lol, umm... is the response on another page somewhere?

seems you do not even Read what the man is telling you guy.

but to put it bluntly, yes the universe sprang from the same mystery that is your god.

Dennis,
I'm tempted to say you are an idiot. But that would be impolite and immature. Let me put it this way; it is extremely unfortunate that there are enough people to listen to the kind of drivel you are spouting to allow you any claim to social significance. If you sincerely consider these moronic responses of yours to be some sort of challenge to the issues raised by by Sam I am appalled. If you feel these are the only responses you can make while remaining true to your audience, and they don't truly reflect your level of intellectual ability then, again, I am appalled. We need serious debate. You are either utterly incapable of it or despicably refuse to engage. Shame on you.

I'm out of here.
Jimerie

Dennis,

I especially enjoyed your connection between reproduction and religious truth. You say that secular people have fewer children than religious people. Are you implying that those who reproduce the most are most likely to "win" the religious truth debate? I agree! Religion, like a virus, is spread most effectively from parent to child. Those religions that have the most effective vectors of transmission and the highest survivability rates are likely to win. Thus, religions that reduce women to baby factories and proselytize most effectively will outperform others. The only cure is education - according to Pew (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153#1), the more education one gets, the less likely s/he is to believe in a supernatural diety. You don't have to go to Harvard to be inoculated - the effect starts with high school.

I wonder...

How religiously active the priests were who molested so many children over the years. How religiously active were those involved in the cover-up? My guess is -- very.

If you want to make the case for secularism producing better people in America, how about “betting the farm” on this: I bet you whatever sum we each can afford that the vast majority of murderers and rapists in this country were not religiously active during the time they committed their violent crimes. I would make a second bet that you won’t take that bet.

Considering that Atheist are minority and there are 2.1 million prisoners throughout America this is a bold claim. The fact is that the predominance of inmates who have committed violent crimes are in fact theist. Regardless of the state of practice they were in, most of these criminals held a belief in a creator, making them theist. So even with knowledge of a creator, this did not stop them from committing their acts.

Lets not forget active participants in church do not necessarily mean that one is immune to criminal or sinful acts. Lets not forget Americas favorite fundie queer bag, Ted Haggard.

MerelYour answer clearly exposes you're just as blind as pretty much everyone.

Let me tell you someting - USA is not good; USSR is nor evil. I know it's a little too hard for you to understand, but that's pretty much clear to the rest of the world. USA has been much more subtle than USSR, that much is true, but it was your country that has unleashed most of the misery we seen today in the rest of the world.

The same goes for Israel vs. Islam. Were I an arabic muslin, I, too would throw stones at the israeli. Of course! What on Earth makes the legible to have a piece of my land? What have I don to them? Why wasn't a piece of germany given to them after WW II?

With some exceptions, I believe that the more time one spends at a university the more foolish he or she becomes.

Without a doubt one of the more foolish statements ever made.

Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn.

It is apparent that Dennis has never read anything on ancient history. Or the bible.

It was voted on in 325ce that women were not at least part of the animal kingdom (meaning that they were somewhat human). It was also voted on by the same council that jesus was divine (god). These things were not part of the christian doctrine before this time and the voting (espeically on the women being human) was narrowly won. To say that christianity always considered women equal is definitly a lack of knowledge!

The list of loopy things they voted on at the Council of Nicaea never stops growing. People are always busting out with this stuff. "In 325 they voted to hate gays. Until then some believed that Jesus and Lazarus were lovers." "In 325 they narrowly voted that Jesus was a man-god. Until then some said he was a half-orc."

I don't believe any of it anymore. Do you have a link to a reputable source that will confirm that "It was voted on in 325ce that women were not at least part of the animal kingdom"?

בשר זה רצח,

Joey

Jimerie,

You tell us many things. To begin with, you are tempted but too mature to call Dennis an idiot. You do say he spouts drivel and makes moronic comments, but that is another matter. You tell us that you are appalled and that Dennis should be ashamed. Finally, you proclaim as if you can no longer tollerate another instant of your intellectual inferiors "I'm out of here."

