What does the distribution of the world's religions tell us?  It tells us that the vast majority of people acquire religious faith on the basis of an accident of birth.

Yes, that must be why such religious beliefs grew during the time when they were just getting started, or that we never see people rejecting what is largely held in their cultural environment as they grow up. 

What one comes to believe normally depends on place of birth and parentage.  If there are gods whose influence ought to be felt by all, then they do not seem to be very effective in making their presence known to the entire pool of potential worshipers.  Either that, or the gods in question simply choose to reveal themselves only to a select few, who are then charged with spreading their divine knowledge by word of mouth alone.

You realize the "If God were real, He'd let us know by making this ball levitate when I drop it." has been abandoned for a reason, right? As your arguement seems to hit the same problem, as well as the one where truth-claims aren't dependent on location.

That seems a rather unlikely scenario, given the existence of competing false religions that are spread by the same means, but a lot of people of all different persuasions seem to have embraced the idea.

Mostly because they realize the method was the one largely available to everyone to spread news.

Given the geographical distribution of religions, their god seems not to believe that all who might merit a heavenly reward ought to have an equal opportunity to win it.

Your arguement is a disease's existence is in question because someone who contracts it lives a thousand miles away from the nearest clinic? Really?

And I have to ask what exactly compels God to give everyone fair treatement when He is under no obligation to give His grace and mercy at all?

The geographical argument does not prove the nonexistence of any god, but it calls into serious question the existence of all of them.  If there is any religion that is absolutely true to the exclusion of all others, one could reasonably expect it to have a more diverse origin than just a single point in time and space.

How pray tell? Especially when one can easily see your equivocating events that can only occur in a single time and place, and method of getting the news across. You might as well call into question Kennedy's existence because the news of his assasination took longer to reach Siberia. Truly a new level of amusement Cop. though it seems you miss the fact that if you truly held fairly to your criteria a more diverse acceptance of a religion would give it more weight.  Hmm, going off your map (not that I'm conceding it's accuracy, or if it even takes population density and location into account) I think Christianity is the winner then.

Simple fairness.  If God is deemed not to be fair, then how can he be considered benevolent or just?  This calls into question God's worthiness of worship.

"Fair" is a rather ambiguous term, especially when your misapplying it to the situation. The situation according to the Bible (note we are accepting some things for the sake of arguement, so no back-peddaling) is that we are all guilty of sin and thus deserving of punishment. That's what's "fair". Our salvation only comes by God's grace, and He doesn't have to give evenly what He isn't obligated to give at all. It's like a prisoner moaning that it isn't "fair" that the guy from the next cell, got a Presidential Pardon, and he didn't. As such God is considered just by holding us all to the same standard of punishment, and benevolent that He gives us a way out if we will accept it when He didn't have to do so. Thus making Him very worthy of worship.

There seems to be no impediment to providing us with more than one point of origin, yet the Christian religion seems to follow the pattern of all false religions in having a single point of origin.

Probably because they also follow the pattern of every News Channel that says 'This just happened at such and such a time and place.' It's not really that difficult Cop.

 

I cannot think of a reasonable explanation for why God would choose a small tribe of semitic nomads to visit with divine revelation of his existence and no other people anywhere else on the planet, but perhaps you have what you consider a reasonable explanation.

Yeah, He had a covenant with that particular tribe. Thus He gave them special attention. It's pretty much outlined threw the whole story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course this just goes into the fact that you give no reason why God can't, and just presume.

Has anyone ever claimed Kennedy to have been immanent?  It is reasonable to expect events involving real people to have a single point in time and space.

Wow, I would have figured you'd at least grasp that the Bible asserts, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, etc. etc. as real people and the events described as real events even if you disagree that they really existed or happened. Again, that's why you fail Cop. Truth claims aren't dependent on geography.

You're ignoring much of what I said again, but I'll repeat this one for your convenience.  The geographical distribution of Islam and Christianity can be largely attributed to the historical appearance of Muslim and Christian military forces in those locations.

And you're ignoring what I said: If you were truly being fair with your criteria you'd have to give more weight to the religion with most diverse range of acceptance (it's not enough that the largest region holds it). The method of spreading it wouldn't be relevant.

"Fair" is a rather ambiguous term...

Not in this case.  Fair would be equal treatment for all, yet only those who grow up in Christian countries would seem to be offered the opportunity of salvation.

...God is considered just by holding us all to the same standard of punishment, and benevolent that He gives us a way out if we will accept it when He didn't have to do so. Thus making Him very worthy of worship.

Dead wrong on both counts.  Holding everyone to the same standard of punishment regardless of their opportunity to avoid it is obviously unfair because it denies mitigating circumstances.  He does not give all of us a way out because not all are offered the opportunity to accept it.

