Hello...I'm one of those dreaded agnostics.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Each individual is responsible for their own beliefs, irrespective of whether those beliefs are right or wrong. There is no greater crime to reason, than to go contrary to what your reason tells you, for the sake of appeasing others.
I'm still not sure what you're asking. But as far as I can tell no, I don't agree with any authority determining right and wrong answers for everyone, in any field.
What did I take out of context, John? The bit about God being Almighty? Or was it the bit about Him being all knowing? Was it the bit about His lovingkindness and being the only all good being?
They were DESCRIPTIONS of God's attributes, John. Not controversial tales of Jewish slavery. Straight descriptions, straight from Scripture.
Is your God Almighty, all knowing and all good as Scripture describes Him, or not?
I haven't accused you of taking things out context. What an ironic response.
"I haven't accused you of taking things out context. What an ironic response."
Cool. So we’re agreed these are Scriptural descriptions of God . I haven't taken them out of context, or misunderstood the writers intentions. Good.
Is your God Almighty, all knowing and all good as Scripture describes Him, John?
"It means I agree with Scripture, expect for when it is taken out of context, and the authors intent misinterpreted."
Wow, you know the authors? And you know what their intention was? This is news, does the Pope know?
You are funny John.
Though oddly I remember your many threads claiming the bible condemned slavery, and no amount of quoting the bible quite specifically endorsing it could get you to agree with it, or even what it said.
Do you agree that buying, owning and passing on slaves a property is OK then? Do you agree that beating those slaves to death (as long as they last a day or two) is OK then? Do you agree that it's OK to stone unruly children to death? In what context would those actions be OK?
Thanks, based on what you wrote here you accept the merriam webster definition of god. You say you do not define it much differently but do not say exactly what is different. So I will hold you to that definition because you do not care to elaborate on it, and mostly accept it.
You reiterate that you do not care for accepted definitions much but think it is better to give description. You also state another example of why you think descriptions is better than definitions using the name John. Which honestly, hey call me dumb if you like, but your example further confuses me.
So; "god" definition is like trying to define a human name of a person given by typically the parents of the human? To me that is saying the word god is similar to the word John? God is simply the name some humans gave to a person? That actually makes sense to me, but points me to a conclusion I highly doubt that was the conclusion you were trying to guide me towards.
Also, did you really use a comparison to try to explain why the description of god is so important compared to a definition with your online name?
--1--Anyhow, you accepted with some small caveats you accept the merriam webster definition for god to be:
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"
--2--To which I responded with:
I never met or found evidence for a being/object that has more than natural attributes and powers. And I most certainly never met or found evidence for an object or being that requires human worship (tRump jokes aside.) I also never met an object or being or found any evidence for one that meets the attributes of the last sentence of the definition and can control a particular aspect or part of reality. All evidence points towards there is no "god."
--3--Which you responded with:
"I do however question your objection to Webster's definition." And then give your brother example.
--4--And even though you do not answer --2--, I answer about your brother example, (that you then give no response to my answer.) And instead circle back to your "why description is better" with your john name/god that you are trying to make to show descriptions is better than defining god.
You still have not responded to what I stated in --2--. You only went back to the Webster definition and gave your confusing (at least to me, brother example) Why can you not answer --2-- directly? Are you that stuck on it must be a description and not a definition? You even accepted the definition, (mostly in a non committal way,) then go back and say you question my objection, I did not even have an objection to it, I simply used what you sort of accepted as the definition of god and told you why "god" (any god) can be easily dismissed with that definition, the original goal of this thread.
Why is a description so important? Your example fails to impress that upon me, perhaps treat me like a 6 year old, and perhaps give a better example that is easily understood for me? Remember, it should be simple and basic, the atheist no god position is simple and basic, the default no god everyone is born with simple definition, I am also happy to clearly and simply define the word god using accepted definitions in a highly recognized dictionary.
You say also your description of god is scripture. You do not say which scripture, later you say: "start with genesis." Sure, and end where? Do I need to read several very specific books and passages just to get as far as a description for all gods? Seems to me its also more devolving into the christian god or your specific version of god. Lots of other folks gods description/definition does not start with gensis.
You cannot have it both ways, it is dishonest. You can not say: we should decide if the whole god concept is real or not before I go into specifics about my god, then when I try to get a definition we agree on, say no, definitions are not good enough, It should be a description, and then when people ask what description works for you, you point to a description that is of christian origin.
