Burden of Proof

[cnorman18]

It seems to be taken for granted around here that in any debate over God's existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e., the theist. .

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

There is NO God = negative claim; no proof required. Onus is on whoever disagrees.

Therefore, whoever initiates the conversation, we are left with the atheist tapping his foot with his hand out, waiting for proof, while the theist shuffles his feet and tries to think of something - a hopeless task, in my opinion.

If a proof of God were possible, I suspect someone would have found it at some point in the last five thousand years or so.

Therefore, all theists are required by logic and rationality to immediately give up their beliefs and become atheists, right? Otherwise they are (choose one) hypocrites, irrational, stupid, dishonest, or all of the above.

Well, not quite.

If no proof of God is possible, then proof becomes irrelevant.

Don't misunderstand; if I wish to convince an atheist that there is a God, proof is still a requirement. It just becomes clearly impossible to offer any. Can't be done.

On the other hand, if proof if impossible, the theist is no longer a hypocrite, irrational, etc. if he or she wishes to retain theistic beliefs. One cannot be expected to produce, not that which does not exist, but that which cannot exist.

(Parenthetically: the fact that proof of God is impossible, whether God actually exists or not, has long been established here. If you doubt that, give an example of proof that is even theoretically possible. Bear in mind that no one here can compel God to do anything, so a proposed proof that begins, "God could..." has neither value nor meaning. By the same token, no one here has access to the mind of God; therefore, any question beginning with "Why hasn't God..." is similarly silly.)

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

You want an atheist to become a theist? Present an objective and verifiable proof that there is a God, preferably one, particular, identifiable God. And good luck with that.

You want a theist to become an atheist? Present objective proof that no God could possibly exist, or that the particular God believed in by the theist does not exist.

Is that possible? Truthfully, I haven't given that as much thought; but I doubt it. Again, I suspect that if there existed a definitive disproof of God's existence, someone would have brought it forward over the last five millenia, and we would all long since have become atheists.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 16 Post 156

You are whacked! can you prove you are not? You are the most crazy, ego maniacal person I have interacted with today. My proof of that is almost every word you write.

Now see, ain't having proof fun! I 'preciate the kind words, but I'm just me, just being joe. I would caution my mental state does not seem to have any bearing on your claim a god exists, or you have insight into what this god thinks or says or does.

What proof do you have that I suffer from a persecution complex? What evidence do you have that my apologies are not sincere?

The words you've written. I'll let the observer make their decision as to the veracity of my claim.

You ask so many questions of so many people and what is worse, you get an answer and ask more questions.

A common trait among those who seek knowledge. You proclaimed knowledge of a god, I asked you for proof. If you can prove your claim, I could assess this god, and figure on if I need to go to worshipping Him or not.

If you don't agree with the answer you ask more questions.

Why is this a bad thing? I notice it's usually folks with something to hide who don't like a bunch of questions. (yeah, I was married for a spell)

I do not have every answer to every question your obsessive mind can ask. I have told you what I know. You disregard my source, the Bible, as being weak.

You made claims, I asked you to support them. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is what some call an ad goofyus argument. The words of a promoter of a thing are far too often removed from reality, and an outside source helps in verifying the claims of said promoter.
So far we've gone on all this time and you've yet to show this god of yours exists, you've yet to show you have insight into what this god wants and such. I have responded to claims you made, if you don't wish to respond to these questions, the observer can make a judgement about the veracity of your claims.

Yet you reference things you have studied as if they are fact and not theory.

Please quote verbatim where I have done so. If I can't support my claims I'll plow 'em under. The claiming of claims ain't such the error, it's the failure to support or retract those claims.

The purpose, as I understand it, of debate is to persuade.

Fair 'nuff. You gonna do any? Just claiming stuff is a poor job of persuasion. Refusing to support one's own claims is probably the opposite of persuasion.

What you offer any reasonable person knows. Do You genuinely believe that what you are writing about is not evident to all.

This is because I don't offer claims that a reasonable person would need to ask for proof of. I hope I've shown it evident to all that you make claims you don't want questioned, or that you don't wish to provide proof for. I leave it to the observer whose position here is 'more reasonable'.

In my search for knowledge I have stumbled upon something else.

I'm thinking you've stumbled upon a complete lack of evidence for your claims. Stumbled, stubbed your toe real bad, and are now falling to the ground, clutching at anything to prove your claims, and finding only air.

You can't believe that until you are satisfied with evidence something does not exist. Can you?

I've made no claims that 'something' doesn't exist. What I've been trying to do is get you to show us proof of why you say this god of yours exists.

I have not condemned you or anyone.

I don't think you have. I don't wish to condemn you either, but I do condemn the practice of making claims, on a debate site, and refusing to support or retract them.

Just so ya know, I've been wrong so many times I think the atheists here want me to swap to the other side. It ain't about me being right, its about getting quality data so we can all make informed decisions.

I have not made any claims nor do I have an agenda.

Oh, you've made claims a'plenty, and you know you have. Your first claim was of a god. Then you went on to tell us all about how this god wants folks to carry on. I challenged you on your claims, and here we are, still arguing about anything but the claims you made. This is very typical among some theists, they would much prefer to 'debate the debater' than tap the keg of proof.

Your knowledge is common in the extreme.

Common in the extreme? Ain't that a contramadiction? Or is it an ox headed moron?

Dude, I got a eighth grade education. Common knowledge is probably all the knowledge I'll ever have.

Lacking any proof for the fantastical claims you've made, I fear I will be trapped in this, my extremely common knowledge, till the cows come home.

I have acknowledged there are theists on these forums whose proofs for god/s I can't argue with. I got not nary a problem with being wrong. I do have a problem with folks claiming stuff and not wanting to support their own claims.

[Jester]

It is an objective standard for discussing things within a naturalistic paradigm. It is not an objective standard for discussing the matter of whether or not this is the only valid paradigm. On that issue, it is silent.

Yet you have not demonstrated that there is any other valid paradigm, you've simply claimed it without objective support.

Fair enough.
I really meant only to refute the claim that the question of other paradigms is a scientific one. That is the end to which my comment was directed.

We've encountered many things that have contradicted the contemporary understanding of the natural world.

Not to the extent that it breaks our understanding of the natural laws.

This is simply because our understanding of natural laws are based on these experiences. I have no objection to such a system, but fail to see that the fact that such laws seem to mostly line up with reality says more about the world than our own perspective. It is self-fulfilling to claim that such laws prove or disprove alternate paradigms.

If we find something which completely violates physical laws and cannot be explained by a simple tweaking, that could be considered a miracle, at least from where I'm sitting.

If such a thing existed, we would simply do a more sever "tweaking" of our current laws until they fit. Not to do so would be bad science.

Take the flood for example. If we found geologic evidence from around the globe that there was a worldwide flood and we know, for a fact, that there simply isn't enough water on the planet, by several orders of magnitude no less, for this to happen, then there's no way you can tweak our knowledge to let that water magically appear.

I disagree. If we found incontrovertible proof for a worldwide flood, we would immediately begin proposing theories as to how it might have occurred. This was the case when we found an "excess" of heat in the earth that didn't make sense for its age, inexplicable properties of light waves, etc.

Referencing God as a cause in science is not allowed by definition of scientific study.

Because God has not been shown to exist.

Because God is not a scientific subject. The difference between immediate cause (science) and ultimate cause (theology) is the issue here.

It isn't a bias against God, it's a bias against imaginary things.

I never claimed that it was a matter of bias. I don't consider it to be at all.

What experiment tested for this?

Um, the complete lack of evidence? All theists have to do is actually PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE and you'll prove the conclusion false. Why don't you try it?

Once we're on the correct subject, I will attempt to do as much. So long as we insist that God is a scientific matter, then I cannot. In that sense, I agree with you, there will be no direct scientific evidence for God - thus, I do not believe in God as you describe him. I would propose, however, that this is not the whole of the story.

I thought this was your position, you referred to religion as bad, and have used reference to the negative behaviors of particular religious groups to support that position.

While religion certainly can create negative behaviors, it's not universal, a lot of potential negative behaviors among theists are reigned in by secular society. However, I will argue that religion inherently creates negative intellectual and social problems by the fact that it insists you believe something for which there is no good rational reason to believe.

I realize that this is your assertion. What I would like, however, is evidence supporting the concept that religious people are intellectually inferior to non-theists, or have a greater tendency to anti-social behavior. I understand the statement, but don't yet see a logical reason to agree with it.

All people discourage beliefs that run counter to their own. I do not see why the religious should be singled out in this way.

There's a difference between discouraging and taking an active role in restricting what people can believe.

Do we have reason to believe that religious people are more likely to do this than the non-religious?

The church has been instrumental in visiting horrors upon humanity, killing, torturing and socially ostracizing those who disagree.

As have many non-religious people. I fail to see the difference.

Further, the church promotes the eternal damnation of those who disagree which, while ultimately silly, can be a powerful motivator not only for the one condemned, but for those around them who may harm or ostracize them as a result of it.

