Evidence for God from Science

Is this the rally I read about where they insist on calling themselves "brights"?

There's a lot of inbred criticism in here, hopefully I can break it up.

Reactionary wrote:

Stu wrote:The atheistic worldview today is one more about a denial of the supernatural, rather than the evidence for a random chance universe.

Exactly that... These days it's easier than ever to see through the atheistic propaganda. It's becoming so obvious that the proponents of "reason" (funny how a chance universe could produce something like that) are not promoting skepticism or "unbelief", but are rather advocating their worldview, which involves faith just as our does. A lot more faith, if I may add.

I agree, however, that it's of great importance to educate the people, because as Chesterton said, 'without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously'. People need to know that a scientist is not a messiah of the 21st century, but rather a human being just as any of us. And human beings tend to be biased, and may resort to denial when facts don't suit their wishes. Therefore, I wish luck to everyone who will participate in refuting recycled arguments (or, should I call them "vestigial" ) from "nonbelievers".

But it is a message of unbelief. There's a lot of diversity and disagreement amongst atheists (much like there is amongst Christians) and there is no one atheist world view. Unbelief requires no faith whatsoever. Yes, we universally promote science as the best way to understand the Universe, but science takes a long time to come to an agreement on something - but there's no denying it works.

However, saying we believe in a random chance Universe is nonsense - we're entirely undecided on the matter and who knows if we ever will be. There is no working scientific theory of abiogenesis (although it feels close) and we don't yet know many things - that doesn't mean we accept them on faith, it means we've withheld judgment until such time that we understand them. But scientific skepticism (ironic as that may be) needs to stop. There are problems with science, but most people not familiar with science don't know what they are. Science should not be waved off, but improved.

Also, and I can't speak for all atheists, but the Dawkins message is not one of abolishing religion, it's one of putting religion in its proper place and taking religion out of government. We all just want to get along with all the different theists and different philosophies out there - we shouldn't enforce one as the ONE TRUTH when we can't agree on what that is. It's simply one of accepting each other (theists and atheists alike) as people.

Beanybag, what do you mean when you say that unbelief requires no faith? It seems to me that it would require a lot. For instance, in order to rationally deny that Christ rose from the dead, you need to get around the New Testament writings that claim that he did (likely by denying their accuracy, claiming they were written late with no eyewitness input at all, proposing that the body was stolen/not dead or that the disciples had hallucinations, arguing for legendary accrual or a copycat or Christ-myth thesis, etc). In any case, you'd have to put faith in an explanation other than that Christ rose from the dead (and these explanations have a strong tendency to be highly flawed). One can't merely have an emotional lack of faith in God and call it a rational denial of his existence. In order to justify disbelief in the many claims of Christianity, one must put faith in counterclaims.

On another note, I don't think many here are skeptical of science, only of the claims of certain scientists who openly espouse scientism (Lawrence Krauss comes to mind as a good example of a scientist who is willing to make bold claims about the nature of the universe without bothering to do a little bit of research into philosophy and definitely does have faith in his own theories, even when they are based on a poor understanding of matters outside his field of expertise).

I'm a theistic evolutionist, by the way, so I probably have fewer qualms with scientists than most of the users on this board and can't claim to speak for them.

Though I agree that one can't judge atheists as a single, monolithic group, I can't quite accept your interpretation of Dawkins. He certainly doesn't seem to be willing to get along with theists (calling our beliefs delusions, refusing to engage in reasonable debate, dismissing Christian claims without doing the research, half endorsing the Christ-myth). It seems pretty clear to me that he has little to no respect for theists and isn't interested in a healthy dialogue with them (or thinking too hard about some of his claims). He isn't like some other atheists like Quentin Smith or pre-deist Anthony Flew who keep/kept abreast of the issues and debated the question of God's existence with Christian intellectuals, developing friendly relationships with their "enemies" on the other side in the process.

As a side note, I notice that in your first paragraph, you mention that there isn't a single atheist worldview and that there is diversity among atheists (which is true), but in your second paragraph, you seem to be speaking for atheists in general (and some of what you state is certainly not representative of many of the more vocal atheist leaders out there).

In any case, I applaud you for your desire for theists and atheists to accept each other as people.

Beanybag wrote:But it is a message of unbelief. There's a lot of diversity and disagreement amongst atheists (much like there is amongst Christians) and there is no one atheist world view. Unbelief requires no faith whatsoever. Yes, we universally promote science as the best way to understand the Universe, but science takes a long time to come to an agreement on something - but there's no denying it works.

