And despite your gyrations on the subject, the fact that scientists are, across the board, less religious than nonscientists suggests that science doesn’t tend to support religious belief.

What a big fat assumption that requires. "Scientists are irreligious because they have sufficient, competent, overwhelming evidence that allows them to rationally reject the truth claims of all religious traditions based on a being greater than themselves" is the conclusion you have drawn, with those who do possess religious beliefs written off as "not doing their job." Could you please present the sufficient, competent, overwhelming evidence that allows you to make such a truth claim about "science?"

...it wasn't close...why can't Prager see the point that just like he thinks the Muslims are wrong, people can believe that Christians are wrong (hence, they are both wrong)...Rob

I greatly respect Sam's self control in not laying into Prager's bullshit about the contributions of Judeo-Christian religion:

"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;"

Prager having the sheer arrogant audacity to suggest that Chritianity gave us any of that makes me want to punch his f'ing lights out.

How dare he say that any other belief by humans about humans does not hold humans sacred?

How dare he contribute nothing of science to Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes and quite a few WISE muslim men?

How dare he say earlier that only intellectual atheist 'fools' belief that men and women are the same and then claim that christianity gave us equality of the sexes and give nothing to the women that have suffered for centuries under religious dogma?

How dare he give it credit for abolition of slavery?

How dare he claim only his sect know right from wrong?

How dare he to even claim Bach's music?

If I didn't know he was serious I'd think this was a sarcastic joke by an atheist comic pointing out the stupid arrogant dogma of christian americans.

To not even refute this crap is the one thing that Sam left out.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/11/whatever-happened-to-serious-skeptics.html

My dearest, neither you nor lovely Dennis have answered, truly, the question, 'Why Are Atheists So Angry?' You stomped up and down a bit, but you did not tell the truth.

I cannot blame you, my love, because the truth is bitter and painful, glaringly obvious though it may be. You are angry, my dear, because your stoic acceptance of the barren philosophy of atheism puts you in an impossible position. It puts you in permanent, uncomforted, despairing, endless war with the entire universe, and everything in it. And a state of impotent rage is psychologically preferable to a state of helpless despair. It creates the illusion that one is doing something.

Because, my dear Sammy-O, you define yourself as a body. As an ego-self, as the sole unsupported Force of Reason in a senseless void. And this little body is hapless. It is fragile, it decays, it stinks and its teeth fall out. Other bodies have it in for it. There's nothing you can do about that, little Sammy, rage as you will against the dying...well, we'll leave that for a bit.

No, Sammy, deep down you don't believe you are a body. In fact, you know damn well you aren't. And deep down, you are furious at whatever sadistic entity installed you in one; this entity couldn't possibly have been a loving one. So whoever it was, it wasn't God. It couldn't have been God, or you'd have to kill the bastard.

And indeed, little Sammy-O, it wasn't. It was you. You volunteered for this mission. God the all-loving, the all-extended, the unified, the One, merely waits, and smiles, and embraces, and hopes that you will get over this silly body-delusion very soon.

Pretty Lady

Sam,
can we please get someone more capable of actually reading what you write next time?

I mean I dont expect a completely logical response, but a response would be nice.

can you setup like a video feed to [religious victim], in other words a place where you can demand clarification, or expressly provide it when you see the bewilderment on his face.

because he was unable to provide closure to over 90% of your logic.
and that is a serious failure, kinda like a high school student punching out a toddler.

I am still happy, because now as the information age blooms and more and more reach is available, it will all work out, we dont have to worry about guys like this forever.

just compare it to trying to catch a crook in the 1800's, information availability that is.

in my office, only a few people are openly religious.
less than 5%.

this is not even worthy of a real response.
so you get mine.

the logic is simple, war and strife Directly associated to religion in the past 50 years is reason enough that we need to have everyone on a global level examine where we should be receiving our moral directions from.

honestly, you should not need moral direction.
instinct should have taught it to you.

even children who are incorrectly trained to do wrong things.
Know when they are doing something wrong.
(such as being hateful to other children)
how is that? check it out for yourself.
go find some maltrained children and watch.

so as you can see to have someone prominent write a statement such as:
"can't wait to watch em all burn in the lake of fire"
Sorry for my inability to reference the owner of that, I dont believe it is necessary as if you are a straight up christian you will feel the same way.

how is that any different to anyone saying :
the orbiting teapot told me that "only the cockroachs are to survive"
if they believe in him or not so you better come walk run off this cliff with me.

lol, Pretty Lady you are Pretty Silly :)

Both sides were non-responsive. This was a horrible dialogue. Honestly, a debate between whether or not the faith, or lack thereof, of scientists provides evidence of God or evidence of His non-existence is sophomorish and did not answer the original question. Both parties to this debate get a failing grade.

