"If you are sitting in a hospital room with a 2 year old child that may die from open heart surgery, you need someone to believe in.
GOD listens to you when you ask for his help, I cannot prove this, and
even if he cannot help your child, the belief in a spiritual being gives one comfort. It is very lonely in a pediatric waiting room. There weren't any scientists, intellectuals or atheist doling out comfort when I needed it. I trusted in GOD for the skill and technology he gave the doctors to help my baby."

I know it's a year and a half since you posted that.  I hope your baby is okay.  But I have to wonder, if you had only the following surgeons to choose from, which would you have preferred:  1) a surgeon who assured you that she got her surgical skill, not from a university, but exclusively by studying the Bible, praying, and listening to God's voice, or 2) a "scientist, intellectual, atheist" who had on her wall a diploma from a leading medical school, showing she graduated at the top of her class?

In other words, you may say you trust in God, but didn't you demand a good surgeon, regardless of the surgeon's belief, to fix your baby's heart?

Of course, you're free to claim that God gives skill even to atheist surgeons.  I'm equally free to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught your god how to pass that skill along.

As for comfort in the waiting room, had you no family, no friends to sit with you?

"Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?"

Money. Or rather the value of money. Money has no actual value. All of it's value is imbued by our belief in it.

If you are sitting in a hospital room, you are clearly believing in value of scientists and intellectuals.  You'd have to ask your particular surgeon to find out if they are an athiest.  If they are, would you refuse their help? 

If instead of giving the child open heart surgey, you are praying like mad, only then can you say that there weren't any scientists helping you.  And that would be your own decision.  You're also voicing this opinion to the world via the web.  Another nod of thanks to scientists there as well.  

I apologise for this very late reply.

 If hypothetically you have a cat that dies and I tell you that your cat is smiling down on you from cat-heaven, you'll know Im talking crap. Maybe you'll derive comfort from that, but it'll still be crap.

Some of us would rather not concern ourselves with false comforts. The truth is importance to us and how we deal with that truth is what is important.

Harris loses this debate hands down and it was not even close. It is surely shocking that so many readers on this blog declare Harris a "winner" when he clearly could not even get out of the box.

Dennis Prager did an excellent job and held a lot of powder back, I suppose because he is a nicer guy that I would have been. Harris is a menace and atheism is a threat and this is why Prager's strategy to bring clarity to the discussion is important. If the civilized world loses this debate, we will lose our civilization. Thankfully, Harris is not very cogent or compelling. There is simply too much of a track record of evil in atheism vs. greatness in the Judeo-Christian tradition for even a talented atheist to overcome and between Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins –there is not a lot of good argument since poor ideas tend to rely on evasions and hard-ball tactics.

It is instructive that Harris begins with ridicule and insult, suggesting that God is nothing more than the current day Thor or Zeus. He makes this point as his FIRST point–and it is fair to assume Harris believes this is one of his strongest points–if not his signature observation. This is a red flag to all objective readers. People who engage in emotional insults and resort to ridicule have no claim on rationality.

Monotheism, the belief in one God as creator and lawgiver, is the most important idea in human history and truly revolutionary. It was the very idea that defeated Thor and Zeus and has stood supreme ever since and has sustained assaults and the test of time up until this moment.

Torah is a blueprint for humanity and as Prager says, no one can rightly diminish all that our Torah has brought to the world by simply saying, simply because great things have come from the Bible–that makes it merely useful and does not give 100% proof that God exists. It is nothing less than a miracle that a document as old as the Torah has continually inspired so many for so many years–no fan of Shakespeare or Homer would ever put their life on the line, as Jews have done throughout history.

It is revealing that Harris will not begin with the fact that the Jewish people through their understanding of the Torah have brought the world, in the words of a non-Jewish author, the "moral furniture of the human mind." Instead, religion is considered the root of all evil and the Torah is alleged to be a collection of really bad things like a justification for slavery and opposition to homosexuality instead of really inspiring things. If Harris knows something, perhaps he does, it is clear he knows nothing about Torah.

Harris and the atheists always scream about proof and they need 100% proof of God before they will drop their 100% certainty that there is no creator–despite all evidence to the contrary. Proof of God, as a logical, philosophical or scientific enterprise needs to begin with evidence and not a standard of 100% proof. If God exists, then certain things will be true–this is a good way to present a debate. A foundational "if, then" premise was discovered by science in the 1950's with the fact of the Big Bang and a beginning of the universe. Atheism REQUIRES an eternal physical reality and the Bible begins with a specific statement that there was a beginning and therefore a Creator. If the Greeks and the atheists laughed at the Jews over our understanding before the truth was known, they cannot be equally correct when the foundational belief of the Jews is upheld by modern science.

A world with free will disallows the kind of 100% proof the atheists demand, as if they require 100% proof for anything else. Indeed, as Prager laments, the atheists are stuck with blind faith about a whole variety of things–while Judaism stands in stark contrast with Christianity and the blind faith of the secularists. If Harris wishes to attack the Jewish claim–please go right ahead. Moses says God will never reveal himself at any other point in history and says that the Torah can be trusted as Divine because of national revelation. This is the "proof: Hashem offers to the Jewish people–the fact of national revelation and Hashem says that no other people can or will make such a claim in the future because such a claim can only be true. If Harris wishes to attempt to falsify Judaism, he can try to present alternate explanation for the existence of the Jewish people in history and indicate how at least 600,000 eyewitnesses could be wrong. He could also try to explain how a claim of national revelation could have been inserted into the Torah at a later time as a supposed ploy.

Point by point, Harris impeaches himself and it is good that this evidence is on the record.

Judeo-Christian civilization discovered science? I guess the builders of the Egyptian pyramids, Archimedes and Hippocrates in Greece, Lucretius in Italy,Zhang Heng in China,etc. ad naseam were all believers in the Judeo-Christian faith but they just didn’t realize it at the time?
I also particularly liked how Prager conveniently side-stepped the issues of slavery being in the bible and the fact that many “religiously-active” priests are themselves rapists.

My baby girl needed open heart surgery at 6 days old to survive. Fortunately, we were bolstered by the love and concern of our educated and atheist families. They cooked meals for us, babysat our older daughter, offered sympathetic ears and lots of supportive hugs.

But very much beyond that, they shared their medical knowledge and connections to other doctors to help us make informed decisions about the right surgeon and the right hospital (post-care is almost as important as the surgery itself). During this incredibly critical time involving life and death decisions, I’m *so* glad that my upbringing did not predispose me to the time-waste of praying.

Thankfully, none of our friends or families offered this as their contributions, either. I can’t think of anything *less* helpful. My wife and I (and our loved ones) engaged in the process, became active participants, and did all that we could to increase our child’s chances of survival based on sound priciples, which extend from our rationality-driven lives.

I’m happy to say that she recently celebrated her third birthday (happy and healthy!)

(This is a response to Dennis Prager’s last email to Sam Harris. In it, he implies that lack of active participation in a religion has something to do with one’s choice to commit violent crime.)

I wonder if Mr. Prager realizes that most violent criminals lack a bachelor’s degree too. Given this fact, does this mean they killed/raped/assaulted because they weren’t practicing a religion, or because they were undereducated? Perhaps we could even narrow 50% of the violence down to only five U.S. states. Now are they murdering because they’re not actively practicing a religion, because they’re undereducated, or because they live in, say, New York?

Prager: “I wanted readers to attain clarity about the differences between atheism and Judeo-based theism.”

Again, while this was him main goal and failed to address the question, I think most people know the basic differences between the two, and Prager certainly didn’t provide any “clarity” that advanced knowledge of the two groups about the other.

… and you certainly did not win. Again context.

“Nobody can prove god’s existence” says Dennis.This statement is not true.There is certainly one particular person who could have proved god’s existence ( if he wanted to) and that person is god himself. The fact that he did not produce some undeniable proof that would convince even Sam Harris
is the best proof itself of his nonexistence.

Lucifer

“Why do i subject myself to this? So frustrating to read the logically coherent arguments of Sam Harris bracketed by the inanities of this Limbaugh-clone.”

I wonder exactly the same thing. Why DO we subject ourselves to this?

“… something that is necessary for society to survive—belief in the God of Israel—may in fact exist.”

Is Prager kidding? That’s barely even grammatical.

I feel sorry for Sam. He’s not even in the same league as Mr. Prager and shouldn’t have agreed to this dialog. I’m sure years from now we’ll see an article like Francis Collins coming from Sam.

I do think it’s relevant to attribute Stalin as a result of Christian philosophies, or more appropriately, Marxist relied heavily on an axiom lifted directly from the Bible.

Marx wrote: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, and the earliest recorded variation on that idea comes from the Acts of the Apostles:

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
…
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)

So in essence, you can attribute Marxist, the Soviet Union, and following that, Stalin to theology. Besides that, leaders in the Soviet Union were deified almost as gods, or at least Lenin was. This is mirrored today in North Korea. This should illustrate the danger and irrationality of religious belief. If you can believe that there is a God, you should be able to believe that anyone could be a god.

God’s existence cannot be proven, as Dennis said, only believed. So why argue on that topic? I don’t think that was even the topic of the debate. I thought the question was “Why are atheists so angry?”

If they are angry because many religious believers seem to have done irrational, evil things because of their religious beliefs, they should take heart. Non-religious people have done irrational evil things in the service of their non-religious beliefs as well. All people do evil things. That is a fact both sides should acknowledge.

As for the most evil thing, murder: Like guns, religion doesn’t kill people…people kill people. Eliminating religion wouldn’t stop killing any more than eliminating guns would.

Therefore, if atheists are angry at religion, their anger is misplaced. Be angry at the people who carry-out evil acts or the evil acts themselves, if you prefer, but you are wasting everyone’s time if you are angry with religion per se…since it’s stated purpose is usually the betterment of life here and hereafter. Even if you find a portion of a religious text you think is evil or some adherents of a religion that are evil, it is much more effective for both the atheist and the believer to root out that bit of text or small group of people than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Read Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker”. It answers your questions from a naturalistic, scientific point of view. It is very well written and easy reading.

Anyone who is not contaminated by religous dogma will concede that Sam Harris nailed this debate easily.

I suspect Prager is plain flat lying when he said that scientists in the social sciences are more likely to be atheists than scientists in the natural sciences. He, unlike Sam Harris, never provides the reference for his claims about religiosity. In fact, an ongoing Templeton Foundation study that began in 2005 on “Religion among Academic Scientists” has so far concluded that 38% of the natural scientists, 24% of the doctors, and 31% of the social scientists surveyed said they do not believe in God. Source; Scientists’ Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline . That doesn’t really agree with Prager’s data.. perhaps because he just made it up.

If you were hiking in a forest (or on Mars) and came across a stationary but running and fully functional Boeing 747, would it be rational to doubt a designer behind its existence? We are (and for that matter, so is a hamster) the 747 in the ‘forest’ of the universe, with the exception to the analogy that we are a billion times more complicated than a 747. Whether by evolution from non-living matter or from an instant creation, the fact is we’re here. While we know nothing of the designer – God, aliens, good, evil, caring, indifferent, omniscient, omnipotent, involved, or even still in existence – it’s hard to imagine another explanation for our existence. Any other explanation would have to state that our existence is due to undesigned occurrances. Could the 747 in the forest or on Mars come into existence through undesigned occurrances, even over billions of years? Maybe, but surely the liklihood is as close to zero as possible without being zero. I realize the designer’s existence also needs explanation, which I admit I cannot offer. Maybe it always existed. Maybe matter/energy always existed, but would still have had to form itself, undesigned, into us, the hamster, and the 747s. Lots of ‘maybes’ to be sure. What do you find more compelling?

I’m pretty sure the debate here is whether or not God exists, not whether belief provides comfort. Nobody is arguing that is doesn’t.

Doctors are following a scientific tradition, not a religious one. If religious principles could cure us, we would go to temples when sick, not to hospitals.

All religions used to punish scientists who dared to experiment with dissection and autopsy. All religious texts contain bad medical advice. The Catholic Church went above and beyond all others in threatening Galileo until he recanted his heliocentric science, but it wasn’t alone.

Medicine and technology got where they are as a result of scientific progress. When medicine saves you, that’s a good time to be aware of the benefits that science confers upon us — and a good time to question why religions have always tried to claim to have a better knowledge of the factual universe than that offered by science.

There is something extraordinarily beautiful in what you said, and if I am a fortunate man I will not forget it.

I am willing to engage any and sundry in a theoretical understanding, but I am in awe of life as it lived.

Sincerely,

JJ

try the FSM next time – he cares too

Actually, I meant emanant, but you are correct I did consider the other two words (well not so much eminent) as well. I settled on emanant because of the emanating or issuing forth from a source was more of the idea I was after.

Thank you very much for the discussion.

With warmest regards,

JJ

If you are sitting in a hospital room with a 2 year old child that may die from open heart surgery, you need someone to believe in.

GOD listens to you when you ask for his help, I cannot prove this, and even if he cannot help your child, the belief in a spiritual being gives one comfort. It is very lonely in a pediatric waiting room. There weren’t any scientists, intellectuals or atheist doling out comfort when I needed it. I trusted in GOD for the skill and technology he gave the doctors to help my baby.

The ability to perform open heart surgery on an infant, and save a life, is an incredible testament to science. Many scientist, intellectuals, and probably atheists have labored for decades to make these advancements possible while often in direct conflict with the religious establishment. The dissection of cadavers to learn the how the body work and what the heart even does, the development of anesthesia, the understanding of sanitation and infection just scratches the surface of the many scientific achievements that have ultimately led to the improved health of your child. The work of many scientist, intellectuals and probably atheists who care a great deal about the health of your child were there that day in the pediatric room, I just don’t think you noticed.

I think that we all have to realize that we do not have the capability of proving or disproving the existence of a god. I don’t know if there is a god, but I am okay with not knowing. Live, love, be happy, make the world a better place. You don’t need a religon to be a good person. Break down the barriers between people (often created by religon).
make the world a better place with your own 2 hands

(cue Marley song :p )

first of all,
Pragers arguments made my blood pressure rise to dangerous levels. It happens far to often that christians claim responsability for the great social advances of the last century. Saying christians where responsable for the emancipation of women, the rise of democracy or the rise of science is as stupid as thinking the earth is the center of the universe. Which was by the way a great scientific discovery that was held back by christians. I guess christians a hundred years from now are going to claim responsability for legalising gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia in my home country the Netherlands. Idd like to remind people who think judeoists or whatever they want to call themselves have better moral then atheists of a few historic facts such as the crusades, the inquisition, antisemitism, slavery, the holocaust on the native americans and apartheid. All dark pages in our history books that at the very least originated from christian believes. Harris also reffers to atheists objections againts Israel. I know you americans must feel a connection with a people who feel the need to drive native inhabitants from their lands to claim it their own and call them barbaric if they dont let themselves be deported without a fight. But I as an atheist dont let my personal believes justify driving people of their lands no matter how religious they are or what race they belong too. I shall never defend my beliefs with more than words unless my right to do the previous is in jeopardy.

Now as to your comment, dear anonymous;
There is a simple explanation for the comfort you find in your god in uncertain times. You found yourself in a situation in which you where absolutely powerless, you had no control whatsoever. The feeling of having no control over a situation is probably one of the most horriffic feelings there is. In a sitiuation like that your mind will seek a way to gain control over the situation at hand, real or fictitious. God can be a way of fictitious control. By means of prayer you think you can influence god to change the outcome of the situation and thus gain control.
This is the reason religion always gains influence in hard times. Its also the reason organized religion(the vatican for example) has always oppossed scientific progress, cause it makes life easier and thus decreases their power.
So remember that the end it where atheists who saved your baby. Scientists centuries ago who laid the basis of modern medicin by stealing fresh corpses from their graves to perform autopsies banned by the church.
If you need someone to believe in as I needed myself while I was lying in the hospital recently, believe in those brave men who risked their lives for science, not the god who gave your baby that bad heart in the first place.

the best to you and your baby,
a frequent hospital habitant

Well Lori, I think you have come to the game late, but if being angry legitmates your view…but other than that you are just like the rest of us, except for your anger.

An admission: To be honest, I would have much preferred to have simply asked, “what are your thoughts on right and wrong,” because all the rest was neither here nor there. And I definitely wouldn’t have chosen the term “argue.” It was not the most apt word fit to my purpose.

But seeing as how I couldn’t resist getting a drink of water in the middle of the night, while insisting on not turning on the light–well “nobody’s fault but mine.”

Yes I agree “constriction” is an odd clause. I guess I’m not comfortable with presenting or arguing someone else’s conception of heaven and hell. And by that, I don’t mean your metaphor, but rather a more general understanding that takes at least a few of its cues from Dante’s Comedy. So in that respect I’m probably not the best person with whom to converse on the heaven/hell dichotomy as understood by the orthodox, fundamentalist, or others who accept the notion not as a remote possibility, but as the foundation of their souls. So as part of my confession (couldn’t resist), I guess, I’m not a typical believer; although, I would be very stricken to find I am the only believer who tends my way.

I’ve always thought the idea that hell is the absence of God is a compelling thought. Someone made a pretty good movie about that idea–I think Mimi Rogers is in it, but I’m not a great authority on movies.

Speaking of Dante, I’ve read through the Inferno and am working my way through Purgatory. Aside from his seemingly personal diversions, he does present another compelling idea that the individual is responsible for his own condition.

In the first round of hell, just after meeting the leading lights of antiquity, he comes to a place where the souls of lovers are being blown hither and thither. The lovers remind me of a type of person we meet often in our lives who are always carried away by the latest news of the day, whether of a personal or communal nature. “What news, what news?” And off they go. Not founded on anything they wing with everything.

So I think there is something in the old adage that “virtue is its own reward.” To my thinking everything that is not my self is then a part of my environment. This includes the obvious environment external to my body, but also for me, includes my body. And though I can manipulate and exploit my environment, I can also fall victim to the cruel and not so cruel vicissitudes of life. So although I can’t control the rest of existence, I can control my relationship to it: Meaning how I understand my relationship to my experience of existence. You can see how this can become problematic when we reach the bottom of definitions.

So if our thoughts are themselves a part of our environment then at least in a figurative sense we can indeed create a hell in which to exist, and no matter how much someone may love us he or she cannot rescue us if we do not wish to be rescued.

