Because God believers are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them. (paraphrasing Bill O'Reilly)

Which of the several thousand gods to choose from do you believe in?  Why?  How long have you been a believer?  What is your most compelling evidence that he/she/it actually exists? 

If we could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're god doesn't exist, would you still believe in him/her/it?

Hey guys, thanks for your replies. I read the reference you gave, Jeffrick, and I can see you are a bunch of fun guys and girls, so I thought I'd respond in the same way.

But really, I think you should look to your advertising. Rational Response Squad sounds pretty imposing, and "Believe in God?  We can fix that." is a pretty cool slogan, but 2 out of 4 ain't really good enough! Yes, you did respond, and I'll take your word for it that you're a squad (they're the easy parts), but so far there wasn't any deep rationality that will fix my "problem"of belief in God.  I don't think you guys realise what's at stake here - the future of world atheism, the future of the world itself, and perhaps, if Bill O'Reilly and Sapient are correct, the safety of the world, are all in danger, and you really need to lift your game! Who knows what harm I might do to myself, let alone to others?

So to your responses .....

"Because God believers are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them."

Do you really think how believers behave is an important factor? If so, perhaps you can show me how I'm a danger. I've believed in God for many many years, and I don't think I've ever murdered anyone, or self harmed. Yeah, I did get overtired once staying up late trying to help someone, is that what you mean? 

"Which of the several thousand gods to choose from do you believe in?  Why?  How long have you been a believer?  What is your most compelling evidence that he/she/it actually exists?"

I'd be interested to see if you could name several thousand gods that anyone seriously believes in, but perhaps rationality allows exaggeration? But this isn't the point. Your slogan didn't specify any particular god, just any god, or perhaps the God. And as for my most compelling evidence, I thought that was what you were doing - fixing me! I didn't advertise I could fix you!! This response hardly fills me with doubt.

"If we could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're god doesn't exist, would you still believe in him/her/it?"

"If" is a big word (!!??). So far you're not living up to that either.

"rather then write a long post let me direct you to what has already been written in answer to your question: just click onto:   http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15064 "

I went there, and found a bit of humour, and a bunch of misconceptions some people apparently have about atheists. I don't recall seeing any misconceptions that I have (I haven't even had any conceptions, being a male! - no that wasn't funny was it, but ....). More importantly, I didn't see anything that would even begin to fix my belief in God.

But perhaps that was just the friendly opener, and the deep rationality that will fix me is yet to come. I can be charitable.  : )

Best wishes.

Out of curiosity, what did he really say? Whatever it was probably wouldn't shock anymore given that he is so far right I'm surprised he doesn't have swastikas tatooed on his eyelids.

Your belief needs fixing just as if you were a 20 year old who still believed that Santa visited all houses in the world with children in one night. If it sounds like magical fiction, it is. We are merely calling a duck a duck in hopes that you will stop blindly accepting naked assertions.

If you accept that there is no god named Thor who magically made lighting, then it should be easy to reject claims that a ghost can knock up a girl or that dead human flesh can survive rigor mortis.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson.

He was saying that no matter what you believe, it is better to question it to know if one is wrong, than it is to blindly believe something that is false.

Human history is full of magical sky daddy claims from the ancient polytheism to the modern monotheism. It makes much more sense that these are merely stories that people make up because they like the idea of a super hero, than to actually believe that the magical claims of any religion are real.

We are trying to help you escape the bonds of superstition. If you can escape the delusion of Santa as a child, you can escape the delusion of Santa for adults.

Now to any theist reading this, do not post pathetic responses about how atheists are out to create a fascist state. Putting a challenge out to the public to think about the claims one makes, is not an advocation to oppress human rights. So if anyone feels like posting that garbage, don't bother.

Theists wishing to respond have every opportunity to present their evidence.

I've noticed you posting comments after my posts that come across as sarcastic as if to say you think I am a know it all? If that is not the case please explain.

I am not a prophet and am just as normal and mundane as the other 6 billion people on this planet. I simply saying that people do not need to buy superstitious fiction to guide their lives.

 Hi MichaelMcF:

Thanks for trying to help me out.