Re: John "... when people ask what description works for you, you point to a description that is of christian origin."
Except when he doesn't. If you use the three omni descriptors, he rejects them as philosophy terms. If you point out they are widely accepted in Christian theology and apologetics, he says he only uses Scripture. If you use descriptors straight from Scripture, he says the context and writers intent behind using terms like Almighty, all knowing and only good being must be known first. Curious, isn't it?
Yeah, I am well aware John does not answer simply and directly. At this point I am curious how he responds when I continually point this out. Can I get a direct answer when carefully explaining his responses to questions, point out the evasion to an actual question he does not care to answer?
I am guessing, I will never get a straight answer of: gods exist, here is my evidence why, and yes my particular god (well defined) exist, here is my evidence why, and strait answers to points atheist bring up why gods do not exist and even other theist points to why their particular god does not exist. Why? Because every bit of evidence or argument theist bring up, get torn down, especially when they get specific. Theist in general do not want to account for all the flaws in their particular religion's god, and book. If we can not pin them down with real solid reasons why their evidence does not work, they can keep their god argument in the realm of well I made it so vague you cannot disprove it! Shift the burden and go vague, cannot be disproved! Therefore I can hang onto my warm blanket that is the god idea.
An easy example: The strategy for the christian that has in their particular holy book version, the noah's ark flood story, is to distance themselves from it, say the noah story is only meant for illustrative, teaching purposes, or not admit to that particular detail at all by being overall vague. Or simply get a new edition to their book that cuts out the story entirely.
There's nothing to respond to in --2--. You made the comment, I gave you opinion on it, what else was I supposed to respond?
I'm not against you using a definition; I just want you to understand what you're getting from it. You seem to want to talk about the God of my particular religion. If so, it doesn't make sense to use a dictionary. If you want to know specifics about my pet cat, looking up the word cat in a dictionary is pointless. You need a description of my cat; likewise the description of the Christian God, is in the Bible, not the dictionary.
The term god is a broad, all encompassing word, it is categorized as a noun, much like chair, king, president are nouns. The dictionary is going to define it as such. However, God is also a proper noun much like John (my name) is. You're not gonna find information about me in a dictionary. Perhaps in an encyclopedia at most.
What I'm telling you is this: Use a dictionary if you're interested in theism in general, use the Bible if you're interested in the Christian God. That's as simple and basic as I can get it.
Reexamining your response to my --2--, your reply (number --3--)
--2-- is this post: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/helloim-one-those-drea...
The part I am looking for a response from you in my post is:
Your response, was, this is the permalink: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/helloim-one-those-drea...
You talk about why you like description more. And you talk about existence of your brother. I do not see a response to the part I highlighted in the block quote from myself above.
You said more or less you accept the definition from merriam webster. So I pointed out why that definition of god has major issues, namely lack of evidence of you did not respond to any of those points.
Instead you talk about why you like description of god more than a definition, even after stating you accept the merriam webster definition. Then you state you question my objection to webster's definition. I do not object to the definition, I obviously do not.
I simply stated using that definition of god there is no evidence for any being/object that has any of the descriptors of the definition of god used by Merriam Webster. That the god definition describes nothing we have any evidence for existing. That definition puts god in the category of any other idea humans have dreamt up that there is no real, testable evidence for. All of us looked high and low, for thousands of years for a being or object that has traits like what is in that definition. "have more than natural attributes and powers" "require human worship" able to "control a particular aspect or part of reality."
1000's of years, billions of people looking very hard, no one has found an object or being like that. Only in our imaginations, only in our thoughts, and our shared thoughts, which are infinite, like any other ideas supported only in our imagination, they need to be discarded or we would go insane and not be able to function in the world. God, any god, has never met the burden of proof.
Yes, I would like to talk about your particular god to nail down details of your god, but you wanted to address overall broad concept of god existing or not first, that's fine I addressed that. We needed to agree on a defintion first, which we did. And then I pointed out there is no evidence of any god by that definition existing. Even though, the burden of proof should be on person making the claim, not the person stating the claim is w/o evidence or proof.