But now of course the rescuer has a problem, does the rescuer accept the hellish environment of seeming failure, or accept the inviolability of the other’s freewill?

Hope your holidays are going well. I do appreciate our conversation.

I do have a question, and I think I can answer part of it. I understand you do not accept the construction of heaven and hell as put forth by the most fundamental Christian thinkers (or others). Fair enough, and under those constrictions it is obvious enough I am not prepared, nor really want, to argue.

But my question is this–do you believe, have faith, or enjoin a rationalistic understanding of a difference between right or wrong? And if you do how might you inform that understanding? Truly, I am curious.

who is this too? what does it mean?

It is possible I guess that part of Humanity’s condition is to create structures: from fixed concepts, to laws, to buildings and such in order to navigate our lives.

mikejswalker said; “If you are a believer and GOd gave you the choice to swap places with your kids or the love of your life, past or present, would you swap?”

anonymous said; ‘The more important question we should be asking would be “Is an eternity in hell a just and appropriate punishmen for mistakes made during a very short mortal lifetime?”

Although this is an important point, i don’t think it is more important.

I have been trying, with very limited success, to get religionists, who believe in Hell, to commit themselves to a decision. It’s difficult on these forums to really get at the spirit of the feeling. People try. They press the caps button when they are shouting.
Much is talked about jesus’s sacrifice and suffering. But he knew he would be coming back.
Parents that take the lift marked ‘Hell’ or ‘Down” in the place of their atheist child don’t know the outcome. But they take it anyway. This is a stronger love than the love that knows the outcome. It is this debate that interests me more than this one;
‘Is there a God?’
‘No’.
‘yes there is’
‘no there isn’t
‘prove it’
‘you prove it’
‘The Bible’
‘written by Man’
‘God’s word’
’tisn’t’
’tis’
‘Then it’s writer is page 31 of “the God delusion”
‘that’s your interpretation’
‘first cause’
‘What caused the first cause?’
‘string vest theory’
‘ logical empiricism’
‘I know you are’
‘but what am I?’

The debate is a circular one.

I think citing God as guilty of crimes against humanity falls into this circular argument. It depends on interpretation. Now I, for one. can see exactly what you mean. But it takes one view (the religionists) to refute it. Namely, We have been given free will. We are our own enemies. Or, God switched the light on in the universe and the universe, including evolution, did the rest. Ofcourse there are arguments ad infinatum against these ideas. But i think you get the picture.

It’s the punishment and reward scheme that i feel is mostly what is wrong with religion. So much woe has been borne from this ancient idea. This, to me, is the debate. What are we to do, if we find ourselves in the position of waving goodbye to our kids, or parents, or love of our lives, who just didn’t believe? Are we supposed to forget about our loved one’s who didn’t make it? I have been trying to understand what a religionist makes of this predicament for some weeks now. Only one, Jacob, has answered. Others have said, ‘God wouldn’t do that’, or ‘we can’t second guess God’ or ‘nobody knows’. But these statements seem to go against bible teaching. Jacob said he would be heartbroken but they had their chance and they chose the down lift. This is the thought he will carry for eternity in heaven.
It is this dilemma that makes the punishment and reward religionist irrational.

kindest regards

mikejswalker

I agree with you Phil, it is truly amazing how the religious pundits cannot resist purveying their unproven one-sided views. They justify everthing in the context of winners and losers as part of a righteous god-plan. The various bibles and gospels so obviously without merit allow people who never read them properly or ever to be guided spurious controllers.

Cliff L (also from the UK)

"My argument is that unlike Judeo-Christian America, secular societies—generally meaning those of Western Europe … and are worthless or worse in helping to keep Israel alive against Muslims who vow to exterminate the Jewish state.)

What absolute drivel! This argument is flawed becuase it starts from a presumtion, to defend Isreal. Perhaps the people of Western Europe believe in fair play; that no country should be able to invade it's neighbour, steal thier land and treat the remaining populace like second class citizens, whichever countries we are talking about. If laws are to mean anything they must be applied to all equally. This is an example of how religious thought can justify an obviously unjust situation. Phil, (United Knigdom

Re: Basic Question for Atheists
Actually, matter (and energy and space and time) did begin with the big bang. At the exact moment of the big bang, all matter, energy, space, and time only existed potentially in a point of infinite density, and infinitely small extent. At about one Planck time later (10-44 seconds) the behavior of the universe can start to be explained mathematically through physics. What was the status of the universe prior to the moment of the big bang? There was no “prior” – time did not exist. It would be accurate perhaps to say the universe started “in infinity”.
Wrong. According to the Big Bang theory in terms of Planck Time, nothing is known about the universe at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted (they did not “potentially” exist) and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an extremely hot and dense singularity.

In other words, this early universe was homogeneously and isotropically filled with an incredibly high energy density and tremendously high temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions pertinent to elementary particles. It was relatively tiny, yet it fluctuated in size. It was not “infinitely” small (whatever that means).

Approximately 10^-35 seconds after the Planck Epoch, a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation.

Moreover, one Planck Time after the event is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it (meaning that this is as far back as our measures of time can take us – not as far back as the universe actually goes), and at that time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental forces. This is why we call it the “beginning”; not because matter/energy were mysteriously pulled into the cosmos from nothing. It is important to distinguish “as much as scientists can know about an event” from your apparent claims of certainty. (“all matter, energy, space, and time only existed potentially in a point of infinite density”.)______________________________________________________________________

And who says atheists do not hold to certain beliefs by faith. One can throw in all the technical language they want. They can sound scientific, but if one pays close enough attention, one can see how faith does indeed play a big part in evoulutionary thought. Case in point, the author here begins by telling us that : “According to the Big Bang Theory…nothing is known about the universe at time=0…” But then immediatly reveals the evolutionist’s faith based presuppossition by stating that : “…it is PRESUMED that all fundamental forces coexisted (they did not potentially exist) [in other words universe is eternal] and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an extremely hot and dense singularity.”
Excuse me for pointing out the obviouse question but if NOTHING IS KNOWN about the universe at time=0 then how can it be presumed that matter, energy, and time have always been in existence?? That is unless one has a predisposed bias in favor of such a belief. But then if this is the case, why not just say so? Perhaps the alternative just is not an acceptable alternative – i.e. matter, energy and time have not always existed.
In the discussion between the two participants in this discussion I saw refrences to the 1st law of thermodynamics but did not see any mention of the 2nd. Certainly a law just as important in reguards to the subject of the universes existence. [I only read the 1st 3 or 4 pages of this thread, so forgive me if I am repeating a point that has already been raised.] If the universe is growing in a state of decay, if the usable energy in the universe is growing less and less (which is what the 2nd law says) then how is it that the universe has not ALREADY come to a point of complete disorder? In other words, if the universe is ETERNAL (i.e. matter, energy, time) then complete disorder and consumption of useful energy would have occured long, long ago. For that matter, time is irrelvant when one is speaking about the concept of eternity. The concept implies no beginning AND NO END , yet it is know that the universe will eventually come to an end eventually. We see it happening everyday. All things grow old and eventually die, weather it be organic life or the stars in the universe, all things will eventaully die.
I would like to inject a question of my own in this topic. How does an inorganic, thoughtless, purposeless,orginally disorderly/caotic thing like the universe produce organic, thinking, purposeful, orderly things? That which is caused CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN the cause itself. So how does an evolutionist answer this question reasonably? How does that which is caused assume traits and characteristics that is not possessed in the cause itself?

As I said you are free to reject the statement if you like. No harm done.

Formulate “perfect knowledge,” to your own satisfaction that’s all any of us can do–and even then it would only be a proposal.

Why “a desirable goal?” again that appears to be a personal decision based upon personal assumptions. But I didn’t say that.

Me: “Knowledge is infinitely greater than any understanding Man may have of it.”

“What evidence is there that knowledge is infinitely greater than mankind’s understanding or comprehension of anything believed AND true: Most people would agree”… knowledge “is invariably aggregative, cumulative and progressively evolving.” So at minimum, knowledge by your formulation is always less than it will be. What evidence is there that your formulation will cease to be true?

Me: “Consequently, even more removed from total understanding are the commentators on the writings of the lives of the inspired.”

“Again, what is your evidence that this is the case?”

Which is a more accurate statement of an object. The object itself or a representation of it?

All of that be as it may. The main point was the point you ended with.

Oh, and the original statement was meant more as a critique of Theist certainty than of secular or other formative certainties.

“We can be certain that perfect knowledge is unattainable for man (otherwise he wouldn’t be man but be god) therefore man’s morality and ethics is limited by his condition at any one given point in time and space.”

What constitutes “perfect knowledge“? Is “perfect knowledge” a desirable goal of humankind and if so why?

“Knowledge is infinitely greater than any understanding Man may have of it.”

What evidence is there that knowledge is infinitely greater than mankind’s understanding or comprehension of anything believed AND true? You’re apotheosizing knowledge by attributing knowledge as some ‘thing’ that is exogenous to the mind of human beings; where is the incontrovertible evidence that supports such an assertion.

Most people would agree, most religions notwithstanding, that knowledge (relative to humanity) is invariably aggregative, cumulative and progressively evolving. There are a significant number of people that consider “knowledge” and its applications to be one of humanity’s most compelling motivations.

“Consequently, even more removed from total understanding are the commentators on the writings of the lives of the inspired.”

Again, what is your evidence that this is the case?

“Therefore we who live are under no obligation to accept the received wisdom and interpretations of commentators: imputed authority has not the power of moral, knowledgeable, ethical, etc suasion.”

“But, we are obligated not to dismiss received wisdom and commentary merely because we find it convenient to do so.”

But, we are obligated not to accept perceived or fallacious wisdom and commentary merely because we find it convenient to do so.

Though I had suggested to those uncomfortable with the idea of God that they go ahead and amend the statement above to suit their purpose, I thought that perhaps I would do it myself.

Note: No one is obligated to accept anyone’s understanding.

We can be certain that perfect knowledge is unattainable for man (otherwise he wouldn’t be man but be god) therefore man’s morality and ethics is limited by his condition at any one given point in time and space.

Thus knowledge, wisdom, morality, ethics, etc cannot be totalized in any one book. Knowledge is infinitely greater than any understanding Man may have of it. Consequently, even more removed from total understanding are the commentators on the writings of the lives of the inspired.

Therefore we who live are under no obligation to accept the received wisdom and interpretations of commentators: imputed authority has not the power of moral, knowledgeable, ethical, etc suasion.

But, we are obligated not to dismiss received wisdom and commentary merely because we find it convenient to do so.

So, to briefly sum:

America’s faults lie in our secular establishment.
America’s greatness lies in its Judeo Christian nationality.
I find those who do not agree with me to lack moral insight and propensity toward intellectual depth.
I am delusional enough to think that the only successful societies on earth are Judeo-Christian.

He would have been better off presenting a neat bulleted list such as this so that he could have been summarily dismissed rather than actually having his “arguments” dismantled so thoroughly.

Yet another religious “mind” who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on a high school debate team.

“We can be certain that God’s inherent morality and ethics is infinitely greater (powerful, purposeful, knowing, etc.) than the greatest concept Man has of morality and ethics at any given point in time and space.”

By what means or methods can we – you or anyone else – be certain. If your source is the Holy Bible then such statements simply strain credulity. Your words imply that you somehow have been granted the special privilege of significantly greater insight and understanding into “God’s inherent morality and ethics” than is available to remainder of humanity. For what good reason would a beneficent Creator withhold the greater portion of His knowledge and purpose of morality and ethics; certainly it would not for His benefit.

“Thus God, as infinite being, cannot be totalized in any one book.”

The Holy Bible devotes a great deal of time and energy to the allegorical exposition of “morality” and the consequences of disobedience. Yet why would He knowingly choose an arguably ineffective, indirect, inefficient, inferential, disputatious, and (geographically and linguistically) restrictive method of promulgating His word, especially His all-important Word on morality and ethics, to all of humanity. Clearly an “infinitely greater (powerful, purposeful, knowing, etc.)” Creator could do “infinitely” better.

“God is infinitely greater than any understanding Man may have of him. Consequently, even more removed from total understanding are the commentators on the writings of the lives of the inspired.”

“Therefore we who live are under no obligation to accept the received wisdom and interpretations of commentators: imputed authority has not the power of moral suasion.”

Again, statements such as these would imply that you somehow have been granted the special privilege of greater insight and understanding into God. Nevertheless, by your own words we are not obligated to accept your interpretation or ‘understanding’ nor the apostolic gospels… or any gospel redacted by the hand of Man for that matter.

“Which results in love and which results in fear? What difference do we have when we take one belief over the other?”

That (and the overall question of your post) is as difficult a question as I can think of to profer an answer, let alone to give a definitive answer.

The simple answer, but not really satisfying, is adopt that worldview which allows love and alleviates fear.

I spoke of our obligations earlier. I guess too we are obligated not to profess ideas that at the core of our conscience we believe to be untrue.

I think it is likely that we exist in a rational existence. And I might conjecture that a rational existence is a manifestation of God’s word. If so I would find it extraordinary that a Deity that created existence would be so jealous as to hide his work from the creation that he created. That is, the inverse would be so cruel as to be unimaginable.

So with this I can say for myself that to reject the revelations of science on the grounds that it does not meet the literal interpretation of an earlier understanding is to love one’s own concept more than having a love for the truth. The implications are I think self-stating.

In any case, for myself, I am not just giving lip service to my profound respect for science.

But I don’t think that the narrative ends with Science for reasons I stated earlier.

A side note: A while back I came across a scientific conjecture that proposed a resolution to a physics problem by proposing an additional dimension as an answer to a difficult mathematical problem. I believe the problem dealt with the less than expected force of gravity, but don’t quote me. Anyway, others were so taken with the solution that they started applying the solution to other intransigent problems and found that by proposing additional dimensions that those mathematical conundrums too were solved. Possibly true. Also, they are possibly taking the easy way out. Also possible is they are describing an infinite dimension that accounts for all the solutions. Conjecture can be fun.

But that doesn’t really propose an answer. If science is not the whole narrative what is missing? I have made two statements that I think I am willing to stand behind. 1) Metaphysical knowledge like scientific knowledge can and does advance. 2) God is greater than any ethical or moral formulation that we can have at any one point in time and space.

Consequently, if our moral and ethical understanding of existence is greater than the literal interpretation in our various treatises of God’s word we are remiss on insisting that God’s ethical and moral essence is less than ours, and possibly, but not necessarily, we are misinterpreting the texts themselves.

Adding difficulty to a difficult situation is that so many of us freeze inspiration in the language and understanding of a people that is not ourselves. When we read the inspirational writings we are not reading the history of God, but rather the history of Man’s understanding of God. Which is to say the texts themselves are a product of the mind apprehending at the time they were written. Need we say that the commentaries on them are even that much more removed?

That is any commentary on the deity cannot be more enlightened than the mind that pens it. And this brings us to the point of free will. It would be a contradiction of free-will for the Deity to force an understanding on a free-will that wasn’t its own; Because, then that free-will would be negated; And would in fact, be a marionette.

So where does that leave us? We are either on a journey that is unfathomable, or we will simply die and be never more within the nearly infinite existence of time and space.

But a more concrete answer does come from the presumption of empathy. None of us truly knows the answers as to how to live the good life. Still, we have all been fortunate enough to know those who strive to live the good life and unfortunate enough to know those who don’t give a dam.

But what does that mean? Good people try to their utmost to live a good life within the worldview that makes sense to them. And first and foremost we should acknowledge another’s goodness regardless from where it emanates. Nor should we be so in love with our own conception of existence that we feel an absolute need to make everyone else in our image, but on the other hand we should not be offended that others feel it is in our own best interests to adopt theirs.

We who believe in goodness need to recognize that each of us is finding the meaning of goodness in the way that we can apprehend. Personally, I look for that goodness first, and then I marvel at the extraordinary diverse way people have of finding it, which makes sense to them in their own heart and mind. I try not to threaten everyone with my belief, and to the extent I can I accept theirs. As well as I am able, I recognize that we all have our own paths, which we call free will.

However, that does not mean holding your tongue in all forums. Individuals will let you know when he or she is ready to hear something that is outside their accepted way of thinking. At that point it is ethical, if not mandatory, to share your understanding of existence because that is exactly what that person has asked for. Just remember they are under no obligation to accept what you have offered.

So it goes.

I should have said, “and can have a sense of self superiority.

Sam Harris writes in “End of Faith” why athiests are so angry. We want a second Renaissance and the religious faithful are standing in the way.

All religions (all of them, except for perhaps the ancient tribal animist beliefs that existed long before the origination of YHWH) claim one way or another that every human being is fundamentally flawed (sin, samsara, etc.) from birth and in need of salvation (nirvana, transcendence). This belief asserts humans are born into this condition (dimension, material world) with no choice but to practice said religion to escape it.

But the opposite is just a possible, isn’t it? It CAN BE true that there is no sin, no eternal damnation, no final judgement, that all of this is a concept that really doesn’t accurately describe reality.

I’m angry because I see this belief in “the wrongness of humans” as the “first cause” all irrational behavior in this world. This belief causes all the Guilt and Fear, all the Suffering and Evil. Our belief in the existence of sin (why so sure?) causes the fear that we’re all trying to escape by having faith. (This is analogous in my mind to Americans belief in the absolute righteousness of our fight in Iraq which Americans caused in the ‘80s when Reagan and his neo-conservative henchmen propped up the Mujahideen [Osama] against Russia and Iraq [Saddam] against Iran. We left them cold 20 years ago and now the puppet-masters pissed off the puppets.)

What is so threatening about atheists to the believers of all things absolute? We don’t consider it a benefit having belief that humans are fundamentally flawed. Atheists see humans participating in the experience of life, just the way God intended, uh, I mean just as it’s designed to be, uh, I mean just as “it is”. Atheists worry about living in the moment. The faithful worry about living in eternity. Here we are diametrically opposed and here is the threat we face against each other. The faithful want a world where all are homogenized under the one true faith and then things will be perfect. The rational want a world where we can upgrade our beliefs when they stop serving a useful purpose.

It’s been asserted in these forums that the religious, those believers in the existence of absolute morals, can never be a cynic.