"But if you want to be picky and we have to start narrowing things down then please tell us which god/God you believe in."

But your slogan promised to "fix" my belief in God period. Are you now indicating there is fine print, and the real slogan should be "Believe in God? If it's a belief in some unbelievable god like Thor or Ra, and if you promise to help us out a little, then we can maybe perhaps fix that, sort of."? Do you only have a library of god-specific arguments and don't have a general argument that fixes things?

"In 'fixing' your belief in God much of the group here will point out the inconsistency is believing in one supernatural entity while discounting all others."

Would it be unkind to point out that if this was really a Rational Response Squad, you wouldn't make such a statement. It is obvious that this statement could only be true if all the gods under discussion had equal, and equally poor, reasons for believing in them. Which of course, you haven't established yet.

"You're right.  "If" is a big word.  So big that it's stopped you from answering the question.  Before anyone starts trying to convince you of anything you have to answer this question.  It's a simple answer; yes or no."

There's no need to be so severe and noble! Of course if something is proven, a thoughtful person could only believe it. You would presumably answer the same if I asked you the counter question. But "proof" is an amazingly strict thing, and if you have such a proof, your future in philosophy is assured. But until you show it, I'll say it's a big "if" and challenge you to offer anything even remotely resembling a "proof".

So perhaps you are unable to explain why my belief needs fixing, not how you can do it. Certainly you haven't got very far so far. But thanks for replying.

I take my car into Midas when my brakes are on the fritz. I guess I became familiar with their service because of their popular slogan  "trust the midas touch"

I should go in and demand they turn something into gold; I mean their name "midas" and their slogan implies I should trust their touch and midas' touch is touted to have turned everything into gold!

As for the slogan "believe in god, we can fix that" I am glad it got your attention.

ercatli,

If you went to see a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or anyone else in the pysch field, would you expect to be able to waltz in to an office, plop down on a  couch and without so much as an "amen" out of your mouth, expect the professional to be able to help you?

The RRS slogan does indeed say "We can fix that". That doesn't mean you sit back and neglect whatever it is that is bothering you by refusing to come out of your faith shell. You must participate, you must provide us with the details of your beliefs in order that we can assist you. Failure to do that simply shows us that your arrival to our website, as well as subsequent returns every so often, aren't really designed so that you can learn the answer(s) to any questions you may have. And should you return again, don't expect that we will have all the solutions, because we don't.... but using logic, reason and science, we are working on those answers.

Regarding the slogan.... my guess is that those at the top of RRS didn't want to have a slogan that would be a mile and a half looooooong. Therefore the question, 'Believe in God?' does work and is appropriate. It's up to the believer to provide further details and further clarify his/her position on that question. After that is done, some of us, especially those who have more free time than I, can set about with the fixing.

Thank you for your self centered condensation, but I am not the one who needs a "Pat on the head" as you are so stupidly trying to say to me.

BEYOND NATURE!

If one is to buy the claim that a man could ride a sleigh and land on every roof of every house in the world in one night, that would be BEYOND NATURE.

God is a naked assertion and is also BEYOND NATURE according to the claimant.

The only difference between the two is that one is one is bought as fact when both are fiction but BOTH ARE utterances dealing with things beyond nature.

Superman flying is BEYOND NATURE. When you understand why you accept that rightfully as fiction you will understand why I place your superstition in the same category as Superman.

Like I said, the only difference between the two is one is falsely accepted as fact.

Men don't fly like that and ghosts don't knock up girls. BOTH ARE fiction.

Not my fault you buy fiction as fact, only you can change that.

You really have deluded yourself if you cant see the connection.

Thank you Shikko, you are the first one to try to present an argument, so I will address you first.

You have alleged 4 similarities between Santa and God. Let's look at them. (In this comparison, we are not yet discussing reality, only the definitions of the two entities - the assessment of reality comes later.)

(a) Omnipresent and omnipotent: I've never heard anyone claim that for Santa as is claimed for God, just highly present (pun?) on one particular night, and having one ability (to fly a sleigh). Comparison fails.

