Oh no. Oh God no.

[Hadriel]

Thank you!! No, seriously, thank you. About time I hear more people agreeing with this.

That probably deserves its own thread, actually.

I truly believe that if our education system was simply more strict on these matters, and seriously, more harsh on punishment (Who cares about getting suspended or something anymore?), then it'd be a win situation.
The education system in this world is a joke, an absolute joke.

The educational system doesn't need to be harsher; we already have zero-tolerance bullshit, by which it's practically possible to denounce anyone you don't like to the thought police.  What it needs is to deal with troubled kids better, teach the material more effectively by focusing on conceptual foundations rather than rote memorization, and admit when it fucks up.

Has science even been able to prove that such a thing (a soul) MIGHT exist? Perhaps there is no such thing as a "soul"? I see no reason to believe in such a thing (But again, I'm extremely uneducated in this matter). We have a brain and a consciousness to go with it, where in the world does a "soul" even come into the factor?

Traditionally, a soul is defined as an immaterial entity; this definition is impossible to prove with science (well, good science, anyway).  However, as the soul is usually associated with consciousness, I feel it only fair to use the word as a poetic sort of definition for the scientific processes involved in learning and data analysis; this definition applies to machine as well as organic intelligence.  Once, long ago, I viewed knowledge as a mere tool of social advancement, the cudgel with which one asserts their superiority in an information economy; indeed, this is the view taken by the overwhelming majority.  But by viewing knowledge as the "substance" of the soul, one can instantly acquire an intuitive understanding of how people think and act based on their tendencies and the information, whether scientific or cultural, they have been exposed to.  It is even possible, through enough exposure to a given person and to their interests, to develop a near-telepathic understanding of them; when you do these things, you are effectively sharing their memory.

Heh. Well put. Basically, you are saying people need to stop copping out behind "But that's not necessarily true" when it's so obvious that it is?

Basically.

Yes, a valid exemption. Religion, of course, is not the only such aid open to the desperate, but because of its pervasiveness in our culture it does come up quite often. If the lost can right themselves with religion, then the better for them.

Two notes, however: Those are compromised people, and probably should not be afforded the same status as ordinary citizens. Secondly, and more pertinently, take a closer look at some of those people whose lives were “saved” by discovering religion, and you will find that religion itself most often played a role in their development or corruption, directly and indirectly, in the person of their parents, in the style of the upbringing, and in the mores and values of the institutions of the environments in which they lived. Much of what is wrong with America today can trace itself to religious values—including the many ills that you would typically think of as completely secular, like Las Vegas. Ah, but a discussion for another time, that is, since I have to go.

The point, then: Yes, it’s a valid exemption. For now.

I like the Las Vegas example.  What has been done with Nevada in particular is to sequester all of the "deviant" behavior into one economically unbalanced corner and then point to the crime rates as evidence of a causal relationship between said behaviors and criminality.  This is the same type of mentality fueling the so-called war on drugs; make it illegal by appealing to voters' religious morality, watch organized crime get involved because there's no other way for users to get drugs, and then point to the after-the-fact destruction of lives as evidence that they were right, failing to realize (or care) that said destruction was in large part created by the very laws passed in an attempt to stop it.  Not that I would recommend use of hard drugs (cocaine, ecstasy, etc.), which actually will kill you, but I defy anyone to provide the name of even one person who has overdosed on marijuana.  Hell, alcohol kills more people than weed.  Sure, it's possible to give yourself lung cancer by smoking pot, but in order to do that you'd have to smoke an ounce a day for several years; you're much more likely to get cancer with cigarettes.  Unfortunately, most people cannot make the logical connection here; they simply see that some illegal substances kill you and then assume that all of them will.  This is where education reform could come in; I believe that there should be mandatory classes in logic throughout all twelve years of school.  It could cover diverse subjects such as epistemology, philosophy, the history of science, and even art, and best of all, it could actually be fun.  All you have to do to create a generation of smart, well-informed kids is to make the idea of learning attractive to them on a personal level.  Unfortunately, that's not what our system wants to do.  What our system wants to do is create obedient drones of the current (thoroughly corrupt) social order, and if they learned logic they'd also learn to question authority.

Holy crap, you're right, and amazingly, I've made this same argument time and time again (Sad how I've never put 2 and 2 together until now).
One of the things I hate most are overbearing parents. Not good parents, overbearing parents. The kind that don't send their kids to school because they are afraid of the "dangers" of peer pressure, etc. etc.
Or the kind that send their kids to religious private schools, is another prime example. I tell ya, every person I speak of actually in the post you're responding to grew up like this. -_-
Parents literally condemn their children this way. The kids grow up so secluded from the rest of the real world, that as soon as they hit that age where they can make their own decisions, they SNAP! They go insane, experimenting with all the evils of the world they were never allowed to simply out of prolonged curiousity.

Sadly, my family is a perfect example of this phenomenon.  I've mentioned on and off to Daniel that my father is a theologian, the same as his, but the difference between his father and my father, from what I've been able to tell, is that mine was an authoritarian, stubborn ox whom I wish to have nothing more to do with.  And I won't even get into the various and sundry levels of upfuckery on my mother's side...at least not without a lot of Jack Daniels.

Good point, I don't think you understood me completely though. Things that haven't been absolutely 100% without a doubt proven are still going to be denied by people stuck in their ways. Look back at my posts to ZeaLity a while back (As well as others on this thread), it's being done right here in this thread. The blame is placed differently on religion or science based on who is placing that blame. It's a "he said, she said" thing until it is proven indefinitely. Humanity just loves to disagree.

Then we have a problem, because outside of mathematics it is impossible for anything to be proved with 100% certainty.  But reasonable people should find 99.99% certainty to be acceptable.

If it isn't proven enough to completely disprove the other side (Religion), than it's not an indefinite fact, I guess is what I am saying. I'm not at liberty to say, honestly. I've never actually had to take the stand of fighting against science to prove religion, but people are doing it all the time. Ask them, I guess. -_-
You see what I am saying though? I don't know how to state it well, I suppose.
Look at it this way, it is a known fact that if it is indefinitely proven via extensive fossil records and other works that we evolved overtime from simple to complex, religion is murdered. MURDERED! It will completely disprove the Bible, 100%
Am I wrong in that statement? Or am I just not making any sense at all?

Yes, you're actually wrong there.  Evolution does not disprove the Bible, or even God in general; the Bible does not give a specific date for creation.  What it disproves is that the Bible's account of creation is literally true.  Many of the stories in the Bible are known to be parables; Jesus was rather fond of them.  However, as offensive as that idea is to hardline Christians, what really gets their panties in a Gordian knot is the idea that mankind is the result of a scientifically explainable process rather than divine intervention - in other words, that we aren't special.  Ann Coulter even says as much in her book Godless, in a rare display of honesty.  However, I would dispute the notion that we aren't special, at least to an extent; simply because our capacity for thought evolved instead of being created does not negate its significance.  No other species on this earth has achieved the depth and breadth of intellectual progress that we humans have made; this, at least, is worth something in the grand scheme of things.

It's not "To be religious is to be dead" or "To be religious it to be imprisoned" but "To be religious is to be ignorant" then?

More like "to be religious is to not examine oneself rigorously."  As we have seen, this is not true for all religious people, but it is for the majority of them.  Lord J has called Daniel Krispin a villain; perhaps this is just the fact that he's my friend talking, but I don't think this definition is applicable to him.  The real villains are the ones who want to force everyone to believe as they do, and who attempt to silence dissent in furtherance of their ideology, neither of which describes him.  Unfortunately, extremism will not disappear until the conditions that give rise to it are destroyed; thus, the most powerful weapon of thinking people against violent fanatics is simple goodwill in combination with good logistics.  We must defeat poverty, disease, and war; better energy technology and better education will go a long way towards accomplishing that by eliminating the Darwinian need to fight over resources and equipping people to make the most of what they have.

[Thought]

There seems to be a bit of a chorus of individuals complaining that they hadn't intended to get re-involved, but anywho...

Some individual conceptions of God can be proven wrong, either by being shown to directly conflict with physical reality or via inconsistencies in their description (of which the Bible has more than a few given the clash between the vengeful OT God and the more merciful NT iteration), but until we have a theory of everything, it will be impossible to make a general statement.

Two things in regards to this.

1) Inconsistencies do not relate to validity. To provide an example: I am quite reserved around people I do not know, while with people I do know I am quite boisterous, jovial, and gregarious around those who I am familiar with. My two inconsistent behaviors do not relate in any meaningful way as to my existence (that is, it cannot prove any concept about me “wrong”). Additionally, that which appears to be inconsistent on the surface may not be so in reality upon a closer, meaningful investigation. To provide a non-religious example, the speed of light is a universal constant but light travels faster in a vacuum than in the atmosphere (and slower still in other mediums). This appears to be an inconsistency, yet deeper knowledge of the subject reveals otherwise (light travels slower in earth's atmosphere because it is getting absorbed by the atmosphere itself and re-emitted). So then, that which appears to be inconsistent between the OT and NT may not actually be so upon closer inspection (they still might be, but this is an argument for possibility).

2) Even if a Theory of Everything were to be developed, that does not necessitate that such a theory would be able to provide information on souls, the possibility or a good many other concepts. A Theory of Everything could not, for example, take into account other "Bubble Universes" (if such things exist, which a Theory of Everything couldn't actually address). The only sort of theory that could take into account Chaotic Inflation Theory (to my understanding, at least, but BROJ seems knowledgeable about such things, so perhaps he will correct me) is one where there are no constants, only independent variables (and thus, such a theory would be effectively meaningless).

