Responses to a few common arguments

[Innominate]

I wont lie that most of the stuff being talked about is out of my expertise, so the things I say may easily be countered. Not trying to seem stupid, but perhaps Ill get some clarification on things I may or may not be misunderstanding.

It's esoteric philosophy that has no basis in reality. So not being an expert is probably a good thing.

I guess my point is this: why is a shared heritage more important than disagreement about the very nature of the deity they worship?

A little variation of your john example, lets use SG, and you me, and ratc

Say you me and ratc all knew SG only in the forums. It all started off with just the Elements section, and SG was ban happy because of all the n00bs. We all agreed on that. Then SG had a sudden shift of attitude. I think that it isnt SG, and that someone hacked the account, so I start disregarding SG tell people what I think SG's opinion really would be, where as you and ratc just think that  she had a change of heart. The forum then splits into 2 different sections. The wiki and the forum itself. ratc only stuck around in the wiki, and you only stuck around in the forums.  You would get a different view of SG than what ratc got. In reality, they are still the same person, buit because they are dealing with different things, you see different sides.[/quote]
Your example is solid, but there's a caveat: how do we differentiate between one person who has three different perspectives and three different people? Unless we have some method of exclusion (which is harder than you think once you let people be mistaken about their claims) the concept of difference or similarity is mostly meaningless.

Yes, but we aren't competing with three different ideas, but an infinite continuum with infinite dimensionality. For any two non-identical possible deities, there is another possible deity more similar to both of them. We have a super-infinity (aleph2) of possible deities, with an infinity of areas over which they may disagree and no way to decide, unless we do so arbitrarily, which ones are more similar. It isn't a mathematical limitation but a philosophical one.

Actually, I took it as we ARE comparing a finite amount of ideas. We are only talking about established religion. Not something that people randomly made up that has next to no followers aside from the person who created it.

But most people don't follow the religion to the letter. We have 6 and a half billion people on this planet, almost none of whom agree on everything to do with faith or religion. Factor in the (very, very speculative) possibility of 100 billion humans being alive over the ages, and we can see that the number of different religious beliefs ever to have existed must be very large indeed; what's more, those 100 billion might have different views on religion throughout their lives (say as adults compared to children). We can't even assume that one of those 100 billion people would have got it exactly right, or even close to right, because there are so many possible differences that haven't even been considered, and probably never will.

If I had to make a conservative estimate at the number of different combinations of religious ideas humans have ever had, I would say roughly 100 trillion - 1,000 different combinations over the average person's life. This is probably off by very large factor, as it roughly translates into changing your mind about even the most insignificant religious detail only a thousand times. Most people probably change their minds far more than that; the number of details about which to change your mind is of course infinite, though we only consider a finite - but very large - number in our lives.

Eventually, trying to figure out which combinations of religious beliefs have actually been held by a living person and which haven't is not worth it.

Note that I would argue that a survey is not a valid way to decide philosophical matters. Not only is the general public pretty mediocre when it comes to such issues, but upbringing and pre-conceived ideas get in the way. If you ask a group of atheists which is more similar you would find that some of them would laugh and say they didn't really see a difference between any of the three. If you ask a moderate Christian you would probably find they consider their belief more similar to Allah, while a fundamentalist Christian may (again, all of these are simply possible responses) consider both other options equally ridiculous or misguided.

So what WOULD you believe to e a good sample to test out something like this? We are talking about religion and so every person in the world has a bias against it. I think the only way to make it more accurate would be to take it out of context of religion, and try to keep the attributes the same.

The only way to decide philosophical issues is with philosophical reasoning. It might be possible to construct a deductive argument, but people would almost certainly disagree with the premises. Really, it's an issue that can't be decided (barring an extraordinarily persuasive philosophical argument).

