man for his own reasons but not in the name of science.

Didn't the Nazi's experiment on Jews in the name of science? What about animal testing? I'm sure the atheist Soviet Union did their share of unethical experiments in the name of science. You need to get off the religion kick and see that humans do terrible things to each other when guided by hate and the wrong philosophy. We saw the effect of atheism on the communist nations, and we saw the result it had on the lives of their people. Fortunately those governments have toppled and those citizens have come back to their churches and their religious beliefs, throwing the atheists out on their ear.

I don't think of the bulk of people as stupid although no doubt some are.

You think the bulk of people are delusional, do you not?

You mean all those worshipers in ages past who felt a communion with their God were mistaken? All those current day theists who have a communion with their God are going to be equally pissed that they still haven't got it right.

I don't think they are mistaken. Why would you assume that?

Harvey1 I think sex works adequately for this don't you?

Well, that was a good way to skip an argument. Why not just reply at all if you want to shorten your response?

You keep saying that but this is simply part of your delusion. Atheists look at the arguments and see no merit, all your foot stomping and pouting doesn't shed any additional light on the subject.

I've read the arguments of atheists and I've seen them here. No one puts forward any convincing argument. We haven't even discussed evidence for or against God. You've just been absorbed in history lessons. I see no evidence for or against in that kind of discussion.

God is order. We find more about that order through scientific investigations. For example, we have learned that the universe is such that it is extremely unlikely and this requires either a God or some state space big enough to explain the unlikeliness of our universe.

You mean there is an alternative to your God. I thought your investigations pointed unambiguously to a God. You haven't been holding out on us Harvey1 have you?

I've been discussing these non-caused multiverse ideas out of kindness to atheists. I find them to be untenable, but, hey, let's consider them if you wish...

The state space is not only preferred by atheists, they won't even consider the possibility of a God. Now if that isn't a prejudice based on unwarranted reasons I don't know what is. If God were a certain color of skin, I'd say they were racists.

Seems that the wheels are falling off your argument harvey1. Do you really think resorting to racial prejudice connotations improves your argument?

I'm trying to make a point. It seems saying the word "prejudice" just is not strong enough to make atheists see that they are completely unjustified in their predisposition to be anti-theistic. I thought that if I showed how akin this is to racism that it would make you re-examine your prejudices, but it seems you just won't examine your prejudices no matter how unjust those prejudices are.

No, actually it's pretty straightforward and easy. The atheists don't like to call too much attention to what they found. You see, they don't like God because the carnal mind is at enmity with God. That's what you do not see.

Oh dear harvey1, has it come to conspiracy theories now. All cosmologists are atheists and are hiding the truth. The truth is out there though isn't it harvey1(cue theme from the X-Files). Aren't we all fortunate that we have harvey1 available to rummage through the freely available published material to show us the way.

Perhaps 50% of the cosmologists and physicists in general are atheists. It's hard to say. Given the intensity of their metaphysical beliefs of many of these atheist scientists, it does perhaps mean that significant pieces of information are not touched upon (or not even published). I don't think there's a conspiracy. Rather, certain pieces of information are not seen as relevant and therefore are not neglected.

I said previously I did not see the point to your question and I am still of that opinion. What is exactly the point of highlighting the fact that people, in this case young people, can ignore advice from their elders regardless of what philosophy its based on?

You still haven't answered the questions. The main focus of this sub-forum is current events, so my concern is the London bombings in terms of how morality is affected by atheism. What kind of society do we live, and is it getting worse because of secularism.

But lets look a little closer at a theistic viewpoint.
You could give them your theist line about retribution in the afterlife. I mean its such a well know fact that young people are so cognizant of their mortality. You could threaten them with the wrath of your invisible friend but I suspect they would be a little put off considering you tried to deter them in their belief in an invisible companion as a kid. Their invisible friend then provided companionship in the playground and never hurt them, yours now is intolerant and full of retribution. I'm sure that would win them over.

I expressed my morality in terms of principles that affect them throughout life. I only ask that they pay attention to the way they live and notice how that lifestyle is impacted by the fruits of their lives. I say those principles are metaphysical ones, and it is not up to the individual to decide what they are. They are ones that are often so obvious that societies easily recognize them. They are not open for debate or compromise. The consistent atheist would be objectively wrong for rejecting them.

