Why believe in God?

Originally posted by gcle2003 What's particularly 'western' about them?

Originally posted by gcle2003 It wasn't only Christians as your phraseology indicates. The majority of the modern slave trade was carried out by Muslims, but of course the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians...all had their share. And of course atheists.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Originally posted by gcle2003 What's particularly 'western' about them?   The Europeans that transported slaves to the Americas and also those who owned slaves over there could be termed westerners, but if you prefer some other epithet then just go ahead.

CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.

If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.

Originally posted by gcle2003 You did not write, for instance, '...there were Christians among those involved in those phenomena...' which would have been a perfectly acceptable and unchallengeably statement.

Originally posted by Seko CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Seko CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that. The point is: how would one react to a predictive failure? The distingusihing feature between the scientific approach and the religious approach is that in the former case a hypothesis that fails a test is rejected; in the religious approach a hypothesis that fails a test (assuming it can do so) is maintained and explained away.   One of my favourite images is of the Zuni Indians rain dances. If the rain came it proved the dances were effective. If the rain didn't come it proved that someone had got the steps of the dance wrong. If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence. It would actually be more surprising than not if the compilers of such a work as the Old Testament did not include some scientific observations that were roughly true at least in their environment.  The quarrel is rarely with the observations recorded but with the explanations given and their adequacy and/or necessity. Certainly there's no reason to suppose that the giving of an explanation that we would accept as correct is evidence of divinity at work.

After establishing a basis for professional studies we can then move onto various hypothesis, data collecting and conclusions. Point of the matter is that research is doable (has been done actually) in regards to the Quran.

As with any research the theories behind it will be under scrutiny.

Originally posted by Seko [ Take your time before you hand out generalized judgments regarding evidence. If you have specific research feel free to provide them as you wish. Even though I agree with the notion that the Old and New Testaments have questionable scientific validity in regards to certain phenomenon, I would be foolish to make a blanket statement without providing proof for my beliefs.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Originally posted by gcle2003   But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?     It is one thing just to support slavery, that can anyone do, it´s another thing defending it with religious arguments. And as stated, most of the European slave traders where christians and in their ideology about slavery christianity was a part.

Originally posted by CXI Ok, lets mathematically apply what you are proposing using a real world situation to see whether a majority of people would find it convenient to go along with atheist beliefs. As our sample case study, I will even use one of the most religiously disinclined of all nations on the planet: Australia. Australians on the census who put "no religion" amounted to 18.7% of the total. Unusually large by world standards. This means that if we took 18.7% - 1 of the remaining 82.3% of the population and trapped them and the atheists exclusively together, then we could get 18.7% - 1 who would indeed fit your theory well. Which then leaves 63.6% + 1 of people who do not feel the way you do even in the slightest because they are all theists. Of course in reality we know that the population mixes much more evenly than in the hypothetical above, and that atheists in virtually every facet of life are heavily outnumbered by theists. So really, whichever way you choose to look at it, the atheist perspective remains in the minority and adherence to it is almost never the convenient thing to do as you suggest.

I don't follow what your trying to do here.

But I would be very hesitant when suggesting that we can mathematically determine convenience, or the census data really reflects a nations religion, let alone who an individual mixes with.

You claimed the book was religious. It certainly explores religion as a topic, but the book is not religious by its nature. It does not claim absolute truth, does not endorse any form of worship or faith, and fully leaves itself open to counter claims and alternative theories provided these can be backed up by superior empirical measure to the ones Dawkins has employed. So claiming it is "a religious book" is a total misnomer.

Your confusing the doctrine of a religion with the religion. The same can be said about most religious books written about Islam & Christianity. The Quran and the Bible are not the only religious books in Islam & Christianity. All your saying here is that the God Delusion doesn't claim to be a book of revelation.
I am claiming atheism is a faith, and the book does endorse atheism.
There is plenty of literature of which this book is a part from an atheist point of view, that teaches an atheist outlook on life, that has virtually no value whatsoever to the non-atheist except to learn what atheists believe. Empiricisim has nothing to do with the non-existance of God.
The non-existance of God is not a scientific hypothesis, referring to science is just to use peoples faith in science to justify faith in atheism. The two actually have nothing to do with each other.

Dawkins preaches atheism, and upholds atheist values, one of which is the idea that if superior proof is provided they'd change their beliefs.

Actually you did say that atheists had enforced duties. It was a point I noticed and had to specifically argue against because it is wrong.

My mistake then, I only meant to suggest that some behaviour is considered good [pious] to an atheist in the same way other behavior is considered good [pious] to a theist.

I still dispute that research funding and attractiveness of beauty products are a result of an ingrained atheist faith system as you claim. There is no cause and effect relationship between atheism and research funding and purchase of beauty products.

No thats not atheist faith, thats faith in science. They are not the same, but they are usually one way implicative.
Faith in Atheism => Faith in science; but,
Faith in science does not => Faith in atheism.

I brought up faith in science as one of the pious duties of atheism.

Mentioning science in ads works because of faith in science in the community [regardless of whether the faith is justified or unjustified]

My younger brother has a severe case of this, so I was actually pleased you brought this up. You claimed we have a 'cure' for ADHD. And that this established cure was not used, and so evidence of your claim we research because of faith based atheism. We don't have a cure, and so your claim is invalid.

Ok, I'll trust you know better than me then.

I think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is a great example of where religion was used to motivate the people to go to war. Elites in the USA wanted the profits that would accrue from warfare and conquest, and so impressed on the people their religious identity as a means of convincing them that a religious 'other' stood as a rival to their belief system. How this evidences your point about atheism and your claims that it is as potent a belief as theist systems are in controlling and motivating, I still can't see.

You just provided me with the example. The motivation worked equally well on atheist and christian alike. Its not like atheists showed any sort of resistance to fear from the religious 'other'.

It's been good chatting with you once again

Likewise.