Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

We are doomed if people cannot agree on even the most fundamental aspects of reality, which is all science is. If science isn't valid, then nothing is aside from the noise in our skulls. Fake moon landing. Flat Earth. Anti-vax. Evolution denial. The list goes on. It's pure hubris - the notion that a nation of people can create their own reality. Let's see how that nation competes with others who take reality seriously.

Science is valid, but it cannot be empirically demonstrated. What "pure hubris" is the belief that it's the arbiter of truth.

-- Updated November 23rd, 2017, 10:28 pm to add the following --

I meant to say, "What's "pure hubris" is the belief that it's the arbiter of truth."

-- Updated November 23rd, 2017, 10:33 pm to add the following --

“Not-knowing” is a state of mind, the mother of openness, questioning, authenticity, and freedom. It's not a pretense to self-congratulatory ignorance. Its nature is consciousness without form, possibility without limit, honesty without distortion. Not-knowing is a natural and healthy aspect of being alive, but in our scientific and evidence-dependent culture we have no foundation upon which to understand it.

The self-congratulatory “I don't know” put forward by many atheists is not the Socratic kind of not-knowing, but applied superficiality because consciously or unconsciously, we all have a conceptual frame of reference that allows us to make sense of the world. Placing ourselves in a negative relationship to the structure that is, for us, fundamentally true is a very silly and damaging thing to do. To go through life as though self-congratulatory ignorance is good and not-knowing is bad leaves us with an aberrant relationship to our own condition.

The unwillingness to expose one's conceptual frame to challenge by retreating into feigned non-belief, very common in forums such as this, is cowardice; ignorance of one's conceptual frame is the very definition of self-ignorance and superficiality. Nowadays, it's social norm. Confidence in one's conceptual frame is is considered to be “closed-mindedness,” “intolerance,” “irrational obstinance,” “bigotry” or even “hate.”

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

The problem is theists do not even speculate, but they take a groundless leap of faith, stop infinite regression and assert with certainty there is a first cause, i.e. God at the other end who has created reality.

Its interesting that you phrase theistic reasoning as a "problem". I agree that their reasoning includes faith, but I don't see why you define that as a "problem" in what sense is it a problem? I also think that there is grounding to a theist's reasoning, as their reasoning is usually based upon a particular framework of "God", not something that they simply invent, like an imaginary friend. I'm not saying that any frameworks of God are correct, but I don't think that "groundless leap of faith" correctly describes a theist's reasoning, as many theists are intelligent people – who may think they have credible reasons for their beliefs. We can dismiss their claims, because they are not supported by evidence, but that does not automatically mean that their reasons for belief are groundless.

Problem = any question or matter involving doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/problem

Basically I meant the theistic ideas [or frameworks] are problematic, i.e. there is something that is not right about them.
This initial claim of being problematic is confirmed by the real problems of evils, terror, violence committed by the evil prone theists of certain theistic ideology [especially Islam] when they are inspired by immutable evil laden verses from their so-claimed 'real' God.

You cannot generalize 'intelligence.'
According to Gardner, human intelligence is multi-varied, i.e. has multiple intelligence.
To be more serious, general intelligence must be analyzed and categorized into specific intelligence, e.g. linguistic and mathematical [IQ], Spiritual Intelligence [SQ], Emotional Intelligence [EQ], Moral Intelligence [MQ]. Religious Intelligence [RQ] etc.
Thus a person may have very high IQ but not necessary has high EQ, e.g. the psychopaths.

In the case of theists, they do not have high Religious Intelligence and Psychological Intelligence as compared to the non-theistic religionists like Buddhism.

It is correct that theists believe in a first cause, but that is understandable given the nature of infinite regression, a never ending sequence of causes is counter-intuitive. I understand your views on theism, but your comments towards theists seem quite insulting of their intelligence, whilst conversely, you hold to have proven things through logical arguments. There's a dynamic to your comments which makes it seem as though you think that theists are somehow inferior. Is that the case here?

Basically I respect the basic human dignity of all individuals regardless whether they are theists or not. So there is no question of 'inferiority' on this basis.

Yes, for comparative and higher utility purpose for humanity based on criteria for net positive progress, I believe [with evidence and objectively] theistic beliefs [e.g. Abrahamic] are VERY inferior to non-theistic beliefs [e.g Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism].