And as an aside (yes, I said two things, but this barely counts as a third), we can make general statements without a Theory of Everything (and mind, such a theory may not be possible). They just might be dubious or improperly informed.

One may, however, argue that the definition of a god is relative, which could potentially, given a lot of time and technological advance, allow for such an entity to exist in physical reality.  To ordinary humans, Lavos is so powerful that he might as well be god; he could crush any of us like ants.  And to ants, we are as gods ourselves.

Only if we define a god as a being with the power to destroy; if, rather, we define a god as a being with the power to create independently of all other factors, Lavos might still be godlike to humans (we don't see the extent of his power), but humans would not be godlike to ants (who, of course, wouldn't be able to perceive such a concept).

They didn't stop teaching math after Godel's incompleteness theorem.  It may be impossible to prove the consistency of a system from within the system, and it may even be that using the scientific method requires a certain measure of faith in the consistency of logic, but so far there has never been an incident in which a logical contradiction has been shown to exist in the real world, whereas contradictions have been shown to exist in religious scripture of all stripes.

Read “Structure of the Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn. Paradigms have shifted before and there is no reason to assume that paradigms will not shift again.

True, there has never been a logical contradiction in the real world, but they exist aplenty in the conceptual world (which is not merely limited to religious scriptures of all stripes). However, allow me to remind you of the argumentum ad logicam fallacy; just because the arguments for a conclusion are fallacious does not then necessitate that the conclusion is false (indeed, it is because this is a logical fallacy that Logic itself, as a system, can be used reasonably).

In fact, consciousness - the "soul" if you will - is composed of nothing but information; this can be seen in the simple fact that people change over time as they are exposed to more information, as well as the stances they take due to their own iteration of logic.  The entire discipline of artificial intelligence is predicated on this idea; in function, the brain is essentially a biological computer, albeit limited by its chemical origins.

If I might propose a thought experiment: Present a computer with a problem and inform it of the computer's own outcome. The computer's future actions are irrelevant, and it will faithfully compute the problem and give you the answer you predicted. A human, on the other hand... present a human with a problem and inform him or her of their outcome of that problem. The human might be faithful and resolve the problem and give you the predicted answer. But the human might be uppity and choose to give a different answer, out of spite and independence.

Consciousness is not just information, but information uncontrollably reacting to other information.

He is not alone in this, especially on the Internet. [...] the same logical process that leads to the conclusion that murder is wrong can be supplemented by faulty but correct-sounding logic in order to prohibit stem cell research.

A minor point, but this seems to be little more than a bandwagon approach. That one is not alone in this curious form of what might be termed “atheistic extremism” does not indicate that such extremism is good or bad (or perhaps “desirable” and “undesirable” might be better classifications).

As for stem cell research, one hardly needs to rely on religion in order to promote the prohibition or limitation of stem cell research. Every medical research University worth its salt has Ethics Grand Rounds. The very scientists that research stem cells and their potential uses also debate among themselves and others the ethical grounds that they work on; you will not find arguments from religion in such places.

However, in your particular example, you are confusing stem cell research for embryonic stem cell research; nothing, not even potential, "dies" in obtaining adult stem cells, so the logical processes that lead to the conclusion that murder is wrong do not apply (and are not applied) to such.

Indeed, curiously it is adult stem cell research that has the most potential for medical uses (thus the limitation regarding embryonic stem cells is limiting the less profitable line of investigation; given that adult stem cell research is at an economic disadvantage to embryonic research, this could be seen as a good thing). For example, transplant organs grown from embryonic stem cells will still require the use of immunosuppressant drugs to reduce the risk of rejection. Transplant organs grown from adult stem cells, however, have the potential to be grown from the patient themself; there would be no difference in the transplanted organ and the one removed, thus rejection is not a consideration and thus immunosuppressant drugs (which open the patient up for a host of other diseases) are not required.

Christianity acted likewise when proselytizing; we can see this today in the existence of Christmas trees and even in the date selected to celebrate Jesus' birth, both of which were pagan in origin.

Historical records indicate that the date of the birth of Jesus was not, in fact, pagan in origin (this subject is still debated in historical circles). Particularly in the Coptic church, there are indications that Jesus' birth was held to be in that time frame (ranging from December 25thish to January 7ish, if I am recalling correctly) as early as the first century. However, to note, Christmas wasn't much of a celebrated Holy Day till several centuries later. It wasn't considered important.

The arguments for a pagan influence on the date of Christmas are faulty due to post hoc ergo propter hoc; numerous pagan holy days were around the same time period, therefore it is concluded that Christians specifically adopted one of those. However, no such record exists of this event. Rather, evidence is drawn from Catholic (and mind you, the first records of the celebration of Christ's birth are pre-Catholic) doctrine not established until much later. One such example used on occasion in such arguments is Pope Gregory the Great's advice to St. Augustine of Canterbury, which did include specifically replacing pagan festivals with the pre-existing saint days. Yet this example is from the very late 6th century; it is anachronistic to apply it to the 1st century.

However, to be fair, this topic is still debated in historical circles and I am sure well-published historians would disagree with me on a number of points (even including dating).

The mistreatment of women originated in evolutionary concerns rather than religious control, though the two are often intertwined; the female of the species controls reproductive access.  In order to subvert this, males used their physical strength to create a social system under which women are considered property, and codified religious laws to support this.  Whether one subscribes to a religion or not, that it has frequently been used as a tool of hegemonic powers is very well-documented.  The anti-religious wish to cut the problem off at its source by removing supernatural justification for earthly oppression.

That isn't cutting the problem off at the source; you admitted that social systems were constructed after the fact to support oppression. Therefore, those social systems (in this particular case, Religion) are a symptom, not a cause. To fault religion in terms of sexism is akin to amputation resulting from diabetes. The flesh might be corrupted, but cutting the symptom off does nothing about the cause. Unless treated at the real source, it will return somewhere else.

But economics, rather than reproductivity, may be the more likely cause for sexism. In a basic hunter-gatherer society the physically able are the hunters  (and these were usually men). Meat is a bit harder to come by than berries yet greatly desired as a food source, so meat had the higher economic value. Men, therefore, controlled a vital resource.

If we look at reproduction, then male-dominance actually makes less sense. Sperm and the implantation of such requires very little investment of resources, thus allowing men to potentially reproduce more often than women. Indeed, it is to the man's evolutionary advantage to do so (just like a flower that is better as spreading its pollen has an evolutionary advantage). Women, on the other hand, can, at best, engage in reproduction once every nine-ish months, and child rearing is a resource-intense process (while men and women are both subject to biological factors that increase the desire to rear a child, if the man isn’t present he can’t be effected by them). It is to the woman's advantage, then, to consolidate and pool resources. Thus, it is to the woman's evolutionary advantage for men to not "sow their wild oats," but rather devote all their resources to a single mate and the children produced there in. Polygamy is advantageous to men, monogamy is advantageous to women. If religion were entirely oppressive to women and instituted by men for their own benefit, then one would expect polygamy to be the norm. Contrary to this expectation, monogamy, the woman's benefit, is the norm. If we use religion to explain this, then it would appear that women instituted it to oppress men, not the other way around.

Scientists can be egotistical, authoritarian, and even abusive, the same as priests.  This is not a consequence of science, but of humanity, as the scientific method makes no claim to instruct people on how to behave in their interactions with others.  All it can do is provide experimental support for the hypothesis that one will generally catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  However, the scientific community does tend to censor explanations that are not grounded in methodological naturalism; this is not bias, but merely the practice of good science.

Exactly! Being egotistical, authoritarian, and abusive is not limited to religion but a result of the human condition! Well said!

To note: The scientific community itself is in need of reform. It is good that it censors explanations that are not grounded in solid methodology, but it censors even good methodology in subtle ways. If the explanation isn’t new and exciting, it won’t get published in a major scientific journal. If it doesn’t get published in a major scientific journal, the scientist behind it can have difficulties finding a job, getting tenure, and procuring funding.

The scientific community is addicted to "The New;" a key component of the scientific method in retesting a hypothesis. Try getting funding with such a goal in mind, however. Scientists are eternally afraid of being scooped, in constant fear of negative results (which are, scientifically speaking, just as valuable as positive results), and loathing of high-risk projects. These things all have fine merits under the scientific method, but the scientific community is ruled by the twin tyrants of Prestige and Funding and nearly half of what science should be has been excommunicated.

Of course, I get grumpy because my academic field of choice doesn’t even compare, in terms of funding, to scientific fields. No such thing as an early investigator (K23) award in history, for example. There is no National Institute of History.

Well, those contradictions in religious scripture were made by the scientific system we have, no? A system developed by humanity, to better explain things than the scriptures themselves.

I think what you mean is that some of those contradictions might be better explained by humanity's understanding (or misunderstanding) of the universe at the time the documents were written, is that correct?

The most famous example is, of course, geo-centrism. Christianity at one point supported the belief, but the belief itself had its origins in Greek philosophy and many proofs of that belief were presented by "natural philosophers" (essentially, the closest thing to scientists that the time period had).

A few slightly lesser known examples can be found in the Kosher Laws (for example, I think whale were identified as fish; however, I haven't read this in the original language so I am not sure to what extent such incorrectnesses might be attributed to actual faults and what may be the result of translation).