Actually the jails are full of theists I believe. Atheists are very under represented behind bars. Perhaps as well as their non belief in a God they are a tad more rational than theists. Perhaps you could add that to your consistent atheists knapsack.

I seem to remember you stating on several occasions that atheism was on the way out. You weren't spinning us a line earlier making bold claims you knew were incorrect. Tut tut harvey1 not very honest debating tactics is it?

Atheism is on the way out at the highest levels of science, I think. Eventually I most scientists will come to their senses as atheism's need to depend on an uncaused complex state space will look untenable. Certainly the study of complex systems will show eventually yield laws that unify the all the laws of physics. Quantum physics, I think, will also continue to produce intelligent-like behavior which many young people will no longer be convinced is a result of atheism.

However, secularism will continue to grow, I think. Along with the results of this festering disease.

[QED]

T has more utility over A. If over time (e.g., the fall of communism, etc.) A looks like it is extremely non-efficacious such as reasons I cited, then this gives us good reason to doubt A.

Good reason? This appeal to social theory has no more powers to prove or disprove the existence of god than the outcome of a World-wide Chess tournament. That is not to say that I accept that T has more utility to society either. Societies that differentiate themselves by arbitrary beliefs have been at war with each other for thousands of years. We've never had a chance to see the outcome of any attempt to unite the world by humanism instead of religion. You would probably cite this fact as 'evidence' for the existence of the almighty as well, but to do so would be to discount the very obvious fact that we are all equipped with an imagination and a motive to use it.

I didn't say God doesn't play dice with the universe. I would suppose that God does play dice. In fact, I think it is likely that God must play dice with the universe. Otherwise, if there is nothing separating God from the universe how is it that God is perfect and the universe is not?

In fact, I would say there's a whole bunch of chairs and sofa's in the doorway between God and the universe that explains how an imperfect world can exist in the presence of a perfect God.

Well I'm glad to see that you've worked through that yourself, because it deviates from the standard dogma considerably. But now you've got an omni-everything god that can't even move a sofa.

Of course those people can say that, but they are going to say that regardless. The difference, though, is that I have a reason as to why they are wrong. I have a pragmatic theory and Peircean theory of truth to stand on which states that over time societies tend to produce moral truths. Since most societies have laws in place that forbid terrorism, there are good reasons to believe that such a person is crazier than a looney bird and should be punished harshly for any pain and suffering they inflict on others. Since atheists would have a hard time justifying that there is meaning in the world with a Peircean account, I have a leg to stand on that atheists don't.

So you claim to have an objective reason why they are wrong. You may even discern a Peircean Sign that you believe to be gods law. And because you believe that god is the source of this sign, you presume that god will be the one handing out harsh punishments for those who break his laws. But you're only telling me that society is discovering absolute moral truths laid down by god. Not only society, but game theory as well. Of course you would say this -- safe in the knowledge that you can always ascribe a phenomena of unknown cause to anything you care to invent so long as the invention is defined as being unverifiable. This is always how theists insinuate god into the world.

Claiming that god is the source of absolute moral codes is like me claiming that the sign I've got up on my door telling lions to keep out is the reason that there are no lions in my room. You could test this theory by removing my sign, but I can't test your theory by removing god.

[NGR]

You miss the point. If are moral values are subjective, then what gives you the right to tell someone like Hitler not to act on their own moral impulses. You ae both equally justified. You have no moral basis to condemn the London bombings. They were just wrong to your own subjective perspective, isn't that right?

No I did not miss the point. I have previously stated that all morality is subjective. Any moral judgement I make has to flow through my subjective filters as a matter of course and I don't have a choice in the matter. I consider the London bombings morally wrong and many other people around the world seem to agree with me. The bombers thought the bombings morally right and no doubt some in other parts of the world would agree with them. Harvey1, what conclusion have you come to on the matter and on what moral authority did you make it? How does it differ from my subjective judgement?

Sigh. Your reason has nothing to do with the fact that we come out of the womb "completely devoid" of any notion of God. You point out the God belief just because it is seems like a vunerability to you. But, this is not your reason for identifying a God belief versus a belief in how to reason effectively. Your reason for identifying a God belief has to do with your atheist prejudices. So, let's talk just about your atheist prejudices and ignore your red herring argument of having a "clean slate" of knowledge .

