I while the original idea expressed by the reader is undoubtedly right, I would point out that not everyone who agrees with Darwinian Evolution and or M Theory (or inflationary theory or Brane theory or one of the other models that allows for an infinite universe) is a materialist.  Many of us are in fact Christians.

Indeed, the notion that there might be an infinite number of Universes fits well with my belief that God will create the maximum goodness that it is logically possible to create.  Once this Universe was as full as it could be made of goodness, he might well create many, many other universes to fill them with his goodness as well.

“Why are there physical and chemical laws and why do time, space, matter and energy obey them?”

Postulating the existence of a conscious, intelligent creature as the author of the “laws” of our universe and the creator of matter and energy is just anthropomorphizing on a large scale. It’s projecting the model of human behavior beyond the limits of what we can observe.

Humans build things. If we see something we didn’t build, some Great Big Humanlike Being (GBHB) must have built it. Therefore a GBHB built the universe.

Humans build for a purpose. Therefore the GBHB must have built the universe for a purpose.

Humans assume that GBHB’s purpose must be the same as some human purpose—to enjoy the exercise of power, to enjoy fame and admiration, to enjoy love, or to strive for self-actualization. Therefore the GBHB demands obedience, praise, love, gratitude and the eternal companionship of humans.

To me the above is another Just So story that is severely limited by human inability to get beyond the human experience. If there is an infinite being that created space, time, matter and energy, we have less in common with it than we do with a stone in a field. The difference between a finite human and a finite stone is orders of magnitude. Orders of magnitude don’t even apply when comparing finite and infinite.

Reading Christian theology reminds me of watching Dr. Who episodes. There is a powerful and charming being with mysterious powers over space and time who is inexplicably fascinated by, and attracted to human beings. He has been known to sacrifice himself for one of them from time to time. But death is only temporary, of course. He bounces back in another aspect and carries on. It’s a lovely story. Experience indicates that it’s fiction.

“Postulating the existence of a conscious, intelligent <b>creature<b>...”

Pause right there and consider the possibility that you don’t understand the first thing about actual Christian theology or philosophy.  All the rest of what you wrote is a nice debunking of what you seem to half-remember from your own impressions of Sunday school when you were seven.  But it has nothing whatsoever to do with what a grown up Catholic philosopher has to say about God.

“Pause right there and consider the possibility that you don’t understand the first thing about actual Christian theology or philosophy.”

So Catholic philosophers no longer propose that God has the purpose of saving human beings from the consequences of sin? Because to me this assumption alone is enough to show that we are projecting humanity on God.

On the other hand, this is astute: “If there is an infinite being that created space, time, matter and energy, we have less in common with it than we do with a stone in a field.”

You are, if you but knew it, actually agreeing with real Christian philosophers here, who (following that savage anthropomorphic primitive Isaiah) quite ready to confess that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are his ways our ways.  Indeed, St. Thomas takes it as axiomatic that we can only speak of God by analogy and that the first thing to bear in mind is that though creatures are like God, God is not like creatures.  He is more unlike than like any of the things he has made.  As the crude anthropomorphic baboons who wrote the Old Testament insist: God’s chief claim about himself when it comes to the opinions of crude anthropomorphic baboons is “I am God, not man.”  That is the truth being preserved by the Jewish insistence on not reverencing images.

It would be wise if you tried finding out what Catholic philosophy says before dismissing it based on your familiarity with Dr. Who.

“Because to me this assumption alone is enough to show that we are projecting humanity on God.”

No.  We are saying God is love.  You are making the common error of assuming that transcendence has to mean God is unconcerned with the work of his hands.  I see no compelling reason to believe in God as a vast cool pool of tapioca.  We are like him in that we are personal.  But he is unlike us in that he is super-personal, being a Trinity of Persons.

“You are, if you but knew it, actually agreeing with real Christian philosophers here . . . “

Yes, I know that modern Christian philosophers reject the literal interpretation of the Bible, and that they don’t subscribe to the bearded man in the sky image of God. I did not realize that they had also rejected the theology of the dual nature of Jesus, expiation of human sin by his sacrifice, his resurrection and the concept of human eternal life. If that is true then I am clearly much closer to modern Christian philosophers than I thought. If they merely say that there might be an unknowable infinite being that is the cause of the universe, then we are on the same page.

“You are making the common error of assuming that transcendence has to mean God is unconcerned with the work of his hands.”

My own experience suggests that if a being outside of our universe created it, it is not concerned with human existence. There is no way even to confirm or disprove the existence of such a creator, much less whether it is concerned with humans. You made the point that there is no way to even imagine such a creator except by analogy. When you’re trying to scale up from the finite to infinity, I think you are only likely to create error by even attempting analogy.  Words like “concern” or “work” don’t have any meaning in the context of infinity. Neither does the work “love,” even if you try to redefine it to mean something other than human attachment.

“Yes, I know that modern Christian philosophers reject the literal interpretation of the Bible and that they don’t subscribe to the bearded man in the sky image of God.”

Sigh.  Really.  Familiarize yourself with something more than your memories of Sunday school.  St. Thomas is hardly a modern Christian philosopher.  Nor is St. Augustine.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with literal interpretations of the Bible.  If you think Augustine or Thomas believed that God was an old man with a white beard then you simply haven’t the foggiest idea what Catholics actually believe and are arguing against a strawman of your own imagination.

“I did not realize that they had also rejected the theology of the dual nature of Jesus, expiation of human sin by his sacrifice, his resurrection and the concept of human eternal life.”

It is yet another sign of your fuddlement that you assume that to reject the idea of God the Father as an old man with a beard, one must also reject the doctrine of the Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, and Resurrection.

“My own experience suggests that if a being outside of our universe created it, it is not concerned with human existence. “

Prescinding from the fact, that “your own experience” is not the measure of all things, it is also worth noting that God is not, in Catholic understanding, “a being outisde of our universe”.  He is Being.  All created beings participate in existence.  He is Existence.  So he is both transcendent and immanent, outside and inside.  All things exist in and through and for him, but he is not identical with any of the works of his hands.

Pettifogging that “God has no hands” is beside the point.  Human language about intangibles *always* involves imagery.  So what?

Maryc4, the one thought that strikes me is that you seem to think that God, or at least your conception of God, has better things to do with his time than to be interested in us.  Yet this ignores the fact that there are, logically speaking, no limits on God’s power or attention.  In other words, he can do literally everything at once.  Therefore, being interested in us is not much like Doctor Who.

“Prescinding from the fact, that “your own experience” is not the measure of all things . . . “
No, my experience is not the measure of all things—but it’s all I’ve got. All I’ve got is my direct experience of the sensory and my second-hand experience of the experience of other human beings. That’s all anyone has.

“. . . it is also worth noting that God is not, in Catholic understanding, ‘a being outisde of our universe’.  He is Being.  All created beings participate in existence.  He is Existence.” OK, this is a possible theory of the universe. It still does not suggest to me that I should believe in the Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption and Resurrection.  There is a vast gap between defining the universe this way and believing that humans can understand anything about this being who is Being. It’s an even greater stretch to believing that this being injected itself briefly into earthly history 2000 years ago in human form for the purpose of paying a debt to itself.

