Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work

Alvee,

“If you accept your god, you must accept the gods of others because they are all based on fantasy.”

Horses. Unicorns. Centaurs. Pegases. Assuming that I have never seen a horse, if I conclude that the latter three are fantasies, must I conclude that horses are too? I think not.

You’re statement is interesting propaganda, but it is hardly reasonable. The problem for me is that you think that it is. This requires a blindness of its own.

You’re response is one frequently seen and heard. It is a “cookie-cutter” response, one that takes for granted that the person who first stated it was right. At the very least you ought to have put it in quotes and given an attribution to professor Dawkins or whoever it was who originated the idea, shoddy thinking though it may be.

As to evidence, I recall my mother telling me this saying when I was but a child, “Convince a man against his will, he’s of the same opinion still.” (I have sought but cannot find an attribution). The point is, if I ask, “Can you prove what you say?,” I am saying I am open to hearing what you have to say, but when I say that you can provide no evidence for what you say, I am saying that no matter what you say, I won’t buy it. It is much like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and yells, “I’m not listening” over and over again.

So, I have to wonder why you bothered to make the post at all. It is not persuasive enough to effect any reader of normal intellectual powers, so why do it? If you think that it is persuasive, then you have little cause to call others delusional.

But I don’t think that that is why you posted it. It seems to me that you have had some kind of experience or experiences that have turned you away from whatever you have called Christianity in the past and have felt some need to vent.
Why don’t you explain?

Um, isn’t Father-Son-Holy Ghost 3 entities? Isn’t that polytheism?
Or did Yahweh make it with his his mother to produce himself? Ewwwwww!

Monotheism (from Greek μόνος, monos, “single”, and θεός, theos, “god”) is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god.[1] Monotheism is characteristic of the Baha’i Faith, Christianity, Druzism, Judaism, Islam, Samaritanism, Sikhism[2] and Zoroastrianism.

Christianity is not the only monotheistic game in town. If you can dismiss Zoroaster or Waheguru you can dismiss the god of Abraham and the judeo-christian faiths as easily.

It is not just monotheism…or henotheism for that matter. It is transcendance. Not all monotheists believe in transcendence. Some are pantheists, pantheists, and henotheists. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of transcendance.

Well then Baha’i and Sikhism still fit the bill. I’m not here to argue whether christianity is special to you. But it’s not unique. Nor was it the first of its kind. The fact remains that it is every bit as ridiculous as any other faith you are comfortable not adhering to. That’s why the quote cited in this blog is particularly pertinent to those of you who can dismiss the faith of others, yet be so certain yours is real. Question your own faith with the scrutiny that you question the faith of others, and you’ll get it.

You are failing to see the humble nature of this post. It simply argues that you cannot argue against any God with this argument so long as “God” is properly defined. It need not be the Christian God.

It is not an issue of who does one worship. Otherwise, Thor, money, Diana, or Superman could qualify. The issue is Transcendence. This argument does not work against arguing for a Transcendent creator. In other words, it does not work when the argument is for God, but it does when it is for god.

” All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.”

Wait. Did you just imply that there is *evidence* to support your god?

“People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh.”

[Citation required.]

“Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.”

Okay, I can concede this one. Christianity exists because people were converted by force, or killed.

“More importantly, the gods of these pantheons were/are not really gods in the proper sense.”

You don’t think they’re really gods, therefore they’re not *real* gods? Uh huh.

“Christianity believes in only one God (monotheism).”

Yes, you got that from the Zoroastrians in Babylon.

“We believe that existence necessitates a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover.” This first cause is by definition God.”

Yes, and we think you’re bonkers. What’s your point?

“In the end, the theistic type of God espoused by Christianity cannot be compared to the pantheon of gods of polytheistic religions. It is comparing apples to oranges.”

Just because you assert it doesn’t make it true. They believed in multiple fictional gods, and you believe in one fictional god. It’s like comparing Red Delicious apples to Granny Smith apples.

“I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God.”

So you don’t understand why they reject all the other gods at all. I’m glad we’ve established that.

Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh

Read many of the Roman historians and you will see that there was a committment to the pantheonic way of life, but a very loose and impersonal committment and belief in the individual gods. When the gods were threatened, it was the parties and way of life (culture) that was threatened, not their intellectual or even emotional committment to the deity. You find this quite a bit in a basic study of the persecutions of the early church. They started as grassroots persecutions due to the Christian’s focus on this one REAL deity which threatened their festivals and way of life. It soon won the day (by 400 ten percent of the population was Christian) due to this new type of committment, such that people were willing to die for this belief! Crazy stuff when someone REALLY believes in their God!

Eventually, the persecution went to a top down as the Roman rulers began to seek such a devotion to their gods (whichever one they chose) in order to lift the empire out of chaos.

Either way, the comparing or relating the “gods” in the pantheolic system is to the Christian view of God is comparing apples and oranges. One is by definition God due to his transcendant nature, the other is just a really really powerful superhero. Think about how easily people could be elevated to gods under the pantheolic system. How could ceasar claim to be a god if we are not dealing with apples and oranges? How could Simon the Magician have a statue devoted to him claiming he was a god if the Christian philosophical view of what makes god, god parallels with this other gods?

Again, once you compare the Christian God with hercules, I see that you have not done your philosophical homework, but are relying on quick sound bite atheistic apologetics. It may work among friends, but not in any serious debate.

So basically, as I read this defense of Christianity, the reason that Stephen Roberts’ quote is fallacious is that Jesus is speshul. Do I have it right?

As an aside, the definition for Anglicanism, which is today’s theoloogical term for the day, is riddled with basic errors. Eg. The 39 Articles are no longer in force and were only ever in force in the Provinces of Canterbury and York. With respect to the statement on the authority of the Bible, Anglicans also accept the authority of the seven ecumenical councils. And with respect to the statement on salvation, you ignore the Oxford Movement (of which the former Lord Archbishop of York, Lord David Hope, and many other bishops are adherents.)

Well, “God” is special. It is the difference in arguing for a transcendant necessary being called “God” and an immanent superhero that people worship and call “god”. Just because the same terms are used does not mean the same concepts are at issue. And this is the major fallacy with this comparison…it is hard to see how people who think deeply can continue to make this comparison.

C. Michael Patton doesn’t understand the real meaning of the quote by Stephen F. Roberts. Christians have their god, Muslims have their own god (Allah), Jews have one god, too (Yahweh), Hindus, Buddhists and many other religions have only one god. They are all monotheistic religions. I would like to ask C. M. Patton the following question: is this the same god, just named differently, or each of those religions have their own god? If this is the same god, why it says different things to different religions. But, if it’s not, then which is the real one? Each religion swears that their god is the One, and the only One. It is impossible for me to figure it out. That’s why I am a Humanist Jew. I read the Bible, but I don’t worship it. I consider it as a great work of ancient literature, in spite of the hundreds of contradictions that exist in it.

Michael T., where did you get your ideas? You need to stop speaking fancy and feeling smug about your semi-creative ideas. Whether or not someone goes to heaven or hell for the belief or disbelief in a religion is extremely important! As a Christian, our job is to help show other people what Christ did for us and help them to understand the joy we feel. As an apologist, I’m surprised at our reason, which is full of fallacies. Oh, by the way, Christianity does state that if you don’t believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you and you don’t accept him into your heart, you go to hell. There’s no “arguably” about it. My apologies for the bashing, but to a point I agree with you. It’s by understanding and undermining those warrants that we’ll make disciples of others.

I mean “your reasoning” in the middle…….

I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add something about the idea that pagans didn’t “really believe” in their gods and it was a social thing.

Are you familiar with The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Wilken? Page 63:

“The Christians were seen as religious fanatics, self-righteous outsiders, arrogant innovators, who thought that only their beliefs were true. However, the Roman belief in divine providence, in the necessity of religious observance for the well-being of society, and in the efficacy of traditional rites and practices was no less sincere than the beliefs of the Christians. As a Roman proconsul put it at a trial of a Christian in North Africa, ‘If you make fun of the things we hold sacred I will not allow you to speak.’ How presumptuous, thought the Romans, that the Christians considered themselves alone religious. As a Roman official aptly remarked at the trial of the Scillitan martyrs, ‘We too are a religious people.’