After your substantive contribution, I fear that reasoned debate amongst gentlemen (and gentlewomen) will be forever impoverished!

Heh heh, that's pretty good, anon commenter above me! From my heart to your lips. If you registered, I would praise you by name.

בשר זה רצח,

Joey

Dennis,

I find this last post of yours turning from definitely moronic, to extremely frightening. I had to stop reading and take a break after this paragraph:

"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn."

Firstly, let me say, who's the arrogant one now? Secondly, that you put "the abolition of slavery" and the "greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America)" in the same sentence just about knocked me off my chair. Do you remember how the Constitution was crafted to turn a blind eye to slavery? Do you remember that the non-ethnicity-based society was quite helpfully enabled by the annihilation of the indigenous people of North America? Do you know that the USA (NOT "America" there is no such place) is the only developed country that still has ghettos? The correct definition of a ghetto being where more than 90% of an ethnic population live in an area which is composed of at least 90% of that ethnic population, e.g. Chicago's South Side. "The greatest experiment in a non-ethnicity-based society" which you claim was no such thing, and if you insist on calling the formation of the USA all I can do is point out that it has definitely failed miserably. FINALLY, "the greatest music ever composed"; "the greatest art ever drawn"????? Are you really so arrogant to presume to dictate universal standards for such subjective things?

You are a lunatic, and ill-educated mouth-piece with a half-assed understanding of the Bible, let alone the world around you.

I finished reading and had to post this:

"there is a moral chasm separating Israel from its enemies."

What is that, exactly? That they murder innocent men, women and children? That they operate entirely immorally towards the Palestinian people?

You need to check out this website: www.ifamericansknew.org

The numbers there clearly illustrate the "moral chasm" separating Israel from the rest of the world. They are committing genocide against the Palestinian people, the state of Israel is murdering people in their beds, demolishing buildings on top of people and shooting children throwing stones at tanks. It is grotesque and murderous and extremely immoral.

I believe the Bible is a fascinating work of fiction but it does contain a few gems:

"Thou shalt not kill." ~Exodus 20:13

TOTAL CHILDREN KILLED FOR 2006:
Israelis: 2 (Both 16 year old boys: one by an unexploded ordnance in a field - no way of discerning whether it was a Palestinian or Israeli bomb, but given the lack of materials available to the Palestinians, my money is on Israel. The second was killed by a suicide bomber at the entrance to the Kedumim Settlement)
Palestinians: 119 (too many to list here, but you can read for yourself: http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html)

"That is how you view the world: All things came from no thing; intelligence came from nonintelligence; order came from chaos. I cannot understand why anyone finds these beliefs rationally compelling. I can only conclude that it takes either a university education—the secular immersion that begins in grade school—or an antipathy to religion."

Evolution explains these things quite perfectly without the need to resort to the brain-stopping filler of a deity.

Your anti-intellectualism is a farce. Only the truly wicked snake-oil salesman will say "the more educated you are, the less wise you are." That usually follows with "here, buy my version of reality."

The notions that intelligence can come only from prior intelligence and that order implies the existence of an intelligent creator must be false. By Dennis's logic, God would also need an UberGod who was at least His match in terms of intelligence, creative power, and orderliness. And so on, ad infinitum. I know of no escape from this conclusion. So intelligence and order does not imply an intelligent designer.

Dennis if you give Darwin a fair and honest read, I think that you will find an elegant solution to the problems that you posed.

Is Dennis serious, or is he just trying to parody an idiot? By Apollo, now the Christians are even responsible for the development of Democracy! Dennis, you should check even the most mediocre of history textbooks. Democracy was invented by those polytheistic pagans in Athens, specifically by Cleisthenes, in 508/7 BC. In case you missed it, BC stands for BEFORE CHRIST.

-Ivy

...I wonder about that "greatest music ever composed" routine. It's interesting that every musical culture finds its own music to be more satisfying and aesthetically "correct" than that of another's. Prager's notion that music inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition is "the greatest ever composed" betrays his profound ignorance of music (I am NOT dissing Bach, by the way). When he goes on to say that he's been to India and respects it greatly... "But India did not give us those contributions" he demonstrates that whatever he may have done in India, he certainly didn't listen carefully to its music.