However, I think what Hadriel meant was closer to inconsistencies in behavior of God and concepts (OT God said eye for an eye, Jesus said turn the other cheek), possibly the inconsistent pronoun usage (God sometimes says "I" and other times says "We" when referring to himself), and probably other things as well.

Religion must accept proven facts, it has to. As for unproven things like evolution, religion can reject it, no matter how much evidence makes it seem true, because they have a different answer for it.

If evolution isn't proven, then gravity isn't proven.

However, to note; religion can reject evolution (doesn't make much sense to, but it can), but very few religions need to reject evolution. There is nothing in evolution that contradicts most religions. (see Theistic Evolution).

Heh... Religion is the greatest aspect of making the facts fit what you want to believe. =P

I thought that was just humanity in general. After all, if we were in the right crowd, that statement would be accepted as "Liberalism is the greatest aspect of making facts fit what you want to believe," "Conservatism is the greatest aspect of making facts fit what you want to believe," "Being American is the greatest aspect of making facts fit what you want to believe," and "Grantsmanship is the greatest aspect of making facts fit what you want to believe [in order to get funding]."

Meh, you're making the same error I did. Religion (Christianity, in this example) is indeed sexist. It clearly states how men should live their lives differently then women. It also clearly states that men are in control of women.

There are physical differences that necessitate men live their lives differently than women; for example, men never have to bother with sanitary napkins

But on a more pragmatic term, men and women relate to people differently, they think differently, and even what makes them happy is different. Recognizing differences is not sexist (indeed, I would claim discounting such differences is sexist against both). Suppressing one side because of such differences is.

Is Christianity sexist? Again, women were just as liked to be saints in the Catholic Church. The early patrons were often women. Women could hold religious positions (being a nun, mostly, but a Mother Superior still had a good bit of power). Indeed, if we look at the average woman in the middle ages and compare them to the average man, they were surprisingly equal (hard times did not allow for the luxury of much inequality). Curiously, it is in the late industrial revolution that some of the hallmarks of sexism were reintroduced into society ("a woman's place is in the home," for example; though to be fair, before the industrial revolution home and work were not separate places), a time when religion was loosing power.

On that note, who's to say whether it truly IS a problem at all?

Moderno-centrism. People always believe that the customs of the current era are superior to those of previous eras (and, curiously, on par or better with the customs of future eras). Doesn't say anything, however, of if such customs are truly superior or not.

If there is no afterlife, and they have served a life of servitude, if you will, in vain, but they were happy whilst they did it, then who cares? They were happy whilst they lived and most likely died believing they led a good life. Because you personally wouldn't do it that means that it is wrong? I don't know, that sounds pretty unfair to me.

Very well said.

I don’t have a word of disagreement to offer. Religion is not the only thing that messes people up, or that is itself messed up. Education in America needs to be reconceived from the ground up.

It is always nice when we can agree on something (that being that the current education system is messed up). However, this isn't limited to America (I don't think anyone can LOOK at the German education system and not think it some lovecraftian horror). I think there is less of a chance of scrapping the education system than scrapping religion, though, so I for one intend to be "cunning" about it and work on fixing it from the inside. Just call me Double-0-Ph.D. (or maybe wait a few years till I have one).

The principle of the answer is so maddeningly easy. Only the implementation is hard. The principle is: People ought to be competent to have kids before they have them, and, once they do have kids, they should build a friendly, educational environment, teach them well, and set good examples.

Sounds a lot like homeschooling, and weren't those kids at the VERY beginning of this thread homeschooled? But that is getting into faulty implementation, not principle. Sorry.

... There is something to be said about a society where every citizen is a teacher. Sounds like a basis for a utopia.

Science cannot prove what it cannot define.

Science cannot prove; it can only disprove. But yes.

Eventually it will happen, if we don’t kill ourselves off first. The United States is, somewhat famously, one of the most religious of all the developed nations. Our fundamentalist Protestant heritage is something of a cultural aberration when considered on the global scale. Nations like the UK are, just as famously, post-religious in their social attitudes.

Such a tantalizing historical question, it makes me almost wish my specialization was in the modern era (or post modern era, or whatever the classification of such things are these days) and that I lived a good hundred years in the future, just so I could study this.

Gender does not exist in nature. It is a human construct designed to facilitate gender roles (which, despite the term, preceded the concept of gender itself). In the wild, biological sex is all there is.

gen•der, Pronunciation [jen-der],

noun 1. Grammar. a. (in many languages) a set of classes that together include all nouns, membership in a particular class being shown by the form of the noun itself or by the form or choice of words that modify, replace, or otherwise refer to the noun
b. one class of such a set. 
c. such classes or sets collectively or in general. 
d. membership of a word or grammatical form, or an inflectional form showing membership, in such a class. 
2. sex
3. Archaic. kind, sort, or class.

Aggression certainly has its place, but an armed female uprising (and let’s not have the peanut gallery be making “hawt” remarks here…) is not a very good solution. Perhaps a workable solution in certain specific instances, but not as a general rule.

Just a passing curiosity, but have you read "The Gateway to Women's Country"? It is a story about a society where there was, essentially, an armed female uprising (minus the arms… so a Venus de Milo uprising!)

Question in my mind is, what is the proper role of men in such a revolution? Should we not allow women to cast the torch? Are we subject to a subtle paternalistic chauvenism by believing that *WE* - the male elite - must accomplish this for them?

Quite the conundrum. However, if I might propose, the world does not need a feminine revolution but a sort of human revolution. If we operate under the old "us v them" mentality, no matter how we define "us" and "them," it seems like we will be trapped in a spiral of division. If women are to be equal, it is a task for humanity to solve, not women alone.

If there is such a human revolution, then men could (and should) have a role, but such a role would inherently need to be matched by a female role (would comparing this to two pieces of a puzzle have too many sexual overtones?)

I do blame religion where it deserves it; for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the massacre of the Native Americans, 9/11, and the Iraq war.  I also blame the Abrahamic faiths for condoning slavery, as well as for the numerous atrocities of the Old Testament.

Do you also praise religion where it deserves it? The Crusades, for example, provided the tinder for the Renaissance and Enlightenment, while the Abrahamic faiths were instrumental in dissolving slavery (see William Wilberforce). Indeed, one of the fascinating things about history is that essentially no matter how horrible the event, if it didn’t happen then subsequent good might not have been done either.

the idea of an afterlife which we cannot prove stifles efforts to make this one better by diverting energy away from the pursuit of progress.

Says the people in a video game forum.
<.<
>.>

Say anything that even vaguely opposes America's actions or calls its history into question, and you are branded a traitor.

Historiography is vital in this claim, and alas it does not hold up. Individuals have been calling America's history into question for the last 80ish years. They aren't branded traitors, they're granted tenure. Academia is awash with individuals who call America's actions and history into question and no, they are not branded traitors but rather praised. Read a modern American History textbook and compare it to a textbook from to years ago. Things have changed quite a bit, all because people called America’s history into question.

Wow, I don't think I ever really knew that. So Europe is a prime example of the fact that we just straight up don't need religion anymore. That's actually insanely interesting, and I'm going to do some research on that, now. =D

Research is always good, but unfortunately resources are limited for this question. You'd need to wait a good fiftyish years to even begin to approach objectivity.

Europe is an example that we don't need religion? Possibly, but is it a GOOD example? Since WWI, Europe had been, essentially, in decline, as a civilization. It is only within my lifetime (specifically, since the fall of the Soviet Union) that Europe has shaken itself out of its slumber; it no longer needs a superpower to protect it, so it is free to grow in new and exciting ways. We are only seeing the first sprouts of that new growth; it is too early to judge what that growth will ultimately be. To be sure, the France, the Germany, the England that exists in 50 years will not be the same France, Germany, or England that existed 30 years ago. Even down to the basic cultural level, they'll be different.

And, of course, as Solon (at least I think it was Solon) advised, we can't accurately judge a life until it is over. But certainly not in its infancy.

And it just keeps spiraling from there, more and more extremely.
Our society literally has devised a nearly perfect system to keep boys "masculine" and girls "feminine", both of which are nonsense. Masculine VS Feminine is a system that needs to be killed, mercilessly. As a matter of fact, those words themselves can be killed along with it.

Not going to happen; to do such ignores science. There are differences between men and women; to ignore these is silly. We react differently to medicines (due to differences in hormonal levels, among other things), we are susceptible to different diseases (women are more likely to have autoimmune problems, for example… which is also related to hormone differences), we interact differently on a fundamental level with the world around us, and even our rights are different (men, for example, do not have the right to an abortion, while women will never be able to become sperm donors).

Equality does not mean uniformity. Recognize the differences, but do not discriminate for or against them.

It's not "To be religious is to be dead" or "To be religious it to be inprisoned" but "To be religious is to be ignorant" then?

"To be religious is to be human." Of course, "To be non-religious is to be human" too.

When a student is bad, the teacher punishes him to make an example out of him. How can a system of morality where no one is punished by God on this world, or at least, we don't know if God punished them or not, work then?

Such a system? It can't. But such a system necessitates that punishment is to serve as an example to others. That is an example of negative reinforcement (well, technically, positive punishment). This sort of thing was refered to as terrorism somewhere previously in this thread (there is little difference between threatening hell and threatening any form of punishment).

In this matter, I am inline with C.S. Lewis: "The gates to hell are locked from the inside."

We have not proved it yet, but the beautiful thing about science is that chances are we eventually will.