You have really said nothing here except express your displeasure at my endeavours to discuss the God belief. Harvey1 its very difficult to separate the God belief from God and in analysing belief we can perhaps better understand the object of that belief. Harvey1 my focus is really on which came first, God or the God belief.

Of course, this assumes an atheistic world. It is this assumption that I reject. You must justify this assumption.

You have it wrong. I assume nothing. I was born with no notion of God, at some stage in my life someone who had been around longer than me tells me that there is a God with certain characteristics, motivations etc and as a creature of reason I evaluate what has been proposed. Immediately I run into a problem because the construct spoken of is not visible to me and is totally subjective. It seems I must simply believe what someone is telling me and that is all there is to it. But when I look deeper the construct varies simply based on what society and temporal displacement I was born into.
Now I have two choices left to me. I can take on board whatever religious notions that I'm exposed too, the classic leap of faith situation, or I can try to address the obvious anomalies apparent and investigate further to see if I can find a more grounded reason for belief. But in the absence of any objective evidence the only thing left to me is study the interaction of humanity with their God/Gods to see if that will provide me with answers.
I know from my investigations that even considering current day religious beliefs that there are many varied ideas and this number explodes exponentially if I look back through history. Now the variety does not prove that there is no God but it does raise questions about how the various groups of humans arrived at their notion of God. The best way to come across God is of course to meet him/her/it. In other words some direct communication between the deity and the human followers. The variety of beliefs however clearly squashes the idea of direct communication because it is I think unreasonable that humans would misunderstand a direct communication in so many different ways. That leaves us with the only one other alternative which is that humans created God to fulfill a requirement of their own and the Gods so created have no link to reality.

That's just an efficient cause. You have to show that there are final causes in order to show that there aren't any other reasons as to the God belief arose to prominence.

You have it wrong again. You are the one that is making the claim that a God exists. As I have stated previously I don't know what the final causes are. You have to explain why God should be substituted for I don't know.

It shows that theists are willing to improve their conception of God. Look at science, scientists have been very willing to discard invalid notions of nature. Atheists, on the other hand, have been very slow to discard notions that justify their atheism. For example, to this day there are atheists who try to explain the coincidences in the physical constants by using the weak anthropic principle. This is not a rational approach, however it just shows how much the string is tied to their atheism.

Conception is the problem. Why is there a concept of God? The concept of God changes with the times but not because we learn more about God but simply because we learn more about what God isn't. Outside of the psychological need that it still administers today, the God concept is simply another name for I don't know. Why should the God concept exist at all?

Polytheism gave way to monotheism. Anthropomorphism of God's body has largely been abandoned by even fundamentalists. As these changes happen, religionists are adapting to new theoretical concepts.

The problem is that if we had no idea what we are talking about, just what is the significance of the attributes we apply to these Gods and the perceived benefits derived from them?

Exactly! And, here is the sum of it all. There are singularity theorems and large scale coincidences in the physical constants which need an explanation. You deny that God is an explanation. Okay, so what is your proof that this explanation is not a valid one? Why should the world be so confident in your accessment of this situation? Why not just chalk it up to your predisposition to see the world through atheistic eyes?

The question you need to ask is why am I considering a supernatural explanation for anything? If I don't have an answer to questions raised in our exploration of the Universe ,logic suggests that I would simply say I don't know and continue to look for those answers, which is of course the way any scientific research is undertaken. In your view is there a time limit on my research of the natural before I am obliged to make the irrational leap to the supernatural? In your mind should this I don't know, "God did it" philosophy extend to all disciplines of science.

Yawn. Do you want me to recall all the silly beliefs of atheists in the past? Will that prove atheism wrong? C'mon NGR. You know better than that. Put your arguments for a no-God world on the table as it relates to physical evidence and philosophical argument about that evidence. If all you are going to do is cite the beliefs of our ancestors, then it seems to me that you are more interested in social history of religion than anything else.

The difficulty you face in all your philosophical navel gazing is that God may be a theoretical construct to you but to the vast number of theist worshipers in the world both past and present God is a personal God. To these worshipers its not can a God theoretically exist but that he does exist, intervenes in their lives and takes care of uncle Bob when he passes out of this mortal realm. In the absence of physical evidence for God we are left to examine human behaviour towards a God. History shows that humans haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to the object of worship which in my mind leaves the attributed benefits of worship also open to question.

