Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Copernicus]

I think this one is something of a sticking point. Our saying that mind depends upon brains seems true because we observe that a complete loss of consciousness follows death and destruction of the body (and the death of the brain). And yet all we are concluding is that evidence for what we call consciousness is no longer apparent...

True. I'm going with the simplest assumption--that things are as they appear to be. That is not always the case, but it is usually the case. In fact, we often live as if our lives depended on that simple assumption, and I think that they usually do.

...Consciousness is simply an awareness of one’s existence, an ability to think and perceive...

Well, I think that we can say a lot more than that about the nature of consciousness. Consciousness also seems to depend on memory. There is a discrepancy between what we perceive in the moment and what we remember just having seen. I wonder if it is even possible to have consciousness without memory. And we do know that memory is very much dependent on the physical condition of the brain. There are so many things that can go wrong with it and that can be traced to very specific types and locations of brain lesions.

We identify other minds by the actions of the corporeal forms that contain them. We say ‘I am conscious and I see others who act similar to me, therefore they too are conscious’...

Yes, analogy is the foundation of human cognition. We understand everything by analogy with past experiences, beginning with bodily sensations. That is what we mean when we talk about an "embodied mind".

...And so we assume of a dead body that its mind is dead because minds, we say, are just brains and the brain is now dead. But if mind is not corporeal then it doesn’t follow that consciousness is absent...

You are missing my point here. We assume death because we experience loss of consciousness all the time, and we know that brain trauma causes it. We can also associate mental function very closely with brain activity. Hence, it is reasonable to assume the absence of mental function with loss of brain activity. Every time we go to sleep, we get closer to what death is like, which is to say that it isn't like anything at all. It is just a gap in our awareness. Death is the ultimate gap--a mirror image of what we experienced before birth.

Yet all human beings, alive or dead are entirely the same in a certain respect: we are carbon-based substances. So it seems correct to say:

That which exists is physical.
Consciousness exists.
Consciousness is physical.

We are more than just carbon, and I do not accept this syllogism. Consciousness is not of the same category as the physical. It is a condition that allows our type of physical being to survive and reproduce.

This is asserting that only physical things can exist...

I'll repeat what I have said before. I am not opposed to mind-body dualism, but I consider it asymmetric. Physical things can exist independently of consciousness, but not vice versa. Consciousness is an effect--an emergent phenomenon--of a physical system.

 

[Mister Emu]

Is that man Sanal Edamaruku? I am a great admirer of his.

There was James Randi aka The Amazing Randi, who had a well known million dollar challenge... it ends Saturday...

 

[Alceste]

Not that many, but my generalizations obviously do not cover all possibilities.

Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and all other Oriental philosophies I'm aware of have a strong component of overcoming mind/body dichotomy. What I was saying is that your generalizations only cover Occidental philosophies (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and are absurd when you attempt to apply them to Oriental philosophies. Not only that, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have mystical traditions where the claptrap about prophesy, prayer, life after death, the will of god and all that bollox are completely irrelevant - the aim of these traditions is to "plug in" to the mysterious cosmic radio station of bliss in this life, right here and now, and in so doing become united with / indistinguishable from God.

You're doing that thing American atheists often do - pretending American Christians represent all religious people everywhere. In fact they're a tiny and insignificant minority.

But I was quite careful not to insist that all religious people MUST be that way. Unfortunately, people do not read such caveats very carefully, or maybe I need to make more of a fuss over them.

But what you are saying is not even generally true, except pertaining to a certain body of US Christians who are not representative even of Christianity in general, let alone religion in general.

Look at these reasons you give for " rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God":

1. Minds depend on physical brains.
2. Record of failed explanations.
3. Record of failed revelation.
4. Record of failed prayers.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles.

All these reasons are mainly relevant to the type of religion that believes in a separate soul, attempts to explain away challenging science, promotes the concept of infallible prophets, prays mainly for personal gain and believes in "miracles". I.e. American bible-thumping fundamentalists and their compatriots in Islam.

 

[Copernicus]

Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and all other Oriental philosophies I'm aware of have a strong component of overcoming mind/body dichotomy. What I was saying is that your generalizations only cover Occidental philosophies (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and are absurd when you attempt to apply them to Oriental philosophies. Not only that, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have mystical traditions where the claptrap about prophesy, prayer, life after death, the will of god and all that bollox are completely irrelevant - the aim of these traditions is to "plug in" to the mysterious cosmic radio station of bliss in this life, right here and now, and in so doing become united with / indistinguishable from God.

