What do you think is the greatest epic fail for humanity?

[boholikeu]

Whoever said I denied anything? You're the one refusing to accept how large of a factor religion was in the matter.
For starters, Jerusalem was only 'of key economic importance' because it was the central holy point for three primary religions - Christianty, Judaism and Islam. That naturally saw a great deal of trade visit the region.

The entire Middle East has long been a center of trade due to the fact that it connects trade routes from Asia, Europe and Africa. Perhaps the city of Jerusalem itself wouldn't be so hotly contested, but whoever controlled the region would still be quite wealthy and powerful. Are you still willing to claim that it wouldn't have been a target for conquest during the Middle Ages?

I'm not trying to say that religion didn't play a big part in the crusades. It certainly did. However, I don't think that abolishing religion could have prevented similar wars from happening. In that, and nearly every other "religious" war, there were more than enough financial and political incentives for each side. That's why I can't say that religion is any more responsible than, say, the concept of governments or money.

So you admit the possibility that God might exist, but you say that it's illogical for anyone to believe so?

When there is a lack of concrete evidence there is always a possibility that something may exist. In this case there is no evidence on either side so although it is a possibility I find it extremely unlikely.

If there is no evidence on either side, how is it logical to say that one possibility is more likely than the other?

 

[boholikeu]

If there is no evidence on either side, how is it logical to say that one possibility is more likely than the other?

Because the burden of proof lies on the person making the statement. You say there is a god and I shall say prove it. Since you have absolutely no real evidence that god does exist I can only conclude that god does not exist. It is a simple logical equation.

Actually (and this was part of my earlier point), in formal debate the burden of proof rests with the person making any claim. IE saying that "the universe was created spontaneously" requires proof just as much as saying "the universe was created by a greater intelligence".

What's more, the burden of proof does not apply to non-falsifiable claims because otherwise you'd be expected to give empirical evidence for an issue that is by definition non-empirical. That's why serious scientists don't deal with certain philosophical questions such as the existence of God. If you don't believe me, try to objectively prove that reality exists. Or heck, try and prove to me that you exist. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not the skeptic.