“Pettifogging that “God has no hands” is beside the point.” I disagree, although I was actually “pettifogging” the words “work,” “concern” and “love.” If “God” is existence itself, any words create arbitrary limits on this being. “Hate” is as applicable as “love” to existence itself. By the time one has said that God is love and hate, light and dark, debtor and creditor, passion and serenity, murderer and victim, war and peace, one hasn’t gotten any farther in understanding God than by saying God is existence itself.

Maryc4, you say all you have is your experience and the experience of others.  Well, lets look at that for a moment.  The fact of the matter is that from time to time, we have testimony from some, that they have had a direct experience of the divine.  Now I doubt many would believe that they have understood the divine through that experience, but they definitely appear convinced that they have experienced something so far outside the ordinary, that the notion of the divine is the best expression of it. 
—
Should we simply neglect that experience if it doesn’t fit in with our view of the Universe?  Keep in mind that there is often no rational reason why these people would come forward with their stories.

“. . . there are, logically speaking, no limits on God’s power or attention.  In other words, he can do literally everything at once.  Therefore, being interested in us is not much like Doctor Who.”

Actually, I guess we would have to say God has already done everything at once. He is infinite, and time exists only through him, in your conception. Of course he could harbor deep interest in every human on earth, or he could be utterly disconnected. What is the evidence for either condition? He could reveal his deep interest and true nature directly and individually to every person on earth without effort. But he doesn’t. And of course there is no way of guessing why not. (Don’t say to give people the free will to believe or disbelieve. Free will applies to decisions about behavior, not belief. Lack of evidence doesn’t make it a virtue to harbor a belief. People who were sure God existed would still have the free will to reject his will for them.)

The reason Dr. Who reminds me of Christianity is because it plays with the concept of the non-human super or supernatural being who is crazy about human beings. Humans love to tell stories about themselves in which they are the apple of the eye of some being from a higher order. Superman comes from an alien planet and devotes himself to the welfare of humanity—especially Lois Lane. Raven takes pity on humans and frees them from various shells so they can mate. An angel falls in love with a human and gives up his supernatural traits for her sake. Prometheus steals fire for mankind and endures eternal punishment for doing so. It’s all about us!

MarylandBill wrote: “Should we simply neglect that experience if it doesn’t fit in with our view of the Universe?”

The problem is that experiences described as “divine” are completely inconsistent from culture to culture. People experience what their culture leads them to expect. The atheist Sam Harris practices Zen Buddhist meditation, but interprets the experience as the product of his physical brain. Trances are interpreted much differently by practitioners of Santeria, Transcendental Meditation, Hinduism or Christianity. In his visions, Mohammed added elements of his own culture on top of the religions he already knew. No coherent picture emerges from human experience of the divine.

Random responses -

“All I’ve got is my direct experience of the sensory and my second-hand experience of the experience of other human beings. That’s all anyone has.”

No - you also have your reason which can deal with universal truths, for example, men are mortal. Neither you (nor anyone else) has, or could have, direct experience of “all men” - yet we can reason to this conclusion by our knowledge of human nature.

You can also think of other spiritual realities - this is just or unjust, this person loves me - that fall outside of our “direct experience of the sensory.” You sense the person or the situation and reason or “know” that justice and love are present, but these are not immediately sensible realities. They are spiritual realities (chimpanzees can’t know them). This is why I always find the demand to “prove” God exists based solely on empirical data to be akin to “proving” justice or love exists. It can’t be done directly since God is a spiritual being.

“It still does not suggest to me that I should believe in the Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption and Resurrection.”

Right. You can argue from reason that God exists. That he has communicated with us a personal being, become man, and rose from the dead can only be know by faith - although there are rational arguments that show its probability.

“If “God” is existence itself, any words create arbitrary limits on this being.”

You have a point, in that all the beings around us “have” love as an attribute. We cannot talk about God, who “is” love, except in terms of the beings that have love. And so our speech about God is always inadequate. This is classical Christian theology. 

““Hate” is as applicable as “love” to existence itself.”

Only love has positive existence - hate is purely negative - the lack of love. Of course hate has inspired plenty of things that have real existence (e.g. the Holocaust), but in the final analysis, only love can create - hate simply twists what is already there.

“What is the evidence for either condition? He could reveal his deep interest and true nature directly and individually to every person on earth without effort. But he doesn’t.”

Not sure what this would mean. A voice inside one’s head? A vision? God isn’t like a neighbor down the street who can introduce himself to you but hasn’t. He is a purely spiritual being while we are (most often) caught up in physical realities. Perhaps he is trying to speak to us doing so but we are blocking him out? It’s not a matter of demanding that God speak to us on our own terms. The terms are his. And he has spoken - through his Son who became man.

And the funny thing is, even though he did make himself like the neighbor down the street, people still don’t recognize him. It’s kind of difficult to know what more God could possibly do at this point.

“Humans love to tell stories about themselves in which they are the apple of the eye of some being from a higher order.”

Maybe so. But I have always found the most challenging aspect of the Christian faith to be the belief that God - the omniscient, all-powerful One - actually cares about me. I mean, doesn’t he have better things to do? Far from being a sop to a mankind’s vanity, it takes tremendous humility to really accept this truth in all its implications.

Question for Maryc4:

Have you ever read GK Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man?  It was written as a response to HG Wells, and goes in-depth on the things you mention.  If you haven’t read it, I recommend it.  It may not change your mind, but even so, it’s worth reading.

Mary04, You are right about one thing. When people try to figure out God on their own they end up telling some real whoppers. But what if God chose to reveal himself to us and decided that the best way to do that was through the Incarnation, Passion, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. How would you be able to distinguish between the one true story and all the fiction? Your current method of only noting the similarities will not work. Hence, your current line of reasoning is a complete failure. Do you have have any other arguments or are you just mad at God, and that is why you do not believe?

Maryc4,
Addressing your two responses to my posts.
—
The first aspect is the variety of human experience of the divine.  In the first case, I would say that we can probably safely reject any experience that was self induced through drugs and or meditation.  This is not to say that they might not provide information, but they certainly may not be reliable testimony.  I would tend to be more inclined to believe episodes where multiple people were involved and that the people involved did not seem to be looking for the experience.
—
But even then, I will acknowledge that there is a variety of experience.  But if we both accept the notion that God must utterly transcend human understanding, then it seems logical enough to me that any who experienced God in that way would probably interpret him through the filter of their own experience (cultural, religious or other).  Therefore, it might be logical enough to suppose that God is interacting with people and that it is our flaws that prevent a unified understanding of him.  Of course that does leave open the question of how do we know Christianity is right… but it does show that God might indeed seek to interact with us.
—
Regarding your first response… I will start with the Doctor Who analogy.  Yes, man has historically told stories about some being, usually, but not always resembling man, who decides to take up humanity’s cause.  The problem is that in Christianity, God does not take up humanity’s cause, he calls us to take up his!  Yes, Christ took on our sins and suffered and died for us, but it was for the purpose of God’s design, not ours. 
—
As for the larger question, as a Christian, I feel that Jesus has provided us evidence of both God’s existence and his interest in humanity.  Yes, God could, I suppose reveal himself to us, but I doubt that it would make much difference.  In fact, I know some atheists who have said that it would take more than a visit with God to convince them that God is real and not just some being who pretends to be God.  Indeed, I suspect that more than one person has experienced personal revelation from God only to then turn their back on that experience.
—
As for belief being a matter of free will… I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree there.  I personally make the decision to believe every day.  There are days it is much, much harder than others.