I'll sum up my position, since I think I've lost the plot here and there in my other posts on the topic:
We determine whether two entities are the same by finding a characteristic (or set of characteristics) which are uniquely held by that entity. No such set of characteristics exists for deities, or many other things.
Fun fact: we can't even distinguish between different electrons (same with protons, neutrons, etc.). We have no way of knowing whether a given electron is the one we just saw in the same place, or whether another one took its place (assuming that the two were close together anyway). In fact, two types of very different statistical mechanics (Fermi-Dirac statistics and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics) hinge on this point. MB statistics assumes that we can distinguish between particles, while FD statistics assumes that we can't. It turns out that FD statistics correctly describes the distribution of "fermions" (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.), but it approaches MB statistics at high temperatures and low densities, which implies that fermions are in fact indistinguishable when close together.

[BluePriest]

But most people don't follow the religion to the letter. We have 6 and a half billion people on this planet, almost none of whom agree on everything to do with faith or religion. Factor in the (very, very speculative) possibility of 100 billion humans being alive over the ages, and we can see that the number of different religious beliefs ever to have existed must be very large indeed; what's more, those 100 billion might have different views on religion throughout their lives (say as adults compared to children). We can't even assume that one of those 100 billion people would have got it exactly right, or even close to right, because there are so many possible differences that haven't even been considered, and probably never will.

If I had to make a conservative estimate at the number of different combinations of religious ideas humans have ever had, I would say roughly 100 trillion - 1,000 different combinations over the average person's life. This is probably off by very large factor, as it roughly translates into changing your mind about even the most insignificant religious detail only a thousand times. Most people probably change their minds far more than that; the number of details about which to change your mind is of course infinite, though we only consider a finite - but very large - number in our lives.

Eventually, trying to figure out which combinations of religious beliefs have actually been held by a living person and which haven't is not worth it.

but most agree on the main things of what their entity represents. Take for example, all 99% christians would agree using the phrase "God is love" is a good example of God. the reason I say 99% is about 90% of the people that fall into the 1% are just using God to corrupt people, and dont actually believe in him, so they shouldnt be counted.
So we could take all the Jehovah witnesses, Orthodox Christians, Progressive Christians, methodist, pentecostle, and use their opinion, AND I know they will have their own differences within that, but the standard belief is still the same

[Daxx]

the standard belief is still the same

• Manchester United are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
• Everton are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
• Liverpool are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.

Are Manchester United, Everton and Liverpool all the same team?

Taking a number of common qualities amongst a set of things is not proof that those things are the same, or are different reflections of the same platonic form/elephant*. Your argument does not hold because you are relying on bare assertion.

*The converse (that differences mean they are strictly different) may also be untrue, but this is largely irrelevant since to allow for that to be untrue you'd have to accept a number of other premises such as the existence of a "platonic ideal" of religion reflected in all others.

[BluePriest]

• Manchester United are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
• Everton are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.
• Liverpool are the greatest football team on the planet. Their team has 11 players and they have won the cup.

Are Manchester United, Everton and Liverpool all the same team?

Taking a number of common qualities amongst a set of things is not proof that those things are the same, or are different reflections of the same platonic form/elephant*. Your argument does not hold because you are relying on bare assertion.

*The converse (that differences mean they are strictly different) may also be untrue, but this is largely irrelevant since to allow for that to be untrue you'd have to accept a number of other premises such as the existence of a "platonic ideal" of religion reflected in all others.

Here is the problem with your comparison. We are talking football, something with regulated rules, in comparison to religion with no rules. Someone also has to win the Cup, but there is no such similar requirement in religion. We are also looking at many things such as history, and even views that the other religions have about each other.  And also, if many of the players were the same, with a few exceptions in each group, you would consider it almost the exact same team, under a different name. This is the similarity we are talking about.

[Daxx]

Here is the problem with your comparison. We are talking football, something with regulated rules, in comparison to religion with no rules. Someone also has to win the Cup, but there is no such similar requirement in religion. We are also looking at many things such as history, and even views that the other religions have about each other.
Once again i will state for extra emphasis though, that since you are comparing something that HAS to have certain requirements, it does not fit the example. And also, if many of the players were the same, with a few exceptions in each group, you would consider it almost the exact same team, under a different name. This is the similarity we are talking about.