Truly, I hate this sort of talk from the church. You are right to take issue with it. I do not defend it at all, but simply don't see that it is really more of an agrumentum ad consequentum than the social ostracism that often comes against religion. This is not a matter of "religious" or "non-religious", but the simple fact that some people will always try to pressure others into believing as they do. It this case, words such as "damned" and "heathen" carry essentially the same meaning as "indoctrinated" and "mindless". I really don't see the difference.

I've also suggested to atheists that there is no more reason to believe that God doesn't exist than that he does.

Only if you believe that *ALL* gods are real since the same argument goes for every one of the thousands upon thousands of gods man has invented for himself to worship. Therefore, since you have no better reason to reject any of those gods, logically you must accept them all. Do you? Didn't think so.

More accurately, there are a number of options, Christianity and atheism being only two of them. In the case that we don't have information, selecting any one without evidence is no more likely to be right than any other. I don't see how atheism has a statistical advantage in this case.

However, atheists simply reject anything for which there is insufficient evidence.

Three points:
1. An atheist does not reject the idea that God doesn't exist in spite of the fact that there is no supporting evidence. (I know you comment further on this - I'll be sure to get to that).
2. I question the validity of denying that there is evidence when one insists on a particular type of evidence that does not fit the actual definition of God.
3. I've yet to meet an atheist that rejects the idea that the physical universe exists, in spite of the time-worn truism that there is absolutely no evidence for it. I'm not claiming that no such person exists, or even that you are not he, but I can personally attest to the fact that this is not the case for all atheists (unless, or course, you don't believe in my unevidenced existence).

We do not believe they do not exist, we simply do not believe they do.

That sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism, is, by definition, the belief that God does not exist.

If you want us to change our minds, prove that gods are real. Until you can do so, you have no reason to expect anyone to take your claims seriously. The same goes for aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. No evidence = no belief.

At the risk of redundance, you do an excellent job of disproving a God in which I do not personally believe. For those who do believe as you indicate, I will agree that they ought to provide evidence if they wish to change your opinion. For myself, I would say that we're still talking about God in a magical, rather than spiritual, sense.

Maybe you could explain that to the Dali Llama. He seems to be under the impression that the Chinese government is opposed to religion.

I have pretty much no respect for the Dali Llama, so that's really irrelevant. However, to say that the Chinese government is opposed to religion is silly, there are thriving churches throughout China. Granted, they are controlled by the government, but they still exist.

I know they exist. I've been in them personally. I've walked past the gate, shown them my passport to prove that I wasn't Chinese so that I would be allowed to enter. I've also been to those thriving churches of which the government is not specifically aware, and which would be shut down if it were. I fail to see how this "control" is 1)fair or 2) not an opposition to religion. It is a demand that the people have beliefs only on the government's terms. And, frankly, this is quite a bit lightened up from what has gone on in recent history (take a look at the role of religion in the cultural revolution for that). This is a clear case of one group of people insisting that others not be allowed to believe freely. To say that this is in any way justified borders on bigotry.

The Dali Llama wants an uncontrolled religion, or more properly, under *HIS* control, that is not the same as having no religion at all.

I would request that you quote any statement of the Dali Llama that leads you to this conclusion. He does press for freedom of religion and culture in his homeland, but, having heard a great deal about and from him, I've encountered no statement of control from the man. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe that he has any ambition to treat non-Buddhists in the same fashion as his former government has treated non-atheists. If you claim otherwise, please support your position.

All people accept a certain things on faith in areas lacking adequate evidence. I don't see this as irrational or unthinking in the slightest.

I do. However, most people restrict this to relatively unimportant areas of life, once you start making claims about the ultimate state of reality and relying solely on faith to do it, then expecting everyone around you to take you seriously, that's where the line needs to be drawn.

And my usual response: on what grounds do you accept that physical reality exists, or is an unimportant area of life (keeping in mind that referencing to one's senses requires that we have already established physical reality).
My point with this response is to illustrate the idea that such "faith" (for lack of a better word) is sometimes necessary.

There are atheists (my father, for one) who favor traditional marriage, but oppose homosexual marriage.

On what basis though? Traditional marriage means nothing once you remove the religious component.

Personally, I have no idea. I don't oppose the right of homosexuals to marry, and would, therefore, not be the person to answer that. I merely meant to refute the idea that all atheists who oppose homosexual marriage oppose marriage in general. This is simply not the case.

Once you recognize that modern marriage is a purely secular thing that some people may choose to celebrate through religious ceremony, tradition in marriage has no meaning.

Well, unless one is religious, then it has a very specific meaning.
Of course, I believe that it has several meanings for many atheists as well (why else would they marry unless we actually think they're closet theists). It is a very useful institution, in my opinion, but I suppose that is beside the point.

If you can find anyone in authority who is telling them to do so, sure. However, there are entire Christian sects out there that teach that doing anything but praying for healing is blasphemy, it's institutionalized stupidity, again enforced through threats of damnation and being ostracized.

I completely agree.
I only argue that institutionalized stupidity has never been shown to affect religious organizations any more than any other (the popular media comes to mind).

And, personally, I've never run across a religious person who does what you suggest. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but question whether this can really be considered a natural or inevitable result of religion, given its rarity.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24 ... 21,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5197489&page=1
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Parents_P ... _0328.html
http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/victims.htm

No, I didn't follow the links (let me know if there are any that make a point outside attempting to prove that such things happen). I already agreed that these things do occur. What I questioned was the idea that this was the norm for theists, or an inevitable result of believing in God. To argue with that point, link to a sociological study showing religious people clearly noted as more socially destructive than their non-theist counterparts.

I can go on and on and on and on and on...

I'm sure you can. In fact, I'm sure we could both go on and on about the negative things that all kinds of people have done throughout history and in the modern era. I don't really see a point to that, nor do I feel that it's going to bring enlightenment. If you are as interested in science as I assume, then you would probably agree that a sociological study would be a better source on which to base our opinions. The rest of this is essentially anecdotal.

Probably not, but there are pedophiles, which seems to be the pertinent issue.

Actually, most of them likely are not pedophiles, they are simply men put in an untenable position, needing sexual release and using the only outlet available to them.

How does that make them not pedophiles?
And how have we established that there is any connection here? Is there any evidence that priests are more likely to molest children than married men? I honestly don't know myself, but would be interested in seeing the numbers if you have any.
If you do not, then I can't say that I understand your point. Earlier, you argued that you reject anything for which you do not have evidence. If we agree that anecdotes are not telling of root causes of societal problems (which is well established by behavioral science), then I don't see the evidence that this matter has anything to do with religion.

If the Catholic church would allow it's priests to get married, the instance of sexual abuse would certainly drop dramatically as these poor men have an outlet for their perfectly normal and natural desires.

Again, support this with evidence (showing that their priests are more likely to commit abuse than those churches which allow their clergy to marry).

This is pure speculation.

Not at all. You simply do not see the same levels of child molestation in other religions that allow their ministers to get married as you do in the Catholic church.

Obviously, I have not yet seen the numbers. Please share them (and sources, of course).

As a result, Christian fundamentalists have become some of the strongest boosters of Israel

Are they? That's something else I don't know (and would love to see numbers if you have them.

and the most implacable foes of Islam,

I'll agree that we tend to have a bias in favor of Israel, but would point also to Hollywood, recent history (the Holocaust), and (unfortunately) a bit of racism as additional causes.

Best for who? We're in a serious financial crisis and need all the money we can get spent at home.

Best for the world. Our "crisis" is quite a bit better than their average day. I personally think that we in the wealthy parts of the world tend to be far too selfish with our money, and far too panicked about an economic downturn. Really, we're not starving.
But they are.

Is that a logical proof, or the appeal to consequences fallacy? The physical universe cannot be logically established through threats of pain.

It's not a threat of pain, it's a demonstrable interaction between yourself and the real world around you. That interaction can be done with virtually anyone, although trying to smash a hammer into the foot of a multiple amputee probably won't work. It proposes a result, it tests the result, the result is verified.

The "verification" requires that we trust our pain receptors (or, frankly, our senses in general), as they are part of the physical universe, we are using circular logic to "prove" the existence of matter. Yes, it is a natural reaction if we first accept the premise that our senses are basically accurate.
Now, how do we prove that our senses are basically accurate?

This is different from belief in the physical universe, which requires previous belief in the validity of the senses and the brain that processes them.

Which, frankly, everyone has because it is demonstrably true.

Demonstration, in this sense, would be an irrational process. It uses circular reasoning.

Even those who claim to accept solipsism or other nonsensical beliefs, fail to demonstrate that their belief is real, they will always back down from any logical test one can put their claims to.

They don't have to demonstrate their claims are real if we are to take the approach of atheism as defined above. They simply do not believe in things that are not evidenced. Thus far, we have provided no evidence (that does not depend on first believing in the conclusion).

To quote Einstein:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

But you also accept that the physical universe is true, so what's the point?

The point is that I admit that I accept it on faith, with less evidence than I have for God's existence. Given your statements above, this answer would not be acceptable within your philosophy, and I feel that there may be a contradiction here. I allow for a certain amount of faith and judgment call when lacking ample evidence. Since you do not, how do you prove that reality exists?

There's nothing to prove when it comes to reality. It's when people make claims that do not jive with reality that the proof becomes necessary.