(b) Omniscient: God knows everything whereas Santa just knows where each child lives (well, each one in the west anyway, poor Indian and Ethiopian children don't seem to get presents). Hardly the same. Comparison fails.

(c) Rewards and punishments: A couple of toys isn't quite up to heaven. Comparison fails.

(d) Unseen: I'll take your word for it that no-one has claimed to have seen Santa, but many people claim to have seen God. Your statement that the records of sightings is in only one source is erroneous, and that that source is "unreliable" is an unsupported assertion. Comparison fails.

It is clear that the comparison is about as valid as comparing a 15W light globe to the sun, and inferences drawn from that comparison are thus quite erroneous. You might further like to ponder the many dissimilarities: Santa didn't create the world, God did; Santa does one miracle, God does many; Santa didn't create life, God did; Santa has left no revelation of himself, God did (depending on which God you are talking about), etc.

So, I guess it is clear that your comparison is actually a very poor one, should I say, not a RATIONAL one? So we are no nearer to fixing my belief, are we? But thank you for at least attempting the question.

 Brian37,

I'm sorry I offended you. But look at it from my perspective. I asked an innocent question in response to an email from the RRS to visit this site. You made several quite insulting and gratuitous comments about what you assumed might be my belief, and I responded with a tongue-in-cheek "Thank you for trying". And this upset you? I don't think that's a very rational response, but I guess you guys never claimed to be a Polite Response Squad or to have a sense of humour. But let me apologise for the offence, and let's move on ....

"BEYOND NATURE!"

The substance of your response is summed up in these two words. Santa, Superman and God are all BEYOND NATURE, and therefore must all be false. There's only one problem with this argument, which we can see if we set it out rationally (remember, that's what this site is supposed to be all about?), like this:

1. Santa, Superman and God are beyond nature.

2. Anything beyond nature is untrue.

3. Therefore God is untrue.

Now I'm not sure you've established #1 - Superman and Santa seem to be within nature, just with extra-human powers - but let's leave that aside. But I'm quite sure you haven't established #2 - you haven't even offered a single reason to believe that proposition. So the argument just doesn't fly at the moment, sorry.

There is a second, implied, argument here as well, which can be presented as:

1. God is like Santa and Superman.

2. Santa and Superman don't exist.

3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

But again, this argument  fails. As I've outlined to shikko above, the comparison between Santa and God is a very feeble one, quite insufficient to justify the statement. This is an argument from analogy, and if you check out references on philosophy and logic, like this one from the University of North Carolina, when arguing from analogy, one should:  "Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two things you're comparing both share those properties." If this isn't done, then the analogy is weak and the argument is fallacious. So you have quite a job to do to make that argument even vaguely logical.

So, unfortunately (for you), but fortunately for both me and God, your arguments fail and do not seem to be worthy of a site that elevates rationality to a high level. But thanks again.

 jcgadfly, wonko and nigelTheBold,

I'm taking the liberty of replying to you all at once, because you essentially make the same point, summed up by nigelTheBold:

"Logic and evidence." If there were evidence for God, then logically one might rationally believe in God.

However, if there is no evidence for God, the logically one may not rationally believe in God.

So, to "fix" your belief in God, we'd first need to understand the evidence you propose that supports the existence of God. If that evidence is unequivicable and compelling, then we have nothing to fix, and you are rational in your belief. If, however, the evidence is circumstantial, discredited, hearsay, subjective, or otherwise faulty, then your belief in God is not rational. In that case, perhaps we can be of assistance.

In summary, tell us what you believe about God and then we'll "fix" it. Present your evidence, and we'll see what we can do with it. There's just a few problems with that:

1. I never promised to fix your belief, you promised to fix mine. The ball's in your court.

2. It is a little simplistic to say that if you can knock down my reasons, then your view is proven correct. That isn't RATIONAL (that word again!). If you disprove my arguments, all you've done is disprove my arguments, not disproven my conclusion nor proven your own. Take an example. Suppose I say that in quantum physics, changing how a particle is measured in one place in the laboratory could change how other particles behave a hundred metres away, when the only physical connection between the two sets of particles occurred before any of this happened, and I offered as my reason that quantum particles have magic properties granted to them by the Goddess Bliss. You might well be able to demolish my argument, but the original statement would nevertheless be true, as experiments show.

