Posts
Day 4 (Prager): Why Are Atheists So Angry?
By Dennis Prager / November 21, 2006
From: Dennis Prager To: Sam Harris Subject: Your Task is Far Greater than Mine
I will leave it to our readers to identify who relied on “maneuvers.”
To help them judge I will cite your words and not rely on paraphrasing your views as you have mine.
You write: “You have observed that very smart people, like Francis Collins, occasionally believe in God.”
I didn’t write that. I wrote that some eminent scientists believe in God and that some of them have come to believe in God through science. The issue was scientists and belief, not “very smart people” and belief. In fact, with no implication intended regarding you, I have almost never encountered “very smart people” who do not believe in God. The vast majority of atheists I have met had fine brain matter, but if “smart” includes wisdom, intellectual depth, profundity of thought, and moral insight, I have encountered such people almost exclusively among believers in the Judeo-Christian God. (For the record, I have also met fools who believe in this God.)
You write: “I trust that attentive readers will notice where you have misconstrued me (or rendered a tortured interpretation of Collins, polling data, etc.) and then pressed a false charge.”
I continue to defend my understanding of Collins—in fact, on my radio show I asked him about the waterfalls and he sustained my, not your, understanding. (The entire interview with him is available through my website.)
You never took my bet that the vast majority of violent criminals were not religiously active when they committed their crimes. Instead you redefined “religiously active” to mean belief in the biblical God. Everyone who uses the term knows it doesn’t refer to belief; it refers to being active within a religion, such as with regular church or synagogue attendance, Bible study, etc. You know as well as I do that such people are not proportionately represented among America’s violent criminals. So you redefined “religiously active” to avoid the wager.
You write: “While the usefulness of religion might be worth debating in another context, it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.” I agree. My argument is that unlike Judeo-Christian America, secular societies—generally meaning those of Western Europe—lose their will to survive (by not reproducing), and stand for nothing (they were largely morally worthless in the Cold War against Communism and are worthless or worse in helping to keep Israel alive against Muslims who vow to exterminate the Jewish state.) When people realize this, they may conclude that something that is necessary for society to survive—belief in the God of Israel—may in fact exist.
You write that the Judeo-Christian tradition “even produced Stalin.” I have to admit this is a first in a lifetime of debating atheists. I can only imagine that you are referring to the fact that Stalin attended a Christian seminary as a youth. So what? Stalin was a passionate atheist who murdered untold numbers of Christian clergy, destroyed virtually every church in Russia, and forced Soviet students to study “scientific atheism.” If those violent pro-atheism policies were produced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, then words have no meaning.
You write: “Useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs.”
That is certainly true. However, if what may be a “useful delusion” is responsible for Judeo-Christian civilization’s abolishing slavery, discovering science and the scientific method, affirming rationality, believing in progress (the Torah was unique in repudiating the cyclic view of life), elevating women’s rights, affirming universal human rights, establishing the sanctity of human life, and so much more, then I would be loathe to dismiss it as merely a “useful delusion.”
You write: “If humanity can’t survive without a belief in God, this would only mean that a belief in God exists. It wouldn’t, even remotely, suggest that God exists.” This statement is as novel as the one suggesting that Stalin was produced by Judeo-Christian values. It is hard for me to imagine that any fair-minded reader would reach the same conclusion. If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not “even remotely suggest that God exists.” Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?
You conclude: “If nothing else, our debate clearly reveals how difficult it is to change another person’s mind on this subject. Perhaps some of our readers had their views shifted one way or the other. Whatever the result, I’m very happy we took the time to correspond.”
I, too, am happy we took the time to correspond. But I never entered this debate with any hope that I would change your mind on this subject. The motto of my radio show is, “I prefer clarity to agreement,” and that is why I agreed to this. I wanted readers to attain clarity about the differences between atheism and Judeo-based theism.
And with that goal in mind, I will end with my re-wording of a superb summary of the argument for belief in God that was made by Rabbi Milton Steinberg (1903–1950), a rationalist (and non-Orthodox) rabbi: “The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
And that is why your task, Sam, is infinitely greater than mine.
All the best,
Dennis
POST A COMMENT
Someone here gave Sam 40 IQ points over Dennis. I would give Dennis 40 Wisdom Points over Sam. Having a Ph.D. myself, I know MANY folks with "high IQ’s." They are well educated and extremely articulate but regrettably have little wisdom. From my experience in the university, it often seemed the more formal education one has, the less wise one becomes on the significant issues of life.