One cannot "exempt" reality from logic in this way, then insist that the claim is logical. I would assert that "there is nothing to prove" because there is no evidence either way. In any other situation, a question would be answered with evidence. The lack of it does not establish existence, if we are to take the atheistic position.

I would say that you don't have to have faith in God for him to be real.

Then it should be possible for someone without faith to "experience" God in a testable, logical manner. How do we do that?

If by "testable" you mean scientifically testable, we don't. Frankly, I wish we could, but it seems to be a much harder question than that.

Personally, I have no idea how we might test such claims, but I do not argue that the universe is illusory, merely that it hasn't been evidenced as real.

There are many ways that they refuse to do. For example, for those that claim that the universe is an illusion and only they are real, why don't they take their illusionary car and mow down dozens of illusionary people?

Establishing that these people don't themselves believe what they claim does not in any way establish the opposite of their claim. Rather it is simply a variation on the ad hominem argument.

In the end, they make excuses for why they act, for all intents and purposes, like the universe is real. If you're going to treat the universe is real, if you're going to act like the universe is real, then for all intents and purposes, the universe is real no matter what load of hooey you sling.

I have a serious issue with this one. Were I to swap "the universe" for "God", I think you would see the point. It actually establishes nothing logically save that such people are living in personal contradiction. This is beside the actual argument. Moreover, we are personally unaware of those who have actually stopped living as if the universe were real and simply stopped breathing. I have a hard time believing that such people are more than unthinkably rare, but the fact is that we simply don't know. Better to get back to the actual point. The universe is not evidenced at all unless one accepts the premise that one's sensory organs (part of the universe) are real and functioning at least basically accurately. This is a simple outgrowth of the idea that all logical conclusions require a premise.

You're stuck on the whole "prove"/"disprove" schtick. It's not about disproving anything. We can't look around and disprove unicorns, should we therefore believe they are real?

To follow this: we can't look around disprove (or prove) the universe, should we therefore believe that it is real?
I would say so myself.

I can propose the existence of a "snarkwumper". You cannot disprove such a thing exists, do you therefore believe it?

I'd want to at least know what it is before considering the thought. If it is your pet name for your dog, then I would believe in it.
If it is more along the lines of Dawkins' "spaghetti monster", I'd be inclined to disagree, but feel that this still doesn't address several major points in this discussion.

Logical, rational people do not simply accept things until they can be disproven, much the opposite, we only accept things for which there is rational evidence for their factual existence.

Therefore, rational people to not accept the existence of reality?

You do the same thing. You can't disprove Vishnu exists, yet I don't see you believing in it, do I?

I see a set of possibilities before me, and choose the one I consider to be most likely given my understanding. I don't simply reject everything that hasn't forced proof upon me.

For some it has.

There are still people who think the gods live up on Mount Olympus and occasionally come down to sleep with our women to produce demi-gods?

Rather, I meant that there are many (myself included) that never believed in religion in that sense to begin with.

If you know your psychology, this is actually completely wrong. It is possible to be a serial killer and polite, but not compassionate (though that point's straying off topic. I'd be fine if we dropped it).

Not at all. Just to use a pop-culture example though, look at the Showtime show Dexter.

I know you admit this, but I don't see the relevance of a fictional illustration. A psychological journal would be better.
And, in case I sound like I missed some of your point just below, I haven't seen the show (don't watch TV), so I can't claim to know anything about it.

Yes, that's a TV show, but it's an illustration of how people can compartmentalize parts of their lives.

It is an illustration, but I wonder if it is accurate, or is a fictional example of a fictional concept.

In fact, that's very much how theists operate in a lot of ways, they can be completely rational and reasonable in most parts of their lives, yet have this walled-off section of God-belief which is neither rational nor reasonable, yet they cannot recognize the disconnect.

This is where you would need some psychological research, as this is a psychological claim. Otherwise, by our standard of not believing in things without evidence, I would be forced to reject the notion.
More to the general theory, however, some people would consider theology to be perfectly rational. I can agree that we've established some forms of it to be wrong, but hardly most, and certainly not all.

So "love your enemies" is not a part of religious teaching anymore?

It never really was, at least not that was taken all that seriously.

I am religious. I take it seriously. Does that count?
What about Mother Teressa, or the Amish children who tried to help the friends of the man who massacred their friends? I'd say that we can't accept this as a universal statement. In my mind, it is wholly unsupported.
More simply, if it was never part of religion, why teach it in the first place?

After all, from early in the Old Testament, God had his chosen people committing genocide, killing innocent men, women and children, killing animals and slicing open the bellies of pregnant women to guarantee everyone was dead. Yes, the Hebrews loved a lot of their enemies... to death.

Before we get into a full-blown argument about exactly what God does or doesn't condone, may I suggest that we stick with those instructions that are given directly as better signposts regarding the religion than examples from distant cultures and odd situations?
Specifically, the comments about being loving are in there. They are too clear to simply wave them away.

Evidence that only exists if we pre-assume that a part of physical reality (our eyes and skin) exist.

Yet it is an assumption that we both make so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

I bring it up because you have asserted that you do not assume anything without evidence to support it.

Christianity believes that God created man as a physical being. If you reject that, you pretty much reject Christianity. It may be a core assumption, but it is one made based on all of the evidence that we have and therefore, the most logical and rational assumption we can make.

I don't reject it. I merely wonder why you accept it given your earlier comments.

You're still not explaining why your claims that there is a supernatural is either logical or rational or what evidence supports it. So far, you're doing a lot of talking, yet not really saying much.

It takes a long time to get through a single point in a debate. Considering the fact that you have a very specific idea of who God would have to be, and how we would test for his existence, much of what I would say has been waved off from the start. This means that I'm going to have to move pretty slowly.
But, apologies if it tries your patience; it does mine at times as well.

If you agree that one explanation does not necessarily disprove the other, then what logical reason have we for assuming that a scientific explanation disproves a spiritual one?

Because you haven't demonstrated there's any such thing as a spiritual one.

Fair enough.
So we at least accept the possibility. I'll dance at the progress (when I'm not so tired). To the idea of spirituality, as long as we've rejected the idea that a scientific explanation does not refute alternative explanations, I suppose the best place to start is the universality of ethics and theism throughout nearly all peoples and cultures in history. The nature of humanity is clearly looking for something divine. The simplest answer is that there is something which we are supposed to find.

You're simply assuming it exists, you have not demonstrated it one whit.

All debating aside, I love that phrase "one whit". I'm not really sure what a whit is (tell me if you know the derivation), but it does amuse me.

That's like saying "you're assuming that a scientific explanation disproves a magical one" or "a psychic one". You're just making unsubstantiated claims that this "spiritual" world exists, you have yet to do anything but say so and given us no reason whatsoever to take you seriously.

Fair enough, but I'm really just laying ground rules and defining terms at this point. I can't believe that such a massive and timeless debate as this could go any faster and be at all useful.

[Cephus]

Fair enough.I really meant only to refute the claim that the question of other paradigms is a scientific one. That is the end to which my comment was directed.

Yet you're still doing it. You cannot refute the claim that the question of other paradigms is a scientific one without demonstrating that there are other paradigms to begin with.

This is simply because our understanding of natural laws are based on these experiences. I have no objection to such a system, but fail to see that the fact that such laws seem to mostly line up with reality says more about the world than our own perspective. It is self-fulfilling to claim that such laws prove or disprove alternate paradigms.

Again, you're simply asserting that there is more to the world than what we can experience and that's not something you have demonstrated to be true. It's like saying people can see unicorns, but only if they already have faith they exist. If you fail to see the unicorns, your faith isn't strong enough.

For those of us who actually care that what we permit into our brains and accept as true actually are, that doesn't work. You're simply making claims without justification and purposely shifting the goalposts so that any independent verification is impossible.

If such a thing existed, we would simply do a more sever "tweaking" of our current laws until they fit. Not to do so would be bad science.

That just demonstrates you don't understand science. We simply have no way of explaining how 4-5x as much water as exists on the entire planet could simply appear magically one day and disappear a year later. It cannot be done. There's no tweaking possible, it's flat out impossible for it to have happened, period.

I disagree. If we found incontrovertible proof for a worldwide flood, we would immediately begin proposing theories as to how it might have occurred. This was the case when we found an "excess" of heat in the earth that didn't make sense for its age, inexplicable properties of light waves, etc.

That's because for those things, there were physical reasons for them. Waving a wand and making matter appear out of nothing is a whole different animal.

Because God is not a scientific subject. The difference between immediate cause (science) and ultimate cause (theology) is the issue here.

It doesn't matter if God is a scientific subject, the fact remains that God has not been demonstrated to exist. What you're doing is simply making an unsubstantiated claim, then demanding that any attempt to verify that claim is impossible, because you say so. It's like saying the world of Harry Potter is real. Why can't we find Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry? MAGIC! Yes, magic makes it completely invisible and undetectable and, because we can define magic however we want, magic itself is completely undetectable as well. So Hogwarts is real! It follows your logic to a T.

So long as we insist that God is a scientific matter, then I cannot.

Then you need to demonstrate that there is any other valid paradigm in existence that allows us to present objective evidence. You have yet to do so.