You've completely missed the point. The point is that a thing possesses qualities. Other things may possess similar qualities, but that does not make them the same thing.

[BluePriest]

But you can compare them to TRY to deduct if they ARE the same thing or not. Why nearly refuse to even examine the info to see if it fits? That is what Im wondering. I agree that just because they have similarities it does not mean that they are the same, and as you also pointed out differences dont mean they are different. When looking at murder cases similar things are done though. It may not be an exact science to see if the same person/group did it each time, but it does give a good idea. All that is being pointed out is that there is no harm in doing it as long as you look at the information objectively.

 
Also, as a side point, yes, a rock and a head possess similar qualities. They are both hard solids for example. But we are not just comparing spmething under loose anything goes circumstances. We are talking about religions with similarities that are quite astounding. My post about SG is a perfect example of this. It is not something as abstract as the world, it is actually a very linear comparison that is trying to be made

[Daxx]

We are talking about religions with similarities that are quite astounding.

They're not really that astounding when you realise that many families of religions (the abrahamic religions as an example) share the same mythological roots, and are for the most part derived from each other. It's like being amazed that Catholicism is similar to the Church of England, or that poodles are similar to pit-bulls.

Similarly many other similarities can be explained in the context of convergent memetic evolution and hybridisation. Bear in mind that as memetic structures, religions and mythology are quite susceptible to this sort of thing.

What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?

[ratcharmer]

Thus I am left with 2 possibilities concerning God 1) God exists, at least in some form or 2) half the human race has the same mental illness. Number 2 is actually possible, though  not very reassuring, generally I fall back on other arguments when discussing this possibility.

Whether its comforting or not, the human race has had a series of mental illnesses-war, slavery, tyrannical governments, genocide, child abuse, addiction, starvation, etc.  Luckily, with technology, reason, and discourse most of us don't have to live with those illnesses.  I consider all those disasters as resulting from delusions, so I don't consider it a far stretch for humanity to still be lost in other mental traps, myself not excluded.

Jumping way back to this for a moment, I came across a book that is relevant to this discussion:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oY0nsXwPJ3AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA87&dq=Divorce+rate+religiosity&ots=8x9AjghSsD&sig=fTA-PQ7xp0d00G2GmU9XVR50KWQ#v=onepage&q=Divorce%20rate%20religiosity&f=false

Basically, this book discusses a curious finding that the rates of certain mental illnesses, such as depression & resulting suicide, are significantly lower among religious persons than non-religious persons. Note that it's from Oxford University Press, a reputable source.

On a couple other points that have been brought up semi-recently:

On the discussion over when multiple religions are discussing the same God or not, This is an odd discussion for me because the question literally only exists from an atheistic perspective. The point about being able to tell which object one is referring to by description alone sort of falls apart for hose of us who can/have experienced God more directly.

As to this question posed by innominate:

Fair enough. But how similar do their beliefs have to be for it to be the same God? If a hypothetical (and possibly crazy) Christian believes that Jesus was Zeus' son and Yahweh killed him in a fit of rage, does that mean he still believes in the same God?

Suppose a hypothetical (and possibly crazy) person believes that I am actually the earthly embodiment of a superior being from the planet Venus. Are they still talking about me? Yes. Are they correct? No.

As to the discussion of belief in fairies versus belief in God:

If I were to see a fairy, or strong evidence of fairies, I would believe in them. I haven't. I cannot completely and conclusively rule out the existence of fairies, but I have decided it is unlikely. I have not given the evidence for/against fairies much consideration, because at the end of the day it has very little bearing on how I live my life. Thus it does not particularly matter if I am wrong on this account.