Frankly theists are insulting their own overall intelligence by believing in an illusory God as real and not being aware they are driven by psychological reasons ["zombie parasites"] within their psyche.
Buddhism [& others], having higher Religious Intelligence is well aware of the inherent psychological basis and deal with the problem on a religio-psychological basis.

-- Updated Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:54 pm to add the following --

We are doomed if people cannot agree on even the most fundamental aspects of reality, which is all science is. If science isn't valid, then nothing is aside from the noise in our skulls. Fake moon landing. Flat Earth. Anti-vax. Evolution denial. The list goes on. It's pure hubris - the notion that a nation of people can create their own reality. Let's see how that nation competes with others who take reality seriously.

Science is valid, but it cannot be empirically demonstrated.

I meant to say, "What's "pure hubris" is the belief that it's the arbiter of truth."

In general, I don't see Greta insisting on Scientism, i.e. Science is the ONLY WAY.

Science is only an arbiter of truth qualified solely to its framework. As Popper has stated, scientific 'truths' are merely "polished conjectures." The strength of Science is its objectivity, testability, repeatability, verifiability, UTILITY [double-edged], etc. but Science is always limited to the limits of the human-made Framework it is conditioned upon.

What we need is to have strong reinforcement for all frameworks of truth, i.e. that reinforcement is Philosophy-proper.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

The purpose of Philosophy-proper is to keep questioning but it is always grounded on the empirical.

The problem with theism is it claim itself to be absolute and know God exists as real thus has no room for Philosophy-proper at all.

The fact is theism is groundless [empirically] and the only ground it has is the individual's psychological existential crisis.

“Not-knowing” is a state of mind, the mother of openness, questioning, authenticity, and freedom. It's not a pretense to self-congratulatory ignorance. Its nature is consciousness without form, possibility without limit, honesty without distortion. Not-knowing is a natural and healthy aspect of being alive, but in our scientific and evidence-dependent culture we have no foundation upon which to understand it.

If you are praising 'not-knowing' so much, why do you claim to know God exists as real.

It appears Greta being an agnostic is living the 'not knowing' maxim more that your certainty of knowing God exists as real.

[Dark Matter]

Science is only an arbiter of truth qualified solely to its framework. As Popper has stated, scientific 'truths' are merely "polished conjectures." The strength of Science is its objectivity, testability, repeatability, verifiability, UTILITY [double-edged], etc. but Science is always limited to the limits of the human-made Framework it is conditioned upon.

What we need is to have strong reinforcement for all frameworks of truth, i.e. that reinforcement is Philosophy-proper.

So when do you plan on practicing "philosophy proper"?

The purpose of Philosophy-proper is to keep questioning but it is always grounded on the empirical.

Experience doesn't count, eh?

The problem with theism is it claim itself to be absolute and know God exists as real thus has no room for Philosophy-proper at all.

Your problem is that your head is so full of your silly beliefs that you can't pay attention to what's being said.

The fact is theism is groundless [empirically] and the only ground it has is the individual's psychological existential crisis.

All that yapping about "existential crisis" and you've provided not one shred of empirical evidence. On the other hand, there is empirical that religious experience is real.

If you are praising 'not-knowing' so much, why do you claim to know God exists as real.

This is proof positive you haven't been paying attention.

It appears Greta being an agnostic is living the 'not knowing' maxim more that your certainty of knowing God exists as real.

Is it? Or is it retreating into feigned non-belief? After all, people don’t talk about things they don’t have any beliefs about. If I were to guess, I'd say both you and Greta would rather believe in magic than entertain the idea that consciousness-intelligence is fundamental. Why? I think it's because you have too much time and energy invested is your own beliefs to risk being open to other possibilities.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

Basically I meant the theistic ideas [or frameworks] are problematic, i.e. there is something that is not right about them.
This initial claim of being problematic is confirmed by the real problems of evils, terror, violence committed by the evil prone theists of certain theistic ideology [especially Islam] when they are inspired by immutable evil laden verses from their so-claimed 'real' God.

I agree that theistic ideas and frameworks encounter a lot of problems, how they relate to reality being a major one. I also agree that the violent acts committed as a result of religion are a problem. However, I would add that human beings can be violent and commit evils that are not related to theistic beliefs. If we follow your ideal and remove religions from humanity, it does not necessarily mean that the problem of evil will "magically" disappear.