The development between single cellular and multi cellular life forms is probably understood about as well as most evolutionary traits. The eye is a classic example; creationists say it is too complex to have evolved. Evolutionists can point to numerous living species that have some form of proto-eyes, ranging from light-sensitive skin patches to gel-filled optical fossas (fosses?).

Likewise, the creationist claims that the jump between single cellular life and multi cellular life is too large. The Evolutionist can point out that there are single cellular life forms that live in colonies of differing complexities in which individual members provide specialized roles. Such colonies are just a hop, skip, and a jump away from being multi-cellular.

How can non-physical and physical substance interact? I can go on for a long time on this matter.

Ideas are non-physical yet can be applied through physical means in order to alter the physical.
Indeed, ideas are the genes of the future.

EDIT:

More like "to be religious is to not examine oneself rigorously."

Haha, take THAT, meditative contemplation!

As we have seen, this is not true for all religious people, but it is for the majority of them.

Only fair to quote this since I quoted the above.

EDIT 2:

As a side note, being "rigorous" isn't always a good thing. "Thorough and exacting in analysis" might be a better phrase.

[Hadriel]

1) Inconsistencies do not relate to validity. To provide an example: I am quite reserved around people I do not know, while with people I do know I am quite boisterous, jovial, and gregarious around those who I am familiar with. My two inconsistent behaviors do not relate in any meaningful way as to my existence (that is, it cannot prove any concept about me “wrong”). Additionally, that which appears to be inconsistent on the surface may not be so in reality upon a closer, meaningful investigation. To provide a non-religious example, the speed of light is a universal constant but light travels faster in a vacuum than in the atmosphere (and slower still in other mediums). This appears to be an inconsistency, yet deeper knowledge of the subject reveals otherwise (light travels slower in earth's atmosphere because it is getting absorbed by the atmosphere itself and re-emitted). So then, that which appears to be inconsistent between the OT and NT may not actually be so upon closer inspection (they still might be, but this is an argument for possibility).

2) Even if a Theory of Everything were to be developed, that does not necessitate that such a theory would be able to provide information on souls, the possibility or a good many other concepts. A Theory of Everything could not, for example, take into account other "Bubble Universes" (if such things exist, which a Theory of Everything couldn't actually address). The only sort of theory that could take into account Chaotic Inflation Theory (to my understanding, at least, but BROJ seems knowledgeable about such things, so perhaps he will correct me) is one where there are no constants, only independent variables (and thus, such a theory would be effectively meaningless).

And as an aside (yes, I said two things, but this barely counts as a third), we can make general statements without a Theory of Everything (and mind, such a theory may not be possible). They just might be dubious or improperly informed.

I'm not talking about inconsistencies in behavior, but rather in fact.  I behave extremely inconsistently at times, but it does not negate my existence.  Simply because a god is evil does not mean they don't exist, but certain traits attributed to a god can be measured against each other logically, or against physical reality.  For example, in Hinduism it is said that Shiva destroys and recreates the world every 400,000 years.  Geological evidence has shown this not to be true (and it's just as well; the Hindu caste system is every bit as offensive to morality as Judaic tribalism).  At the very least, this means that Shiva as currently defined does not exist.  In a monotheistic religion, you only have one god to work with; show that he/she/it cannot exist as defined and, regardless of whether said god exists in some form or not, you have logically undermined the doctrinal structure erected around them.  The more inconsistencies you can find, the more likely it becomes that the figure simply does not exist at all.  For example, the Abrahamic God is commonly held to be omnipotent, but the question "Can God make a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?", far from being a rhetorical question, is actually a proof by contradiction against the idea of omnipotence; no matter what, there will always be an ability outside of God's potential set of abilities, because certain elements cannot coexist in the same set.  Even someone with enough power to smash this planet to atoms with a flick of their wrist still cannot defy logic.  The idea of omniscience is defeated by the speed of light, unless we allow for wormholes (though even without that, omniscience can easily exist within a finite sphere of influence; just ask Winston Smith.  Or the rat bastards who came up with this.  I'm just hoping somebody had the good sense to hide a Prometheus Circuit in it somewhere.)

On the topic of a theory of everything, in principle it is completely possible.  What may not be possible is a grand unified theory, which though similar is technically different; the latter seeks to unify electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force (which are now collectively referred to as electroweak), the strong nuclear force, and gravity.  Gravity has proved the most difficult of all because of problems with relativity on a quantum scale.  String theory seeks to unify gravity with the rest of the forces by postulating that particles are one-dimensional "loops" rather than point particles; in this it would also provide a theory of everything, since it describes a fundamental constituent of matter and eliminates the problem of quantum foam by proposing a lower limit to the allowable size of an object.

Only if we define a god as a being with the power to destroy; if, rather, we define a god as a being with the power to create independently of all other factors, Lavos might still be godlike to humans (we don't see the extent of his power), but humans would not be godlike to ants (who, of course, wouldn't be able to perceive such a concept).

Given that Lavos has the capacity to interfere with evolution on a planetary scale, he is still the equivalent of a god even by your definition.  It's almost scary to think that once we perfect our study of the human genome, we will be very close to having this power; we have already completed our mapping of our genome.  All that remains is to discover its intricacies, a task that will be abetted by huge amounts of computer power.

The reason I say humans are gods relative to ants is because we already have some power to interfere in evolution.  If you recall, the principles of natural selection are dependent on one's environment.  Humans, via the use of tools and intellect, have learned to alter our environment to suit us instead of the other way around, a capacity which may very well end up destroying us via climate change.  I would dearly hope that future generations after such an event do not blame science or technology, but most of my hopes for humanity thus far have been rewarded with crushing disappointment.

Read “Structure of the Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn. Paradigms have shifted before and there is no reason to assume that paradigms will not shift again.

What does that have to do with what I said?

True, there has never been a logical contradiction in the real world, but they exist aplenty in the conceptual world (which is not merely limited to religious scriptures of all stripes). However, allow me to remind you of the argumentum ad logicam fallacy; just because the arguments for a conclusion are fallacious does not then necessitate that the conclusion is false (indeed, it is because this is a logical fallacy that Logic itself, as a system, can be used reasonably).

Well, of course not; I can argue that the speed of light equals ~3e8 m/s because Mahatma Gandhi is a chalkboard.  That doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, though.

If I might propose a thought experiment: Present a computer with a problem and inform it of the computer's own outcome. The computer's future actions are irrelevant, and it will faithfully compute the problem and give you the answer you predicted. A human, on the other hand... present a human with a problem and inform him or her of their outcome of that problem. The human might be faithful and resolve the problem and give you the predicted answer. But the human might be uppity and choose to give a different answer, out of spite and independence.

Consciousness is not just information, but information uncontrollably reacting to other information.

The experiment falls apart in that you are required to know with perfect certainty how they will react, which is not possible; in fact, it rather reminds me of Babylon 5's John Sheridan attempting to prevent a prophecy and in so doing causing it to happen.  Makes for great TV (much better than recent Star Trek, for damned sure), but a thought experiment it is not.  For the human, it is at best possible to know how they will probably react; even if you're right, you have proven nothing.  Let me modify it a bit; suppose now that instead of giving a problem to an ordinary computer, you're giving it to an AI.  There are four possibilities here; you can tell the machine that it will solve the problem correctly or incorrectly, and they can solve it correctly or incorrectly.  If you tell it the correct answer and it solves the problem correctly, you have only proven that it can perform analytical tasks.  If you tell it an incorrect answer and it solves the problem correctly, it is likely to call you out on your deception (and possibly try to kill you with a hair dryer).  If it solves the problem incorrectly in either case, you fail at programming and the whole experiment is invalidated.  But in any possible case, how they solve the problem and react to it is dependent on the processes they use to analyze the information you give them, as well as relevant background knowledge that may be necessary to complete the problem.

A minor point, but this seems to be little more than a bandwagon approach. That one is not alone in this curious form of what might be termed “atheistic extremism” does not indicate that such extremism is good or bad (or perhaps “desirable” and “undesirable” might be better classifications).

As for stem cell research, one hardly needs to rely on religion in order to promote the prohibition or limitation of stem cell research. Every medical research University worth its salt has Ethics Grand Rounds. The very scientists that research stem cells and their potential uses also debate among themselves and others the ethical grounds that they work on; you will not find arguments from religion in such places.

However, in your particular example, you are confusing stem cell research for embryonic stem cell research; nothing, not even potential, "dies" in obtaining adult stem cells, so the logical processes that lead to the conclusion that murder is wrong do not apply (and are not applied) to such.

I don't consider it a bandwagon approach, as I did not say it was desirable to ban religion (though I have said such things in angrier moments, which more recently have occurred in response to many of the current Pope's proclamations as well as the actions of Middle Eastern terrorists).  All I'm attempting to establish here is the logical foundation for anti-theist sympathies.

And yes, I was referring to embryonic stem cell research, as it is the only such research that has come under fire on grounds of ethics.

Indeed, curiously it is adult stem cell research that has the most potential for medical uses (thus the limitation regarding embryonic stem cells is limiting the less profitable line of investigation; given that adult stem cell research is at an economic disadvantage to embryonic research, this could be seen as a good thing). For example, transplant organs grown from embryonic stem cells will still require the use of immunosuppressant drugs to reduce the risk of rejection. Transplant organs grown from adult stem cells, however, have the potential to be grown from the patient themself; there would be no difference in the transplanted organ and the one removed, thus rejection is not a consideration and thus immunosuppressant drugs (which open the patient up for a host of other diseases) are not required.