“We must take these claims seriously. As tempting as it may be to those who have been nurtured on the personal religion of our culture, Roman religion cannot be reduced, as Augustine attempted , to politics or statecraft…”

I’m just sayin’

Good stuff. I think it supports my conclusion. When you allow for a plurality of “on demand” type gods their ontological value is quite diminished. This is why the Christian view was so unique and cannot find parallel with these othere “gods” as they did not qualify for the term. They wee just really really powerdul beings. This is why the early church emphasized the “almighty” of their God. He actually was THE God. These are categories that polytheism cannot conceive.

Of course it does work. Let’s change the wording just a bit. Instead of “all the other possible gods” let’s have “Yahweh and Allah”. Now we are in monotheistic territory. And I could add other monotheistic gods to the list.
Your reason to reject their gods may not be the same I reject yours, but their reasons to reject the christian god are very similar to your reasons to reject their gods.
Since Christianity evolved from Judaism is the christian god’s name Yahweh? Or if it’s not Yahweh, then what it is? Is it a different god?
I am really confused . . .
Christianity. Which “branch”? Orthodox, Catholic or the many branches of Reform? They presumably have the same god, but it tells different things to them. Catholicism: your life on earth is only temporary and a preparation for the afterlife in Heaven (or something like that), the others teach something different.
Confusion again . . .

So you can make this argument work by changing it completely?

You are obviously familiar with the tactic of moving the goalposts.

Once we are discussing transcendent deities we are in an entirely different area. Then we can argue over who has the better historical evidence. For example the Koran (written about 600AD) makes claims about Jesus that contradict the Gospels (written no later than 100AD) and draws on pious fiction like the Infancy Gospels (third century or so). Since it is claimed that the Koran is the dictation of Allah, not merely inspired as some Christians claim of the Gospels, we have grounds to be skeptical of its claims to authority.

For the rest, your intellectual inadequacy is not a basis for argument.

“…like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded. Their gods were more “faddish” than anything else.”

This is a grave failure of perspective. You take for granted our modern understanding of our world. The fact that the earth revolves around the Sun and that the Sun itself is a giant ball of burning hot plasma and gas was *not* understood 500,1000, or 5000 years ago. Such conceptions were sorcery! The convictions, beliefs, and social pressures of people in these times could only have stemmed from the knowledge, or lack thereof, available at the time.

This all comes back to S.F.Roberts contention; you cannot dismiss any belief without considering the perspectives of its believers.

…And as you go on to make such pronouncements as “They were more like superheroes from the Justice League than gods.” You just continue to illustrate S.F.Roberts point.

I try not to get angry at ignorance. The truth is I understand it. It is safer to know nothing, than to think about anything in depth. This issue is beyond race, color or creed. My question to all people who agree with you is;Do you have anything to believe in? Do you wake up in the morning feeling general happiness in your life, or are you more miserable from the day before because you have nothing to believe in and absolutely nothing to look forward to? My father has a son that is not related to me. Sometimes I feel like we don’t share the same DNA, not because he is a bad person, but his knowledge only lies within the boundaries that my father and stepmother set for him. She knows nothing of God. My father stated to me that when he was a child, he went to Church so much he didn’t want to be bothered with it as an adult. I feel sorry for him, and no matter how much I love him, I know that he is going to have lifetime after lifetime of emptiness in a boundless existence filled with nothing. That is exactly how I feel about you. Good luck!!!

I could say as much that I don’t believe in Ra. It’s just harder to get people to understand that Ra was a singular God in Egyptian times, when a monarch tried to change to a monotheistic system. See? The explanation itself takes away from the gravity of it all.

So we are left with gods that everyone knows. Zeus, Odin, Heracles, and so on.

You don’t hear me naming the numerous Celtic or Babylonian and Sumerian gods for that reason.

