5 ms·

I think the argument is fairly sound and is great at concisely explaining why religion is a product of humanity's imagination and current culture. (With all due

by sgk284 16y ago

I think the argument is fairly sound and is great at concisely explaining why religion is a product of humanity's imagination and current culture. (With all due respect, don't take this as an affront on your beliefs.) I like the argument for a number of reasons: - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. You realize that you believe what you believe because of the circumstances in which you were born. This leads to the conclusion that the religion you follow has more to do with where you live than what is "correct". (Noting that there are plenty of exceptions to this). - It drives home the point that humanity has been creating gods for thousands of years. Most of those gods have likely been created before your god had even first been mentioned. Any rational person would ask why did humanity move past those gods? You can never disprove the existence of a god, so what happened? Ideally, you realize that religion is much like any trend, just with longer than average turn around. - If you follow the trend of gods, you realize that humanity has been generally moving away from polytheism towards monotheism. This makes you wonder why and conclude that it is tightly correlated to (and arguably directly caused by) humanity's understanding of the universe. As we understand more about everything, we don't need gods to fill in these gaps of knowledge. For instance, we understand why the Sun rises or lightning strikes. As humanity has progressed, one by one we killed the need for Roman and Greek gods. This leads you to wonder what role a monotheistic god fills and realize that the god is generally used to bring understanding to things we don't understand and reason to things we can't control. This is hardly a rational reason for a figment that "solves" all unsolved problems. In short, I like the "(n-1) vs n gods" argument because when you think through everything implied by it, a rational being has no choice but to conclude that in all likelihood the religion they follow is not correct. Unfortunately, emotion plays a huge role in religion, making rational thought difficult. On a personal note, I was a theist for 20 years, backed by 12 years of formal study in my religion. Making the mental shift to realizing everything I'd believed was wrong was difficult to say the least, but years later my life is all the better for it.