What I would like, however, is evidence supporting the concept that religious people are intellectually inferior to non-theists, or have a greater tendency to anti-social behavior.

We can provide many, many studies that demonstrate that religious belief is inversely proportional to intelligence and education, that's been done here quite a few times and I can trot them out again if you like. There are also many, many, many examples of activities that are done solely by the religious which are absolutely anti-social. When's the last time you saw an atheist strap on a bomb and blow up innocent bystanders? The Muslim extremists just had a 13-year old girl do it. A 13-year old girl! It's not enough that they use adults to deliver their suicide bombs, now they're using innocent children! When did an atheist ever do that? Never. When did an atheist ever pray to a god to heal their sick child, while allowing their child to die from an easily treated disease? Never. When did 1000 atheists get together in a stadium to watch a 13-year old girl, who got raped, be stoned to death for adultery? Never. I don't see any atheists sticking Jews in gas chambers. I don't see atheists dragging gays behind trucks. I don't see atheists killing people with exorcisms. I don't see atheists lighting their daughter's husband on fire because he's the wrong religion. I don't see atheists burying children alive. I don't see atheists murdering supposed witches and warlocks or harvesting their sexual organs for magic potions. Do you see any of these things? I can go on and on and on and on...

Do we have reason to believe that religious people are more likely to do this than the non-religious?

Hell yes. Look at Proposition 8 in California. It's a purely religious issue, fought against by the Mormon Church and other religious organizations. Religious hatred is rampant in this country. Hell, even the suggestion that another candidate has associated with atheists, as happened in the Elizabeth Dole campaign, shows the utter disregard these people have for others.

As have many non-religious people. I fail to see the difference.

Find me one, just one, who did so *BECAUSE* of their lack of religion. I can list hundreds of examples who killed, raped, maimed and rampaged because they think God told them to.

I do not defend it at all, but simply don't see that it is really more of an agrumentum ad consequentum than the social ostracism that often comes against religion.

Exactly which social ostracism that comes against religion is this again? Have you tried getting elected to public office in this country as a non-theist? Try again.

More accurately, there are a number of options, Christianity and atheism being only two of them. In the case that we don't have information, selecting any one without evidence is no more likely to be right than any other. I don't see how atheism has a statistical advantage in this case.

Atheism is simply going where the evidence leads. We have no evidence to support the factual existence of any god(s), therefore atheists do not believe in any god(s). If you want an atheist to change their mind, all you need to do is actually produce some evidence. The utter failure of the theist side to actually do that is why we're still atheists.

However, that's not really true of most Christians. In every forum where I've seen the question asked, "If you had evidence that proved, conclusively, that God was not real, would you stop believing in him?" the majority of Christians said no. They don't care if God is factually real, religion is little more than a social and emotional crutch for them, whether the object of their worship is real is completely irrelevant. Speaking simply from my personal experience and nearly 3 decades of debating these people since I stopped being a Christian, I'd wager that most Christians, especially the more liberal of them, simply hold an emotional attachment to the social aspects of Christianity and don't care about God at all.

1. An atheist does not reject the idea that God doesn't exist in spite of the fact that there is no supporting evidence. (I know you comment further on this - I'll be sure to get to that).

I don't reject the idea that unicorns don't exist either. From a purely rational standpoint, the only logical standpoint to take on anything for which you have no evidence is that they don't exist, simply because it is the only position which is falsifiable. All you have to do to prove me wrong on unicorns is to produce a single instance of a real unicorn. If I accept that unicorns do exist, however, the only way to prove me wrong is to prove that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe, something that is practically and rationally impossible to do. It's very simple. No evidence = no belief.

2. I question the validity of denying that there is evidence when one insists on a particular type of evidence that does not fit the actual definition of God.

If you have evidence, PRESENT IT! I can only make judgements based on what I have seen. If I have not seen it, I cannot consider it when making a decision. If you have something, put up or shut up already, otherwise stop pretending you've got jack squat.

3. I've yet to meet an atheist that rejects the idea that the physical universe exists, in spite of the time-worn truism that there is absolutely no evidence for it. I'm not claiming that no such person exists, or even that you are not he, but I can personally attest to the fact that this is not the case for all atheists (unless, or course, you don't believe in my unevidenced existence).

Let me hit you with a hammer, that'll demonstrate it exists. There's evidence. Now do the same thing for your God.

By the way, virtually all solipsists are atheists because they think that nothing outside of themselves, including gods, exist.

That sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism, is, by definition, the belief that God does not exist.

Bzzzt! Try again. a = without, theos = gods. Atheism is the state of being without gods. Do the Greek. The word you're looking for is anti-theism.

At the risk of redundance, you do an excellent job of disproving a God in which I do not personally believe.

Hey, I have to go after something, you've been very careful not to actually produce anything about the God in which you do believe. You're not exactly giving me anything to work with.

I've also been to those thriving churches of which the government is not specifically aware, and which would be shut down if it were.

Welcome to reality. Like it or not, every country on the planet doesn't have the same Constitutional rights and privileges that we do. The Chinese government has the ability to place whatever restrictions on their people that they wish. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. However, it's none of your business what they do. Is religion outlawed in China? Of course not. It's not as free as it is here, but it still exists, you admit it yourself.

Well, unless one is religious, then it has a very specific meaning.

Which is all well and good, except we have a secular society and a secular government. Therefore, whatever meaning one might assign to a personal, religious idea of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with how it is handled in society.

What I questioned was the idea that this was the norm for theists, or an inevitable result of believing in God.

Let me know when you get tired of whipping that strawman. I never said it was inevitable or true of *ALL* theists, you're the only one making that claim. I simply said that belief in an irrational deity made it more likely that people would engage in such irrational behavior, on the basis of their beliefs, and I backed it up. I can do it all day too. Not that I expect you to care, you're not all that interested in reality.

How does that make them not pedophiles?

In the sense of selecting children as their preferred sexual partner, no.

Obviously, I have not yet seen the numbers. Please share them (and sources, of course).

Not that you'll bother to read it or anything, but there's a pretty good examination of the whole subject matter at: http://ffrf.org/timely/pedo1992.php

Best for the world.

Demonstrate that it is best for the world. Provide sources.

But this is getting all very repetitious, I'm skipping things that I've answered before, they seem to keep coming up again and again in the same post.

What about Mother Teressa, or the Amish children who tried to help the friends of the man who massacred their friends?

You mean Mother Teresa who thought pain and suffering was good for the poor? That Mother Teresa?

Before we get into a full-blown argument about exactly what God does or doesn't condone, may I suggest that we stick with those instructions that are given directly as better signposts regarding the religion than examples from distant cultures and odd situations?

I'm just going by what the Bible says. If you want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to take seriously, go ahead, I suppose.

Considering the fact that you have a very specific idea of who God would have to be, and how we would test for his existence, much of what I would say has been waved off from the start.

Until you actually come up with a better idea and present it, I'm going to have to go with what the Bible and traditional Christianity says. The fact that you refuse to present any different concept of God requires that we do so.

So we at least accept the possibility.

Sure, it's possible. Possible, however, does not make it so. It's possible that Bigfoot exists. It's possible that life is just a dream. It's possible that I'm a 12-foot tall gorilla. None of them are at all likely however, based on the evidence that we have. If you want me to accept any of them as actually true, you're going to have to do a heck of a lot better than you have been so far.

All debating aside, I love that phrase "one whit". I'm not really sure what a whit is (tell me if you know the derivation), but it does amuse me.

Google is your friend.

http://www.answers.com/topic/whit

[Jester]

It is a pleasure to exchange ideas with you.

You as well. You always make me think a great deal.

Since no deity has been "established as true" we don't know the reaction such monumental information would have on the scientific community.

However, I can state that there is no "rule" or practice against accepting ANYTHING that is "established as true". That would be the antithesis of a search for truth.

There is a rule when it comes to categories and paradigms, however. Science does not insist that people avoid other fields of study, but does exclude them from it's own statements.

I would state this very differently. The response of a scientist SHOULD BE "let's look at the EVIDENCE. If there is none we cannot form reasonable conclusions." If a person purporting to do scientific work does NOT look at evidence to form conclusions their work is very unlikely to hold up under scrutiny and testing by others (often by those who oppose the conclusions).

I completely agree, with the stipulation that a proper scientific response is let's look at the scientific evidence. Science purposely remains silent on whether or not a particular piece of poetry is meaningful, for instance. This does not mean that such poetry is not, but that the question isn't scientific in nature. The same could be said for theology.

Moreover, science is the study of the natural world. If, hypothetically, there are things which exist outside the natural world, we can harldly expect to find evidence of them through such study.

True " with emphasis on "hypothetically". There is no evidence of things that exist hypothetically.

Fair enough. At least we're on the same page with this one (regardless of disagreeing).

I am unwilling to accept ANY of the hypothetical "god" claims without sound reasoning and evidence.

Fair enough. I hope I'll get to a bit, but hardly expect that you'll consider my reasons compelling. Even I tend to think of it more in terms of best guess.

It seems to me that the analogy would be more accurate if one said "prove the Theory of Relativity using Leprechaun stories". Mesopotamian past events (history) can be more than hypothetical and may be studied through real, physical objects. God theories cannot be shown to be anything other than hypothetical. There are no real, physical objects directly related to any of the proposed "gods".