I'd say Indian classical music was the greatest ever composed, except that it isn't composed in the way Bach's music was. When I want spiritual transcendence, I'll listen to the singing of the Dagar Family, a group of devout Muslims who for twenty generations have made their lives singing Hindu devotional music. Of course, some of the time I'll listen to Bach, and some of the time I'll listen to Javanese gamelan, and some of the time to Ghanaian "Yeve" drumming...and frankly, it's all the greatest music ever. And you, Mr. Prager, are an ignoramus. An ethnocentric ignoramus -- is there any other kind?

WarrenS

What do you mean by "spiritual transcendence?" You'll deny it, but it is probably something akin to a getting high. Surely there must be more solid criteria by which music can be analyzed, and by that criteria, I'd place my bet with Bach anytime.

So what is the point? A petty competition? Surely not. Rather it is to point out that asking the question of rank is not itself futile, nor ethnocentric.

And maybe while you are in a music induced trace, you can rise above name calling.

Actually, my dear anonymous, spiritual trancendence can, and is, regularly achieved by whole populations without the aid of drugs or other mind-altering substances. Meditation is a tenant of many faiths and simply requires one to clear the mind. This can be done through chanting, MUSIC , as so eloquently put by our resident "ethnomusicologist," exercise, massage, pick your so-called poison.

For the record, Bach, while not in any way bad music, is NOT the greatest music in the world in my opinion. There is no other criteria for the appreciation of arts than just that-- appreciation. So, no, there is not a more solid criteria than WarrenS's appreciation of Hindu devotional music, or my appreciation of various international cultural styles or your seeming appreciation of Bach. BTW, namecalling and accusation of drug use could be considered one and the same insult. Be careful how you point fingers, three are always pointing back at you.

As a general note, I am so much enjoying this discourse on religiosity that it seems sad that the pro-religion writer couldn't think of anything more to say than (just paraphrasing here) "I know you are but what am I?"
An excellently researched and supported argument such as the ones being put forth from Sam Harris really does deserve some serious thought and response, rather than the sorry, dirty dish-water failings of Prager. If I were inclined to be pro-religion, (which I most emphatically am not,) I would love to have a fresh and maybe more measured and researched approach to the topic. Anyone up for the Challenge?

Anonymous writes:

What do you mean by "spiritual transcendence?" You'll deny it, but it is probably something akin to a getting high.

"Getting high," while a phenomenon common to all cultures, has nothing inherently in common with "spiritual transcendence." The latter is recognized by all religions, and (as this atheist can attest) is not their exclusive property. If you do not already have an idea of what "spiritual transcendence" means, I doubt if I can explain it, because it is an experience which is inherently unsusceptible to verbal explanation. Otherwise it wouldn't be transcendent, you see.

Surely there must be more solid criteria by which music can be analyzed, and by that criteria, I'd place my bet with Bach anytime.

Music's potential to evoke spiritual transcendence is not something that can be analyzed.

Bach represents a particular formalized tradition which evolved in the courts and churches of Western Europe; while the various members of the Bach family were known as masterful improvisors (Johann Sebastian primus inter pares) the tradition is also known for having developed a sophisticated notational system which (surprise, surprise!) is absolutely the best in the world -- for analyzing works that arose from that tradition!

Western notation sometimes allows meaningful analysis of many of the other great musical traditions in the world, but equally often it is inadequate to the task. On the other hand, Javanese notation does a poor job of analyzing Bach, and both systems are stymied by West African music.

The point of this, anonymous, is that analytical systems evolve hand-in-hand with the things they analyze. It should not come as a shock, then, to discover that Western notational and analytical mechanisms (which Bach helped develop and refine) will have criteria of quality which Bach's music will always meet.

So what is the point? A petty competition? Surely not. Rather it is to point out that asking the question of rank is not itself futile, nor ethnocentric.