Great title for this debate. I wasn’t sure why this title was used, until I started reading the comments. There are clearly a lot of angry people posting comments regarding this debat. Why all the hate? Two views were stated here and yet those that disagreed with the view in the belief in God are beyond disgruntled, but plainly hateful.
Whatever your position, hate is certainly not the answer and is repellant to any position.
"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?
"You have successfully done what is so common – picked and chosen quotes from the Bible that are completely out of context. It is amazing that this is done all the time, yet great care is often taken in providing the context for quoting other writings."
No, you have unsuccessfully done what is so common – which is attempt to 'apologise' for what is written in black and white. Everytime we hear the same old 'context' excuse. Context shmontext. This is blatent misogyny and no strenuous apologetic or philosophical contorting has, or ever will justify it.
"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.
I recently read your debate with Sam Harris, where one of your points
is that Francis Collins believes in God because he found evidence for
God in Science. Here are two of your quotes:
"The Collins comments simply indicate that he and other eminent
scientists see science as arguing for a Creator God."
"I continue to defend my understanding of Collins—in fact, on my radio
show I asked him about the waterfalls and he sustained my, not your,
understanding."
You asked him in your interview "was it CS Lewis or was it science
that brought you to belief in God?" Part of his response was "the
evidence from science can make the plausibility of god pretty
compelling" (meaning that science says God is possible, not does not
provide solid evidence for him) and also "but of course, you never
really get all the way to faith on the basis of that kind of
intellectual discourse" (meaning that science and logic cannot
possibly prove the existence of God). His response is incompatible
with your claim in the debate with Harris. You claimed the Collins
found "science as arguing for a Creator God" yet he told you that "of
course, you never get all the way to faith on the basis of [science
and logic]".
You must admit that Collins does not support your position that
science and logic imply that God exists, he says at most that science
and God are compatible.
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.
This entire posting is composed of two common fallacies: argument from adverse consequences and false dichotomy. The first occurs when one makes the argument that x must be true because if x were false then unpleasant thing y would occur. The unpleasant nature of the consequent does not ensure the truth of the original supposition x. The example given in this posting is actually the textbook example of this particular fallacy: "God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous." The second fallacy occurs when an arguer presents two consequences as possible outcomes. This is observed here many times, but to give an example, the author states "If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code." The first option given is that there is a god and this god has granted a set of moral standards to humans which are universal. The second option is that there is no god and therefore no objectively based moral code. This argument stands insofar as the nonexistence of a set morality could be one possible outcome of no deity existing. However, it is not the only possible option, as numerous sociologists, psychologists and politicians have come up with several other possible explanations for moral reasoning in humans. There are, of course, numerous other logical fallacies used in this posting, but I will leave that alone for now.
As to the first argument, the false dichotomy and argument from adverse consequences, the author seems to not take into account any of the numerous explanations for morality offered up by scientists of all sorts. One possible explanation of many is that morality is a learned behavior that benefits society that has been passed down from one generation to the next. Moral standards have evolved to suit the needs of each society, based upon the standards of the last. These beliefs drop off as they become no longer useful or even detrimental to societal development, e.g. we have stopped selling our daughters into slavery and confining women during their menses. This is one possible explanation for the development of morality in human societies and explains the differences between cultures.
This explanation does not, however, necessitate that life is a meaningless series of events. The value of what is good for society and what is bad is not diminished by the fact that these values were not given to humans by a supreme being. This simply necessitates a change in paradigm, from a theistic explanation of existence to a biological one. The relationships that we gain during our lifetimes, the innate human drive for achievement, the innate desire to reproduce, the process of attachment between a mother and a child, the need for affiliation, etc., are all internal motivators for life and morality. Each of these drives, also, have been supported by scientific evidence and theory. Each of these drives can be as powerful motivators as the drive to be accepted and subordinate to a supreme being.
The author then goes on to make assumptions about the arguments that Sam Harris would make if he were asked why Islamo-fascism is wrong. The resulting argument could be nothing but a straw man tactic, considering the necessarily unconfirmable and stereotypical nature of the supposition.