You cannot generalize 'intelligence.'
According to Gardner, human intelligence is multi-varied, i.e. has multiple intelligence.
To be more serious, general intelligence must be analyzed and categorized into specific intelligence, e.g. linguistic and mathematical [IQ], Spiritual Intelligence [SQ], Emotional Intelligence [EQ], Moral Intelligence [MQ]. Religious Intelligence [RQ] etc.
Thus a person may have very high IQ but not necessary has high EQ, e.g. the psychopaths.

I agree. Intelligence can be separated into different categories as you've done, but if I say that someone is intelligent, you have a general idea of what I mean.

In the case of theists, they do not have high Religious Intelligence and Psychological Intelligence as compared to the non-theistic religionists like Buddhism.

I don't think that someone's beliefs are a direct indicator of their intelligence. You're generalising here.

Theists do use their intelligence to infer God exists, but that is based on primal &
very instinctual[kindergarten] intelligence of reason and logic. Note such kind of logic and reasoning are used by most animals. Theists rely on such low level intelligence to deal with their psychological problem - angst.

This is not right in my opinion. I agree that theism can be a coping mechanism, but it does not indicate a low level of intelligence.

Basically I respect the basic human dignity of all individuals regardless whether they are theists or not. So there is no question of 'inferiority' on this basis.

Your comments do not convey that view.

Yes, for comparative and higher utility purpose for humanity based on criteria for net positive progress, I believe [with evidence and objectively] theistic beliefs [e.g. Abrahamic] are VERY inferior to non-theistic beliefs [e.g Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism].

That is a matter of opinion, depending upon what you define as superior and inferior.

"insulting of their intelligence" ???
Re the above, which intelligence?
I believe objectively theists has lower Religious* Intelligence than non-theistic religionists.
I am not comparing Spiritual Intelligence which would be much lower for theists.
Why should someone feel insulted if the assessment is done objectively.

You can't see why this would be insulting? What is an objective belief?

Frankly theists are insulting their own overall intelligence by believing in an illusory God as real and not being aware they are driven by psychological reasons ["zombie parasites"] within their psyche. 
Buddhism [& others], having higher Religious Intelligence is well aware of the inherent psychological basis and deal with the problem on a religio-psychological basis.

I don't agree. There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in "God". The existence of God is inconclusive, so both belief and non-belief are reasonable in my opinion. I don't think that having belief is insulting to a person's intelligence or that Buddhism is superior to theism (in what respects?). I think that all religions fulfil a need and provide a framework for people to look towards something greater than ourselves or our carnal nature. They have different methodologies and practices, but the net goal is seemingly to nurture the human spirit.

[Spectrum]

If we follow your ideal and remove religions from humanity, it does not necessarily mean that the problem of evil will "magically" disappear.

As I had stated ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and a certain % has active evil tendencies and they will commit all types of evil acts.
Out of 100% of evil acts there is a % [say 30%] of evil acts that are related to religions. I believe 80% of these are related to Islam, thus the focus should be to deal with Islam.

It is only logical [theoretically] if we remove all religions, then we will have 30% less evil acts.
As for the other 70% we will have to deal and reduce them appropriately under their various categories, e.g. drugs, petty crimes, gangs, corruption, political, social, etc..

I agree. Intelligence can be separated into different categories as you've done, but if I say that someone is intelligent, you have a general idea of what I mean.

In general yes, that is normally reference to IQ. But in this case of reference when you link IQ to Religious Intelligence, then we have to be specific. A person of high IQ can be spiritually stupid.

In the case of theists, they do not have high Religious Intelligence and Psychological Intelligence as compared to the non-theistic religionists like Buddhism.

I don't think that someone's beliefs are a direct indicator of their intelligence. You're generalising here.

Note I am comparing Religious Intelligence not IQ [logical linguistic Intelligence].

Theists do use their intelligence to infer God exists, but that is based on primal &
very instinctual[kindergarten] intelligence of reason and logic. Note such kind of logic and reasoning are used by most animals. Theists rely on such low level intelligence to deal with their psychological problem - angst.

This is not right in my opinion. I agree that theism can be a coping mechanism, but it does not indicate a low level of intelligence.