MarylandBill and Steve Schmitt, you ask an interesting question when you ask what kind of experience it would take to convince someone of God’s existence and also to make them aware of his nature. The thing is, what being would be in a better position to know what unique experience would be required by each individual human being to convince him/her of God’s existence than God? The God you describe would know exactly what evidence is needed for each human being to become aware of the reality of God. Of course it would not be the same for each person. It need not be the same when you’re speaking of a being with infinite resources to communicate with beings it cares about.

This has been an interesting conversation. Thanks to everyone for their courtesy.

Maryc4
Postulating the existence of a conscious, intelligent creature as the author of the “laws” of our universe and the creator of matter and energy is just anthropomorphizing on a large scale.

YOS
a) It’s not a postulate, but a conclusion. 
b) It’s not anthropomorphic.

Let’s take a shot at a digest of a digest.

Preliminaries:

a. To become X a thing must first be not-X, but have the potential to be X.  A big blue bouncy ball is actually blue, but is potentially red.  It could be painted, or perhaps fade in the sun.  But it is not potentially a grasshopper.  This motion from potentially X to actually X is called kinesis.  Hence also the terms “in potency” or “in act.”

b. X cannot be a cause of itself.  For if a thing is not X, it cannot cause itself to become X.  Something that does not actually exist cannot cause anything, and it is not actually X. 

c. If Y is a cause of X, then Y possesses something of X either formally or eminently.  A lit match can give the form of heat to a newspaper because the lit match already possesses heat [formally].  The unlit match can be caused to ignite because the phosphorus in the match head possesses the potential to be moved to flame by friction, which possesses the heat in an eminent sense; that is, as being higher in the order of causation. 

The main stem
1. There is motion [kinesis] in the world.  Kinesis means andy change, motion from potency to act: a stone falling, an apple ripening, a fetus developing, etc. 

2. Everything in motion is set in motion by another.  Consider Sharon Kam playing Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr3aB4v8hXI
The music is caused by vibrations in the air.  These are caused by vibrations of the reed (in conjunction with the motion of the air and the opening and closing of certain holes in the barrel).  The reed in turn is set in motion by the lips and breath of the inestimable Ms. Kam.  Note that the movers are ordered essentially, not accidentally.  That is, the clarinet, the reed, the air have no power to cause the concerto unless Ms. Kam is doing her thing.  If she were to stop her breathing, her embouchure, her fingering, the music would stop.  (Stipulated: echos.)  Each mover receives its power-to-move-another from the concurrent motion of a prior mover.  We call such causes “secondary movers” or “instrumental causes.”  (Hence, my choice of the lovely Ms. Kam to illustrate.)  For simplicity, all instrumental causes can be folded into one. 

3. An essentially ordered series of movers cannot proceed indefinitely, and so must have a first mover, or primary mover.  Otherwise, none of the subsequent movers would have the power to move at all.  In the example, Sharon Kam is a first mover; but we can pursue her motions back to muscles being moved by nerves being moved by motor neurons being moved by synapses being moved by chemical reactions being moved by an act of Ms Kam’s will, and so on.  Ultimately, there must be a First Mover; otherwise Ms. Kam would not be playing or moving her fingers.

3a. Notice that the music is contained eminently in the mental act and the neurological motions within Ms. Kam’s brain.  That is, she knows the music. 

3b. Notice that all causes are acting concurrently, not sequentially.  That is, we are “drilling down” in the present, not “cascading backward” into the past.

4. An accidentally-ordered series can proceed indefinitely, since the ability of any mover to act is independent of the continued action of the preceding mover.  Consider a series of emails.  Each person who receives the email receives it from another, and then forwards it to still another.  Conceptually, if not in physics, such a series could proceed to infinity (and beyond!)  However, reason tells us that even if everyone in your experience is a “sent sender” (that is, a sender of the email who has been sent the email by another) that there must exist an “unsent sender”: viz., the author of the contents of the email.  That is, there is an essential order “at right angles” to the accidental order in virtue of which the order exists. 

With me so far? 

5. The First Mover (First Cause, etc.) is necessarily a Being of Pure Act (BPA).  If it had anything of potency in it, it could be moved by another, and therefore would not be a *First* Mover.  Some other mover would be prior to it. QED.

6. There cannot be more than one BPA.  If there were two, one would possess some power or property lacking in the other.  But to lack a power is to be in potency to that power, and a BPA cannot be in potency.  QED. 

7. The BPA is unchanging.  Change is the motion from potency to act, and the BPA is purely in act. 

8. The BPA is eternal.  If it were not, it would come into being or go out of being.  But to not be in being is to not be in act, a contradiction. 

8a. Therefore, the BPA is Existence Itself, since it cannot not exist.  If it could talk, it would call itself I AM.  Existence Exists.  It can make no sense to ask “What caused Existence to exist?” any more than to ask “What was the cause of the uncaused cause?” 

9. The I AM is not material.  Matter is the principle of change, and everything material comes into and passes out of existence, and 7 and 8. 

10. Therefore, the I AM is not an existant among other existants within space and time.  Space and time are metaphysical properties contingent on the existence of matter, and 9. 

11. Because there is only one I AM, it is the first cause of all powers.  Since a cause must contain the effect in at least an eminent sense, the I AM contains all powers, and is therefore “all power-full.” 

11a. Note: “All powerful” does not mean a being with superpowers (and Spandex and a cape), but one which contains in itself all powers. 

12. This includes the power of reason observed of human beings.  Therefore, I AM contains something analogous to intellect and volition. 

13. Therefore, I AM is a person - a unified substance of a rational nature.  Henceforth, we can call it “He.” Or, conjugating, HE IS. 

13a Or “She” if you like.  He contains analogously both male and female powers; but for a variety of reasons that touch on human sexuality only metaphorically, the term “He” is more appropriate. 

14. Because HE IS possesses something analogous to intellect, He can conceive.  As He knows himself, He is the subject and object of intellection.  Since we conceive in words, we call Him as subject “The Father” and as object “The Word” or also “The Son.”  Because of 6, He is the only-conceived. 

15. Because HE IS possesses something analogous to volition, He can desire.  Desire proceeds outward toward the desired and returns with it.  As He is the subject, He is the same “Father.”  As the object, He is called “The Spirit” which proceeds from the Father. 

15a.  The Son is conceived by the Father as an act of cognition; the Spirit proceeds from the Father as an act of volition.  The two terms “conceived by” and “proceeds from” reflects this two-fold aspect of Reason. 

15b. Because He is only one (6), these three “hypostases” are one in being. 

16. Because He is only one (6), He is the first cause of all goods.  Since a cause must contain the effect in at least an eminent sense, He contains all goods, and is therefore “all good.” 

