Ah, but you conveniently forget that your memory of your shirt is a physical one.
A physical memory? So (according to you) in the absence of any empirical evidence, a sincere belief will suffice as evidence for the existence of something?
On the contrary, no one "remembers" god.
That is *exactly* what people do. You've nailed it - ironically assertign a framework in which theism is perfectly reasonable.
And yet you've never substantiated your argument that the Zokooloo is a strawman.
So you snipped the section in question and then later claim that it didn't exist, and then later still tried to debunk and then later still, claimed you didn't have because it amounted to fancy book larnin' which you don't agree with. Nice going.
So I notice that you were unable to address the vast majority of my remarks.
Mmm. So: referring back to my worked example: 1. This morning I couldn't find my shirt. There was no sign of it anywhere. Simplest explanation: I never had a shirt. You said: But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it. So there is, in your mind, a category of proof for things to exist even when there is no physical proof for it.
You failed to address this section. Does this mean you no longer believe that the existence of a deity requires physical evidence? I'll assume so.
By the way, your "counterargument" section in the teapot wiki is looking very thin. I've been reading the dissertation by Brian Garvey and his logic is very far from sound. Specifically he says this:
"Unless the existence of God is taken to be also manifestly far-fetched, the argument to the effect that if we don’t suspend judgement regarding the teapot then we shouldn’t suspend it regarding God, doesn’t get off the ground."
Except that the existence of god IS manifestly far fetched since the existence of god would require a hell of a lot of extra explaining for no good reason when we have a perfectly good working theory of the physical world as it stands right now.
You've applied a fallacious mechanism by assuming that a deity can only exist if we need it to explain some observable phenomena. In fact the universe existed before we did, and will exist when we are extinct. As previously noted: the number of things that exist exclusively for the purpose of furthering our understanding of the universe is vanishingly small.
And what of the other counter arguments? I have to assume you were unable to address them. They can therefore be presumed valid.
It occurs to me belatedly that you might genuinely not have understood what I was saying. So I'll touch on it in more detail:
The 3 worked examples I provided were me illustrating your use of various logical mechanisms and principles and how your usage was incorrect
1. In the shirt example I use Occams Razor to incorrectly conclude that the shirt (representing all deities) does not exist). It also illustrates the logical flaw with assuming physical evidence without bounding context - as you have amply illustrated by saying: But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
Occams Razor is a principle, not a proof mechanism for obtaining a fact. Occams Razor relies on understanding which is the "simplest" explanation - simple is a subjective measure.
2. In the maths example I work through it using the atheist's simplification technique. This, essentially assumes that all unknown values default to zero. So the number of deities is unknown - it defaults to zero. Y is unknown, and can safely be assumed to be zero.
3. The Climate Denialist example (which really happened) illustrates the abuse of the principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
So by agreeing that these are incorrect usages without distinguishing between my usage and yours you've effectively demonstrated that your own usage of Occams Razor, rational theory, simplification and ECREC is incorrect. You now have the opportunity to demonstrate the distinction.
You asked a three year old if deities exist? And who got the "idea" of a deity into him/her in the first place?
Nobody.
He began with no concept of a deity. Without knowing what a deity is, he had no framework for testing for the existence of the deity. He was, and is, an agnostic (a-gnostic==no knowledge).
Were they born with it? No. By default no one believes in anything unless they're introduced to the idea in some way or the other.
Exactly. And these people are called agnostics owing to their lack of knowledge. People who consider a proposition and arrive at a conclusion have followed a process to arrive at that conclusion. We call that conclusion "belief" unless the process is an empirical one. In this case, a person who considers the proposition "do any deities exist" and answers it (positively or negatively) has arrived at a belief.
I see you've conveniently sidestepped the Zokooloo argument as well. Tell me - are you a Zokooloo agnostic as well? Or do you categorically believe that Zokooloo's don't exist? Answer carefully for this question shall determine thy state of sanity.
I refer you to our other discussion so you may mourn over the remains fo your beloved Zokooloo. My condolences.
Mmm. So: referring back to my worked example:
1. This morning I couldn't find my shirt. There was no sign of it anywhere. Simplest explanation: I never had a shirt.
You said: But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
So there is, in your mind, a category of proof for things to exist even when there is no physical proof for it.
Now coming back to that irritating Zokooloo which you continue to scrupulously avoid like the plague just because it's inconvenient to your argument. I'm eagerly waiting for either your answer or further prevarications on your part as you try and fudge the issue.
Bad news I'm afraid. It seems the Zokooloo is gone:-(. Turns out it was only ever a strawman and it's master insisted on burning it. Being a logical fallacy it could never take part in a discussion intended to arrive at a logical conclusion.
In further bad news, it appears the teapot is dismissed as well. A fact you would already know if you had gone further on this topic than reading "The God Delusion". Read the section in that article entitled : Counterarguments. All the favoured mythical beasts of atheist lore (including the invisible pink unicorn i.e. the Zokooloo) can be as easily dismissed using the same counterarguments - since they all derive from the teapot.
I have to say I've had this conversation numerous times with atheists. I get the sense that you guys never test your proofs, never subject them to critical examination before releasing them - like releasing poor innocent unicorns to be mercilessly slaughtered. I'm sure you have a valid argument to make, something that will make non-atheists pause to consider. You just aren't making it.
It's your assertion. You claimed that god is a thought experiment, in fact, you stated this assertion as if it were undisputed fact. So the burden of proof rests with you.
Excellent. So we agree: your usage of Occams Razor was wrong. We'll move on.
Analogy fail.
TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state - since the parts of the TV, prior to being assembled, do not convey information. In human cognition, this translates to agnosticism - agnostics have no information. Babies, and other humans who have never considered the question of a deity are agnostics and equate in this analogy to an unassembled TV. Adult agnostics who have considered the question and concluded that they do not know the answer translate to a working TV which is off. They have "no information" on the existence of a deity.