grellas 16y ago
Nice points, though we disagree. Ironically, I was an atheist for 20 years of my adult life before I went in the other direction (I don't think I became irrational in the process, but that is where we disagree).
arch_hunter 16y ago
> It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. But that does not explain people who switch religions later in life. For myself, I decided that I could not be atheist after encountering spirits. My encounters with spirits disproved atheism for me, instead I am currently a Christian because that is the only religion that is able to accurately describe my spiritual encounters. Atheism as a worldview denies that spirits exist, therefore in my mind it can not possibly be accurate.
- sofal 16y ago
  This is interesting. I wouldn't say that atheism "denies" that spirits exist anymore than it denies that Russell's teapot exists. Besides, atheism still provides plenty of room for spirits should there be any evidence for them (subjective or objective). Since you have subjective evidence for spirits (which I'm not discounting), I wonder why you would make the leap from that to the validation of the entire Christian story, or why that leap has to involve a currently organized religion at all?
timwiseman 16y ago
You make some very cogent points and make them well. But there are alternative ways of looking at it. - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" I reject the others specficially because I accept Christianity. I can neither prove my religion nor disprove (most) of the others, yet by accepting mine I must reject all others. I acknowledge I do this as a leap of faith, but that is different from being indoctrinated at a young age. I will agree with your over all point that most people just believe whatever they are told at a young age, but the more thoughtful people of any religion will often be able to bring forth real arguments for it. This of course is not proof, and many of these arguments involve sometimes personal experiences, but that is still very different from no good answer other than indoctrination. Most of those gods have likely been created before your god had even first been mentioned. Many religions will disagree with this. Literalists amoungst Christians and Jews, for instance, will beleive that God was known about since Adam with an unbroken chain of believers. The reasonable literalists will agree that God was first written about late in history, but that is different. To those people, society did not move past older deities so much as some branched off to false religions and then some of those false religions faded away. (I am not a literalist, but it is an alternate explanation) If you follow the trend of gods, you realize that humanity has been generally moving away from polytheism towards monotheism. True as a general rule, but first note that some polytheistic religions are still around, even in relatively highly educated populaces. Second, note that an alternate explanation is that God is trying to subtly guide humanity to the truth and moving to monotheism is man's response to this guidance. I am again not saying I personally believe this, but that is provides a different explanation. You make excellent arguments which I respect, but there are other explanations for everything you bring up and I do not think they would provide much weight to someone who already believed one way or another. [edit: fixed an omitted "not"]
reedlaw 16y ago
I think this is a rather weak argument for the following reasons: -If God is not real, how can we explain the existence of so many counterfeits? -Most of the 529 gods that theists or Christians reject, for historical, scientific, and philosophical reasons, do not have a sound or rational basis for belief, such as Zeus or Thor. -Many Christians are familiar with the competing claims of other religions, even as espoused by those faiths' most well-reasoned and ardent adherents, and yet still reject them.
- sofal 16y ago
  If God is not real, how can we explain the existence of so many counterfeits? Is this not the perfect example of begging the question? In order to be a counterfeit for God, a non-counterfeit God would have to exist. Most of the 529 gods that theists or Christians reject, for historical, scientific, and philosophical reasons, do not have a sound or rational basis for belief, such as Zeus or Thor. I realize that Christians believe they have a sound and rational basis for belief and believe that other religions do not, but I don't believe that has been demonstrated, and it would need to be. Many Christians are familiar with the competing claims of other religions, even as espoused by those faiths' most well-reasoned and ardent adherents, and yet still reject them. And vice versa.
  - reedlaw 16y ago
    Let me put it another way: what is the basis for the vast majority of humankind's belief in a deity of some sort? If the idea has no basis in reality, then can someone demonstrate the reason for this belief with the same degree of intellectual rigor that is demanded from Christians for their beliefs? Dismissing it as mere superstition is inadequate. An evolutionary hypothesis would be quite hard to prove.
    - J3L2404 16y ago
      Although placebos contain no active ingredients they often provide some relief, for reasons not entirely explained, but clearly show our capability for self healing. Religion works because you believe - not because of an all knowing, all powerful, invisible entity that everyone fights about.
jerf 16y ago
"think the argument is fairly sound" No, it's a fallacy. There is an absolutely enormous number of possible humans that could exist, but don't. A presumably finite, but enormous number. Neither of us believe they exist. I also don't believe in your existence (for the sake of argument), but you do. The difference is, you don't believe in 10^1000-1 humans, but I don't believe in 10^1000 humans. No amount of stacking up non-existent things proves anything about any given thing, up to and including whether or not that thing exists. Incidentally, this doesn't address any of your other arguments, which aren't really "in support of 'the (n-1) gods' argument" so much as their own independent, free-standing points. I just want to point out the (n-1) argument is a rhetorical device, not an actual argument of any merit. Perhaps "good rhetorical device" is all you meant by "sound", that would fit with the rest of your message, but I do prefer to reserve the word for its actual logical meaning; if we give that up we don't really have a replacement.

by sgk284 16y ago

grellas 16y ago

Nice points, though we disagree. Ironically, I was an atheist for 20 years of my adult life before I went in the other direction (I don't think I became irrational in the process, but that is where we disagree).

arch_hunter 16y ago

> It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. But that does not explain people who switch religions later in life. For myself, I decided that I could not be atheist after encountering spirits. My encounters with spirits disproved atheism for me, instead I am currently a Christian because that is the only religion that is able to accurately describe my spiritual encounters. Atheism as a worldview denies that spirits exist, therefore in my mind it can not possibly be accurate.

sofal 16y ago
This is interesting. I wouldn't say that atheism "denies" that spirits exist anymore than it denies that Russell's teapot exists. Besides, atheism still provides plenty of room for spirits should there be any evidence for them (subjective or objective). Since you have subjective evidence for spirits (which I'm not discounting), I wonder why you would make the leap from that to the validation of the entire Christian story, or why that leap has to involve a currently organized religion at all?