Yes, for comparative and higher utility purpose for humanity based on criteria for net positive progress, I believe [with evidence and objectively] theistic beliefs [e.g. Abrahamic] are VERY inferior to non-theistic beliefs [e.g Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism].

That is a matter of opinion, depending upon what you define as superior and inferior.

Re why the Abrahamic Religions are inferior in terms of Religious Intelligence, note this thread I raised earlier;

Abrahamic Religions are Inferior ..
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=11732

Basically I respect the basic human dignity of all individuals regardless whether they are theists or not. So there is no question of 'inferiority' on this basis.

Your comments do not convey that view.

Note I stated on the basis of basic human dignity, I respect all humans as equal.
Objectively I argued the Abrahamic Religions are inferior to Buddhism.

"insulting of their intelligence" ???
Re the above, which intelligence?
I believe objectively theists has lower Religious* Intelligence than non-theistic religionists.
I am not comparing Spiritual Intelligence which would be much lower for theists.
Why should someone feel insulted if the assessment is done objectively.

You can't see why this would be insulting? What is an objective belief?

Note the thread I raised where I made an objective comparison.

Again,
Abrahamic Religions are Inferior ..
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=11732

Frankly theists are insulting their own overall intelligence by believing in an illusory God as real and not being aware they are driven by psychological reasons ["zombie parasites"] within their psyche. 
Buddhism [& others], having higher Religious Intelligence is well aware of the inherent psychological basis and deal with the problem on a religio-psychological basis.

I don't agree. There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in "God". The existence of God is inconclusive, so both belief and non-belief are reasonable in my opinion. I don't think that having belief is insulting to a person's intelligence or that Buddhism is superior to theism (in what respects?). I think that all religions fulfil a need and provide a framework for people to look towards something greater than ourselves or our carnal nature. They have different methodologies and practices, but the net goal is seemingly to nurture the human spirit.

Note again the objective comparison I have made between the Eastern Religions and the Abrahamic Religions.
The issue here is while the Abrahamic Religions do has utility for the majority of people, they have the side effects of having immutable evil laden verses which inspire SOME of their evil prone believers to commit evil acts. This is so evident at present in reference to Islam and relatively of very lesser degrees from Christians and Jews.

[Fanman]

Spectrum:

It is only logical [theoretically] if we remove all religions, then we will have 30% less evil acts.

I don't think its that arbitrary. The people who commit religious evils, in the absence of religion, may still commit evils, only not related to religion. In the sense that, you can remove the vehicle of their evil acts, but the nature or inclination of evil still remains.

In general yes, that is normally reference to IQ. But in this case of reference when you link IQ to Religious Intelligence, then we have to be specific. A person of high IQ can be spiritually stupid.

I agree.

Note I stated on the basis of basic human dignity, I respect all humans as equal.
Objectively I argued the Abrahamic Religions are inferior to Buddhism.

That's fair enough. You're entitled to have your views, its just that you make it seem so arbitrary. Whereas I think the difference is not in terms of inferiority or superiority, but in different ideologies and practices. I don't clearly see how you can call your argument objective, as you eschew the Abrahamic religions, but see value in Buddhism. I think its difficult to be completely objective when you have such strong feelings about the subjects.

Note again the objective comparison I have made between the Eastern Religions and the Abrahamic Religions.
The issue here is while the Abrahamic Religions do has utility for the majority of people, they have the side effects of having immutable evil laden verses which inspire SOME of their evil prone believers to commit evil acts. This is so evident at present in reference to Islam and relatively of very lesser degrees from Christians and Jews.

Personally, I don't think the religion itself is solely to blame. Its the nature of the people who use it as a vehicle to commit atrocities. Many systems (including secular systems) can be manipulated to serve malevolent purposes. For me, these occurrences of terror are more about political issues, than belief in God.

[Dark Matter]

I posted these excerpts in the 'God is an impossibility' thread, but it's just as relevant here.

The Chinese have a saying: Paradox and Confusion are guardians of the truth. Why would they say that? Because what is true, especially what is Absolutely True, is not restricted to what’s intellectually comprehensible or logical. It is only restricted to being what it is. Since what’s true exists as its own nature and not that of our minds or our intellect, we may well be stopped by an apparent paradox, or be confused by what we encounter. To experience the truth, we must be willing to experience whatever is so, whether or not it fits within the bounds of our logic or our beliefs. The truth often lies in unexpected places. How can we approach the truth if we are not completely open?