All this “analysis” of Mr. Roberts’ eloquent retort misses the point of his largely rhetorical statement, which is pretty self-evident. The joke is on you taking it so literally. I am amused at the ingenious efforts of may to distinguish their god from the other gods. This much defensiveness thinly conceals the inherent doubt that all of us share but many will not admit, as if their god will vanish in a puff of smoke should they concede any uncertainty. Funny, believers often point out that an atheist may call out to god for help in times of trouble. They never point out that, throughout thier lives, believers face doubt and experience changes in their beliefs. So which one counts, the highest point of belief in your life, or the highest point of doubt? A little honesty and perspectcie is all we nonbelievers ask. As Bill Nye so aptly stated regarding those pushing creationist curricula in our schools, “What I find troubling, when you listen to these people … once in a while I get the impression that they’re not kidding.”

Tracy, what you don’t get is that – whether or not the God being discussed exists or not – the IDEAS and VALUES that are wrapped up in that theological package absolutely do matter. Your concept of God can drive innovation and desire to excel. It can also drive arrogance and hatred. It can motivate war or peace. It can enslave people, and it can drive Martin Luther King to march for freedom. Most of the key revolutionary advancements in human society can be linked first to a change in the way people thought theologically.

That you can sit in relative comfort and sneer at all of this and dismiss it as mere “fairy tales” speaks more to your own arrogance and intellectual poverty than anything else.

Quotes are typically concise and easily refuted. For example: “Man fears what he does not understand”. Obviously that’s not true. It may be true some of the time, but not all of the time.

The fact is that Christianity as a whole is not falsifiable. Once you add interpretation into the equation, you cannot prove The Holy Bible to be true or false. You can always interpret it in such a way that protects it from scrutiny.

At one point of time people believed that if you were to prove that our universe was not geocentric, that you would disprove Christianity. But Christianity, like so many other religions, just go back and re-interpret to fit current understanding.

When it comes to any comparison that is not about identity (a=a), there is ALWAYS a difference. There are differences between Christianity, Islam, Santa Claus, and Scientology.

The quote just points out a similarity. If 1/3 of the world believed in Zeus, then you would have people comparing Zeus to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. And you would have people defending Zeus and saying it’s just not the same.

Be it Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, or El that people are defending, the problem basically remains the same.

To sum it up, religion and their gods existence is based on faith, which is “belief WITHOUT evidence.” Yes… some Christians will agree with this definition of faith, while others will not, and quote things like Creationist “science”.

The quote mentioned, like all arguments, will apply to what SOME Christians believe, but not all of them. There are many many many types of Christians. The same goes with atheists. Some atheists believe “God” does not exist because (x) church that they went to as a kid was hypocritical…. A very poor argument.

I am an atheist, but I’ll admit that many atheists, like many Christians, hold beliefs based on very illogical arguments. In the end it’s not the conclusion that matters, but the argument(s) that support it.

“God, in this case, is not simply what one worships, but the uncaused cause”

The same can be said of Gaia. It’s an extremely simplistic concept that I would imagine many of thought of on their own.

“the uncaused cause, of which, by definition, there can only be one.”

Not necessarily. The possibility of a few uncaused creators is yet another unfalsifiable explanation.

“It would be better to compare Zeus to money or power or that type of “god”.

That’s not true at all. Zeus is a god (real or not). Look it up god in the dictionary. It’s just a word. Debating something as superficial as semantics won’t get you anywhere.

“So we simply have a case of a false comparison.”

I wouldn’t call it a false or true comparison. But I tend to try and break things down more. If given a premise or two and a conclusion, then I would start speaking of true/false and valid/invalid.

“All it shows me is that the one who made this statement originally was speaking from the hip and had never studied much philosophy”

Maybe. Maybe not. People often make concise statements that only superficially represent their beliefs, if given in full.

I can relate to this statement, but I would never use it to express my own beliefs.

You missed the simple point of the argument… You believe in something that cannot be seen or proven because you choose too. It has nothing to do with comparing the inspiration of the toothfairy to God or the different aspects of the dogma or even how many gods are involved.