Ranking within a cultural context is a function of that culture's criteria of quality, and is entirely unremarkable. There is NO cultural or aesthetic tradition which does not have criteria of quality which allow some artifacts to be given higher status than others.

Ranking between cultural contexts is much more problematic. It is certainly possible to rank two cultures against one another, as long as the questions involved can be answered with verifiable evidence. Questions of aesthetics are inherently unverifiable, because aesthetic perception is a function of an individual's acculturation as well as individual preference. De gustibus et caloribus non disputandum est. ("In matters of taste and color there can be no dispute.")

Questions which address, say, the amount of trash produced per person per year by a given culture allow empirical verification (America leads that one by a huge margin, although I don't think it's such a great talking point, do you?).

Ethnocentrism is inevitable; it is essentially egocentrism, wholesale.

Before I get to my main point, let me first say that my religious beliefs/disbeliefs are my own and I do not want these beliefs to influence the way in which people perceive my response to the Harris-Prager debate. Therefore, I am choosing not disclose the nature of my religious beliefs in the hope that people will be better able to analyze my brief response without arriving at absurd, baseless conclusions about the type of person I am or my intellecual capacity for reasoning simply based on the nature of my personal religious convictions.

Up until this point in the debate, I thought that both sides presented interesting and compelling arguments, though I felt neither side effectively responded to the other's strongest arguments. However, as soon as I read this portion of the Prager argument, I was struck by the apparent ignorance of many of the claims he makes. And this level of argumentative ignorance makes me question the inherent quality of his argument. It seems as if his argument is based not on facts, but on ideas that Prager believes to be factual in nature, but which are not.

The most startling example was his claim that democracy developed because of Judeo-Christian tradition. Well, I might not have been the best student in junior high, but I do have a faint recollection of what the teacher tried to teach me, and I'm quite certain that Democracy was a gift from the pagan ancient Greeks. And our Republican form of government came from the Romans (before Caesar). I also think the ideas of linear history and science predate the influence of Judeo-Christian values. I recall that there were people like Eudoxus, Archimedes, Hippocrates (I believe modern doctors still take a variation of his oath), and Diaophantus, just to name a few, who were among the west's first great scientists, and none were influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. I also remember learning something of Greek mythology in my literature classes, and finding it remarkable how their version of the afterlife included a post-death judgement in which people were either sent to the eternal Bliss of Elysium or the eternal damnation of Hades on the basis of their moral behavior during their mortal existence. No sense of reincarnation. No sense of cyclical time. Just like what we believe.

And now, having just written what I've written, I have to wonder if Prager might be on the write track, but have his cause and effect reversed. Could it be that it was actually pre-Christian European civilization that had an affect on the Judeo-Christian tradition? I don't know, and I'm not enough of a historian to even claim I do. It's just a thought. Nonetheless, when a person tries to pass of incorrect assertions as a factual basis for an argument, I can't help but ponder what other aspects of his argument are the result of such evident falsehoods. And so the whole argument becomes tainted and unworthy of consideration.

Prager lost this debate. This doesn't mean that I'm saying Sam Harris won this debate, particularly since he brings up facts that I cannot corroborate or deny. I'd have to do more investigations into whether he is selectively choosing the facts to support his argument as Prager claims he is. However, when Prager uses false assertions to support his arguments, I can't help but dismiss every point he offers since I don't know whether the other ideas he presents stem from other factual misconceptions that may have crept into his mind.

You wrote:

"This doesn't mean that I'm saying Sam Harris won this debate, particularly since he brings up facts that I cannot corroborate or deny. I'd have to do more investigations into whether he is selectively choosing the facts to support his argument as Prager claims he is."

Yes, that is a wonderful advice to all of us! We all have to do more inverstigations into whether anything of significance is supported with sufficient evidence, etc.

At every point in time, we all select! It is a foregone truism that you select evidence to advance your position. It is when the manner of selection becomes disingenuous and deliberately deceitful -- exactly the ones you noticed about Prager's state of mind, i.e., his tendency to "use false assertions to support his arguments" -- that must alert us to potential falsehoods.

