Thank you Sam Harris. Thank you.  As a comic I can tell you that on any given  night, men and women will tell "jokes" of fucking bitches like you wouldnt believe, faggots touching them unnecessarily, and such meaningless, and in my mind violently offensive  crap it makes your hair itch.  No matter how dirty, violent, or absolutely retarded people are in this life, it seems the only thing you cannot touch is the myth of religion. I have slowly been trying to scratch the surface and say outloud onstage how rediculous it all is, and frankly anyone can write a book and somneone will  need to believe in it. ( Scientology) I want to thank you for busting it open, for saying it out loud, and for fearlessly putting the truth as you see it and so many others do too --- out there.   

 Sincerely

Julie Goldman 

How far up are your luxury suites in the ivory tower? 

 A call to arms to rise up against mysticism and carry the banner of "plain truth?"   As a person who believes in God, has had religious training, but also is a student of science and logic, I found Mr. Harris email amusing, if slightly patronizing.

He fails to recognize that there was a time when almost all of our great leaders, scientists and philosophers not only believed in God, but were downright pious.  A country with no religion is not the answer.  A country where religion is practiced where religion should be practiced, in one's personal life, is.  The Bible, the Talmud and the Koran were the first and probably most important literature to almost every great thinker since the Dark Ages.  If you are not willing to accept that simple truth, then how can you have an intellectual conversation regarding this subject.

As to Ms. Gold, comics not touching on the "myth of religion?"  The greatest comics of all time have borrowed from, thrown daggers at and poked holes in religion and religious stories. Religion is not a taboo subject and your self enlistment in the army of cynics is self-serving and tedious.  you might as well have included that you will doing two shows at the Ha Ha Hole on Friday.

This is a funny site. Especially when a jester and a pseudo-philosopher actually agree. An atheist is a person who denies the existence of God. An atheist claims that that there is NO God. If this is not your view then you are NOT an athiest. This position, however, is indefensible and is frankly arrogant. Virtually, the only way anyone can prove no God exists is to be a God themselves. A person would have to be omnipresent and omniscient to have enough information to know that no deity exists. Ironically, these are the very attributes, as far as we k now, that a God would indeed posses. Therefore, it is quite plausible that no finite being can prove that God does not exist because God may very well exist beyond one's comprehension or experience. Many alleged atheists are actually agnostics, ignostics, or antitheists.

There can be multiple kinds of atheists. You describe one type of atheist, namely, a strong atheist. The term atheist means exactly what it says: a-theist, without theism. They do not believe in God, or another way of saying it, they lack the belief in God. They don't necessarily believe that God doesn't exist.

Sam pointed out the worthlessness of claiming agnosticism in his Bertrand Russel orbiting teapot argument. Are you agnostic about an orbiting teapot that goes around the sun that can't be viewed with our current instruments? No, it's just an absurd idea to be on the fence about such a claim. There is simply a lack of a belief. We are a-teapotists.

The same goes for God. If there is no reasonable evidence, there is no reason to believe in a God. Sam's main point is that faith is utterly worthless other than to give people bad reasons to do good things where good reasons suffice. Those are almost his words verbatim.

As for who is an agnostic, just about everyone is agnostic. Unless you are talking to an extremely hardcore fundamentalist or an insane person, you can almost always get some to admit that, no, they aren't really sure of anything. Being an agnostic is akin to saying, "Actually, I'm not insane," while good to know, is a trite statement.

As the saying goes, only the madman is absolutely sure, or something to that effect.

-Justin Shroyer

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Although I am a huge fan of Sam Harris, I finally heard from a deeply religious person is able to carry on a thoughtful debate about whether God exists, the value of religion in society and finally, the superiority of the Judeo-Christian belief system. No man of the cloth, pastor, preacher, father, His Holiness or any other holy roller can come close to what Dennis Prager can do:

"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."

Very wise to focus on the value of Judeo-Christian evolution of thought which makes me think again about whether or not the world would truly be better without a belief in God and the many forms of 'his unerring word' that exist (I won't repeat the many reasonable arguments in The End of Faith in opposition).