And atheism is the default state. The originating state. Just like non belief in a Zokooloo is the default state. The originating state. Atheism is so basic, that there's no need to even consider the question since by DEFAULT you don't believe in something you can't see.
Apparently you've given up on trying to construct a logical proof and resorted to unevidenced contradiction, braying doctrine and evangelising. Not exactly very impressive.
Babies are not agnostics. They're atheists until their parents (like you) introduce the very idea of a god to them.
I asked a 3 year old if any deities exist. He didn't know. He is, therefore, an agnostic. So your idea that children are born innately believing that something they have no concept of does not exist is demonstrated, empirically, to be wrong. Demonstrated to be as absurdly wrong in reality as it sounds in theory.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence.
This is where you clearly don't get Occam's razor.
Seems that I do - since you've conceded that your usage of Occam's razor was incorrect.
But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
Exactly.
y=0 is the simplest explanation? Why?
Exactly! You are really getting the hang of this.
Please don't demonstrate your ignorance of the basic principles of scientific practice.
And since in my worked examples, I utilised Occams Razor in the same way that YOU used it as a proof of atheism, you presumably agree that your usage wasa also incorrect.
Atheism is a belief in the same way that the TV being off is a separate channel.
Analogy fail.
TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state - since the parts of the TV, prior to being assembled, do not convey information. In human cognition, this translates to agnosticism - agnostics have no information. Babies, and other humans who have never considered the question of a deity are agnostics and equate in this analogy to an unassembled TV. Adult agnostics who have considered the question and concluded that they do not know the answer translate to a working TV which is off. They have "no information" on the existence of a deity.
In contrast, atheists have considered the question, and via some heuristic (not always the same one) concluded that no deity exists. They have a data point - and therefore translate to a TV that is on. As do theists -- albeit probably a different channel, since their information is different.
The default position is always atheism since everything around us is explained by natural phenomenon with no need for god.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence. We don't need extrasolar planets for anything. Yet irritatingly, they insist on existing. Very few things that exist actually do so for the purpose of furthering the human understanding of the universe.
You're the one positing an extra useless force called "god" that serves no purpose whatsoever. That my friend, is an extraordinary claim.
Did I?
I think you might well have missed the purpose of this conversation.
Please cite a reference in which I posited the existence of a deity.
So you basically ignored everything I said in favor of rhetoric. Talk about protips!
What did I ignore? Be specific.
So to recap:
God is a thought experiment (despite what you claim)
The Zokooloo is a thought experiment
And to recap: Stating doctrine as fact (God is a thought experiment) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
Both get the same treatment. If you claim otherwise, you have to prove that god is somehow different from a Zokooloo. There is no strawman here. This is the heart of the question.
It's up to you to prove that the Zokooloo is analogous to a deity - and you know it, hence your attempt to do so by calling on the authority of doctrine.
No - the widely accepted practice is that of Occam's razor.
The use of Occam's razor is not "widely accepted" in this case.
All thing being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest factors is the correct one. By this standard, there IS no god because god is an extraneous factor.
Sure. Let's also misapply Occams Razor to some other problematic scenarios:
1. This morning I couldn't find my shirt. There was no sign of it anywhere. Simplest explanation: I never had a shirt.
2. I was presented with a maths problem
Solve for y:
x = y +2
y = ?
But what we might formerly have treated as unsolvable is now easy. Obviously, y is extraneous. y=0.
3. I got into a dispute with a Climate Change Denialist. This didn't go so well. Turns out, the models of the climate are complex and don't simplify well. Also, the denialist called the claims of science "extraordinary". The killing blow. Simplest explanation: the science must be wrong.
So - when you're positing an extra useless force, you have to give good reasons for it. Ergo the burden is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mmm. So my assertion is that atheism is a belief because atheists are unable to provide evidence for it. Evidence for my assertion includes the fact that I have been debating with an atheist for nearly a week now and no evidence has come to light: only (a) pronouncements of doctrine (b) recursive logic (c) previously debunked logical constructs (d) strawmen.
So:
1. What is the "extra useless force" that I have posited?
2. Why is my assertion "extraordinary" and how is "extraordinary" quantified? What is the unit?
Telling your children that Zokooloo's categorically don't exist is lying to them...Riiiight.
More correctly, you would be lying, since in your mind, there is a non zero probability that Zokooloos exist.
And - Protip #1: if you want to dispute a point , it's a good idea to actually make an argument.
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing
Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.
We just went over that. Have you forgotten? Short term memory loss? Here it is again:
It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote:
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch
B:Do you want our children to starve?
Protip #2: It is terribly bad form to ignore what your opponent says and then later pretend that nothing was said.
Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.
Well, thanks for taking the time to repeat some of the key doctrines of atheism. Do they come in magazine form? I'd like to add them to the pile of literature I got from the Jehovahs Witnesses.
It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.
Did you read your source before citing it? Perhaps you should have - given that it contradicts your assertion. Better luck next time.
To quote: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim"
In the absence of evidence of [a deity, none] exists. Implicitly that is the starting position.
Nope - because
(a) Nobody (least of all me) has asserted that a deity exists
(b) You have asserted that no deity exists. If anything, the burden of proof rests on you - the asserter.
The starting position is that we don't know whether a deity (or deities) exists. This is functionally the same as ignorance. To demonstrate - the moons of Jupiter DID NOT spring into existence when Galileo observed them. They predated any assertion or observation. Yet if a contemporary of Galileo had said "Jupiter has no moons" the burden of proof would rest with that person to prove it. Likewise if a contemporary has said "Jupiter has 4 moons" then the burden of proof for that assertion rests with that person. The number of moons being asserted makes no difference to the burden of proof.
This (according to YOUR source) is the common understanding of the burden of proof.