The Atheist Faith of Modern Liberalism
by Gary DeMar
11/16/2006

Robert Reich, the former U.S. labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, believes people who follow God pose a more significant threat to the modern world than terrorists do: "The great conflict of the 21st century," Reich wrote in The American Prospect, "will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, logic and those who believe that truth revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

Reich accuses those who believe Scripture is a revelation from God of rejecting science, reason, and logic. This is nonsense. First, his comment about science is unhistorical. To take just one example, Johannes Kepler "was a man who contemplated in mathematics the glory of God. His life, his work, his mathematics were always about God. Everything he did was about God. Kepler found in the hidden mathematical harmonies of the universe in as deep a way as he found God in the revelations of Scripture. . . . Scientific work for Kepler was always grist for his theological mill, a chance to praise God."

Second, the Bible tells us to love God with all our mind (Matt. 22:37). God calls us to "reason together" (Isa. 1:18). Peter tells Christians always to be ready to make a defense to every one who asks us why we believe what we believe (1 Pet. 3:15). Paul was "reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles" (Acts 17:17). He was well aware of the philosophical arguments "of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers" (17:18).

Third, unaided reason has had some disastrous results. It was reason that became a god in revolutionary France, and the guillotine was its logical expression. Keith Feiling writes: "Human reason set up a cross on Calvary, human reason set up the cup of hemlock, human reason was canonized in Notre Dame."

Fourth, Reich's practical atheism made the twentieth-century the bloodiest on record. Statistics show that godless Communism resulted in the death of 100 million people. The Communists, as followers of Darwin, were consistent in their materialist faith. There are no rules except those which the State determines to be rules. Like Reich, the Karl Marx believed in "the primacy of the individual." Like Reich, Communism's followers do not believe in a "a higher authority" greater than the State.

As always happens when individuals are made into gods, they begin competing against one another for top-god. In order to quell the move toward moral anarchy, which Reich's position inevitably leads, some new god must be raised up--the deification of the State.

Sam never stated that being atheist means being moralist. That's the thing about you sheep... you believe that the only way to be good is to follow a religion. Nonsense!

For each Stalin, we have a thousand other bloodshedding religious kings in the ancient times. Besides, Hitler or Stalin are barely good examples. They've been both rulers in revolutionary States. Their countries were immersed in hunger and misery - revolutions are always stained by bloodshed.

Now, if Hitler was this godless martyr you state, how about the fact that the Church was in good terms with him? Or that they were ok with slavery?

None of this, obviously, proves that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even prove that the Church is not related to God, as the Church is run by men, and men can make mistakes. However, if religion is run by men, why is so hard to accept that at least some dogmatism may have written the wrong way, too?

Bah. Religious people are just plain idiots.

Dear Pretty Lady,

If you are a pretty lady, I would call you a dumb blonde or burnette or whatever your hair color is. The reason atheists are so angry is not because we have nothing to do but rather because we are discontent with all those beleivers out there just like you are discontent with all those Christians who believe something else than your branch, or all those Muslims who believe in Allah who "obviosly" doesn't exist. These believers are causing problems in this world. Not only that, but they are arrogant and cocky, which would annoy the crap out of anyone. And so I would like to say that you do not understand this and you never will.

I shall wave my magic wand and remove the believers. There! All gone! Do you feel better now?