The irony is that any Christian reading the debates or these websites are not the type of Christian about which I would need to feel any concern for the very future of this world. The ones I know show the same desire to create a sustainable society, sustainable use of resources, to name two.

Tom DeLay scared me until his fall from power (I sure hope he is gone anyway). Tim LaHaye and other right-wing conservative Christians who have placed their idea of Christian values, that really have nothing to do with 'morality', into policy cause me concern.

Religious extremists of all varieties, Christian millenialists, Jewish messianists, Muslim 'final hour' believers, anyone who literally interprets their version of the Bible, the Koran and acts upon those interpretations are the ones who cause me grave concern.

I will always be grateful for Sam Harris' courage to sharpen the debate about God and Religion. I have become an even more obsessive reader of philosophy, science, history and religion after his first book. After reading through the dialog between Sam and Dennis, here are my conclusions: Do I believe in God? No, but it does not matter to me since inventing God does not answer my ultimate questions. Does religion have its value in society? Yes. Has society prospered more than it has suffered due to religion? No, Sam Harris makes too strong a case for all the suffering that has happened at the hands of organized religion. Are (Judeo) Christian values better for society than those of other religions? Yes - I have to agree with Dennis Prager here. Am I a Christian now? No. I guess I am going to hell for that one...born of a virgin? Bible as the unerring word of God? Sorry, those are just two ideas I just can't get behind. Besides, I hear the beer is warm in hell and I've always liked the beer they serve in the UK.

Thanks for letting me dump my thoughts into this space.

Parker R.

the fact is that it is no longer necessary and we can get all of the good- ethics, meaning, awe, mystery- without the bad. My view is pragmatic- religion does more harm than good and we would be a lot better off without it. It's outlived its usefulness. Let's move on.

As to Dennis Prager, I once debated him on his radio show and he did all sorts of tricks with cutting to commercials when I was scoring points and contradicting his own statements- he is a master manipulator who has a few good threads but weaves it into a largely illusory web of rhetoric and spin. This was purely on display as he never once answered any of Sam's substantive points. If he thinks universities in America produce foolishness he should move to a country where education isn't of this caliber and see the state those countries are in- does he think America would be what it is today if we relied on wheat and cars? What is he smoking?

J.S.

http://voicesofreason.info

Maybe this magazine can define the terms of the wager fairly?

BTW, Prager didn't even hold a candle to Harris. I had to feel sorry for him.

"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."

This along with so much of what Prager says is unsubstantiated BullS**t. The morality of which he speaks was present in other non-Judeo-Christian cultures...democracy was developed in Ancient Greece, the abolition of slavery was fought by ardent Christians who used the Bible to justify their practice of slavery.--in fact virtually every one of these positive developments in human freedom mentioned like equality of the sexes was violently opposed by the Judeo-Christians and is still fought by practicing, actively religious people to this day. Claiming that music and art are only possible because of these values is specious reasoning... That religion has contributed positve influence is undeniable...so is the fact that certainty in the unproveable has wrought BAD things..that the positives are only possible with religion and that the good outweighs the bad is wishful thinking of believers...but that is their specialty --being certain about things for which there is no proof. That is why they can be so very dangerous.
and as for those actively religious people of high moral character I notice Prager ignored Sam's comment about the pedophile priests... but there is an almost monthly 2 page small type spread of actively religious criminal behavior on display in the FFRF newspaper Freethought Today called Black Collar Blotter...the volume of badly behaving ACTIVELY RELIGIOUS types is overwhelming and not just the province of the famous ones like the BTK killer or the chemotherapy watering down pharmacist or the CIA spies who were working for the Kremlin that most people hear about....I would take any wager that pits the criminal record of the religiously active vs those who have examined the evidence for belief in God or gods and found it lacking...(and Stalin LOVED the Russian Orthodox church and embraced it as needed)and none of the so called murdering atheists killed people because they did not share the lack of belief in God...they were killed for not sharing belief in the political system in power...

To those who want to distinguish "strong" atheists, what about Harris' point regarding Apollo the Sun God and Poseidon, God of the Sea? Are you agnostic about the existence of those gods? Or will you adopt the "arrogance" of denying that those gods exist? Why is it more arrogant to deny that Jehova exists than fleet-footed Mercury?