...As an idea, “openness” remains stuck in the intellect. There, it might be entertained, approved of, or fantasized about—and sometimes conveniently rearranged whenever the reality gets a bit scary—but since it isn’t grounded in one’s experience, this conceptual-openness eventually reveals itself as hollow and pretentious. People who adopt only a belief in openness tend to become superficial. They may have a broadminded philosophical stance, but this openmindedness floats in the abstract world of beliefs. This is openness without groundedness.

...On the other hand, there is groundedness without openness. When people are grounded but not open, it shows up as being “closed-minded.” They have a position that works for them, and they don’t plan to budge from it. They cannot have breakthroughs or transform because they are unwilling to challenge their own opinions and unable to detect their own dishonesty. “This is the way it is. I know the way the world works.” They may be closed-minded, but they’re very grounded. That’s groundedness without openness.

...These two extremes are simply complementary dynamics that need balancing, especially in our investigation of what’s true. We can guard against being intellectually abstract or airy-fairy, and also avoid being closedminded or stuck. We can go for a real experience, and be open to whatever is true.

...An experience of openness has a quality of uncertainty to it. If we’re used to a frozen and predictable idea of openness, then by contrast the experience of openness will seem indeterminate, indefinable, and perhaps a bit scary. This is because experience is alive and exists only in the present. As an experience, openness is whatever it “is,” and we don’t know exactly what will arise.

To counteract the tendency to float in abstract worlds or to ignore what’s real in our experience, we need to be grounded—which is to be real, committed to something, clearly standing on authentic insights and effective distinctions. Maintaining the balance of grounded openness allows us to explore, to be creative, to make breakthroughs, and entertain radical possibilities without becoming pretentious, abstract, or lightweight.

The tendency to be open without being grounded,or to be grounded without being open, is present for all of us. Some people may engage more dramatically in one or the other, but each of us needs to remain sensitive and attentive to the dynamics involved. The tendencies will continue far past any clarity we achieve in this matter, and past any resolutions we might make about it. Like walking a tightrope, one can’t simply put a foot down and that’s the end of it. Balancing is a constant activity within any changing circumstance. Life and learning are always changing circumstances.

The issue of balancing groundedness with openness comes up in many aspects of life, and at every turn of our investigations. When the two are in balance, we find that we can attain our most genuine experience. Any growth or change is dictated by a conscious experience of what’s true, rather than by intellectual fabrications. Our growth is genuine, and our experience deepens. In this way, our investigations are empowered to become as real and as far-reaching as possible.

-- Peter Ralston, The Book of Not Knowing

"By love he may be gotten and holden, by thought never" is an expression of grounded openness: it is to be real, committed to something, clearly standing on authentic insights and effective distinctions.

[Scribbler60]

Note again the objective comparison I have made between the Eastern Religions and the Abrahamic Religions.
The issue here is while the Abrahamic Religions do has utility for the majority of people, they have the side effects of having immutable evil laden verses which inspire SOME of their evil prone believers to commit evil acts. This is so evident at present in reference to Islam and relatively of very lesser degrees from Christians and Jews.

Personally, I don't think the religion itself is solely to blame. Its the nature of the people who use it as a vehicle to commit atrocities. Many systems (including secular systems) can be manipulated to serve malevolent purposes. For me, these occurrences of terror are more about political issues, than belief in God.

It may be that religion is not solely to blame in some circumstances, but it is clear that religion is fully to blame in some others.

For instance, the ongoing fracas about the existence of Israel. Both sides - Israeli and Arab - are entrenched in their positions because they believe they have a God- or Allah-given right to certain territories.

The fact that both sides often say that God and Allah are the same entity forces the question: if so, why can't God/Allah get his story straight?

There will never be peace in the Middle East until all parties involved come to the realization that they god/allah that they pray to is non-existent, and neither side has a divine right to anything.

As well, it's often been said that "without God, all things are possible." While that may be a very nice quote, it betrays an ignorance of history. If one believes that they have a god on their side, they can rationalize anything, up to and including murder and genocide. It's in the news even today, as Ratko Mladić was found guilty of war crimes. To this day, he believes (or at least he says he believes) that he was doing God's work. Hitler said the same.