I wish you good luck in your inverstigations!

As an atheist I get so tired of people trotting out the Communists of the 20th century as an argument against the morality atheists.

#1) Its not as if these are the sole representatives of atheists.

#2) The tragedies that took place in those countries are so complex and have so many reasons, that piling it all "on atheism" is quite absurd.

#3) These arguments completely ignore the genocides and slaveries that took place in the Americas, sanctioned by religious arguments. Andrew Jackson is still praised as a great leader, yet he intentionally called for the mass murder of thousands of Native Americans.

#4) Many of the same things happened in America during and after the Revolution as what happened in Russia and China, the difference is that there were about 2 million people in all of North America, but about 200 million in Russia and 400 million in China, so yes the death tolls are much higher. Americans also, however, killed loyalists after the revolution, confiscated property, etc., etc., but these things are simply dismissed as "okay". Not to mention that about 15%-20% of the population of America was enslaved for 90 years after the Revolution, yet only about 2% of the population of Russia ever went to the gulags, which only operated in a strong fashion for about 25 years.

#5) The main specific targets of Stalin's murder were OTHER COMMUNISTS AND ATHEISTS, his political opponents. Stalin was a power hungry tyrant, its plain and simple. Ivan the Terrible was a power hungry Christian tyrant, so what makes them any different? Neither one's tyranny stemmed from their religion or lack their of, they had tyrannical streaks aside form that.

#6) Hitler was not by any means an atheist, and continuing to call him one only shows the lack of honesty among Christians. The Nazi regime was ultra-religious,and their anti-Semitism came from centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. The Nazi state was ultra-faith based. Atheists were one of the targets of Nazi persecution.

#7) Most importantly, the values of these people do not in any way reflect the values of all atheists nor do they reflect the fact that atheists, as confirmed in studies and polls, tend to be the most tolerant people in society, and the least religious countries in the world today, the Scandinavian ones, are happy, tolerant, law abiding, prosperous societies.

Atheists do not, and never have, claimed that "being an atheist makes someone a good person", at least no atheist that I know of.

We don't view atheism as a label that certifies someone as "good" the way that Christians view being a Christian as a label that certifies someone as good.

If someone tells me that they are a Secular Humanist, then I may take that to mean that they at least claim to abide by what I consider to be a good code of conduct, but being an atheist tells you nothing about someone's character, and we have never claimed that it did.

As an atheist I can freely admit that there are good people who are atheists and bad people who are atheists. If someone tells me that they are an atheist I don't immediately like them and think well of them. That you don't believe in God doesn't say much about you at all. I don't trust people "because" they are an atheist.

And that is really the whole point, not to be deceived and not to have these loaded labels. Atheism alone is not enough. Atheism just opens the door to practical ethical training and behavior, i.e. viewing right and wrong by what is helpful and what is harmful, instead of by what some book from 2,000 years ago says to do.

The one problem here is when Prager says, "exposure to other areas of higher education, specifically the 'social sciences,' further reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God.... I have another interpretation—that contemporary higher education increases factual knowledge but decreases wisdom."

The biggest problem with modern university education is that the mostly nonsensical theories of "social sciences" are confused with factual knowledge. The theories of Freud, Margaret Mead, and other spinners of unfounded hypotheses are not factual knowledge, they are fantasies. Though indoctrination with this nonsense will indeed lead those foolish enough to be taken in away from religion.

The biggest problem with modern university education is that the mostly nonsensical theories of "social sciences" are confused with factual knowledge. The theories of Freud, Margaret Mead, and other spinners of unfounded hypotheses are not factual knowledge, they are fantasies. Though indoctrination with this nonsense will indeed lead those foolish enough to be taken in away from religion.

Freud has been discredited, by scholars I might add, for decades and his ideas, while mentioned for historical perspective, are not taught as correct.

Mead's work is the same as Freud's basically, though a little better, its still not at all taught as correct today.

To say that social sciences, however, are "nonsense", is itself nonsense.