Yes there are eyewitness accounts of fairies, but they're several orders of magnitude rarer than religious experiences, and are in fact rare enough they could easily be accounted for by either mental illness, pranks, or simply making up stories.

[BluePriest]

What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?

Ratcharmer actually already answered that in his very first post of the thread...

[Daxx]

What specific similarities would you hold out as being examples of "these two religions are clearly different facets of the same thing"?

Ratcharmer actually already answered that in his very first post of the thread...

Can you quote them for me? I just went to check - maybe because it's late, but I couldn't find them.

Actually, you've inspired me to rebut that post, it's full of errors in reasoning.

[Daxx]

I realise these may have been addressed earlier in the thread, but I wanted to make a clean break.

Burden of proof arguments

Actually, you're misinterpreting the way that the burden of proof is actually used in a logical sense - that is, the burden is on the person making an affirmative statement. It's not semantics, it's actually an important logical principle. Hence, Russell's Teapot (which, as I'll explain later, you haven't actually refuted).

If a theist wishes to propose the existence of his god, then they are making an affirmative statement. Atheism in its weak form is actually just a passive position that makes no assertions. In fact, strong atheism actually makes very little logical sense because it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore, since the theist must make an affirmative statement about the existence of their god, the atheist simply needs to reject their proposed proof in order to demonstrate that the theist's claims are untrue.

Further, the existence of God is often (in my experience, always) presented as an unfalsifiable and untestable position. The "god of the gaps" has no actual meaning when you are continually reducing the gaps and yet finding nothing. If you cannot test for something it makes no sense to talk about it as a statement that relates to actuality, let alone the practices of organised religion.

Furthermore, if you will not reject the notion of god based on the lack of proof, then you must also accept the existence of other things with similar amounts of "proof", such as the existence of ghosts, the soul, the Greek Pantheon, muses, angels, spirit auras, Allah, Thor, Odin, the invisible pink unicorn and so on. This quickly demonstrates how flawed this position is.

It sounds ridiculous

You would be right that to reject an idea purely on the grounds that it is "ridiculous" is not sound. However, an important principle in rational skepticism is that the more outlandish or ridiculous the claim, the more evidence you are going to need to support it. For example, if I tell you that I am typing at my laptop in my girlfriend's kitchen to write this post, you probably don't need to bother gathering a lot of evidence to support that claim. However, if I tell you that I am in fact typing this post by patching through the British Telecom system from a spaceship orbiting a little-known moon of Sesefras Magna*, it might take more proof to convince you.

Carl Sagan's quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", which paraphrases Hume's Maxim ("No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish"), is an important tool to consider when looking at the world. Check out this link (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/01/extraordinary-c.html) for a more in-depth discussion of this idea.

*Kudos to anyone who gets this reference.

Historical contradictions

If there is a direct contradiction between two events (for example, the Genesis account(s) and what science has established about the history of the world), then one account or the other is incorrect. Perhaps not entirely incorrect (as, you mention, with courtroom testimony), but on the details one must be correct and the other incorrect. You cannot have two mutually incompatible accounts that are both entirely accurate. If you want to modify the literalism of the biblical accounts, then you're guilty of special pleading.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn

As I've already pointed out in the other thread, this is argumentum ad populum and hence a logical fallacy. Russell's Teapot stands.

[Belthus]

Atheism in its weak form is actually just a passive position that makes no assertions. In fact, strong atheism actually makes very little logical sense because it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.

I have a problem with the weak/strong distinction. It exists only for the purpose of justifying one's position, but it doesn't correspond to a difference in internal state. In their brains, people do not go around making distinctions between not believing that there is a pink elephant on their shoulders and believing that there is not a pink elephant on their shoulders. The first may be more defensible in conversation, but the two are equivalent in organismic terms.

Suppose you sneak up on a man, yell "Boo!," and the man is startled. Did the man not believe you were behind him or did he believe that you were not behind him? It's a mere word game. The man's internal representation of reality did not include you being behind him.