There seems to be no impediment to providing us with more than one point of origin, yet the Christian religion seems to follow the pattern of all false religions in having a single point of origin.

Probably because they also follow the pattern of every News Channel that says 'This just happened at such and such a time and place.' It's not really that difficult Cop.

 Then why do you find it so difficult to grasp the point?     And where did you get the idea that God was forced to behave like a TV newscaster?  He could easily have pulled off other death-by-torture spectacles in cultures that didn't get Roman Imperial satellite TV.  For that matter, he could have thought to do the whole thing a lot earlier and spared earlier generations his righteous wrath.

 

I cannot think of a reasonable explanation for why God would choose a small tribe of semitic nomads to visit with divine revelation of his existence and no other people anywhere else on the planet, but perhaps you have what you consider a reasonable explanation.

Yeah, He had a covenant with that particular tribe. Thus He gave them special attention. It's pretty much outlined threw the whole story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course this just goes into the fact that you give no reason why God can't, and just presume.

I'm not denying that the Bible claims special privileges for the ethnic minority that wrote it.  Religious scripture, not surprisingly, always claims special privileges for the authors, and religions in those days were all about ethnicity-besotted gods.  I'm not saying that God couldn't be as bigoted as the neighboring gods, but it is hard to imagine why the creator of the entire universe would dote so much on that one little tribe of humans to the exclusion of all others.

Has anyone ever claimed Kennedy to have been immanent?  It is reasonable to expect events involving real people to have a single point in time and space.

Wow, I would have figured you'd at least grasp that the Bible asserts, Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Paul, etc. etc. as real people and the events described as real events even if you disagree that they really existed or happened. Again, that's why you fail Cop. Truth claims aren't dependent on geography.

I am beginning to understand why you are such a fervent Christian.  You seem incapable of either understanding or producing a coherent argument.  God is not a concrete person, nor is he restricted in the same way as real people are by time and space.  At least, that is how Christians have described him.

The big problem with the 'geographic' argument is that it doesn't prove anything.  For example, if the secularists manage to win in every respect, they will in turn promote secular atheism everywhere, and consequently, nations will come to be heavily populated by atheists.  This, of course, will go to prove what?  That:

If atheism is absolutely true to the exclusion of all others, one could reasonably expect it to have a more diverse origin than just a single point in time and space.

?

Of course not.  Because like nearly all arguments by atheists, this one is only permitted to work one way.  If the shoe is on the other foot then the logic doesn't follow.  There are other problems with the argument as well, but this 'cake and eating it too' issue is the most serious.

What does such data really demonstrate?   The nature of human socialization, that's what.  Ie, you can promote just about any ideology- atheistic, religious (as if atheism isn't a religion, lol)- and otherwise by passing the worldview down to the children and the children's children.  This is precisely why atheists want to keep God out of public education and why they cannot tolerate the idea of teaching anything other than evolution.  They do not trust their own propaganda.   They don't want to present evidence and arguments for all other views and let people decide because in their hearts they know that atheism just won't win out.

This isn't because they secretly think that the evidence for atheism is weak- that isn't what I'm suggesting.  This is because they think that most people are idiots, and religion is the default position for idiots.

A thought experiment

Actually it doesn't help you as much as you think. For a very simple reason: The arguement is trying to call into question a thing's existence, but the analogy is being applied to the method of spreading the message. You even reveal this yourself as you are indeed accepting the disease exists.

The upshot of all this is that an epidemiologist would conclude that there was no evidence, from the geographical distribution of the disease, to suggest that it was introduced by a powerful outside entity, or in fact that it is any different in its origin and method of transmission than any one of a hundred competing infections.

That seems rather backwards, as the whole plagarism objection is all about common concepts being all over the place and thus conclude it was borrowed and made up.

Is this a rock-solid argument against Christianity being the one true faith?  No.

It's not even a putty-solid arguement against....any religion really.

It's entirely possible that an all-powerful god could have introduced the idea that he allegedly wants the whole world to embrace, and therefore be saved by, in a single place at a single time, and then stood back and watch it trickle slowly through as much of the population as circumstances allow.  It's possible, but like so many other aspects of Christianity, it demands the question of why an omnipotent, omnicogniscent and omnibenevolent god would behave in such an apparently stupid and short-sighted way.

One can always say God already did more than what He was obligated to do (again the fact that He never had to save us). But I'd say it mostly goes into the fact that it would be reasonable for those interested in the truth to make a little effort on our part. Or do you really think someone with a disease whinning about how doctor's won't just spontaneously show up to his house with the cure without any effort done on his part to reach them is a legitimate excuse?