Wait, what? Just because I thought of the Zokooloo doesn't rule out the possibility that it ALSO exists independent of my thought experiments. Just like god! In fact, I propose that the Zokooloo IS god. Hey, it's a strange universe right?:D
If you want to believe that the Zookooloo is also a deity, then carry on. You are free to believe whatever you want (there is no deity, the FSM is god, the Zookooloo is God etc.) Just don't pretend that your belief is something it is not (like a special class of magical fact that doen't require empirical proof). If you do, I'll call you on it (again).
Basically you'd tell your kids to entertain the idea that there's a teapot between mars and jupiter. Or in fact there might be an entire GALAXY of teapots living somewhere. Hey, it's a strange universe right?
You are mistaken. I'll repeat what I said again:
I would continue to give the answer I gave before - that whilst possible, non-empirical analysis indicates that it is unlikely, and hence I believe that the teapot does not exist.
I would NOT state an assertion as proved empirically unless it actually was. You, apparently, would. Even though you freely admit that it is possible that the teapot exists (although you believe it does not) you would choose to tell your child in empirical terms that it does not, without identifying this as a belief. This is a process commonly called indoctrination.
You're mistaken that this is a proof by induction. It's a proof by reductio ad absurdum. Take your logic to the extreme and see the stupid consequences that ensue. Much like the technique commonly used in math to prove that root 2 is irrational.
It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote:
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch
B:Do you want our children to starve?
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing than the proposition that war era posters depicting germans as sub humans proves that germans are inferior. Or, more accurately, attempting to prove that Reindeers don't exist, based on the generally held view that Donner and Blitzen don't exist.
As noted, it is possible, however to use a thought experiment to test the validity of claiming to rationally hold a view on the existence (or non-existence) of any deities without providing a proof for that assertion:
y
Does y=x?
What is you answer?
Whether or not I made up the Zokooloo as a thought experiment is irrelevant because it might coincidentally also exist! Who are you to rule out the existence of my Zokooloo without proof to the contrary?
So you worry that Zokooloo's might exist. Good for you. As for myself, I tend to believe that they don't.
Ergo, when your child asks you if Zokooloo's exist, you will have to tell her "Well, it's unlikely. But hey it's a strange universe! There might be a zokooloo in your bedroom right now that will be completely undetectable once you try and observe it.".
Nice parenting.
Actually, I would choose honesty.
Whereas, apparently, you would lie by saying definitively that it doesn't exist even though you secretly think that it might. Why is that? Are you afraid your fellow atheists might treat this as a sin and shun you?
I think your view of the intelligence of children is terribly distorted. You also appear to have completely misunderstood the role of a parent. Here's what I think: It's not your role to berate your children for being whimisical. Nor, if they ask a question should you either lie out of fear or shut them down. Your job is to (a) encourage flights of fancy, these are important for cognitive development and a sign of intelligence not a lack thereof (b) be honest (c) Acknowledge their innate right to believe whatever they want to. You want your children to share you beliefs in atheism, you fear that they will reject it. Now is the time to recognise that they will choose whatever belief they want, or even non belief (agnosticism).
I note that you have chosen to ignore my assertion that your FSM/Zookoloo/Donner+Blitzen/Tooth Fairy/Thor thought bubble is in fact a strawman and fallacious proof by induction. Is it safe to assume then that you agree with me?
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
But you have no evidence that Zookoolo's don't exist. If your kid were to ask you, would you say "Probably not" or a simple "No"?
That is somewhat nonsensical. Are you claiming that you didn't invent the Zookoolo out of thin air for the purposes of this conversation?
Incidentally, the notion of god is a thought experiment as well.
No it isn't. If a deity (or deities) exist, then they do so outside of and independently of our thought exercises. Zookoloos do not. It is possible, however to use a thought experiment to test the validity of claiming to rationally hold a view on the existence (or non-existence) of any deities without providing a proof for that assertion:
Does y=x?
The teapot idea can be proved/disproved after a thorough search. That could take thousands of years given the void and the size of the object. Will you wait a thousand years for conclusive evidence before you say "No", or will you just say "No" because it makes no sense even though you have no proof that a Teapot doesn't exist?
I would continue to give the answer I gave before - that whilst possible, non-empirical analysis indicates that it is unlikely, and hence I believe that the teapot does not exist.
Again - if your kid asks you about the teapot, what will you say?
I'd tell them that we live in a universe where strange things happen, and that they are entitled to make up their own mind about the teapot. Only an irrational person would make an assertion and claim it as rational without proffering any evidence - far better for the kid to be uncertain about the teapot and to retain the type of enquiring mind that accepts observational limits then for me to say yes or no and set them up for a lifetime of irrational thinking.
I can define a unicorn any way I like. And I define my unicorn to be a horse that instantly vanishes when anyone tries to observe it. If you don't like this definition, then I give my creation my own name - the Zokooloo. You don't believe in Zookoloo's do you? Why not? Any evidence that they DON'T exist?
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
You haven't answered my question. If your toddler asks you whether there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Mars and Jupiter, will you say "No", or will you say "We don't have evidence that one doesn't exist...". Remember that a teapot is orbiting the sun is something we'll never find with our current technology even if one DOES exist given it's size and the vast void of space.
I would say that the presence of the teapot is testable using empirical or bayesian criteria - teapots can be assumed to come from earth, and therefore whilst it's possible for a teapot to have been ejected from earths gravity well, and then captured via some three body interaction that placed it in orbit around the sun, it is fairly unlikely. But since bayesian and/or empirical methods do not suffice to test for the presence of a deity, the likelihood of the teapot does not have any equivalence to the likelihood of a deity. The teapot, like the tooth fairy and the Zokooloo, are merely strawmen.
You don't even need physics(worldview) to disprove an omnipotent god. Just logic. See stone argument. On irrationalilty comment: Asserting only one god exists and not millions others is just as irrational.