The author makes many suppositions about the nature of atheistic moral ideals, none of which can be confirmed, and used them to form another false dichotomy: Either moral codes are universal and imposed by a deity or all that is good about humanity is worthless and a lie. Of course, there are many other options beyond these two, but the author does not acknowledge their existence here. There is another argument implicit here; that if morality is a social construction then it is invalid. Many other fields of study have tried to make this argument and have come to the same conclusion. For example, those who study gender have found that gender roles are completely socially constructed. Some have argued that if they are social constructions and not some innate biological drive then it is not real and not worth studying. We see in our daily lives, however, that gender has very real consequences and is relevant to social interactions as physical appearance and intelligence are. Morality, like gender roles, is important and relevant to our daily lives.
There is another argument implicit here, that the static nature of divine law is what gives it legitimacy and that the concept of socially constructed morality is invalid because of its variable nature. It must be pointed out here, as has been mentioned before, that religious morality has changed much in the previous two millennia and beyond and will more than likely continue to change into the future. The two examples of religiously moral actions in the past, selling daughters into slavery and confining women during their menses, are not acceptable anywhere now in Judeo-Christian societies. The list of moral changes goes on. Even in the past 200 years fundamentalist Christians in the United States have changed their stances on slavery, women's right to vote, women's right to work and men's right to beat their wives. It is a very fortunate thing too, because Christian evangelists were a powerful force in the abolition and civil rights movements.
We come now to the argument that the innate drives in humans are a "homing device" from god. The author, however, chooses to ignore scientific evidence and instead substitute his personal opinion about where these drives come from. It is well documented that the physiological drives for food, water, sex and shelter are hardwired in humans and are encoded in our DNA. No human is born, except by some tragic accident or mutation, without these basic needs. No evidence, however, has been produced for the theory that a deity speaks to each human and tells him what to do to ensure her own survival. This argument surpasses the rest in its sheer logical abandon.
The fact is the Soviet Union is not the only country ever to govern its people from a secular standpoint. There are at least two other Marxist countries still in existence today, China and Cuba, even if they, like the Soviet Union, depart drastically from traditional Marxist ideals. There is, however, a very long list of successful governments based not on religious ideals but on secular ones. These societies, largely democracies, are based on ideals of humanitarianism, charity and social equality. The United States, in fact, is a secular country, at least in theory. Although religious values have surely influenced the laws of this country, we grant no authority to religious laws and have formed our government in the service of the people, not of a deity.
If the intended argument was that the failure of and the evils done in the Soviet Union were because the people were atheistic, do not be fooled. The people of the Soviet Union held on to their religion through much persecution. Of course, many changed their minds as an alternative to blind faith presented itself, but the hold of religion was very strong in that country. Even now, in a modernized and European Russia only 24%-48% of the population identifies as atheist or agnostic. This is behind most of Europe and even highly Americanized countries like South Korea and Japan in numbers of atheists.
"If this high ratio of anything were found anywhere else in the world of science, it would be trumpeted that we were on the verge of a major scientific discovery. But because it points to God, it is cancelled out by and a priori assumption that there is no God."
This argument is invalid because the criteria for inclusion clearly do not include religion. The scientific community is devoted, for the most part, to exploring every aspect of the human experience. The idea that science largely ignores religion, an extremely influential part of many societies, for no good reason is absurd. Physical science can not possibly address the realm of religion because there is no physical evidence of the existence of a deity. The concept simply can not be studied by biologists, chemists or physicists. Religion has, however, been extensively studied in the social sciences. Psychology, political science and sociology have studied the causes and effects of religion extensively.
The original quotation on which the post is concerned is based largely concerns the idea that atheists do not have a simple and all-encompassing explanation for the universe. This is a fact, and is troublesome to those used to the simple god explanation. It does not, however, entail that the secular, scientific explanations for the laws of the universe are invalid. The quotation is also an oversimplification of the contradictions inherent in theism and especially the Judeo-Christian construct.
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.
I'm a jazz fan(and a Jew, who was a longtime subscriber to Dennis Pragers' Journal,Ultimate Issues RIP).Anyway,in '64 John Coltrane dedicated 'A Love Supreme' to God;this is still one of the handful of most influential jazz albums.His comments in the linernotes couldpass for the "151st Psalm".When an atheist/agnostic can play like Coltrane does on that cd,I'll reconsider your dinosaur philosophies.
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.
The debate wasn't even close. Prager's arguments were old, fallacious, wilfully ignorant, and he is also trying to defend one sky fairy over another.
I'm disappointed Sam didn't take him to task for him trying to claim that religion not only was not the cause of slavery and misogyny but was somehow beneficial against those causes… Flabbergasting!
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.
[[To one side, the existence of the Universe means that there is a God, to the other side it means nothing. It's there by chance and that's it.]]