A believer should be wondering, "Where was God in all this, anyway?" Sadly, most don't ask the question because they are fearful of the answer.

[Fanman]

Scribbler60:

It may be that religion is not solely to blame in some circumstances, but it is clear that religion is fully to blame in some others.

I agree in principle, but to my perception there's always politics and power-struggles that underlie human affairs. Religion is a very good vehicle for obtaining power over others. As well as giving status to its popular adherents.

For instance, the ongoing fracas about the existence of Israel. Both sides - Israeli and Arab - are entrenched in their positions because they believe they have a God- or Allah-given right to certain territories.

I agree.

The fact that both sides often say that God and Allah are the same entity forces the question: if so, why can't God/Allah get his story straight?

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe God is too busy governing and directing the affairs of mankind to be concerned about the affairs and direction of mankind .

There will never be peace in the Middle East until all parties involved come to the realization that they god/allah that they pray to is non-existent, and neither side has a divine right to anything.

They will never acknowledge that, and I don't think its because they lack sophistication. I just don't think people would abandon something which gives them power and/or privileges. If people believe they're entitled to something, they're usually willing to fight for it.

As well, it's often been said that "without God, all things are possible." While that may be a very nice quote, it betrays an ignorance of history. If one believes that they have a god on their side, they can rationalize anything, up to and including murder and genocide. It's in the news even today, as Ratko Mladić was found guilty of war crimes. To this day, he believes (or at least he says he believes) that he was doing God's work. Hitler said the same.

I agree that people justify their actions by claiming that they're doing the will of God. That is one of the major flaws of the Abrahamic religions – the prejudice against other types of people. The tribal aspect hinders holistic progression.

A believer should be wondering, "Where was God in all this, anyway?" Sadly, most don't ask the question because they are fearful of the answer.

I agree. When some theists beliefs are challenged by reality in a way that contradicts scripture, reality has to adapt to the beliefs, not the other way around.

[Dark Matter]

I agree. When some theists beliefs are challenged by reality in a way that contradicts scripture, reality has to adapt to the beliefs, not the other way around.

The same is true for many non-theists. Multiverse theory is prime example of inventing a theory to fit a belief rather than the evidence. There's a saying: "New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because the proponents of old ideas die off."

This is an interesting article. Why We Desire But Reject Creative Ideas Here's an excerpt:

The results of both studies demonstrated a negative bias toward creativity (relative to practicality) when participants experienced uncertainty. Furthermore, the bias against creativity interfered with participants’ ability to recognize a creative idea. These results reveal a concealed barrier that creative actors may face as they attempt to gain acceptance for their novel ideas.

This seems to suggest that Spectrum's closed mindedness, bias, hate and skepticism is because he is uncertain of what he asserts.

[Fanman]

DM:

The same is true for many non-theists. Multiverse theory is prime example of inventing a theory to fit a belief rather than the evidence. There's a saying: "New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because the proponents of old ideas die off."

I think that may be possible, but scientific theories undergo stringent testing and falsifying before they can be called credible. I don't know enough about the Multiverse theory to comment.

This seems to suggest that Spectrum's closed mindedness, bias, hate and skepticism is because he is uncertain of what he asserts.

Spectrum uncertain of what he asserts? A man who claims to have proven that God cannot exist? Uncertain is not a word I'd associate with the fellow.

[Dark Matter]

DM:

The same is true for many non-theists. Multiverse theory is prime example of inventing a theory to fit a belief rather than the evidence. There's a saying: "New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because the proponents of old ideas die off."

I think that may be possible, but scientific theories undergo stringent testing and falsifying before they can be called credible. I don't know enough about the Multiverse theory to comment.

This seems to suggest that Spectrum's closed mindedness, bias, hate and skepticism is because he is uncertain of what he asserts.

Spectrum uncertain of what he asserts? A man who claims to have proven that God cannot exist? Uncertain is not a word I'd associate with the fellow.

Yeah. Ironic, ain’t it? Fanaticism is often fueled by self-doubt.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

It is only logical [theoretically] if we remove all religions, then we will have 30% less evil acts.