There's your atheistic assumptions running wild again. How do we know that God was not steering evolution toward belief in a God that would eventually reach a correct view? Why do you assume that this is not a possibility? I say it is because you have an outright prejudice in your views toward theism, and you justify your prejudice based on arguments that aren't even related to evidence. You just point to past beliefs and then use that to justify a random world. But, all that does is just point out that beliefs can evolve. It doesn't show whether they are evolving toward truth. As an analogy, it would be a similar argument to a scientific anti-realist saying that science was wrong many times, therefore quarks don't exist. Do you see the fallacy in that approach? I sure you hope you do.

You continue to parrot my prejudice for theism all the while showing the same demeanour towards atheism. Do you see how silly that makes you look harvey1?
Evidence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In the absence of physical evidence we are left with analysing the veracity of the claims of those humans that were so sure of their beliefs only to have been proved wrong.
Your analogy is of course nonsense. Perhaps if science had spent the last 50000 years misidentifying a quark as everything from a mountain to the Universe you would have a point.

What evidence?? You're not citing any, that's why I am getting suspicious on this site about whether anyone are atheists for good reasons. All I hear about is multiverses without cause and errors of past religions. That's not evidence! If this is your evidence then please tell me why I shouldn't pin other motives to your belief. I'm running out of reasons to think that most atheists have thought any of this through properly.

Your comprehension skills are slipping harvey1. The paragraph you are replying to includes the comment "at some stage however, you will need to deal with the reality that atheists simply look at the evidence presented and consider it lacks merit". Why go off on an alternate rant?

You think the bulk of people are delusional, do you not?

I think theists are delusional yes but I don't think they are stupid. Do you think stupid and delusional are the same?

I don't think they are mistaken. Why would you assume that?

I think it had to with my interpretation of your comment when you said," However, our notions of God have improved drastically, and that is something we can all take great pleasure in. We are gradually coming into contact with God through our persistence to learn about the divine will in the world."
My interpretation of that was that we are still learning about God but past worshipers all throughout history new God as do the current crop of theists. They are not coming into contact they are in contact and they will chastise you severely if you dispute the point.

Well, that was a good way to skip an argument. Why not just reply at all if you want to shorten your response?

There was no argument to skip. You simply waxed lyrical about a hypothetical child worship society and asked what I took to be a rhetorical question. I could have simply ignored it but your act of linking a form of worship to propagation of the species suggested the obvious response. What, no sense of humour harvey1?

I've read the arguments of atheists and I've seen them here. No one puts forward any convincing argument. We haven't even discussed evidence for or against God. You've just been absorbed in history lessons. I see no evidence for or against in that kind of discussion.

Clearly a result of prejudice eh harvey1.

I've been discussing these non-caused multiverse ideas out of kindness to atheists. I find them to be untenable, but, hey, let's consider them if you wish...

Oh you martyr harvey1.

I'm trying to make a point. It seems saying the word "prejudice" just is not strong enough to make atheists see that they are completely unjustified in their predisposition to be anti-theistic. I thought that if I showed how akin this is to racism that it would make you re-examine your prejudices, but it seems you just won't examine your prejudices no matter how unjust those prejudices are.

Oh I understand the word prejudice all right but I'm puzzled why you feel it only applies to your opponents.

Perhaps 50% of the cosmologists and physicists in general are atheists. It's hard to say. Given the intensity of their metaphysical beliefs of many of these atheist scientists, it does perhaps mean that significant pieces of information are not touched upon (or not even published). I don't think there's a conspiracy. Rather, certain pieces of information are not seen as relevant and therefore are not neglected.

Are you serious harvey1? You have atheist scientists investigating the nature of the Universe and weeding out discoveries that will support theism. Remember you have only half the scientists atheistic the other half should be turning up the truth shouldn't they harvey1? Perhaps you also see atheist scientists hit squads erasing the theistic scientists who discover the truth? I'm concerned for you harvey1, much of your beliefs are simply not rational.