I just don't agree with your generalization. I don't know what your experience has been of Eastern religions, but I do think that Westerners tend to have a somewhat idealized view of those religions. The form of Buddhism practiced in the US tends to emphasize a less theistic version of the religion in favor of much more emphasis on meditation. There are genuine differences from the Western theistic traditions, but I did not see a huge difference between devout Hindus in India and devout Christians or Muslims.

You're doing that thing American atheists often do - pretending American Christians represent all religious people everywhere. In fact they're a tiny and insignificant minority.

Sorry, but you really have no idea of what my experiences are, and you are letting a stereotype of atheists color your judgment.

But what you are saying is not even generally true, except pertaining to a certain body of US Christians who are not representative even of Christianity in general, let alone religion in general.

I have actually traveled all over the world and studied many different cultures. I am not quite as naive about conditions outside of the US as you seem to believe.

Look at these reasons you give for " rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God":

1. Minds depend on physical brains.
2. Record of failed explanations.
3. Record of failed revelation.
4. Record of failed prayers.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles.

All these reasons are mainly relevant to the type of religion that believes in a separate soul, attempts to explain away challenging science, promotes the concept of infallible prophets, prays mainly for personal gain and believes in "miracles". I.e. American bible-thumping fundamentalists and their compatriots in Islam.

Actually, Islam and Christianity account for the vast majority of theists in the modern world, and I would argue that Hinduism is not as different from the Abrahamic religions as many would have us believe. Gods play much the same roles in the lives of Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists who practice Stupa and boddhisatva worship. Eastern believers do tend to believe in pretty much the same type of souls as Westerners, who also have some pretty diverse opinions of their nature and properties. The concept of an afterlife exists in the form of reincarnation, and the quality of the "afterlife" depends on karma, which is affected by forms of behavior. India has no shortage of religion-driven superstitious rituals and fake miracles. Gods are still intelligent "spirit" agencies that have miraculous powers. You can point to intellectuals with much more nuanced views of their religious philosophies, but that is true in the West, as well. I think that you exaggerate the differences between the East and the West in matters of religion, but you are not alone in your perception.

 

[Copernicus]

From what I've read, this may be true. I've read that the person who first came up with the idea of Quantum Theory got the idea from the Vedas, but that's about it. (I think according to Vedic scripture, the age of the earth, for example, is about twice what scientists have theorized.)

The puzzling properties of light and the scientific method led to the development of quantum theory, not the Vedas.

However, just because many Hindus deny evolution doesn't mean they're incompatible. Hinduism doesn't have any set doctrines or dogmas; any that do exist are sectarian.

I do not agree. Hinduism is riddled with doctrines and dogmas. There is as much sectarian strife in Europe as in India, and religious doctrine is very much in the mix everywhere. Riots between Catholics and Protestants tend to be little different from those between Hindus and Muslims.

Here, it depends on the Hindu. There are Hindus who do not engage much in bhakti at all.

You find similar diversity in the community of practice among Christians.

The hereditary caste system is no longer legal in India, nor is is it supported by the most important Vedic Scriptures. The "each is great in his own place" philosophy for me is about learning about, and subsequently living in harmony with, one's nature, which I believe is primarily built during childhood (in the nature-nurture controversy, I believe both have an impact, but nurture has more of one), and not dependent on birth.

India is a country of vast contrasts and rapid development. You find grinding poverty in close proximity to great wealth and modernity. The caste system is alive and well in India, although it is an embarrassment to many modern Indians. And there are intense rivalries between religions. Muslims, Hindus, and Christians find ways of co-existing, but there are always tensions. My contacts in the Christian community (in the South) felt quite persecuted by attempts at the state level to ban Christian charity on the grounds that Hindus saw it as an attempt by Christians to bribe poor people into leaving Hinduism. And it is hard to deny that, if I lived under some of those conditions of extreme poverty, I would be strongly tempted by charitable behavior to join the community of my benefactors. I could see the perspectives of both communities.