I am talking about theism as a whole, I have not strayed from that, I never asked about your particular god after you asked to start with theism god or no god. Other inviting you to do so if you did not like my merriam webster definition and pointing out that definition to me is easily explained that there is no god (any god that fits the definition of merriam webster definition of god,) because there is no evidence for it.
You and I both agree the term "god" is a broad and encompassing word. You wanted to start there. Now you do not want to respond to my conclusion of going with the broad.
My response is the second paragraph you just quoted. I prefaced it as such. Your objection (not having evidence) to the definition (worshiped being, etc).
So that is it? Not going to address that the definition you accepted of god (in general,) that there is no evidence for anything by that definition? Just a: side tracking response to some parts, but not the part about evidence for the accepted god definition? I am going to assume you do not have an answer for it then.
You have no answer to: an agreed upon definition of god (in general) there is no evidence for? I am going to assume victory in the debate then. The atheist position is the correct one. There is no god. As you have no rebuttal. You also stated you wanted to discuss all gods first, before your particular god, which makes it easy for me to conclude you also have no rebuttal that your particular god not existing due to lack of evidence.
I gave you my answer. It is not a side tracking response, but a jab at the very core of your assertion. I'm questioning the very methods which led to your conclusion. I'm also questioning the amount of thought you put into it.
I think a better position for you to have taken, is to say nobody has spoon-fed you evidence. So please share with me your method and procedures. The person who hasn't looked for their keys, can say quite confidently that they haven't found them.
Really? You are going to stand by saying your answer is not a side tracking response that avoids responding to my point I asked you to answer multiple times?
My point being, repeated here again:
I never met or found evidence for a being/object that has more than natural attributes and powers. And I most certainly never met or found evidence for an object or being that requires human worship. I also never met an object or being or found any evidence for one that meets the attributes of the last sentence of the definition and can control a particular aspect or part of reality. All evidence points towards there is no "god."
"My response would be that a description of God is more useful than a definition of God. Defining the word lion is great, but a description of a lion is much more helpful. If you're interested in my personal description of God, I get it from Scripture; though once again, when it comes to atheism vs theism, much broader descriptions exist.
I do however question your objection to Webster's definition. Presumably you've never met or seen evidence of my brother's existence; you probably didn't know I had one until just now, and had you concluded that I didn't had one you'd be wrong."
Do I need to rephrase your answer for you? Your answer does not deal with the point I make that our agreed upon definition of "god" that there is no evidence for. I see no jab, in your response, I read an evasion. Why can you not answer the point about lack of evidence for god as defined? You are still avoiding the point I made there, despite all this you still have not answered it, but now you say you did I do not see that at all. Explain to me how your response is a jab? Perhaps I am stupid or blinded by my position, explain it to me.
You are also very dishonestly trying to shift the burden of evidence now. Not only do I have to point out there is no evidence, but now I have to give evidence that there is no evidence? What? Back to an example I made earlier.
You owe me 1 million dollars. Going by what you say about evidence, Instead of me having to prove that you owe me 1 million, you have to prove that you do not owe me 1 million. Think about it. How can you possibly prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? You can't. It is incredibly intellectually dishonest to try to frame a demand for proof that way. It is madness, we would not survive in a world very long where that is how we use evidence to make decisions about the world around us.
Even despite your dishonest shifting the burden of evidence, it is a simple exercise to point out my method. One it starts with, there is no reliable solid evidence for god. Then we look at all the easy to discover evidence that instead man made up the god ideas. We start with the agreed upon definition of god. We go looking for a being or object that has more than natural attributes or powers. Such a being or object would be abundantly obvious. We could not miss it. We go looking for a being that requires worship as well, we have not found such a being. So far absolutely nothing anyone has ever found over many thousands of years and billions of people, none of us ever found such a being or object. It would be by far the biggest story of all time if such a person found something like that. But nope. We just get a few stories instead. Nothing verifiable.
I been repeating myself for awhile now. If all you can come up with is "no I did answer that" with what is an obvious evasion that fails to respond to a simple point in a simple manner. Maybe you can not see how obvious that your response is an evasion. Your answer should be along the lines of: "I do not have any evidence for god, but god is hidden and exist despite lack of evidence" That for you, you do not need real world evidence to believe in a god. Or if you do have evidence for god as we agreed to be defined, here it is, x,y,z.
"Do I need to rephrase your answer for you?"