This is only one of several statements I’ve read and heard to the effect that atheists believe the universe came about by chance. I doubt that such a belief is really characteristic of atheism.
Many atheists that I know, or know of, believe that some sort of universe or multiverse or sequence of universes has always been here, which is rather different than saying it came about by chance. Others follow Sam Harris in saying they reject the notion that the universe was designed by the God of Abraham, but simply don’t know how it did get here, which again is different from saying it came about by chance.
Still other atheists may well believe that chance is responsible. Has it occurred to you that a theist or deist might agree? A designer God might well resort to chance as a design strategy.
I deny therefore that any logical, essential or necessary connection can be made between atheism and attributing our universe to chance. The common claim to have made such a connection is bogus, a superstition, if you like, about atheism, which is dispelled once you know, or know of, a greater variety of atheists.
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!)
I’m always hoping for a real even sided debate and haven’t really seen one yet. Sam really wiped the floor here. I’d say the only thing Dennis had going for him is his abiltiy -like so many religious speakers- to pretend like he was making more of a point than he was. Dennis also kept resorting to religious parlance like “wisdom” and “profundity of thought” which aren’t really meaningful the way he is using them. In other words you think something, then realize how profound that thought is while having no real evidence or reason to do so. This doesn’t prove anything other than self deception and more harshly self centeredness in the faith that what you think, is true simply because you’ve contemplated it and wish it to be so.
(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?
“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.”
That would be “mysticism.” It’s like praying, and whatever you prayed for came true. By claiming a godly credit, it enforces the religionists view because it is unprovable. It is only valid to those who share those religious convictions. The atheist is within their logic to believe there isn’t such a thing as fate.
“”There is no difference between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, other than the fact that it was a different myth.”
Prove it. Your claim is as much a faith statement as faith in God. The only problem is that you won’t acknowledge it. You claim it to be the only truth just like many believers in God do. I believe in God, but I have many doubts regarding the details. Maybe you could learn something from me.”
That person doesn’t have to. It is you, the believer, who has to prove it.
“As for myself, I’m a deist. I see in the order and beauty of the natural universe evidence (though not 100% proof) of a creator. However, I find no credible evidence whatsoever that this creator cares whether I eat pork or not; whether I follow the Torah, Christian Bible, Qur’an, or Communist Manifesto; or whether I worship that being. In other words, I believe that God is independently real but that religion–all religion, organized or private–stems from the creative imagination of humans. Religion is a tool, like an axe. An axe can be used either to build housing for the homeless, or to commit murder; it is therefore inherently neither good nor evil. So too can we use religion either to bring comfort to suffering parents and children, or to murder them. Thus both Prager and Harris miss the point: religion is no more “the answer” than secular materialism is.”
Which is the entire point: Religion, Dennis Prager, etc. support the centuries-old practice of using force with government intervention. Laws by their very nature are controls. Somehow “ordain” force is OK though. It is deemed a holy practice providing the blinders are kept up.
Now secular law is force, too; but the interesting (and “backwards” world Prager talks about) is it is secularism that has created the most freedom in human history. The individual has the natural right to their lifestyle PROVIDED it isn’t forced upon everyone else. Religion doesn’t value “life” quite like they preach. Religion actually hates man because they also hate freedom, particularly secular freedom. Religious laws (force) are only applicable to those who believe in religion. But religion, like Dennis Prager, believes in the worst in humanity. They must, otherwise their freedom-reducing policies cannot be justified. Should people be free, great terrors will occur – this is their belief. But it is the restriction of freedom that has caused the greatest of evils. Again, both stem from secular and non-secular thought. But it is the religionist who supports government intervention, and the control of people, that is “sinning” because they are subconsciously trying to forcibly create a heaven on earth that never existed. Their symptom, I’m told, is called rank misanthropy, or misanthropic pragmatism. Hate of man. Hate of freedom. A need to believe in the worst, and not the best like they preach, in humanity. THIS is the irony of religions great history: force dressed in hymns and beautiful stained glass.
Religion has never learned to stop with education. It’s forgivable if they are not conscious of their force; but if they are, is that a virtue? This is why the RNP are doomed: the religious right are conservative in their values but are “socialists” in the use of government intervention. The same “socialism” they fight against the Democrats on. It is socialism, not secularism, that is destroying America. The belief that government owns the individual even though we were all created with our own thoughts. They’ll do all hell to deny this. Dennis Prager, too. The center of his ideology rests on a “bedrock of misanthropic pragmatism.” He cannot afford to let this message out. Religion would have to be put under radar of checks & balances that involve steps to reduce their role to educator only. The same with secular politico force. Force doesn’t discriminate amongst ideologies.