I am surprised, again, to hear “cynical” as a description of an unsavory religious person (and I concede, there are plenty of unsavory religious people). I think you can accuse religious folk of many things, perhaps arrogance, perhaps overconfidence, but not cynicism. I would think it is very difficult to be cynical and religious at the same time. :) If anything, I would think that a religious person might err on the side of unrealistic idealism.

I find the wikipedia definition of cynic to be perfect.

A sneering disposition to disbelieve in the goodness of human motives and a contemptuous feeling of superiority. Properly speaking though, it is possible to be a (philosophic) cynic without feeling superior.

So I ask, isn’t it cynical to always assume humans are flawed?. Isn’t this a condemnation of the “goodness of human motives”? Wouldn’t adherents of these beliefs feel a sense of superiority for professing faith in the correct form of salvation? Isn’t this the attraction religion has for its practitioners in the first place?

The statement below is a reference to a God accepted existence, but if that is not your view, the statement can still obtain as a statement on knowledge; on our capacity to acquire and judge knowledge–epistemological if you will. Substitute an idea of the infinite (infinite existence or some such) if that is more coherent to your thought.

****

We can be certain that God’s inherent morality and ethics is infinitely greater (powerful, purposeful, knowing, etc.) than the greatest concept Man has of morality and ethics at any given point in time and space.

Thus God, as infinite being, cannot be totalized in any one book. God is infinitely greater than any understanding Man may have of him. Consequently, even more removed from total understanding are the commentators on the writings of the lives of the inspired.

Therefore we who live are under no obligation to accept the received wisdom and interpretations of commentators: imputed authority has not the power of moral suasion.

But, we are obligated not to dismiss received wisdom and commentary merely because we find it convenient to do so.

I am not the first and will not be the last to challenge Christians to read their Bible from cover to cover, and read it with comprehension, honesty, common sense and a sense of morality. Read any version. The vast majority of casual and hard-core Christians have never honestly examined the biblical contents. Those who do know the contents and still proclaim the Bible the “Good Book” have no regard for honesty and morality. These people are most often the professional Christians, i.e., ministers and priests. When you read the entire biblical script, note the contents you have never heard a minister or priest address in their religious bellowing such as Sunday morning sermons. Consider the reaction of our society if the horrendous, barbaric acts in the Bible were committed today. Compare the constant and disparate “I believe” pronouncements from Christians, especially the professional Christians, with biblical contents. As you read, engage your brain and disengage your defensive posture.

Examine the contents realistically. Consider these few examples. When you read that Cain had a wife, you are reading approval of incest. The same is true for Abraham and his wife/half sister Sarah. When you read of Noah’s grandchildren propagating the species, read propagation by first cousins. When you read about the deity protecting Cain, you are reading approval of murder. The Noah deluge tale is a story of murder as is the Sodom/Gomorrah tale. They had the deity killing the “guilty” and the innocent including pregnant women, infants and children. The tale of Jacob creating the twelve tribes of Israel is one of sexual promiscuity. The story of Jacob lying for the inheritance is approval of lying. The celebrated “Passover” in Egypt is a tale of murder. The tales of the Israelites’ invasion of Canaan are tales of the deity killing, arranging and approving killings of innocent people, and armed robbery of the Canaanite land and possessions. Yahweh ordering and assisting in the destruction of entire tribes in Canaan is known as genocide. Think Adolph Hitler. If after reading Numbers chapter 31 you still insist the Bible is a wonderful, good book, you really do need counseling. If after reading Hosea 13:16, where the author has his savage god Yahweh screaming “Samaria will be held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little ones will be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women will be ripped open.” you still cling to your “Good Book” claim, you obviously need urgent helpIn the 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible, several call for the death penalty for such things as working on the Sabbath (Saturday). Are those laws and penalty counter to American law and society? What would be your fate if you killed a man, as they had Yahweh doing, who refused to impregnate his sister-in-law and ejaculated on the ground instead? The Isaac/Abraham sacrifice story is one of attempted murder and child abuse. Solomon having seven hundred (and three hundred concubines) wives is gross polygamy. The tale of the Jesus character is one of human sacrifice and premeditated murder by Yahweh or planned suicide in the version of Jesus=Yahweh. When you read the tale of the Mary pregnancy, you are reading approval of rape since she did not give consent. The author who had the Jesus character saying a believer could drink any deadly thing and not be harmed was encouraging suicide (the real acid test of a Christian’s faith). The belief in the “original sin,” that everyone is guilty for the misdeeds of others and that death is due to the “original sin” is not only biblical cruel injustice but also contrary to American standards of justice.. (In the Christian world, if Adam and Eve had not “sinned,” humans would never die. Think about that the implications of that belief if it were true.) The Jesus character’s demand to eat his body and drink his blood is cannibalism What would be the state of an economy if all Christians complied with the Jesus instruction to sell your possessions and give to the poor? The authors had their Jesus figure saying that Yahweh would give anything a believer asked for—more lying. Paul directed that women must learn everything from their husband (what is a single woman to do?) and woman must not speak in church, perpetuating the sexist theme in the Bible beginning in Genesis. The Matthew author has his Jesus “saving” only Israel and calling non-Israelite women a dog, perpetuating the ethnic discrimination theme in the Bible. When you read John 3:16, you are reading the sentencing to eternal punishment of every person who lived before the Jesus character began his “ministry,’ and every infant and child and every mentally impaired person that died or dies even though the perfect Yahweh created those humans, biblically speaking of course. When you read that a donkey and a serpent talked, you justifiably could have believed those stories when you were a lot younger, like two years old.

You should conclude that the human hero of the Hebrew Scriptures, King David, is a genuine hoodlum. If you are honest in your reading, you will see David, the ancestor of Jesus in the biological version of Jesus, as a murderer, mass killer, polygamist, adulterer, exhibitionist, extortionist, thief, liar and woman abuser. Yet, you will read that authors had Yahweh proclaiming that David did right in Yahweh’s eyes. If the Bible is true and good, why don’t you if you are Christian commit the same acts as David so you will be pleasing to your biblical god Yahweh?

When you read the stories of the Jesus character, you will find the four different and contradictory stories of events on the resurrection morning. You should ask yourself how the contradictory events were included the Bible under the supervision or authorship of a perfect deity. If someone asks you which story is correct, what will be your reply? Which version of the Jesus character have you been accepting, the biological version or the son of a god version? Which version of the post-resurrection tale have you been labeling as true? Which of the two Jesus genealogies have you been saying is correct or have you been lying and claiming the Luke genealogy is that of Mary? Which listing of the twelve disciples have you said was correct? Will you find the word “Trinity” or equivalent in the New Testament? How have you explained the Trinity? Have you ever honestly analyzed the Trinity? When you dissect the Trinity, you will conclude that:

? As conjoined triplets, Yahweh and Jesus participated with the holy ghost in impregnating Mary. Therefore Jesus as the incarnated Yahweh the “Father” that creates every person in the Judeo-Christian spiritual world, was his own father.
? As a conjoined triplet and the son of Mary, Jesus copulated with his mother.
? As a creator deity, Jesus was the creator father of his mother Mary and therefore Mary was his daughter. Jesus copulated with his daughter.
? As the impregnator of Mary, Jesus was his own son.
? As the father of Mary and the son of Mary, he was his own grandfather.
? As a son of Mary and Joseph and Yahweh incarnated, he was older than his father and mother.
? As the son of Yahweh, and since Yahweh was the father of Mary and therefore his daughter, then Mary was Jesus’sister. Jesus copulated with his sister.
? Since Mary and the conjoined triplet deity were not married, the Jesus character was illegitimate (a negative status only in the Christian world).

A Christian who honestly and realistically reads the entire Bible, and who has an ounce of morality and common sense, will be embarrassed they believed the Bible is good literature and will be incensed that Bible-believers view non-bible believers as the rot of society. But, you will experience a bright new day when you discard your Bible and delusions and trade in your religious crutch for faith in yourself and in others who deserve your trust.

Thanks Sam for your excellent books and articles.

I think I can see where both atheistic and religious arguments merge, or could merge. I think that part of the conflict, perhaps more with comments than debate, is that religion has a political dimension. Thus it’s possible to have a leftwing (not to say communist) idea of God where the emphasis is on peace, harmony, joy and suffering, community, care, ethics, unselfishness and similar aspects which appear in human nature, with or often without religious emphasis.

It is also possible to have a rightwing emphasis towards religion, based on obedience (to parents, civil authorities, biblical text), morality (as defined by …), Law and similar aspects. Because religion or faith contains within it elements of personal Power and Humility, as well as social or political power (at least in terms of displaying Rightness and Righteousness), religion can be (quite often) misused by egotists and political players for social control and self-aggrandizement.

Religion also carries with it dogma, dogmatic beliefs and rules. Some people cleave to their dogma and reject all others, some people de-emphasize dogma.

Myself I was born Jewish but raised mostly agnostic, with just a pinch of the idea of God, yet I developed a thin belief as a child, without any particular practice except ‘talking to God’ from time to time. Later in life, I developed more of a regular religious practice through AA, but this particular “religion” de-emphasizes dogma and it emphasizes generic morality that seems to be an innate part of humanity over written morality. Yet I have deep respect for atheism because of it’s logic. YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, PERIOD. The best that can be done is say that certain things strongly imply the existence of a Creator.

My general idea is that “God” is a conceptual word that generically describes or points to the spiritual nature of Mankind. In some ways this is as slippery as trying to define consciousness, but just as we ‘know’ consciousness exists (or is it an illusion?), we also know that we have within us a built-in spiritual compass and a sense of eternity and nowness and oneness with the universe. This could also be called Being. Some people seem unaware of or autistic towards their compass, or choose not to recognize it, or suppress it for various psychological reasons, or allow their ego (sense of Self, their opinions, intellect, base emotional feelings, base animal instincts, all of which are good) dominate too heavily over their spiritual nature, to it’s exclusion. This might be likened to a brilliant mapmaker on the high seas lacking a compass or sextant or refusing to use one, but arrogantly insisting on knowing the right path.

I can grasp where religion was created as a form of mythology to help teach people how to locate their own inner spiritual and ethical nature, and to bring that into larger bloom and more dominance, though not to the exclusion of other aspects of being human. Some people seem already in touch with their spiritual and ethical nature, and don’t require religious faith or mythology to get there. Others get exposed to religion, but simply add it on as one more extension of their own ego, like learning to a new philosophy, and then often use it in egotistical ways, to dominate others. Some people get exposure to religion and for them it serves it’s purpose of awakening them to an inner spirit which may be connected to a larger spirit of humanity or “the universe”, to existence itself, in some fourth-dimension understanding. (Needless to say, I believe that I am in this third rational/spiritual category, realizing that categories themselves are artificial constructs.)

This is off the top of my head, I have little religious training or training in philosophy, but I hope it’s helpful to shine a light. I think this viewpoint could help solve a lot of debates and save lives. Then the remaining argument could be over which allegory is most effective in accomplishing the goal of elevating Man’s spiritual nature, both individually and across society, but that must be as much a matter of choice as which flavor of ice cream one prefers.

By the way, NEITHER debater reveals this fact, and both make false assumptions about it: The Islamic community has similar political and dogmatic conflicts within it, left vs. right, dogma vs. loose, Hadith vs. non-Hadith. However, much of the violence we learn about in the Media stems from two things: one, a planned and cultivated over-emphasis in the western media on incidents of violence and preaching of violence in parts of the world dominated by Arab or Muslim cultures, and two, simplistic and dishonest association of violence with the religion of Islam, ignoring other more obvious causes, which would indict Western politicians and money elites.

This constitutes politically-based psychological operations (propaganda) directed at Westerners who have faith in media pundits, many who have jobs or associations working for institutions built to promote fascism, some with actual ties to Nazi SS. This media assault has been pervasive and relentless over decades. Google “Planet of the Arabs”, a video containing snippets of movies, but I even saw that in old Bullwinkle cartoons from the Cold War. Contrast that with U.S. soldiers (who were mistreated by Halliburton) invited into Iraqi homes for food and water.

In 1975, a Pentagon analyst “Miles Ignotus” published an article called “Seizing Arab Oil” in Harpers, but the Western political impetus to dominate energy reserves goes back to World War 1 (Germany had built a railway to Basrah via Turkey) and World War 2 (Hitler tried to secure oil in North Africa and lost to Soviets when motor vehicles ran dry). George Kennan was one American who emphasized the America’s need to secure the prize of Middle East oil, and to restrict it’s flow to ‘our enemies’, such as the USSR, and to control it’s flow to even our allies, for power.

At the same time, Islamic opinion seems to be to associate violence and brutality with Judaism and Christianity, but this is not based on Islamic religion which respects other religions (yeah, there were historical squabbles), but rather on Arabs’ shared experience of brutality inflicted by nations which self-define as Jewish and Christian. American and Israeli Intelligence/Military installed SAVAK and Saddam Hussein, as well as Al-Qaeda. How Christian was that?!! This is not to say that there are not practices within the Islamic culture which are both religious and brutal (honor killings, killing over religious sect), but religious killings exist in the West too, if to a lesser degree today. Most of America’s genocidal wars (Natives, Filipinos, etc.) and the Cold War brutality on ‘communist’ proxies took on religious dimensions, as well as KKK brutality and similar groups.

America (and Israel) could each play a role by gently helping Islamic culture to emphasize it’s leftwing (spiritual) aspects and de-emphasize it’s rightwing (dogmatic) aspects. This has happened to some extent, as Arab cultures have adopted more Western liberal and modern cultural practices, music, movies, fashion, thought. However with the swing of American (and Israeli) politics towards the right, towards dogma and brutality, it has further entrenched and emphasized those aspects within Arab culture. I would say it has done so on purpose, to produce an enemy, so as to justify Plan A regarding energy reserves. That’s how Intelligence Systems (CIA) work, and have worked for centuries, by controlling public mindset and creating reality. http://www.Takeoverworld.info

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/12/francis_collins.html

Be sure and watch the video of Stephen Colbert’s declamatory interview with Dr. Francis Collins. I cannot fathom why Dennis Prager would invoke the name of Dr. Collins as an example of an archetypical Christian scientist other than Prager’s desperate attempt to associate (Christian) religion with legitimate science.

(BTW, Stephen Colbert is a complete nitwit.)

If “atheists don’t exist” (a growingly popular phrase now among conservatives), then why do we have 2,000+ years of texts denouncing atheists?

You do realize that “atheist” is a term that came from religious people, and was used against people. It has only been in the last 200 years or so that, after being labeled in such a way for thousands of years, people finally started saying, “okay, if you want to call me an atheist, fine, I’m an atheist”, and now that we have embraced the label that YOU (religious people) put on us, now you try to claim that no such things exists. LOL!

If “no such thing existed” then why did religious people invent the term in the first place?

a·the·ist /?e??i?st/ –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: Greek áthe(os) godless + -ist]

—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

This is what we get for News in Colorado.

Chaput: People of faith are the backbone of democracy

Catholic leader calls secularism ‘actively destructive’ to system

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput slammed secularism before a Southern California audience last week, calling religious faith essential to democracy and secularism “actively destructive” to it.
The comments of Archbishop Chaput

You might think this is hypocracy, but no, it’s really cynicism.

Take a look.

Here’s what I take away from this debate. The sectarian violence that is so appalling to me in Iraq is beginning to ferment in our country. The Christian conservative leaders like Archbishop Chaput preach fear-mongering to their flock of believers. This scares me. These men believe their are “right” and they’ll fight for it.

Why is it that three of the most radical haters in this country live in Colorado? Dobson, Chaput, and Tancredo.

Here are my recommended links:

I’ll recommend my own site first, though that’s probably a bit unfair :)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

http://www.infidels.org/

http://www.infidelguy.com/

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

http://nobeliefs.com/

http://www.secularhumanism.org/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

There are plenty of others, but that should be a good start. You may also want to check out your local atheist meetup: http://atheists.meetup.com/

I am open minded and would like some links to sites that have information on debating various Christian points, etc.

Thank you very much

“There is no question that Dennis Prager is a bigot who ought to be repudiated even by his closest supporters. His statements are a disgrace … and I will be down there calling for the [United States Holocaust Memorial] council to condemn him, and, if we have the power, to remove him,” – Ed Koch

http://www.forward.com/articles/koch-calls-for-pundits-ouster-from-shoah-council/

“I don’t think Prager is a bigot. I just think he doesn’t quite understand or believe in the concept of pluralism in America.” – Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish

that’s great. do you believe god is the creator. that it’s looking out for our best interests. that there is a hell. that we go to it if we don’t believe. that we had any question in our being created. that your reasoning is flawed. that god’s reason is flawed. etc. I love your explaination. Nothing is provable is the beginning of religion. Prove it.

This is a little gratuitous, but:

Faith

1)unquestioning belief.

4)anything believed.

6) complete trust, confidence, or reliance.

Sourced from the same dictionary I used earlier.

I like Dennis a lot, but I was very disappointed in his weak performance here. I admit I am solidly on Harris’ side, but in my life I have heard some thoughtful arguments for faith that were at least moving and made me think (usually from very sophisticated Catholics). In the end these fail the “teapot test” just as much, but at least you don’t come away thinking the proponent is a dishonest dolt. Dennis usually is not, but on this question . . .

AdamSmithsGhost

But yea, you are saying we are insects if I take you seriously. That is our actions are every bit as determined as an insect’s.

No, you missed the point entirely. Every organism builds a model of the world in its brain, that it uses to navigate. This isn’t faith at all, its simply the instinctive way that all brains work. You may as well then say that computers have faith, for we have robots that do the exact same thing. This has nothing to do with “faith”. Let’s take a look at what the dictionary says about faith:

faith –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Now, my definition of faith conforms exactly to the dictionary definitions of faith. Your definition of faith is nowhere to be found in the definitions of faith.

You are trying to redefine a word to make your argument, because you have no argument. You can’t make an argument based on accepted definitions of the words, but your efforts at redefinition are really quite pathetic, because in the end they do nothing to support the standard definition of faith, which is really what is important to you.

You are pathetically trying to correlate getting out of bed in the morning with belief in fairy tales.

If this is the best defense of your belief system that you have, then we don’t have much to worry about, we’ll be able to get rid of religion quite soon.