I hadn't heard that.  Do you have a link?

Christianity acted likewise when proselytizing; we can see this today in the existence of Christmas trees and even in the date selected to celebrate Jesus' birth, both of which were pagan in origin.

Historical records indicate that the date of the birth of Jesus was not, in fact, pagan in origin (this subject is still debated in historical circles). Particularly in the Coptic church, there are indications that Jesus' birth was held to be in that time frame (ranging from December 25thish to January 7ish, if I am recalling correctly) as early as the first century. However, to note, Christmas wasn't much of a celebrated Holy Day till several centuries later. It wasn't considered important.

The arguments for a pagan influence on the date of Christmas are faulty due to post hoc ergo propter hoc; numerous pagan holy days were around the same time period, therefore it is concluded that Christians specifically adopted one of those.

If what you say about the distribution of pagan holidays is true, it only adds fuel to my argument, which is that Christianity survived as a meme by being willing to incorporate cultural traditions.  I have developed my own theory on the other reasons why it has survived; they involve the relation of the messianic figure to the literary epic hero archetype.  But that's a debate for another thread.

That isn't cutting the problem off at the source; you admitted that social systems were constructed after the fact to support oppression. Therefore, those social systems (in this particular case, Religion) are a symptom, not a cause. To fault religion in terms of sexism is akin to amputation resulting from diabetes. The flesh might be corrupted, but cutting the symptom off does nothing about the cause. Unless treated at the real source, it will return somewhere else.

Though religion was not the initial cause, it became one of the primary mechanisms of perpetuation for sexism, effectively becoming a cause with respect to later generations.

But economics, rather than reproductivity, may be the more likely cause for sexism. In a basic hunter-gatherer society the physically able are the hunters (and these were usually men). Meat is a bit harder to come by than berries yet greatly desired as a food source, so meat had the higher economic value. Men, therefore, controlled a vital resource.

But with the rise of agriculture, this was no longer the case.  It might be argued that men are able to physically labor more than women, but they did not have nearly the level of exclusive control over production that would be expected of a hunter-gatherer tribe.  Society simply left men in charge because it was the established status quo.

If we look at reproduction, then male-dominance actually makes less sense. Sperm and the implantation of such requires very little investment of resources, thus allowing men to potentially reproduce more often than women. Indeed, it is to the man's evolutionary advantage to do so (just like a flower that is better as spreading its pollen has an evolutionary advantage). Women, on the other hand, can, at best, engage in reproduction once every nine-ish months, and child rearing is a resource-intense process (while men and women are both subject to biological factors that increase the desire to rear a child, if the man isn’t present he can’t be effected by them). It is to the woman's advantage, then, to consolidate and pool resources. Thus, it is to the woman's evolutionary advantage for men to not "sow their wild oats," but rather devote all their resources to a single mate and the children produced there in. Polygamy is advantageous to men, monogamy is advantageous to women. If religion were entirely oppressive to women and instituted by men for their own benefit, then one would expect polygamy to be the norm.

In biblical times polygamy was the norm.  Or did you not read about King Solomon's seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines?  Even today, harems still exist in less-developed countries, carrying on the same principle.

To note: The scientific community itself is in need of reform. It is good that it censors explanations that are not grounded in solid methodology, but it censors even good methodology in subtle ways. If the explanation isn’t new and exciting, it won’t get published in a major scientific journal. If it doesn’t get published in a major scientific journal, the scientist behind it can have difficulties finding a job, getting tenure, and procuring funding.

The scientific community is addicted to "The New;" a key component of the scientific method in retesting a hypothesis. Try getting funding with such a goal in mind, however. Scientists are eternally afraid of being scooped, in constant fear of negative results (which are, scientifically speaking, just as valuable as positive results), and loathing of high-risk projects. These things all have fine merits under the scientific method, but the scientific community is ruled by the twin tyrants of Prestige and Funding and nearly half of what science should be has been excommunicated.

Of course, I get grumpy because my academic field of choice doesn’t even compare, in terms of funding, to scientific fields. No such thing as an early investigator (K23) award in history, for example. There is no National Institute of History.

I agree fully here.  This is not the fault of science, but of economic and political interests attempting to use it as a tool for their own ends.  When universities are reduced to being a mark of social status, all of academia suffers.

The most famous example is, of course, geo-centrism. Christianity at one point supported the belief, but the belief itself had its origins in Greek philosophy and many proofs of that belief were presented by "natural philosophers" (essentially, the closest thing to scientists that the time period had).

The Church didn't just support the belief, they enforced it.  Galileo is both the perfect example and the only example required to prove that.

However, I think what Hadriel meant was closer to inconsistencies in behavior of God and concepts (OT God said eye for an eye, Jesus said turn the other cheek), possibly the inconsistent pronoun usage (God sometimes says "I" and other times says "We" when referring to himself), and probably other things as well.

This is also part of my objection, yes.

There are physical differences that necessitate men live their lives differently than women; for example, men never have to bother with sanitary napkins

Don't talk to me about that until you've accidentally witnessed your girlfriend wiping menstrual blood out of her vagina.  I will never forget that image as long as I live.

If there is no afterlife, and they have served a life of servitude, if you will, in vain, but they were happy whilst they did it, then who cares? They were happy whilst they lived and most likely died believing they led a good life. Because you personally wouldn't do it that means that it is wrong? I don't know, that sounds pretty unfair to me.

Well, no, it's not wrong, per se, as long as such a life isn't forced on anyone.  It's just awfully limiting.

Eventually it will happen, if we don’t kill ourselves off first. The United States is, somewhat famously, one of the most religious of all the developed nations. Our fundamentalist Protestant heritage is something of a cultural aberration when considered on the global scale. Nations like the UK are, just as famously, post-religious in their social attitudes.

Like I said, it has a lot to do with the Cold War.  After the horrors of the two World Wars and the Great Depression, American society just wanted everything to go back to normal, and they saw religion as the way to do that (and savvy politicians saw a social movement ripe for the picking).  Let us not forget that "under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, to differentiate us from the atheist-leaning Soviets.

Just a passing curiosity, but have you read "The Gateway to Women's Country"? It is a story about a society where there was, essentially, an armed female uprising (minus the arms… so a Venus de Milo uprising!)

So it's Buffy without the vampires.  Except that we've already established that to be Gilmore Girls.

Do you also praise religion where it deserves it? The Crusades, for example, provided the tinder for the Renaissance and Enlightenment, while the Abrahamic faiths were instrumental in dissolving slavery (see William Wilberforce). Indeed, one of the fascinating things about history is that essentially no matter how horrible the event, if it didn’t happen then subsequent good might not have been done either.

The Abrahamic faiths condone slavery; Christianity does this even in the New Testament.  Religious influence is not required to see that slavery is wrong.

Historiography is vital in this claim, and alas it does not hold up. Individuals have been calling America's history into question for the last 80ish years. They aren't branded traitors, they're granted tenure. Academia is awash with individuals who call America's actions and history into question and no, they are not branded traitors but rather praised. Read a modern American History textbook and compare it to a textbook from to years ago. Things have changed quite a bit, all because people called America’s history into question.

What's wrong with calling your country's history into question?  Perhaps such people are praised in academia, where precision and accuracy are paramount, but in the general arena they are reviled and spat upon as un-American merely for insinuating that we are not a shining city on a hill.

Ideas are non-physical yet can be applied through physical means in order to alter the physical.
Indeed, ideas are the genes of the future.

Exactly.  This is the entire principle behind memetics, though the analogy is not completely precise.

[Daniel Krispin]

Ha! This has reached an interesting pitch, I must say. Thought against Hadriel. This is a fascinating read.

The Church didn't just support the belief, they enforced it.  Galileo is both the perfect example and the only example required to prove that.

Actually, the beliefs the Church enforced were the scientific worldviews of Aristotle. Beyond that, as my agnostic philosophy prof says, apparently one need only read Galileo to see why they went down so heavily on him: apparently he was an ass. If you're going to write something, it's usually not wise to openly mock the people who would be affirming its publication. That's apparently what he did. From the way I've heard it, it was more Galileo's fault than anything, and that the ideas he propounded would have been very readily allowed. And anyway, as I said, the problem they had was it disagreed with Aristotle, the scientific dogma of the time.

[Burning Zeppelin]

WAY too many quotes, so I won't use any:

@Thought: I'm not a philosopher of science (a massive field in its own right), so I can't comment on "science can only disprove, not prove" statement. However, I do know that science is based on a lot of axioms, and through inductive reasoning it often can prove things.

Last time I checked, punishment was to serve as an example to others. Punishment by law is used for three things, to rehabilitate, as societal revenge, and as a deterrent for the crime. Societal revenge is barbaric and primitive, so this aspect of it is usually downplayed. The other two are more important, and the deterrent the most of all.

Also, ideas are non-physical, but they aren't formed in substance. Ideas are just physical processes of the brain, not contained in some higher spirit.

[Hadriel]

Actually, the beliefs the Church enforced were the scientific worldviews of Aristotle. Beyond that, as my agnostic philosophy prof says, apparently one need only read Galileo to see why they went down so heavily on him: apparently he was an ass. If you're going to write something, it's usually not wise to openly mock the people who would be affirming its publication. That's apparently what he did. From the way I've heard it, it was more Galileo's fault than anything, and that the ideas he propounded would have been very readily allowed. And anyway, as I said, the problem they had was it disagreed with Aristotle, the scientific dogma of the time.

