1. That sums up what I believe fwiw.
2. Why? I , like millions of others, don't believe in a god, feel no need to subscribe to any type of religion, but am not as a result nationalistic or anything else in particular.
3. You seem to be ascribing to all human beings some need to be part of some organised entity or belief system.
Why can the individual not simply be content to live his/her life enjoying what is, making the best of the hard bits, and doing what they can to behave in a morally and ethically justifiable way? (such morals being derived from a societal consensus of what is required to keep any group of people behaving in a way which is acceptable to one another, not at all derived from any sort of dictate in the Bible or other religious tome.)
4. Perhaps some of us are just boringly prosaic, lack the intellectual compulsion to look for some esoteric meaning of life other than that which we experience day to day, and are content enough to believe in ourselves without dependence on some institution or so called higher power.
5. Having not accepted your initial premise, no.
I, for one, would be very happy if religion were to be eradicated.
I do not, however, hold out any hope for any such outcome.
6. Sure, but by no means everyone.
That's not to downplay the interest of such a discussion as this, even though it will inevitably go round in circles.
1. My personal view is that this is probably closer to the truth than not. But I want my views tested (not saying you should or need to). They have been. I still can't call the arm wrestle over...so I have this fuzzy region of belief that I cannot close. This belief set does not involve any of the organized religions for me. It doesn't enter my head 360 days a year. The last five have used up the 2014/15 credit.
2. The context may not have been clear. I mean that, even in the absence of religion, war would be waged in some other name. It doesn't have to be nationalism pe se. But when societies cleave, they take on very strong identities on some basis that is meaningful to them. This helps create a strong us/them that is necessary for violence to be sustained en masse. We have argued that religion is one basis on which this occurs. Yes. I am arguing that something else would just pop up in the absence of religion. Given 1. It is more likely that war arises because the society desires/requires it and religion is used as rationale in some cases. Nationalism in others...and so on.
3. No. I probably come across that way though. Perhaps it is because I am arguing both sides of the debate. For me, this is an exploration rather than attempting to stake a winning flag down somewhere. I do not believe all humans need a formal religion. That is totally against my general observations. It would also be a violation of my own personal situation. In an increasingly secular society, it is clear this is not the case. Nonetheless, I do respect the right of others to believe as they wish...subject to not harming others. I do not think they are wrong to believe in a higher being of some sort. I think the application of science to the debate has limitations, whilst acknowledging its validity in many fields including this one. When religion is twisted into despicable acts, it saddens me. But is that human nature or religion? Which is the cause? Would things really be better if we replaced one institution with another? We can eradicate one institution or we can aim to repair it in the knowledge that bringing down one edifice will only see another spring up to fill the vacuum which will eventually be corrupted. I do not know. We will never have the counterfactual in my lifetime. Knowing that, we can debate ferociously because none of us can definitively be proven wrong. Welcome to the cauldron!
Morality is a difficult question. We know what we mean. I'll just use something I picked up along the way. Acceptable norms of behavior within the context of a society as self-identified (how's that for total BS?
). But how do you get it? I think something like a democratic, secular, system has the best chance. But that's in total ignorance of what other social systems might be superior that have yet to come to light. Least worst..blah.
4. You are fortunate indeed. I hope you enjoyed the warmth of the sun and the wind around you today. You will live a long long time. Me, I spent all day on this thread and couldn't put it down. I saw no sun and felt no wind. If this keeps up, I won't need to defer consumption from capital for a future period.
5. Just mucking about. But if you do not believe in the core aspects of religion, then the choice to tear down the edifice of religion should ultimately create something else that is essentially religion in a different name given our propensity to self generate this type of institution. After all, if we take your position in 1. we generated it in the first place and have created other institutions capable of despicable acts too.
6. Just enough voters or benefactors that want these answers to get funding! The debate will certainly go around in circles, but perhaps a little slower than particles in the Large Haldron Super-collider. There is no answer. My point here was mainly to highlight that there are very real limits to science's ability to disprove the existence of a higher being. If one is asked to justify the existence of one, then it seems reasonable to that the onus is placed on the opposing position too if they want to claim the superior vantage point. In terms of the scientific apologists, this question is not in the same class as Dawkin's orbital teacup as it is a fundamental purpose behind highly funded physics and astronomical research. In the absence of a knock out blow...believe what you will...but don't harm anyone. I have not witnessed the knock out blow, but I have witnessed people who think they have it.