In case you haven’t figured it out, let me lay out your little story for you:

Do you believe that God is perfect and all loving, and that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, and have always existed, and that the perfect and loving God created the world, which is now highly flawed, because the perfect people that he created made it that way, and that God selected a special chosen tribe of people, and God commanded these chosen people to rampage across the land committing genocide, which they did, but they still lived mostly as subjects of other civilizations, and then eventually God decided that he needed to spread knowledge of himself to everyone and “redeem the world of its sins”, so he impregnated a virgin and then came into the world in a small, virtually unknown, town where he then tried to prove to his chosen people that he had come to save them, but they didn’t believe him, and then, after preforming various miracles like healing people by casting out demons and walking on water, God had to be killed on Passover as a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, and that it was essential that he be killed in a ritual similar to the blood sacrifice of the Passover lamb, and that through this blood sacrifice a new covenant was created with the people of the world, and that without the shedding of blood this would not have been possible, as-in there was no way for God to make the world a better place without a blood sacrifice that resembled the slaughter of the Passover lamb, and that after he was sacrificed on Passover, according to his own will and destiny, he rose back to life after 3 days to prove once-and-for-all that he really is God, and that the point of all this is that those people who believe that all of this is true will be saved on the day that he comes back to earth to destroy the world, and every person who doesn’t believe in him will suffer eternally, but those that do will “enter into a new kingdom ruled by Jesus”, and our knowledge of this entire plot comes down to use in a divinely inspired perfect book that was dictated to men by God from about 1,000 BC through 100 AD?

Does that sum up your “faith”? Because that is exactly what the Christian story says, and I would argue that if you don’t believe in any of those points, then you are not a Christian and you don’t have “faith” in the Bible.

Now, can you not see how totally insane this bit of ancient mythology is!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????

Yes, based upon your presuppositions.

Is anyone here familiar with the Bobby Fisher story?

If so you’ll understand that the game was over long ago.

The only thing we’ve been discussing is the moves.

You shouldn’t. Know why? Cause it says so in your widdle book.

“Are you saying that insects “have faith”? Yeah, I don’t think so. Somehow I don’t think that Paul was talking about putting your feet on the ground in the morning when he urged his followers to “have faith”.

Personally, I’m not arguing one way or the other on what Paul said, I’m not beholding to what Paul said.

But yea, you are saying we are insects if I take you seriously. That is our actions are every bit as determined as an insect’s.

If you want to insist on your own delusion–so be it. You are free to do a rain dance and believe in yourself as a first mover if you like.

No, that should read “believers are being treated with undue harseness”

(*Damn*)

There’s been some recent chatter about how the believers are being unduly harse in our ad hominems and we should be more civil.

it doesn’t justify stereotyping all believers. Those same folks who don’t think twice about slapping a label on all believers based on the actions of a few would be quick to condemn somebody who used that very same logic toward a particular ethnic group.”

Perhaps the numbers of personal attacks from the godless far outnumber those personal attacks from the faithful. I don’t see it, but I’ll concede this point.

When I look outside this private little conclave of…what was it he called us?…oh yeah, “pseudo-intellectuals”, anyway, when I look outside this community of bloggers into the real world, I see:

Recently, the 4 year old daughter of a brother-in-law of mine in Oregon was told she was not allowed to play with the neighborhood 4 year old son BECAUSE they did not go to church. This labelling of children as “christian” at such a young age is child abuse.

When I here that a man will be beheaded according to Sharia Law (six month old news) in Afghanistan for converting from Islam to Christianity, I have to wonder who it is that’s intolerant.

When I read about a successful Christian Evangelical Minister rail against homosexual marriage while the same time committing adultry, I have to wonder who it is that’s intolerant.

Given all this, I have to wonder if our pleasant banter back and forth between the believers and the godless really is so intolerant.

This is a thread that’s not dying of neglect. There’s enough of us here to keep it interesting. We’ve so gone way beyond the original debate between Harris and Prager. We know neither one has bothered to keep up with this thread, but then we didn’t really need them to, did we? I’m kinda glad those two sparked this wonderful exchange. You?

“Faith is believing in and acting on what you take for granted.” Exactly. Like the self.

I didn’t make the rain dance analogy, but it fits nicely–we believe we exist and therefore like a rain dance we pretend that we do, as if belief in ourselves will cause it to rain (metaphorically speaking), or grant us existence as a self.

Indeed I acknowledge your conception of faith, and I agree, we would live in a very strange, funny, and absurd world without your definition, but nonetheless and I mean this in the broadest sense possible, at our foundation we adopt a worldview that is based on faith–all of our actions are based upon whatever presumption we adopt for understanding existence.

And therefore we are either something or nothing.

Oh, we’re something alright. We can be counted.

It’s God that is either Everything or Nothing. I contend that there is no difference, because one cannot be distinguished from the other. To be distinguishable, something has to have a NOT something. When something becomes Everything it ceases to exist as a distinguishable thing. Everything becomes Nothing.

God = No God.

DO you posters, both theist and atheist alike, realize how pathetic and self-important you sound?
Get lives people!

That would appear to be the respective positions.

“I assume that by ‘faith’ you mean believing things with no evidence or in spite of evidence, correct?” Yes and no.

What I mean by that statement is that at the core of anyone and everyone stands an unverifiable belief, faith, that all the action of an individual depends–an assuming perspective that cannot be proved. Assuming, and this is a hearty assumption, that the will itself exists.

And we must note that your equation has again reduced “beauty,” to a quantity that is counted.

The wonderful, horrifying? aspect of faith is that it is universal. It is the inescapable condition of Man.

“You ask where atheists get their impressions of religious people. Some of it may come from personal experience. I myself have known a lot of religious jerks. Even so, it doesn’t justify stereotyping all believers. Those same folks who don’t think twice about slapping a label on all believers based on the actions of a few would be quick to condemn somebody who used that very same logic toward a particular ethnic group.”

Like wisdom, for instance? think before you think.

Yes, that is how beauty is studied by “science.” And your narrative is an excellent illustration of what is both difficult and exciting for the so called “soft sciences.” Many people of a scientific bent have been chomping at the bit of the strict “scientific method” for some time.

To get past the strict definition, the soft-science disciplines have employed narrative criticism techniques. In other words soft science is a hybrid that is both more and less than narrative criticism and science. Consequently, it runs into trouble with both camps, and really can’t appease either.

Another interesting aspect of your narrative is that it helps account for the modern and post modern dictum that “thou shalt offend the middle brow.” And though this is now the dictum of belief, that was not the original impulse. Rather it was the reductionist impulse of science as illustrated in your narrative that led artists to react as they did.

Note that this too gives an interesting illustration on the evolution of belief.

Does any one know who first said: If God didn’t exist, we would have invented him? I’d like to give proper credit.

While it doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of God, I believe it helps to put God’s existence in perspective for many of us. I took my dog for a walk the morning after a freezing rain. Every tree and blade of grass was crystal and the wind made a million branches into chimes. My reaction was drop jawed “Wow! My dog on the other hand could care less. He was happily running around obeying his instincts. Like the color of their fur and the curl of their tail, dogs have inherited memories like chasing cars and rolling in smelly stuff to cover their scent. It drives us crazy but a hundred generations ago his ancestors developed those habits to hunt for food. They are useless to him now as a pet. Yet he and most other animals that I can think of continue to be motivated by instincts. Often their survival depends on it. Sometimes, like lemmings, it dictates their destruction.

My point is, while most of our instincts have evolved out of us, something different has evolved into the human species. Some of it too is destructive. Mahatma Ghandi said, “There is enough in this world for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.” There is also that which makes us creative appreciators, which gives us a unique perspective to most other creatures and organisms over our place in the universe. Not only can we express our feelings and emotions like, “Wow” but more importantly we, above all other creatures that we know of, ask Why? The theists among us would say that is the way God is revealed to us. The atheists would say, “See how far we have evolved.”

The problem with “Why” questions for us mere mortals is that there aren’t always easy answers. So in our need or arrogance, we make up answers, or we accept blindly the historic answers of our culture, (small ‘a’ addictions), or we are willing to accept someone else’s answers if they say it loud enough from a pulpit. Or we go into long drawn out debates between stubborn mindsets. Our egos don’t like, ‘I don’t know’ as an answer.

As an insignificant speck living a brief fragile existance on another pale blue speck way out on the edge of our galaxy God knows where in the Universe, I have no idea and no hope in hell of knowing the absolute answers to all my Whys. But I do need to cope with my context, with my sick child, with the inequalities and injustices of my world that often seems like it is headed for destruction. Or, as an appreciator, I need to stand in awe of hoar frost or forces that lift mountains or my new granddaughter. So I compromise absolute truths for ones that help me cope for now.

There are forces and processes at work in the universe, in my world and within me that are far greater than I can comprehend. My Whys, my very ability to ask the questions, give me, and all thinking, reasoning persons, a connection non the less to universal truths, which we will never understand. In our need to name that connection, we invented God. Does that God meddle in my personal life? Probably not but someone once suggested that in the absence of answers, we learn to love the questions. — Don

Your points are well made. I didn’t mean to imply that I percieve it to be a balanced argument with no personal conclusion drawn. What I meant is that there was never an argument for the existance of God that was not based solely on man’s inability to answer a given question or conceive a given process. The scientific arguments have been causing God to retreat into ever smaller spaces and ever more distant locations, as works that were attributed to the guiding hand of God have been explained and documented via natural and predictable processes. But as the realm of God’s divine influence has been understood to finer detail, the arguments of those who insist on his existance simply make exception after exception to allow themselves to keep believing. The failure of the Bible to account for the fossil record, the size and age of the universe, the heliocentric structure of our solar system, etc. At the end of the day, there are two camps: those who see the evidence that the religious stories are fairy tales, and those who are in such desperate need for belonging that they will forgo there own ability to logically assess a situation in order to maintain their ability to feel as though there is someone at the wheel. No advancement or provable error in the story they are telling will be accepted, because faith is the opposite of reason. Reason must be disregarded for faith to continue, because every time it is dutifully applied, the flaws in the faith become glaring. Buth what I meant by tired arguments and exercise in mental deficiency is that having knowledge and being able to impart it successfully to another are different things. I don’t know of any intelligent adult whose mind has been changed by any such arguments, although it pains me to say.

Wht a debate. The atheist clearly wins this debate on points. He’s better at it. And he addresses the points clearly and carefully, with insightful answers.

BUT

a bad advocate doesn’t make someone guilty.

I think the whole IQ thing going on in the comments is actually illustrative of the key tension at the heart of this debate. It’s a matter of quantitative, scientific argument, vs religious, belief based argument. And that fight can’t be won either way, because the rules are different on both sides.

Prager says he believes in God, but essentially he can’t prove that one exists, and that is a valid position. But Harris is all about science (the proving of theories by rigorous, rational testing, resulting in evidence based data to support those theories). I think the problem this debate highlights is the inability of extremists (atheist ones or religious ones) to accept and respect others’ beliefs. If one man needs data to allow his beliefs, then so be it. If another does not, fine. They just need to be prepared to co-exist peacefully.

This, in my opinion, is the issue worthy of debate. The anger referred to in the original question ‘why are atheists so angry?’ is the same anger that atheists encounter from the other side. It’s the anger of believing / knowing you are right, and everyone else is wrong. And until we all get over that anger and accept that we simply *disagree*, then we won’t ever learn to live with those tensions.

There’s no dogmatism like dogmatism. You insist on proofs from your opponent that you are unwilling to engage in for yourself.

I can’t answer for the bulk of your rejoinder because I did not argue, or present those points. As to hardness and softness, for science they are short hand terms for quantitative significations–molecular structure, etc.

I do however stand by mine.

The arguments, as they are, put forth in defense of the belief in God are tired and old. For that matter, the alternate camp has offered nothing fresh either. Ultimately, debating the unprovable is an interesting exercise in experimenting with mental deficiency.

I disagree. The philosophical arguments for the existence of a creator of the universe have not changed at all in over 2,400 years, going back to the Greeks and the arguments put fourth by Plato and/or the Stoics. There isn’t one single new argument that is different from what they put forward those thousands of years ago.

On the other hand, the arguments on the other side, against the existence of an intelligent creator have advanced tremendously, especially within the last 200 years, with ever mounting evidence on the side against an intelligent creator and against so-called “supernaturalism” in general.

In favor of an intelligent creator:

• Matter can’t come from nowhere and there has to be a first cause, thus the first cause has to be “supernatural”.
• “Just look at how well designed life is, it had to have been designed by some intelligent force!”
• But love makes me feel so special, when I look into a babies eyes, I know that there is a God!

We are the only life forms that can comprehend the universe, so a creator must have created the universe for us.

• People have a dual nature. Our minds are a product of a supernatural soul and our body is just material. Our minds and emotions can only be explained by a supernatural soul.

In favor of a purely natural universe:

• The problem of evil: If there is an intelligent creator, then why is there so much pain, suffering, and injustice in the world, a malevolent creator?
• The theory of evolution: The means by which life and other complex structures can form naturally has been principly been explained, not only does the theory of evolution explain how complex forms can naturally develop, but it also explain the problem of evil, because evolutionary systems are competitive, etc.
• Natural history reveals that the earth and universe are extremely old, and that for most of time people have not existed, this also fits with the theory of evolution.
• Neuro-science reveals that humans thought that animal thought is not fundamentally different. Animals also have emotions and, though less complex, they also exhibit self-awareness, communication, value judgment, etc.
• Mind-body duality is completely rejected by science. Human though is purely a product of material processes, chemical reactions, etc.

Notice that all of the argument in favor of a purely natural universe reinforce each other.

The only issue with the purely natural explanation is that we can’t explain the origin of the universe, which presupposes that there was an origin, but this is a false deficiency of the naturalistic argument, because the “intelligent creator” argument can’t prove that their proposition is correct, they have just through it out there, i.e. it is an unjustified claim. The justifications that are attempted are all refuted by the naturalistic argument. The problem of evil refutes the creator, natural selection refutes the need for a designer, and not only the need, but it better explains what we see than design does.

As I said, these arguments are ancient, but the different is that the naturalistic argument has become justified:

In favor of a creator:

Must I not here express my wonder that anyone should exist who persuades himself that there are certain solid and indivisible particles carried along by their own impulse and weight, and that a universe so beautiful and so admirably arrayed is formed from the accidental concourse of those particles? I do not understand why the man who supposes that to have been possible should not also think that if a countless number of the forms of the one and twenty letters, whether in gold or any other material, were to be thrown somewhere, it would be possible, when they had been shaken out upon the ground, for the annals of Ennius to result from them so as to be able to be read consecutively,—a miracle of chance which I incline to think would be impossible even in the case of a single verse. Yet, as the Epicureans assure us, it was from minute particles possessing neither color, nor any kind of quality, nor sensation, but coming together by chance and accident, that the world was produced, or rather that innumerable worlds are, within each instant of time, either coming into being or departing from it. But if a concourse of atoms is able to form the universe, why cannot they form a portico, or temple, or house, or city, things which are less, far less elaborate?
…
[W]ho would ascribe the intelligence of a man to him who when he saw such regularity in the movements of the heavens, such stability in the order of the stars, such interconnection and mutual coherence in all things, denied the presence of any reason in these, and described as the result of chance things which are administered with a skill to which we cannot by any skill attain? Or is it that when we see anything such as a globe, or horologe, or numerous other things, moving by means of some kind of mechanism, we make no question of their being the work of intelligence, and yet are skeptical, although we see the heavens rushing on with marvelous speed, and bringing about with the utmost regularity the yearly recurring changes of the seasons by their revolution, ensuring thereby the most complete well-being and preservation of all things,—are we, I say, skeptical as to such phenomena being the result not merely of intelligence, but of an intelligence which is exalted and divine? For we may now set aside the refinements of argument, and survey, as it were, with our eyes the beauty of the things which we say were instituted by the divine providence.

And in the first place let us note the earth as a whole, which is situated in the central quarter of the universe, and is solid, spherical, gathered at every point into that shape by its own gravity, and clothed with flowers, herbs, trees, and fruits, the incredible multitude of all these being set off by a variety which cannot tire. Add to them the cool perennial springs, the liquid transparency of the rivers, the green covering of the banks, the vast hollows of the caves, the rugged rocks, the lofty overhanging mountains, and the boundless plains; add, too, the hidden veins of gold and silver, and the limitless wealth of marble. And what tribes of animals, there are, both tame and wild, and how various! what flights and songs of birds, what grazing of cattle, what forms of woodland life! How shall I next speak of the race of men, the appointed cultivators, as it were, of the earth, who neither allow it to become the lair of savage beasts, nor to be turned into a waste by a rough undergrowth, and whose handiwork makes bright the fields and islands and coasts, dotting them with houses and cities? If we could see these things with our eyes, as we can with our mind, no one, when he gazed upon the earth in its completeness, would doubt as to the divine intelligence.
…
The conclusion is thus reached upon every hand, and from every consideration, that everything in this universe is marvelously administered by the divine intelligence and forethought with a view to the safety and preservation of all things. But it will be asked for whose sake so vast a work was carried out. Was it for the sake of trees and herbs, which though without sensation are nevertheless sustained by Nature? No, that at any rate is absurd. Was it for the sake of animals? It is equally improbable that the gods went to such pains for beings that are dumb and without understanding. For whose sake, then, would one say that the universe was formed? For the sake, undoubtedly, of those animate beings that exercise reason. These are gods and men, whom nothing assuredly transcends in excellence, since reason is the highest of all things. It is thus credibly established that the universe and everything that is in it were made for the sake of gods and men.
– The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE

In favor of naturalism:

[T]he world was produced by the working of nature, without there having been any need for a process of manufacture, and that what your school declares to be capable of accomplishment only by means of divine intelligence is a thing so easy that nature will produce, and is producing, and has produced worlds without end. It is because you do not see how nature can accomplish this without the help of some kind of mind that, like the tragic poets, in your inability to bring the plot to a smooth conclusion, you have recourse to a god. Yet you would certainly feel no need for his agency if you had before your eyes the expanse of region, unmeasured and on every side unbounded, upon which the mind may fasten and concentrate itself, and where it may wander far and wide without seeing any farthermost limit upon which to be able to rest. Now in this immensity of length and breadth and height there floats an infinite quantity of innumerable atoms which, in spite of the intervening void, nevertheless join together, and through one seizing upon one, and another upon another, form themselves into connected wholes, by which means are produced those forms and outlines of the material world which your school is of opinion cannot be produced without bellows and anvils. You have therefore placed our necks beneath the yoke of a perpetual tyrant, of whom we are to go in fear by day and night, for who would not fear a god who foresaw everything, considered everything, noted everything, and looked upon himself as concerned in everything,—a busy and prying god? From this has come, in the first place, your idea of preordained necessity, which you call ? ???????, meaning by the term that every event that occurs had its origin in eternal truth and the chain of causation—(though what is to be thought of a philosophy that holds the ignorant old crone’s belief that everything happens by destiny?)—and secondly your art of ?????? , or divinatio, as it is called in Latin, which, if we were willing to listen to you, would imbue us with such superstition that we should have to pay regard to soothsayers, augurs, diviners, prophets, and interpreters of dreams. From these terrors we have been released by Epicurus, and claimed for freedom; we do not fear beings of whom we understand that they neither create trouble for themselves, nor seek it for others, and we worship, in piety and holiness, a sublime and exalted nature.
- The Nature of the Gods; Cicero, 45 BCE

The only reason more people have been attributed killed by Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler is that they had better weapons and better technology in the past 100 years, and it is more memorable due to it recent history. Once the Islamic fundementalists like Iran’s Ahmadinejad get there nuclear ducks in a row they will create the new gold standard. More killed by religious fanatics in the shortest amount of time. I think if you add up cumulatively the number of people killed in the name of any God (over the past 6000 years or so in all cultures including the Mayas, Aztecs, Eqyptians, the Romans, Islamic empires, Christianity (Inquisition) etc. verses secular murderers (like Jeff Dalmer, Ted Bundy). I believe you would find the theists are way ahead in the death toll. I think it is an intellectual mistake to equate atheism with communist revolutionary zeal which is much more akin to religious zealotry. Is it not troubling to this argument that Iran’s staunchest allies are Communist countries like China, Russia and Venezuela. Their common thread is hatred of democracy and freedom.