The "stone" argument is merely a rehash of an older thought experiment "how many angels would fit on the head of a pin?" dealing with the concept of infinity (or more properly, how we cognitively parse the concept of infinity). It isn't intended as a disproof of deities, and doesn't do that. If you think it does, then your problem lies in your ignorance of mathematics.
And the rationality of monotheism is really irrelevant to this conversation.
Why is it a strawman? Zeus *was* believed to be a god.
You've answered your own question. If you travelled back in time to ancient greece and made this proposition, you would be laughed out of athens. It's an argument the relies entirely on both parties agreeing that Zeus does not exist. In other words, it's a strawman. But saying that no deity exists because Zeus does not is proof by induction - i.e a logical fallacy.
Are Donna and Blitzen supposed to a reindeer?
Maybe you should google them and get back to us (In retrospect it's probably "donner" not "donna").
Nope - I can posit a magical toothfairy that leaves no trail. And magical unicorns. And flying teapots (a la Russel).
No you can't. The inherent properties of tooth fairies, unicorns and teapots is that they are observable or have an observable effect. A tooth fairy collects teeth - a tooth fairy that doesn't is not a tooth fairy. We can thus generalise your proof to the assertion that nothing that is unobserved exists which is a absolute nonsense - we observe new things all the time, and science tell us that observation has inherent limits. Therefore those people who claim a rational basis for concluding that something that is unobserved does not exist due to it's being unobserved are irrational.
Plus, the tooth fairy/unicorn/teapot/FSM/Thor argument is still a strawman. The "Donner and Blitzen" gap demonstrates this is a fallacious proof by induction -> The tooth fairy does not exist, therefore AGW doesn't exist. It's pretend scepticism.
Everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Odin and the tooth fairy.
Which is exactly why your argument is a Strawman. After all, we know that Donna and Blitzen don't exist. Therefore, no reindeers exist. "we all know that" right?
But you have no PROOF they don't exist right? Puhleese. There are something that are negative by default and require proof to make them positive.
We believe they don't exist because their existence contradicts elements of our worldview. And in fact, the existence of the tooth fairy would leave some sort of empirical trail. There is no basis for assuming that a deity would leave an empirical trail. So asserting (without proof) that no deity exists is irrational.
So the warming we have observed is caused by variations in the Sun's output?
1. Provide your observational data related to the Sun's output highlighting in particular the required upward trend over a 100 year cycle (as observed from our earthbound observations of tropospheric temperature over the past century)
2. Detail your hypothesis in relation to what happened to the wamring we should have seen (per Arrhenius) from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, touching specifically on the counteracting effect, which according to your theory, must counteract the expected warming to the exact degree of warming due to solar output, while being orthagonal.
Provide these as peer reviewed and published material.
Recent rhetorical efforts to redefine the meaning of the word "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise our actions and excuse ourselves of our responsibility for those actions. It is a rhetoric that can be applied to any situation: It's in my nature to be angry, and other primates also commit murder -> murder is natural, so my murdering my wife is natural and therefore I shouldn't be punished for it.
As rhetoric goes it is also a philosophical cul-de-sac. By saying that every effect is natural, there is nothing that is unnatural - the distinction becomes meaningless.
I don't think we shoiuld accept this redefinition. We know it's root cause - it is the same lie as treating denial as scepticism, people redefining their illogic to attain legitimacy. Illegitimacy should be called out at source.
You can't pick and choose. Baby Jeebus says the old Testament rules are valid.
Did he?
Care to tell us where he said that?
Matthew 5:17:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
How is him saying that he is (personally) fulfilling the Law and Prophets the same as a commandment for his followers to follow the Law and the Prophets?
This seems like a terribly counterintuitive reading of this passage to me, especially given the preceding segment. A much more intuitive reading of this section is that he is claiming that he will fulfill the Law and the Prophets - the former centering around a complex system of ritual sacrifices, the latter a series of prophesies about the Messiah. Thus the Law is not abolished, but fulfilled. This is the way that Christians have understood it for centuries.
Not sure I understand the relevance of those remarks. I would say that in society generally the levels of tolerance (versus intolerance) remain fairly constant over time, just that the things we tolerate and the things we don't gradually change. So for instance, 100 years ago we didn't tolerate slavery, but felt comfortable with racism. Now, we tolerate the former, but not the latter. In 100 years time, they will tolerate some things we do not, but will probably regard us as something like monsters for knowingly presiding over a massive extinction event.
Comparative to society at large, Christianity has been relatively free of hyprocrisy on the things it tolerates (versus the things it does not).
Of course,I might hope that people would they no longer need any crutches to explain the world and would meditate on "why do I believe in this? Is it because I was brainwashed into it? What about all the other religious systems, that also claim to be unique? And why do none of them have any effect on the world today?". But people seems to get less sense (homeopathy, new age, birthers, tea party) rather than the opposite
I would say that you are doing a pretty poor job of externalising yourself into the worldview of someone with different religious beliefs. It is a useful exercise - but mainly from the perspective of examining how coherent an rational your own beliefs would appear to someone who does not share them.
"Fortunately" for Christianity it's founder seems to have already thought about both underlying issues so we tend to take such things in our stride, having understood and contextualised the presence of unbelief and other religions, as well as the evidentiary framework underlying the things we believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but you conveniently forget that your memory of your shirt is a physical one.
A physical memory? So (according to you) in the absence of any empirical evidence, a sincere belief will suffice as evidence for the existence of something?
On the contrary, no one "remembers" god.
That is *exactly* what people do. You've nailed it - ironically assertign a framework in which theism is perfectly reasonable.
And yet you've never substantiated your argument that the Zokooloo is a strawman.
So you snipped the section in question and then later claim that it didn't exist, and then later still tried to debunk and then later still, claimed you didn't have because it amounted to fancy book larnin' which you don't agree with. Nice going.
Your homework is to work through the examples in the counterargument section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot, and refute them. One by one.