 

[Alceste]

I just don't agree with your generalization. I don't know what your experience has been of Eastern religions, but I do think that Westerners tend to have a somewhat idealized view of those religions. The form of Buddhism practiced in the US tends to emphasize a less theistic version of the religion in favor of much more emphasis on meditation. There are genuine differences from the Western theistic traditions, but I did not see a huge difference between devout Hindus in India and devout Christians or Muslims.

I agree to some extent - it is very difficult for Westerners such as the two of us to break free from the dualistic perspective of the culture in which we were raised and we often tend to project idealistic Hollywood notions full of cherry blossoms, flowing robes and gongs onto our Eastern neighbours. However, that's not me. I'm not an expert, but I do a fair amount of reading on the subject. The emphasis in Oriental traditions is on practice (e.g. meditation) and self-refinement, not the worship of deities or expectation of miracles or any of that rigmarole.

Anyway, I can't argue with you: it is plainly true that you do not see the difference. I can recommend What is Zen or What is Tao, by Alan Watts if you would like to see the difference.

Sorry, but you really have no idea of what my experiences are, and you are letting a stereotype of atheists color your judgment.

I have actually traveled all over the world and studied many different cultures. I am not quite as naive about conditions outside of the US as you seem to believe.

Look, all I'm saying is that your reasons make no sense in the context of Oriental religions. The fact you keep insisting that they do is what brings to mind the tendency of American atheists to behave as if there is only one way to be "religious", or that all religions are the same. I've got the same gripe with Hitchens. He writes as if he doesn't know much about Oriental cosmologies but feels the need to gloss over his ignorance to make a point that religious belief itself is bad news, not the substance of what is believed.

Actually, Islam and Christianity account for the vast majority of theists in the modern world, and I would argue that Hinduism is not as different from the Abrahamic religions as many would have us believe. Gods play much the same roles in the lives of Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists who practice Stupa and boddhisatva worship. Eastern believers do tend to believe in pretty much the same type of souls as Westerners, who also have some pretty diverse opinions of their nature and properties. The concept of an afterlife exists in the form of reincarnation, and the quality of the "afterlife" depends on karma, which is affected by forms of behavior. India has no shortage of religion-driven superstitious rituals and fake miracles. Gods are still intelligent "spirit" agencies that have miraculous powers. You can point to intellectuals with much more nuanced views of their religious philosophies, but that is true in the West, as well. I think that you exaggerate the differences between the East and the West in matters of religion, but you are not alone in your perception.

Well, I do recommend you read one of those two Alan Watts books. I think we have different ways to approach our exploration of human beliefs. I try different beliefs on, see what it looks like / feels like / how it changes me / what it reminds me of / what type of person I would need to be to believe it, if only for a moment. I try to see the world through the eyes of people with different philosophies / cosmologies. I get the sense your approach is to look for charlatans and idiots who happen to be members of different religions to reinforce your distaste for those religions. I would ask though, if I can point out similar kinds of charlatans and idiots in every field of science, does that mean science itself is useless?

 

[footprints]

Then kindly explain how the existence of a supernatural being is proved not to exist by people believing that no such being exists?

Human intelligence coupled with a blind faith belief. The same as those who conclude that a supernatural deity does exist.

Why is mind/body dualism false? I don’t see how such metaphysical concept can be demonstrated true, but by the same token it can’t be shown as false.

And I did you mean belief as faith?

The mind is the conscious awareness of the brain. They are one in the same.

No I didn't mean belief as faith. Belief is belief; logical, rational conclusion as drawn by the brain that holds it. Faith is the strength of the belief being held. Blind Faith is a faith in a belief, without supporting evidence, such as a deity doesn't exist.

And what sort of argument is that supposed to be? (!)

…which is the precise conclusion found by the poster: there are no proofs!

No proofs, no beliefs. A diety can exist or a deity may not exist.

People believed in the Sun god, gave human sacrifices, hanged witches, believed in sprites and goblins, prayed to trees, flagellated the Devil out their own kin, worshipped animals, etc. Is that supposed to count as proof for something? And what is the empirical evidence that you refer to?

I suppose it would serve as some sort of proof to the person who believed such things.

What is the empirical evidence I refer to? Laboratory testing, fMRI, cat scans, et al. Documented, repeated evidence.

I’m sorry but I can’t make any sense out of that!