Do it. From my perspective, you looked up a definition, said you've never found evidence for it, and I questioned your conclusion. There's nothing evasive about that.
"One it starts with, there is no reliable solid evidence for god."
You're starting with the conclusion; why shouldn't I question your methods?
Okay here goes a rephase of your response as how I see it typed in the perspective if it was your response:
Answering your post, I want to explain the agreed upon definition of god does not work for me, a description is more accurate to how I feel about god. However we are still talking about just the overall concept of god, not my particular god. So a description is better, but I cannot also be too descriptive because they we are getting into my particular god, and I want to keep the ideas seperate, the overall is there a "god" as defined, not the "does my particular god" exist. A description is important, because the definition of a lion while somewhat useful, a description of a lion is more useful. -I logicfortw interject here: how do you describe god, like a lion when no one has seen god with their own 2 eyes? Is this not also getting into your particular god? Also if you are interested in my particular description of I get the description of god from scripture.
I question your objection to webster definition of god. Because, when it comes to evidence, things cannot be dismissed simply because you personally are not aware of the evidence. Like you did not know my brother ever existed. -I logicfortw interject here: I never looked either unlike god, and I never doubted your brothers existence either.
You instead of answering the point try to discredit the point by saying you do not want to use the definition but instead say you want a description, even though a description defines your god, not all gods. You give a poor example as to the reason why description is better. A better example would of been: "people" instead of: your brother or maybe even brothers in general instead of your specific brother. But that of course illustrates why we are working with definitions here not description. Or in your lion example, a better example would be cats. Again you are the one that wanted to talk about gods in general, theist vs atheist, before getting into your specific god. If you want to switch gears and talk about your god instead that is fine, but do not try to use defense of one debate topic for a different debate topic.
That is not the conclusion, (no evidence for god) the conclusion is: there is no god. The argument is: there is no evidence for god. And it is a very powerful argument, the most powerful. In any court of law, the defense says to the prosecution; "you have no evidence," and if the prosecution indeed does have no evidence, the prosecution loses, the conclusion ends up being the case is thrown out for obvious reasons. If we were not debating about god, but any other subject, if I were to open with: the boogeyman under your bed is real. In response you could, and should say: "there is no real evidence for the boogeyman." If I am unable to provide even a little bit of evidence, but still insist the boogeyman is real, but say: "oh well, I did not mean the definition of boogeyman I agreed to, I mean the description, in this book I read. Oh and you never met or heard of my bro, but he is real, see? My point is valid." You would be left with a, really? That is what you are going with? You are not going to address the fact that I just stated there is no evidence for the boogeyman?
Please tell me the example I gave, about me claiming the boogeyman and the responses, that you can easily see how in a debate between two reasonable people, my final response to the boogeyman debate is garbage and an evasion? A desperate attempt, perhaps in your own mind to not deal with the fact that you have zero real evidence for any god? And operating in a way where you accept claims made w/o evidence is actually quite toxic?
And do not think that I have not noticed that you have now gone quite a few responses to me now where you do not address this evidence issue. Do I need to rephrase the point to a yes or no question?
Do you have any evidence for any god, as the word is defined by Merriam-Webster? Yes or no?
"I question your objection to webster definition of god. Because, when it comes to evidence, things cannot be dismissed simply because you personally are not aware of the evidence. Like you did not know my brother ever existed."
Ok, this is more or less the point I was making, and the point you need to focus on. The topic about the definition is obviously separate. Now, as far as evidence goes, I've said before on this thread that evidence is a theory-dependant observation or data. Do you understand what that means before you proceed?
So let me get this straight:
You refuse to answer a point, even when translated to simple yes no question. Okay fine, your refusal to answer is noted. I will drop
my point, as I got a: you won't answer it as a response. Which allows me to draw which ever conclusion I like, my conclusion is: no you do not have any evidence you can present. Cool. Probably the closest thing I will get to an admission from you on that.
And now you are telling me what point to focus on. The topic of definition is what we started on, but have now abandoned. You changed the point being discussed. That is fine, I will take the victory that you care not to discuss that point we were discussing prior.
Since I like debate, I will do as you request and focus on "I question your objection to webster...brother..etc" I feel my overall position is so incredibly strong, I can debate you on whatever grounds you choose, I feel I can do so with both hands figuratively tied behind my back.