If somebody's as smart as Galileo, they have a bit of justification to be an ass.  Unfortunately, overestimating one's intelligence is a common error.

The idea of "scientific dogma" is something that is not codified; only the acquisition of data can determine what scientific dogma is.  Philosophy of science has advanced notably since then.  Aristotle was of a mind that pure contemplation was sufficient to form a scientific theory and that you weren't required to check your results against observable reality, which flies in the face of the modern scientific method.  Needless to say, the methodology we use today has yielded far more accurate results.

[Anacalius]

 apparently he was an ass. If you're going to write something, it's usually not wise to openly mock the people who would be affirming its publication.

True, sorta. Today it's not taken so badly anymore. America is mocked all the time, even in the media. Think of Eminem, for example. (This might be a bad example, but it's what comes to mind, anyway)
"You can't stop me from dropping each March with a brand new CD for these fucking retards"
People ate this stuff up, loved it, and he mocked the people the entire way.
Point is: You can mock the hell outta the people, as long as there is a reason that they can relate to and understand, so they know why it's happening. I think anyway. =P

[Thought]

For example, the Abrahamic God is commonly held to be omnipotent, but the question "Can God make a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?", far from being a rhetorical question, is actually a proof by contradiction against the idea of omnipotence; no matter what, there will always be an ability outside of God's potential set of abilities, because certain elements cannot coexist in the same set.

To be honest, this question annoys me quite a bit, on account that it only appears to be clever. Allow me to first explain why that question is inherently flawed, and then, because I can, I will provide you with an answer despite that flaw.

First, such a question only has significance if it relates to an omnipotent god, correct? If we are talking about a deity of limited potence, then it is hardly worthwhile to argue that a limited deity is limited.

Second, if we are to assume an omnipotent being, then we are to define such a being as being all power (having infinite power, able to do anything, etc).

So, then, to look at the question itself, it is a standard yes or no question. If yes, a deity could create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, but that would then that indicates that such a being is not entirely omnipotent, because there is something it could not do. If no, however, then a deity could not create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it, and so it then indicates that such a being is not entirely omnipotent.

This argument is hardly clever because a yes or no question, when applied to an omnipotent being, is a False Dilemma. If we are talking about an omnipotent being, then we are talking about a being with the power to make mutually exclusive things inclusive. That is to say, an omnipotent being could create a rock that it could both, at the same time, lift and not lift (indeed, such an omnipotent being could come up with an endless number of solutions to that question that preserves its omnipotence, seeing as how it has the power to do anything).

Now, one might object to such a statement by saying it is unreasonable, that it is illogical. Indeed, you brushed on this:

Even someone with enough power to smash this planet to atoms with a flick of their wrist still cannot defy logic.

An omnipotent being, however, could defy logic (remember, we are defining omnipotent as having infinite power, able to do anything, etc). If an omnipotent being cannot defy logic, then that being isn’t really omnipotent; you are holding something else (in this case logic) as being more powerful than it. So the original question, if it is to be used against the idea of an omnipotent being, inherently assumes that such a being isn’t omnipotent. This is then Begging the Question. It is hardly clever so say that a non-omnipotent being is not omnipotent.

But, even at that, since you brought up the Abrahamic deity, the Christian interpretation, under the doctrine of the Trinity, could answer such a question in a manner that satisfies the unreasonably limitations that the question forces on omnipotence.

“God the Father” could make a rock so heavy that “God the Son” (aka, Jesus) could not lift. God the Father could still lift the rock, but God the Son could not. Yet, as they are both one in the same, God is doing both.

However, one might claim that the Trinity is itself illogical, but that is another argument. Nor does this necessitate that any deity truly is omnipotent, just that, as defined, omnipotence could conceptually exist.

As a side note, C.S. Lewis addressed this problem rather nicely in Mere Christianity as well.

Read “Structure of the Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn. Paradigms have shifted before and there is no reason to assume that paradigms will not shift again.

What does that have to do with what I said?

The biggest relevance is with how you are thinking. But specifically, it related to this:

It may be impossible to prove the consistency of a system from within the system, and it may even be that using the scientific method requires a certain measure of faith in the consistency of logic, but so far there has never been an incident in which a logical contradiction has been shown to exist in the real world, whereas contradictions have been shown to exist in religious scripture of all stripes.

You are merely claiming that so far the particular paradigm of the Scientific Method has not displayed any critical errors in its formulation that would necessitate a paradigm shift. However, given that every precursor paradigm has been discarded before, statistically speaking it is quite likely that the current paradigm (that of the Scientific Method) will shift in the future (how, I cannot say; I doubt the standard paradigm will be grossly different, but it will be different). More specifically, no logical contradiction has been shown to exist in the real world because every time one is found, that brings about a paradigm shift putting us into a state where that is no longer a logical contradiction. Your statement is only true because historically, the deck has been stacked to make it true (that doesn’t make it any less true, however).

Well, of course not; I can argue that the speed of light equals ~3e8 m/s because Mahatma Gandhi is a chalkboard.  That doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, though.

Insofar as we are talking about logical inconsistencies, it does relate. Specifically in that, logic itself is not logically consistent. Allow me to explain.

Begging the Question is a logical fallacy, to begin with. If you do not understand this, then nothing that follows will seem wonderful or magical.

Given the above, now argue that “Logic,” as an abstract system of analyzing the world, is a good tool that we should employ.

Any argument you would present is either logical and therefore is committing the Begging the Question logical fallacy (which makes it illogical) or the argument is illogical, and therefore still illogical. It is, quite simply put, impossible to justify our use of Logic as a system for analyzing the world. We are being illogical in our very insistence of using logic.

However, as mentioned, the argumentum ad logicam logical fallacy saves us. Just because we cannot logically argue that Logic is a valid system, it does not follow that it is not, in reality, a valid system. Merely, the arguments for it are faulty.

So, then, a very fundamental logical inconsistency, though conceptual, effects our entire perception of the real world.

The experiment falls apart in that you are required to know with perfect certainty how they will react, which is not possible;

See your own explanation of a “theory of everything.” But in short, it is possible to know the beginning state of any system and from that all that follows can be known. Therefore we should be able to know with perfect certainty how a person will react. To my knowledge, humans are the only things in the universe that knowledge of the future can effect.

I don't consider it a bandwagon approach, as I did not say it was desirable to ban religion (though I have said such things in angrier moments, which more recently have occurred in response to many of the current Pope's proclamations as well as the actions of Middle Eastern terrorists).  All I'm attempting to establish here is the logical foundation for anti-theist sympathies.

Ah, I am sorry, I misunderstood the intent of what you said… however, I still seem to be confused. One cannot establish the “logical foundation for anti-theist sympathies” by merely saying that a lot of people are doing it (as mentioned, that is the Bandwagon logical fallacy). The information, unless it is in the context of an argument, appears to be utterly irrelevant, yet if in the context of an argument it appears to be a logical fallacy (which, I suppose, it still utterly irrelevant). But anywho, as I said, it was a minor point of what something seemed.

I hadn't heard that.  Do you have a link?

A link to what? All of that was little more than my extrapolations of what adult and embryonic stem cells are and how they differ. So do you want a link to what these differences are? Or perhaps you are asking for a link on a specific point of something I said? Or perhaps you are looking for a citation in a scientific journal? I would be happy to provide a link… I just don’t know what you want to be linked to.

If what you say about the distribution of pagan holidays is true, it only adds fuel to my argument, which is that Christianity survived as a meme by being willing to incorporate cultural traditions.

Yes, one might say that Christianity survived because it was adaptable. Good ol’ evolutionary concepts.

I don’t think that with the Christmas Tree or the Easter bunny that anyone can claim Christianity hasn’t been willing to incorporate different cultural traditions (however, of course, that does make it more difficult to peel away such traditions to look, once again, at Christianity as a religion, and not Christianity as shrouded in historical baggage).

In biblical times polygamy was the norm.  Or did you not read about King Solomon's seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines?

Nope, I read about that. I also read about how that was one of the things Solomon was supposed to NOT do. I also read about the strife between Rachael and Leah and how it was the result of deception. I also read about, at the very beginning of the bible, the entire bit about a man marrying a woman and that they would become one flesh (not three quarters of one flesh, requiring that they seek out some kinky action).

Polygamy was the norm in biblical time. But the bible also didn’t encourage it (more of the opposite, really).

The Church didn't just support the belief, they enforced it.  Galileo is both the perfect example and the only example required to prove that.

Yes, silly Church for agreeing with Galileo, confirming his findings, and in general accepting his theories. Wait, you meant after Natural Philosophers (aka, “scientists”) got on the Church’s case and urged it to attack him, didn’t you? Sorry.

Don't talk to me about that until you've accidentally witnessed your girlfriend wiping menstrual blood out of her vagina.  I will never forget that image as long as I live.

I am married. I’ve experienced worse.

The Abrahamic faiths condone slavery; Christianity does this even in the New Testament.  Religious influence is not required to see that slavery is wrong.

Nor was religious influence needed to establish slavery or continue it. That wasn’t the question, however. You are quite free to have different standards for what you fault and what you praise. I was just curious if, when religion has done good (specifically, good that you recognize or can recognize once pointed out), you are willing to praise it accordingly.

And on an aside, the form of slavery condoned in the OT is closer to what we’d term as indentured servitude.

And on another aside, the only reason you can imagine that one does not need religious influences to see that slavery is wrong is because religious influences have already shown that slavery is wrong; you happened to grow up after the fact so you are free to see clearly. Don’t be anachronistic in looking at different time periods.