It is statistically based. Believers don’t live longer than unbelievers; cancers are not less prevalent in those with faith; wealth isn’t more evident among the religious; believers also suffer with depression, mental illness etc. There is no evidence that prayer works. In fact there was a famous scientific study known as the Great Prayer Experiment, which tested intercessory prayer, in which those who were prayed for actually did worse than those who were not.

And is that what you call fortuitous? Others would just say happy and healthy.

This is a debating forum, and the idea is that we test our views publicly. It is assumed that by posting here you want to explore your ideas with other people, rather than just make unfounded assertions?

No post I make is unfounded, albeit may be unfounded to you. That is human perception for you.

 

[cottage]

[/color][/font][/color]

Human intelligence coupled with a blind faith belief. The same as those who conclude that a supernatural deity does exist.

Reminder: You argued that a thing is the case (ie true) because x number of people believe it is the case. You stated that was sufficient proof. And now you’ve changed your mind, saying it is just a matter of belief!

The mind is the conscious awareness of the brain. They are one in the same.

No I didn't mean belief as faith. Belief is belief; logical, rational conclusion as drawn by the brain that holds it. Faith is the strength of the belief being held. Blind Faith is a faith in a belief, without supporting evidence, such as a deity doesn't exist.

Well I don’t know why your understanding of the term ‘Blind Faith’ requires such an eminent entitlement, but you can’t have blind faith that a deity doesn’t exist ‘without supporting evidence’ because there can be no evidence of thing’s non-existence. However you can have blind faith that a thing does exist with the assumption that there is possible, yet undiscovered, evidence.

No proofs, no beliefs. A diety can exist or a deity may not exist.

So you now concur with what the poster wrote.

I suppose it would serve as some sort of proof to the person who believed such things.
What is the empirical evidence I refer to? Laboratory testing, fMRI, cat scans, et al. Documented, repeated evidence.

Okay. So, examples then, please?

And is that what you call fortuitous? Others would just say happy and healthy.

I’m saying that those who worship don’t suddenly appear healthier or happier, or become less immune to poor health or emotional upset.

No post I make is unfounded, albeit may be unfounded to you. That is human perception for you.

It isn't a question of ‘human perception’ – the problem is that you give no supporting arguments to be perceived.

 

[Copernicus]

Anyway, I can't argue with you: it is plainly true that you do not see the difference. I can recommend What is Zen or What is Tao, by Alan Watts if you would like to see the difference.

Thanks for the recommendations. I am somewhat familiar with Watts, having been a fan of his when I was much younger. I think that he has had a very large impact on how Westerners perceive Eastern religions, and he has contributed to misconceptions about the differences between Eastern and Western traditions. He has been more interested in emphasizing differences than similarities. The reality is that attitudes towards deities are more similar than different in the East and the West.

...I get the sense your approach is to look for charlatans and idiots who happen to be members of different religions to reinforce your distaste for those religions...

I know, and I think that your perception is colored by your stereotype of atheists. Both atheists and theists tend to build straw men caricatures of their opponents. I have just tried to present five very general reasons why I consider gods highly implausible beings. I have not been claiming that all theists or theistic philosophies fall into these categories, but I do think that they describe broad trends that influence me to reject theism as a viable model of reality.

...I would ask though, if I can point out similar kinds of charlatans and idiots in every field of science, does that mean science itself is useless?

I doubt that you can succeed in doing this. There have been charlatans and bad theories in science, but scientific methodology has a way of correcting its mistakes. Religion does not.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Metaphors can be useful at explaining concepts, and we could go back and forth with this one. If the music is your mind, then what happens to it when you smash the radio? You could, of course, say that the same music could come from any radio, but the music is still dependent on some physical medium for its existence.

As long as there is a station transmitting the music somewhere in the world the music is there on the radio waves whether you can hear it or not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Understanding belief in god is probably the best reason to reject belief in god(s).

Of course, without a single compelling reason to accept belief in god(s), rejection isn't really necessary.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

There are genuine differences from the Western theistic traditions, but I did not see a huge difference between devout Hindus in India and devout Christians or Muslims.

That because you have no idea what Hinduism is all about.

-Hinduism is a family of Faiths not an organized religion.
-There is very little difference between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism.
-The earliest record in human history of Atheists were from Hinduism.
-Some Hindu's look very much like monotheism of the west but in many ways the Hindu monotheist are completely different.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The puzzling properties of light and the scientific method led to the development of quantum theory, not the Vedas.