Why does no god deal a serious blow?

Certainly, science should teach the theory of evolution, but when science veers into philosophy and doesn’t announce that it is doing so, and makes claims it cannot make under the guise of its own authority, well that is a problem. Actually that, for lack of a better word, is hubris.

Darwin’s book would have had a more mete title had it been called the evolution of the species, the mechanism of change responsible for differentiation over time.

I am always concerned too when anyone simple assumes truths rather than demonstrating them. Isn’t that the point of rationalism?

Yes, and that is the whole point of free will. I can’t help it if my fellow theists don’t see that.

Lets not quibble over quables. I’ll accept your Wikipedia definition if you’ll accept my Webster’s–deal?

The arguments, as they are, put forth in defense of the belief in God are tired and old. For that matter, the alternate camp has offered nothing fresh either. Ultimately, debating the unprovable is an interesting exercise in experimenting with mental deficiency. What I encounter, as often as not, in this endeavor is the reference to some deeper meaning in life. What is telling about this to me is that this experience of meaning is subjective. It is the believer who sees the meaning as dependent upon God’s existence. The athesit/agnostic seems to find meaning without the presence of God. My extrapolation is that the inability to determine one’s value on one’s own is a stronger argument for the individual’s need for God than it is for the God itself. It is not even so much the debate itself, as the motivation behind the debate. God, if real, exists regardless of the conclusions or convincing arguments of man. However, the world of the believer is dealt a serious blow if the argument is defeated. The atheist/agnostic gains nothing by God’s denial, either way. The theist gains a license to continue dodging the responsibility of intellectual achievement by insisting on the premise. I assert it is the aversion to confronting the subconsciously understood obligation which has retarded the effective advancement of society. The religious fear the quantitative because, as study after study shows, empirical evidence proves that we are, in fact, on our own.

I’ve been reading quite a few posts on here of believers wanting to ask atheists where thoughts such as love and caring came from. I’m going to have to use a wonderful quote that was posted earlier; ‘A lone primate is a dead primate’.

As evolving creatures out on the vast plains of Africa, it would have been pointless to go our separate ways, as we could do much more together. And such, we had to develop social skills so that we could interact safely with other people. We came to the conclusion that killing in cold blood was wrong, because it disrupted the unity in the group. We learned that it was far better to work things out with someone instead of just fight, as death was to be avoided at all costs. We saw the reason behind helping others in our clan, because the clan needed everyone’s help, and to help you had to be alive.

As we evolved further, these morals became instilled in us. For instance, there is an ingrained behavior of revulsion when a human hears of someone hurting a child. Thus, as we feel disgust when children are hurt, we rush to try and keep our children from hurting.

Love is another thing that has evolved. First off, romantic love and it’s power is a reasonably modern idea. It used to be that the idea of marrying for love was idiotic. After all, you needed to have a compatible mate who could give you the best chance of survival, first and foremost. Love was expected to come later and with time. Romantic love isn’t as much based in the need to successfully reproduce. It is true that pheromones play a big part in the choosing of a mate, and usually the pheromones we respond to are ones which give us the best genetic variability, but that’s really where reproduction ends. Here, basic psychology comes into play. If we enjoy something, we want to be as close to that something as possible. This is love. You like someone’s basic features and intellect, you get a neuron rush from enjoying that person’s company, and your mind wants it again.

Now, granted, I am a deist. I have no idea with the idea that a deity started off the beginning of time. However, whether that being is even sentient is unknown to me. I seriously doubt that God (or whatever that Beginning Creator was) has stuck around. I don’t think an all powerful God would need to send a person down who could show off ‘God’s mystical powers’. And I don’t see why we would be the species God would want to be around him for all eternity. Personally, if I could choose a species to have around with me for all time I’d choose dogs hands down, because they don’t hold grudges and are generally ‘better people’ than people.

Atheists do have moral codes. And our moral codes are almost exactly the same as those of the religious, with the exception that we don’t believe in a puppet master. I can guarantee that if you asked an atheist and a theist what they thought about killing children, the answer would be the same. If you asked the two an endless amount of questions like that that didn’t involve religion, you’d be hard pressed to find a difference.

What makes atheists angry? It’s the belief that we are heartless bastards, frankly. And I know that I personally am extremely peeved at the people who champion ID, because they are trying to put religion into my science class. I have no issue with schools teaching comparative religion courses, however in science, I’ll take the most current, well respected scientific theory with the most solid data behind it.

After all, I don’t want to go into your church and tell you that what you believe is crap. I don’t care, frankly, because if religion makes someone feel safe and secure, than I’m more than willing to accept that and be glad for the person. Just please, respect that my belief in the nature of things is what brings me happiness and provide me with the same respect.

Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin used the expression “By the Preservation of Favored Races” in the subtitle to The Origin of Species only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

Its funny, you Christians just come up with one set of lies after the next. You constantly try to re-write history to suit your delusion.

You claim that Hitler was an atheist, even though he was a self-declared Christian and the Nazi state was an ultra-religious regime. True not all Nazis were Christians, and they did try to bring the churches under the control of the state, but they were still MAJOR promoters of religion and known atheists were put into concentration camps simply for being atheists. Indeed the VERY FIRST people that the Nazi rounded up were atheists, in 1933.

Then we have this whole “Darwin was a racist” nonsense, and now the new thing is “Darwin inspired the Holocaust”.

You don’t care anything about the truth or historical accuracy, you just want to support your delusion.

Well, I’ll have you know that I have written articles on both of these subjects and privately debated Dr. Richard Weikart, the leading liar on this subject, and worked with Edwin Black, a leading Jewish writer no the Holocaust.

Please take the time to inform yourself:

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist

As for the title of Darwin’s book, he never ONCE, in that entire book applies the term race to people, he doesn’t even discuss human evolution in Origin of Species. “Race” was a term used to describe varieties within a species, and a major point of his theory was that competition is greatest within species, hence the full title.

Some real quotes from Darwin:

Darwin here building the argument against the dominant belief in his day that “Africans” “Europeans”, Asians”, etc. were different species. He later goes on to show that all people are the same species, a minority opinion at the time:

Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. … This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
– Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

… There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. …

Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters.
– The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. … This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.

The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise that we ought to control our thoughts, and “not even in inmost thought to think again the sins that made the past so pleasant to us.” Whatever makes any bad action familiar to the mind, renders its performance by so much the easier. As Marcus Aurelius long ago said, “Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.”
– Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
…
The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.
– Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man’s nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection;
– Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

The moral faculties are generally and justly esteemed as of higher value than the intellectual powers. But we should bear in mind that the activity of the mind in vividly recalling past impressions is one of the fundamental though secondary bases of conscience. This affords the strongest argument for educating and stimulating in all possible ways the intellectual faculties of every human being.
– Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
- Letter from Darwin to J.S. Henslo, March 1834

My wife has just finished reading aloud your ‘Life with a Black Regiment,’ and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking.
– Letter from Darwin to Thomas Higginson, February 27, 1873

Also, on the Nazi’s religiosity:

Fascism Part I: Understanding Fascism and anti-Semitism

As for citing Darwin, Darwin was a known racist.

And Jesus was a known criminal.

Phinnaeus,
A lovely way to make a point. merci mon ami.
mikejswalker.

Your rancorous portrayal of Darwin as a “racist” by either regurgitating disinformation, egregious reinterpretation of his writings, or other malicious contrivances is utter propaganda.

The text of Charles Darwin&’s The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, cited by many (evolutionary) biologists, anthropologists, etc., neither contains nor implies the claim that you and others allege.

Zealously self-conceited people (be they anti-evolutionists or anti-theists,) are invariably eager to employ such tactics of memetic engineering. It is unfortunate that this strategy is as effective as it is (as witnessed by the heinous perpetration of the anti-Semitic The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.)

Right, and furthermore, bananas are shaped perfectly for man.

And, er, monkeys.

Oops.

In response to my citing my own academic achievement you point an accusatory finger and state:

Ahhh… so now the PhDs are beyond reproach, but when they come out with papers supporting evolution, or like Dawkins, against beliefs in gods, then the PhDs are just guys in funny white coats…

Nonse. Utter nonsense.

I cite my experience as having been around folks like Harris long enough to know that academia is filled with blowhards.

Then again, so is this blog.

As for citing Darwin, Darwin was a known racist.

Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin used the expression “By the Preservation of Favored Races” in the subtitle to The Origin of Species only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book.

Darwin claimed that the “fight for survival” also applied between human races. “Favored races” emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind…

I have made many posts here already, and I wonder if it is just the five of us in here. It’s been fun, kind of like banging my head against a brick wall. You know, in theory it is important that people evolve sufficient intellect to escape the urge to place value on imaginary friends. But in practice, all we really need is for people to stop infusing the public discourse with ideas based on the desires of said imaginary friends. When I hear friends of mine who are religious scoff at standard thoughts of antiquity (flat earth, geocentric universe, rain gods, etc), I laugh internally. I can’t imagine how embarassing it would be to encounter someone from a future date, when religion has finally been laid to rest, and have to explain what was wrong with eveyone such that this debate was even necessary. Metaphysics and the study thereof is great. Explore, hypothesize, tests hypotheses. But the idea of a specific God with moods and who changes his mind relating to interpersonal trivia is so primitive. Above the frustration even lies an overgrown feeling of crushing embarassment.

Here is what Harris wrote:

After finding himself powerless to detect any errors in the philosophizing of C.S. Lewis (a truly ominous sign), Collins describes the moment that he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ:

“On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.”

If this account of field research seems a little thin, don’t worry-a recent profile of Collins in Time magazine offers supplementary data. Here, we learn that the waterfall was frozen in three streams, which put the good doctor in mind of the Trinity. It is at this point that thoughts of suicide might occur to any reader who has placed undue trust in the intellectual integrity of his fellow human beings. One would hope that it would be immediately obvious to Collins that there is nothing about seeing a frozen waterfall (no matter how frozen) that offers the slightest corroboration of the doctrine of Christianity. But it was not obvious to him as he “knelt in the dewy grass,” and it is not obvious to him now. Indeed, I fear that it will not be obvious to many of his readers.

Harris does not say that Collins used the frozen waterfall for an “argument” to support the trinity, he never made that claim at all, so I am afraid that is a Prager who is the one distorting things.

Harris’ commentary on the subject in his review of the book was spot on. Converting to Christianity because of the majestic beauty of the outdoors is just plain absurd, and by no means does it offer a meaningful justification of his beliefs.

Had he been a part of a Hindu culture, or Islamic culture, or Invisible Pink Unicorn culture, he would have converted to those religions. It was just a purely emotional response, from someone who obviously too concerned with the specific relationships between his experience and various claims of the Christian system, etc.

It is interesting, that Charles Darwin discussed a similar experience that he had, but his conclusion were quite different.

“At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.

“Formerly I was led by feelings such as those just referred to (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, “it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.” I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind, and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.
- Charles Darwin, Macmillan’s Magazine,July 1861

As for this statement:

As a one-time graduate student (who graduated cum laude, I might add – it’s a sad dog that won’t wag his own tail), I can attest to self declared experts because they read a book. Standing on the shoulders of giants is not the same as being a giant.

Ahhh… so now the PhDs are beyond reproach, but when they come out with papers supporting evolution, or like Dawkins, against beliefs in gods, then the PhDs are just guys in funny white coats…

You don’t have to have any kind to degree to see through the sorry excuse for reason that is presented in Dr. Collins’ book.

“there is some level of abstraction and generalization, but that does not make those abstractions and generalizations meaningless.” Indeed, I did not say anything about it being meaningless.

No, I am not desperate, merely re-stating a self statement.

“The key to science is that it is an open system of careful data collection and peer review.” Indeed data is quantifiable. Correlations and statistical analysis depends upon, as I’m sure you know, being able to acept or reject null as a dependent of a variable.

With “counting,” I am using that as a symbol, obviously, vary complex studies in both the soft science and hard are undertaken every day–thankfully, but though you state hardness and softness as qualities, actually those are shorthand for numerical truths. That is they can be demonstrably proved with numbers, and in fact for science their actuality depends on such.

In his column, day three, Harris misrepresents Dr. Collins. You can re-read it for yourself, B.

To qoote Prager: “Dr. Collins did not offer three waterfalls as an argument for belief in the Trinity, not even in your isolated citation from his book or in the single sentence in Time. All he said was that three waterfalls reminded of him of the Christian Trinity and that after observing such awesome beauty he became a believing Christian.”

But that didn’t matter, did it. After all, he’s enlightened. So he can lie about things and then be loved for it.

Pragers comical line in Day 2 stating where Harris claimed he could debate Collins’ expertise as he was familiar with his material. . . since he’s a grad student. “So if, as a graduate student in neuroscience, you have already approached Collins’s level of expertise”.

As a one-time graduate student (who graduated cum laude, I might add – it’s a sad dog that won’t wag his own tail), I can attest to self declared experts because they read a book. Standing on the shoulders of giants is not the same as being a giant.

That a PhD candidate would think that Dr. Collins would take his offer to debate seriously shows he’s cut from the same cloth as a Cindy Sheehan who disgraces her sons service virtually every time she opens her mouth, thinking the President of the United States is obligated to speak with her. . . again.

Well, I would have responded earlier, but I had been reading a page posted by Zhangliqun. You should check it–has some very witty, insightful, and funny quotes from various luminaries. By the time I came back, I was predisposed to laugh at your acerbic wit even though I was laughing at my expense, but unfortunately it was late and I was tired, but I still cannot agree with your summation, and I see that my statement does not satisfy, fair enough, and so we carry on–so it goes.

Before proceeding, just in case my minor epithet “but so it goes,” is wrongly taken as sarcasm, it’s not. But I can see how it could be, because my reference is probably too oblique to Kurt Vonnegut’s, “Slaughter House Five.”

“But so it goes,” is my admission of the fact that I can’t remake the world in my image.” I think a similar observation is recurrent in the movie “My Life as a Dog.” Anyway, the world would be a very uninteresting place if talking to you was just like talking to me.

Okay, so why do I disagree with your summation? I’ll focus on your first critique because it is the foundation of your second.

To begin with you mischaracterize my position: “I don’t know is preferable to making up a story,” restated in the second as “It is better to have consciousness from God than it is to have no consciousness without God. Since neither can be proved, God is better”; and finally, “Therefore God exists.”

First of all, if I say neither can be proved (meaning arguments), then I emphatically do not state “therefore God exists.” You’ll further note that I end my argument with, “Who’s to say what’s true,” after having begun with, “why I choose to believe in God.”

Both are admissions of condition: that we are dealing with unprovable concepts. And in truth, I felt that after having written “Glaringly obvious,” that I should pony up on why I believe what I believe. It can be too facile to critique another’s position without stating your own. I have no doubt that a few were quite tired of my arguments, but I restated them in new language as a way of stating why “I choose to believe in god.”

Secondly, I do not state that “God is better.” That is your inference. And while I may agree with your inference personally, I specifically chose not to make that statement as a universal, because again it is not provable. And in fact, I cannot choose to believe in God because it is a better rational choice. In presenting the two unprovable conditions of existence we have reached the end of the line for reason as a tool for making a choice. It can present the rational basis, but it cannot suggest a preference. My position is it is either a matter of choice, or it is determined. Either it is based on faith, or it simply is.

Okay, so on to your critique of my argument, which I agree is rational, but is based upon assumptions we do not share.

First lets deal with the fixed rules of nature. I think we can agree that cause and effect, chaos theory, relativity, complex system theory are all theories based on observations of what nature actually does. They are extrapolations. But the truth is that nature and any laws we assign to it, and any laws that nature appears to follow are one and the same thing, (assuming in the case of our theories that our theories are correct). Existence no more depends upon our observation than does the existence of the moon.

So to say that nature obeys the fixed laws of nature is actually to say that nature is nature, or existence is existence. Or if you will, a statement of law vs nature is a false dichotomy.

And while we’re discussing complexity, which would say is more complex the human brain or existence?

What does not being able to predict future manifestation based on complexity theory prove? Does it mean that existence is not in constant relationship to itself? Does it mean that we do not yet have the knowledge to go beyond complexity theory? Again, existence as such is an absolute constant. It determines itself from its advent according to the law of itself, or rather its constant manifestation. Complexity does not prove intentionality.