And as a final aside; economic slavery still exists.

What's wrong with calling your country's history into question?  Perhaps such people are praised in academia, where precision and accuracy are paramount, but in the general arena they are reviled and spat upon as un-American merely for insinuating that we are not a shining city on a hill.

Precision and accuracy? Yeah… history doesn’t work that way. If you need just one example, look at how often the word “circa” is used in historical texts.

But you seem to be complaining that the only people who can call America’s history into question with a degree of impunity are the people who are trained and knowledgeable in history. Would you claim that people who aren’t trained in science should be able to question it publicly without fear of ridicule? If so, please do return to the first post in this thread and observe just that. If not, why should history be treated differently?

But that aside, incase you’ve missed it, America’s history and actions are questioned publicly on a near-daily basis as the norm. Perhaps the scope of these questions aren’t to you’re liking, however? After all, just because it is questioned, that doesn’t follow that the questions are pertinent (sort of like how parents are invited to discuss how much homework should be assigned to their children but not IF any homework should be assigned).

@Thought: I'm not a philosopher of science (a massive field in its own right), so I can't comment on "science can only disprove, not prove" statement. However, I do know that science is based on a lot of axioms, and through inductive reasoning it often can prove things.

That statement is just going from the Scientific Method. Tests exist to disprove a hypothesis. If they fail to disprove the hypothesis, then that is a success (technically, even if they do disprove it, that is still a success, but you can’t get funded with those sorts of successes). But this is mostly just a technicality. For all intents and purposes, what scientific theories that science has failed to disprove can usually be taken to be proven.

Last time I checked, punishment was to serve as an example to others. Punishment by law is used for three things, to rehabilitate, as societal revenge, and as a deterrent for the crime. Societal revenge is barbaric and primitive, so this aspect of it is usually downplayed. The other two are more important, and the deterrent the most of all.

Problem there is that punishment as example to others is ineffective (wish I had paid better attention in my sociology courses so I could provide specific studies). Of course, hell as rehabilitation is basically oxymoronic. But, if I might quote Batman Begins, “Justice is balance.” However, I doubt I’ll persuade you in this matter. I seem to recall we’ve already had a large debate on this, and admittedly my perception of such has not had as much thought put into it as other ideas that I enjoy expounding upon.

TOTALLY a random aside, but the title of this thread suddenly reminds me of, well, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y63OwTkE8I

[Burning Zeppelin]

For your information Thought, God can not defy logic. It is impossible.

[Hadriel]

To be honest, this question annoys me quite a bit, on account that it only appears to be clever. Allow me to first explain why that question is inherently flawed, and then, because I can, I will provide you with an answer despite that flaw.

First, such a question only has significance if it relates to an omnipotent god, correct? If we are talking about a deity of limited potence, then it is hardly worthwhile to argue that a limited deity is limited.

Second, if we are to assume an omnipotent being, then we are to define such a being as being all power (having infinite power, able to do anything, etc).

So, then, to look at the question itself, it is a standard yes or no question. If yes, a deity could create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, but that would then that indicates that such a being is not entirely omnipotent, because there is something it could not do. If no, however, then a deity could not create a rock so heavy that he could not lift it, and so it then indicates that such a being is not entirely omnipotent.

This argument is hardly clever because a yes or no question, when applied to an omnipotent being, is a False Dilemma. If we are talking about an omnipotent being, then we are talking about a being with the power to make mutually exclusive things inclusive. That is to say, an omnipotent being could create a rock that it could both, at the same time, lift and not lift (indeed, such an omnipotent being could come up with an endless number of solutions to that question that preserves its omnipotence, seeing as how it has the power to do anything).

Now, one might object to such a statement by saying it is unreasonable, that it is illogical. Indeed, you brushed on this:

Even someone with enough power to smash this planet to atoms with a flick of their wrist still cannot defy logic.

An omnipotent being, however, could defy logic (remember, we are defining omnipotent as having infinite power, able to do anything, etc). If an omnipotent being cannot defy logic, then that being isn’t really omnipotent; you are holding something else (in this case logic) as being more powerful than it. So the original question, if it is to be used against the idea of an omnipotent being, inherently assumes that such a being isn’t omnipotent. This is then Begging the Question. It is hardly clever so say that a non-omnipotent being is not omnipotent.

Begging the question is when you pre-assume the solution.  Presuming that the solution can be derived from logic is not equivalent just because logic says something you don't like.

“God the Father” could make a rock so heavy that “God the Son” (aka, Jesus) could not lift. God the Father could still lift the rock, but God the Son could not. Yet, as they are both one in the same, God is doing both.

This violates the identity principle.  Either they are the same and thus will be able to either lift the rock or not, or they are not the same and one of them could have the opposite result.

You are merely claiming that so far the particular paradigm of the Scientific Method has not displayed any critical errors in its formulation that would necessitate a paradigm shift. However, given that every precursor paradigm has been discarded before, statistically speaking it is quite likely that the current paradigm (that of the Scientific Method) will shift in the future (how, I cannot say; I doubt the standard paradigm will be grossly different, but it will be different).

Possibly.  It isn't likely, but it's possible.  However, any hypothetical new formulation of the scientific method would still have to be grounded in logic.

Insofar as we are talking about logical inconsistencies, it does relate. Specifically in that, logic itself is not logically consistent. Allow me to explain.

Begging the Question is a logical fallacy, to begin with. If you do not understand this, then nothing that follows will seem wonderful or magical.

Given the above, now argue that “Logic,” as an abstract system of analyzing the world, is a good tool that we should employ.

Any argument you would present is either logical and therefore is committing the Begging the Question logical fallacy (which makes it illogical) or the argument is illogical, and therefore still illogical. It is, quite simply put, impossible to justify our use of Logic as a system for analyzing the world. We are being illogical in our very insistence of using logic.

However, as mentioned, the argumentum ad logicam logical fallacy saves us. Just because we cannot logically argue that Logic is a valid system, it does not follow that it is not, in reality, a valid system. Merely, the arguments for it are faulty.

So, then, a very fundamental logical inconsistency, though conceptual, effects our entire perception of the real world.

All you did was restate the incompleteness theorem another way.  What we've established through this meaningless semantical game is that logic is inescapable; if you attempt to venture outside of it, you encounter a universe filled with nonsensical conclusions and uninterpretable information.  If solipsism has an ideal form, your argument here is its living expression.

See your own explanation of a “theory of everything.” But in short, it is possible to know the beginning state of any system and from that all that follows can be known. Therefore we should be able to know with perfect certainty how a person will react. To my knowledge, humans are the only things in the universe that knowledge of the future can effect.

Heisenberg proved that it is not possible to know the state of any system with perfect certainty, therefore rendering the rest of your statement invalid.  I addressed this already; it is at best possible to know the probable state of a system.

Ah, I am sorry, I misunderstood the intent of what you said… however, I still seem to be confused. One cannot establish the “logical foundation for anti-theist sympathies” by merely saying that a lot of people are doing it (as mentioned, that is the Bandwagon logical fallacy).

And that wasn't the crux of my argument.  The crux of my argument is formed by numerous morally objectionable sections of holy text, which as mentioned have promoted sexism, slavery, and discrimination on an enormous scale without substantive proof for their way of viewing things.

A link to what?

You made a claim that adult stem cells had more medical potential than embryonic stem cells.  Though in the greater scheme of things it's not that important.

Nope, I read about that. I also read about how that was one of the things Solomon was supposed to NOT do. I also read about the strife between Rachael and Leah and how it was the result of deception. I also read about, at the very beginning of the bible, the entire bit about a man marrying a woman and that they would become one flesh (not three quarters of one flesh, requiring that they seek out some kinky action).

Polygamy was the norm in biblical time. But the bible also didn’t encourage it (more of the opposite, really).

Mosaic law carries ludicrous punishments for just about every crime worse than jaywalking.  If polygamy was not encouraged, it would not have been the norm.

Yes, silly Church for agreeing with Galileo, confirming his findings, and in general accepting his theories. Wait, you meant after Natural Philosophers (aka, “scientists”) got on the Church’s case and urged it to attack him, didn’t you? Sorry.

Provide a citation for this.

And on another aside, the only reason you can imagine that one does not need religious influences to see that slavery is wrong is because religious influences have already shown that slavery is wrong; you happened to grow up after the fact so you are free to see clearly. Don’t be anachronistic in looking at different time periods.

And as a final aside; economic slavery still exists.

Religious influences have shown no such thing.  Taking the Bible as axiomatic truth (which is problematic because of contradictions, but this is hypothetical), it is impossible to prove from it that slavery is wrong.  This also applies to the Koran and the Torah.

I have not a word of disagreement on the issue of economic slavery; it's found quite a nice home on these shores.

But you seem to be complaining that the only people who can call America’s history into question with a degree of impunity are the people who are trained and knowledgeable in history. Would you claim that people who aren’t trained in science should be able to question it publicly without fear of ridicule? If so, please do return to the first post in this thread and observe just that. If not, why should history be treated differently?

I claim that people who are not trained in a discipline should be able to question it; if I did not, I'd be disavowing freedom of speech.  However, I don't think they should be able to do it ridicule-free if their conclusions are wrong.

But that aside, incase you’ve missed it, America’s history and actions are questioned publicly on a near-daily basis as the norm. Perhaps the scope of these questions aren’t to you’re liking, however?