Even though you are still about to die? Even though you could get run over by a bus, or get cancer, and have needles shoved into your arm to hoosh you with toxic chemicals that make your hair fall out and make food taste like sandpaper? Even though you are genetically prone to rheumatoid arthritis, which makes your joints swell up in inflamed lumps, and causes you to scream in pain every time you stoop to pick up a dropped coin? Even though you will slowly, inevitably, painfully decay, become slack and slow and horrible, expiring without a doubt in the ultimate loss of everything you have ever loved?

Even though somebody with a gun can decide that he'd perhaps like your house, or your lover, or your job, and come and pop you off and take them? Even though the government can decide these things as well, and not even bother with the gun? Even though a mountain lion might happen upon your campsite and mistake your young, tucked into their sleeping bags, for sandwiches?

Even though justice will not be done, justice CANNOT be done, justice is far too complex and subtle and difficult and unreachable a thing to be accomplished, even if every person in every land were to chuck their job and devote themselves entirely to the cause of delivering Justice? Justice to the evil, to the venal, to the blameworthy, to the selfish and malicious and indifferent and spiteful? Justice for the innocent, unnamed billions, tortured and dismembered and ground to dust, mouldering in their graves? Justice for the raped and abused children, the battered women, the mutilated soldiers defending what was Right?

You mean you are not angry any more, my love, now that all faith is gone, now that everyone regards the world with the same grim, stoic materialism as you do? That the poetry, the mystery, the hope and comfort of the transcendent has utterly been eradicated? That no-one, anywhere, least of all yourself, is certain of limitless love and eternal safety and joy and light, for ever and ever amen?

Dear, you are a stronger person than I.

Pretty Lady

Now, to the author who wrote "What atheists have to account for..." on November 27, 2006 - 8:00pm:

Hi. You can call me Zhang…

In my opinion, you have made the strongest arguments yet of anyone arguing for the existence of God. Thank you. It is borderline painful to read so many seriously flawed arguments for the existence of God. But I think there are a couple of things you are missing and I'm naive enough to think that I can do an accurate enough job to explain them properly, so I'll give it a shot.

I’m used to a lot of smarm, snark and sarcasm in response to my arguments, so you taking me seriously this way in such a respectful tone means a lot to me. Many thanks…

You write, "If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code." I agree. There is no *objective* moral code. I argue that a moral code is firmly based on a time and a place. Killing is a terrible thing under almost every circumstance. But I say almost because there are times when killing is necessary. We can argue about what those times are, but what's important is to note only that the moral code regarding killing another is relative to the situation. Other things like rape are never justified - at least not in any situation I can conceive, but I reserve the right to be wrong.

So far, no disagreements. As Prager himself likes to say, context is king, so we agree on that. That said, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a transcendent moral code. A full read of the Bible – even if you leave out the New Testament – shows a God who has an ultimate man and an ultimate humanity in mind that he wants to shape us into, yet at the same time he is like a father who understands the current limitations of his children’s knowledge and their inability to take everything in all at once and become an adult in just a few minutes. Over the thousands of years (perhaps longer) covered by the Bible, he takes into account the mass psychology of man and the limitations that places on us and gradually spoon-feeds us wisdom to get us where he wants us to be rather than trying to cram it all into us at once. A classic example is the horribly misunderstood bible verse, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. In the context of modern times, this is seen as barbaric but in the context of the time it was written, it was actually a call for cooler heads to prevail.

The zeitgeist in question is best explained in Genesis 4:23-24, where the original “Original Gangster”, Lamech sings to his wives:

23 Lamech said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed [h] a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."

This is how you handled an offense in those days, the code of the gangster: you put one of mine in the hospital, I put two of yours in the morgue – exacting vengeance vastly and exponentially out of proportion to the offense. Eye for eye/tooth for tooth was a call to end this escalation madness and make the punishment fit (be perfectly proportional to) the crime.

Anyway, maybe this illustrates how the will of God takes two forms, there is the ultimate will of God and the circumstantial will of God – and to the point, how you can have an eternal transcendent moral code that is circumstantially fed to us bit by bit as the millennia pass, because we of the finite minds can’t take it all in at once any more than a boy can become a man within a day of being born.

At times in history, slavery was accepted - even endorsed by the Bible (and other holy books). Does that make everyone immoral who didn't actively condemn slavery? I argue that they aren't. They were living in their reality.