It’s a very simple, basic part of human nature.

Just try this: If you believe in a man that you’ve never seen just because you read about him, were told about him, want to believe he exists, find comfort in his existence, and or saw proof of his influence then you can believe in (choose one) Santa Clause, God, etc. Plug in any of the similar and you’ll see it works no matter which belief system you use. Hence the argument makes a lot of sense. “Listen more and talk less, you will learn more.” I like that one even better.

I don’t know if this point has already been made or not. But the reason C Michael Patton’s argument does not hold water is that he is misunderstanding what is meant by “god” in the atheist argument.

It is not simply that we assume all gods to be the same, which is indeed a fallacy. But rather we understand that all gods are *supernatural* in nature. They are all part of the same class of ideas. That is true by definition. And since most atheists pretty much put their conditional trust in methodological naturalism any concept of a supernatural entity is by nature outside the realm of reasonable possibilities.

The Tooth Fairy, as was mentioned in another post, is another concept in that same category. Obviously The Tooth Fairy and Jehovah (or whatever name you prefer) are vastly different characters. Nobody would argue they are the same. But they *are* in the same category of characters…they are supernatural entities.

Science has never detected such an entity and it isn’t even clear how such detection would even be possible. So without sufficient evidence to sway a rational mind the default position is to have no belief in these entities.

It does not matter how different the Christian faith is from other faiths. It still posits a supernatural entity that cannot be verified or falsified in any meaningful way. So we simply do not believe it.

Why is the default position not to believe?

You totally just made that rule up JV.

And of course the tooth fairy and deity aren’t in the same category. One was designed in its creation to be a make-believe story. The other was not. Not to mention the evidence for Jesus’ divinity is orders of magnitude greater than that for the tooth fairy. Finally – the existence of the tooth fairy doesn’t matter. The existence of Christ does.

Which makes the analogy stupid in just about every respect.

Of course, I agree with Vinnie, Michael T. and others! Roberts is right. What he means is that we atheists have no belief in any god, whilst those of the Abrahamic religions are atheistic as far as other gods. Should one not believe in Zeus but instead on Thor, then she is atheistic towards Zeus. Not believing in some other god makes one have an atheistic attitude towards that god. One does not have to be an atheist to have atheistic attitude towards other gods. And don’t let your opprobrium of atheism lead your astray from noting that.
It is nothing that the gods of polytheism aren’t creators, as the lack of evidence counts against them in the other respects. Thus, one special pleads after all in dismissing Roberts’ idea!
He is just making John Loftus’ outsiders test, which is a powerful argument, despite the special pleading of the naysayers! Science finds no intent whether that of polytheism or monotheism, so both are superstitious in finding intent!
Aristotle’s teleology and his own science had kept us backwards, despite his own naturalism.

Couldn’t disagree more. This is a strawman argument that avoids the point.

R. Seth, I made it clear that I put gods and tooth fairies into a category called “supernatural”. I don’t see how you could disagree with that. Do you feel that Jesus, being able to do miracles, is not supernatural in nature? The tooth fairy, being a fairy, is also supernatural.

And I disagree about the evidence for the miracles of Jesus. I do not know of any such evidence. I know of a couple of stories, but I also know of a lot of other stories I don’t believe in. There’s a guy named Peter Parker who lives in New York City and has super powers. I really love that guy. He’s awesome.

He isn’t real.

[…] general discussion is here.   Posted by Ian Thompson at 10:09 PM Labels: being itself, Edward Feser, god, […]

The christian god has been around for 2000 years and look at the state of the world? 88% of the world thinks a god exists and yet its a self destructing, greed filled world. I imagine a world without religion hindering our very existence in this universe. We will be destroyed by nature unless we wake up to our environment on earth and in space. Let’s deal in facts and continue our adventure on this beautiful planet as one species with the believe in exploration of the truth. The alternative is to continue to say “I’m right” no “I’m Right” until we nuke our selves or waste too much time and are destroyed by a rock or super volcano. Your faith leads to our demise. Nature is the only god we need concern ourselves with at this point in our existence ( A god being somethings greater than ourselves).