Tell me what was so amusing, please, for the humor impaired like me.

"He fails to recognize that there was a time when almost all of our great leaders, scientists and philosophers not only believed in God, but were downright pious."

Except for the use of the past tense you sound like you are talking about the present Republican administration. What value has this 'piety' and 'belief' accrued to the world? Please do tell. Iraq? Fewer terrorists?

"The Bible, the Talmud and the Koran were the first and probably (only probably? What you have doubt?) most important literature to almost every great thinker since the Dark Ages. If you are not willing to accept that simple truth, then how can you have an intellectual conversation regarding this subject."

Well, I have to concede the point that the Dark Ages were pretty bad and thank Lordy-man for those three jewels of prose. 'Accept these simple truths' and THEN 'have an intellectual conversation'?

I am thinking you are a joke poster, a (fake) fakir, a muse-savant with this gem of a statement. Please go back to Church and find your true voice - for the one you have now is embarassing.

I was compelled to comment on your post. Dennis Prager does not decide when to go to commercials. If you pay any attention to his broadcast, or any other, for that matter, you would know that they are all timed beforehand. The music starts as a signal of an upcoming regular commercial break, and there is nothing he can do to manipulate the schedule.

I have listened to him now for two years, and he has never contradicted his own statements. To borrow a quote from him, give me one example of this from your debate or any other guest he's had. His "largely illusory web of rhetoric and spin" has turned out to be true in the world around me. I see it coming true every day in America and the whole world. I look at the proof and come to conclusions, not the other way around.

Prager has always been very clear in his statements regarding American universities. The science departments work great, but it's the humanities that bring us much trouble. Primary example is the sameness of men and women. He never suggested we should return to the agrarian days! To claim that he would suggest that he wanted America to become like a third world country is simply an uneducated attack against a man who was able to debate you and actually challenge your own thinking as not the only or the best solution for our nation.

I wish you all the best and I hope that you are able to look at the proof around you and be courageous enough to challenge your own views. Maybe there is some opportunity for growth?

I'm fond of the quote (unsure of its origin):

"I believe that I'm god, because whenever I pray I find I'm talking to myself"

Dear Believers,

I hardly see any value in identifying myself as a “skeptic” or a “bright.” Why hide inside a dark closet? What value is there for more inquiry after having already discovered the truth? Each and every one of us was born free from religion. Even before sacred books were written by inspired authors of God – babies were already coming out of their mother’s womb not as a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, but as atheists. In fact, we are all born atheists, not sinners; we are made sinners by religious education.

If I am against slave trading and say that slavery should be abolished and the slave traders accuse me of being negative, then so be it. But do I really need to use more proper terms so as not to offend such a gang of criminals - the slave traders? In our world today, the religious traders are the criminals. For the sake of faith peddling, they continue to cut each other’s throats. With weapons of mass destruction today, they are even ready and willing to reduce our planet earth into a lunar landscape! In the meantime, the reinforcement of religion exists everywhere. In schools, colleges, universities, radios, newspapers, magazines, movies, television, billboards, marquees, and currencies, etc. Indeed, the communion of saints integrating, while the communion of atheists disintegrating.
Down through the centuries, the religious traders have done much to convert every one to live in guilt, in fear, and in hate of each other. Indeed, from infancy to senility, to promote the belief that evil comes only from those who do not believe in God. It seems to me clear that with the power of knowledge behind us – the superstitious should be the ones retreating, and the atheists not the ones flinching away trying only to find more polite ways of identifying themselves in public. Bertrand Russell wrote: “If we must die, let us die sober, and not drunk with lies.” One such horrible lie is that reason can bow before faith; or, that knowledge can retreat before superstition.

Sacred lies and other ecclesiastical falsehoods are over. Thanks to the atheists who walked out of their dark closets. In the meantime, there is nothing at all negative about Atheism other than it deprives the religious traders and faith peddlers of their vast sources of tax-free revenues.