Okay, we'll go with that analogy.
If someone argued that Leprechaun stories were true, I would be inclined to disagree. However, I would not argue that they were clearly untrue on the grounds that nothing about special relativity has shown that time-compression is caused by Leprechauns. In this instance, the non-sequitur is fairly obvious. The issue of theology and science would be logically the same in this respect (but in a less obvious way).

Thus, I completely agree that we do not have scientific data pointing to the existence of anything outside the natural world,

We are solid on that.

but don't consider this to be a relevant point.

Here we disagree. I cannot imagine taking seriously theories about beings or events that can be known only in imagination or in the mind or hypothetically (cannot be demonstrated to be real).

I have not yet seen any reason why demonstration of reality has been inexorably linked to science. There are other fields of study.

Here again we disagree. In my view the Scientific Method is a search for truth based upon observation of events and conditions, analysis of information, formation of potential explanations, testing of the hypothesis, modifying the hypothesis as needed for accuracy, submitting results to be tested by others.

Religion, on the other hand, STARTS with a CONCLUSION that "gods" exist and that "goddidit" " then looks for "evidence" to support the conclusion. That is NOT a search for truth " but is an ASSUMPTION that one possesses truth.

Science and religion both begin with premises. In the case of science, it is the idea that the physical universe exists, and our senses perceive it at least basically accurately. Such premises cannot be proved, and are rather accepted or rejected for non-rational reasons. There are a certain number of lines of thought we can offer along these lines, and, certainly, we can test individual philosophies for internal consistency of logic. What we cannot do is use studies born of a premise to test the premise itself.

I agree that our (human) ideas are not free of prejudice, but do not agree that conclusions ARE formed by consensus (they MAY be " or they may be a solitary effort).

In science conclusions are formed based upon evidence. This is not to say that prejudice does not exist " but exposing ideas to examination and criticism by any interested party tends to reduce or defuse bias.

The lives of most scientists I've studied have seemed to center around finding recognition for their work. While evidence is definitely a factor, the interpretations of evidence are hotly debated, and personal perspective always plays a role. Bill Bryson made a great observation to this end in A Short History of Nearly Everything (an excellent book, if you haven't read it). He essentially makes the comment that, mostly, revolutionary theories are never accepted by the scientific community at the time of suggestion. It takes the death of the first generation and the coming of new people to achieve open mindedness.
And, yes, such acceptance is done by consensus. There is no official board which decides what is accepted and what isn't. Thus, informal consensus becomes the mode of judgment.

It is unfortunate, in my view, that theology (which I personally regard as study of the imaginary) is given more attention than study of the real world we inhabit and the relationships between humans and between humans and the environment.

I'm actually going to take an oddly extreme view on this:
If I were to (hypothetically) agree that theology is purely the study of the imaginary, I'd still consider it to be of value greater than taxonomy. Specifically, it helps a great many people a great deal, and I personally consider the use of fiction and entertainment very important to humanity. If for this reason alone, it is a valid interest.
Truth is the ultimate point, of course. I don't mean to argue with that in any way.

I also regard as unfortunate the influence of theology on the attitudes of many people toward study of the real world. I often encountered total refusal by college students to even consider ideas that conflicted with the rigid ideas that they brought from their religious backgrounds " "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up".

Close-mindedness is a horrible thing, which is responsible for a great many problems in all cultures. Personally, I hate it.
Not to sound too redundant, but I can't resist mentioning the fact that this is hardly exclusive to religious belief. (Long winded story alert!)
I had a lengthy debate with an old friend of mine (an agnostic), over the course of years, with sessions commonly stretching into hours. My position was that all people ought to think about what they believe. Not that they ought to believe any particular thing, but that they should think about it at some point in their lives. His position was that thinking about such things was unnecessary and caused conflict, and was therefore bad.
And, for what it's worth, I had nearly the exact same debate with an atheist at another time.
These comments are anecdotal, I know. But I mean to say that I have a very hard time believing that close-mindedness is really the result of religion. That attitude in unthinking Christians, from words, to tone, to look in the eyes, is one I've seen many places elsewhere. In short, it is a human problem, not a religious one.

Agreed. I interpret the significance of there being thousands of different religions and "gods" to be that there is no evidence to substantiate any religious clams AND that proposing supernatural "explanations" is a common reaction to encountering unknowns (and a not uncommon means of obtaining influence and wealth).

I'd say that the any religious reaction to unknowns is beside the point, as are the cases of exploiting religion for money (I personally can think of nothing in human nature that hasn't been exploited for money at some point).

It seems that the debates that go on regarding the issues (from religious platforms, to personal conversations, to sites like this one) are a form of cross-checking as well.

That is an interesting perspective. There is some evidence that ideas are modified by this form of "cross-checking". However, reasoned and well moderated debate is in my view, both informal and unusual. I have no way of evaluating the significance of personal conversations or "religious platforms".

Fair enough, but I'd say that I've personally seen a great effect in many people (scores to hundreds, actually, I've traveled a great deal with a ministry). This is hardly a conclusive study, but it at least can happen.
In any case, it is essentially the same mechanism that governs scientific interpretations of data. I don't claim that it is perfect, but it does happen.

I can definitely agree that some theists refuse to change

Yes " and they may be very vocal and very proud of their contempt for change (or for even questioning their preferred version of religion). That is the image of religion that is often presented in forums such as this. Your reasoned and rational approach and willingness to consider alternative ideas is UNUSUAL.

Well, thanks for the positive appraisal, I'm pleased of it, and try very hard to be reasonable.
Perhaps my theology is unusual. I personally suppose that it is, but really don't know. Mainly, I think that it is really connected to my point. I defend my own position, and change it when I'm convinced that it is wrong. While I agree that there are many religious people that are unreasonable in their thinking, I don't think that judging religion by their mentality is any more accurate than judging atheism by the most unreasonable sorts of fiery atheists.

Yes, there are the "dinosaurs" in science too. However, they are regularly displaced by "the young Turks" wielding new and more accurate information.

Can anyone claim that religion typically allows or encourages infusion of new idea " or elimination of the "dinosaurs"?

For me, the issue isn't whether or not established religion institutions do this, but whether or not the version of religion I practice does. I try to make it that way.

I agree that closed-mindedness is not inherent to religious belief " but I do consider it as being closely associated quite often " even to being taught by some religions (remember that my wife was raised in the FLDS cult).

I believe I've made my point already, but did want to say that I'm sorry for that one. FLDS is not a place I tread lightly.

Perhaps in theory neither religionists or non-religionists should be more rational as a group. However, if one group accepts and promotes irrational ideas, that group (however defined or identified) IS less rational. For instance, a number of people believed that by committing suicide in some relationship to the occurrence of the Hale Bopp comet they would be "rewarded".

Okay, this is very reasonable.
Again, I'm going to take the stance of drawing a dark line between my personal theology and the type of thinking that you mention. While I believe that we can refer to the statements that God has been proved or disproved to both be irrational, I wouldn't assume that those who make them are truly more irrational than the rest of us without seeing some kind of sociological study to that end. Basically, we're all a bit irrational, I wouldn't venture to guess who is more so without a great deal more information.

In fact (getting back to science), I've noticed a lack of correlation between position on this issue and ethical behavior...

I am missing your intent here. Can you clarify?

Honestly, I have no idea why I was on about this. If you have no reason to continue, I'd be in favor of forgetting it.

I agree that life does require decisiveness on certain major issues. However, I do not regard religion as a major issue in my life; though I realize that many people consider religion very important in their life.

I regard integrity and ethics as major issues " which may correspond approximately to what others derive from religion.

Fair enough. I do not consider myself in any position to tell you what constitutes a major issue for you. Obviously, I consider it to be acutely important on the grounds that all ethics and meaning must be rooted in theology (another soap box of mine). And will be eager to continue along this line if you're interested.

I have not encountered a need or desire to "question the validity of physical reality". I exist in the physical world and accept its presence. I have studied nature intensively and have taught Earth science. To me the physical world is very real.

This is fair enough as a personal decision, but doesn't work for me as a point of debate. It strikes me as being logically identical to a person claiming that God exists because they have experienced him, and have no desire to question the matter. Outwardly, I usually shrug and change the subject. Internally, my mind screams that this doesn't help those of us who do have questions; it provides no logical answer. I hope you'll put up with a bit of an odd ramble for a moment:
Personally, I have spent a great deal of time feeling attacked by such questions. They were not the kind of things that I pondered over lightly. They blindside me in odd moments with deep intensity, the seeds of them beginning when I was seven years old.
I say this not to insist that you should think as I do (I really don't wish it on anyone), but that not thinking about it is simply not an option for me. To that end, I am stuck with a very clear understanding of the fact that there is simply no logical reason to believe in physical reality.
Personally, I accept it "on faith", and one advantage of doing so is that I've realized that this is a way in which most anyone can relate a bit to theists. After all, we all accept at least one "unevidenced" premise when we consider it to be important.

I also eat when I am hungry; however, I feel absolutely no need (or hunger) for religion AND, I see no reason for me to conclude that supernaturalism is "most likely" (though I recognize and respect your decision in opposite directions).