This is another example of, as you agree, context. People tend to think all slavery is the same, and in terms of human rights at its purest, that is true. But in terms of actual practice, some slavery, as in Israel, was actually relatively benign, more like being a butler who was well-treated and fed just couldn’t leave the house without permission than the image we usually associate with slavery, of someone being whipped and beaten or even killed for the slightest disobedience, living in squalor, penned up like animals and given only filth to eat. Also, Israel often took slaves via conquest when the practice by most peoples around them at the time was to kill everyone, so taking slaves was in that context, an act of mercy. But we both digress somewhat…

Now, to answer WHY these things are wrong. We are primates. Primates are social animals. I read somewhere that "a lone primate is a dead primate." We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us. I don't want to be raped or killed, so I don't do it to others. This pattern of behaviour is so ingrained in us though natural selection (those who regularly kill others are either VERY successful or very dead) that it has become instinct - or at least something we learn at an early age. (As an example, I was told that as a baby, I was a biter - until a little girl a couple of years older than me bit me back and I "realized" that it's better to neither bite nor be bitten.)

This is where we disagree, or perhaps you just misunderstood my question/point. You didn’t answer why these things are wrong – you only answered why people behave the way they do regarding right and wrong which totally avoids the question. People often confuse “how” with “why”. That a lone primate is a dead primate or that I don’t want this to happen to me, that there is this or that pattern of behavior, etc., are just psychological/sociological observations, not answers to why this or that should or should not be. That is how, that is not why. In other words, you are telling me some of the details about how people rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic while avoiding my point that the Titanic is sinking which therefore renders all of this deckchair rearranging meaningless.

You wrote above: “We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us.” This observation is true as far as it goes but merely assumes it is important that the people around us not rape and kill us without explaining why that is so. What is so important about us that we should not be raped or killed? What does it matter if we or humanity or this planet live or die? If the universe itself is an accident devoid of meaning and purpose, then so are we. That is the nihilistic horror that belief that the physical world is all there is inescapably visits on us, and for which the atheist must account.

You write, "The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent.”

I agree with the first half (i.e. no transcendent moral code, only temporary pragmatic ones) but I disagree that these temporary morals (temporary is an overstatement, but the basis is accurate) do not have an objective basis. Quite the opposite, because they are based on the current reality, they are very objective. I also disagree that I "pretend" that human morals are transcendent. I think killing is terrible, but if it was a choice between going to war to defend my freedom or being enslaved, I could see killing another under that circumstance.

We do disagree. I said earlier that God adapts his moral code to the “current reality” but that is not the same as BASING it on current reality. As a driver, I may put chains on my tires to adapt my vehicle to snowy weather conditions but that doesn’t mean the car isn’t still essentially the same. If I were to base my car strictly on the current reality of winter weather, I would likely just sell it and buy a snowmobile, which would mean a) no more car, and b) I would be stranded when spring came.

You further write, "In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies."

I disagree with this too. Whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on human perception, not on some divine doctrine.

You make my point for me. Because human perception is so limited and so fallible and so easily swayed and altered, whatever we perceive as good or great or noble, etc., is automatically suspect at best. In other words, it is just a headtrip based on feelings and perceptions, not on anything real or transcendent.

I think it's important to note that I am using the word "spirit" as "free will" not "soul".

Since you are an atheist, I already assumed that to be the case.

I think there are a great many things that are good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit because, as a human, I share the same evolutionary past as you and other humans that admire these qualities.

A non sequitur. That is like saying, I think the sky is blue because you and I are both from New Jersey. That the sky is blue has nothing to do with where either of us grew up. It would still be blue if we were never born.

I very much agree that good and evil ultimately have no meaning - at least not the innate meaning that so often accompanies these terms. Good and evil are human constructs.

Being a theist, that is not true – I very much disagree. This whole scenario I have written is a “what if”, as in, what if the atheists are right, as a way of showing that the problems with atheism carried to its logical conclusion are far greater than the problems for theism.