As atheists, we have more crucial roles to play in this world. With courage, we must continue to show the way for the minds of men, hearts of women, and the lives of children to learn to live under the direction always towards truthfulness. If this were not the case, it nevertheless remains our task to bring more light into a world of darkness.

With all good wishes,
Poch Suzara

Check out the excellent article in wired:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set=

Particularly as to the Francis Collins "problem" dicussed in this email debate:

"A variety of rebuttals to atheism have been tried over the years. Religious fundamentalists stand on their canonized texts and refuse to budge. The wisdom of this approach – strategically, at least – is evident when you see the awkward positions nonfundamentalists find themselves in. The most active defender of faith among scientists right now is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In defiance of the title, Collins never attempts to show that science offers evidence for belief. Rather, he argues only that nothing in science prohibits belief. Unsolved problems in diverse fields, along with a skepticism about knowledge in general, are used to demonstrate that a deity might not be impossible. The problem with this, for defenders of faith, is that they've implicitly accepted science as the arbiter of what is real. This leaves the atheists with the upper hand.

That's because when secular investigations take the lead, sacred doctrines collapse. There's barely a field of modern research – cosmology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, psychology – in which competing religious explanations have survived unscathed. Even the lowly humanities, which began the demolition job more than 200 years ago with textual criticism of the Bible, continue to make things difficult for believers through careful analysis of the historical origins of religious texts. While Collins and his fellow reconcilers can defend the notion of faith in the abstract, as soon as they get down to doctrine, the secular professors show up with their corrosive arguments. When it comes to concrete examples of exactly what we should believe, reason is a slippery slope, and at the bottom – well, at the bottom is atheism."

I couldn't have said it better myself...oh, and thank god for Sam Harris

Rob

anon

That was hilarious. I can't believe that Prager actually gave Christianity credit for the abolition of slavery and the equality of women. I could crank out such a long list of bible verses that it would make his head spin.

I don't think you can outrightly give Christianity credit for the abolition of slavery and the equality of women but you can give it credit for it's support of the notion of universal human rights. Abolition of slavery and women's right's were just the side effects.

The creed of Christianity: "There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

I think that Christianity is widely known as a religion which gives it's followers the most equality, and was probably revolutionary in this sense on it's conception.

You probably also believe the moon is made of blue cheese. If you were an Eskimo, I could sell you ice. Heck, even if you're not, wanna buy some air from me dumbshit?

I have no quotes, no fancy wordsmith to charm you with or even great grammatical skills. What I do have is my senses. And they tell me that Organized Religion as it is today is not the end all be all. That is not to say that it ever was to begin with. Atheist's are not bad people no more than Christians.
If you want me to believe that i could spend an eternity in hell because your god does not care enough about me to prove his existence to me not you, then i don't want him either. I would consider myself to be more of an agnostic as opposed to an out and out atheist. In fact i believe that labeling only help to prove the other side of the argument. I don't feel i can deny the existence of something i do not believe to exist. Without first affirming its existence.
May there be one god may there be many? What ever the case may be i highly doubt such a being if one existed would want us to destroy our selves trying to resolve an endless debate.
But we will try and fight to the death to be right. Every religious text has been written by man, And every man/women has some agenda they are working towards. Further more man created god in his image not the other way around. I will say this. If there is a god he didn't create religion as we know it today. This institution as it has stood since it's inception, if there is truth to it has got to be the devils work.

That was hilarious. I can't believe that Prager actually gave Christianity credit for the abolition of slavery and the equality of women. I could crank out such a long list of bible verses that it would make his head spin.

Clearly someone knows precious little about the pagan gentile cultures that existed before Christianity. Women in ancient Greece and Rome had barely any more rights than a male slave. Ever heard of the Roman practice of Pater Familias? Not exactly atypical of the pagan cultures' treatment of women back then. The worst of the Abrahamic patriarchies in the Roman times looked like NOW conventions compared to their pagan counterparts.

And the funny thing is that the movement to universally abolish slavery was one started and executed by Anglo-American Christians, not atheists, pagans or any other group.