3. You also reveal some apparent ignorance of the world of philosophy. Some of the best minds have argued about belief in God for millennia, and the result is still unproven either way. It isn't clear what is rational in this area. If you think you have a new proof, your future in the hallowed halls of philosophy is assured. Lets' see it! But the reality will be that if I presented arguments, they would "only" suggest reasons why I believe God's existence is more probable, and your arguments could only show why you believe his existence is less probable.

So again, you cannot live up to your slogan, and honesty and rationality would suggest you don't make claims you can't fulfil. If nothing else, visitors like me could at least take you more seriously. Thanks for your comments.

 Nice try MichaelMcF, but not really good enough. You want me to answer your questions while you refuse, or are unable, to answer mine. You seem unable to mount an argument to support your slogan, but unwilling to admit that makes the slogan false. You use arguments from analogy, when the analogies are demonstrably false, but don't retract them. Why do you avoid these "rational" conclusions?

Now to your points:

"That being said... belief in God needs 'fixing' because theism and the belief in sky parents serve no purpose in the modern world."

A few things wrong here. (1) What have theism and "sky parents" got to do with each other, and what place does a term like "sky parents" have in "rational" discussion? Proves nothing! (2) The statement is another unsupported assertion. You say belief in God has no purpose in the modern world, billions of people say otherwise. Where's your evidence of that statement? Just because you think it doesn't make it true you know. : )

"It needs to be fixed because of the murders, rapes, forced marriages, twisted upbringings and traumatic childhoods that are caused in the name of an allegedly kind and loving God."

Yes, now we're getting down to some sort of argument. But there's two problems.

1. All sorts of nasty behaviours can be found in believers and unbelievers alike. Atheistic regimes (regrettably) appear to have killed more people in the twentieth century than theistic regimes (regrettably) killed in all the centuries leading up to then. And so on. You have to first establish that theists have done more nasty things, per capita, than non-believers - and I think we might be able to establish the opposite. Without that statistical evidence, it seems the best conclusion is that people of all sorts do nasty things, something few believers are going to argue with.

2. Even if you could establish that believers do more nasty things per capita than unbelievers, you'd also need to establish that their beliefs are the reason for that, otherwise it might be something else. Take an example. We might think that Muslim suicide bombers are motivated by their religious belief to do their nasty work, but research actually shows that religion is a small part of their motivation - the main parts are political and defense of their homeland or "tribe".

It's a drag, isn't it, being rational actually requires us to use evidence and facts rather than assertions, but there it is. Perhaps you could change to the "ARG" = The Assertion Response Group! : )

"You're either missing or dodging the point." 

Not at all, I'm just refusing to accept your definition of the point! I still say, you guys made the statement, let's see your arguments - or at least an admission that you can't mount a successful argument unless it is aimed at a specific God. Give the that admission and we can then move on.

"Why do you believe in your God over Thor or Ra?"

When you think about it (not sure if you have, but let's assume), this is really a very silly statement. Do you justify your belief in anything by comparing it with a lot of silly beliefs? Really? Like I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's much better than Bart Simpson or the Easter Bunny?

I never think about Thor or Ra - except when discussing with an atheist, like one poor dude who claimed to be a lecturer in philosophy and tried to argue that Thor could be compared to the Christian God - he gave up when his argument couldn't be sustained, and he misquoted a primary source and was found out. I believe in God because there are good reasons to do so, and Thor and Ra never come into it. Yes, I could give you those reasons, though I doubt it would change anything, but I don't propose to just yet, as I'm exploring you guys' ability to deliver on your claims.

So far, nothing much is happening. But thanks again.

And by the way, stop saying it's "our" slogan. I am as much a part of the RRS as you are. Namely, I am a poster on their boards, as are you. I don't suspect that you consider it "your" slogan, and nor should you consider it mine, or any of the other posters who have replied to you, unless they have specifically told you that they fully endorse that particular slogan, and consider it "theirs". You have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion that it is "our" slogan, so you cannot argue as though it is.