But again you make my point for me – you believe good and evil are human constructs, which is to say, in light of the fact that human perceptions are so easily swayed and distracted, that they are ultimately arbitrary. Therefore the very meaning of the words “good” and “evil”, which carry the heavy freight of a transcendent and eternal moral code, are lost – replaced by imposters that are nothing but fashion statements decided by whoever has the most guns and gold.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if the universe exists or not.

If there is no God, there is no sense in which it does matter.

But it does exist without a reason why in terms of a moral justification.

True only if there is no God.

I am sure there is an answer to "why" in terms of a scientific explanation, but I am also sure I don't know it. I think it is accurate to say that no one knows it yet, but many smart, dedicated people are rationally searching for the answer.

Again, confusing how with why. And also confusing the moral with the physical. Science cannot give answers to moral questions any more than you can measure the Ph balance of the water in your pool with a ruler. Science can only answer how, never why.

I very much disagree with your conclusion that life (for an atheist) is ultimately meaningless.

There may be some confusion here – namely confusing what the atheist perceives to be true with with is ontologically true. I make no attempt to claim that atheists walk around believing that life has no meaning and they’re all ready to jump off a bridge because clearly most don’t. But my point is that this is so only because most atheists are so distracted by a desire to deconstruct theism that they haven’t thought their own position all the way through to its logical conclusion. Instead in debates they gleefully saw off the branch believers are sitting on, completely unaware that they are sitting on the same branch.

Nonetheless, if the atheist is actually right – that there is no God – then life is meaningless for atheist and theist alike.

The strict answer meaning of life is the same for all organisms - from bacteria to oak to mushroom to human - is to procreate and continue the species (well, genes really, but the point here is the same).

That is confusing what organisms do with whether these things they do have any meaning.

But I assume you are also talking about the "greater" meaning. I answer that because we have evolved intelligence, reason, imagination, and a host of other more or less unique traits, we are built to enjoy their use.

Accidents are not “built”. Only creators can build.

Which leads me to your next point: "The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair..." Not so - my response is to create my own meaning

Then you have two major problems to solve, one moral, one logical:

MORALLY, just arbitrarily creating your own meaning is the essence of nihilism. If you answer only to yourself, then given the human vulnerability not only to honest error but to bias, selfishness, greed, lust, etc., etc., you are an inherently unstable being who is a danger to both himself and his fellow man. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro and all the dictators and tyrants throughout history “created their own meaning” too, as has every mobster or small time crook or rapist. There is not a single one among them that are not or were not creating their own meaning and being ‘true to themselves’ 24/7. Only if there is a transcendent moral code – something like the Ten Commandments, complete with a real Commander to keep you in line – is there any hope of being anything more than a collection of impulses and appetites.

LOGICALLY, if the universe itself has no meaning and you are part of the universe, then it is logically impossible to create your own meaning because meaning does not exist. To claim otherwise is like claiming you can get fresh fruit from a dead tree.

Which leads me to your last point: "the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith."

As I said above, life is not meaningless - we are here to procreate and use our big brains. And if we do too much of the first and not enough of the second, your prophecy might just come true as we’ll destroy our children's future with illogical, selfish, blind faith. (Sorry to have to steal your final two words, but nothing else will do.)

You can use the words, I don’t mind. But as I hope you can see, I’ve exercised my brain to a very extensive degree to arrive at the conclusions I have arrived at and it is, by the modern hypersensitive definition, bigotry to say that theists definitionally do not think their beliefs through very carefully and that atheists do. (On both sides, some do and some don’t – in part because some can and some can’t.) Don’t worry, I’m not offended, but it is a bit presumptuous to say or imply that theists can arrive at their beliefs only through a refusal to seriously think. Yes, it’s true that I said earlier that most atheists have not thought their position all the way through to its logical conclusion, but in my defense that’s not the same as saying they have made NO attempt at serious thought on the subject. In my view, they just haven’t finished the job.

The same human nature you describe in evolutionary terms also cries out for meaning beyond the merely physical. People are inspired to great things by transcendent and eternal truth and goodness, by heroes who sacrifice all these physical needs for something infinitely greater than themselves, not by pondering evolutionary determinism and moral relativism. This need for the transcendent and eternal is indelible, is in our very DNA, yet the atheist dismisses it as a quirk of evolution at best and a tragic flaw of the species at worst rather than considering the possibility that it is a sign that points to something that actually IS transcendent and eternal. That would make us the only species on earth that craves something that doesn't exist.