You asked to start with:
"evidence is a theory-dependent observation or data"
I have an idea of what that means to me, but lets see if our understanding of that coincides or not before we "proceed."
To me, you are talking about scientific evidence, and how it uses the scientific method, which relies on scientific inquiry which relies on theory to make observation or data. Scientific inquiry with theory is needed to properly form the observation, question, hypothesis, and better interpret the analysis and conclusion of the scientific method cycle. Or more or less the theory it is needed throughout the process. You are more specifically talking about in the observation stage of the cycle, the theory is needed to frame how the observation goes.
I currently do not think all forms of evidence, like what is used in courts of law have the theory-dependent observation/data rule. At least based on my own thoughts and a quick google search on the subject. (I actually never really heard those combination of words framed and used in that way that I can immediately recall.)
Let me know if you agree with that, or if you have a different idea in mind with "that evidence is a theory-dependant observation or data."
As far the first two being victories for you, that's perfectly fine. I see my responses as more than adequate.
When it comes to evidence being a theory-dependant observation, you're more or less correct. Every observation requires interpretation. For something to be classified as "evidence," you need to take an otherwise neutral observation, and interpret it as having meaning, or applying, towards your pet theory. Without a theory (idea) you don't have evidence, you just have raw data.
That being the case, you quickly run into the problem of underdetermination. Which means any piece of data, is often compatible with more than one theory. If you've been on facebook long enough, perhaps you've seen the attached meme. The reason why people debate over it, is because every piece of evidence in it, is compatible with both a murder or a suicide.
So my first follow up question becomes: What specific observations were you looking for, so that when you didn't find them, you could conclude there was no evidence?
Please let us know how much data would merit being beyond the grasp of underdetermination.
That's not how it works.
"Every observation requires interpretation." I suppose I can agree with that. Sort of how our brains work. Take in sensory input, and our brains interpret the data.
When it comes to evidence, the evidence needs to be interpreted. The interpretation of the evidence includes observation of the evidence, and like you mention, the neutrality of the observation of the evidence, and interpretation of the meaning of the evidence. All things I agree with.
You lose me a little with: "towards your pet theory." Evidence is evidence, after you check it for a neutrality of the observation (avoid biases,) and interpret the meaning of the evidence, that phase of checking the evidence is done you got your data. If evidence/data is to be used to support a theory, then as the next step, you check to see if it supports a theory or not, or if it is inconclusive even if the work to find the evidence was originally motivated by an attempt to confirm a theory. There is a whole step in the scientific method that deals with that.
Ultimately, I think we mostly agree with "theory-dependent observation" meaning. Evidence that is compatible with more than one theory, I do not see a problem with that. Unless the evidence is also compatible with the opposite result of the theory the evidence/data is being used for.
I actually have not seen the murder/suicide meme before. At the risk of going off topic: it is an artist drawing of a fictional scene. Sure, I can use the various artist drawn clues to try to draw conclusions if it is a suicide or murder. On a quick glance, yeah I see clues for both possible scenarios. I also see things that to me, the best conclusion is artist drawing error. The conclusion I get to, is: It is a drawing, no murder or suicide occurred. Just like almost any movie, it is a nice story world, but examined logically like a real world scenario, it almost immediately falls apart.
Back to the topic at hand:
....no evidence for what? God? Are we back to using the agreed upon merriam/webster definition of god, or are we using more your christian god as defined by scripture? Happy to give a response here, but I dont know yet what exactly you want me to respond to for no evidence for.
"no evidence for what?"
For whatever you said you've never found evidence for in this conversation.
You already know the answer to that question, I repeated it at least 3-4 times in this conversation. No evidence for a god as defined by merriam/webster.
I thought you wanted to move on from that, and instead discuss things like underdetermination, and my definition/understanding of "evidence is a theory-dependent observation or data"
I get you are trying to setup an argument, I appreciate the need to define things. My guess you are trying to, after I defined my definition/understanding of "evidence is a theory-dependent observation or data"
You want me to revisit my point of: No evidence for god. ? I even asked that in my last response. I guess you want me to point it out directly.
Okay, No evidence for god working under "Every observation requires interpretation."