I have only read mr harris' first argument. It is rather disingenuous. He names many gods that are believed to be false gods. He never answers why there was a need to invent them. Studying some of the history of religious beliefs, there was a central god, a monotheistic god. Where did this come from?
This god was creator and controller of the universe. Inherently, man believed in a force greater than himself. He got it right. Through Judaism and Christianity the nature of God was more completely revealed.

About Islam, he misses again. He completely overlooks the indoctrination aspect of the religion. Today it has morphed into a political/religious cult that aims to destroy civilizations instead of the revelation of nature of God. It is more indoctrinations like those seen in the germany of WWII. Like any other civilization, there needs to be incentives to bring people forward to make the necessary sacrifices for the cause. See the axis powers in WWII.

He is embarrassed by the religious nature of the US and their beliefs in the basic Christian tenents of faith instead of putting their faith in something perfect, like science. Does he believe that the universe is 14 billion years old? How embarrassing! This is based on a miscalculation on the nature of supernovae.

What about the age of the earth? 4 billion years? How embarrassing! This again is based on poor assumptions on the nature of radioactive decompositions.

It is easy to poke holes through the theories because of the amount of speculation that has to go on. It is based on many assumptions that has to go on in order to get at these answers. even in controlled experiments, assumptions are made. imagine the assumptions that have to be made to come in well after the beginning of the universe and try to piece everything together!

it is based on faith. some believe that there is a God that designed and created the universe. others believe that it just happened.

As far as equality for all through christianity, I see no promotion of equal rights for women in the bible. If you look at the Code of Hammuarabi (which exists in the Louve Museum) it is much more fair to women than this bible babble. It also existed 1000 years before the 10 commandments (which supposedly existed). I've heard so many christians tell me that I don't need to stone my disobedient son because that was "the old testement" well so are your precious 10 commandments. Get over it already!

I don't know abou that. It seems to me that the subject has been fertile ground for some of the finest comedians - thankfully so. George Carlin, for one, comes immediately to mind.

If you're suffering a lack of courage in addressing the subject, perhaps you can draw some inspiration from him.

The concept of stoning a disobedient son was always just that -- a concept. It forced the parents to turn over the child to a Jewish court and the death penalty was never instituted. But the process successfully diffused the parents' anger.

The language may seem harsh to our contemporary ears, but it saved lives. Remember, child sacrifice was prevalent in pagan times.

Much of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, is misunderstood by a literal reading. An "eye for an eye" for example was never meant to be taken literally -- it always meant, if you caused someone to suffer you must pay a just amount to make amends.

But I'm not surprised that an atheist would have the hubris to interpret the Bible without a qualified teacher -- atheism is the ultimate in hubris (you see a wristwatch and assume somebody built it because you're so certain about the way the world works; you then look at the eyeball that focuses on the wristwatch and sends the proper signal to the brain and you assume the eyeball and the brain were created accidentally.

Given the era in which the Ten Commandments were presented, they are not only "precious" but divine, and remain relevant and necessary 4000 years later, the basis for Western morality. Religious practitioners and atheists are both capable of doing horrible things, but think about this (as heard from Dennis Prager): If you're walking down a dark alley towards a group of men, would you be more or less relieved to know they had just come from Bible Study or a bar?

--Jay F.

When was this amazing time of pious leadership? How foolishly ignorant of history can you be?

Monotheism is like Microsoft, it wants to be the ONLY conduit between you and the cosmic hardware. In fact, I'm surprised monotheism hasn't started its own operating system. What a perfect opportunity to monoculture some more minds, right. The Vatican should roll out its new Beta software: Jesus OS. Hit the start button and you'd hear some Byzantine Chant instead of Brian Eno. Do your financial calculations and the system makes a non-tax refundable donation to the church. Radical Islam would have its version too: Jihad Joe. Turn it on and an electronic Muezzin calls you immediately to prayer. Pray long enough and a screensaver comes on showing a room full of virgins lying around on carpets. Plug it into a non-Jihad network and it blows up.

In response to an earlier post excerpted here: "An atheist claims that there is NO God. ... This position, however, is indefensible and is frankly arrogant. Virtually, the only way anyone can prove no God exists is to be a God themselves."