What do you mean, "no faith"? Atheism is a belief that there is no God. You can call it a position, idea or whatever else, but the fact is that it's a belief. And of course it requires faith, just as every other position, belief or idea. Science is a very useful tool that has done a lot for humanity, but it has its limitations, and we need to be aware of that. Science can tell you that if you put a certain amount of a certain poisonous substance in a drink, the person who drinks it will die. But science won't tell you if it would be ethical from you to do that. Science deals with only a certain aspect of our understanding of the Universe, but it will never give us the complete picture. That's where philosophy and theology jump in. Unfortunately, there are natural scientists who will claim that a degree in philosophy or theology is worth a lot less than one in physics, chemistry or biology, which just shows the condescending attitude some people have towards non-natural sciences.

Beanybag wrote:However, saying we believe in a random chance Universe is nonsense - we're entirely undecided on the matter and who knows if we ever will be. There is no working scientific theory of abiogenesis (although it feels close) and we don't yet know many things - that doesn't mean we accept them on faith, it means we've withheld judgment until such time that we understand them. But scientific skepticism (ironic as that may be) needs to stop. There are problems with science, but most people not familiar with science don't know what they are. Science should not be waved off, but improved.

Withholding judgment looks more like an agnostic position. I don't see a third alternative to the creation of the Universe - it could have either been created, or it came to be by itself. So if someone believes that there is no Creator, I conclude that the person believes in spontaneous creation. I have nothing against skepticism - I'm a rather skeptical person myself - but I see a problem when I witness mockery and insults directed towards Christianity, which happens often and especially on the Internet, by people who proclaimed themselves to be smart and intelligent just because they don't believe in God. I try to treat all people with respect, but I was offended many times on the basis of my religious views, nothing else.

Beanybag wrote:Also, and I can't speak for all atheists, but the Dawkins message is not one of abolishing religion, it's one of putting religion in its proper place and taking religion out of government. We all just want to get along with all the different theists and different philosophies out there - we shouldn't enforce one as the ONE TRUTH when we can't agree on what that is. It's simply one of accepting each other (theists and atheists alike) as people.

I can't talk about your government as I don't even know where you're from, but a majority of the Western countries (I'll assume you're from there, no offense if otherwise) are secular these days. What exactly about religion do you find intrusive in a government? You're free to believe what you want. You don't have to baptize. You don't have to get married in a church. You're not forced to pray to a god you don't believe in. I don't see a problem, so please point me to one if there is any. Unless we talk about heritage. As I wrote in another thread, the Western society was largely build around a Christian heritage, so it makes perfect sense that it will be incorporated in the society as something traditional. If I were a non-Christian, I wouldn't have a problem with that at least.

P.S. Regarding accepting, it's commendable that you are willing to accept other worldviews. Many, however, are not, and will want to push theirs down others' throats, and I'm afraid there are atheists who do that as well, just as adherents of any other worldview.

The first sentence in each of these replies was factually wrong. I shouldn't think this is too difficult now, I'll help to give some perspective.

Icthus wrote:Beanybag, what do you mean when you say that unbelief requires no faith? It seems to me that it would require a lot.

Reactionary wrote:What do you mean, "no faith"? Atheism is a belief that there is no God.

No and no. Atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s). It is not the positive belief that there are/is no god(s). That would be rather difficult to prove seeing as there are an infinite number of potential concepts for a god. If I don't believe anything I can't be wrong. There's nothing that I believe to be wrong. There's some problems with how I came to that belief, maybe, since I won't be able to believe I even have it, but that aside.. You can't be wrong about a belief you don't hold. With respect to god(s), I have no belief. It's rather simple.

Here's a video explaining the concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

If we want to discuss my ontological views, which might seem to exclude a god within their framework, well.. I actually don't have a set ontology. I haven't found one that I think is consistent with reality - reality is too strange for me to easily define as such.

Also, agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism. This seems to be where most people get tripped up. I am an agnostic atheist. This would be the official position of science towards theism as well. You may argue that my definitions are wrong all you want, but you'll look rather silly as a theist trying to tell me what an atheist actually believes. I wouldn't do the same to you.