Thank you (truly) for such recognition. I hope that I can communicate respect for your decisions as well. I really mean to.
As far as debate, I do consider a purpose to humanity to exist, and believe that this cannot be objectively so without something outside humanity which lends it such a purpose. If I follow that though much further, I am already very near the concept of a deity.

First, that I do indeed question the validity of my beliefs regularly. I wonder seriously about them almost every day.

That, Jester, is what makes it interesting to discuss these matters with you.

Thank you again, then. And do know that you are definitely a part of my questioning. I consider my thinking to be more accurate for having debated with you.
Still, I am forced to admit that some certainty would be a welcome change. But where's the truth or adventure in that, right?

That is to say that I don't mean to attack, dismiss, or otherwise demean the non-theist perspective. I can definitely understand how these questions are valid, and feel that we do ourselves a great diservice to pretend that there are obvious answers to them.

That is a very appropriate, wise and credible position. If theists generally held this to be true our debates would be far more cooperative, productive and interesting (perhaps discussions rather than debates).

That would be a dream come true for me.
In any case, thanks for doing your part to that end.

[JoeyKnothead]

Wow. Jester and Zzyzx in a steel cage death match. Zzyzx hits Jester with a chair and I'm atheist. Jester pile drives Zzyzx and I'm a theist. This has been a terrific read you two. Special hat tip to Cnorman18 for the thread.

[Jester]

Fair enough.I really meant only to refute the claim that the question of other paradigms is a scientific one. That is the end to which my comment was directed.

Yet you're still doing it. You cannot refute the claim that the question of other paradigms is a scientific one without demonstrating that there are other paradigms to begin with.

Actually, I don't need to do so. The tool for research is decided before the conclusion is found in any legitimate study.

This is simply because our understanding of natural laws are based on these experiences. I have no objection to such a system, but fail to see that the fact that such laws seem to mostly line up with reality says more about the world than our own perspective. It is self-fulfilling to claim that such laws prove or disprove alternate paradigms.

Again, you're simply asserting that there is more to the world than what we can experience and that's not something you have demonstrated to be true. It's like saying people can see unicorns, but only if they already have faith they exist. If you fail to see the unicorns, your faith isn't strong enough.

Actually I am not. Above, I am claiming that such laws are a case of looking for clues in the wrong place. This is not supposed to be a proof; it is supposed to define the subject properly so that we don't end up dealing with tons of red-herrings.

For those of us who actually care that what we permit into our brains and accept as true actually are, that doesn't work.

Is this to suggest that I don't care?

You're simply making claims without justification and purposely shifting the goalposts so that any independent verification is impossible.

From my perspective, the "goalposts" were wrong, and I'm trying to clarify the issue back to something more reasonable. The universe doesn't really care how possible it is for us to learn about it; that's not the point. If we are to attempt to learn, however, we need to be clear on looking with the right method.

If such a thing existed, we would simply do a more severe "tweaking" of our current laws until they fit. Not to do so would be bad science.

That just demonstrates you don't understand science.

This is an ad hominem. Please stick to the points without commenting on my personal understanding.

We simply have no way of explaining how 4-5x as much water as exists on the entire planet could simply appear magically one day and disappear a year later. It cannot be done. There's no tweaking possible, it's flat out impossible for it to have happened, period.

Hypothetical: if it did happen, that would make it possible. If it were possible, it would be poor and lazy science to say "that's impossible; it's obviously magic". Rather, scientists would propose tons of theories about the source of the water and other related issues. Some of them would eventually turn out to be plausible, as far as we could tell, and one would eventually be accepted. This is how science works.
And, if I may say, it is a great system. It explained things that, for their time, were even more "impossible" than a world flood (such as the ability of light to move through time at a set rate and yet stop time).

I disagree. If we found incontrovertible proof for a worldwide flood, we would immediately begin proposing theories as to how it might have occurred. This was the case when we found an "excess" of heat in the earth that didn't make sense for its age, inexplicable properties of light waves, etc.

That's because for those things, there were physical reasons for them. Waving a wand and making matter appear out of nothing is a whole different animal.

My main reaction is to point out that there are physical causes for the event in my flood example. Even if there were not, we wouldn't know that and would propose physical causes.
But, getting to the actual flood story in the Bible, I see no place where it claims that there were no physical, scientific causes. Even assuming that every word is perfectly literal (which I don't), there is no indication that this is a "magic wand" moment.

It doesn't matter if God is a scientific subject, the fact remains that God has not been demonstrated to exist.

It matters for our debate. It means that we need to discuss ethics and theology instead of science.

What you're doing is simply making an unsubstantiated claim, then demanding that any attempt to verify that claim is impossible, because you say so.

I suggested a possibility as most likely, and did not say that it is unverifiable. I merely reject the notion that science is the tool to do so. Frankly, even if it were unverifiable, that would not be "because I say so", but rather due to our limited knowledge as humans.

It's like saying the world of Harry Potter is real. Why can't we find Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry? MAGIC! Yes, magic makes it completely invisible and undetectable and, because we can define magic however we want, magic itself is completely undetectable as well. So Hogwarts is real! It follows your logic to a T.

I understand your frustration with the idea that reality does not come with easy or obvious conclusions, and is often completely mysterious. Believe me, I do. I don't, however, see that our being upset about the fact that the matter is so hard to scrutinize reveals a flaw in my reasoning. Specifically, I don't reference magic or anything of the sort. I don't claim that there is no way to ever know, merely that it is difficult and that science is not the lens to use.

So long as we insist that God is a scientific matter, then I cannot.

Then you need to demonstrate that there is any other valid paradigm in existence that allows us to present objective evidence. You have yet to do so.

I've demonstrated that every bit as well as anyone has demonstrated the validity of the scientific perspective. While that is not particularly satisfying to you or I, we may just have to get over it. Reality is difficult to understand.
More to the point, even artistic and personal paradigms clearly exist outside of science. If we can at least start there, we can see that not everything is covered by scientific research. Nor was it ever meant to be. Science was created for a specific purpose. Great and noble though it is, it is not meant for every purpose.

We can provide many, many studies that demonstrate that religious belief is inversely proportional to intelligence and education, that's been done here quite a few times and I can trot them out again if you like.

Please do.
But, I would add that I am only interested in studies, not stories of specific events.

There are also many, many, many examples of activities that are done solely by the religious which are absolutely anti-social.

Each group has its own "brand" of anti-social behavior, but it is the grand total of such behavior which is of relevance.

When's the last time you saw an atheist strap on a bomb and blow up innocent bystanders?

Personally, I've never actually seen anyone do this, but I've heard about religious extremists and (atheist) communist revolutionaries both doing such things.

The Muslim extremists just had a 13-year old girl do it. A 13-year old girl!

Setting aside debate for a moment, I do completely agree that this is sick. It is truly evil, and I hate the thought of it.

Of course, I don't believe that it is logical to believe something can be evil unless one also believes in a deity, but that's a different matter.

When did an atheist ever pray to a god to heal their sick child, while allowing their child to die from an easily treated disease? Never.

I doubt that the issue was prayer with atheists, but many are guilty of neglect. (But no more than theists, of course.)

When did 1000 atheists get together in a stadium to watch a 13-year old girl, who got raped, be stoned to death for adultery? Never.

Does gathering for mass executions of theists in China and Russia count?

I don't see any atheists sticking Jews in gas chambers.

The Nazis were acting out of religious commitment then?
Why, then, did the missionaries often follow the Jews into those same chambers?

I'm going to cut the rest of that (as well as my responses - they get redundant). Mainly, I wish to reiterate that these are not studies these are anecdotes. Horrible though these acts are, such atrocities are committed by all kinds of people, and only by attempting to relabel those governments which have been atheist does one escape the idea that religion is not the ultimate cause of such behavior.

Do we have reason to believe that religious people are more likely to do this than the non-religious?

Hell yes. Look at Proposition 8 in California.

While I agree that this was a ridiculous idea, it does not address the concept of "more likely". It is, once again, an anecdote. What I am looking for is an actual comparison between theists and non-theists of an objective nature such as this study. Commenting only on one particular group is wholly unconvincing.

As have many non-religious people. I fail to see the difference.

Find me one, just one, who did so *BECAUSE* of their lack of religion.

I've already mentioned the communist revolutions.
Beyond that, I seriously question whether the "religious" acts you mention were religiously motivated at all. It seems that more universally human factors were the causes in all of these cases. Unless I'm presented with a study such as I have requested, I'll not be likely to change this opinion. Frankly, I see no reason why I should. Such an obvious difference as you seem to be asserting should be remarkably easy to find through study, and I should not be expected to accept a proposition without actual comparison data.

I do not defend it at all, but simply don't see that it is really more of an agrumentum ad consequentum than the social ostracism that often comes against religion.

Exactly which social ostracism that comes against religion is this again? Have you tried getting elected to public office in this country as a non-theist? Try again.

I've not run for public office as a non-theist, but I have mentioned to people that I am a theist and received less-than-polite responses (to say the least). To suggest that there are no cases of prejudice toward theists (or toward non-theists) is simply false.