Even if we could say that the brain exhibits behavior consistent with complex theorems, that still could not suggest that their is suddenly an “I,” law giver, dichotomy, directing and moving the phenomena of itself.

Second, this is a bleed over from the first, but yes I agree with you that from an atheistic point-of-view man cannot disobey nature. The difference between our positions (and this goes for the dog analogy too) is that I state that the “laws of nature,” do not stop at an arbitrary point that we call “consciousness.”

Both you, a dog, and everything that is existence is in relationship to itself. Its relationship to itself determines manifestation and not something called a consciousness. When, where, and what we eat, drink, when we are merry, when and how we sneeze, move, or not move is all existence determining its relationship with itself. No different than the fall of a speck of dust as determined by the observable laws and determining relationships that are merely a subset of existence itself (which are nothing more than extrapolations, observations of existence). Or to put it another way–there is absolutely no significance to anything, and may abstractly be said to be absolutely determined.

The problem isn’t whether a man can will himself to the moon, and quite obviously fail because such an assertion and intentionality is patently false based upon the laws of nature, but rather, that man has no will to begin with.

To suggest we have will, that admittedly is confined in its actions by what is permissible by the laws of nature, is to suggest that we determine nature. And though that seems self evidently apparent, that is all it is, appearance. There is no evidence that “will” is a fact of nature. That is there is no evidence for a first mover.

Third. Nothing intends to be anything. It simply is: whether a concept of unintentional evolution, or a rock.

If consciousness determines itself, to the extent that it can determine itself, it is free from the determining force of nature.

Fourth. The complexity called “consciousness” happens at the end of the sequence. Exactly, except it is not consciousness. It is not a first mover. It is just the most current manifestation of complexity. As you state, everything is derivative. But with this qualification, exactly derivative.

So again, I assert, we can no more prove the spontaneous advent of consciousness (no matter how primitive a consciousness you want to propose, it is still spontaneous) than we can assert god. Both by definition are first movers, because both exhibit an autonomy from nature–though obviously not of the same magnitude.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

Zhangliqun:

I am saying only that a meaningless world and universe is the inevitable result of taking belief in a Godless universe to its logical conclusion, and that therefore any ‘fruit’ of said meaningless universe (our lives) must therefore be likewise meaningless.

I’ve never understood why christians believe that having a God results in there being any more meaning.

Ben

I must caution you however that “This study is done rationally through observation of nature; That is science,” can be a trap.

Reason is always a tool in the service of something else.

Science as wonderful as it is, and it is, is the master at counting, but then that is all science does, and in fact can do. If it can’t count it then for science “it” doesn’t exit. That is science only deals in the quantity of something, never the quality of anything.

So I googled quality in science and discovered this from wikipedia:

In the social sciences, qualitative research is a broad term that describes research that focuses on how individuals and groups view and understand the world and construct meaning out of their experiences. Qualitative research methods are sometimes used together with quantitative research methods to gain deeper understanding of the causes of social phenomena, or to help generate questions for further research. Unlike quantitative methods, qualitative research methods place little importance on developing statistically valid samples, or on searching for statistical support for hypotheses.

Instead, qualitative research focuses on the understanding of research phenomena in situ, within their naturally-occurring context(s). One aim of the qualitative researcher is to tease out the meaning(s) the phenomena have for the actors or participants. Quantitative studies, however, may also observe phenomena in situ and address issues of meaning, and one criticism of this approach to qualitative research is that the definitions offered of it do not distinguish it adequately from quantitative research (for more on this issue, and about the debate over the merits of qualitative and quantitative approaches, see qualitative psychological research).

Generally (though there are exceptions), qualitative research studies rely on three basic data gathering techniques: participant observation, interview, and social artifact (usually, documents) content analysis. Each of these techniques represents a continuum of from less to more structured. Various studies or particular techniques may rely more heavily on one data gathering technique or another.

Epistemologically qualitative methods insist that we should not invent the viewpoint of the actor, and should only attribute to them ideas about the world they actually hold, in order that we can truly understand their motives, reasons and actions.

So is your assertion correct that science cannot address the issue of quality but only quantity?

athiests are angry because we’re sick of listening to arrogant know-it-all christians with their fairytale mentality telling us that we will burn in hell for eternity because we don’t believe in Santa Clause, err, Jesus. We are angry because its infuriating to know that you will always remain completely unrepresented in your government. we are angry because of all the mindless tripe spouted on this board by christians who can’t understand what it means to live life according your own values and claim that because we refuse to take the easy out and outsource our morality to a fairytale we must be incapable of living meaningful moral lives and contributing to the world. we’re angry because after thousands of years of doing everything possible to stop scientific progress and murdering hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of people for daring to think outside the box, christians now have the gall to claim that THEY are responsible for the advances of science. We’re angry because our children are still forced to pledge alligience to a god that doesn’t exist every day in PUBLIC schools. We’re angry because, all things said and done, christians are just about the most intolerant, close-minded, knee-jerk-reactionary idiots immaginable (second only to muslims), and we’re angry because now that the American Taliban has taken control of both major political parties there is virtually no hope any of these trends will change.

Why wouldn’t we be angry?

morality is easy for an athiest, and far more logical and unconvoluted then it is for a theist. let me explain

points:
1 – there is no creator-diety who sprang magically from nothing and created everything, and that all life is the result of evolution, not the handiwork of said diety.
2 – this proccess of evolution occurs in groups (as proven by Peter Kropotkin in his classic “Mutual Aid, a Factor in Evolution), not individuals; and is therefore a social proccess.
3 – accordingly, the continued vitality of this social proccess is a pre-requisite for the the continued health, welfare, and even existence of our species – and every other species for that matter.
4 – the basic biological imperative of every speceis (though not neccessarily every member of every species) is to perpetuate itself. the competition for resources created by this drive is the engine of natural selection and evolution.
5- In keeping with this basic evolutionary imperative, breeding groups – be they tribes, clans, or nations – determine values based on their own local circumstances and their survival needs in order to increase the likelihood that the group will compete effectively for resources. Those things which contribute to the survival of the group are “Good” and those which harm the groups chances for survival are “bad.”

By way of evidence, virtually all religious “morality” claims can be directly traced to this source. murder and intra-group violence are frowned on in most societies because they are seen as hurting the solidarity of the group and lowering everyone’s chances for survival. Inbreeding is discouraged in most societies because it harms the genepool. the jewish Kosher rules on preperation of food were an early attempt to codify sanitation in food preperation. restrictions against homosexuality were put into place in the abrahamic religions because of concerns that it would decrease the number of children being born and thus negatively impact the growth of the breeding group – an argument still heard in courtrooms in the US when christians argue that Gay marriage should not be legalized. Whether that argument is actually relevant or metiorious at this point in history is, of course, another matter entirely; but it originated with the evolutionary imperative – not by divine decree.

On a larger scale, Genocide – such as the one committed by the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, and others, by European immigrants against the indigionous peoples of this continent or the one one currently being perpetuated by eauropean immigrants of jewish descent against the indiginous people of Palestine – are all immoral because at the point where entire breeding groups can be wiped out no breeding group is safe. In other words, as an evolutionist my self-interest dictates that I look out for the self-interest of my neighbors because if I fail to do so I have no right to expect them to look out for mine. True believers, by contrast, have failed to oppose every single one of these genocides, and in fact have used their religions to justify them. Even now fundamentalist jews in israel and christions in the united states support the ongoing ethnic cleansing of palestine under the justification that “god” gave the land of israel to the jews thousands of years ago.

I could continue but by now you should get the point.

Incidentally, the fact that in 2006 orthodox Jews won’t eat cheeseburgers because a two thousand + year old instruction manual for sanitation in food preperation says you shouldn’t mix meat with dairy points towards a major argument against the usefullness or organized religion. Codified written religions – such as those in the Abrahamic tradition and as oppossed to traditional tribal / ethnic religions – are based on the idea that “revealed” truths are eternal and unchanging and thus must be codified and followed to the letter regardless of changing circumstances. This insistance on preserving outdated and irrelevant facets of value systems which evolved under radically different conditions then those which now prevail is a clear and present danger to meaningful morality in a contemporary setting because it discourages people from rationally assessing their surroundings and deciding what is right and wrong for themselves, and insists that instead they should GIVE UP THEIR CAPACITY TO REASON and delegate responsibility for their actions to a predetermined code of laws which may or may not actually meet their needs or the needs of the groups to which they belong.

Further, the practice of giving up ones moral autonomy and letting someone else determine what is right and wrong for you is a neccessary pre-requisite for authoritarianism of all kinds. Athiests – particularly athiests raised within the Abrahamic tradition – are not immune to this tendancy, of course, but this practivce clearly originates with the rise of codified static universalist religions. The famous “I was just following orders” originates HERE. By stripping the individual of his or her right and ability to determine right and wrong as an individual Theism de-humanizes them and renders mankind into a society of robots programmed only to enact somoene else’s prefabricated code of values – whether those values are programmed in by the parish priest, the rabbi, the local shiek, or the ruling Party.

In other words, if god is everything then man is nothing. The existence of a omnipotent omnipresent being who fascinates himself by keeping track of our every move and then wieghing our performance according to his values – rewarding some with paradise and condemning others to an eternity of torment – renders our lives meaningless. We have as much value in this scenario as the lego men I played with a child who did what I wanted them to do and were discarded when i grew tired of them.

By contrast, the rational athiest following the evolutionary imperative must assess each situation for his or her self and ask, how will this action impact the groups with which I identify? How will it affect my family? What about my children? and my childrens childrens childrens children? A person who genuinly derives their morality be assissing for themselves within their cultually determined framework of values what actions are most likely to have the most positive effect on their nation, community, and family (the breeding groups with which they identify) is compelled to weigh each action carefully for all of its implications. Of neccessity such a person becomes an enviornmentalist, a feminist, an advocate of racial and ethnic equality, of cultural tolerance, of socio-economic justice, etc; all because a person looking at the long-term implications of their actions with an eye towards preserving the welfare of their community MUST take all of these things into consideration. Here the individual comes into his or her own as a fully conscious thinking being. Removing God from the equation is thus an incredibly liberating proccess, and as long as god remains part of the equation “morality” cannot enter into it since as long as we defer our right to seperate right and wrong to diety we can never be moral beings since we are failing to ever make moral judgements of our own.

To conclude: religion does not create or reinforce morality, religion destroys morality. If we delegate to God – any god be it Yaweh, Allah, Zeus, or Krishna – our ability to differentiate right from wrong we sacrafice our own humanity in the proccess. A person who is incapable of evaluating such basic questions for themselves is hardly even a person – they are an automaton, a rag doll on a string. Such a pathetic creature can never be “moral”, it can never even understand what the word means. The neccessarry pre-requisite to leading a moral life is to deny God that divine perogative and asserts your own right to determine your own values. Doing so does not automatically make one moral of course, living a moral life is perhaps the most difficult thing any human can do in a day and age like ours, but it is the first step on a very long journey.

and, for the record, I’m not an athiest. I’m an agnostic. I cannot prove that the Gods (any and all of them) do not exist, but if I by some odd chance I found myself face to face with the Yaweh, the God of Abraham, I would be morally compelled to denounce him as a cruel, inhumane, petty despot. I would rather burn in the hell I am fairly sure does not exist and maintain my own integrity then grovel at the feet of such a monster and go to heaven.

Hmmm…you disagree.

OK, what’s missing. Let’s see. Oh, right, there’s a step missing between steps (3) and (4).

(3.5) It is better to have consciousness from God than it is to have no conscousness without God. Since neither can be proved, God is better.

So is this summary correct?

1) Physical existence operates by fixed rules which are absolutely predictable.
2) Humans would like to believe they have free-will, an ability for voluntary action, instead of being automatons unable to break from these fixed rules of nature.
3) For this belief to be possible, something outside of nature, something metaphysical, has to endow us with this capability for unpredictableness, known also as consciousness or intentionality.
(3.5) It is better to have consciousness from God than it is to have no conscousness without God. Since neither can be proved, God is better.
4) Therefore God exists.

And so it goes some more.

You are right. Prager is nothing.

Zhong

“I think it’s that the worldview they offer is at bottom so relativistic and nihilistic that it effectively denies the very existence of wisdom. Wisdom requires meaning, something you don’t find in a Godless, meaningless universe where everything is relative and nothing really matters.”

Well, isn’t that like saying ” a bird needs wings, something you don’t find in wingless birds?

Exactly. If you are positing that a bird can fly without wings in a purely natural (no God) universe, you will still have a big problem getting a wingless bird to fly, regardless of your claim. But I am not the one positing that the bird has no wings (universe is Godless) so what is your point?

The world is not meaningless to me. It is utterly beautiful.

You may very well believe it is meaningful and beautiful and I don’t dispute that you do. But that is irrelevant to my point. I have made no attempt so far to put words in the mouths or thoughts in the minds of atheists because I make no claim to be able to read the minds of millions of individuals. I am not saying that atheists necessarily BELIEVE the life/world/universe to be meaningless; that would vary from individual atheist to individual atheist. I once took the time to break atheists down into different categories and stopped when I got to fifteen, so I readily admit that it is a much more complicated issue than some of my fellow theists make it out to be. I am saying only that a meaningless world and universe is the inevitable result of taking belief in a Godless universe to its logical conclusion, and that therefore any ‘fruit’ of said meaningless universe (our lives) must therefore be likewise meaningless. As I said in another post, saying you can “create your own meaning” in a meaningless universe is like saying you can get fresh fruit from a dead tree.

But clearly the overwhelming majority of atheists have not thought it through that far or they would be lining up 10-deep to jump off your local bridges and skyscrapers. Why that is so may be interesting but it is irrelevant to my point.

If god created nature in all it’s beauty, would nature be more beautiful having created itself

Forgive me, I don’t understand the point or question there.

Like when a child finds out for themselves.

Finds out what for themselves?

If god is a compassionate god, then hell is a human fallacy.

Why?

No loving god could place the atheist children, of loving parents, in the lift marked ‘down’, whilst the heaven bound parents waved a final goodbye from the lift marked ‘up’.

You’re quite right because God does not anyone in the “down lift”. Assuming these ‘children’ are adults and they are in said “down lift”, they placed themselves in that lift. (Unless we’re talking about toddlers or children who are too young to make such a decision for themselves, in which case they obviously don’t get the “down lift”.)

Anyway, theologian George MacDonald once said that there are two types of people in this world: those who say to God, thy will be done and those to whom God says, thy will done.

If I rejected you as a friend and did not want you around me any more, how would it be possible or make sense for me to keep the good things about you around me while rejecting the parts about you that I didn’t like? As King Solomon pointed out, you can’t cut the baby in half so it stands to reason that I have to take either all of you or no part of you.

If you don’t want God around then the only place for you to go is a place where he is absent. Hell is separation from God, or to put it another way, Hell is wherever God isn’t. And you certainly can’t cut God in half, so rejection of God carries certain risks.

Some atheists are angry. Some christians are angry. I have met both.
Some atheists are wise. Some christians are wise. I have met both.
Anger and wisdom and love and hate, in my opinion, do not necessarily have anything to do with belief or non belief. I have known arrogant angry catholic priests.

All true, but I’m not the one asking why atheists are angry. My own view is that there is a wide variety of reasons why those atheists who are angry people are angry. The only thing I’m interested in here is to lay out a compelling circumstantial case for God’s existence. I know that’s not the original question but it is an inevitable part of such a conversation.

Belief says nothing about the ethics or morality of the believer.

That’s true, and the Bible agrees with you. Note that it says ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’, not ‘by their professed beliefs ye shall know them’. The Devil himself believes in God and can quote scripture better than anyone but God himself. James says that faith without works is dead.

Mark this, and mark it well. No loving parent, being theist, would turn down the offer to swap places with their atheist children, who were destined for hell. It does not matter what kind of hell. Hell would be the eternal seperation from their children, even without the horrific consequences of the hell of the bible.

First, they would never get such an offer, and second, it would never occur to them because there is no hell in heaven by definition. No more crying there, no more dying there, no more sorrow and no more tears, etc. That means there will not even be weeping or sorrow over those who didn’t make it. (Only God himself can still grieve in heaven because he is still simultaneously present on earth.) So the point is academic.

This is human. Altruism. Love. The bible, and it’s god, are not born from such love.

Why do you say that?

To say god died for us, completely misses the point. I don’t believe he did.

Whether you believe he did or not has nothing to do with whether it actually happened. So that too misses the point.

It’s easy for god anyway. He’s god. He knows he’ll be back

I will assume from this statement that you are momentarily, hypothetically assuming God’s existence, or in other words, you are humoring me. (If not, then the point is silly because nothing is easy for a non-existent entity because they can’t do anything. Non-existent entities are also not God and they cannot know they will be back because that would mean they had to exist in the first place.)

Anyway, since you appear to be humoring me for the moment, the Bible makes it very clear that was not easy for him. He was so horrified by what was coming (both the earthly execution and the spiritual horrors that awaited him after death) that he sweated blood, and even said “(Father) let this cup pass from me, but nevertheless not my will but your will be done.”

But the love that would take that lift marked ‘down’ in place of those children, knows nothing of the kind. And we all know that that is a love that exists.

It does indeed. It was God himself who took that ‘down lift’ in the place of his children, and he is deeply grieved by the fact that so many of his children still refused to get out.

Love to you all.

And to you too…

Zhangliqun

I want to acknowledge that I understand the Atheist is not obligated to disprove God, and as a few of you know I have argued true, but the Atheist must prove consciousness.

Below is why I choose to believe in God.

Consciousness, first mover, is to nature, as God, first mover, is to nature. That is both are concepts of intentionality because without intentionality either concept is irrelevant.

If we posit physical existence as the sole manifestation of existence then nature is both the law and manifestation of itself. It is without intentionality. It is a seemingly infinite set of actions and reactions that manifest beyond comprehension, but nonetheless, it is both its law and its manifestation. Nothing exists out side of it, nor can any action be independently taken apart from its seemingly infinite set of cause and effect, which is to say, it is absolute existence, but absolutely without intentionality.

Consequently, anything that we posit to act contrary to the absolute rule of existence, of nature, is a first mover.

This is the claim of atheistic existentialists, but the claim is self contradictory. The claim suggests that consciousness spontaneously manifests and in its manifestation contradicts the laws that are the totality of the rest of existence–this is an unprovable, and in fact, unjustifiable assertion.