16a. This resolves the “Eurythro Dilemma.”  He does not impose a moral code, nor is he subject to a moral code.  He simply IS the good. 

16b. This does not apply to evils, because evils have no positive existence.  They are deprivations, defects, lacking in a good.  Death is a lack of the good of life.  Life without death can be conceived; but death without life makes no logical sense.  It is the good whose existence requires a first cause.  The evil is simply a defect in the good.  A triangle whose sides are not straight or whose corners do not join is called a “bad” triangle for precisely this reason.  It doesn’t measure up to what a triangle should be by nature. 

This is why Thomas ends his digest version of the First Way and Second Way by saying “And this all men call God.” 

Hope this helps.

The things that make me believe there is a God are all the awesome things of this earth.  Right now many states are buried in snow(this is beautiful in itself) but we know that spring will follow and all the seemingly dead things will sprout back to life.
Another is the human body,  Just watching a program or reading about the complexity of the brain alone awes me (no Steve Jobs or Bill Gates can come close to building a computer that is as complex as a brain).  How we take for granted each breath we take, how we sleep and wake up every day, or doing everyday things like getting up and walking would take a super super intelligence to create and thus love.  We did not create our bodies, God did.
God is finite and like you say Mark, not at all like us.  Our deacon once said that when Jesus chose to be born a man it was as if a man were to turn into a bug.  There is that much difference.  I feel sorry for people that are truly atheist and wonder how they could explain that evolution created humans with such complexity.  With that reasoning, and I know this is not theological, explain why our beloved cats and dogs although some highly intelligent didn’t gradually begin to walk upright, and develop speech?

Chimps don’t count either.  They can do lots of things, but the lack a soul and the same reasoning power we have, but the thing that I wish we people had was the ability to get along with each other regardless of what religion we were, but perhaps that is the result of original sin, and we do need to pray more for peace.

Ye Olde Statistician,
1. God is unmovable, but our prayers can move Him?
2. God is unchangeable, but once was not incarnate, and now is?
3. God is “existence itself” . . . pantheism?
4. “I AM is a person,” and also three persons?
5. If your deduction of the 3-personal nature of God is sound, why does the Church (if I am correct) teach it is a revealed dogma, not a deducible doctrine? If your deduction is only tentatively sound, which parts are tentative?
6. “He contains all goods” . . . He contains water? He contains football? He contains violins? He contains statistics?

Ye Olde Statistician,

I don’t know the effect of your comment on Maryc4, but it was very helpful for me.  And, I got to enjoy some very lovely music while reading it.

Thank you.

Grasshopper
1. God is unmovable, but our prayers can move Him?

YOS
That is an equivocation on the word “move.” 
...
Grasshopper
2. God is unchangeable, but once was not incarnate, and now is?

YOS
In what way did the Being of Pure Act change?  Recall that in General Relativity, time is just another dimension, and the space-time manifold comprises a single unchanging entity and the “moment” of incarnation (or anything else) is simply one more point on the manifold that was “always” there. 
...
Grasshopper
3. God is “existence itself” . . . pantheism?

YOS
No. 
...
Grasshopper
4. “I AM is a person,” and also three persons?

YOS
The first statement is generic; the second specific.  Consider that Mark the Father, Mark the Son, and Mark the Blogger are all the same person and you will find something analogous to this conclusion. 
+ + +
Grasshopper
5. If your deduction of the 3-personal nature of God is sound, why does the Church (if I am correct) teach it is a revealed dogma…?

YOS
It’s a mystery.  See item 4, above.  There is some discussion in two parts here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html
...
Grasshopper
6. “He contains all goods” . . . He contains water? He contains football?
He contains violins? He contains statistics?

YOS
Football is not a good.  He contains baseball.

But please note, the rule that a cause contains its effect is that it does so either formally or eminently.  When we say the architect is the cause of the house, we do not mean there is a little house inside his head made of lumber and stone and slate and glass, complete with plumbing, electrical wiring, and a hook-up to the Internet.  But the house is in his mind eminently: as an idea, plans, layouts, etc.

Ye Olde,
Thank you.
1. OK; 3. OK; 4. OK; 5. OK; 6. OK

As far as 2:

YOS: “In what way did the Being of Pure Act change?”
The BPA is rather hard to conceive. If I do anything—or even if I do nothing—I change; no matter what he does—create the world, call Abrahame, part the Red Sea, become incarnate, die, rise, etc.—he doesn’t.

YOS: “Recall that in General Relativity, time is just another dimension, and the space-time manifold comprises a single unchanging entity and the ‘moment’ of . . . anything . . . was ‘always’ there.”
I have read several books on General Relativity and have never heard that it proves all moments were always there. Who deduced that one, Einstein, Maritain, Jaki . . . any article/book you can point me to?

@ Ye olde Statistician:
“Consider that Mark the Father, Mark the Son, and Mark the Blogger are all the same person and you will find something analogous to this conclusion.”

This phrase is not analogous to an understanding of the Trinity, it is heretical. The Trinity is three absolutely separate persons as well as one God. It is not one God with three different life-roles. For a better understanding of the Trinity, try reading “On the Trinity” by St. Augustine—a work that is 15 books in length.

In Ch. 4, Book I of “On the Trinity,” St. Augustine gives the doctrine of the Catholic Church in regards to the Trinity:

“7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father has begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when «there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,» the same Trinity «sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire,» but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, «You are my Son,» whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, «I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;» but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.”

“This phrase is not analogous to an understanding of the Trinity, it is
heretical. The Trinity is three absolutely separate persons as well as one
God.” 

So, what analogy is perfect?  St. Thomas himself indicated that we cannot know what God is, but only what he is not.  My use of the term “analogy” was precise.  I did not say “equivalent” or “just like” or “equal to.”  It is but a humble analogy to illustrate that the much more difficult dogma is not entirely unreasonable.

For the record, I recent being called a materialsist on account of recognicing the darwinian evolution theory as the best proven theory to date about, well, the evolution of life. Whats more, I have a hard time to see why my christian life should be less so, by recognicing the theory in question. I wouldnt bother writing here, if it werent for the real unlogical catepiller argument. What is said here, is “since we cant prove with 100% certainty how the caterpiller evolved, we should just asume it never evolved, but rather was created out of thin air XXXX years ago, just as it is today, and it will never change”... Its not a logical conclusion, now is it? Also, many tends to be fooled by the fact that science hold nothing for certain, on account of, if there is some unknown factor, you wont know about it…Hence, nothing should ever be said to be absolutly true, but you should be acting on what is best proven at any given time. Now I understand Im being fairly outnumbered with this opinion here, so I wont agrivate more of ya good folks here, but I just had to say something when I saw that rather bad thought through catterpiller argument. Also, I hope my bad spelling and gramma hasn’t caused any headaches, english not being my native language.