If you insist that we back up every single argument we make with further argument, then you should do the same. We needn't defend the slogan, and adhere strictly to the way YOU think it should be interpreted, unless you can prove to us that it is "our" slogan, and that we are therefore forced to adhere to it's premise.

Nikolaj,

Two posts for the price of one - I am honoured. Thanks for taking the interest.

So let's test this. In the example you have given, let's replace "the car" with "God", "red" with "exists", and "yellow" with "doesn't exist". (I presume this is what you mean us to do.) Thus I am arguing that God exists. (Actually, I am not arguing that, just testing your claims, but let's overlook that for the moment.) So, following the analogy, you are not saying God doesn't exist (the car is yellow), but just that I cannot say that God does exist (the car is not red). Is that what you are saying? I am interested to hear your answer here, because the two claims "God doesn't exist" and "we haven't proven God exists" are quite different ones. If you do mean what you seem to be saying, then this site's slogan should become "Believe in God? We can throw doubt on that!" I would find that a much more rational and honest slogan!

Well you see, it isn't my slogan. No-one asked me if I wanted it, or if I agreed with it. I joined the forum for a particular reason, didn't post, was invited back, saw the slogan, thought it both pretentious and inaccurate, and thought now I was here, I'd try to test out how accurate it was in reality. If you don't "own" the slogan, I am not arguing with you, only with those who do think it is correct.

So, are you specifically disagreeing with the slogan?

I'm not insisting you back up any arguments. I'm just suggesting that is what "rational" usually includes. If you want an exemption from that, perhaps you should become the HSSRS - the Hopefully Slightly Sensible Response Squad!

And if I make an argument, I am quite willing to do the same - I just haven't made an argument yet, but questioned all of yours. And I have provided reasons in logic why I ask the questions. As I said to someone else, it's a drag, isn't it, being committed to rationality? It is easy to poor scorn on someone else's beliefs, but much harder if you are required to frame your arguments logically and support them with evidence, and not easy to defend your own position. But that's the onerous task the Squad has taken on.

I don't wish to be too harsh. You go back and check out all the things that have been said in response to my questioning. False analogy, non-logical arguments, unsupported assertions, etc. I don't honestly think one seriously cogent argument has been presented. I invite you as a thoughtful person to look at it as dispassionately as you are all asking me to do about God, and tell me if that statement isn't true. And then draw your own conclusions from that.

This atheism vs theism thing isn't a game, it's deadly serious. So far, your side isn't scrubbing up all that well. I wonder what conclusion you might like to draw from that.

Thanks, and all the best to you.

It's a simple attention getting slogan, and works, and true. It is directed at god(s) of religion thinkers, effectively bringing them to RRS, and it doesn't say fix everyone.

"Want attention, start a fight" .... is an old proverb regarding language use.

      My approval of the slogan out weighs my disapproval. I would prefer "Believe in God of Abraham, we may be able to fix that."  How about, "Believe in Idols, Religion, Superstition, you are SICK, maybe we can help!" ..... "RRS saves!"  Spread the good word, atheism.  LOL RRS .   

Cool, I can dig that! : ) Just so long as no-one takes it seriously!

Which of course raises the question, why bother if it's not actually true? (Actually, I doubt it brings people in. They have to get here already to see it, like I did. But it is likely to make people feel like they can't take you seriously - which of course I don't mind. : )

Thanks

PS Why were my posts originally in normal type and now they're all coming out in bold italics?

ercatli wrote:

Not silly.  There is not a single major religion that offers a more plausible deity. 

You're right.  You win.  Except one thing, theist.  The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant.  Something you're already certainly aware of when you started this thread with the command for the RRS to "fix you.

I don't speak for the RRS, but "We can fix that", was far more likely to be meant as a provocative statement, than anything else.

As the claimant of something extraordinary, theist... it is your responsibility to provide evidence for this belief.  Kudos for being the millionth theist to try to turn this around.  Yawn !

It has never been necessary to disprove anything that has no credible evidence for its existence. 

And I've never seen a single argument for god that had any credible evidence.

So far, you've been brilliant ercatli.  You've carefully avoided stating your specific theism.  You've danced around any possible definition of god.