Editted to add:  Thank you for prompting that thought process by the way.  i've got to say i enjoy the idea of religion as a vector-borne parasitic infection.  Takes the mystery out of it somehow.   

Hey, I always held atheism had similarities to a genetic-disease. You know, as inherent pride and presumption seem to be at the root of it all.

Ignored posts makes Dotard a sad man. 

Maybe I asked it incorrectly. I'll try this;

EB:

Are you advocating that God is capable of unjust, unfair or uneven? That he is under no moral obligation to treat evey one of his creations in a fair and equatible manner?

The word "righteous", which is a common description of the God of the Bible, is in conflict with your contention God has it in him to be without virtue or justice.

"That is a very predictable response, my friend."

Maybe we've had this conversation before?  

"You frequently try to turn these arguments around, as if there were some kind of real symmetry that could erase the force of the argument."

But there is.

"But atheism is not a positive doctrine spread by allegations of miracles and revelations."

It can be spread in other ways.  It doesn't matter how it is spread.  The point is that it can be spread, and is spread in much the way that religions are spread:  from father to son, from community to community, etc.  This surely can't bother you much.  Dawkins put it into language you can understand, calling it a 'meme.'  

The fallacy of the argument is illustrated by the blind hypocrisy:  if it were a culture of atheists creating more atheists you wouldn't think for a minute of employing the 'geographic' argument.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  And if you won't employ it against the gander, I won't let you employ it against the goose.  More importantly, objective readers of such arguments can see for themselves the double standard.  I submit the matter to the lurker.  You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

"He posed a challenge for theists--that they examine their own beliefs with the same level of skepticism that they examine non-Christian religious beliefs."

It isn't a very difficult challenge.  But we must understand that we mean by 'skepticism' different things.  Your idea of skepticism carries with it assumptions that make it equivalent with cynicism and smug dismissals.  My kind of skepticism says, "I'll be agnostic until I look at the evidence."  And this is precisely the kind of skepticism I have employed regarding my own beliefs and other beliefs.  

In fact, this is here again a case where atheists employ a double standard.  This can be illustrated in the 'why we need faith' thread where I am insisting that we use standard types of reasoning and evidence in evaluating the Christian faith whereas the gent on the other side is treating it as self-evident that higher and more stringent standards be deployed.  I would be very happy if you applied the same level of skepticism to Christianity that you applied to your own skepticism.  

"No, it isn't.  This is just your knee-jerk attempt to turn the tables, as pointed out above."

As EB said, you merely prove the point.  I asserted that you would deny the implications if the shoe was on the other foot.  This you did.  I only briefly sketched why the implications would be the same.  My emphasis was on the fact that you denied it.  Face it Cop.  I know you atheists like every inch of my glorious naked body.  

"I do not think that religion is the default position for idiots.  It requires considerable intellect to be able to rationalize all the contradictions."

A lot of work to say that religious people are idiots without saying that they are idiots.   Fortunately, people are smarter than you give them credit for.  I as an apologist am counting on it.  You fear it.  Proof positive:  you can't tolerate the notion of even talking about Intelligent Design in a science classroom- not even for purposes of debunking it.

Problably because you are putting words in my mouth and beating up a strawman.


No sir. I was asking the questions attempting to ascertain your opinion on the nature of God.


"Unfair" is not the same as "unjust".

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

Main Entry: unjust
Definition: not fair
Synonyms: below the belt*, biased, fixed*, inequitable, influenced, low-down*, one-sided, partial, partisan, prejudiced, shabby*, underhand, undeserved, unfair, unforgivable, unjustified, unmerited, unrighteous, wrong, wrongful 
Antonyms: equitable, fair, just, unbiased, unprejudiced

Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: unfair
Definition: Not fair, right, or just.
Synonyms: inequitable, unequal 

So my bad, I didn't know you were re-defining.  I'd rather go with the published dictionarys definitions other than End Bringers personal ones.

Ok, now I know better to ask you any questions directly. If I ever forget that, because I truely am an old Dotard, please remind me not to and refer me back to this thread. 

Now that was just unnecessary.

A little line from Rush Limbaugh that seemed appropriate at the moment.  :)

"But atheism is not a positive doctrine spread by allegations of miracles and revelations."

It can be spread in other ways.  It doesn't matter how it is spread.  The point is that it can be spread, and is spread in much the way that religions are spread:  from father to son, from community to community, etc.  This surely can't bother you much.  Dawkins put it into language you can understand, calling it a 'meme.'

It seems that you are determined to ignore the argument, so it is worth repeating.  Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim--the claim that gods exist.  It has no supernatural origin.  Indeed, atheism has originated spontaneously in many places at many times, as one would expect.  It has not always been spread by word of mouth, as all religions have.