In any event, if my ‘prophecy’ comes true, it will be because our children were taught that it doesn’t even matter if their future is destroyed, especially if preserving it means the ending or curtailing of their pleasure of the moment.

I have a lot of questions I would like to ask theists, so perhaps you can answer me this: What would it take for you to not believe in a god Is there (theoretically) something I could show you to make you not believe?.

I’m glad you asked. To understand what it would take for me to lose faith, you would have to understand what caused me to gain the faith to begin with. I have laid out a fairly extensive but admittedly a circumstantial case for God’s existence, but it’s basically two parts: 1) The God instinct – no civilization has ever failed to search for God in some form or another. Even the Soviet Union created a mythical creature, the New Man, and his God, the State. 2) The ramifications of their being no God, namely the lobotomization of the universe by the denial of the existence of meaning on an ontological level. I believe these are powerful arguments that are so far unrefuted, but I also – surprise – admit they are not enough by themselves. The deal for any Christian (I’ll be theologically specific because I have to, it’s me) is closed not by dry theological arguments, although they help. It is closed by a direct encounter with the risen Lord. There is no substitute for experience…

So for me, you would have to first give an overwhelmingly compelling rebuttal to the arguments that I have made in here and then show me that things in my life that happened that defy secular/scientific explanation really did not happen.

There are many, many things you could show me to make me believe in a god - pretty much anything the Bible claims Jesus did - water into wine, curing diseases with a touch, coming back to life days after dying, born to a virgin, etc. (Please don't tell me these things have already happened. I don't want to get into mythology as fact.)

I hadn’t intended to do that but your dismissive use of the word ‘mythology’ indicates a problem you would have to overcome, namely that in making the a priori assumption that everything I believe is a myth, you unfairly require me to stipulate in advance that my core beliefs are false in order for me to convince you that they are true. That you would ask such a thing of me is not only illogical, but it shows that your bias against such possibilities are so strong that even if God stood in front of you and demonstrated all these things for you and much more, you would convince yourself that you were just hallucinating.

Anyway, all I can do is lay out the circumstantial case I have laid out. You and the Lord will handle the rest.

I'll leave you with another quote from Dennis Prager that sums up my circumstantial case pretty well: "Only if there is a God who created man is man worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed."

Zhangliqun

it is very disappointing to read his nonsense. people actually take this guy seriously.

1. ad homenim attack on Catholic priests. Christianity nor the Catholic Church endorse the sin of these priests. they will have to answer for their sins. Christianity points the way to truth and salvation. it does not mean that everyone that believes is a saint.

this is as stupid as saying that since Judge Alcee Hastings took bribes that the US and it's Constitution are bad and wrong.

2. harris said about his religion if he made one up.
"It is called “Scientismo.” Here is its creed: Be kind to others; do not lie, steal, or murder; and oblige your children to master mathematics and science to the best of their abilities or 17 demons will torture you with hot tongs for eternity after death."
let's take it honestly and not as a means of trying to make religious people look silly. If there was such a religion, it would have elements of truth and if anyone followed these, they would be partly right.

it really is hard to take this guy seriously. though mr prager has not addressed his issues as well as i hoped, there are many that can.

Mr Harris seems to put his faith in science but seems to be completely unaware of the huge assumptions made in this field. I venture to guess that it is much greater than the belief that there is God.

When will you give up on the people who have faith in the unprovable?

I have read Sam Harris’ books and agree with almost everything he has to say. He seems to be a smart man, probably much greater in intellect than myself. But his faith in the ARGUMENT against the insane people of the world is similar to the faith of any God fearing person. I call anyone who believes in the “teapot” or God, insane. We need to cut our losses and start working on a new society that can overcome the challenges we face. Look at the facts, there are more religious people in the world than there ever has been. We have been losing this fight from the beginning. Now you might disagree with me and say we should not give up on our brothers and sisters but I believe if we do not act quickly these same brothers and sisters will kill us all. Remember they are insane, and insane people do crazy things. The evidence is all around you. You breathe some of it in with every breath.