You still haven't answered the questions. The main focus of this sub-forum is current events, so my concern is the London bombings in terms of how morality is affected by atheism. What kind of society do we live, and is it getting worse because of secularism.

You have fanatical religious extremists blowing up trains in London and you worry how morality is affected by atheism.

I expressed my morality in terms of principles that affect them throughout life. I only ask that they pay attention to the way they live and notice how that lifestyle is impacted by the fruits of their lives. I say those principles are metaphysical ones, and it is not up to the individual to decide what they are. They are ones that are often so obvious that societies easily recognize them. They are not open for debate or compromise.

They are so obvious to societies because that is were they originated. Societies morality is born out of the evolutionary process of social interaction coloured by empathy and reason. Theists propensity to high jack morality is simply part of their delusional need to elevated their vapid belief system above those that are less credulous.

The consistent atheist would be objectively wrong for rejecting them.

Off on your delusional wrestle with a straw man again. You simply cannot stick to reality can you. Is your reasoning capacity so bankrupt that you must use your own delusion artificial constructs to camouflage your lack of an argument.

Atheism is on the way out at the highest levels of science, I think. Eventually I most scientists will come to their senses as atheism's need to depend on an uncaused complex state space will look untenable. Certainly the study of complex systems will show eventually yield laws that unify the all the laws of physics. Quantum physics, I think, will also continue to produce intelligent-like behavior which many young people will no longer be convinced is a result of atheism.

Atheism is on the way out, its making a comeback, its on the way out again. Can you remain consistent at all in your reasoning. Continued research will I'm sure turn up some interesting info during our lifetimes but the lack of headline banners announcing the discovery of God suggests your wishful thinking about the current existence of such data to be just that.

However, secularism will continue to grow, I think. Along with the results of this festering disease.

Thinking caused by prejudice don't you think harvey1. If I threw in a few racial references would it be more visible to you?

[harvey1]

what conclusion have you come to on the matter and on what moral authority did you make it? How does it differ from my subjective judgement?

In my view, morality is selected based on the experience of society. It evolves in conjunction with one's philosophical views. If a society's general philosophical view is personal theism, then morality will be based on the belief that an objective set of morals has been revealed to that society. If, on the other hand, the society adopts an atheist perspective, then morality will be believed to be based on whatever the majority (or possibly strongest) of that society could dictate to the rest. I believe this has would have appalling consequences. I think it would shift the current trend in Western society from seeking to do the right thing because it appears objectively the right thing to some kind of "new" experiment with society. This experiment would be disasterous since it would encourage less interest in harmony and truth and more interest in poll numbers. In fact, this is what we are beginning to see more and more.

...my focus is really on which came first, God or the God belief.

I don't think the history of "God beliefs" is relevant to whether there is a God. Everyone in the universe might be solidly a strong atheist and there could be a God, and conversely, everyone in the universe might be strong theists, and there could be no God. So, what you must do is present your evidence for some metaphysical knowledge of the world that you claim to possess. If your justification of this metaphysical knowledge that you claim is correct is that this God is something we must learn in order to have knowledge, then I really don't think you have argued from a valid position. You must substantiate why it is that you feel you have knowledge of the Universe.

You have it wrong. I assume nothing. I was born with no notion of [Causation], at some stage in my life someone who had been around longer than me tells me that there is [Causation] with certain characteristics... and as a creature of reason I evaluate what has been proposed. Immediately I run into a problem because the construct spoken of is not visible to me and is totally subjective. It seems I must simply believe what someone is telling me and that is all there is to it. But when I look deeper the construct varies simply based on what society and temporal displacement I was born into.

Notice that I replaced the metaphysical term "God" with the metaphysical term "Causation." I cannot see from this argument why you would reject that things in the universe have causes simply because you cannot see causes or that humans have historically different conceptions of what a cause is.

...in the absence of any objective evidence the only thing left to me is study the interaction of humanity with their God/Gods to see if that will provide me with answers.

Or, you could open some philosophical literature on the subject as to why a number of philosophers believe there is a God. Just a thought...

I know from my investigations that even considering current day religious beliefs that there are many varied ideas and this number explodes exponentially if I look back through history. Now the variety does not prove that there is no God but it does raise questions about how the various groups of humans arrived at their notion of God. The best way to come across God is of course to meet him/her/it. In other words some direct communication between the deity and the human followers. The variety of beliefs however clearly squashes the idea of direct communication because it is I think unreasonable that humans would misunderstand a direct communication in so many different ways. That leaves us with the only one other alternative which is that humans created God to fulfill a requirement of their own and the Gods so created have no link to reality.

