That would be circular reasoning. For that analogy to be valid, one must first assert that God does not exist. In other words, it requires assuming that there is no logical basis for criticizing atheists, which is precisely the point under contention.
But that doesn’t prevent them from persecuting infidels, who are defined as “anyone who isn’t a Muslim”.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, and we have discussed this before, but I recommend two books related to this topic: Sam Harris, The End of Faith, and Ibm Wariq, Why I am not a Muslim. The Wariq book is heavy reading, but chockful of detailed analysis of the faith, both historically and philosophically. Christians and Jews are not off the hook just because they are “people of the book”. From the orthodox POV, it’s convert or you’re dead.
Harris’ point is that modern Islam has failed to repudiate this concept, while Christianity has.
And to expand on what Lilairen is saying, I read once (sorry, no cite) that in ancient times, when you went to visit your neighbors (assuming they were friendly), you worshipped their gods in their territory as they would worship your gods in yours. I’m not sure if this was just a courtesy, or they believed that God A was absolute ruler only up to God B’s tribal border. Could have been a little of each.
I’m not sure you know what that phrase means, given your use of it here.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? You initially brought up the analogy of the car accident to support the conclusions of theists, despite their differences. Here, look, you said:
thus, your original analogy of the car accident was to illustrate that 17 different points of view of God should not call into question the validity of the assertion of God. I’m suggesting that the analogy is faulty, flawed and exceedingly poorly thought out because when it comes to assertions about the existence of God, all we have is the witnessing of witnesses. It’s much more like first responders showing up to the site of a claimed accident and finding nothing there. They might say “Well, you say that there is an accident, but there is no wreckage, no broken plastic or car parts, no skid marks, no damage to the surrounding area. Nothing measurable allows us to evaluate your claims.”
Atheists are like first responders to a scene of no accident in your analogy.
More likely the TV producers were good Christians who regarded it as their religious duty to slant things against the atheists as much as possible.
If there is no evidence beyond them asserting that something exists, and they claim that they “know” that something exists via some special source of knowledge, then yes. If religious texts and religious revelation were reliable sources of knowledge, they would agree with each other.
No, it’s word games, and an attempt to ignore the fact that all atheists disbelieve in gods. And an attempt to divert the issue by turning this into a six page argument over word definitions, most likely.
It’s not really tolerance, I believe, but a lack of power. Islam still has the strength and unity to dominate by force in many places; in most places Christianity is either too weak or divided to do the same.
And there will still be scuff marks, spilled oil or gas, possibly blood, and whatever evidence they hidden - it’s been moved, not erased from reality. The distinguishing feature of religion is that it’s factually empty; there is NO evidence. Not hidden or hard to find or heaped into a pile and burned evidence; NONE. That’s why it’s called faith. Religion can’t properly be compared to anything that is physically real.
Falsely equating religion and atheism is stupid - or dishonest. Atheism does not rely on revelation. It doesn’t matter if we agree on anything beyond the nonexistance of gods; we aren’t claiming some special mystic source of knowledge.
And the belief that a “spiritual experience” is anything other than a psychological aberration or a problem with the brain is a religious belief. And belief in the “love principles” is also religious.
Don’t know (m)any TV producers, do ya? 
Der Trihs, you’re trying valiantly to find a loophole – to find a way out of this analogy. I think you can already see the fallacy in your argument. It doesn’t matter whether the additional evdience was “moved” or “erased from reality.” The point is that disagreement on secondary details of this event does not automatically invalidate the core claim – namely, that a car accident occured.
Heck, as I pointed out earlier, you obviously disagree with the other posters here regarding the definition of atheism. Perhaps the atheists of the world should first arrive at some universal agreement before they deign to criticize theists, right?
That’s your assertion. Assertions are not proof. Moreover, your claim assumes that religion HAS no factual basis – in other words, that theists have no basis for criticizing atheism. In other words, your claim assumes the very point that is under debate in this discussion.
You have a point. It’s probably better to pretend to be tolerant where you don’t have much power!
Certainly in countries like Britain, Islam lacks the power to enforce Islamic principles. But in many arabic countries, they do, and Sharia is the basis for much civil law there. In some places, they are trying to – and may succeed, due to strong citizen support – in making Islamic law into civil law.
Not that the USA doesn’t have similar movements from a Christian perspective, but we benefit from a church/state separation concept that is foreign or even abhorent to some other countries and/or religions. Harris argues that any country that gains a majority Islamic population cannot remain secular, neutral or tolerant for long.
I don’t have a cite either, other than what I learned in my Mythology class from a few months ago, but you’re right. It was common in the olden days to believe that there were gods of various places and that their power was centralized there. That’s why it’s interesting to watch the progression of Yahweh, the local god of the Israelites, become the international phenominon he is today.
Were that true, it would go a long way in explaining why the God of the Old Testament behaves the way he does.