Actually Zach, Christianity has been in decline for nearly a thousand years.

The horrors you describe are MASSIVELY the fault of the rise of secularism, not religion. The cult of the secular state has been a horrible development for the world.

Ever since the “Enlightenment” when we started to banish religion from public influence, the world has grown increasingly cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty.

The worst incidents of bloodshed in the last 500 years have been those committed by the secular order. Culminating with the most infamous of all – the Soviet Union and its anti-religious rain of blood and horror on this earth.

You atheists have a lot to be proud of Zach. A lot to be proud of….

Seth R:
“Ever since the “Enlightenment” when we started to banish religion from public influence, the world has grown increasingly cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty.”

What’s your evidence for this claim? All the data points to the opposite.

No it doesn’t.

Wars have been massively more bloody, more destructive, and more willingly engaged ever since the secularists took over.

War has always been nasty, but the cult of the secular state took it to all new heights of scope, brutality, and finality.

The 20th century alone ought to be proof-positive that secular regimes and secular ideologies have dwarfed religious ones in terms of cruelty, cynicism and barbarity.

You atheists had your shot at history.

And you failed – miserably.

But really, you only have to look at the scope and development of wars before the Enlightenment and after to see that they became far worse under the new ideas than under the old. And it wasn’t just technology – it was also new paradigms for conquest.

Witch burning is another interesting example.

Under the rule of the Catholic Church, remarkably few witches were ever burned for the simple reason that the Vatican didn’t believe in witches. The typical Medieval scenario was the ignorant angry townspeople ready to burn the witch and the local Catholic priest intervening and stopping the execution while explaining to the people that this is just superstition. The Catholic Church actually pardoned more witches than it executed.

It was only after the Catholic Church began to be banished from the role of government influence in favor of secular monarchs and secular local governments that popular outbreaks of witch-persecution became common (like the Salem witch trials).

The Spanish Inquisition is another example of an atrocity that was largely carried out by the secular Spanish monarchy and their pawns – AFTER Rome had been told to stay out of it. When the Catholic authorities did get involved in the Inquisition, their role was usually to acquit people – since church courts operated on evidence of guilt. Secular courts, on the other hand, often operated without evidence on popular passion. Most of the abuses occurred there.

Think the contrast between Judge Caude Frollo’s “Palace of Justice” vs. the Cathedral of Notre Dame from Victor Hugo – a perfect example of the bloody and merciless secular order vs the old waning religious order.

Seth R:
Please pardon my reluctance to simply take your word for it. You’ve offered no objective, third party, evidence that the world has become more violent.

Here’s just one piece of evidence to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180.html

What’s yours?

I think if you rephrase the analogy as something more simple, such as: If you are a Christian, why did you reject Islam? And why did you reject Hinduism? And Judaism? For whatever reason, such as, ‘I disagree with some of their beliefs’, which is reasonable, that is the reason why that particular person has chose to reject your religion as well. For whatever reason you have no faith in a Muslim god, is the reason the other does not have faith in a Christian god. Another way to put it: Religious and non-religious alike dismiss gods, therefore, are a form of atheist. The analogy shows a likeness between the polarities. Therefore, a person could technically be a “Christian-Atheist”, as in, a Christian, who is atheistic toward Islam. The “answer” to the analogy, for the religious-minded, should be that it’s a play-on-words, if anything, and all Christians are quasi-atheists. This analogy could also be discussed in faith-based groups, by looking at it in another way: Did you choose Christ, or have you just been coming to church since you were a child? There is no particular right or wrong answer, simply something to be reflected upon.

“‘Imagine relying only on the writings of Joseph Smith and his most devoted followers to write the history of the Mormon church from the time Smith first claimed to have seen the Angel Moroni to the time Brigham Young led the Latter Day Saints to Utah’
Who else are you going to rely on?? ”

Anyone who isn’t an imbecile isn’t going to rely on the writings of Joseph Smith in determining whether Smith saw the Angel Moroni. You gits who reject Vinny’s arguments have no grasp of what the import is.