Mmm. So: referring back to my worked example: 1. This morning I couldn't find my shirt. There was no sign of it anywhere. Simplest explanation: I never had a shirt. You said: But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it. So there is, in your mind, a category of proof for things to exist even when there is no physical proof for it.
You failed to address this section. Does this mean you no longer believe that the existence of a deity requires physical evidence? I'll assume so.
By the way, your "counterargument" section in the teapot wiki is looking very thin. I've been reading the dissertation by Brian Garvey and his logic is very far from sound. Specifically he says this:
"Unless the existence of God is taken to be also manifestly far-fetched, the argument to the effect that if we don’t suspend judgement regarding the teapot then we shouldn’t suspend it regarding God, doesn’t get off the ground."
Except that the existence of god IS manifestly far fetched since the existence of god would require a hell of a lot of extra explaining for no good reason when we have a perfectly good working theory of the physical world as it stands right now.
You've applied a fallacious mechanism by assuming that a deity can only exist if we need it to explain some observable phenomena. In fact the universe existed before we did, and will exist when we are extinct. As previously noted: the number of things that exist exclusively for the purpose of furthering our understanding of the universe is vanishingly small.
And what of the other counter arguments? I have to assume you were unable to address them. They can therefore be presumed valid.
The 3 worked examples I provided were me illustrating your use of various logical mechanisms and principles and how your usage was incorrect
1. In the shirt example I use Occams Razor to incorrectly conclude that the shirt (representing all deities) does not exist). It also illustrates the logical flaw with assuming physical evidence without bounding context - as you have amply illustrated by saying: But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
Occams Razor is a principle, not a proof mechanism for obtaining a fact. Occams Razor relies on understanding which is the "simplest" explanation - simple is a subjective measure.
2. In the maths example I work through it using the atheist's simplification technique. This, essentially assumes that all unknown values default to zero. So the number of deities is unknown - it defaults to zero. Y is unknown, and can safely be assumed to be zero.
3. The Climate Denialist example (which really happened) illustrates the abuse of the principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
So by agreeing that these are incorrect usages without distinguishing between my usage and yours you've effectively demonstrated that your own usage of Occams Razor, rational theory, simplification and ECREC is incorrect. You now have the opportunity to demonstrate the distinction.
You asked a three year old if deities exist? And who got the "idea" of a deity into him/her in the first place?
Nobody.
He began with no concept of a deity. Without knowing what a deity is, he had no framework for testing for the existence of the deity. He was, and is, an agnostic (a-gnostic==no knowledge).
Were they born with it? No. By default no one believes in anything unless they're introduced to the idea in some way or the other.
Exactly. And these people are called agnostics owing to their lack of knowledge. People who consider a proposition and arrive at a conclusion have followed a process to arrive at that conclusion. We call that conclusion "belief" unless the process is an empirical one. In this case, a person who considers the proposition "do any deities exist" and answers it (positively or negatively) has arrived at a belief.
I see you've conveniently sidestepped the Zokooloo argument as well. Tell me - are you a Zokooloo agnostic as well? Or do you categorically believe that Zokooloo's don't exist? Answer carefully for this question shall determine thy state of sanity.
I refer you to our other discussion so you may mourn over the remains fo your beloved Zokooloo. My condolences.
Now coming back to that irritating Zokooloo which you continue to scrupulously avoid like the plague just because it's inconvenient to your argument. I'm eagerly waiting for either your answer or further prevarications on your part as you try and fudge the issue.
Bad news I'm afraid. It seems the Zokooloo is gone :-(. Turns out it was only ever a strawman and it's master insisted on burning it. Being a logical fallacy it could never take part in a discussion intended to arrive at a logical conclusion.
In further bad news, it appears the teapot is dismissed as well. A fact you would already know if you had gone further on this topic than reading "The God Delusion". Read the section in that article entitled : Counterarguments. All the favoured mythical beasts of atheist lore (including the invisible pink unicorn i.e. the Zokooloo) can be as easily dismissed using the same counterarguments - since they all derive from the teapot.
I have to say I've had this conversation numerous times with atheists. I get the sense that you guys never test your proofs, never subject them to critical examination before releasing them - like releasing poor innocent unicorns to be mercilessly slaughtered. I'm sure you have a valid argument to make, something that will make non-atheists pause to consider. You just aren't making it.
It's your assertion. You claimed that god is a thought experiment, in fact, you stated this assertion as if it were undisputed fact. So the burden of proof rests with you.
Analogy fail. TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state - since the parts of the TV, prior to being assembled, do not convey information. In human cognition, this translates to agnosticism - agnostics have no information. Babies, and other humans who have never considered the question of a deity are agnostics and equate in this analogy to an unassembled TV. Adult agnostics who have considered the question and concluded that they do not know the answer translate to a working TV which is off. They have "no information" on the existence of a deity.
And atheism is the default state. The originating state. Just like non belief in a Zokooloo is the default state. The originating state. Atheism is so basic, that there's no need to even consider the question since by DEFAULT you don't believe in something you can't see.
Apparently you've given up on trying to construct a logical proof and resorted to unevidenced contradiction, braying doctrine and evangelising. Not exactly very impressive.
Babies are not agnostics. They're atheists until their parents (like you) introduce the very idea of a god to them.
I asked a 3 year old if any deities exist. He didn't know. He is, therefore, an agnostic. So your idea that children are born innately believing that something they have no concept of does not exist is demonstrated, empirically, to be wrong. Demonstrated to be as absurdly wrong in reality as it sounds in theory.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence.
This is where you clearly don't get Occam's razor.
Seems that I do - since you've conceded that your usage of Occam's razor was incorrect.
Woah. You mean god is NOT a thought experiment?
I'll repeat what I said: Stating doctrine as fact (God is a thought experiment) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
To put it bluntly, the idea of god is a rectum derived idea that someone made up one day.
I'll repeat what I said: Stating doctrine as fact (Man made God in his own image) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
But you never having a shirt doesn't explain your memories of it. Occam's razor says that you either didn't search everywhere or have lost it.