However, this does not negate atheism. But it does strip away any notion of intentionality on our part. We are manifest like all manifestation, nothing less and nothing more. We are ever the result of a complexity that absolutely accounts for our manifestation.

Consequently, I cannot intentionally have any impact on anything.

However, if there is an intentionality, God, metaphysic, that created me as capable of intentionality, then I can claim I am conscious. However, this intentionality is no more provable than the atheist one.

So I am faced with two equally unprovable propositions; the existence of a first mover, and the non existence of a first mover. Which is to say I cannot disprove my self or prove my self.

So it would seem our condition and relationship is predicated on faith.

But that’s too simple and one-sided. If the atheistic proposition is true my worldview isn’t based on faith at all, but is naturally, unintentionally, selected.

But if the theistic proposition is true and I have faith in the existence of god then I have not only chosen to believe in god, but also to believe, intentionally, in myself.

Who’s to say what’s true.

And for the record, even if the theistic view is true, it does not make any claim, at this level, on our relationship to the deity.

Feynman. By name. by nature.

I have talked to Christians who have said that atheists are crazy or insane, and that anyone would have to be out of their mind not to believe in Jesus if they were raised a Christian.

Well, here is what you have to believe to be a Christian.

1) God, Jesus, and the “Holy Spirit” are three, but also one, and have always existed and are uncaused.
2) The purpose of Jesus is to redeem mankind from his sins.
3) Jesus existed before the universe was even created, so before the first act of creation, it was already pre-destined that a sinful mankind would come about.
4) God is perfect and all powerful.
5) The perfect all powerful God somehow created a flawed and brutal world, which was predestined to happen before he even started.
6) God choose a special group of people as his favorites, whom he gave all his information to and supposedly helped along their way.
7) God’s special chose people didn’t have any significant accomplishments to speak of prior to the rise of Christianity. Large and successful empires such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, the Greeks, and the Romans all outshined these special chosen people and each have many important inventions and advances to their name.
8) God nevertheless instructed his special chosen people to wage war across Mesopotamia committing genocide left and right (of which there is no actual record, other than their stories of “glory”).
8) God got tired of his special chosen and rejected them in favor of “the Gentiles”.
9) God decided to redeem mankind by impregnating a young girl so that she could give birth to him in human form.
10) This god in the form of a man was illiterate, and born into a small unknown town in Palestine, where he went about performing petty miracles to crowds of people who didn’t believe that he was really God. Instead of going to Rome, the most civilized place in the world at the time, where he could have conversed with Emperors or send messages throughout the empire, possibly even to all of Europe and Asia, he was content to stay in Galilee, where no one made any record of his existence.
11) Here is the kicker: This god-man had to be sacrificed in a blood sacrifice in order to absolve all mankind for their sin, and that somehow, his spilling of his own blood, created a “new convent” that takes away all the sins of all people if they believe that he did this for them, though at best (if we believe the story) a few hundred people actually witnessed the event, and only a handful of them believed in it. (Why, exactly, would a god need to shed blood, and why are we supposed to eat his body and drink his blood, in order to somehow change the nature of mankind?)
12) After all of this, and this special bloody sacrifice, nothing special happened. Wars still rage, people still “sin”, etc., indeed no one can point to any difference from prior to 33 AD and after, except that within 100 years of the Romans adopting this religion their empire crumbled and we went into the Dark Ages and tons of practical knowledge was lost or declared heretical.
13) Oh, and by the way, this god-man said in very clear terms, as it was also said by Paul, that the end of the world was at hand, and that it should have been expected any day now… 2,000 years ago.
14) The whole point of the entire religion is focused on savings one’s self prior to the time when this god-man comes back to earth to wage relentless violence upon all those who don’t believe that he is who he says he is. He is going to slaughter masses of people with a sword from heaven which will drip with blood and drench the earth in the fat of the goats and rivers of blood.

And Christians have the gall to tell me that atheists are insane for not believing in their “savior”

Hebrews 10:
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

David,
I would say that there is not necessarily any more true independent thought in atheism than there is in theism. The tough thing about determining what atheists think is that we do not unify, as lack of belief is not exactly a common cause. However, the big draw to structured and scripted religious faith is that it is, well, structured and scripted. I would not say that this makes anyone an automaton inherently, but it does imply an interest in not having to derive complex rules and understandings for one’s self. That is not to say that all those who rely on others to generate order in the world are religious believers. Almost all people find some set of rules, some structure, some order in the world to be provide a sense of security and relief from the chaotic nature of existance. This manifests itself in many ways, and most of them are fairly innocuous (and in most practical cases, religion as an passive backdrop for weddings and funerals is innocuous as well). Some examples are infatuation with sports (rigid, comprehensible and conceivable rule sets) and submission to military superiors against ones own interest or philospohical views. Personally, my view is that spiritual pursuit is valuable, but religious ascription is mnetal surrender and/or insufficiently critical analysis of the doctrine and dogma. Nonetheless, it is “a useful delusion” in that it keeps those who lack the altruistic nature to be independently pleasant people from becoming wantonly detrimental to society. I would like to hear the points of view from those who have, as adults, switched from atheism/agnosticism to religion, and would like to hear how they overcame the logical inconsistencies in either Judaism or Christianity.

Notice that some of the comments against Prager are being DELETED? I have. This is what Prager is famous for doing. He sees negative things about hims on the internet and he pressures the site to DELETE, DELETE, DELETE. He did it with his books on AMAZON and his entry in WIKIPEDIA. This man is such an egomaniac.

The only disagreement I will offer is that a-theism is simply a lack of belief in God as classically defined. Recognition of or belief in (whichever you prefer)metaphysical existance does not violate the definition. Example: I can imagine a person with fifteen heads. No such person exists, but the idea does, which is a perceivable image to me, mentally. Now aside from the existentialist argument (which is a fine argument, albeit a little redundant), this means that i can perceive something with no physical existance. This is a metaphysical object, which clearly I profess exists. Unlike a conscious god-form.
I pursue a deeper understanding of the metaphysical, and recommend the same pursuit to everyone. What I disagree with is the assertion that someone has found a concrete answer in the form of selectively editing the parts of an ancient piece of literature to support their own desired philosophy and morality. Ramming your vision down the throats of the planet is hard to do when you have to provide actual substantive arguments to support your views. The all-powerful invisible man who tells you that you’re right is a horrible and misguided cop-out.

Actually I would like to know Christine Silk’s thoughts on the nature of faith.

Pertinently, does faith in her mind manifest at a practical level, or is it self contained and defined at the conceptual level of faith, or perhaps somewhere between, as an intuitional thought.

That is, how does she experience, and perhaps, express faith?

I’ve never met a believer, someone who will swear up and down that they believe in fate and that god has a plan for them, that doesn’t look both ways before crossing the street.

I beg to differ–it’s Atlas.

If nothing else, and though it is glaringly obvious, we can be certain that not all theists and not all atheists are the same. If we keep that in mind we might be able to avoid our own presuppositional traps as regards the other person. We may know what the other person asserts, but we do not necessarily know why, and it is at the why, I think, where dialog starts.

It really doesn’t feel like a joke. It reads like a very immature kind of comment. And i really am not angry at all about anythiing i can think of off hand. Did it sound that way? I’m sorry if it did.
Also, i get sensitive about people who profess a lot but don’t seem to have the courage of their convictions. As in ‘hell is for people who reject God’. But noone really thinks about what that means. What it truly means for those we love who just don’t believe.
The ‘tweaking’ happens when it suits the tweaker. Some call that a ‘New testament’. Some call it leaving out the gospels that failed to give the picture that was required.
Put the thing you love most here on earth in the lift marked “down’.
Now, in your mind, watch it descend, as you, in all your glory, ascend into the arms of a ‘compassionate’ god.
Tell me, as honestly as you can, without a knee jerk response or comments about assumed anger, what would you do if you could swap with that person? And tell me also, do you think many theist parents would swap with their atheist children?
And finally, if someone answered a direct question of yours with, “ha ha ha… i can’t believe you took the bait”, wouldn’t you feel that such a comment was a little suspect? You had some great arguments, that were cogent and sincere. But a comment like that takes the backbone right out of your points.

Let me clarify. From your post I do not know where you got your information from. So it is difficult to evaluate your claims let alone the sources of your claim.

I don’t think other unproven or unprovable claims should get a pass.

I’m not sure their is an alternative. And I think you will agree that we must embrace our doubts at least as much as we embrace our certainties.

And I agree with you that I think we as humanity are far better off for the examination of our condition, no matter how disturbing, than by an evasion of it.

Thank you for response.

Good.

First off, Rule Six (No Need for Proof Rule) would take care of your concern for most of the time.

But imagine for a moment that at this point in history of mankind as well as womankind we had accepted the existence of X without ever noticing that it can not be proven to exist in any ‘acceptable’ manner whatsoever. And one of us begins to demand a proof for its existence. Then what? If no one can prove that it exists, if no one can develop a ‘naturalistice’ model that can verifiably demonstrate the effects of X, then we, in a newfound humility, should probably accept that such a thing can not yet be publicly claimed to exist. What is the alternative? If you allow this one to get through, why should any other claimed but unproven thing be any different?

That’s fine. I have no problem with that. But then you cannot prove consciousness either, which we can add is the basis for your rules, and in fact the basis for the belief in rational thought.

And to the rest of this ilk–if the shoe fits wear it.

Bill Maher knows Dennis Prager. Prager used to appear on Maher’s old ABC program, POLITICALLY INCORRECT WITH BILL MAHER. The couple of times Prager appeared he was belligerent and bullying, Maher thought he was a joke and put him on because he appeared as a Limbaughesque Conservative fuddyduddy fatcat.

And please, spare me the hackneyed charge of “ad hominem” attacks! Prager wrote a stupid article trying to stroke his Christian fundamentalist listeners (as usual), in which he poopoohs Keith Ellison’s plans to swear in on the Koran. On Hannity & Colmes he then makes a smart remark about a Nazi being sworn in on Mein Kampf (and yes…on his radio show he has repeatedly made references considering the chance of a Scientologist being elected and then being sworn in on Dianetics – I love the way his followers love to lie for their pathetic desire at protecting their very on latterday Jewish prophet). Now that he sees he has pissed off most people who even know of him and care about what he says, he wants to whine and moan on his radio show, attack so-called “left-wing bloggers” and even get so melodramatic as to declare that “if anything happens to [him], then [his] blood is on their hands!” Is this guy having a nervous breakdown?

Rule One (The Golden Rule)

Whatever criterion applies to one, it equally applies to all. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Rule Two (Responsibility Rule)

Whenever a person makes a claim it is his/her responsibility – not anyone else’s – to prove that claim in any valid and legitimate way necessary and possible.

Rule Three (Failure of Proof Rule)

An event in which an attempt to prove a claim fails to prove the claim does not constitute a proof that the claim is false.

Rule Four (Retraction Rule)

At the moment of the conclusion of a failed attempt to prove a claim, the claimant should retract his/her claim, at least until such a time that the claimant finds a new alleged proof for the claim, at which point in time the claimant will be given another opportunity to attempt to prove his/her claim.

Rule Five (No Rational Basis Rule)

As long as a claim remains not proved, the participants in the discussion agree to publicly and openly state that as yet there is no rational basis for making (or believing or accepting) the claim, and as such it is irrational, against reason, to continue to make (or believe or accept) the claim.

Rule Six (No Need for Proof Rule)

There is no need to provide a proof for a claim if both participants in a discussion agree to accept the claim, at least until such a time that one of the participants demands a proof for the claim.

———- ———– ————- ———– ———

Example for Rule Three: The event that I cannot prove the claim “E equals M times C squared” does not constitute a proof that the statement “E equals M times C squared” is false.

What Rule Three says is simply that the attempt to prove the claim was unsuccessful. At the moment of the conclusion of the failed attempt, all that the participants can say is that the veracity of the claim remains undetermined; that there is as yet no sufficient reason to accept (or believe) the claim as true.

NOR is there any reason to accept (or believe) the claim as false just because the attempt to prove the claim was unsuccessful. In order to reach a point in time when you should accept (or believe) a claim as false, it is necessary to have proved the claim as false, in the first place. In order to know that a claim X is false, it is necessary to prove the claim that the negation of the claim X is true.

Let us say that you claim an entity known as God exists. Upon hearing this, I say “Really? Prove it to me”. Notice I am not making a claim that NO SUCH ENTITY KNOWN AS GOD EXISTS. I am merely asking you to prove your claim. My stance to not agree with you is not the same as claiming that what you say is false. In fact by not agreeing I am giving you an opportunity to prove your claim. We should not conclude that your claim is false if you fail to prove it as true. And if you fail to prove your claim, then you should – if you want to maintain a rational position – refrain from publicly espousing your claim as true until such a time that an actual proof, if any, is produced.

But, if I said “There is no such entity known as God” in response to your claim that an entity known as God exists, then I will be making a claim of my own. So, in this case, there would be two claims, one made by you, and the other made by me, each claim requiring a proof by its maker! So, in order to keep our discussion less confusing and thereby more manageable, it would be wiser for me to not claim “NO SUCH ENTITY KNOWN AS GOD EXISTS” in response to your claim that “an entity known as God exists”. In response to your claim “an entity known as God exists”, it is usually much wiser for me to not claim anything but instead ask you to prove your claim.

I’ve been following a line of inquiry made by some posts here that refute claims this country is founded on Christianity. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Theists. So what is a Deist? This question lead me to Thomas Paine and “Age of Reason” which I’ve been reading in a version paraphrased into modern english by Stephen W. Dowell .

I just read this excerpt, which has quite blown my mind:

As for the Christian system of faith, it almost seems like a kind of Atheism- a sort of denial of God. It claims to believe in a man rather than God (more like MANism than Deism). It is as close to Atheism as evening is to darkness. It puts something called a Redeemer between man and the Creator, in the same way that the moon is between the earth and the sun. By doing this it produces a religious (or not so religious) darkness. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

The effect of this dimness is that everything is upside down and opposite of what it should be. Because it is so turned around, it has also turned around theology.

What we now call “natural philosophy” includes the study of all sciences, especially that of astronomy. It is this philosophy that studies the works of God, and the power and wisdom of God in his works. It is the true theology.

The theology that is studied instead is the study of human opinions and of human imaginations about God. It is not the study of God based on his works, but instead is a study of the works and writings of man. It is a sad thing that the Christian system has done to the world. It has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology to make room for the ugliness of superstition.

What I’ve learned from this reading is this. The bible is not the “Word of God”, they are simply stories told by man. They are not revelations from God, because a revelation must be direct from God, not secondhand hearsay. The Word of God cannot be based on language, because language is mutable. The true Word of God is revealed through his creation. It is in the study of his creation that his immutable truths can be discovered. This study is done rationally through observation of nature. That is science.

Brilliant! I think I’ve just become a Deist. I might be able to stop resisting any talk of the Creator.

Who said this discussion thread couldn’t spark a conversion of mind?

I have to take a leave of absence after my short response below.

You ask excellent questions. I only know too well how difficult it is to forge a good answer for them. I certainly am not well versed in the intricacies of the fascinating subject of sanity vs insanity.

As you may recall I mainly attempted a first but crude approximation for the definition of sanity, albeit not very deep nor original. It seems self evident that ultimately there must exist some robust one-to-one correspondence between the ‘independent’ outside-of-our-heads reality, on the one hand, and the model of reality mapped inside our heads, on the other hand. I am not competent in philosophy to shed insight into this matter, although I am competent to comprehend it. This does not preclude me from identifying insanity or, alternatively, delusion, when it does occur. Yes, ‘insanity’ is too strong a word. But like a brick, the word does its job.

I would like to see a scientific examination and exploration of religion. That won’t happen, of course, because of religion’s special “sacred cow” status in this country.

Well, we have just touched on a definition of “God”, as the “something” responsible for the universe. But that definition has little in common with conventional, anthropomorphic conceptions of God. Rather, it paints God as something that exists in infinitudes and is timeless, larger than science, time, and space, but that is non-physical. Something that is incomprehensible to human thought in the same way that our universe compressed into a point of zero volume in incomprehensible.

Yet there is a note of familiarity. God, whatever it is, creates, like a human artist would. Clearly everything that in the painting that is the universe has form — the laws of physics, nature, evolution, and everything else.

But does God care? Does an artist have passion for his painting? Do human beings have passion for their creations because they are like God?

Germane questions!

While it is sane to seriously attempt to answer your questions, I can assure you most religionists never bother with an objective understanding of sanity. As a first but crude crude approximation, sanity might be defined as a one-to-one correlation (or correspondence) between one’s beliefs and belief system, on the one hand, and the publicly accessible reality, on the other hand. Plus the attitude and the desire to construct such correspondence.

I would assume that in a broad sense, reality itself, being the final arbiter, decides who is sane, who is not.

The Anon who posted a commentary titled “I know why atheists are so angry” has basically mentioned about the eternal hell, which you need to find on page 1.

It seems to me you have wasted my time and yours somewhat by not reading this Anon’s commentary first. You should know better!

I am lost regarding the relevance of your response. I am for the free exchange of ideas, so much so that I would like to freely express my disgust at the ‘moronicity’ and stupidity of others. I think you’ve got problems. Oh, let’s say I do protest too much. What’s your point? Is the act of protesting not, at least in some sense, an exercise in free exchange of ideas? What should matter is the quality of the protest. You are free to assess that quality. Good luck.

You have instantaneously contradicted yourself if you are right in your first sentence!

Somehow I feel I must disagree with you! Here’s why. It is not just the personal attack per se that is said in my post. But why that personal attack vis-a-vis my commentary is apt. Words like “moron” or “stupid” either have a function in language or they are useless. I make sure they are used appropriately.

Because you seem a reasonable person, I will give you a chance to ‘improve’ upon our exchange. So, what dya say?

I am an atheist and I like to live in a world of sane people who are not morons, because insane moronic people impose their sickening worldview and sensibilities upon me and others.

For example, you are certifiably a moron! You take atheists and frame them into a false constuction so that you can offer stupid pronouncements as to why they are so angry, while not realizing that your thoughts about atheists is mainly a reflection of your poor sense and understanding of reality.