I don't think its that arbitrary. The people who commit religious evils, in the absence of religion, may still commit evils, only not related to religion. In the sense that, you can remove the vehicle of their evil acts, but the nature or inclination of evil still remains.

I wonder why you cannot see my point.
It is not efficient when you try to generalize and conflate things that can be specifically identified.

As I had stated ALL humans has the potential to commit a wide range of evil and some are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency. Those born with an inherent active evil tendency [evil prone] will commit evils when triggered by a wide range of evil laden stimuli.

One of the stimulus are those immutable evil laden elements contained in some religions are stimuli that triggered their evil prone theists to commit evil acts in the name of God in the belief it is their divine duty to do "good" to gain merits from God.

As I had stated these religious triggered evils are very significant at present thus humanity must strive to prevent, reduced or get rid of it.

Of course, because humans has the potential for evils in general, getting rid of the religious stimuli will not eliminate all evil, humans will continue to commit other type of non-religious evils.
Elsewhere I have mentioned, besides dealing with the evil laden elements, humanity must also addressed those with evil tendencies, i.e. de-activate or modulate such tendencies from the neuro-psychological or psychiatric perspectives. Given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge I am optimistic this can be done in the far future after we have defanged theism.

Your excuse seem to like this;
Since humans has the potential to suffer all sorts of diseases, curing cancer is useless because a person who is cured of cancer may suffer other critical or common disease.

Note I stated on the basis of basic human dignity, I respect all humans as equal.
Objectively I argued the Abrahamic Religions are inferior to Buddhism.

That's fair enough. You're entitled to have your views, its just that you make it seem so arbitrary. Whereas I think the difference is not in terms of inferiority or superiority, but in different ideologies and practices. I don't clearly see how you can call your argument objective, as you eschew the Abrahamic religions, but see value in Buddhism. I think its difficult to be completely objective when you have such strong feelings about the subjects.

Btw, I am not a Buddhist per se, except I have an inclination towards the relevant core principle. Besides I am using Buddhism as a simple reference when avoiding have to list all the other similar Eastern Religions.

As for my critique of religions especially Islam, my focus [not my feelings] is very strong in relation to the degree of evils that Islam has committed on humanity since the past, the present and is a serious threat in the future. This is very objective as the evils are very objective based on empirical evidence.

Note again the objective comparison I have made between the Eastern Religions and the Abrahamic Religions.
The issue here is while the Abrahamic Religions do has utility for the majority of people, they have the side effects of having immutable evil laden verses which inspire SOME of their evil prone believers to commit evil acts. This is so evident at present in reference to Islam and relatively of very lesser degrees from Christians and Jews.

Personally, I don't think the religion itself is solely to blame. Its the nature of the people who use it as a vehicle to commit atrocities. Many systems (including secular systems) can be manipulated to serve malevolent purposes. For me, these occurrences of terror are more about political issues, than belief in God.

My thesis is religious-based terrors, violence and evils are due to the following critical root causes;

• 1. Theists who are unfortunately born [so not their fault] with an evil tendencies.
  2. Immutable evil laden element 'commanded' by God in the holy texts

We cannot blindly blame theists who are unfortunately born with an evil tendencies. We need to address this problem but this is difficult [because it DNA, RNA and neural based] and need knowledge, technology and time [next 100 years].

Both 1 and 2 are not easy problems to deal with, but it would be relative easier to deal with the stimuli [religious evil laden element] that trigger those unfortunate souls who are born with evil tendencies.

Note there are lots of research to link evil laden material in various medias and human activities to vulnerable children and even adults. This is why there is censorship or banning of certain evil laden materials.
The problem is the majority of humans are very blind to the evil laden elements in religions [especially Islam] that trigger unfortunate souls who are evil prone to commit terrible evils in the name of God as divine duty to get assurance of their salvation with eternal life in heaven.

I see you have lack expertise in Problem Solving techniques where the critical approaches are

• 1. to break down the problem down to its smallest parts,
  2. trace the root causes and
  3. review each specific problem in the wider whole view.

[Dark Matter]

It is fair to say that Spectrum does a great favor for theism by showing the incoherence of atheism.

[Jklint]

Even those who believe aren't in a position to explain god; they can only imagine one as though it were the main protagonist in a novel thus denoting all gods as fictional entities.