If that's so and no one can prove no God exists without being a God themselves, then how is it that monotheism claims that only ONE God exists. Only a God could know only one God exists, right? Namely God himself. So, to further your logic, no one really knows whether there is just one God or a whole pantheon full of Gods, or maybe no God(s) at all. Nobody knows. In the meantime, please don't apply logic to refute the logic of the atheist. You will always lose at this game. Play the god game instead, which is about faith and belief and sacred text that bears no scrutiny, unless of course you are a blasphemer, or if you prefer, infidel, such as myself.

Hey, Really, you don't think taking the child to a group of elders for punishment deterred child murder at least some of the time? By the way, "foolishly ignorant" is redundant and unnecessarily repetitive.

Here's a more realistic scenario: You are a 7 year old boy, living in the 1960's, whose parents have decided you have too much time on your hands (idle hands-Devil, you get the idea). Which person with whom you'd be more safe spending your Sunday afternoons?

1) Catholic priest
2) Scientist in American Academy of Science (90+% atheist)

By the way, got to love that "Not literal but symbolic" argument about interpreting the Bible. Since we know man evolved from other hominids, Adam of Eden fame is now symbolic. Here's what Dawkins says:

Adam, the supposed perpetrator the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact–excusably unknown to Paul but presumably known to an omniscient God (and Jesus, if you believe he was God?)–which fundamentally undermines the premise of the whole tortuously nasty theory. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?

I'm angry because I hate religion.

I would MUCH rather encounter a group coming from a BAR than one from a Bible Study group.

Why?

Alcohol intoxication makes people stupid, arrogant, and act like a$$holes, but at least it wears off in a few hours and leaves the imbiber with a splitting headache and a strong sense of "WTF was I THINKING when I did that?"
Those that don't learn from this experience and continue to drink to excess we call "Alcoholics." As a society we provide treatments for their "Disease" to break them of their addiction, as it is destructive to both themselves and society as a whole.

Religious intoxication also makes people stupid, arrogant, and act like a$$holes, but we do not provide treatment. We actually encourage it to grow in it's addictive control of the imbiber, who demands ever increasing amounts of "religious certainty" to overcome the pain that the rational universe surrounding them creates. Eventually, when even the most mundane things he/she sees around them reminds them of the absurdity of their "religious" views, the inability to once again reach that "religious high" that they desperately desire makes them lash out at the world and blow up daycare centers in federal offices, or fly airliners into tall buildings.
Why don't we provide treatment for THEIR "Disease"?

Remember the quote:
"If you speak out loud to God, that is called praying"
"If God speaks out loud to you, that is called dementia"

asdsaWhen 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.

Perhaps there was a failure to "recognize that there was a time when almost all of our great leaders, scientists and philosophers not only believed in God, but were downright pious." Then again...I think you've failed to recognize that those same people who brought about the greatest changes and advancements for civilization were also among the most persecuted heretics of all time. It is true that "the Bible, the Talmud and the Koran were the first and probably most important literature to almost every great thinker since the Dark Ages", however, you simply have no proof of that...nice conjecture. Giving that statement the benefit of the doubt, why do you ignore the progessive work done by great thinkers in the past based on religious literature. Regardless of the research done these people have provided us with more scientific answers than religion ever has. If you were to allow Carl Jung to be in your group of "great leaders, scientists and philosophers" then you'd see that he studied religions as well to show how all religions have parallels and that they're more than likely products of the imagination. Which, once again, there is more proof that the human mind creates fantasy than there is a deity floating in the heavens above. Religion was nice, and shall remain an artform, for its purely metaphorical context. But if we're ever going to progress or, god forbid, evolve, we need a new mythology for a new paradigm.

Mr. Harris is mad that people don't believe the way he does, and he's embarrassed--please--as if it was all about him. His argument is the other guys are weird. Pathetic.

Atheists are lucky that you religiousniks don't take your books of divine inspiration as literally as many of you say you do. The book of Leviticus alone would result in huge mass graves daily if the requirements listed were actually followed.

Hey! That fellow cut his ear locks!!! Stone him!!!!

Piously yours,

Hasso Gottglaubig

Suppose there was no god but there was an afterlife then suppose there was a god but no afterlife. Which is better? Be truthful now....Just a thought.