Atheism is simply going where the evidence leads. We have no evidence to support the factual existence of any god(s), therefore atheists do not believe in any god(s). If you want an atheist to change their mind, all you need to do is actually produce some evidence. The utter failure of the theist side to actually do that is why we're still atheists.

We can certainly talk about evidence and what I believe to be the logical contradictions of atheism, but I would also like to assert that claiming falsehood without looking properly into the matter is no more rational than claiming truth. This is not following evidence.

However, that's not really true of most Christians. In every forum where I've seen the question asked, "If you had evidence that proved, conclusively, that God was not real, would you stop believing in him?" the majority of Christians said no.

That is unfortunate, but I will point out that I do not defend such a position. My answer is "yes". Since you are currently debating me, rather than one who answered "no" let's discuss my version of Christianity and its implications. Likewise, I will discuss your understanding of atheism, rather than argue that it is false based on the claim of some other atheist with which you may not even agree.

Christians, especially the more liberal of them, simply hold an emotional attachment to the social aspects of Christianity and don't care about God at all.

Let's not comment on the inner lives about people whom we do not know. That is presumptuous at best.

I don't reject the idea that unicorns don't exist either. From a purely rational standpoint, the only logical standpoint to take on anything for which you have no evidence is that they don't exist, simply because it is the only position which is falsifiable.

This does, however, contradict believe in the physical universe as mentioned.
Moreover, whether or not you or I consider it to be reasonable, it is opposed to logical principals to form any conclusion, positive or negative, without evidence.

If you have evidence, PRESENT IT! I can only make judgements based on what I have seen.

Fair enough. I've been driving toward the idea that the existence of a deity is the logical conclusion of purpose in human existence and/or ethics. Let's discuss that.

3. I've yet to meet an atheist that rejects the idea that the physical universe exists, in spite of the time-worn truism that there is absolutely no evidence for it. I'm not claiming that no such person exists, or even that you are not he, but I can personally attest to the fact that this is not the case for all atheists (unless, or course, you don't believe in my unevidenced existence).

Let me hit you with a hammer, that'll demonstrate it exists. There's evidence. Now do the same thing for your God.

Such a test requires that we accept the physical universe as a premise. Perhaps I was unclear on this point earlier, so let me be more explicit:
To believe that pain is real, rather than imagined, one must assume that one's nerve endings both exist and are responding to a real object. We are aware of times in which they to send "phantom" signals even under the assumption that they usually do not. Given this, the pain of a hammer is not proof. It is merely circular reasoning.

By the way, virtually all solipsists are atheists because they think that nothing outside of themselves, including gods, exist.

I'm not personally interested in their opinion, but rather in what can be proved.

That sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism, is, by definition, the belief that God does not exist.

Bzzzt! Try again. a = without, theos = gods. Atheism is the state of being without gods. Do the Greek. The word you're looking for is anti-theism.

Atheism:
American Heritage Dictionary
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

WordNet
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Webster's Revised
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

At the very least, you can accept that I was using a valid definition, even if it doesn't fit your own. And, yes, I understand the Greek, but would point out that the derivation of a word is not generally an accurate literal description of it's definitive meaning.

But, more to our point, do you take issue with being defined as I do atheism?

At the risk of redundance, you do an excellent job of disproving a God in which I do not personally believe.

Hey, I have to go after something, you've been very careful not to actually produce anything about the God in which you do believe. You're not exactly giving me anything to work with.

Well this explanation can get tedious, and will apologize for not being more forthright. I won't take all the blame, however. I have dealt with arguments which don't reference my beliefs even after explaining myself in this interchange.

I've also been to those thriving churches of which the government is not specifically aware, and which would be shut down if it were.

Welcome to reality. Like it or not, every country on the planet doesn't have the same Constitutional rights and privileges that we do. The Chinese government has the ability to place whatever restrictions on their people that they wish. You may not like it. You may disagree with it. However, it's none of your business what they do. Is religion outlawed in China? Of course not. It's not as free as it is here, but it still exists, you admit it yourself.

I do admit that it exists. But "like it or not" is not the issue. I was claiming that such a government is opposed to religious practice, and I don't see how your comment above addresses that point. It seems to confirm it by admitting that religion is not freely allowed there. Yes, it exists, but illegally. Religion thrives in this situation by hiding from the government. Regardless of our opinions about this, it does establish that this government opposes religion.

Well, unless one is religious, then it has a very specific meaning.

Which is all well and good, except we have a secular society and a secular government. Therefore, whatever meaning one might assign to a personal, religious idea of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with how it is handled in society.

That would definitely be the final word if we were discussing law. We were, however, discussing marriage. In that case, such a view is as valid as any other. How it is handled in society was not the point to which I was responding.
If you wish to return to the issue of homosexual marriage, I do agree that there is a difference between a legal and a religious marriage. I completely opposed prop 8, and voted against it personally.

What I questioned was the idea that this was the norm for theists, or an inevitable result of believing in God.

Let me know when you get tired of whipping that strawman. I never said it was inevitable or true of *ALL* theists, you're the only one making that claim. I simply said that belief in an irrational deity made it more likely that people would engage in such irrational behavior, on the basis of their beliefs, and I backed it up. I can do it all day too.

Very well; I will be sure not to speak as if you claimed that this was the case.
To debate, you did not back up your claims with legitimate research. This is what I require. I don't see that this is irrational in the slightest, and fully promise that any clear documented body of sociological research that establishes your point will be accepted.

Not that I expect you to care, you're not all that interested in reality.

This is an ad hominem. Please do not assume that your conclusions about my personal philosophy are accurate enough to make this judgment. I make a point of extending you this courtesy.

How does that make them not pedophiles?

In the sense of selecting children as their preferred sexual partner, no.

Then the point stands.

Obviously, I have not yet seen the numbers. Please share them (and sources, of course).

Not that you'll bother to read it or anything, but there's a pretty good examination of the whole subject matter at: http://ffrf.org/timely/pedo1992.php

Actually, I did read this one. It actually contained some numbers, and I liked that.
This one seems fair enough, it does seem that there is some kind of connection between Catholic practices and pedophilia. I'll also agree that the issue of celibacy is likely to be a major part of the cause.
Thanks for the numbers there.

Best for the world.

Demonstrate that it is best for the world. Provide sources.

If you believe that aiding the human race in general is good for the world these facts make it clear that a small percentage of the money we have here would make a massive difference in the hands of the lives of the poorer people in the world. If you do not, I don't consider it to be logical to claim that helping people in the United States is good.

What about Mother Teressa, or the Amish children who tried to help the friends of the man who massacred their friends?

You mean Mother Teresa who thought pain and suffering was good for the poor? That Mother Teresa?

Could you reference that quotation? I'd like to read it in context.
Thus far, I seem to be of the impression that she has done more to ease the suffering of the poor than most of us.

Before we get into a full-blown argument about exactly what God does or doesn't condone, may I suggest that we stick with those instructions that are given directly as better signposts regarding the religion than examples from distant cultures and odd situations?

I'm just going by what the Bible says. If you want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to take seriously, go ahead, I suppose.

I've suggested no such thing. In fact, I specifically suggested that we take the direct statement "love your enemies" seriously. I'm not sure why you seem to claim that we shouldn't in light of this last comment. It is what the Bible says.

Until you actually come up with a better idea and present it, I'm going to have to go with what the Bible and traditional Christianity says. The fact that you refuse to present any different concept of God requires that we do so.

Let me correct myself, then. I've not meant to refuse. Rather I've found it difficult to get the idea across. We've had some debate over this already, and I understand that it is slow going, but I believe that it will be worth it.
Specifically, I believe that we ought to start with what Christ in particular says about God, as recorded in the New Testament. This would be the best source, in my opinion. The most important desire of God for humans, according to this source, is that we love God and love one another. This is a basic defining characteristic of the personality of the Christian God, then: that he believes that love is the source of goodness, and expects it of all people.
Also noteworthy is that Christ was far more frustrated with the religious elite than the non-religious. Christianity, in the true sense of the word, does not promote the idea that the religious are "better" than the non-religious.
I suppose that's a start.

Sure, it's possible. Possible, however, does not make it so.

Fair enough.

Google is your friend.

Great, thanks.
Do you know the derivation, though?

[Jester]

Wow. Jester and Zzyzx in a steel cage death match. Zzyzx hits Jester with a chair and I'm atheist. Jester pile drives Zzyzx and I'm a theist. This has been a terrific read you two. Special hat tip to Cnorman18 for the thread.

Thanks extra for that. And, yeah, big kudos to Zzyzx for some of the things he's pointed out. I'm really racking my brain on this one.

In any case, I wanted to mention that I'm glad to have you around. I don't seem to actually debate with you much, but I've really enjoyed quite a few of your posts as I browse through the site.

[Confused]

If you have evidence, PRESENT IT! I can only make judgements based on what I have seen. If I have not seen it, I cannot consider it when making a decision. If you have something, put up or shut up already, otherwise stop pretending you've got jack squat.

MODERATOR INTERVENTION:

Though I am perfectly aware of what you response to this will be Cephus, I would ask that you avoid presenting it in the thread and PM it me personally. However, I still must comment on this.