So to all the non-believers (atheist, agnostics, or whatever label you like), we have a chance in today’s world to start fresh and separate ourselves from the insane people of the world. We are small in number and the crazy people of the world have bigger problems on their hands than us. We can grow into a force that will have a say in its own destiny. I say to you, stop wasting your time and banging your head against the same old wall. This argument against the make-believe has been around for centuries. Have faith in yourself and others like you. Believe that if we come together and act as a group we can overcome anything. We do not need the rest of the God fearing worlds help. Time is running out though and we need to act fast. If you are still worried about your crazy brothers or sisters, they will always be welcome to join us when they have come to their senses. A real life example is always better than a great argument. So, let us be that example.

This post was not intended for the “believers” of the world. So do not bother responding to this. I and the rest of the sane world should not care what an insane person thinks of things. It would be like taking advice from a person in a straitjacket.

How would Prager explain moral behavior in social mammals, such as wild canids, wild felids, and primates? He would have to assert that wild animals were religious, or that morality and religion are orthogonal.

...because I'm constantly under suspicion by people like you and Dennis Prager. As far as my existential position goes, I'm fairly content. I have a reasonably-well organized ethical code, a strong sense of spiritual awe, and a workable theory of an afterlife.

And I don't believe in God, and I don't care if you do or not...but I get tired of being vilified for insufficient reason.

WarrenS

Notice how Harris begins Debates 3 and 4. “This debate is fast drawing to a close…” and “Well, we seem to have arrived at the end of our debate…” Both are rhetorical devises which have the effect of dismissing the opponent as a lightweight, not worth the bother, etc. But is it fitting for the presumably more rational (more rational because not religious) of the two to resort to such techniques?

Rhetorical devises are used for effect, but their effect is secured by being unnoticed. So Harris’s blatant usage can be explained in one of two ways: either he underestimates the intelligence of his readers, or risks transparency because he feels he needs the help. While Harris is clearly a smart man, his reliance upon such devices reveals not only that there might be chinks in his armor, but that he knows it.

Sam harris I am a Christian and I cannot understand why you're even bothering to lower yourself to dealing with this huckster Dennis Prager. Prager is a talk show host for petesake and not even a good one!

sam Harris is giving legitimacy to a crank like Dennis Prager who is nothing more than an Islamaophobe who plays upon the fears and bigotry of his right wing white, Protestant audience. This debate means nothing to me and I'll consider it when it comes to purchasing Harris' books. Know what I mean?

Notice how Harris begins Debates 3 and 4. “This debate is fast drawing to a close…” and “Well, we seem to have arrived at the end of our debate…” Both are rhetorical devises which have the effect of dismissing the opponent as a lightweight, not worth the bother, etc.

The debate was scheduled for four days.

George Carlin makes a better case for non-belief than Sam Harris does in this exchange, and he does it in about 10 minutes, in an entertaining manner...pointing out the absurdities of the Abrahamic god who will send all those who don't believe, all those who believe but misbehave, etc. to suffer eternal torment..."but he LOVES you!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnQ22CsLMQo&mode=related&search=

If you are offended by coarse language and a few harsh facts, don't bother watching the video. I think it's hilarious.

Religion has been the single most destructive force ever conceived by man.
And no! I do not have to provide proof. If you cant see it you are either blind ignorant or stupid. So when you walk out of church and see me shake my head be sure of two things that we will both die someday and I am not wasting my time listening to a pedophile on Sunday morning because I am petrified of death like you. Religious people cant even be honest and say YES they are afraid of offending this GOD because he might not let me in to the party when they die. COWARDS!

I work in an extremely dangerous job (FIGHTING MUSLIM NUT JOBS) When I act on the battlefield I know that I may die I am comfortable with that. I do not waste time praying to an invisible being I spend it getting the job done. Whoever said that "there are know atheists in fox holes" was never in one. Not one man on my team is religious and I would not allow one. We completed a 6 month rotation without any casualties while inflicting massive losses on MEN OF FAITH.