This is so much easier than having to come up w/ answers for the violence, hatred, intolerance, and the contradictions of any particular theism, not to mention the unicorns and talking critters.

Only one problem, ercatli.

This crap has been tried before.  Again and again and again on this forum.  Oh you thought you were the first ?

So, tell you what, ercatli.  Either you state what particular father figure holds your belief... or declare what brand of immortality project earns your devotion... or take your theist dance and dance right out the same door thousands of others have tried before you.

Because that theist tact has already been played out.

I don't think so. I think we could agree on the definition pretty easily. It's the existence of a being meeting any reasonable definition that is the "problem".

I won't respond to your following post, my mum never allowed me to learn the meaning of all those naughty words!  : )

Thanks

ercatli, surly you'd agree there is a problem, so what the problem ? Show me the idol , and so I may examine it ....

The holy grail always has been and always will be atheism ... simply NO idol worship.

You want us to list ALL the evil directly caused by theism ? Yeah, that might take a while.

And just to be clear, if someone flying a plane into a building while screaming "allah akbar !!" isn't proof of religously inspired insanity for you, then what is ?

Okay, let's try this guy then : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony

Does he support the assertion ?

 Hiya Michael, nice to see you back, and thanks for your long reply. These discussions have a way of expanding, don't they, so I'll try to pick the eyes out of your response.

Actually, I asked the following questions and posed the following challenges:

1. "Do you only have a library of god-specific arguments and don't have a general argument that fixes things?" (i.e.  to disprove the existence of God, do you have to disprove each individual hypothetical god one-by-one, or do you have a general proof?)

2. "It is obvious that this statement could only be true if all the gods under discussion had equal, and equally poor, reasons for believing in them. Which of course, you haven't established yet."  (i.e. can you demonstrate that proposition?)

3. "But until you show it, I'll say it's a big "if" and challenge you to offer anything even remotely resembling a "proof"" (i.e. can you provide that proof?)

I'd say they were quite substantial questions, and I haven't seen any reasonable response yet.

"We have seen no evidence" is a long way from "there is no evidence", yet it is the latter you need to do the fixing, surely? The first statement might just be due to ignorance.

I really am surprised at some of the things you guys say. What relevance is it that atheists could do the same things as theists (both good and bad)? The accusation was that belief in God was dangerous, and that requires demonstration of actual outcomes, not theoretical ones. I know it's much easier to just assert things and say we can do anything you can do, but showing what actually happens requires evidence, and that seems in short supply so far. So you haven't supported your own statement at all.

It is interesting how you reply to what I didn't say rather than what I did say. Check and see, I didn't say that those regimes murdered people because they were atheists, I specifically said the best explanation was that people of all types do nasty things. But most of your statements here are again unsupported assertions - "no-one was killed in the name of atheism"? "Hitler was a catholic"? Have you got independent historical verification of those statements? (I think they require it.)

This seems to becoming a piece of atheist dogma. Can you demonstrate it's truth to me? I think the true statement, in formal logic, would be something like "all propositions in a proof require supporting evidence". And you will note, I am not trying to prove anything, I am just asking you to provide supporting evidence for your assertions to me. That is, unless you wish to retract claims like "We can fix that!" and the 3 questions I reiterated earlier.

No, I still have my reasons, it's just that you don't know them yet. As I've said before, you guys made the claims, and have supported them with very limp arguments, without supporting evidence. I haven't made any arguments of my own yet, just examining yours for logic and evidence. You all seem remarkably shy about providing it. You see, it is all a cunning ploy on my part. It is much easier to critique another person's beliefs than defend one's own. You guys mostly get away with free-wheeling critiques of theism with little supporting evidence, so I am challenging you to do the harder job of defending your own statements. I know it must be frustrating, but if you make the statements, I'll ask for evidence. The way forward is to either support the arguments or retract them.

Let's reiterate. Here are some of the arguments you and others have alluded to:

1. Belief in God is as silly as belief Santa or Thor. My challenge: demonstrate the truth of that or retract it.

2. God doesn't exist but we need to know which God you believe in so we can disprove it. My challenge: does this mean that, with thousands of gods (according to Sapient), you can only disprove the existence of God by going through all of them one-by-one, or do you have a general disproof?