Withholding judgment looks more like an agnostic position. I don't see a third alternative to the creation of the Universe - it could have either been created, or it came to be by itself. So if someone believes that there is no Creator, I conclude that the person believes in spontaneous creation. I have nothing against skepticism - I'm a rather skeptical person myself - but I see a problem when I witness mockery and insults directed towards Christianity, which happens often and especially on the Internet, by people who proclaimed themselves to be smart and intelligent just because they don't believe in God. I try to treat all people with respect, but I was offended many times on the basis of my religious views, nothing else.

The third alternative is that the Universe could have always been there. Or maybe the Universe is a simulation on a higher dimensional hypercomputer and we're all in the matrix. Or maybe we're the product of a dream of some super-powerful space demon. I don't know! We can only work with what we have figured out. Just because I don't believe one alternative doesn't imply the other, that's just a false dichotomy. There's a lot of other potential options out there that I feel are equally unknowable at this time. I'm willing to stick with what I do know and I trust the methodology of science to know what's best in that regaurd. I won't get into ethics at this time, but I do think there is many valid different ethical systems that Christians unfairly dismiss because they aren't their ethics.

I agree that much respect is needed on all sides. But there is a very vocal group of Christians (much like there are very vocal atheists) who try their best to ruin the name of other Christians with their poor behavior. We should spend less time judging and more time cooperating, I think. We're all going to have to live together, after all.

I can't talk about your government as I don't even know where you're from, but a majority of the Western countries (I'll assume you're from there, no offense if otherwise) are secular these days. What exactly about religion do you find intrusive in a government? You're free to believe what you want. You don't have to baptize. You don't have to get married in a church. You're not forced to pray to a god you don't believe in. I don't see a problem, so please point me to one if there is any. Unless we talk about heritage. As I wrote in another thread, the Western society was largely build around a Christian heritage, so it makes perfect sense that it will be incorporated in the society as something traditional. If I were a non-Christian, I wouldn't have a problem with that at least.

Yes, most Western governments are secular states. I am from the USA myself. The issue that strikes me strongest would be the issue of gay marriage, in which I've found no strong secular argument against it - only religious ones. If christians cannot create a law that will also apply to muslims, jews, atheists, hindus, buddhists, etc. then they should not impose that belief on everyone else. There are other examples, too.

As for being largely christian, it doesn't make sense for the government, which is secular, to adopt these views. I will have a problem if christians try to impose their beliefs on others through the tyranny of the majority. I do not have a problem with heritage otherwise, it's fine for the culture to be largely christian but not the laws.

For instance, in order to rationally deny that Christ rose from the dead, you need to get around the New Testament writings that claim that he did (likely by denying their accuracy, claiming they were written late with no eyewitness input at all, proposing that the body was stolen/not dead or that the disciples had hallucinations, arguing for legendary accrual or a copycat or Christ-myth thesis, etc). In any case, you'd have to put faith in an explanation other than that Christ rose from the dead (and these explanations have a strong tendency to be highly flawed). One can't merely have an emotional lack of faith in God and call it a rational denial of his existence. In order to justify disbelief in the many claims of Christianity, one must put faith in counterclaims.

The burden of proof is on the presenter of the argument. You can present the Christ rose from the dead, but your proof is still suspect. I am not saying he didn't rise from the dead, keep in mind. But a book written about it, eyewitnesses or no, accuracy of the story or no, that explanation might still leave a lot lacking (how does his resurrection prove he is god and not, say, a necromancer? How do I know it's not some trick by the devil or someone sinister to get me to believe something? Lots of other questions too that I don't care to be answered) . I've heard many similar claims to other similar events from people who were otherwise genuine as well. Someone may testify before the highest court in the land that they were abducted by aliens but that doesn't mean I will believe them. It's not to say that I think they were not abducted by aliens, only to say that I don't have a belief either way. In which case, I'd be pigeon-holed into the default position of nonbelief, or atheism (with respect to theist claims). This doesn't make my position wrong, because I don't have a position (I'm neither right nor wrong). It's just me trying to be honest in what I know - and what I don't.

On another note, I don't think many here are skeptical of science, only of the claims of certain scientists who openly espouse scientism (Lawrence Krauss comes to mind as a good example of a scientist who is willing to make bold claims about the nature of the universe without bothering to do a little bit of research into philosophy and definitely does have faith in his own theories, even when they are based on a poor understanding of matters outside his field of expertise).