Per forum rules, responses to posts should be civil, not inflammatory, derogatory, or just plain rude. In your case, I will make the special case of trying to avoid the arrogance as well as it does display blatant rudeness and presents the appearance of being uncivil. So please, in the future, try to avoid these comments. Or at least, make them less rude.

[Confused]

To address the OP, I would have to say that I can no more prove the existence of God than I can prove the non-existence of Him. However, I don't think the question of His existence is moot in that it is the primary motivator for many people to exploit and condemn otherwise good people. It is a tool that can be used for good and for evil and IMO, if one must use it to determine what is good and what is not, then one is left with no humanity and is a programmed robot with the inability to use the tools God gave us, our BRAIN.....not some book written by "nobody knows for certain who" and "nobody knows for certain why" and nobody knows for certain it is even accurate".

His existence shouldn't alter mankind, but it does. That is what I find to be the greatest injustice done in His name.

[Cephus]

Actually, I don't need to do so. The tool for research is decided before the conclusion is found in any legitimate study.

In fact, you do because you are insisting that there are other valid tools one can use, yet, as usual, you are completely unable to back up your assertion. What you're basically doing is complaining that we're using a hammer to nail two boards together instead of a "blingstanger", yet you haven't demonstrated that a "blingstanger" is real. Are we "biased" toward using a hammer? In the sense that it's actually real, absolutely, and we should be. Until you can actually demonstrate that there is another tool that we can use, you're just blowing smoke.

Forum rule #5 requires that you back up all claims with evidence and logic. I shall await until you are able to do so.

Above, I am claiming that such laws are a case of looking for clues in the wrong place.

So produce evidence that there is a "right place". You're making a claim, it rests solely on you to back it up.

From my perspective, the "goalposts" were wrong, and I'm trying to clarify the issue back to something more reasonable. The universe doesn't really care how possible it is for us to learn about it; that's not the point. If we are to attempt to learn, however, we need to be clear on looking with the right method.

Yet you cannot demonstrate how your method is correct, nor that it even exists, nor how one could tell if it were right if one tried it. What you're basically doing is taking the scalpel out of the surgeon's hand and telling him to operate with magic. He's just standing there with empty hands, without any way of examining his tools and without any way of testing the outcome of his operation. You're making claims about tools you cannot demonstrate are real, nor are you presenting any objective way to test if they factually work.

Please stick to the points without commenting on my personal understanding.

Then you need to stop making comments that lead to that conclusion.

But, getting to the actual flood story in the Bible, I see no place where it claims that there were no physical, scientific causes.

Of course not, it was a story written by a bunch of bronze-age primitives with a very basic, superstitious understanding of the world around them. They had no concept of science, therefore how could they have written that there were no scientific causes? It is very clear from reading the text that they had a very poor understanding of how the world worked.

It matters for our debate. It means that we need to discuss ethics and theology instead of science.

Ethics, if you're claiming they come from a god, are only as valid as the factual existence of that god. Theology, if it hinges on worshipping a particular god, is only as valid as the factual existence of that god. If, in either case, the god doesn't exist, then the basis for your ethical system or theological system is faulty.

I understand your frustration with the idea that reality does not come with easy or obvious conclusions, and is often completely mysterious.

No, my frustration is that you are asserting things about reality that you cannot demonstrate and seem to think that simply because you WANT reality to be a certain way, that means that it is. Unfortunately for you, on a debate forum such as this, one simply cannot assert things that they cannot demonstrate, as required in Rule #5. While you're certainly free to believe that everything is an illusion and we're all heads in a jar, for instance, it only matters in a debate forum what you can demonstrate and convince others of through evidence and logical arguments.

Please do.

Done. I don't actually say things I cannot back up.

Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward atheism."

Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence"

Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

There are many, many more I could list.

I doubt that the issue was prayer with atheists, but many are guilty of neglect. (But no more than theists, of course.)

We're not talking about neglect, we're talking about people deluded into believing that some big boojum in the sky will save their kid. If they didn't care what happened to their kid, that would certainly be neglect, obviously these people cared about their child, they simply refused to do what was best for their child and THOUSANDS of kids die from this kind of delusional ignorance.

The Nazis were acting out of religious commitment then?

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. "Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I've already mentioned the communist revolutions.

Yet none of that was done in the name of atheism, communist regimes simply eliminated all things that would conflict with loyalty to the state and religion qualified.

Beyond that, I seriously question whether the "religious" acts you mention were religiously motivated at all.

The people who committed them certainly claimed they were, and because we cannot truly know their intentions, we must take them at their word until we have reason not to. Most of the acts, I will admit, I'd be totally at a loss to explain outside of a religious context however. Assuming these are otherwise rational people, and we have no evidence to the contrary, what besides their claimed religious justifications could explain their actions?

I've not run for public office as a non-theist, but I have mentioned to people that I am a theist and received less-than-polite responses (to say the least).

Oh yes, that's certainly on the par with being told you're not worthy to be an American citizen by the sitting President.

We can certainly talk about evidence and what I believe to be the logical contradictions of atheism, but I would also like to assert that claiming falsehood without looking properly into the matter is no more rational than claiming truth.

I wish you would talk about evidence, I'm getting sick and tired of asking you to present it and having you dodge the question. That said, it's bizarre that you think I haven't properly looked into the matter, simply because I keep asking you to demonstrate how to do so and you refuse. Therefore, I can only go by what I have seen and that shows conclusively that religion is false. If you have any actual, demonstrable evidence to present, do it or stop pretending that you do, it's patently dishonest.

I've been driving toward the idea that the existence of a deity is the logical conclusion of purpose in human existence and/or ethics.

Yet that's still not evidence, it's simply a claim. You cannot draw a causal link between the factual existence of any deity, much less a specific deity, and human activity.

Such a test requires that we accept the physical universe as a premise.

Which, in fact, we all do. Move on.

I'm not personally interested in their opinion, but rather in what can be proved.

I agree, I was just demonstrating that you were incorrect in your assertion. Their opinions are logically bankrupt.

Atheism:
American Heritage Dictionary
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Yup, disbelief. There is a difference in disbelief and believing something does not exist. Try again.

WordNet
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Lack of belief. Check.

Do I have to keep going? You keep proving I was right. I was using the most inclusive definition, you are using the least inclusive. The fact that some atheists actively state there are no god(s) doesn't show that *ALL* atheists do similarly.

I was claiming that such a government is opposed to religious practice, and I don't see how your comment above addresses that point.

Yet the fact that the government permits religious practice proves otherwise. They may be opposed to UNCONTROLLED religious practice, but to say they are opposed to all religious practice is ludicrous.

In that case, such a view is as valid as any other.

Certainly, anyone can have any view they wish, however that doesn't mean they are free to impose their views on others.

Then the point stands.

That you were wrong? Yes. That point most certainly stands. Priests are not necessarily using children as their preferred sexual partners, but as available sexual partners because no others are open to them.

It actually contained some numbers, and I liked that.

It's funny that you keep asking for numbers and studies, yet whenever I ask you to produce a single shred of objective evidence for the factual existence of God, you can't do it. Go figure.

If you believe that aiding the human race in general is good for the world these facts make it clear that a small percentage of the money we have here would make a massive difference in the hands of the lives of the poorer people in the world.

Yet that doesn't demonstrate that it is the best for the world, in fact, there are arguments that can be made that overpopulation has a directly harmful impact on the human race and therefore, letting the poor die off may be an ultimate positive. Not saying I agree with it, just that there is more than one take on the problem.

Could you reference that quotation?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother Teresa

On another occasion, Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

In fact, I specifically suggested that we take the direct statement "love your enemies" seriously.

I've got no problem with that, except to point out that God in the Bible commanded his people to "love their enemies to death" quite a few times.

Rather I've found it difficult to get the idea across.

That's unfortunate, but I cannot debate what you cannot explain, if you cannot or will not put forth your ideas, then all you've left me with is arguing against the typical Christian view.

Specifically, I believe that we ought to start with what Christ in particular says about God, as recorded in the New Testament.

Well, what you believe Christ said, you mean, since you have no way to demonstrate that Jesus ever said any of it, nor even existed, as described in the Bible, at all.

The most important desire of God for humans, according to this source, is that we love God and love one another.

That's an unbased assumption, of course, but for the sake of argument, sure. But why bother loving an unknown and unseen God when we can just love one another and be done with it? That's like saying "Santa Claus wants you to be good." Who cares what an imaginary Santa Claus supposedly wants, why can't we just be good for the sake of being good and be done with it?

Christianity, in the true sense of the word, does not promote the idea that the religious are "better" than the non-religious.

And that may be true, but in practice, that's not how it usually plays out.

Do you know the derivation, though?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com):

whit "smallest particle," 12c., in na whit "no amount," from O.E. nan wiht, from wiht "amount," originally "person, human being" (see wight).

That seems to be related to "naught":

naught O.E. nawiht "nothing," lit "no whit," from na "no" (from PIE base *ne- "no, not;" see un- (1)) + wiht "thing, creature, being" (see wight).

I would presume, based on that, that "not giving one whit" would be equivalent to not caring at all, or to something being utterly unimportant.

Hope that helps.