I too am keenly aware of my finitude and eventual death. I am not at all worried about eternal damnation and all that butchery and criminality by your presumed god.

You are lost and hopelessly pathetic. I wish people like you would be equipped with self-silencing mechanism so that my little while here would be better spent. You sicken me. Go to hell!

Over and over and over again he posts the assertion that atheists cannot prove their consciousness or an ability for voluntary action without resorting to belief in the metaphysical.

He does it so much that I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t actually an automaton programmed to make this assertion ad nauseum. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps we don’t have consciousness or voluntary action. Perhaps he demonstrates the proof to his assertion, humans are just complex systems programmed to say the same thing over and over and over unconsciously.

there is an oversimplification, in much of this discourse, of the non-creationist point of view regarding the existence of the universe. It is not that the history of the dimensional framework and matter contained therein are assumed to exist without explanation. Rather, it is that the mystery as to the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, et cetera is not resolvable, to any degree of intellectual accuracy, by crediting an invisible man with their generation. Having the humility and courage to admit that we don’t know the answer is the first step towards discovering one.
The abandonment of religious adherence is a frightening and troubling experience. Belief in an immortal and omnipotent being who will safeguard you through the vast expanses of the universe and consciousness is, in fact, very comforting. Abandoning the safety of self-delusion will not fill your heart with love, it will not make you feel secure, it will not make life easier. It will, however, make you intellectually and spiritually honest, which will be a big step in shaping a more intelligent future for our species and this planet.
Spirituality may seem an odd choice of words, but it is appropriate. By this, I mean the personal exploration of the experience of being a living consciousness. As the scientific method is increasing our understanding of the physical world, it may also increase our understanding of the metaphysical. This means, though, that religious declaration must again be disregarded in the pursuit of discovery of an understanding of consciousness.
It is cowardice, and nothing less, to hide inside religion from the burden of not knowing the answers.If you desire to bring to fruition the full potential of humanity, remove the roadblock to civility, discovery and understanding which exists in your own mind as unsubstantiated insistence on the factual accuracy of the allegories of your ancestors. It will make your life harder, fuller, and hopefully richer.

Dave

Can you point to any specific example of Harris’ “maneuvers”, lies, or behavior that should other wise embarrass the educated?

I think he ocassionally engaged in an unnecessary degree of ridicule (as with his slap against Mormon beliefs), but generally his points were well taken, and Prager was far more apt than Harris to dismiss a serious point out of hand and change the subject (e.g., his discussion of Russell’s teapot).

There is no evidence at all, that I can find, that Harris is “rejecting what he clearly knows to be true.” Please supply some evidence if you are going to make such a claim.

–B

toAn
Anonymous asks how long will take for Christianity to accept homosexuality and claims that Christianity has been in frequent opposition to scientific progress and even today has a hard time accepting evolutionary theory both biologically and cosmologically.Perhaps attributing our progress in these areas is unrelated to the “grandness” of Christianity.

Homosexuality was first rejected some 4,000 years ago by the Torah, and later by Christianity. It is the biblical perspective, that, as Prager wrote some time ago, 1,000 years before Roman emperors kept brothels of boys to have sex with, rejected homosexuality.

I find it curious that the author attacks Christianity specifically when it was a Jew that wrote the debate. No matter.

It is ludicrous to mock Christians for a lack of worshipping at the altar of Darwin when most so called “evolutionists” don’t understand what they are referring to when they claim to believe in evolution.

The teacup analogy is laughable as it’s not so much proving that a teacup is there, as it is pointing out that a teacup is there and then being told it happened by accident.

It is more laughable to think that our temperatur is hotter now than in 500 years because of SUV’s. . . so what SUV’s were around 500 years ago to make it so hot it served as a benchmark?

I recommend you count up and total the number of ad hominem attacks in the comments on this debate. It is overwhelmingly done by those who disagree with Prager. In fact, Ive noticed this as a trend. Even though the non-religious are a much smaller portion of the population…representatively speaking, there seems to be much more utter hatred and contempt on their side for those of opposing views, suggesting their beliefs might be based more on emotion as opposed to reason. Hmmm…someone should do a study on the subject. Do I hear a Ph.D thesis in the making?

¹ Judge not, that ye be not judged.

² For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7 KJV

It is small minded, weak, tedious, unworthy of discussion to suggest that because Mr. Prager wishes to preserve a tradition that marks unity is somehow deserving of a cascade of vulgar ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. Further, what any of this has to do with the topic of Atheism is none!

Further the atheists unwilling to debate further have acknowledged that their belief is based on nothing more than on their belief (no different than those they accuse of superstition). That is, they have accepted that Atheism is a statement of faith.

So we have evasion and invective serving to hide an untenable position. Well done. You have taken away an honest debate upon matters that are significant to human understanding, and dragged it into the muck and mire of your own self will that appears to be nothing more than a sewage dump.

saying that it should not be the individual who decides which book to swear the oath on, it is the SOCIETY (which the respective public office represents) which decides so.

This sounds way too socialist a notion for this American to support. If I’m going to make an oath, I will demand the freedom to put my hand on whichever book is going to best support the validity of my oath.

That Prager would give an oath on a book that does not represent his faith tells me he doesn’t quite honor the oath he is giving. That makes him less trustworthy in my eyes.

You dont listen to his show. He has admitted that his statement “should not be allowed to do so” may have been too strong, but he in no way meant it as a plea to legislation, as I made clear in my first point (look at my previous post). I have listened to all his various television interviews, and he in no way wants to FORCE people to swear their oath on the Bible. IF HE HAD WANTED THIS, then yes, it would be a “religious test” and therefore unconstitutional. What he is simply doing is criticizing Ellison for what he plans to do in the hopes that it wont start a trend of people swearing oaths on whichever books they please. In other words, he is making a moral judgment, saying that it should not be the individual who decides which book to swear the oath on, it is the SOCIETY (which the respective public office represents) which decides so. Which is why Dennis would also take his oath on the Bible, New Testament and all, even though hes JEWISH.

By saying the Mein Kampf is the Nazis “bible,” he didnt mean it as necessarily being a religious text. He meant it was the most highly regarded text by that group. Just like the Bible is the most highly regarded text in this group we call America.

But again, you are using a forum in which this is not the topic at hand, and we can therefore conclude that your sole concern now is to attack him so as to make him seem less credible in the current debate. Start a seperate topic elsewhere, friend.

sorry, any first year law student knows that requiring public officials to swear on the Bible would be a clear cut violation of the establishment clause. The fact that the majority of Americans believe it to be their most sacred book is irrelevant, unless, of course, they have enough power to repeal the 1st amendment.

Yes, read what he said carefully. He doesnt believe in a PERSONAL God. Just because he doesnt partake in a specific religion doesnt mean he doesnt believe in a God. He was a PANTHEIST. One doesnt have to be religious to believe in some higher power.

But, again, it doesnt matter what Einsteins theological beliefs were. They are as irrelevant as what a coal miner thinks about running a Fortune 500 company.

mmmmmI have always been amazed that otherwise intelligent people believe the bible bible to be the word of god. The writer above claims an IQ of 135 and thinkthinks Prager won the debate. Prager clearly lost; yet bible believers think think he won. Therein, I believe, lies the problem. You couldn’t conviconvince a muslim suicide bomber he won’t get those 72 virgins, and you can’t can’t convice bible believers that the bible wasn’t inspired by god, no mano matter how hard you tried. These thoughts are ingrained in them from childchildhood, and not from critical or rational thinking.

“The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair.” No there is no rational response–that is an ethnocentric response.

Meaninglessness is absolute. It does not matter what is thought, because anything that is thought does not have a basis. Period. There is no meaninglessness. Rationality does not exist.

You could say joy. But your joy is based on nothing. You declared it that. But that doesn’t make it joy. Joy does not have an objective existence, neither does meaninglessness. That is to say Kant offered, nor did Nietzsche offer, any solution, but they did offer an illusion.

So if I said that Genesis was merely the language available to a group of people at a particular time to describe abstract ideas you would still find it necessary to treat it literally? Meaning you cound not understand that what was being stated were what we call milestones?

Or don’t you think the four rivers descending from Eden are the four known forces of existence described by physics?

“Why do you as an Atheist believe in good and evil?”

I reject the oversimplistic concept of “good and evil,” rather I posit there exists moral relativism, nothing more nothing less.

“What do you base you morality upon?”

I attribute my ‘morality’ to a strong sense of empathy, which I believe substantially results from regularly questioning my choices and actions.

What is dogmatism? Why do you as an Atheist believe in good and evil? What do you base you morality upon?

Mr. Prager’s sanctimonious execration of Keith Ellison, duly elected, is blatantly obvious by his expectation/demand that Article VI, Clause 3 of our Constitution be temporarily modified for Mr. Ellison’s invocation.

Constitution of the United States
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/016.pdf
Article VI, Clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Dennis Prager continues to reveal his true colors.

(For the record Mein Kampf is no more considered a Holy Book than Aristotle’s Metaphysics or Nicomachean Ethics, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, or Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique.)

Randomness and Consciousness Part 2

If we live in a purely phenomenological existence then perforce we as human beings are nothing more, or less–for that matter–than phenomena. Chance and randomness cannot exist if everything in existence is absolutely subject to physical laws unless those physical laws themselves have a finite spectrum. Observations of randomness and chance are nothing more than metaphors for a lack of knowledge. It is purely bad faith to state otherwise if one does not believe in a metaphysical existence.

If existence is without intention then existence is all there is. So what we believe to be consciousness is nothing of a kind (because consciousness is intentionality). Our minds being made-up of the stuff that makes up existence are subject to the same laws, and consequently our minds are ever the result of the interplay of those laws stretching from the origin of existence itself.

The idea that “I think therefore I am” is an illusion. Thought is an illusion. We are nothing more than water flowing down hill. Our concepts, thoughts, emotions are nothing (as far as consciousness is concerned). We live in a purely ironic state of being at best the host of the concept of being aware of our own intrinsic unconsciousness, which itself is not real, not a thought, but an illusion. We are pure phenomena subject to the absolute rule of a physically determined existence.

But of course such an assertion is a matter of faith, or not.

In his writings, Sam has made it abundantly clear that the brand of atheism that he is supporting is simply the lack of belief in a personal god. You seem to be confusing his position with materialism. Nobody said anything about the nature of consciousness. Sam is a neuroscientist and he has been intellectually honest in admitting that we don’t what consciousness is. Even if consciousness transcends matter in some way, that wouldn’t give credence to the idea of a personal god.

Albert Einstein was an atheist. People misunderstand him when he makes reference to God. He isn’t talking about his religious convictions, he’s talking about the wonders of science. Strange man.

“I wish to highlight this point, “despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly religious people who have acknowlegded and fought the significant evils of his own lifetime?” Notice you said religious people and not religion.”

Yes, well it would seem pretty difficult to have religious people without religion, now wouldnt it? We call people who adhere to and practice a specific religion “religious.”

Atheism makes a lot more sense. God is not visible, tangible, or perceived by any sense. He has a lot in common with imaginary creatures and other mythological concepts. Religious people pray for things and don’t get them. In fact, it appears the chances of them getting what they ask for in prayer are about the same as if there was no prayer. The fact that they focus on the times when the “prayer was answered” and they ignore all the times it went opposite is further proof of delusion and outright foolishness.

So why does history show a deeper trend of love, kindness, and generosity from those of faith than those without? Sure, you can say wars are fought over religion but this is besides the point because you can find people of every creed, belief, or perspective starting wars or not starting wars.

The one trend that truly does stick out is when you have a supremely amazing person that changes the world for good – that person tends to be deeply religious. And not just religious by association or family background or natural origin but with great affection for their religious convictions.

Mother Theresa.

Martin Luther King.

Ghandi.

St. Francis of Asisi.

All the founders of America had different shades and convictions about their religion but none was without some form that they held sacred and the source of law and truth.

Even Benjamin Franklin, arguably with no shortage of capacity for rational or deep thought, became more religious as he aged.

Albert Einstein spoke lovingly and deeply of how to him Science and Mathematics and God were all clearly seen in one another.

Socrates, the father of Philosophy says that he rigidly followed an inner spiritual voice that guided him.

Rene DesCartes, the father of Modern Philosophy says that it is mathematically impossible for man have any notion of God unless he truly did exist somewhere in some form.

Albert Einstein spoke lovingly and deeply of how to him science and Mathematics and God were all clearly seen in one another.

What kind of conviction could make Martin Luther King stand on the ashes of his house that was just fire bombed by the KKK and beg his own people not to retaliate but to forgive those who just tried to kill his family? He was living the words of his religion, as he quoted them.

Where does the atheist find such incredibly heroic standards to do such feats?

Why are there no atheists in a foxhole?

The only great man I can see in history who changed history for the good and was possibly an atheist is Charles Darwin, and even he renounced his agnosticim and embraced Chrisitianity on his deathbed.

So the atheist doesn’t see God, hear God, taste, touch, or feel Him. There may be a teapot in space but what does it matter?

What if it does? What if the atheist comes to the end of his life and God meets him and says, “Why did you blind your heart? I was there in everything – in the flowers, in the science, and in the love of religious people all around you.”

But what does this say if God really exists. Can any atheist here stop and just picture if God really did exist and they were really wrong the whole time? Isn’t that scary? I mean, it might sound totally stupid but just try it for 15 seconds. What would it mean?

It would mean 2 things: 1. – the religious people had an idea of the truth but were wrapped up in all kinds of delusions, unanswered prayer and such, but they had their focus in such a right direction that it still produced better characteristics in their hearts and in their actions than they would have had otherwise.

And 2 – there is something more flawed in the atheist’s heart or character that he has hardened himself from seeing what is considered possible for many agnostics and plain apparent to many religious people.
The

You seem to be using words to your own definition. Such as that of religion. Atheists aren’t religious in the true sense of the word. I suppose you could say they are spiritual but that still doesn’t go with me. I’d say passionate.

Your problem of atheism not dealing with world isues such as evil and stuff is because atheism is a non set of beliefs. Evil is a human issue and is defined by your own beliefs. Although religion alligns people’s beliefs who follow a set religion it doesn’t necessarily mean they are right, nor does it mean they will help the world be a better place.

I think to deal with evil in the world we need to take a humanist apporach because religions like christianity are still focusing on issues such as gay marriage, which to be honest is none of their business. The only people gay marriage should be of consern to is gay people and even then, there’s no need to make it illegal.

Please don’t take this as an attack, I just have a feeling you might have lost sight of what atheism is about. Like Richard Dawkins said, just because it brings comfort, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. Do you think you might be religious now because it brings you comfort?

This brings me onto my main issue with religion. It brings comfort, false comfort. I’m all for comfort, but I think truth trumps comfort. If I have cancer, I want to know, If I have 6 months to live I want to know. And although some people don’t want to know, that’s fair enough. But lots of religious people in the world want to impose this “ignorance” on others.

You can try to twist Prager’s comments any way you like but it is obvious tha for him to say “What if a nazi was elected, would we allow him to swear on the Mein Kampf?” was a stupid, stupid remark and one that I am surprized by because there was a time when Prager rightly condemned others for frivolously referencing Hitler and the Nazis. Now, though, it seems he has joined so many others, both Left and Right, who love to make Nazi, Hitler and World War II references in order to as you say, “bring home the point.” It doesn’t bring home the point to me, what it does do is show me on just what level Prager holds Muslim-Americans: By putting them on the same level as Scientologists, Porno fans and nudists (those references were made by him on on his own radio show over the last few days – let him now deny this), and worst of all Nazis. Perhaps Prager’s divorce situation is causing him to behave this way, perhaps he resents that he isn’t as popular as his colleagues and felt that if he tried a Mel Gibson/Michael Richards he would get noticed, I don’t know. What I do know is that his remarks were not appreciated even by many fellow conservatives and that those remarks do render this debate irrelevent. I don’t need someone posting that Prager is an Islamophobe, I already know it. Prager doesn’t speak for this theist here.

John Tacino
Upper Darby, PA

BT asks: If you don’t mind–what caused you to shift from atheist to religious believer?

Answer: In a nutshell, I gave up on atheism and secularism mainly because I wasn’t impressed with them anymore. I didn’t think they would lead me to a deeper understanding about existence, about what it means to be human, and perhaps most important, what to do about evil in the world.

I spent almost 25 years as an atheist. I had a lot of atheist friends, a lot of atheist and agnostic professors. Even now, I am truly sympathetic to the atheist position. I understand the attraction. I do not bear anybody ill-will because of their beliefs. I know peaceful, wonderful atheists that are terrific friends and neighbors, and religious jerks I’d just as soon send to the moon.

It is impossible to believe in nothing. Just because you are an atheist does not mean you have no religion. It means that your religion is something else, such as science, politics, environmentalism, activism, humanism, etc. Some people’s religion is all about career, money, status and consumption of material goods. For me, none of these constitute an adequate belief system, none are a satisfactory blueprint for living a good life. I don’t see how they will lead me to a deeper understanding of the human condition. I seek greater wisdom, greater understanding, and better ways to deal with the evil and suffering that are caused by bad moral choices. I am hoping I will find what I seek by taking a more religious path. I am not yet converted to Judiasm, but I am leaning in that direction because there is a lot in it that appeals to me.

I was raised a Catholic, belonged to a Unitarian Universalist church for a few years, and was an atheist for most of my life. It’s not as if I’m coming to this decision without having sampled alternatives. And intellectually, I still struggle with the notion of God. I still have serious doubts, and I still continue to question key tenets of Judaism. The stereotype that I’ve “found God” and now all is all peace and tranquility for me is simply not true. I was more tranquil in the certainty of my atheism.

For me, commitment to a traditional religion is not “either/or.” It is“and/and.” I can accept evolution and the benefits of stem cell research, and yet still hold religious beliefs. I can function as a highly rational, intellectual human being, and yet intuit, on a deeper level, that there is more to existence than what I perceive with my senses.

Let me emphasize that I am describing my own experience, my own opinions. I don’t expect all the readers on this website will agree with me. I am not trying to tell all you atheists out there to repent and find God. If you are happy being an atheist, good for you. I hope it brings you a lot of fulfillment, and makes you a better human being, and the world a better place to live.

Sincerely,

Christine Silk, Ph.D.

P.S. Thank you, Matt in Philadelphia, for your kind words.