timwiseman 16y ago

You make some very cogent points and make them well. But there are alternative ways of looking at it. - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" I reject the others specficially because I accept Christianity. I can neither prove my religion nor disprove (most) of the others, yet by accepting mine I must reject all others. I acknowledge I do this as a leap of faith, but that is different from being indoctrinated at a young age. I will agree with your over all point that most people just believe whatever they are told at a young age, but the more thoughtful people of any religion will often be able to bring forth real arguments for it. This of course is not proof, and many of these arguments involve sometimes personal experiences, but that is still very different from no good answer other than indoctrination. Most of those gods have likely been created before your god had even first been mentioned. Many religions will disagree with this. Literalists amoungst Christians and Jews, for instance, will beleive that God was known about since Adam with an unbroken chain of believers. The reasonable literalists will agree that God was first written about late in history, but that is different. To those people, society did not move past older deities so much as some branched off to false religions and then some of those false religions faded away. (I am not a literalist, but it is an alternate explanation) If you follow the trend of gods, you realize that humanity has been generally moving away from polytheism towards monotheism. True as a general rule, but first note that some polytheistic religions are still around, even in relatively highly educated populaces. Second, note that an alternate explanation is that God is trying to subtly guide humanity to the truth and moving to monotheism is man's response to this guidance. I am again not saying I personally believe this, but that is provides a different explanation. You make excellent arguments which I respect, but there are other explanations for everything you bring up and I do not think they would provide much weight to someone who already believed one way or another. [edit: fixed an omitted "not"]

reedlaw 16y ago

I think this is a rather weak argument for the following reasons: -If God is not real, how can we explain the existence of so many counterfeits? -Most of the 529 gods that theists or Christians reject, for historical, scientific, and philosophical reasons, do not have a sound or rational basis for belief, such as Zeus or Thor. -Many Christians are familiar with the competing claims of other religions, even as espoused by those faiths' most well-reasoned and ardent adherents, and yet still reject them.

sofal 16y ago
If God is not real, how can we explain the existence of so many counterfeits? Is this not the perfect example of begging the question? In order to be a counterfeit for God, a non-counterfeit God would have to exist. Most of the 529 gods that theists or Christians reject, for historical, scientific, and philosophical reasons, do not have a sound or rational basis for belief, such as Zeus or Thor. I realize that Christians believe they have a sound and rational basis for belief and believe that other religions do not, but I don't believe that has been demonstrated, and it would need to be. Many Christians are familiar with the competing claims of other religions, even as espoused by those faiths' most well-reasoned and ardent adherents, and yet still reject them. And vice versa.
- reedlaw 16y ago
  Let me put it another way: what is the basis for the vast majority of humankind's belief in a deity of some sort? If the idea has no basis in reality, then can someone demonstrate the reason for this belief with the same degree of intellectual rigor that is demanded from Christians for their beliefs? Dismissing it as mere superstition is inadequate. An evolutionary hypothesis would be quite hard to prove.
  - J3L2404 16y ago
    Although placebos contain no active ingredients they often provide some relief, for reasons not entirely explained, but clearly show our capability for self healing. Religion works because you believe - not because of an all knowing, all powerful, invisible entity that everyone fights about.

jerf 16y ago

"think the argument is fairly sound" No, it's a fallacy. There is an absolutely enormous number of possible humans that could exist, but don't. A presumably finite, but enormous number. Neither of us believe they exist. I also don't believe in your existence (for the sake of argument), but you do. The difference is, you don't believe in 10^1000-1 humans, but I don't believe in 10^1000 humans. No amount of stacking up non-existent things proves anything about any given thing, up to and including whether or not that thing exists. Incidentally, this doesn't address any of your other arguments, which aren't really "in support of 'the (n-1) gods' argument" so much as their own independent, free-standing points. I just want to point out the (n-1) argument is a rhetorical device, not an actual argument of any merit. Perhaps "good rhetorical device" is all you meant by "sound", that would fit with the rest of your message, but I do prefer to reserve the word for its actual logical meaning; if we give that up we don't really have a replacement.