But one scientist never constitutes the whole of the scientific community. Scientists are always trying to prove each other wrong and Lawrence Krauss's idea has yet to find complete consensus (it's just a cool idea that people latch on to). There's some who might agree with him and there's some who might not. Here's another theory that's kind of cool: http://www.insidescience.org/?q=content ... iverse/566

The point is, science is self-correcting. You will always find mistakes on the forefront of science as they find errors in methodology, anomolies in data collection, variables not accounted for. But as people build and repeat these experiments, the errors are found and science progresses. A theory can be disproven at any time, and indeed, science is founded on this idea of fallibility. If a prediction isn't fulfilled or a result is found in contradiction to a theory or hypothesis, then the theory or hypothesis is discarded. Whatever hypotheses remain must contain the truth.

There may come a time where the philosophy of science needs revision. Scientism/physacalism is losing ground because of its inability to explain certain psychological phenomena like qualia while model-dependent reality is gaining a lot of ground. It's obviously a debate that's never going to end, but it still progresses.

And I tried to say that I don't speak for all atheists - I know there are many who are as you say. But try to be fair to us and we'll try to be fair to you (of course, I'm still just speaking of myself, but you get the idea).

Oh yeah, and there are atheists out there who reject all knowledge altogether, and everyone else seems to find them unbearable: They are the post-modernists and they are such a pain, lol. So, like I said, lots of diversity out there.

a·the·ist
   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


atheism
 [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
atheism , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.


atheism

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

Again, argue with my definitions if you'd like, but you will (and do) just appear silly. These definitions might be what theists believe them to mean, but a more refined distinction is necessary among atheists - gnostic atheists make the positive denial of the existence of all gods. Agnostic atheists do not. There are many more agnostic atheists than gnostic ones. Certain ontological views are gnostically atheist, like I said - but we are not discussing ontology, we're discussing whether or not someone believes theistic claims. See the video I provided. It's possible to be an atheist without adhering to any of these ontological philosophies, as I do.

edit: Further, one may generally adhere to a gnostically atheistic ontological view without being gnostically atheist themselves!

I have yet to meet a 100% atheist, even Dawkins himself admits that the possibility of "God" is there.
One can never discount what can't be proven NOT to exist.

Beanybag, I don't quite understand how we are appearing "silly" by challenging your definitions. It isn't as though we're going by a "theist" definition of atheism (whatever that would be). Atheism and agnosticism are generally considered to be two separate things, and not just by theists. Agnosticism is usually referred to as the middle ground between theism and atheism and isn't a part of either. I'm not sure what source Paul has used for the definitions he posted, but I'm fairly certain that he, Reactionary, and I have been using the terms in accordance with their definitions in various esteemed encyclopedias and dictionaries (ie, their proper English usage). Youtube videos do not decide the meaning of words. While we admit that there is a lot of variation in atheism, it won't do to tell us our definitions aren't right, nor will it do to claim that as theists we can't grasp what words mean.

I also find the term "gnostic atheist" to be a little bit confusing. I get that it's supposed to be an atheist who disbelieves (as opposed to simply having a lack of belief), but the word "gnostic" is usually used, from what I've seen, to refer specifically to Gnosticism, a rather mystic religion that originated in the Roman Empire and often incorporated elements of Christianity (one of the first major heresies in early Christianity).

You seem to have missed the point of my bringing up the resurrection. I wasn't trying to prove the resurrection or switch the burden of proof to you. The point was to show that rationally rejecting a truth claim requires at least some faith in a counterclaim. I'll admit, though, I was somewhat mistaken in aiming the argument at you, since you do not have a positive belief that the resurrection did not happen. I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your position (perhaps I still don't). You seem, from what you've said, to be an agnostic (you don't seem to have a positive belief either way as to whether or not God exists), so why do you attach the term "atheist" to yourself. I think I understand what you mean when you claim to be an "agnostic atheist", but I don't see why it is necessarily different from vanilla agnosticism.

Other than that, I'm actually quite interested in what your opinion on the resurrection actually is.

Icthus wrote:Beanybag, I don't quite understand how we are appearing "silly" by challenging your definitions. It isn't as though we're going by a "theist" definition of atheism (whatever that would be). Atheism and agnosticism are generally considered to be two separate things, and not just by theists. Agnosticism is usually referred to as the middle ground between theism and atheism and isn't a part of either. I'm not sure what source Paul has used for the definitions he posted, but I'm fairly certain that he, Reactionary, and I have been using the terms in accordance with their definitions in various esteemed encyclopedias and dictionaries (ie, their proper English usage). Youtube videos do not decide the meaning of words. While we admit that there is a lot of variation in atheism, it won't do to tell us our definitions aren't right, nor will it do to claim that as theists we can't grasp what words mean.