3. Theism is a danger to the world. My challenge: provide comprehensive historical evidence that demonstrates that theists are more dangerous than other beliefs, and that their theism is the reason why, or retract it.

Can you, or can you not, provide evidence that supports your statements here?

Sorry to be so frustrating to you, but rising to meet these challenges is good for the soul! (Or for something!) : )

Thanks again.

Hi anonymouse,

Any relation to dangermouse? Nice to hear from you. Some quick answers ...

1. No I don't think anyone could practically list all the evil done by anyone, not even themselves. Just a reasonable (i.e. not highly biased) historical analysis. You see, it is just possible that the figures, both for the past and the present, show something different to what you guys assert, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to support your statements.

2. You seem to confuse isolated examples with "proof". One person flying a plane into a building, and one nasty dude claiming to act in the name of God in a civil war in Africa, is hardly proof. Especially, as I have said already, when studies shos that the motivation for most suicide bombers is not religion but politics and defending the "tribe". Check out these references.

This study says: "But a growing body of scholarship on suicide bombing suggests that it doesn't work that way. These authors, primarily drawn from political science and social psychology, concur that suicide bombings — with or without the trappings of religion — are largely a response to occupation, or, since September 11, 2001, to perceptions of general political oppression in the Muslim world."

This reference says: "Credible researchers agree that "religion" neither causes nor explains suicide terrorism."

And this reference says: "“People’s initial reaction to a suicide terrorist is to think the person is crazy or a religious zealot, but that’s not the case. Most suicide bombers see themselves as soldiers carrying out a mission to inflict damage on the enemy.... generally to achieve a political goal”

There may be other findings, but they're pretty clear.

It's a pity, isn't it? It's much easier just repeating things you've been told or which seem reasonable, but much harder when experts and research indicate otherwise than what you'd like to think. There's a lesson here - there's almost certainly a lot that's been written on this site that is contradicted by evidence, but you won't know unless you check.

So you need to find real evidence, not just a couple of examples, before you can justify a statement.

Thanks for your contribution.

1. Precisely correct. It does tell us more about humans becaus God is a human construct.

2. You just brought up my point that it's can't be defined adequately. Thank you. I know it's in the dictionary but renaming something is not defining it.

3. Theists can argue that Pol Pot, Stalin et al. killed in the name of atheism if they are dishonest quote miners and don't bother reading history.

4. I never said that religion was the sole cause - why are you saying it can't be?

5. What is institutional non-belief? A fancy way of saying "Atheism is a religion"? When you're through watching TV, do you turn it off or change it to the "off" channel?

You're right ercatli the argument is becoming a little winding and out of control.  I'lll try to bring it back to your OP

I still say the problem here is you are twisting the meaning of the RRS statement.  You are taking "we can fix that!" - a catchy statement to mean "we can prove the non-existance of God".  The two are not equal in any sense of the word.

It has already been explained to you that the term "we can fix that" refers to the fact that the RRS beliefs that it can and should convince people that belief in God is irrational.  This is acheived by pointing out, through discourse, the flaws in the presented evidence for God.  In my mind Sapient asked the "If?" question only to establish whether you were genuinely open to discussion or whether you were just trying to stir a hornet's nest.  At no point does it say anywhere "we can prove the non-existance of God"

All of your questions and arguments in the above quote boil down to you shifting the burden of proof.  You're asking the group to prove the nonexistance of God - which is not what we have claimed.  I doubt anyone here can prove a negative (for example can anyone prove I don't own a time-travelling ninja monkey that I only get to use when I die?).

But to get to your point:  It is my understanding that all arguments against "god" are good against any god you care to mention.  However, arguments against somethings existance can only come into play once that thing has been defined.  We can only argue against God once something has been postulated.  All Gods have been defined and can be argued against.  So again, please provide information on your god.  It is not anyones job to disprove a negative.  We are here to argue against your God.

If you further refuse to define your god and instead impose this false stalemate which assumes we have said that we can prove the non-existence of god then I don't see how we can proceed.

M