No, it isn't.  Everyone acts like Iraq is the first time America has engaged in imperialism; this reflects a popular deficiency in historical knowledge.  The Native Americans, Hawai'i, and the Philippines have all come before this, and have been quietly swept under the rug.

[Daniel Krispin]

Actually, Hadriel, in answer to the 'rock' question, we went over that one in my Philosophy class. The answer is the same is 'can God sin'? The answer is yes. But He won't. It's called a contrafactual, I think. Something like that.

[Thought]

For your information Thought, God can not defy logic. It is impossible.

That is certainly a possibility, but not one specifically addressed so far. After all, if God cannot defy logic, then we are holding logic to be greater than God. This may indeed be the case. However, if we are talking of omnipotence, then that which is omnipotent cannot, logically, be limited to logic. So, if we state that God (if he exists) is omnipotent, then it must follow that God (if he exists) is not bound to logic. Omnipotence cannot be limited (else, it isn’t really omnipotence).

Begging the question is when you pre-assume the solution.  Presuming that the solution can be derived from logic is not equivalent just because logic says something you don't like.

Quite right. Either the problem you presented is a False Dilemma (insisting that there are two answers when others may be available) since if God is omnipotent, then such an omnipotent being could always make another answer be available (and those answers could even still be logical, since such a being would have the power to make them so), or the problem is Begging the Question (assuming that which it claims to prove), as you are imposing a limit on God’s power (and if there is a limit, then that isn’t omnipotence).
 

This violates the identity principle.  Either they are the same and thus will be able to either lift the rock or not, or they are not the same and one of them could have the opposite result.

As I said, one could debate the logical nature of the Trinity, but that is a separate matter. A Red Herring, if you will.

Possibly.  It isn't likely, but it's possible.  However, any hypothetical new formulation of the scientific method would still have to be grounded in logic.

Statistically speaking, it is a near certainty (not a total, but near)

Yes, the "new formulation of the scientific method" (which falsely assumes that under a new paradigm the scientific method would be preserved in any way approaching a continuation) would still have to be grounded in logic, but that logic would be subject to the new paradigm, not the old paradigm. The old paradigm would have seen some element of the new paradigm as illogical, but the new paradigm would see it as logical.

All you did was restate the incompleteness theorem another way.

Hmm, I suppose I did. Thanks for pointing that out; after looking more into Godel's work I will hopefully be able to be clearer about such matters in the future. But mind you, I did not say that Logic isn't valid or useful (remember the argumentum ad logicam fallacy), just that it is not a "metalanguage." Logic cannot exist as THE framework of the universe, but it can quite happily exist as A framework. Indeed, the transitory nature of our perceptions of logic (as noted above) indicate as much.

 

And that wasn't the crux of my argument.  The crux of my argument is formed by numerous morally objectionable sections of holy text, which as mentioned have promoted sexism, slavery, and discrimination on an enormous scale without substantive proof for their way of viewing things.

Ah, so false assumption. Gotcha.

Mind you, the false assumption isn’t that various holy texts contain “numerous morally objectionable sections” that promote “sexism, slavery, and discrimination on an enormous scale without substantive proof for their way or viewing things.” That is a valid interpretation.

Rather, the false assumption is in the belief that such is the only valid interpretation (or, indeed, even that such is the best interpretation). It is not the only interpretation around, so such an assumption would necessarily need to take those other interpretations into account. And, of course, any such analysis would inherently require one to avoid the Historian’s Fallacy (and presentism should also be avoided). That which appears to be “morally objectionable,” or that promotes “sexism” and “slavery” to the modern viewpoint may have well been quite the opposite in the historical time period in which it is found. Consider, for example, that one of the great criticisms the Roman’s had against Christians was that they treated women, slaves, and orphans as equals (all of which were seen as inferior human beings by the Romans).

You made a claim that adult stem cells had more medical potential than embryonic stem cells.  Though in the greater scheme of things it's not that important.

More medical potential in that all stem cells (in theory) should be able to be grown into any specific bodily tissue. From a stem cell one should be able to get liver tissue just as easily as bone marrow or grey matter. Adult stem cells, however, are at a noted economic disadvantage because they aren't quite as flexible as embryonic stem cells. It is harder to get them to turn into whatever cells we want (and indeed, it isn't known for sure yet if they can do so at all, though research is pointing in that direction). Given that adult stem cells could be genetically identical to the patient (and embryonic stem cells could never be genetically identical), I see their potential as being greater. If adult stem cells can, in fact, do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, then point for point adult stem cells will be more useful. After all, who would want to have a foreign body transplanted into them rather than their own (on a genetic scale) organ?

Mosaic law carries ludicrous punishments for just about every crime worse than jaywalking.  If polygamy was not encouraged, it would not have been the norm.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not necessitate causation. Also, that is a false dilemma.

If polygamy was encouraged, it could have been the norm.
If polygamy was encouraged, it could not have been the norm.
If polygamy was not encouraged, it could have been the norm.
If polygamy was not encouraged, it could have not been the norm.

As an aside, as I am fond of making such, one of the major themes of the OT is that the Israelites weren’t following the law.

Provide a citation for this.

Any good history book on the Galileo Affair should do the trick for you (not a history textbook, mind you; those are why you are asking for a citation in the first place).

If you want a specific citation, then Henry Crew's "Galileo: Pioneer in Physics," The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 56, No. 5 (May, 1943), pp. 440-446, confirms the thrust of my statement (that the Church, at first, did not reject Galileo's claims). However, you might be disappointed as that just briefly touches upon this particular subject. It is, admittedly, not nearly as notable as what followed. This information is usually glossed in the background sections of relevant works.

You might profit from looking into Christopher Clavius as well, as he was one of the Jesuits who met with Galileo and discussed his work. I believe Christoph Grienberger was another such individual.

Additionally, you may be interested in this timeline of the “Galileo Affair” (really, it reaches back much farther than that) from the University of Kansas – Missouri City School of Law: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html

The secondary thrust of the statement (that is wasn’t until Natural Philosophers weighed in that the Church was ultimately turned against him), however, is proving to be much more difficult to cite. I first learned of it myself in discussions with historians and related lectures; while such might be cited in academia, they do not serve well to the purposes that you are asking.

It is easy to find records of original sources of discourse between Galileo and various individuals, but finding original sources between two other people about Galileo is more difficult than I had thought.

Religious influences have shown no such thing.  Taking the Bible as axiomatic truth (which is problematic because of contradictions, but this is hypothetical), it is impossible to prove from it that slavery is wrong.  This also applies to the Koran and the Torah.

See William Wilberforce; religious influences have shown such a thing.

Yet, this is a side issue. Again, the original question was that, in faulting religion, do you also praise it when it does something good?

Heisenberg proved that it is not possible to know the state of any system with perfect certainty, therefore rendering the rest of your statement invalid.  I addressed this already; it is at best possible to know the probable state of a system.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle does not apply to entire systems. It is specifically in limited locals of direct observation (that direct observation specifically being an atom by a photon). The more accurate the position of an atom is measured, the less accurate the motion will be measured. Given an entire system with which to work and know all factors could be accounted for. Such would just exceed the maximum possible information allowed by the uncertainty principle (in short, such knowledge, while possible to know outside that system, couldn’t exist within that system).

Though I am amused that it is the uncertainty principle that you are using to justify human contrariness. Which is really the entire point.

Daniel, actually I find the question of "can God sin" to be far more interesting than the logical mess of the "rock" question. Especially if we define sin as that which goes against God (rather than defining sin as a travesty against some law that is external from God).

[Daniel Krispin]

Sadly, my family is a perfect example of this phenomenon.  I've mentioned on and off to Daniel that my father is a theologian, the same as his, but the difference between his father and my father, from what I've been able to tell, is that mine was an authoritarian, stubborn ox whom I wish to have nothing more to do with.  And I won't even get into the various and sundry levels of upfuckery on my mother's side...at least not without a lot of Jack Daniels.

Yes, maybe that does make a difference. My parents, and father in particular, were never authoritarian. Hey, what can you say about a guy who was a hippie in his youth, and still goes to see rock concerts? He might be a pastor/theologian, but my dad's a marshmellow, really. I look up to him, to be sure - he's a bloody intelligent theologian after all, and excellent to argue with - but if he's cynical, he's definitely not stubborn. Hey, and this is the guy they have running a Christian university, eh? Seriously, Lord J and ZeaLitY, not all bad things come out of places like that. What's his name, Nathan Fillion, the lead actor from that Firefly movie, went there, and there doesn't seem to be any fanaticism there, does there?

So it merits a thought, then, if the result of things like Christian schools and churches necessarially breed herd mentality. It it a natural result, or is it merely a side effect of the system is wrongly set up?

[neo-fusion]

Hmm... several interesting inputs and a damn lot of reading and I don't feel like subjecting us to that because I honestly don't think anyone will read everything we write.

Now I believe God because.... well do you want to go to Hell if there really is? and besides that to much crazy shit can happen without explanation.

Anyway, I believe that god isn't just an entity, he is a guide. He's like a tool to guide us on the right path.

[Daniel Krispin]

Hmm... several interesting inputs and a damn lot of reading and I don't feel like subjecting us to that because I honestly don't think anyone will read everything we write.

Now I believe God because.... well do you want to go to Hell if there really is? and besides that to much crazy shit can happen without explanation.

Anyway, I believe that god isn't just an entity, he is a guide. He's like a tool to guide us on the right path.

Hermes?