I don't buy that argument for a few reasons. For one, there are many metaphysical issues that this is paragraph is true of (I just mentioned causation, but there's a whole list). You seriously cannot favor a metaphysical position on the sole basis that there are many different views on a subject. Secondly, we have a history of a similar phenomena happening with the laws of physics going all the way back to Thales. Thales believed the world was composed of water. We know today that Thales was wrong. However, that doesn't mean the world is not composed of something. Nor does it mean that Thales was wrong in a certain sense. For example, water is composed mostly of hydrogen (2 atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen), and Thales would be correct in the sense that currently observable matter is mostly composed of hydrogen (approximately 75%). And, thirdly, in your quest for knowledge you've taken on a great deal of boldness. You've come to a point to where you state that any form of God suggested through the ages (including pantheism) doesn't exist. So, I'd like to have the evidence for your position. Where did you come to this knowledge, based on what evidence? I know where I came to my conclusions about there being a God, but I have no idea of your belief other than the fact that you just don't like people batting around a philosophical notion for ages. That's not good enough. Atheism has been batted around for ages too, does that mean it isn't correct? The only consistent belief that one could construct from your approach is that "everything is uncertain, even this."

You are the one that is making the claim that a God exists. As I have stated previously I don't know what the final causes are. You have to explain why God should be substituted for I don't know.

So, are you or aren't you an atheist? Are you or are you not claiming that you possess metaphysical knowledge that no God exists? If you are not making this claim, then can everyone start referring to you as an agnostic? That is, you don't believe there is enough evidence in the universe to know if God exists or not.

Conception is the problem. Why is there a concept of God? The concept of God changes with the times but not because we learn more about God but simply because we learn more about what God isn't. Outside of the psychological need that it still administers today, the God concept is simply another name for I don't know. Why should the God concept exist at all?

NGR, this is true for almost every philosophical term that is in the books. Take for example relationism and substantivalism. It has undergone a number of gyrations as the science continues to debate the nature of space and time. During Newton's time, substantivalism seemed like the clear winner. Then Einstein shifted the argument in favor of relationism on totally different terms, and now new quantum theories are pushing things back the way of heated debate. The fact that this occurs does not mean that the argument shouldn't be taken place. It just points out that there are deep philosophical issues which these general concepts are most suitable to use in different scientific frameworks. Surely Newton didn't have in mind string theory when he was advocating substantivalism. Nor was Leibniz advocating relationism because he was thinking in terms of general relativity theory.

God continues to be discussed because the evidence from the universe requires it. You argue that such a God is not reasonable, but yet you provide no evidence for your belief. When pushed you default to agnosticism. Now, what am I supposed to think if you hide behind the agnostics?

The question you need to ask is why am I considering a supernatural explanation for anything? If I don't have an answer to questions raised in our exploration of the Universe ,logic suggests that I would simply say I don't know and continue to look for those answers, which is of course the way any scientific research is undertaken. In your view is there a time limit on my research of the natural before I am obliged to make the irrational leap to the supernatural? In your mind should this I don't know, "God did it" philosophy extend to all disciplines of science.

Science is based on law and mechanism not an exhaustive state space. If you wish to propose that the universe is a result of an uncaused exhaustive state space, then I maintain that it is you that is appealing to a "X did it" philosophy. I, on the other hand, am appealing to law and mechanism. In order for something to be a law it must eventually terminate to some axiom(s) for those laws, and this Axiom(s) is what historically has been called God. You tell me that no such Axiom(s) exists and the evidence shows that to be the case. Okay, I'm open-minded, tell me your evidence. Why should we thwart over 300 years of promising scientific explanation in order to salvage atheism?

The difficulty you face in all your philosophical navel gazing is that God may be a theoretical construct to you but to the vast number of theist worshipers in the world both past and present God is a personal God. To these worshipers its not can a God theoretically exist but that he does exist, intervenes in their lives and takes care of uncle Bob when he passes out of this mortal realm. In the absence of physical evidence for God we are left to examine human behaviour towards a God. History shows that humans haven't got a clue what they are talking about when it comes to the object of worship which in my mind leaves the attributed benefits of worship also open to question.

