(October 8, 2013 at 11:39 am)pocaracas Wrote:

DAMN IT, didn't I already tell you that eating theist babies is not good for you. I used to and all it got me was fat and a triple bipass. The doc said I need cut it out, so I switched to barbecue kittens.

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote: Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

The fact that no single religion is dominant across time and cultures shows that no single religion meets the evidential standard.

(October 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote: Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

The fact that no single religion is dominant across time and cultures shows that no single religion meets the evidential standard.

Other than the evidence that religion exists is only evidence that humans pull shit out of their ass.

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 2:09 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.

Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

That is called argument ad populum and is a logical fallacy, so you begin your argument based on a fallacy. Furthermore religion varies wildly across time and places, and there are atheistic religions that predate Christianity and were very widespread, in fact Buddhism and communism still are.
Also the one religion stance that is the oldest and appears in every culture is atheism.
In fact here is a list of atheistic schools of thought from many cultures that predate Christianity and in some cases monotheism
Buddhism
Cārvāka
The Sophists
Epicurean-ism
Taoism
Pythagoreans
Confucianism
Primitive atheism (such as recorded in "don't sleep there are snakes" by Daniel Everett.

(October 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The fact that no single religion is dominant across time and cultures shows that no single religion meets the evidential standard.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the case that one religion is 100% true and all the others are 100% false it could be some people just happen to be a little closer to the idea than others. Fair enough that there tends to be a lot human cultural stuff and tradition in the mix, I don't think anyone would deny that. I don't think bit of culture is a bad thing even Dawkins would agree to not have churches bulldozed or all Christian traditions abolished.

Well, Dawkins is an anti-theist, so...

(October 9, 2013 at 1:12 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote: Hold on there, cowboy. The fact that religion is widespread across time and cultures shows that it meets the evidential standard determined by convention or community. This definition goes against your position.

That is called argument ad populum and is a logical fallacy, so you begin your argument based on a fallacy. Furthermore religion varies wildly across time and places, and there are atheistic religions that predate Christianity and were very widespread, in fact Buddhism and communism still are.
Also the one religion stance that is the oldest and appears in every culture is atheism.
In fact here is a list of atheistic schools of thought from many cultures that predate Christianity and in some cases monotheism
Buddhism
Cārvāka
The Sophists
Epicurean-ism
Taoism
Pythagoreans
Confucianism
Primitive atheism (such as recorded in "don't sleep there are snakes" by Daniel Everett.

Sorry, those are superstitions too. Not having an invisible friend to pray to does not mean their rituals or clubs are free from their own bullshit.

Nothing those eastern religions have constitutes them inventing human morality or inventing biological evolution.

The only thing I agree with is that they are older. "I was here first" does not mean they had any better an understanding of modern science than any other bullshit club.

Evolution was around even before these eastern religions. And they as well have had and still have their sectarian beefs centered around the stupid idea that "I am special because of my religion". If the world were all Buddhist, or Taoist, you'd still have human division. If those religions suddenly were given up on, you'd still have evolution and people would still fuck and make babies.

There is nothing special about religion, none of them.

---

Epicurus was about the only one on that list who made the best guess, but even then he had no clue how right he was. He had no way of knowing.

(October 9, 2013 at 8:39 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Well, Dawkins is an anti-theist, so...

Dawkins considers himself a 6/7 on his own scale.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:10 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The fact that no single religion is dominant across time and cultures shows that no single religion meets the evidential standard.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the case that one religion is 100% true and all the others are 100% false it could be some people just happen to be a little closer to the idea than others. Fair enough that there tends to be a lot human cultural stuff and tradition in the mix, I don't think anyone would deny that. I don't think bit of culture is a bad thing even Dawkins would agree to not have churches bulldozed or all Christian traditions abolished.

Or, the truth is that people like their clubs and invent them to placate their own emotions.

I've gotten the argument "It's just God speaking in different languages". No. All human overlap of good behavior and bad behavior, cruelty and compassion, are all a result of our NATURAL existence, and are NOT the result of a club label.

(October 9, 2013 at 10:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: I've gotten the argument "It's just God speaking in different languages". No. All human overlap of good behavior and bad behavior, cruelty and compassion, are all a result of our NATURAL existence, and are NOT the result of a club label.

We're a result of natural existence (the universe) but what is natural existence the result of? All things that begin to exist are caused by something that exists, it can't be what began to exist either circular logic gets you nowhere.