Fortunately, no one here made the argument that…
“since we cant prove with 100% certainty how the caterpiller evolved, we should just asume it never evolved, but rather was created out of thin air XXXX years ago, just as it is today, and it will never change.” 
.
What a reader wrote was that presented with anything—the =behavior= of the caterpillar was an example—Darwinian fanboys, camp followers, and even some otherwise qualified popularizers will immediately concoct a Darwinian fairy tale of “How the Caterpillar Got its Coccoon” or “How the Elephant Got its Trunk.”  Real Darwinian scientists, like Gould used to complain about such “just so” stories, which lack any empirical evidence to back them up. 
.
To see how “scientific” this is, try presenting various groups of fanboys with two contradictory scenarios.  (Do not present both to the same group: some may remember the first one.)  For example:
.
1. “Researchers have shown that parents pay much more energy and attention to their newborn children than to their older children.”
.
2. “Researchers have shown that parents pay much more energy and attention to their older children than to their newborn children.”
.
No matter which you present, Darwinian fanboys will concoct a Darwinian story “proving” how that behavior enhances the reproductive success of the species. 
.
In fact, genetics provides a much better explanation of evolution than does the ruthless competition for resources among vastly over-reproducing conspecifics.  Kimura’s theory and Shapiro’s approach also seem much better fitted to actual data. 
.
Thomas Aquinas, briefly referring to the possibility of new species in illustration of a different matter, wrote:
.
“Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.” 
.
(Recall that at the time no one had ever seen a new species appear.)
.
IOW, any such species did not appear from thin air but arose through the natural powers of secondary causation with which God had endowed matter.  These are what we call “natural laws” today, and “putrefaction” has been replaced by “mutation.” 
. 
Hope this helps.

Let me re-paraphrase Thomas’ arguments for atheism:  The idea of god is contradictory, and god, as an explanation for the universe and the events in it, is superfluous.  Those are Thomas’ points on atheism correctly stated and they’re not exhaustive.  For instance, you could have mentioned that no theist has ever been able to produce any concrete evidence for the existance of a god, or that religious texts reflect the limited knowledge and petty concerns of their ancient authors (indicating that they are man-made).  Those are also perfectly good objections since they are not what one would expect from a universe with a god who regularly issues commandments to the people on Earth.  Such a being should leave at least some evidence of his existence and would, presumably, be above the petty tribal issues of his followers.  However, since theists haven’t ever been able to answer either of Thomas’ points objection, those other objections aren’t needed either.  Theists have yet to prove that their “god” is anything more than a contradictory superstition who is tacked on wherever our knowledge of the universe is uncertain.  Religious dogma is padding to try and distract people from that fact.

I strongly agree with Mick.

The burden of proof is on those who want to assert that there is a god or gods.  Put up or shut up.

On the other hand, I can point to any number of psychological processes that humans do that explain why some people have a belief in the supernatural.  The psychology of religion is a natural phenomena, and can be studied and explained like any other natural phenomena.  Anthropomorphisms, the Just world fallacy, and childhood dependence on parental authority, and in-group loyalty are really all you need to explain both the idea of God and the stubbornness to which theists cling to it.

Ach, Paul.
Do you actually contend that psychology is a science?  Show me a “loyalty.”  How large is it?  How much does it weigh?  Of what material is it made?  Which motions of which atoms constitute it?  Or are you reifying a non-material abstraction here? 
....
Perhaps it is the word “materialist” that confuses.  Of course, Heisenberg showed that materialism was not enough to account for matter.  This is one reason why materialists started calling themselves “physicalists,” instead.
....
As for “anthropomorphisms”...  If an inadequate model is proof of non-existence, what are we to do with the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom?  Are atoms really made of little balls spinning around one another?  But do you doubt the existence of atoms because of it? 
....
OTOH, consider the following evidences:
a) An objective universe exists.
b) The universe is ordered: there are “laws of nature”
c) It is ordered “by number, weight, and measure.” 
d) It is accessible to human reason. 
All of which follow if you wish to make the Christian God an “hypothesis.”  Using Carnap’s criteria for inductive logical positivism, these evidences tend to support the hypothesis. 
...
Of course, the traditional proofs are deductive, not inductive; but they require some metaphysical preconditions, like potency and act, matter and form, that moderns are unfamiliar with.

If the psychology of religion is a natural phenomenon, then we can only conclude that the psychology of atheism is an unnatural phenomenon.  Sure, the atheist *might* be the Next Step in Evolution, weilding his vastly superior intellect against theists who can’t cut ties with Bronze Age homo sapiens..  But the money is much more on the likelihood that the atheist is a psychological aberration with some rather marked disabilities in the normal abilities of human beings to pick up on normal social and emotional and affective cues.  Napoleon Dynamite with a mean streak.  This likely explains why atheism (even when it wields guns, bombs, tanks, and concentration camps to deal with theism as it *always* does when given political power) never manages to take over the gene pool. A supposed evolutionary advance that can’t even get the girl when it has the power to slaughter its opponents (as atheism is so wont to do) doesn’t look like it has much of a future.

Live by Darwin.  Die by Darwin, dude.

“A supposed evolutionary advance that can’t even get the girl when it has the power to slaughter its opponents (as atheism is so wont to do) doesn’t look like it has much of a future.”

First, since when has religion not been wont to slaughter its opponents?  Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Pagans, all have waged wars of aggression and committed atrocities.  Second, have you not read the news?  Religion is slated to die out in at least nine countries.  Non-religion is the fastest growing religious group in America.  51% of the United Kingdom is non-religious.  How is it that atheism doesn’t have a future?  It is religion that is failing to pursuade people.  It can’t state its case.  Its studied by psychologists because its claims are so obviously ridiculous, based on ancient myths and hearsay.  It is not unnatural to believe in reality.  It is unnatural to persist with obvious fantasies.

For an advanced intellect, you don’t seem to be able to read well.  I never claimed that theists have not killed.  I simply pointed out that atheism has a massive track record of slaughter for the brief time it has held the reins of power, and that it still only constitutes small minorities.  Pointing to post-Christian Europe as the future of atheism is remarkably short-sighted, when you consider that this secular culture is also not having children, while Muslims are having lots of them.  Live by Darwin. Die by Darwin.  Meanwhile, the Church is growing by leap and bounds in China and Africa.  Atheism *never* has been anything but a tiny minority in human demographics, except when it held a gun to people’s heads.  And even then, the human spirit persists in seeking God, because he made us to seek him.  Hell, even atheists sense this, which is why Commies so persistently adopt themes from Christian culture in the attempt to win hearts and minds.  The whole process of pickling Lenin and Stalin so that their relics could be venerated was a naked theft from the Orthodox practice of veneration of relics.  Atheism will never have a future.  Even in the United States (which is becoming pagan, not “non-religious”, so called “non-religious” people are so confused that something like 20% of self-identified “atheists” state that they believe in God.  Obviously what “non-religious” means for huge numbers of people is “I don’t go to Church.”  That’s not superior intellect or commitment to reason.  It’s fuddlement and intellectual mush.  Meanwhile, typical hard-boiled Internet atheist evangelists tend to be embittered people with a personality disorder who can’t relate to or grasp normal interpersonal social cues.  They imagine this is due to their superior intellect, but in fact it is due to their being Napoleon Dynamite with a mean streak.

First, since when has religion not been wont to slaughter its opponents?  Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, Pagans, all have waged wars of aggression and committed atrocities. 