Here you revert back to social studies. What I want to know is your physical evidence for philosophical atheism. I have no problem with personal God hearing prayers and bringing an afterlife. But, we can get in that discussion later. What I want to know now is why do you hold a metaphysical position that you say you are correct in holding? What is your physical or philosophical argument that applies to the physical evidence itself? Is social studies the only justification you have for committing yourself to an ontological position about the World?

You continue to parrot my prejudice for theism all the while showing the same demeanour towards atheism. Do you see how silly that makes you look harvey1?

Not so. I give reasons for my philosophical position that not based on the social sciences. In addition, I am eager to learn the evidence for philosophical atheism, but to this day I haven't found any. I've tried real hard to find an atheist who will give this to me. However, when pressed all I get back are mostly agnostic and even pantheist arguments. I don't want to hear agnostic or pantheist arguments from an atheist because I know the reasons for their beliefs. What I want to know is the reasons for your beliefs.

Evidence is clearly in the eye of the beholder. In the absence of physical evidence we are left with analysing the veracity of the claims of those humans that were so sure of their beliefs only to have been proved wrong. Your analogy is of course nonsense. Perhaps if science had spent the last 50000 years misidentifying a quark as everything from a mountain to the Universe you would have a point.

Let's confine our discussion to philosophy. As you know, there are scientists who are anti-realist about the entities that science discovers, so it is meaningless to try and use science to make philosophical points.

I think theists are delusional yes but I don't think they are stupid. Do you think stupid and delusional are the same?

I think most delusional people are stupid, you don't? Delusion requires one to just throw out evidence for no apparent reason other than whatever suits their fancy. Why is that not a stupid thing to do? Are you saying that it is not stupid for people to intensionally believe in a delusion if indeed that is what they are doing?

My interpretation of that was that we are still learning about God but past worshipers all throughout history [k]new God as do the current crop of theists. They are not coming into contact they are in contact and they will chastise you severely if you dispute the point.

Unlike you, I don't think the majority of humanity is delusional (or stupid). So, I do think they are in contact with God. I know of few theists who think they know God in full. I would think most theists on the planet would consider such an attitude as extremely arrogant and fool-hearted.

What, no sense of humour harvey1?

Of course, but I don't always get the joke. Sorry.

I've read the arguments of atheists and I've seen them here. No one puts forward any convincing argument. We haven't even discussed evidence for or against God. You've just been absorbed in history lessons. I see no evidence for or against in that kind of discussion.

Clearly a result of prejudice eh harvey1.

I think it is a result of prejudice of atheists to talk history when they really should be presenting their philosophical argument for no God. I mean really, an atheist is somebody claiming k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e, and to justify their claim of knowledge they talk about an altogether different subject. Why would somebody do that? Imagine if we were debating substantivalism and relationism and I started talking about what 1st-20th century Nepal had undergone as a result of beliefs about space. Would that make any sense to you on why I was either a substantivalist or relationist? Wouldn't you at some point think that I was prejudiced against a particular philosophy and went ranting on about something that happened in Nepal for no apparent reason?

Are you serious harvey1? You have atheist scientists investigating the nature of the Universe and weeding out discoveries that will support theism. Remember you have only half the scientists atheistic the other half should be turning up the truth shouldn't they harvey1? Perhaps you also see atheist scientists hit squads erasing the theistic scientists who discover the truth? I'm concerned for you harvey1, much of your beliefs are simply not rational.

My contention is that atheism consumes way too much in the way of resources away cosmology in general. This slows the reception of better explanations that do not rely so heavily on exhaustive state space solutions. As an example, a great deal of hoopla has been made of the anthropic principle in solving scientific problems, but as Lee Smolin has pointed out, there's a deep concern about this style of approaching scientific problems. Why raise the anthropic principle with so much vigor? Well, an atheist often feels they need the AP. The effort on the part of the AP adherants just doesn't justify the amount of resources devoted to it.

Off on your delusional wrestle with a straw man again. You simply cannot stick to reality can you. Is your reasoning capacity so bankrupt that you must use your own delusion artificial constructs to camouflage your lack of an argument.