“No Calvinist would say that if you’ve rejected the Mormon notion of deity, you’ve automatically got grounds for rejecting the Calvinist notion of the same. And no Mormon would claim that just because the Calvinist image of God has been rejected, the Mormon notion should be automatically rejected too.”

Of course not … because they’re stupid and irrational. But atheists aren’t, and they apply the same reasoning to both.

“The whole notion is nonsensical.”

No, it’s quite “sensical”, which is why xtian gits resist and reject it.

“It puzzles me when former born again Christians come to be atheists. I am much the opposite, having been a skeptic for most of my life and then became a Christian in my middle age.”

It’s never a surprise when stupid people are puzzled.

“What clinches it for me is the indwelling of the spirit. Nothing explains that except the Bible. ”

Uh, psychology explains it.

Thanks to Marcel for providing yet another example of how atheism is largely founded on taunts and insults.

Take away the juvenile insults, and you really aren’t left with anything in the thought system. Atheism has no real ideas to call its own, so it leads a parasitic existence of throwing around taunts and hoping no one will notice.

As such, it is a perfect haven for people who would like to think of themselves as smart, but lack the capacity to really gain intelligence.

Now watch as Marcel proves my point by trying to insult me.

Try to make it entertaining this time at least Marcel. My classmates in 5th grade could have done a better job of taunting than your last three posts.

Oh, and maroon – that Wall Street Journal article was just the author stating his unsupported opinion without any data or facts to back up his argument either. So I guess we’re back to square-one.

“Oh, and maroon – that Wall Street Journal article was just the author stating his unsupported opinion without any data or facts to back up his argument either. So I guess we’re back to square-one.”

Seth R:
Clearly you didn’t bother to read the article. Some quotes:
– “These investigations show that, on average, about 15% of people in prestate eras died violently, compared to about 3% of the citizens of the earliest states.”
– “Historical records show that between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century, European countries saw a 10- to 50-fold decline in their rates of homicide.”

Also note the three independent studies supporting the infographic “The Waning of War”.

What “investigations”? What “historical records?” And how do they show it?

I was looking for all that and didn’t find it. Which means that the article is nothing more than a dressed-up version of the author’s own unsupported opinion.

How about I use language like that in my comment above maroon.

Would you be naive enough to take my word for it? But apparently you are when the source agrees with your own prejudices I suppose.

There is no evidence whatsoever that doing away with religion or doing away with irreligion is going to have any positive or negative effect on society. Religious people have to explain away the inquisitions as well as violence in this modern world caused by…religion. Irreligious people need to explain away Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao.

I, on the other hand, win this argument hands down because there is no way to prove either way whether we would have less violence with or without religion but it can be demonstrated that ALL violence is ALWAYS linked to a power grab of some sort. End of discussion.

“What “investigations”? What “historical records?” And how do they show it?”

Either you’re not looking hard enough or you’re in denial of the evidence. Both graphics cite their sources:
Manuel Eisner at Univ of Cambridge, in the first graphic and three separate studies in the second:

The Human Security Report Project
Uppsala Conflict Data Program
Peace Research Institute

As it says in the byline, the essay is excerpted from a book the author wrote, which contains all the references/citations.

“Irreligious people need to explain away Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao.”

No they don’t. Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were horrible not because they were fonts of reason but because they were so much *like* religions; cults of personality who embraced toxic dogmas that flew in the face of logic and evidence.

maroonblazer said: “Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were horrible not because they were fonts of reason but because they were so much *like* religions; cults of personality who embraced toxic dogmas that flew in the face of logic and evidence.”

Exactly my point. They were power hungry monsters. Like all fanatical religious people out there. Now allow me to introduce you to the evil Martin Luther King Jr. He was a religious person and therefore a power hungry monster everything he taught flew in the face of human reasoning.

Now meet Mohatmas Ghandi. Yet another religious fanatic who will one day burn in Hell for his wicked atrocities. So Christian he rejected Christianity and became a Hindu!

And of course, all this is sarcasm.