Reminds us of something Alan Dershowitz once wrote.  The then-president of Harvard was asked why the school did not admit more Jews than it did.  The president answered, “Because Jews CHEAT!”  The reporter pointed out that other students also cheated, and the president responded, “Don’t try to change the subject.” 

In other words, the irrational postmodern cries: “People X (whom I do not like) engage in acts A (of which I do not approve)!”  But they gloss over the obvious fact that “People not-X” also do these things.  Act A is in fact the common weakness of all mankind. 

We are also reminded of the decay of logic and reason in the Late Modern Age by another fallacy in the accusation.  Thomas Aquinas famously distinguished between “a human act” and “the act of a human.”  But this distinction seems lost on our modern post-rationalists.  Of course, all those people mentioned (as well as many others) have engaged in wars.  But how often have they engaged in war because of their religion?  Do you cry out that “black people have engaged in murder!” thereby obscuring the fact that a) non-black people also engage in murder; and b) black people do not in general murder because they are black.  Hence the necessary distinction, lost on racists and bigots, between “a Negro act” and “the act of a Negro” or between “a Jewish act” and “the act of a Jew”, or between “a Buddhist act” and “the act of a Buddhist.” 
+ + +
As for certain countries becoming “less religious,” we note that they are also becoming “less country.”  That is, they are collapsing demographically.  The modern secular paradise is so invigorating that they cannot even be bothered to reproduce themselves.  The remaining question is whether Paris will be the capital of the Caliphate of Uropa, for some are being more reproductively successful within those countries.

For someone so attuned to the “truth” you seem to get remarkably lost very quickly.  Religion has a massive track record of atrocities as well and it constitutes a majority.  How is violence and demographic size linked?  Now that religion can no longer enforce adherence in the West the dedication of its followers and its numbers have started to ebb.  Maybe religions were wrong to leave violence off since they don’t seem to be able to survive without it.  Remember, the trinity became accpeted doctrine only after its rival claimants were violently suppressed.  Yes, people can use violence to enforce a point of view.  What is the purpose of this observation in relation theism or atheism?  It does not make either position more or less true.  Atheism’s rising numbers and theism’s falling numbers would seem to indicate which side is more persuasive when they have to sink or swim under their own merits.  Persuasion, here, is the key word.  Demographics and birth rates did not give rise to the current atheists.  Over 90% of Americans were theists at the start of the 20th century.  Now they’re only 85% of American.  The simple fact is that most of the current atheists were theists at one point and decided that theism was not the correct position.  The growing numbers of athiests are not being driven by birth rates.  Atheists are rising because theist parents and churches are failing to convince their children to remain a part of their religion.  As for birth rates, they’re falling all over the globe, its not just the secular west: Iran, Pakistan, Mexico, etc, are all falling too.  If some religious people are having more children, so what?  They don’t seem to be distrubing the gradual trend away from religion.

“But how often have they engaged in war because of their religion?”
Quite often.  The Crusades, the elimination of the Aryan Heresey, the 30 Years War, the wars of the Caliphate, the modern jihad movement, the Irish-English Wars, the Jewish-Palestinian war, the Barbary Wars, the wars against the Hughenoughts, the 9 Years War, the Reconquista - religion contributed to all of these.  Of course, I can already hear your counter-reply.  “But those wars weren’t ENTIRELY because of religion!  Just because religious waged them doesn’t mean that they were motivated by religion!”  To turn the tables, how many people are motivated to committ violence because of their atheism?  Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all communists, a philosophy which prescribes anger against religion.  Atheism is the rejection of the statement “There is a god.”  For people who think that only belief in god keeps people from killing each other, that may be enough to justify murder.  For the people who have actually adopted that statement, its not.  Sweden, Great Britain, Norway, France, Estonia, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Japan all have large atheist populations and yet are some of the most nonviolent countries on the Earth. 
+++
As for your fears of demographic collapse, I think you’re overlooking the fact that birth rates all falling across the globe.  Muslim immigrants adopt the birth rates of their new countries after one or two generations.  The birth rate in Iran is now comparable to the birth rate in Europe.  The decision to have a child is a complex and personal one.  To boil it down to one factor, religion, is entirely misleading and false.  Not only are birthrates falling in religious countries, but the factors that affect childbirth are too complicated for any one factor to entirely determine the decision for more than a handful of people.  Populations rise and fall, that is the nature of things.  Birthrates in some western countries, like the UK and France, are going up again, and not simply because immigrants are having more children - non-immigrants are having more too.  For someone who calls themselves “Ye Olde Statistician” you need to study more statistics.

You sure about that highly developed intellect of yours, Mick?  Cuz, you know, when you claim that 15% of Americans are no longer theists, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.  In fact. 1.6% of Americans are atheists, and of these, 20% say they believe in God.  The rest of the 16% (not 15%) inform us they are (2.4%) agnostic (meaning they don’t know what they think), or “Nothing in particular” (12.1%).  Of these 12.1%, 5.8% say they are “religious unaffiliated” (whatever that means) and the rest are “secular unaffiliated”).  In short, as I said, atheism remains a puny minority and always will be.  What you portray as a growth in atheist rationalism is, in fact, a growth in fuddled intellectual confusion.  The bulk of your alleged “non-theists”—and even 20% of the atheists are, in fact, theists of a particularly confused variety.

As to your downplay of the European demographic winter of secularists and the steady growth of Muslim populations, keep whistling past the graveyard, genius.  You can talk all you like about your superior intellect and your being the wave of the evolutionary future.  But the fact remain, Mr. 1.6% percent that there is no good reason at all, on your own naturalist criteria, to regard you as anything other than a doomed fluke.  Theism, in one form or another, is a permanent fixture of the bulk of mankind till the end and the sooner you get over you, pardon the pun, godless delusion and face that fact, the sooner you can cope with reality.

Remember, the trinity became accpeted doctrine only after its rival claimants were violently suppressed. 

There’s a word for those who “remember” things that did not happen.  But out of respect for empiricism, we will await the empirical evidence for this. 

Religion has a massive track record of atrocities as well and it constitutes a majority. 

No, it doesn’t.  That a black man commits murder does not mean that he murdered because he was black.  We are more likely to find a war fought over Jenkin’s Ear than one fought over the Transubstantiation.  In the Modern Ages, in particular, wars have been prompted by commerce, politics, colonial interests, blood and soil, and visions of the future of Europe.  We had the Anglo-Dutch wars, Anglo-Spanish wars, the Great Norther War, Franco-Spanish wars, the War of the League of Augsburg, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years’ War, the War of the Polish Succession, the First and Second Silesian Wars (the Wars of the Austrian Succession), the Third Silesian War, French Revolutionary War, the Wars of the First, Second, and Third Coalitions, the other Napoleonic Wars, the wars of Italian Unification, the Prusso-Danish War, the Seven Weeks War, the Franco-Prussian War, the First and Second Balkan Wars, the four wars collectively called the First World War, those collectively called the Second World War.  Never in all of European history have there been so many standing armies or such large armies in virtually constant campaigning. 