Your brand of theism is based on an immanent spiritual being that is not bound by space or time.  Hence, it appears unlikely that the origin of the belief would be confined to single points in time and space.  Why would the creator of the universe treat an ancient tribe of semites any more specially than any other group of human beings?

The fallacy of the argument is illustrated by the blind hypocrisy:  if it were a culture of atheists creating more atheists you wouldn't think for a minute of employing the 'geographic' argument.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  And if you won't employ it against the gander, I won't let you employ it against the goose.  More importantly, objective readers of such arguments can see for themselves the double standard.  I submit the matter to the lurker.  You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Fine.  Submit it to as many imaginary lurkers as you want.  The fact remains that atheism has arisen spontaneously in many societies around the world.  It is not really a doctrine of beliefs, but rather the rejection of a doctrine of beliefs.  Skepticism is quite natural and quite ubiquitous in human society.  Your counterclaim here rests on the flawed assumption that it is a specific set of doctrines.  Your religion is a specific set of doctrines, and it does have only a single point of origin.  It has not emerged spontaneously in any other place or time.

"He posed a challenge for theists--that they examine their own beliefs with the same level of skepticism that they examine non-Christian religious beliefs."

It isn't a very difficult challenge.  But we must understand that we mean by 'skepticism' different things.  Your idea of skepticism carries with it assumptions that make it equivalent with cynicism and smug dismissals.  My kind of skepticism says, "I'll be agnostic until I look at the evidence."  And this is precisely the kind of skepticism I have employed regarding my own beliefs and other beliefs.

Nonsense.  We do not treat skepticism differently in this case.  You and I are very much in agreement on the level of skepticism that non-Christian religions merit.  We both routinely dismiss fantastic claims unless there is some good evidence to believe those claims.  You don't buy every bottle of snake oil on the market just to make sure that it doesn't work.  We are both used to putting our hands on our wallets when people come around asking for money.  The difference is mainly in our approach to Christianity.  You approach it as if the burden of proof were on non-believers to disprove the existence of God and other docrinal claims.  Where your natural skepticism fails you is just in the area of evaluating Christian beliefs.  When you don't get all agnosticky is when it comes to other proposed gods such as Zeus, Vishnu, Marduk, or the thousands of others that have been proposed throughout human history.

In fact, this is here again a case where atheists employ a double standard.  This can be illustrated in the 'why we need faith' thread where I am insisting that we use standard types of reasoning and evidence in evaluating the Christian faith whereas the gent on the other side is treating it as self-evident that higher and more stringent standards be deployed.  I would be very happy if you applied the same level of skepticism to Christianity that you applied to your own skepticism. 

OK, I'll be very happy to apply the same level of skepticism to Christianity, although I would have expected you to make a different request.    This is pure psychological projection on your part.  If you applied "standard types of reasoning" to Christianity, I do not think that you would be defending it as vigorously as you do.  For example, standard reasoning is that the burden of proof lie with the person who makes a positive assertion, not the one who doubts it.

"No, it isn't.  This is just your knee-jerk attempt to turn the tables, as pointed out above."

As EB said, you merely prove the point.  I asserted that you would deny the implications if the shoe was on the other foot.  This you did.  I only briefly sketched why the implications would be the same.  My emphasis was on the fact that you denied it.  Face it Cop.  I know you atheists like every inch of my glorious naked body. 

Why is it that evangelicals are so obsessed with homo-erotic images?  Oh, well, I guess we'll have to leave that one to the therapists.    But, of course, you once again pretend that you didn't get the point.  My argument has consistently been that the shoe wasn't on the other foot, because your analogy failed pretty badly.  And I've reiterated the argument again in this post.  But, even if the shoe were on the other foot, atheism would actually be a "belief system" that has arisen spontaneously at different times in different areas of the world.  So your clumsy attempt at an analogy even fails on those grounds.

"I do not think that religion is the default position for idiots.  It requires considerable intellect to be able to rationalize all the contradictions."

A lot of work to say that religious people are idiots without saying that they are idiots.   Fortunately, people are smarter than you give them credit for.  I as an apologist am counting on it.  You fear it.  Proof positive:  you can't tolerate the notion of even talking about Intelligent Design in a science classroom- not even for purposes of debunking it.

Actually, I have gone beyond tolerating the notion of talking about it.  I have talked at length about it many times in this forum.  What you mean is that I cannot abide teaching children that ID is a reasonable scientific theory.  That is true.  And I don't think that fanatics of any stripe are idiots.  I agree with Michael Shermer that smart people believe bad ideas because they are better than others at defending them.  And I have never claimed you were stupid, sntjohnny.  Indeed, you are very, very smart, and far more accomplished than I at defending bad ideas.