True but the solution to the problem is the same as Vedantic thought.

In autumn of 1925 Schrodinger wrote an interestingly personal account of his philosophy of life (Mein Welten sicht - My World View). He completed this only in 1960 and in chapter 5 of this book he gives the basic view of Vedanta. He writes "Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves. He fully acknowledges Sankara's view that Brahman is associated with a certain power called Maya to which is -due the appearance of the entire world. Maya is neither being nor not being but a principle of illusion. Brahman through Maya projects the appearance of the world. Thus Maya is the material cause of this world. In all the apparently individual form of existence the individual Brahman is present. Schrodinger did not believe that it will be possible to demonstrate the unity of consciousness by logical arguments. One must make imaginative leap guided by communion with nature and the persuasion of analogies. He learned the commentaries of Sankara on the Sutra's from the "Sacred Book of the East" edited by Max Muller.

| International School of Photonics | ISP Archives | ISP Article Collection |

The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.
Walter J. Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Eastern believers do tend to believe in pretty much the same type of souls as Westerners, who also have some pretty diverse opinions of their nature and properties. The concept of an afterlife exists in the form of reincarnation, and the quality of the "afterlife" depends on karma, which is affected by forms of behavior.

If you read (Sankara the most popular Hindu thinker in the west) you will realize that it is an illusion to believe that the Atman (soul) is different then Brahman, (God) all is God. Individuality is seen as some what as an illusion. My view of the Human soul (Which is a very orthodox smarta,shivate,or Tantric view of the soul) is completey different from the Christian soul.

I just love it when non-Hindu's tell Hindu's what we believe.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for the recommendations. I am somewhat familiar with Watts, having been a fan of his when I was much younger. I think that he has had a very large impact on how Westerners perceive Eastern religions, and he has contributed to misconceptions about the differences between Eastern and Western traditions. He has been more interested in emphasizing differences than similarities. The reality is that attitudes towards deities are more similar than different in the East and the West.

Well, think what you will about him, he certainly did his homework, and to a much greater extent than the likes of Hitchens. He knows what he's talking about. The ideas he communicates underpin Eastern thought in much the same way the ideas of Plato underpin Western thought. You don't always SEE the influence, especially if you are in the middle of it, but it permeates everything we do and the way we perceive the world.

I know, and I think that your perception is colored by your stereotype of atheists.

Silly duck, I AM an atheist. It's my perception of your ideas we're talking about. I do have an impression of American atheists in general, sure, but it's based on a lot of reading of their posts and a couple of their books, essays, debates, etc.

I have just tried to present five very general reasons why I consider gods highly implausible beings.

And I am only expressing the fact that for HUGE numbers of religious people, the "plausibility" of the actual, factual existence of the gods they worship is completely irrelevant. The assessment of "plausibility" is a very dualistic, Platonic mode of perception - everything has to be in the "true" pile or the "false" pile. There's no pile for our stories, and we are story-telling monkeys.

I doubt that you can succeed in doing this. There have been charlatans and bad theories in science, but scientific methodology has a way of correcting its mistakes. Religion does not.

I think you overestimate the integrity of scientists. They're only human, after all. They'll take a fat paycheck for a bit of intentional deception as much as any other group. Another book recommendation - also thoroughly enjoyable - Trust Us, We're Experts - has numerous case studies of the PR industry subverting the credibility of science and scientists to profit their clients. Every case study there is richly populated with charlatans from the scientific community and the idiots (i.e. most of us) who are taken in by them. Nevertheless, I don't extrapolate that ALL scientists are frauds, or that science itself is wrong.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

India is a country of vast contrasts and rapid development. You find grinding poverty in close proximity to great wealth and modernity.

Before colonilism India was the richest country in the world. India became poverty striken and the life expectancy dropped under English rule. They have been a country for 60 years. It has taken over 200 years us to deal with or race problems. They need a chance to work out there problems in their own way.

The caste system is alive and well in India, although it is an embarrassment to many modern Indians.

I can show you that if you from Sanskrit texts from early Hinduism that the Caste system was flexible, people were able to move up and down the system in ancient times.

Many sects of Hinduism have always rejected the non flexible parts of the Caste system. Some sects have scriptures that rejected the whole idea of the caste system.

I for one find caste discrimination as a crime against humanity. Its just all to common in India.