"Remember, child sacrifice was prevalent in pagan times."

Ummmmm.....no, I actually don't remember that, and since I am a Pagan, I would love to see you back that up. To which culture do you refer? And out of curiosity, where does the poor girl in the Old Testament who gets pushed out the door by her father to be raped and killed in the stead of his guests fit in? Is she a sacrifice (literally: to make sacred) or just a bone tossed to the dogs?

"But I'm not surprised that an atheist would have the hubris to interpret the Bible without a qualified teacher -- atheism is the ultimate in hubris (you see a wristwatch and assume somebody built it because you're so certain about the way the world works; you then look at the eyeball that focuses on the wristwatch and sends the proper signal to the brain and you assume the eyeball and the brain were created accidentally."

I'm not surprised that a student of the Bible would have the hubris to interpret evolutionary biology without a qualified teacher -- Biblical certainty is the Divine peak in hubris. If you know anything about the mechanisms of evolution, you know that it has nothing to do with accidents - it has to do with changes that result in successful adaptations which provide for enhanced reproductive success.

"Given the era in which the Ten Commandments were presented, they are not only "precious" but divine, and remain relevant and necessary 4000 years later, the basis for Western morality. Religious practitioners and atheists are both capable of doing horrible things, but think about this (as heard from Dennis Prager): If you're walking down a dark alley towards a group of men, would you be more or less relieved to know they had just come from Bible Study or a bar?"

Relevant, maybe, necessary, no. There are other moral systems that work just as well, including the old fashioned "treat others as you would be treated", and they have the added bonus of letting you choose which god(s) and goddess(es) you worship, or at least admire. As for the bar question, it depends on the bar: If I thought it were a bunch of drunk Christians, Jews, or Muslims, or Dennis Prager in particular, I would run like hell. I'm queer, you see, and I've seen what nice, pious men do in the name of YWH, even without some booze on-board to blunt their impulse control.

Um--the "treat others as you would have yourself treated" (sic) comes from the New Testament. But what the heck morality is not possible without a metaphysical reality. Yes?

for "Post Most Obviously Written By a College/Grad Student". Yeah, I really liked how saw right through my conjecture yet managed to weave in an author from one of your assigned readings all while establishing a paradigm that was purely metaphorical in context.  Congrats to you, you won the argument.  After reading your post, I no longer believe in God.

that it is irrelevant that almost all of our great leaders...believed in God. I'm sure at one point they believed in Santa Claus too. And the reply to Ms. Gold illustrates her point beautifully. You took issue with her even mentioning it.

Man needed to invent "gods" so that a few would be able to control the minds of the masses by demonstrating by their observations of the stars and knowledge of changing seasons that they had a special connection to the great creator of the world. they created myths that coincided with the seasonal events (soltice, equinox) and hammered it home for generation upon generation. since true knowledge had not really been developed there was nothing to counter all the superstitions.

How do you know. Are you saying that physical science has the capacity to extend its knowledge, but metaphysical science does not. You do realize that an assertion of Atheism is an assertion that you are nothing but phenomena and that any speculation on anything from such a standpoint is absurd.

As a black male atheist, I must thank you on a article that spoke the truth. Most of my relatives came from a baptist upbringing but i find myself as the black sheep of the family. I take that back, my uncle who served in the Korean war is also an atheist. He's my favorite uncle.

I must admit it's quite liberating to be who i am. The very site of a church gives me the creeps. My face goes into an involantary scowl. I had no ideal that the vast majority of people felt that way about us. Most of my black associates are fine about my lack of religion. Of course, there are a few that try to convert me into the slavery of christianity.

All of my life I've been a born skeptic. Everything from Santa Claus, to the Easter Bunny. God is just another factitious character i just don't believe in. I'm 38 yrs old, I must admit... I'm too old for fairy tales. Religion is just a bullshit story people tell themselves to ease the fear of dying. It's that big lie our parents use to tell us (you know the one) when bingo the dog went away to a big farm to roam free). No mom & dad, Bingo bought the farm.