Once the Church had been brought to heel, and men worshiped the Nation (or the Race or the Party) instead, the secular state could free itself of old constraints and get on with the business of nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, universal conscription, mass extermination of civilians, and all the other roses that have bloomed in the garden of the Modern Ages.  The Middle Ages could count its war dead in the thousands; but the Modern Ages counts them in the millions. 

I’m afraid your comment reflects the poor state of education today.  The young people are not only falling away from the water-weak, state-approved religion of their grandparents or great-grandparents, they are also falling away from books, education, and a host of other things for which the Modern Ages really were justly famed.  Nietzsche could stare into the abyss and find the abyss staring back.  Postmodern youth stare into the abyss, say “whatever,” and walk away. 

The simple fact is that most of the current atheists were theists at one point and decided that theism was not the correct position. 

Or because they wanted nookie without feeling responsible to the girl.  Or they wanted to sleep in on Sunday.  The triumph of the will is nothing to crow about, since it short-circuits the neural patterns originating in the cerebral cortex and impedes rational thought.

“But how often have they engaged in war because of their religion?”
Quite often. The Crusades, the elimination of the Aryan [sic] Heresey, the 30 Years War, the wars of the Caliphate, the modern jihad movement, the Irish-English Wars, the Jewish-Palestinian war, the Barbary Wars, the wars against the Hughenoughts [sic], the 9 Years War, the Reconquista - religion contributed to all of these. 

Try the thought experiment: suppose the Normans who conquered Ireland were just as Catholic as the Irish.  Would the Irish still have fought them?  Oh, wait.  They did.  Hmm.  There was an old Irish joke that ran: “If the king of England woke up Hindu, the Irish would be facing Mecca by nightfall.”  IOW, religion—esp. in the Modern Ages, when the Church had been subordinated to the State—is often a means of expressing political opposition.  Same thing for the Spanish Reconquista.  Did the Spaniards really need a religious difference to want their country back from the Berbers?  Similarly, do the Palestinians need a religious difference to resent the intrusion of another people into their country? 

Pause a moment, and use logic and reason.  Also, use the historical record and analyses by trained historians. 

The wars of the French Succession are only incidentally the wars of the Huguenots.  The three noble houses contesting for the royal crown could and did include adherents of both Catholicism and Calvinism, and were not loath to change their religion to suit their ambitions.  Henri Bourbon famously shrugged, “Paris is worth a Mass,” and switched from Calvinism to Catholicism in order to win over the Parisians. 

Ditto, the Thirty Years War.  The German princes did not secede from the Empire because they had become Protestant; they became Protestant because they wanted to secede from the Empire.  Again, the religion is a surrogate for political ambitions.  The Protestant Duke-Elector of Saxony fought on both sides at one time or the other.  The “Protestant” side was funded by the Pope via Cardinal Richelieu; and France ultimately entered the war on the “Protestant” side.  It makes much more sense to think of the sides as the Hapsburg side and the anti-Hapsburg (Bourbon) side. 

The Crusades did have a religious texture to them.  But the immediate cause was the appeal of the Roman Emperor for Western knights to help him reconquer the lands he had just lost to the Saljuq Turks.  Now, the Turks were muslim by that time; but one need not imagine a religious distinction in order to imaging a barbarian invasion.  The crusaders took a religious vow to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  This had been permitted by the Arabs; but the Arab rule had collapsed in the Turkish invasions, and the Turks and the bandits who flourished in the cracks were not nearly so tolerant.  After defeating the Saljuqs in Anatolia, the crusading army received a message from the Berber Fatimids then ruling Egypt, congratulating them on their victory.  Ironically, Egypt had only recently reconquered Jerusalem from the Saljuqs, and if the crusaders had not been oath-bound to make the pilgrimage, who knows?  After completing the pilgrimage, nearly all the rank and file of the crusade went home.  Later on, the crusading states made alliances with the muslim states and fought alliances of muslims and crusaders. 

There was no war “to eliminate the ‘aryan’ [sic] heresy.”  The overwhelming majority of the council favored the traditional view.  Arianism was upheld only by the imperial house, which took to exiling Orthodox bishops.  Then nephew Julian decided to turn pagan and persecute Orthodox, Arian, and Novatian alike.  When a new dynasty took over and Arianism no longer had an imperial patron, it withered.  It was adhered to by the Goths and Vandals, of course; but that is again just a way of saying “We are Germans, not sissy Romans.” 

Enough.  A closer knowledge of history is called for.  History is always local and particular, and the details generally blow away monadic ideologies about causes.  Otherwise, what are we to make of the declaration by a member of the Imperial General Staff just before WW1 that the upcoming struggle was a Darwinian one to determined the fittest.  And if that is a foolish enthusiasm not really grasping the nature of Darwinism, why not similar pronouncements flaunting other ideals?

First, I didn’t claim to be an advanced intellect.  Scroll up and you’ll find that its just a bit of mocking sarcasm you tried to apply to me in lieu of an argument.  Second, it appears that it is you who doesn’t know what they are talking about.  A 2008 Gallup poll found that 6% of Americans believe “no god or universal spirit exists”.  A 2004 BBC poll put the number of atheists at 9%.  I meant to say that 15% are non-religious, not non-theist.  Luckily for me, the rest of my argument was about declining religous numbers, so the substance of my argument still stands though the syntax must change.  This is why its always better to go after the actualy point someone makes instead of bickering about terms. 
“atheism remains a puny minority and always will be”  Again, this is demonstrably not true.  Atheists are growing world-wide, especially in the West.  Statistics back this claim up.  I don’t know what else to say to someone who won’t accept a recorded fact when its presented to them.  There are more atheists in the world today than there were 10 years ago and the trend looks to continue.  The Pew Forum recently published a poll that found that one in four Americans under 30 do not have a religion.  As for the rest of your post, well I’ll take religion seriously when it can prove its claims are true.  Religious people have been trying to prove it for thousands of years and haven’t yet put forth a convincing argument.  They haven’t been able to provide any evidence, either.  Religion can’t put up so why doesn’t it shut up and join the rest of us in reality?

@ Ye Olde Statistician

“There’s a word for those who “remember” things that did not happen.  But out of respect for empiricism, we will await the empirical evidence for this.”
We do have evidence of this.  The Nicean Creed was adopted by law and enforced by the state.  The Arian heresy was stamped out through a combination of warfare and state pressure.  I used “remember” rhetorically.  I meant, “remember” this fact.
“Religion has a massive track record of atrocities as well and it constitutes a majority.”
“No, it doesn’t.”
Yes it does.  The Inquisition, the massacre of Jerusalem under the crusades, the counter-reformation, witch burnings, the slave trade - all these were perpetrated by religious people.  Religion contributed to 9/11 and the Jihad movement. Religions don’t make people peaceful.  The world was a violent place before the Catholic Church and after the Catholic Church.  Popes fought wars and sanctioned crusades.  Religious wars aren’t normally fought over issues of doctrine.  They’re fueled because the other side is of a different religion than the other side: Catholics versus Protestants, Jews versus Muslims, Christians versus Muslims, Hindus versus Muslims.
Furthermore, the modern age has seen bloodier wars not because the church has been suppressed (religious people actually constituted both sides in the wars you listed) but because larger populations enabled larger armies and advanced military technology made them deadlier.  Lack of religion had nothing to do with it.  Your inability to see this, rather obvious fact, is most likely the result of religion’s poor relationship to critical thinking and investigative scholarship.  Looking up facts tends to distrub pre-conceived notions and challenge dogma.
“Or because they wanted nookie without feeling responsible to the girl.”
Yeah, this whole last section isn’t even an argument.  Its a recycling of a typical religious response to athesits: you’re an atheist because you want to sin!  It’s a crude way of dodging the argument when you don’t have a counter-argument to make.