All that the social sciences are, are systems of learning about the cultural practices of given cultures and then understanding the impacts of those practices and the causes for them.

For example, when America was formed 95% of all business and production took place at home, where husbands and wives worked together in the family business, along with their children.

With the onset of industrialization production moved out of the home and into factories and office buildings. At the same time children were then expected to go to school instead of work to support the family.

Today less that 2% of all production and business takes place at home in America and virtually all children are massive economic burdens on their parents, as opposed to economic benefits as they were some 100 years ago.

The result of this has been a great transformation of the role of the family and the home in American society.

You see, this is applies social sciences, and indeed it does include knowledge and and increase and understanding of the world and why things are the way that they are.

I just want to make this clear:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies. In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows. The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations. Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s, the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard. Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime, and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies. The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer. Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise, especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.

[16] Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies, rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies. At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases. The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S.. Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies, but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest. Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat more conservative.

I am deeply saddened that someone like Mr. Prager, with such a poor understanding of the world and it's history has been able to secure legitimacy as a public figure. He has obviously been the victim of very astute religious indoctrinators, because he has become one him self. It is the highest level of barbarism to inflict the fear of an omnipotent invisible being on a child. Mr. prager has know memory of a time without FEAR (of GOD). I am saddened that human beings do this to one another. Fear and Faith are the product of one another.

Immoral theists? Not necessarily.

Not wishing to undermine perfectly entertaining correlational evidence and certainly not that I particularly approve of Michael Moore or his methods, but it is also possible that some of the trends may stem from the fact that the United States has been run for many years now by capitalist pig dogs. ;)

I like this song.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/41184

Perhaps poor, relatively uneducated people are more likely to be religious if they're allowed to be. Figures probably support that one if you can be bothered looking it up. I hear the US at least has a fairly substantial rich/ poor divide; I wonder about others countries. Perhaps some countries aren't as 'developed' as you might imagine.

Perhaps poor people also happen to be more likely to shoot each other or hit each other with righteously bared arms, depending on how your constitution is prioritised.

It seems as if religious people might be more afraid to give a raincoat to a monkey, accounting for the STDs and teen pregnancies. Perhaps poor, less educated people are less inclined towards family planning.

Perhaps there's a problem with being completely dismissive towards the policies of your enemies. Totalitarianism for the lose. Good vs evil mentality anyone?

Social causality is such a complex interrelated web.

David Wilkinson

"I have another interpretation—that contemporary higher education increases factual knowledge but decreases wisdom. With some exceptions, I believe that the more time one spends at a university the more foolish he or she becomes."

I wonder if he came to this conclusion during his graduate studies? Sloppy reasoning, even all dressed up, has nowhere to go.

Wow, I think Sam had all of his followers to jump on this blog and post away.Let me just put it like this, It takes more faith to believe that all life came from nothing, than to believe life came from a creator. You guys are lost in the sauce. Keep up the great work Dennis!

'Let me just put it like this, It takes more faith to believe that all life came from nothing, than to believe life came from a creator."
Who says it came from nothing?  

I think that whatever social effects religion may have (Prager's claim that religious people commit less crime), there's no evidence that it's the existence of a god that produces it. As an atheist and a Jew, I think one can say that there are plenty of benefits to practicing a religion purely for the tradition and cultural aspects. Perhaps "religious" people feel they are part of a community, and have a built in support system they can turn to in times of need. Perhaps people who practice a religion feel bound by the rules of the religion which may coincide with a state's laws. Whatever the reason, I don't know how Prager could claim that it is the existence of god that keeps people from committing crime. Can someone explain why all arguments against the existence of god also turn into arguments against organized religion? I'm obviously not blind to the horrors that religious groups have perpetrated against each other over the course of history, but the same can be said of ethnic and cultural groups. Except for the god question religion is just a culture - a way of life and a world view.

"disingenuous and deliberately deceitful"

I like these words, strong, vibrant, they compliment each other so harmoniously. You wrote.