In heavy combat men of faith give up right when the fight must continue, (I HAVE WITNESSED IT)because they think they are done and gone to heaven. Men of logic and reason know that they must fight till the last or there will be know victory. I have seen healthy men vaporized in the midst of prayer. There is nothing quite like it. The clarity of the moment cannot be described.

Now I am sure that many of you will come back and say yes there are all kinds of soldiers who are religious. That is true. However honestly ask a man who has battled for days on end amongst burned corpses and rotting donkeys if he believes in god. He will not confirm. The elephant always wins.

closed!

The verdict i think must go to harris.
clearly his arguments were more convincing than dennis's.
unfortunatly this fact seems to be lost on the religeous people who
visit this site.
it seems that all the blog's i visit with this kind of theme end the
same way. the religeous proponent backed into corner spouting inanities
about god this and god that.
the truth of the matter seems lost on them.
organised religion is a sham, and a dangerous one at that.
on the face of it it does seem an exellent example of a code to bring one
happiness in life and after it.
this is wrong: RELIGION IS CONTROL, RELIGION IS POWER, RELIGION IS THE
OPIATE OF THE MASSES.
it should be plain that religion is used principly by people with power,
to keep those with none, in chains that they dont even realise are
there. its horrifingly dangerous and stupid and should at once be
exorcised from society. you may hear many thiests suggest that if this
were to occur then society would instantly descend completly in
to anarchy. this notion is also false. infact a recent study has
shown that countries with secular idea's completly independant from
religion have low crime rates, low s.t.d's, murders infact a better
standard of living alround.
i could keep going all day but i have better things to do but before
i go i would like to say one last thing to the lady who prayed to god
as her child was in hospital dying. you prayed to the god who gave the
doctors the skill to save your child.
Madam i sincerly hope that your child was ok but you have it all wrong.
if your sky fairy of a god exizts( he doesent) then it was he that put
your child there in the first place and he most certainly did not give
the doctor the skills to help the child- science did!
i know that if any of my children ended up sick in hospital id rather
see a doctor than pray! least the doctor would actually do something.

Maybe Sam wanted to pass these egregious errors over instead for more relative points. Pragers ideas about the "gifts" of Judeo/Christian to humanity are of course laughable. It's apparent he kept his "wisdom" safe and sound by avoiding any higher education. That is to say he got the degree but let nothing sink in that might make his personal beliefs to complex and therefore ungodly.

Religious people cant even be honest and say YES they are afraid of offending this GOD because he might not let me in to the party when they die. COWARDS!

Many people believe in God and not hell. Just because some seek answers that you don't doesn't make them cowards. You seem angry and afraid of these people's belief's, while they merely pity your contemptuous nature.

Icommend you on your duty. However, as you said most of America's greatest heroes were God fearing men. My grandfather was a member of the CHOSIN FEW,he fought through WWII and Korea. He witnessed as much horror as anyone. He still believes.

i agree with "wake-up" above. no one can ever convert a god-believer to atheism via rational argument, simply because because belief in god is a systematic delusion, and thus proceeds rationally (from an irrational source). theories of cognitive dissonance suffice quite nicely to explain it: the less true a happy outcome seems, the more stubbornly and desperately the believer in that outcome will cling to it.

when one considers how massive the psychological investment in "god" that exists today on the part of the stupid, and how intertwined that belief is with their self-image, social-adjustment mechanisms, and socioeconomic fortunes, it becomes clear what a waste of time it to refute them (just as it becomes clear what a demagogue like prager REALLY finds most useful about his shared delusion).

the only solution is political: to begin to make walls between "us" and "them."

This exchange is typical of debates between seculars and the defenders of religion: The seculars make earnest reasonable points, and the religious respond with personal attacks and obfuscation. Notice that Prager constantly makes grand claims for 'Judeo-Christian' values, but never backs these assertions up with facts or examples. Collins deluges him with facts, which Prager then ignores or obviously misinterprets. I've seen the same thing over and over. Are religionists unable (or afraid?) to meet the secularists head on? Or are they just too used to getting their own way all the time that they can't find the tools to defend themselves.

I thought Collins won this round, hands down!

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that debating an indoctrinated theist is not productive.  It's more strategic to nip the problem in the bud by getting to the children.

shazaam, and I am a believer in God.