God(s) used to be fun, like soap operas sans the TV, when the Greeks and Romans made up mythology and astrology. The Gods actually had their failings and faults. Now, God is the lone ranger and not fun at all because of being perfect. The major religions each have their lone, omnipotent God, yet they are each different. Psychologiclly, the Muslims' God makes them suffer from shame. The Christians' God makes them suffer from guilt. The Jews, on the other hand, are the "chosen" people of their God. Instead of having hang-ups, they are special. They are the equivalent of the only child in a family.
I believe that with language humans have deceived themselves blind. When and if one can master, through language, the technique of deception, one has power over others, especially over those with an inherent fairness, which I think is the majority. Nothing could fit into this deceit any better than God. The one omnipotent God is the most powerful tool in the deceit toolbox. It works because it stuns people. Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, et.al. are a perfect example of planned deceit utilized to grotesquely disfigure any semblance of sanity and since Bush Jr. proclaimed Jesus as his lord and savior, he was worshiped among the faithful, which is to say, the sheep. Even though sane people marched in the streets all over the world in the hundreds of millions against what they were doing, it wasn't covered by the God fearing media in the U.S. The ones in the streets thus became the Godless lunatics which was exactly backwards. That's what deceit accomplishes.
And everywhere you look you will find wholesale human deception by the use of language. For example, people deceive themselves and each other by attempting to live as if nothing changes. Every moment change is taking place, but what are people doing? They are deceiving themselves that things are staying the same! Plastic surgeons can hardly get any rest, for God's sake.
People live in a world where everything preys on everything else yet people deceive themselves into believing that the lion should lay down with the lamb. They will even discuss such inane ideas while at a restaurant enjoying lamb chops. You know, if anyone actually believed that the lion and the lamb will one day lay down with each other, they should go to Africa and attempt to lay down with a lion. You know, help the process along; after all, that's what God intended, isn't it?

Re:Um--the "treat others as you would have yourself treated" (sic) comes from the New Testament.

What has come to be known as The Golden Rule was actually written down by a Chinese philosipher several hundred years before the Wholly Novel was dreamed up.

One good (pliagerized)idea does not make a good guide for morality.

As Mr Harris points out, a good example of how immoral the Bible can be is slavery. Others posting here have claimed that it was Christians who fought against and abolished slavery in the U.S.. This may be true, but it is also fortunate that they were on the wrong side of the debate as far as the Wholly Novel is concerned. Slavery is clearly condoned there and it was the slaveholders who used their religious beliefs as an excuse to own humans as prop[erty who stood on firmer ground, at least in terms of adherence to their beliefs.

Why are atheists so angry? Maybe some of us are sick and tired of religious stupidity. What is religious stupidity? Believing in a "just and loving god" who created flawed beings and then worked out a system to punish them for eternity for not being perfect. Yeah, that's my idea of divine love and caring. Or how about this: preaching that condom use is sinful in sub Saharan Africa where AIDS is killing millions each year. That's not just stupid, its genocide.

So ma So many clues, but so little proof. Try testing your belief while in a a foxhole being overun by superior enemy forces that are not
primarily interested in killing you, but in "getting even". You
suddenly become accutely aware of two immediate facts!
1. How much ammunition you have left, to insure you save one bullet
for yourself.
2. There are no atheists in foxholes.
Perhaps an additional clue, should one be required, would be
forced to watch the torture of your fellow POW's as you anticipate
your turn.
Any God becomes very popular during circumstances like these, but
ablolute proof remains questionable although you tend to beg for
His existence.
Please pardon my simplicity in presenting an unpopular example of
reality that most will never relate to.

Are most of you religion haters mad because your parents made you go to bible study when you were a kid? Get over it, and find something else to be upset about. Mmmmm global warming? No! Second hand smoke. No! Bush.

Yes but Atheism has no recourse to morality. Apposing slavery has no basis except a recourse to the "will to power," and even that is bogus. A phenomenological existence does not and cannot recognize morality, because it does not exist. All so called moral decisions are nothing more than phenomena.

Dear Scott L,
This is an article that you won't enjoy reading:
http://www.claremont.org/weblog/005139.html

Jay F