And there are intense rivalries between religions. Muslims, Hindus, and Christians find ways of co-existing, but there are always tensions.

The Hindu's have been a conquered people for a 1000 years. This creates tensions. Before the Islamic Invasions Buddhist, Jew,Muslim, Hindu and Christian. Lived in peace.

My contacts in the Christian community (in the South) felt quite persecuted by attempts at the state level to ban Christian charity on the grounds that Hindus saw it as an attempt by Christians to bribe poor people into leaving Hinduism.

The treatment of the of the Christian community by the Hindu fundamentalist is a crime. Just like the Christian terrorists organizations killing Hindus is wrong. Atheist chinese communists are wrong in there treatment of Tibetans. No group is perfect.

I would not use the persecution of people of faith by countries that have declared themselves Atheist (i.e. Soviet Union and Communist China) as proof that Atheists are an intolerant group of people. That would be as unjustified and ridiculous as you saying that hindu's are intolerant because a state or two (not even the federal Goverment) in India out laws conversions.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I know, and I think that your perception is colored by your stereotype of atheists. Both atheists and theists tend to build straw men caricatures of their opponents.

You certainly engaged in this behavior when it comes to your descriptions of Hinduism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would give you more of an argument on this one. It might ultimately come down to how one defines the concept of a "god". For me, it is an intelligent agency that has control over some aspect of reality. The further you get away from that concept, the less I am willing to accept the term "god" to refer to it.

Umm... I'm an intelligent agency that has control over some aspect of reality. I'm not a god.

At least, I don't think I'm a god.

The music coming from my radio depends on said radio... that does not mean that is all there is to it though...

And the music coming from a tape player comes from a source that's internal to the tape player.

How do you tell the difference?

 

[Copernicus]

Umm... I'm an intelligent agency that has control over some aspect of reality. I'm not a god.

Sorry, I usually qualify "control" with the adjective "absolute" or "full". To elaborate further, gods are usually thought to be capable of manipulating reality merely by willing changes. Historically, gods have been associated with particular aspects of reality, such as water, fire, wind, etc. The Abrahamic god has full willful control over all aspects of our reality.

And the music coming from a tape player comes from a source that's internal to the tape player.

How do you tell the difference?

What I do is I usually admonish people not to take these analogies too literally. They always break down. However, it is instructive to notice that equating music with the physical mechanisms that cause us to experience it is the same kind of category mistake as equating the mind with the brain. I am not opposed to mind-body dualism, only the belief that minds can exist independently of bodies. While logically possible, the evidence we have of the mind-brain associations suggests that a mind is fully dependent on a brain for its existence.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, think what you will about him, he certainly did his homework, and to a much greater extent than the likes of Hitchens...

I respect the intellects of both Watts and Hitchens, but I think that one has to evaluate their conclusions on the basis of their arguments than their level of erudition. Notice that I have not been discussing Hitchens here, so you don't need to keep bringing up his name as if it were associated with my comments to you. When you do that kind of thing, you lead me to the impression that you are mixing me up with other things atheists have said. Hitchens has nothing to do with my arguments here,

Silly duck, I AM an atheist. It's my perception of your ideas we're talking about. I do have an impression of American atheists in general, sure, but it's based on a lot of reading of their posts and a couple of their books, essays, debates, etc.

Being an atheist does not prevent one from making incorrect generalizations about them or even from having negative feelings about them. You do sometimes bring up positions that I have not taken as if I needed to defend them--e.g. your frequent references to Hitchens, whom you seem to have taken a disliking to.

And I am only expressing the fact that for HUGE numbers of religious people, the "plausibility" of the actual, factual existence of the gods they worship is completely irrelevant...

And that's quite irrelevant to my argument, which is that the OP lists five good reasons for rejecting beliefs in gods on the basis of their implausibility. I would, however, quibble on this point. Most believers in gods do believe their gods to be plausible beings. This thread has been about what makes gods sound implausible to me, and I feel that I have gotten some interesting reactions, including yours.

I think you overestimate the integrity of scientists. They're only human, after all...

Did I not say that there have been scientific charlatans? Maybe you misunderstood me. What I tried to say was that the scientific method has a way of correcting the charlatans and weeding out bad theories. Religion does not. This has nothing to do about trustworthiness, although I do believe that scientists have a higher level of integrity than priests and holy men.