Exactly.
y=0 is the simplest explanation? Why?
Exactly! You are really getting the hang of this.
Please don't demonstrate your ignorance of the basic principles of scientific practice.
And since in my worked examples, I utilised Occams Razor in the same way that YOU used it as a proof of atheism, you presumably agree that your usage wasa also incorrect.
Atheism is a belief in the same way that the TV being off is a separate channel.
Analogy fail.
TV off is no information. This is the default state, and the originating state - since the parts of the TV, prior to being assembled, do not convey information. In human cognition, this translates to agnosticism - agnostics have no information. Babies, and other humans who have never considered the question of a deity are agnostics and equate in this analogy to an unassembled TV. Adult agnostics who have considered the question and concluded that they do not know the answer translate to a working TV which is off. They have "no information" on the existence of a deity.
In contrast, atheists have considered the question, and via some heuristic (not always the same one) concluded that no deity exists. They have a data point - and therefore translate to a TV that is on. As do theists -- albeit probably a different channel, since their information is different.
The default position is always atheism since everything around us is explained by natural phenomenon with no need for god.
In fact the question of whether there is a need for something is orthagonal to it's existence. We don't need extrasolar planets for anything. Yet irritatingly, they insist on existing. Very few things that exist actually do so for the purpose of furthering the human understanding of the universe.
You're the one positing an extra useless force called "god" that serves no purpose whatsoever. That my friend, is an extraordinary claim.
Did I?
I think you might well have missed the purpose of this conversation.
Please cite a reference in which I posited the existence of a deity.
So you basically ignored everything I said in favor of rhetoric. Talk about protips!
What did I ignore? Be specific.
So to recap: God is a thought experiment (despite what you claim) The Zokooloo is a thought experiment
And to recap: Stating doctrine as fact (God is a thought experiment) doesn't convince people who don't adhere to those doctrines.
Both get the same treatment. If you claim otherwise, you have to prove that god is somehow different from a Zokooloo. There is no strawman here. This is the heart of the question.
It's up to you to prove that the Zokooloo is analogous to a deity - and you know it, hence your attempt to do so by calling on the authority of doctrine.
No - the widely accepted practice is that of Occam's razor.
The use of Occam's razor is not "widely accepted" in this case.
All thing being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest factors is the correct one. By this standard, there IS no god because god is an extraneous factor.
Sure. Let's also misapply Occams Razor to some other problematic scenarios:
1. This morning I couldn't find my shirt. There was no sign of it anywhere. Simplest explanation: I never had a shirt.
2. I was presented with a maths problem
Solve for y:
x = y +2
y = ?
But what we might formerly have treated as unsolvable is now easy. Obviously, y is extraneous. y=0.
3. I got into a dispute with a Climate Change Denialist. This didn't go so well. Turns out, the models of the climate are complex and don't simplify well. Also, the denialist called the claims of science "extraordinary". The killing blow. Simplest explanation: the science must be wrong.
So - when you're positing an extra useless force, you have to give good reasons for it. Ergo the burden is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mmm. So my assertion is that atheism is a belief because atheists are unable to provide evidence for it. Evidence for my assertion includes the fact that I have been debating with an atheist for nearly a week now and no evidence has come to light: only (a) pronouncements of doctrine (b) recursive logic (c) previously debunked logical constructs (d) strawmen.
So:
1. What is the "extra useless force" that I have posited?
2. Why is my assertion "extraordinary" and how is "extraordinary" quantified? What is the unit?
Telling your children that Zokooloo's categorically don't exist is lying to them...Riiiight.
More correctly, you would be lying, since in your mind, there is a non zero probability that Zokooloos exist.
And - Protip #1: if you want to dispute a point , it's a good idea to actually make an argument.
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing
Why? What is the difference? Would you care to share why a Zokooloo cannot be god? All I have is your assertion but no proof of the same.
We just went over that. Have you forgotten? Short term memory loss? Here it is again:
It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote: An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example: A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch B:Do you want our children to starve?
Protip #2: It is terribly bad form to ignore what your opponent says and then later pretend that nothing was said.
Keep in mind that despite your assertion to the contrary, god is a thought experiment. Some time in the past, someone just made up the idea to explain stuff that they couldn't otherwise explain. Like lighting, wind and fire. They made it up. Just like I postulated the Zokooloo.
Well, thanks for taking the time to repeat some of the key doctrines of atheism. Do they come in magazine form? I'd like to add them to the pile of literature I got from the Jehovahs Witnesses.
It's up to you show me why your god is more of a realistic concept than my Zokooloo.
And who is "my god"?
Show working.
And I restate - some things are negative by default until proof is given of their existence. You know, that whole burden of evidence thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Did you read your source before citing it? Perhaps you should have - given that it contradicts your assertion. Better luck next time.
To quote: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim"
In the absence of evidence of [a deity, none] exists. Implicitly that is the starting position.
Nope - because
(a) Nobody (least of all me) has asserted that a deity exists
(b) You have asserted that no deity exists. If anything, the burden of proof rests on you - the asserter.
The starting position is that we don't know whether a deity (or deities) exists. This is functionally the same as ignorance. To demonstrate - the moons of Jupiter DID NOT spring into existence when Galileo observed them. They predated any assertion or observation. Yet if a contemporary of Galileo had said "Jupiter has no moons" the burden of proof would rest with that person to prove it. Likewise if a contemporary has said "Jupiter has 4 moons" then the burden of proof for that assertion rests with that person. The number of moons being asserted makes no difference to the burden of proof.
This (according to YOUR source) is the common understanding of the burden of proof.
Wait, what? Just because I thought of the Zokooloo doesn't rule out the possibility that it ALSO exists independent of my thought experiments. Just like god! In fact, I propose that the Zokooloo IS god. Hey, it's a strange universe right? :D
If you want to believe that the Zookooloo is also a deity, then carry on. You are free to believe whatever you want (there is no deity, the FSM is god, the Zookooloo is God etc.) Just don't pretend that your belief is something it is not (like a special class of magical fact that doen't require empirical proof). If you do, I'll call you on it (again).