I also find the term "gnostic atheist" to be a little bit confusing. I get that it's supposed to be an atheist who disbelieves (as opposed to simply having a lack of belief), but the word "gnostic" is usually used, from what I've seen, to refer specifically to Gnosticism, a rather mystic religion that originated in the Roman Empire and often incorporated elements of Christianity (one of the first major heresies in early Christianity).

Gnosticism derives from the word gnosis, which was greek (I think) for knowledge. It has to do with whether or not the existence of god(s) is even knowable. If you think this position is knowable, you can be said to be gnostic with respect to god's existence. It is conceivable to be an agnostic theist, believing in God on pure faith alone (deists come to mind as an example). Most theists would say they know god exists, and be gnostic theists. To some, say a materialist, they have an ontological view that precludes god(s) as a possibility - they would be gnostic atheists.

To me, I don't see how we can ever know if any god exists for sure or not, making me agnostic with respect to a god's existence. As to whether or not I believe in any god(s), I am atheist - that is, I do not believe in any god(s). Put together, I am an agnostic atheist. As you can see, the two concepts answer different questions. This is why it was necessary to improve on these definitions. On some concepts of god(s), I am gnostically atheist as well - for instance, I know the sun is not Apollo riding a chariot across the sky (to the extent that I can know this, at least - I'm actually rather agnostic with concerns to many different forms of knowledge). With respects to the biblical God, however, I am agnostic.

Other than that, I'm actually quite interested in what your opinion on the resurrection actually is.

I don't really have one.

Thanks, Beanybag. I think I get it now. You are an agnostic concerning the God of the great monotheisms, but have a much more positively disbelief in many other Gods (like Apollo). Is that correct?

And, yes, I am quite aware of the etymology of "gnostic." I believe the English form of the word is actually derived from French, which, of course, derives from Greek as you said.

Icthus wrote:Thanks, Beanybag. I think I get it now. You are an agnostic concerning the God of the great monotheisms, but have a much more positively disbelief in many other Gods (like Apollo). Is that correct?

And, yes, I am quite aware of the etymology of "gnostic." I believe the English form of the word is actually derived from French, which, of course, derives from Greek as you said.

That's correct, yes. I am gnostically atheist to some concepts and agnostic towards others. But I am atheist with respect to all gods; I do not believe in any god.

Beanybag wrote:The third alternative is that the Universe could have always been there. Or maybe the Universe is a simulation on a higher dimensional hypercomputer and we're all in the matrix. Or maybe we're the product of a dream of some super-powerful space demon. I don't know! We can only work with what we have figured out. Just because I don't believe one alternative doesn't imply the other, that's just a false dichotomy. There's a lot of other potential options out there that I feel are equally unknowable at this time. I'm willing to stick with what I do know and I trust the methodology of science to know what's best in that regaurd.

Fair enough. I admit that I was a little quick to dismiss other alternatives (except the one about the eternal Universe, we have solid evidence that it began to exist, unless you're referring to multiverse), but the two major ones - Creator (i.e. God) and spontaneous creation are held to be most legitimate these days, and are given most attention. The thing is, science probably won't ever give us the answer of what is outside the Universe, so this debate will probably last as long as humanity. Someone said - I can't find who though - that when we die, we'll either get the answers we've been looking for our entire lives, or we'll stop asking questions.

Beanybag wrote:I won't get into ethics at this time, but I do think there is many valid different ethical systems that Christians unfairly dismiss because they aren't their ethics.

Sounds interesting, we could discuss that on another thread.

Beanybag wrote:I agree that much respect is needed on all sides. But there is a very vocal group of Christians (much like there are very vocal atheists) who try their best to ruin the name of other Christians with their poor behavior. We should spend less time judging and more time cooperating, I think. We're all going to have to live together, after all.

Amen to that. What I don't like is when some people dismiss an entire worldview because certain adherents did something immoral or unacceptable. I've heard many say, "If there were less paedophiles among priests, maybe I would go to church." Well, you don't go to church to appease priests, but for your own sake. At least I do. Too many logical fallacies are being thrown around, and that's not good or honest, and it definitely hurts the dialogue between different worldviews and beliefs.

