For (kind-of) Atheists

[RJT]

Does my post above (below) to hmpoker make clearer what I am thinking? If not, I can expand on it.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no reason to believe that religon says anything about this god.

Chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying it does (or does not) either.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that religon and god are entirely independent of each other, so whilst I agree that religon could be invented and god exist…

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point I wanted to emphasis. It seems that in the responses to "4 Atheists" this point was left dangling. That since (if) religion was invented then God does not exist. (And/or that X religion must be bogus.)

RJT

[Lestat]

You could easily be right. I am the WRONG person to be discussing math! -lol

However, I maintain that however you conceptualize it, 1 moon equals 1 moon and not 3 or 4 moons. Whether the numbers 1 through 4 existed or not. With or without man, a moon either exists or it does not. Can the same be said for God and/or religion with or without man?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is no reason to believe that religon says anything about this god.

Chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying it does (or does not) either.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that religon and god are entirely independent of each other, so whilst I agree that religon could be invented and god exist…

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point I wanted to emphasis. It seems that in the responses to "4 Atheists" this point was left dangling. That since (if) religion was invented then God does not exist. (And/or that X religion must be bogus.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you but I think the bogus charge stands against those who claim there belief in god isn't a matter of faith.

As for the original thread, there's so many nasties dangling from it that I've ordered an upgrade to Ockhams chainsaw.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
You could easily be right. I am the WRONG person to be discussing math! -lol

However, I maintain that however you conceptualize it, 1 moon equals 1 moon and not 3 or 4 moons. Whether the numbers 1 through 4 existed or not. With or without man, a moon either exists or it does not. Can the same be said for God and/or religion with or without man?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well certainly the same can be "said" (obviously without man no one can actually "say" it) about God - with or without man He still either exists or not. Religion is moot without man, as is mathematics.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with you but I think the bogus charge stands against those who claim there belief in god isn't a matter of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

We stand united here too.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the original thread, there's so many nasties dangling from it that I've ordered an upgrade to Ockhams chainsaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Next time I go to Home Depot ( a large chain of retail hardware stores in the U.S.) I will see if they have any. I’ll send you one for Christmas if I find a good deal. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

RJT

[Matt R.]

I think the same can be said for God. Religion is definitely a human creation though, therefore it would not exist.

[Lestat]

Yes, religion as a *language* used to discuss the metaphysical makes sense to me. I also see that even if man invented religion, it does not have to follow that God must not exist.

But if you're a theist isn't this a no-brainer, since every other religion (but his), must have been invented in some way to be the incorrect one to follow?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, religion as a *language* used to discuss the metaphysical makes sense to me. I also see that even if man invented religion, it does not have to follow that God must not exist.

But if you're a theist isn't this a no-brainer, since every other religion (but his), must have been invented in some way to be the incorrect one to follow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you restate this? I don’t get your point. Seems a no-brainer whether theist or atheist. Not quite sure what you are saying in the second phrase of your last sentence (from the word since). Could just be that it is late and I am tired.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying, but the one thing that steers me away from this view is that math would still exist whether man had been around to invent it or not. If both math and religion were never invented, math would still exist. The earth would still have 1 moon and not 2. Can the same be said for religion? If religion had never been discovered would it's very nature lend itself to existence? I say no. But I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts if you could argue that religion could exist without discovery or invention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think what you are saying is that math would exist without people, but rather that objective facts that math describes would still hold. (So 1 moon plus 1 moon would still be 2 moons. But this is not a mathematical fact, anymore than 2 + 1 = 1 is a mathematical fact because 2 hydrogren atoms plus 1 oxygen atom produces 1 water molecule. Of course, the laws of addition don't apply in the real world unless we are adding "likes", which is why your first example is fine. It's a physical law that we can add "likes" and what we get satisfies the axioms of addition.)

Without people, religion would not exist, but it's entirely possible for God to exist objectively without people. Presumably if God does exist and humans become extinct, God will continue to exist.

So I don't see the distinction you are trying to get at. Math depends on human choices (what axiomatic systems we study), but physical laws presumably hold without human existence. Religion depends on human choices (what people believe about God), but the existence of an entity having the properties commonly used to define God is presumably possible without human existence.