Basically you'd tell your kids to entertain the idea that there's a teapot between mars and jupiter. Or in fact there might be an entire GALAXY of teapots living somewhere. Hey, it's a strange universe right?
You are mistaken. I'll repeat what I said again: I would continue to give the answer I gave before - that whilst possible, non-empirical analysis indicates that it is unlikely, and hence I believe that the teapot does not exist. I would NOT state an assertion as proved empirically unless it actually was. You, apparently, would. Even though you freely admit that it is possible that the teapot exists (although you believe it does not) you would choose to tell your child in empirical terms that it does not, without identifying this as a belief. This is a process commonly called indoctrination.
You're mistaken that this is a proof by induction. It's a proof by reductio ad absurdum. Take your logic to the extreme and see the stupid consequences that ensue. Much like the technique commonly used in math to prove that root 2 is irrational.
It's a strawman. The wikipedia page on reductio ad absurdum helpfully contains a section on strawmen - since the latter is often mistaken for the former - as you have done. To quote:
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
A:We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch
B:Do you want our children to starve?
Your caricature of deities as zookoloos and teapots is amusing, but not any more convincing than the proposition that war era posters depicting germans as sub humans proves that germans are inferior. Or, more accurately, attempting to prove that Reindeers don't exist, based on the generally held view that Donner and Blitzen don't exist.
As noted, it is possible, however to use a thought experiment to test the validity of claiming to rationally hold a view on the existence (or non-existence) of any deities without providing a proof for that assertion:
y Does y=x?
What is you answer?
Whether or not I made up the Zokooloo as a thought experiment is irrelevant because it might coincidentally also exist! Who are you to rule out the existence of my Zokooloo without proof to the contrary?
So you worry that Zokooloo's might exist. Good for you. As for myself, I tend to believe that they don't.
Ergo, when your child asks you if Zokooloo's exist, you will have to tell her "Well, it's unlikely. But hey it's a strange universe! There might be a zokooloo in your bedroom right now that will be completely undetectable once you try and observe it.". Nice parenting.
Actually, I would choose honesty.
Whereas, apparently, you would lie by saying definitively that it doesn't exist even though you secretly think that it might. Why is that? Are you afraid your fellow atheists might treat this as a sin and shun you?
I think your view of the intelligence of children is terribly distorted. You also appear to have completely misunderstood the role of a parent. Here's what I think: It's not your role to berate your children for being whimisical. Nor, if they ask a question should you either lie out of fear or shut them down. Your job is to (a) encourage flights of fancy, these are important for cognitive development and a sign of intelligence not a lack thereof (b) be honest (c) Acknowledge their innate right to believe whatever they want to. You want your children to share you beliefs in atheism, you fear that they will reject it. Now is the time to recognise that they will choose whatever belief they want, or even non belief (agnosticism).
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
But you have no evidence that Zookoolo's don't exist. If your kid were to ask you, would you say "Probably not" or a simple "No"?
That is somewhat nonsensical. Are you claiming that you didn't invent the Zookoolo out of thin air for the purposes of this conversation?
Incidentally, the notion of god is a thought experiment as well.
No it isn't. If a deity (or deities) exist, then they do so outside of and independently of our thought exercises. Zookoloos do not. It is possible, however to use a thought experiment to test the validity of claiming to rationally hold a view on the existence (or non-existence) of any deities without providing a proof for that assertion:
Does y=x?
The teapot idea can be proved/disproved after a thorough search. That could take thousands of years given the void and the size of the object. Will you wait a thousand years for conclusive evidence before you say "No", or will you just say "No" because it makes no sense even though you have no proof that a Teapot doesn't exist?
I would continue to give the answer I gave before - that whilst possible, non-empirical analysis indicates that it is unlikely, and hence I believe that the teapot does not exist.
Again - if your kid asks you about the teapot, what will you say?
I'd tell them that we live in a universe where strange things happen, and that they are entitled to make up their own mind about the teapot. Only an irrational person would make an assertion and claim it as rational without proffering any evidence - far better for the kid to be uncertain about the teapot and to retain the type of enquiring mind that accepts observational limits then for me to say yes or no and set them up for a lifetime of irrational thinking.
I can define a unicorn any way I like. And I define my unicorn to be a horse that instantly vanishes when anyone tries to observe it. If you don't like this definition, then I give my creation my own name - the Zokooloo. You don't believe in Zookoloo's do you? Why not? Any evidence that they DON'T exist?
Well, yes. You made up the Zokooloo for the purposes of a thought experiment. This implies strongly that it does not exist.
You haven't answered my question. If your toddler asks you whether there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Mars and Jupiter, will you say "No", or will you say "We don't have evidence that one doesn't exist...". Remember that a teapot is orbiting the sun is something we'll never find with our current technology even if one DOES exist given it's size and the vast void of space.
I would say that the presence of the teapot is testable using empirical or bayesian criteria - teapots can be assumed to come from earth, and therefore whilst it's possible for a teapot to have been ejected from earths gravity well, and then captured via some three body interaction that placed it in orbit around the sun, it is fairly unlikely. But since bayesian and/or empirical methods do not suffice to test for the presence of a deity, the likelihood of the teapot does not have any equivalence to the likelihood of a deity. The teapot, like the tooth fairy and the Zokooloo, are merely strawmen.
You don't even need physics(worldview) to disprove an omnipotent god. Just logic. See stone argument. On irrationalilty comment: Asserting only one god exists and not millions others is just as irrational.
The "stone" argument is merely a rehash of an older thought experiment "how many angels would fit on the head of a pin?" dealing with the concept of infinity (or more properly, how we cognitively parse the concept of infinity). It isn't intended as a disproof of deities, and doesn't do that. If you think it does, then your problem lies in your ignorance of mathematics.