If whether there is any significant proof for religion is what is under debate in this thread than it seems rather telling that no proof for religion has surfaced in the preceding 49 posts.
Despite all the semantic wriggling that theists are attempting here, it does seem clear that no evidence has surfaced. Also, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the continuing lack of any rational basis must at least throw the concept of God into disrepute… unless of course you have some vested interest in continuing to believe?
I’m not trying to find a loophole; I regard it as a silly analogy. It doesn’t bear much of a similarity at all to religion vrs atheism. and it does matter whether or not the evidence actually exists or not.
No. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the same standards do not apply. Claiming something is true without evidence is not the same as disbelieving because there is not evidence. Religion is simply not on the same level of plausibility as atheism.
First, it’s the job of the people who claim something exists to provide the evidence. Second, they’ve tried for millenia, and failed.
Personally, I think it’s less the official seperation of church and state that matters than the fact that religious as America is, it’s also religiously disunited. The people who want to impose the One True Way on the rest of us can’t agree on what the One True Way is, and most of the people who might otherwise go along can see that letting religion be legislated means that the odds are good that it won’t be their religion that gets written into law. People who don’t even regard the Catholic Church as Christian are hardly going to want Catholics writing Catholicism into the laws, for example.
But that’s not what’s under debate in this thread—or if it is, the thread has become diverted from its original topic, which was the OP’s assertion that theists ought to agree amongst themselves before criticizing atheists.
If you really want a thread about proof (or lack thereof) for religion, I’m sure you can find one with a little searching, or start another one. I hope it’s not necessary for every thread about religion and/or atheism to devolve into an argument over that particular issue.
Der Trihs, you keep missing the point. You keep asserting (incorrectly, IMO) that there is no evidence for God, that religion is bunk, yadda yadda yadda. You also attempt to work your way out of the car accident analogy by postulating that other evidence would *necessarily * exist, and so forth.
As said Thudlow Boink said though, “But that’s not what’s under debate in this thread—or if it is, the thread has become diverted from its original topic, which was the OP’s assertion that theists ought to agree amongst themselves before criticizing atheists.”
Your entire argument is premised on the notion that there is no evidence for God’s existence, and thus, theists have no basis for criticizing atheists. You’re welcome to that viewpoint, but it is NOT what the OP stated. The OP states that unless theists learn to agree on peripheral issues such as one’s choice of scripture, then they have no business criticizing atheists.
You obviously echo that view, enough though some of the atheists here disagree with you on that matter. Hmmm… Perhaps all of you atheists should learn to agree before you go around claiming that theists are in error.
It would, if there was an actual car accident. The “point” is that the car accident analogy is a complete failure, and that there isn’t any evidence for God. I note that while you mock me for saying so, you carefully avoid trying to give any.
Squink tried to say that atheism was no different. And it’s not a peripheral issue what scripture you follow; people have fought wars over that sort of thing.
:rolleyes: And once again, that’s not necessary. Atheism doesn’t claim to pull facts out of nowhere like religion. Disagreement among atheists proves nothing because we don’t claim to have an evidence-independent mystical source of knowledge. The religious do, and the fact that they can’t agree is evidence that they are wrong, or lying.
Nope. Squink pointed out that Atheists are not the sort of monobloc you need to validate bitching about the disharmony of Theists. That’s decidedly not the same as saying the two groups are ‘no different’.
That’s because you are mis-defining atheism. You are describing what we call “hard atheism”. I am an atheist, and I agree with you that “believing in no God” is an odd choice. That’s why you will find very few people who will say they “believe in no God”. It’s much simpler and more accurate for me to say, “I do not believe in God”. That is what an atheist is.
An agnostic, depending whether you use the technical definition or the colloquial definition, either means one who believes it is impossible to know whether God exists, or one who hasn’t made up his mind. Well I’m neither confused about the issue, nor do I think it’s per se impossible to know. I simply don’t believe in God and will continue not to believe in God until such time as there is any evidence to convince me otherwise.
Actually, no - agnosticism does that. Atheism does not.
Well that’s just silly. If you knew God didn’t exist, why would you care about his wrath?
How does Harris explain Indonesia?
As far as I’m concerned the burden of proof is on the thiets. I don’t have to prove why god doesn’t exist, you have to show me proof that he does.
An alternative I like is that we allow each other to have different beliefs and try not to impose ours on each other. Admittedly, the theists are more guilty of trying to impose than anyone else.
The statement “God doesn’t exist” is every bit as much a definite claim as “God does exist.” If someone’s going to claim that either statement is definitely true, then it’s only fair to ask them to substantiate that claim.
Moreover, as has been pointed out several times in the course of this thread, that’s not the topic under discussion. The OP claimed (incorrectly, IMO) that disagreement among theists on secondary matters (e.g. choice of scripture) somehow invalidates theism. The question of WHY someone should believe in God is an interesting one, but irrelevant as far as this issue is concerned.
’