I recommend to all alike, particularly the challenger to Prager, to remove all debate thought from the table except the one that centers on an individuals natural right to liberty. Religion or secularism has no right forcing people, whether marriage or any other topic. But religion would rather treat people like slaves. They want their freedoms, but they don’t want anyone else to have theirs unless they conform. If we were all meant to conform to one ideal, humanity would have been made into a plant where our only purpose is sunlight. Instead we were made with a mind to decide our own fates. Religion has no history of such. Dennis Prager says, “God wants liberty for all,” but then contradicts that at every turn as religion has. It isn’t Church or State, it’s Church and State. Live and let live. Pfff… then religionists have the nerve to criticise others while they get away with, as secular law does, but even a bigger unconsciousable sin by claiming virtue in the form of organized, gangster if you will, force and call it faith and healing.
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.
Argument for belief in God?:
“The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
How is that an “argument” for anything? No wonder Prager dances around all the questions…he’s found 1 assignment for himself (to account for the existence of unjust suffering…which I’m not sure he can do), and leaves everything else unattended. I have no idea why he was given the assignment to debate Harris…maybe Rosie O’Donnell was busy…but he made the “debate” a complete waste of time.
… and you certainly did not win. Again context.
“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.”
They were inventing the technology and medicine that saved the children of ungrateful believers. What’s more important, your comfort or the life of your child?
“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
“If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not “even remotely suggest that God exists.” Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?”
Prager’s refusal to acknowledge the difference between “useful delusion” and “accurate statement” is the most persistent Orwellian-crimestop I’ve seen in a while: it even infects his grammar.
He seems to think that a delusion becomes accurate if it’s useful enough, like Pinocchio or something. His last sentence should read “can you name one thing that does not exist, but in which belief must be professed, in order for human survival to continue?”
Prager seems “rationally blind”: in answer to why people with functioning logic glands subject themselves to statements like his, it is in appalled fascination at how *broken* an argument can be, and still be professed by a fellow human. It’s like he has two heads, or bites the heads off chickens.
“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?
Dennis
If I may quote you from day 4
”
If we both acknowledge that without belief in God humanity would self-destruct, it is quite a stretch to say that this fact does not “even remotely suggest that God exists.”
Why can’t we believe in the dignity of humanity…. We are all one race.. the human race… not jews, christians, muslims, hindus, we are not better because we are black, white, yellow…… We are human and deserve the dignity of self determination.
Believe in ourselves, we pursue those things that benefit humanity and we punish those that harm this common pursuit. Why dennis, do we need to rely on God…. he will take care of us…. we just need to have faith….
It is humanities insistence that there must be something beyond the grave that has led us to some much suffering…. we then create these mystical beings who are all knowing all powerful all everything… yet when truly bad things happen we then ask for help from the diety who created the event that caused the harm…..
Lets get beyond blaming and working to pursue those things that are noble and good for ourselves not because if we don’t behave we have to spend the rest of eternity in a place called hell…. Please
“… 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.
With all the problems in the world, your biggest beef is whether people who believe in God will approve of you sticking your dick up some other guy’s anus?
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, Marx 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.
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.
I am newly religious person , very active in my church and what bothered me most is that I identified and understood Sam Harris more, which tells me i MUST become closer to Christ for my thinking is not much differant then 3 years ago
I am a great fan and admire of Dennis Prager listen to his show regularly read his book (i bought it) so Mr. prager got the royalties….lol
the book reveled several itmems of morals and happenies from scritpute that now makes sense to me.
…and I must of missed it neither one seem to answer the question “Why Are Atheists So Angry?”
there seemed to be quite a bit of intellectual jousting, but nether seemed to scratch the surface of the topic.
both men behaved as gentlemen
sill confused but amused
bob
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.
Who got to title this debate? Prager seemed the most angry to me.
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.
Prager asks:
“Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?”
Consensus
Harry Stottle
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.
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?
Having not read through all of the comments, this did catch my eye. “Prager is nothing if he isn’t clear”
“I find it fascinating that some commenting here claim Prager’s arguments are not “logically coherent”. Is it distaste for the position he defends or unfamiliarity with logic that make them think this way. Prager is nothing if he isn’t clear”
Harris was not so rude as to say this, but I must agree, Prager is nothing if he isn’t clear. Pager is not and was not.