Quite honestly, I debated within myself if I wanted to continue having a pleasant discussion with you based on this comment. Do you think we can avoid the ad hominem attacks?

Continued research will I'm sure turn up some interesting info during our lifetimes but the lack of headline banners announcing the discovery of God suggests your wishful thinking about the current existence of such data to be just that.

I haven't backed away from giving an argument for God's existence, whereas you haven't provided an argument that God doesn't exist (social science notwithstanding). Please provide some arguments in support of your position, otherwise I suppose there's nothing for us to discuss.

[QED]

I think we are getting a little too far off topic here. Although the debate has wandered into very interesting territory it's far more suited to that marathon thread started by harvery1.

I don't think anyone has properly addressed the issue that I raised in my OP, namely that the media were in no doubt as to where to turn for insights into the nature of the conflict. Since following the unfolding events including the second (failed) wave of attacks exactly two weeks on, I have heard again that people noticed yet another of the bombers becoming more 'religious'.

I think this deserves a more serious discussion than it has received so far. In case it is being missed, my point is that arbitrary faith is a danger to humanity because it is capable of providing justification for arbitrary acts. Unlike every other arena of Philosophy this one has a cold steel edge.

Harvey1 claims that god provides us with objective morals, yet here is evidence that even praying five times a day is not enough for his message to get through in an unambiguous way (unless of course it was correctly interpreted). But what if god does not exist? What in the name of humanity is going on?

[Curious]

... I am always arguing the danger of letting people grow their own set of rules around imaginary concepts so making it a no-go zone for reason and logic. This I've pointed out provides a loophole through which fanatics are able to invade the minds of people accustomed to the unquestioned acceptance of whatever it is that they're being told by their spiritual leaders.

In every other sphere people are expected to justify their beliefs and actions. But this single exception is made for religion. I deplore this fact.

I agree completely with QED on this point, it shows the stupidity of political correctness. Nobody would think a doctor particularly wise or beneficent if his morals prevented him from excising a cancer for fear of offending the tumour, but that is what we are asked to accept in this instance.

[QED]

it shows the stupidity of political correctness

Yes that's exactly what I'm thinking about. Wikipedia says:

Political correctness is a term used to criticize what is seen as misguided attempts to impose limits on language and the range of acceptable public debate. While it frequently refers to a linguistic phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology and behavior. The terms "politically correct" or "P.C." are also used.

To me it seems like an hideous problem. I think the tolerance shown toward religions has historically come from the state who found it useful in controlling their citizens. Much like the way the US has sponsored otherwise dubious regimes in third-world counties for political motives. It may be oversimplifying things a bit, but a process similar to this has been going on from well before the Common Era in one form or another.

But having become so entangled, the secular society is now poised in an awkward position where its citizens are no longer separated by geographical boundaries and tolerance turns into hatred. With everything built upon a 'white lie' (after all, if it were the truth, everyone would be in 100% agreeance) there is no end of division and dispute.

But I was also trying to look deeper than this and suggest that the mistake is for state to have ever permitted widespread and arbitrary faith in the first place. Now this suggestion will seem very contentious but it is central to my point: If anyone can justify anything in the name of god then it is too ubiquitous to be acceptable to humanity as a whole.

[Curious]

But I was also trying to look deeper than this and suggest that the mistake is for state to have ever permitted widespread and arbitrary faith in the first place. Now this suggestion will seem very contentious but it is central to my point: If anyone can justify anything in the name of god then it is too ubiquitous to be acceptable to humanity as a whole.

I really don't see it as the state's right to impose restrictions on faith but it could do more to educate. Also, if the state acted more like the good guy than the bad guy there would be less reason for people to rebel against it. I am not condoning the terrorists in any way, but I realise we must be pragmatic.
If any of you are interested, I would like to share with you an observation:
9/11/2001......9+1+1+2+0+0+5 =14
7/7/2005........7+7+2+0+0+5 =21
14/7/2005......14+7+2+0+0+5 =28

The bombers believe they end in paradise, they believe in 7th heaven, 35 could be several dates but 49 (7x7, the worst) can only be 30/12/2005 this year.
Before you post saying I am insane, seeing insanity is not the same as suffering insanity.

BTW Madrid train bomb 11/03