Beanybag wrote:Yes, most Western governments are secular states. I am from the USA myself. The issue that strikes me strongest would be the issue of gay marriage, in which I've found no strong secular argument against it - only religious ones. If christians cannot create a law that will also apply to muslims, jews, atheists, hindus, buddhists, etc. then they should not impose that belief on everyone else. There are other examples, too.

I think the secular argument was that a state rewards heterosexual relations by establishing marriage, in order to protect it under the law. It does so because it's in a state's best interest to enable children, the future of any society, to be shaped into adults by a family unit. Secular opponents will probably say that a homosexual relation doesn't deserve that privilege, because it doesn't result with children.

As for creating laws - out of all the religions you mentioned, there is a high probability that a conflicting situation between some of them may ensue. In that case we have to look for a consensus, but let's keep in mind that we can't appease everyone.

Beanybag wrote:As for being largely christian, it doesn't make sense for the government, which is secular, to adopt these views. I will have a problem if christians try to impose their beliefs on others through the tyranny of the majority. I do not have a problem with heritage otherwise, it's fine for the culture to be largely christian but not the laws.

Well, do you have any other issue on your mind? Some law that favors Christians but not the others?

Reactionary wrote:

Beanybag wrote:The third alternative is that the Universe could have always been there. Or maybe the Universe is a simulation on a higher dimensional hypercomputer and we're all in the matrix. Or maybe we're the product of a dream of some super-powerful space demon. I don't know! We can only work with what we have figured out. Just because I don't believe one alternative doesn't imply the other, that's just a false dichotomy. There's a lot of other potential options out there that I feel are equally unknowable at this time. I'm willing to stick with what I do know and I trust the methodology of science to know what's best in that regaurd.

Fair enough. I admit that I was a little quick to dismiss other alternatives (except the one about the eternal Universe, we have solid evidence that it began to exist, unless you're referring to multiverse), but the two major ones - Creator (i.e. God) and spontaneous creation are held to be most legitimate these days, and are given most attention. The thing is, science probably won't ever give us the answer of what is outside the Universe, so this debate will probably last as long as humanity. Someone said - I can't find who though - that when we die, we'll either get the answers we've been looking for our entire lives, or we'll stop asking questions.

Right, the Universe is almost certainly not eternal, but it was a possibility up until about 1900 or so. I'm just trying to be as humble as I can with my approach to truth and I admit that there's little (if anything) that I really know.

Amen to that. What I don't like is when some people dismiss an entire worldview because certain adherents did something immoral or unacceptable. I've heard many say, "If there were less paedophiles among priests, maybe I would go to church." Well, you don't go to church to appease priests, but for your own sake. At least I do. Too many logical fallacies are being thrown around, and that's not good or honest, and it definitely hurts the dialogue between different worldviews and beliefs.

Right, I am particularly adverse to the claims of truth based on morality because the people involved making the dispute are using different morals! If two people have different morals, of course they will see problems in each others ideas based on morality, because the morals they are describing are dependent on their world-view - it's like trying to shove a clearly contradictory world-view into your own, and then saying, "See? Clearly this doesn't work!" They've designed a scenario in which it can't work to begin with though. So, much agreed there, especially on arguments that are pretty non sequitir.

As for creating laws - out of all the religions you mentioned, there is a high probability that a conflicting situation between some of them may ensue. In that case we have to look for a consensus, but let's keep in mind that we can't appease everyone.

Can you give me an example? In terms of the US government, it can be said that we start with anarchy as the default position (no laws, rights, regulations, etc.) and then create restrictions (laws) and protections (rights) from there. We must justify each addition to the government with justified, well-reasoned arguments. I don't think we should ever create a law just because the majority demands it, we decide, through voting, if the argument for the removal or addition is sufficiently justified.

The government is not intended to be a moral arbiter. I am a vegetarian, for example, but I still think people should have the freedom to eat meat if they so choose. The government's role is to restrict our freedom only as much as is needed and no further and only means to regulate interactions between its citizens (and non-citizens, to a lesser extent) and not choices of the individual (as a general rule). Any further restriction based on morals should be imposed by the self. We are all responsible for ourselves and should have the ability to choose for ourselves how we live. As for a lot of the rights afforded to the citizens in the USA, those were borrowed pretty heavily from Lockean philosophy, but they serve their purpose very well. And the Constitution is also a changeable document, to some extent, and allows for revision, so there's always the chance to improve upon it if we need.

Well, do you have any other issue on your mind? Some law that favors Christians but not the others?

I'm sure there are examples, but I'm not really excited to find or argue them right now.