Observations about there is no evidence for god(s):
1. Observation: ~100 billions of people that are alive today or has been in the past. Nearly all of them on some level looking at some point in their lives for something that could be described as god. None of them produced any evidence real, testable, repeatable for something as mighty and world encompassing as a god. A god that demands worship, a god that is "supernatural" in its abilities.
Interpretation. This is a search for evidence, carried out mostly in non scientific or even really any sort of structured manner. This a lot of people looking. It can be assumed, for most of the folks looking, if they did find solid evidence of god, they would be very eager to share this information with others. People can, have, and do miss evidence that is right in front of them. People can and do mis-interpret evidence, visual evidence to people strongly points to a flat earth until the technology existed to show new powerful evidence that the earth is actually not flat. Human observation technology has greatly advanced and made many new powerful discoveries that were previously undetectable. This has not occured for the god idea despite likely considerable more effort to do so then most other discoveries and advancements made on evidence for things previously undiscovered. I think it is a reasonable interpretation that no evidence for a god yet exist because so many people looking could not find any.
2. Observation: Many popular religions today will say something along the lines of: god is hidden. And this help explains observation 1.
Interpretation: meaningless. Any claim can be made about anything if no evidence for it is required, and the evidence requirement is negated by "hidden."
I cut my point 2 short, and will stop here, as I realized, it is highly likely this is not the sort of response you are looking for at all, and I am wasting my time. If you wish to continue this conversation breezy, please be more specific in your request and give at least an example of what you are looking for. Make the example non god related if you want. Or at the very least, if this is what you are looking for in response, a confirmation that I am not currently wasting my time.
So you don't believe in mermaids because no one has "spoon fed you" the "evidence"?
Do behave, what evidence is there all of a sudden for your deity you've failed to even mention thus far? Not to mention no one could produce any objective evidence in the thread I started for objective evidence, and that includes you.
Unless of course you're calling it evidence when in fact it is just a collection of logically fallacious arguments, and anecdotal claims that themselves would have to be properly evidenced before they have any validity at all. Or this the experiential claims that of course can't be demonstrated and are therefore not evidence but just more claims?
I'm guessing that's what you mean when you say "evidence", which makes the word meaningless when you use it in this context. The person who can demonstrate no evidence for where their keys are, yet claim absolutely they know.
Yes; an example of what I meant by authors intent are the psalm verses, which are poetic in nature.
Every religion? So ancient druids the Aztecs the ancient Greek deities were in fact just your God revealing himself to humans?
Why is he such a poor communicator? Why hasn't it laid down a few helpful rules like child sacrifice and slavery are evil along with things like rape and murder? Or keeping food well away from human waste? Basic hygiene and stoppingthe spread of disease? The causes of blood poisoning etc etc?
Why was he telling people he was Zeus or Thor? This makes no sense. Especially when compared to species evolution and the slow gradual accumulation of knowledge humans would expect if they evolved their ability to think and reason alongside some innate instincts both good and bad by contemporary standards.
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ,
"Well no; that is why I said the first question to ask has to be a broad one, since theism encompasses a broad territory."
Who really gives a shit if a person believes in a deity? Other deity believers don't give a damn. They only care if people believe in their own specific delusion. If people believe in delusions other than theirs they get pissed off enough to kill them them.
After Noah took his boat ride his grandkids didn't believe in his God. They worshiped idols. And Noah was still alive to tell them how his delusion spoke to him and had him build the ark and gather all of the animals. His grandkids told him he was full of crap.
When Moses came down from the mountain after spending 40 days and 40 nights with his delusion he got pissed when the very people who had walked across the Red Sea made up their own delusion and worshiped it. He killed them.
King Asa killed the people who didn't share his delusion.
Jesus' own family said that he was full of crap about being the son of God. Even his own mother said he was nuts and she supposedly was knocked up by the Holy Ghost.
So in theist land just believing in some off the wall deity isn't good enough. People will kill you if you don't believe in their specific delusion. In the European religious wars the French Catholics and French Protestants read the same Bible and worshiped the same deity. But they didn't give a damn. They gutted each other like fish because they had different delusions.
Religion is dangerous to one's mental and physical health.
People will kill you for cutting them off in traffic, for chewing gum at a theater, for getting your wallet out of your pocket. They will kill you for the way you look, the way you talk, the way you think.
Humanity is dangerous unto itself; it does not need religion to become violent.