"At every point in time, we all select! It is a foregone truism that you select evidence to advance your position. It is when the manner of selection becomes disingenuous and deliberately deceitful -- exactly the ones you noticed about Prager's state of mind, i.e., his tendency to "use false assertions to support his arguments" -- that must alert us to potential falsehoods."

The sad and scary of this, to me, is that Prager is not being "disingenuous and deliberately deceitful", he and the majority of my country believe this or some other mystic truth to be fact. There in lies the foul. It ain't a 'rub' no more

Harris wins this debate because Prager forfiets with his beliefs.

Cheers to all,
Dreadboatman@yahoo.com

With the comment:
Suffice it to [say?] that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn.
any vestige of the idea that Mr. Pager can make a reasoned argument leavs the building.
Does her seriously believe all these advances came about through the actions of J-C driven values????
I'd suggest that these advances were fought tooth and nail by the christian churches (although I might agree with Prager that these advances stand an increasing chance of being rolled back by the religion of islam).
Perhaps Prager was carefully avoiding being "dumbed down into atheism" when he cut his classes that discussed, among other things, the trail and imprisonment of Galileo, the enlightenment, the connection between greek atheism and the development of democracy.
And as for America, it would appear he has convieniently overlooked the strong linkage between the non-religious perspectives of those that wrote the Constitution and embedded the principles of separation of church and state. Principles that probably stopped the USA tearing itself to shreds in its infancy.

Prager writes: "That is how you view the world: All things came from no thing; intelligence came from nonintelligence; order came from chaos. I cannot understand why anyone finds these beliefs rationally compelling."

And what exactly is rationally compelling about a God that came from nothing?

It amazes me that people claim the existence of God because the universe exists. Yet they don't believe that God (who is presumably even move complex than the universe) had to have a creator. Where is the logic in that?

If you want to have "faith" that God is the uncaused cause, fine. Just don't confuse the issue with logic...it does not apply.

But it is just as "rational" to believe that all things came from no things, as it is to believe that God came from no things.

Is he serious?

"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn. "

Wow, I don't think I need to say anthing.

"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life"

such a sacredness that they have never shown any tolerance towards someone unlike them, and do not hesitate to commit atrocity after atrocity in the name of their god for the sake of "sacredness of human life". they care more about the idea of god than that which exists to ponder god in the first place.

here is your arrogance showing, as well as your ignorance.

the hindu cherish life. the greeks cherished life. in fact, the eclectic approach by the authors of the bible only point towards the fact that they, too, had teachers.

even the concept of the trinity is seen elsewhere.

the trinity of Morpheus, Phobotor, and Phantasos, the 3 sons of Hypnos that create the trinity of dreams in the greek mythology.

vishnu, brahma, shiva, the trinity of brahmin in the hindu religion. 

now, the trinity may draw its conceptual birth from nature itself, in the form of the 3 most abundant states of energy (gas, liquid, solid), but that does not imply the trinity be god created. in fact, if one looks at evolution honestly, then they see that evolution begins on a sub-atomic level. it begins with chemistry and physics, not just life on earth.

and any point about how beautiful anything is is nonsense. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. of course man thinks he's beautiful. it's his arrogance showing. i'm sure the beaver thinks beavers are the most beautiful race (provided it can think at all, let alone about the trivial matters of how beautiful something is compared to something else). we look at the complexity of our own form and say "wow, this is a beautiful work of art." but we could have turned out in a myriad of different forms, and we'd think everyone of them is beautiful.

asking why the universe was created (if it indeed was) is futile. that implies an intent already by something that is capable of having an intent. you already subscribe to a creator if you have to ask this question. there is no why, unless out of sheer boredom and its on scientific reasons, "god" exploded and took the shape of everything we can experience, like some great daydream, deluding itself into thinking it wasn't the only thing that existed....but this is using religious nihilism at its finest.

not to mention the universe hasn't finished being created.....it's in a constant state of creation, or creation by morphology (science) by use of physics, chemistry, etc

all things come to pass....even christianity will one day be viewed in the same light we view aztec religion....a ridiculous idea and a waste of time.

walk away from the pool, narcissus. lest you die staring at your own reflection.