And the rationality of monotheism is really irrelevant to this conversation.
Why is it a strawman? Zeus *was* believed to be a god.
You've answered your own question. If you travelled back in time to ancient greece and made this proposition, you would be laughed out of athens. It's an argument the relies entirely on both parties agreeing that Zeus does not exist. In other words, it's a strawman. But saying that no deity exists because Zeus does not is proof by induction - i.e a logical fallacy.
Are Donna and Blitzen supposed to a reindeer?
Maybe you should google them and get back to us (In retrospect it's probably "donner" not "donna").
Nope - I can posit a magical toothfairy that leaves no trail. And magical unicorns. And flying teapots (a la Russel).
No you can't. The inherent properties of tooth fairies, unicorns and teapots is that they are observable or have an observable effect. A tooth fairy collects teeth - a tooth fairy that doesn't is not a tooth fairy. We can thus generalise your proof to the assertion that nothing that is unobserved exists which is a absolute nonsense - we observe new things all the time, and science tell us that observation has inherent limits. Therefore those people who claim a rational basis for concluding that something that is unobserved does not exist due to it's being unobserved are irrational.
Plus, the tooth fairy/unicorn/teapot/FSM/Thor argument is still a strawman. The "Donner and Blitzen" gap demonstrates this is a fallacious proof by induction -> The tooth fairy does not exist, therefore AGW doesn't exist. It's pretend scepticism.
Everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Odin and the tooth fairy.
Which is exactly why your argument is a Strawman. After all, we know that Donna and Blitzen don't exist. Therefore, no reindeers exist. "we all know that" right?
But you have no PROOF they don't exist right? Puhleese. There are something that are negative by default and require proof to make them positive.
We believe they don't exist because their existence contradicts elements of our worldview. And in fact, the existence of the tooth fairy would leave some sort of empirical trail. There is no basis for assuming that a deity would leave an empirical trail. So asserting (without proof) that no deity exists is irrational.
I think anyone who says one way other the other with 100% certainty is full of shit.
Well, here is a opportunity to drill down on who is bullshitting, so let's do that.
I don't think there's enough data to say it's not natural, but I also don't think there's enough to say it's not our fault either.
So there is data supporting the hypothesis of "natural causes"?
Where is this data?
1. Provide your observational data related to the Sun's output highlighting in particular the required upward trend over a 100 year cycle (as observed from our earthbound observations of tropospheric temperature over the past century)
2. Detail your hypothesis in relation to what happened to the wamring we should have seen (per Arrhenius) from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, touching specifically on the counteracting effect, which according to your theory, must counteract the expected warming to the exact degree of warming due to solar output, while being orthagonal.
Provide these as peer reviewed and published material.
Thanks in advance.
Recent rhetorical efforts to redefine the meaning of the word "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise our actions and excuse ourselves of our responsibility for those actions. It is a rhetoric that can be applied to any situation: It's in my nature to be angry, and other primates also commit murder -> murder is natural, so my murdering my wife is natural and therefore I shouldn't be punished for it.
As rhetoric goes it is also a philosophical cul-de-sac. By saying that every effect is natural, there is nothing that is unnatural - the distinction becomes meaningless.
I don't think we shoiuld accept this redefinition. We know it's root cause - it is the same lie as treating denial as scepticism, people redefining their illogic to attain legitimacy. Illegitimacy should be called out at source.
The main thing is just to look at the statistics and see that the change is too large to be natural
Don't underestimate nature, it has a habit of killing those that do.
Err - Are you seriously trying to tell us that the recent warming we have seen is natural?
What is causing the warming?
And what happened to the warming we should have seen from the measurably increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
YOU fail it. MSL FTW!!
You can't pick and choose. Baby Jeebus says the old Testament rules are valid.
Did he?
Care to tell us where he said that?
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
How is him saying that he is (personally) fulfilling the Law and Prophets the same as a commandment for his followers to follow the Law and the Prophets?
This seems like a terribly counterintuitive reading of this passage to me, especially given the preceding segment. A much more intuitive reading of this section is that he is claiming that he will fulfill the Law and the Prophets - the former centering around a complex system of ritual sacrifices, the latter a series of prophesies about the Messiah. Thus the Law is not abolished, but fulfilled. This is the way that Christians have understood it for centuries.
Thankfully, the Bible is interpreted differently at different times: The Bible, as interpreted back in e.g. the 15th century was not very tolerant. While Islam was much more open and tolerant a millenium ago, but had a backlash and today is rather backwards and intolerant.
Not sure I understand the relevance of those remarks. I would say that in society generally the levels of tolerance (versus intolerance) remain fairly constant over time, just that the things we tolerate and the things we don't gradually change. So for instance, 100 years ago we didn't tolerate slavery, but felt comfortable with racism. Now, we tolerate the former, but not the latter. In 100 years time, they will tolerate some things we do not, but will probably regard us as something like monsters for knowingly presiding over a massive extinction event.
Comparative to society at large, Christianity has been relatively free of hyprocrisy on the things it tolerates (versus the things it does not).
Of course,I might hope that people would they no longer need any crutches to explain the world and would meditate on "why do I believe in this? Is it because I was brainwashed into it? What about all the other religious systems, that also claim to be unique? And why do none of them have any effect on the world today?". But people seems to get less sense (homeopathy, new age, birthers, tea party) rather than the opposite
I would say that you are doing a pretty poor job of externalising yourself into the worldview of someone with different religious beliefs. It is a useful exercise - but mainly from the perspective of examining how coherent an rational your own beliefs would appear to someone who does not share them. "Fortunately" for Christianity it's founder seems to have already thought about both underlying issues so we tend to take such things in our stride, having understood and contextualised the presence of unbelief and other religions, as well as the evidentiary framework underlying the things we believe.