Lastly, notice that I said, “contributed to” not “caused”.  Religion did contribute to all those conflicts.  Crusaders used religion to justify their wars.  Muslims used religion to justify their conquests.  The English-Irish wars were fueled by religious differences.  The Jewish-Palestinian War is fueled by religion.  Religion played a part in perpetuating the 30-years-war.  Religion helped sow the divisions which fueled these wars, the gave justification to them, or, in the case of the Barbary Wars, a religious tenent authorized behaviors that led to wars.  Notice that I didn’t say these wars were caused by religion, but that religion was a factor in all of them.  I know this is difficult because it requires reading what I posted, but try to bear with it.
Anyway, gentlemen, you seem to have rapidly change the topic, which was the non-correlation between violence by atheists and their numbers.  By doing so, I take it that you’ve more or less conceded this point because you’ve ceased to argue about it.  If you could prove that assertion, and counter my objection to it, you’d have done so instead of wandering off as you have.  Do you remember what my counter-point was?  A summary: religious people have committed acts of violence for thousands of years and are a majority in the world.  Why then is it a big deal that atheists have committed violnce and are a minority?  It would seem, based on those facts, that, since atheists and theists have both committed horrendous acts of violence, violence is unrelated to the modern numbers of adherents.  Coutner it, or don’t.  Frankly, it doesn’t seem worth arguing with people who can’t stick to the point.  Goodbye.

The Nicean [sic] Creed was adopted by law and enforced by the state. The Arian heresy was stamped out through a combination of warfare and state pressure. 
....
It was affirmed by a council of bishops, but it was not a law.  If the State enforced anything, the Constantinids enforced Arianism and failed to stamp out Orthodoxy.  The combination of war thingie would be more convincing if you could specify the actual wars. 
+ + +
The Inquisition 
....
Pretty rough by modern standards, but it represented a step forward when the Roman Republic began using it.  The prior form was the accusatio (which continued in use for what we call “civil suits”).  It was up to the aggrieved party to bring suit, compel witnesses, gather evidence, etc.  The inquisitio replaced that for what we call “criminal cases” by representing the people through magistrates who investigated crimes and who prosecuted the offenders.  The grand jury, the coroner’s inquest, and the special prosecutor are a remnant of the system; as is the entire system of Continental law.  It was not always safe for the public to accuse heretics, and even some of the magistrates were assassinated. 
+ + +
the massacre of Jerusalem under the crusades
....
And the non-massacres of other places.  Under the rules of engagement of that era, a city that surrendered was under the conqueror’s protection.  But a city that resisted a siege was subject to x days of “sack.”  Usually, x=2 or 3.  This was as true of one group as another.  Antioch surrendered and was not sacked; Jerusalem resisted and was.  Later, Antioch (which had remained Greek and Orthodox) resisted the Turks and Baybars ordered it not only sacked but exterminated systematically and completely.  Even the contemporary muslim chronicler were shocked, since it went well beyond the customs of the time. 
+ + +
witch burnings 
...
The Romans used to throw them off the cliff.  That’s progress for you.  The Roman term was veneficia or “poisoners.”  It might be interesting to read what the founders of the Royal Society had to say: Boyle, for example, thought that sorcery could be scientifically proven and ought to be exterminated.
+ + +
the slave trade 
...
Curiously, slavery disappeared from Europe during the Middle Ages only to be resurrected by the Age of Reason. 
+ + +
all these were perpetrated by religious people.
...
Lynchings in the US were perpetrated by Democrats.  Murders in the US are disproportionately perpetrated by blacks.  Why do you refuse to be intellectually honest and apply your same bigoted conclusion to such other cases?  X is an A.  X committed act M.  Therefore, A is bad. 
+ + +
Religious wars aren’t normally fought over issues of doctrine. They’re fueled because the other side is of a different religion than the other side 
...
We are so much wiser today when we fuel them because the other side speaks a different language or belongs to a different nationality.  Or even believes in a different economic system. 
+ + +
the modern age has seen bloodier wars not because the church has been suppressed (religious people actually constituted both sides in the
wars you listed) but because larger populations enabled larger armies and
advanced military technology made them deadlier. 
...
You are correct when you say that science and technology were the enablers for more horrendous wars.  However, the Church had been broken to the will of the State via Concordats (as in Spain and France), by sponsor-a-heretic (as in Saxony), or by outright nationalization (as in England).  The fact that the soldiers were religious is irrelevant, since few wars are begun because the foot soldiers are clamoring to start one.  And once the Church has been subordinated to the State, and the State is largely secular (thanks to Christian doctrine), it becomes too obviously tendentious to claim that religion influenced the Kaiser to attack Belgium, or underlaid the Swedish attack on Denmark and Poland. 
+ + +
Your inability to see this, rather obvious fact, is most likely the result of religion’s poor relationship to critical thinking and investigative scholarship. Looking up facts…
...
Some of us may have noticed that you have specified no facts whatever, but have simply thrown off vague generalities which a pre-conceived belief has declared “must have” been the case. 
+ + +
you’re an atheist because you want to sin! It’s a crude way of dodging the argument when you don’t have a counter-argument to make. 
...
Or would be, if there had been an argument made.  Your only statement was that all those 16%ers or whatever the % is reached their conclusion by some form of logic or reason.  I suggested that such a large group is likely to be diverse and have other motives.  For example, Dawkins is on record as saying he became an atheist at age 9 when he “just knew” there was no God; so there is a case where atheism was the result of a child having a real strong feeling once.  Nietzsche very specifically wanted to visit !@#$%.  In many cases, I think you will find the Late Modern unwillingness to be judged by another or just plain sloth at the root of the matter.  I have never yet met anyone with a logical argument, except the two that Mr. Shea mentions; and one of those is without merit, and the other judgmental. 
...
You might try researching the use of logic and reason, of critical thinking and analysis in actual history, rather than the pretend-history of your theory.

Your inability to see this, rather obvious fact, is most likely the result of religion’s poor relationship to critical thinking

See Mick, this is what I’m talking about when I make light of the perpetual evangelical atheist rhetoric about your superiorly evolved brains.  Atheists seem to have a mania for intellect worship, coupled with a rather sluggardly attitude to intellect use.  Merely proclaiming that you are a brilliant critical thinker is not, as Ye Olde Statistician is demonstrating as he mops the floor with your ignorant pronouncements, the same thing as actually doing critical thinking.  To be kind, you don’t know what you are talking about and talking about it in a superior tone of voice is not a substitute for that woeful defect.  This is but one of the reasons, Mr. 1.6%, that your tribe will always be—forever—an insignificant minority.