Cheers,
Dreadboatman
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.
If religious apologists cannot justify their particular ‘god’ against all others that they happily discount (there are literally hundreds!), why should they expect to be taken seriously?
Steven Arthurs
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.
90% of people that have lung cancer die. 10 people get lung cancer, they all pray. 9 of them die. The last one claimed that god saved him, but did it? It’s been shown that prayer has no effect whatsoever on health conditions in quite a few studies. I’m afraid that your delusion in god didn’t save your child, modern medicine and science did.
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
To Mike
try the FSM next time – he cares too
i see. nice to put an initial to an idea.
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
did you mean eminent or immanent? either way, we each have our own 'word' or words, and this, as one thoughtful writer has said, is the dignity of difference.
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.
Fair enough.
Just a final note: my thought on the word (just in case): The word is emanant conception made manifest as existence itself.
Till next time.
pragmatically i agree withmost of your thoughts. I have to come to a different conclusion though. I feel that right and wrong is borne out of a survival instinct. I do not feel it is God given.
Before anything else, I want to thank you, Mike, for the kind words. Also, your son is very lucky to have you as a father.
When we reach the point where definitions no longer obtain then we can sit and talk of right and wrong. And like Dr. Seuss we just might say that it is neither here, nor there, might be nowhere, or it might be everywhere.
And if you rose to get a drink of water, I might ask can you justify getting a glass of water? And presupposing our conversation, we might conclude that we can’t in fact justify anything, but that every moment of our being is an asserted justification.
We might discuss the power of rationalism to present the physical world to our five senses, and be just a little dismayed that it can’t prove itself, but acknowledge that according to its own precepts it is powerless to do so. Because it must maintain a possibility of disprovability it must acknowledge the possibility of its own non-existence.
Yet we might note how powerful a tool it is for describing reality, but when it comes to the ground where definitions do not obtain, it must acknowledge that it is unwilling to relinquish its own priority. Here we find reason distraught to acknowledge that it can’t begin its work and assert its power until a foundation is assumed–built. It hides from itself, but being honest we admit it is the master builder. But nonetheless its foundation is an unjustified justification.
And so starting out with a dichotomy we end in one; I believe the world is imbued with meaning, and find god’s word everywhere and that right and wrong is an understanding of evolutionary consciousness. That each of us hears god’s word not in presumptions, but rather in the way we are able to accept god’s word as it comes to us and is acceptable to our own mind: And so that is how we come to know right and wrong: Ineffable reason/faith. But like so much else I may be wrong in this.
Let me concede that this is just a first approach to the topic but, with respect to our forum, short and suggestive seems preferable to long and didactic.
Here’s toasting 2007 as a wonderful year for everyone.
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 )
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. someone might actualy start believing there lies. 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. The discovery that this was not true was by the way one example of scientific progress 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, witch trials, 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 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.
I hope one day religion in all forms can be a thing of the past. A time when god in all his shapes is banned to the land of fairy tales together with wherewolves, vampires and witches. I hope the last 50 years where not just another enlightened period in history but the final blow to this illusion called god.
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
First of all, I think Sam won the debate. I don’t know if God exists or not, but this Dennis guy has no idea about debating or how to avoid fallacies like strawmen, arguing from popularity, assertions, etc.
He never seemed to say anything at all but just constantly twisted things around.
One thing that really made my head hurt was Prager’s statement that “Reproduction = Moral”
He specifically said that those that limited reproduction were less moral.
I’m sorry but he has obviously never visited any of the Catholic nations in Latin America- Rampant baby production has resulted in poverty and suffering.
If 7 or 8 kids living in a dirt hovel is “moral”, then he can keep his version of morality.
So Dennis, secularism, is a wee 200 years old. Devout, God-fearing Christianity is ten times as old. Secularism is Christianity's wayward child. Christianity was a true innovator in jew hate and sadism, motivating generations upon generations to torture and to hate the Judeo half of 'Judeo-Christian civilization'. Secularism merely suckled the milk of the anti semitic christian cow. Not worth mentioning?
nyapikores.blogspot.com
Thanks for your very considered response.
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.
We are angry because we are so greatly outnumbered by irrational, overly-emotional, fuzzy-brained theists. We are angry because there seem to be so few people with the intellect to comprehend our position. We are angry because we see our world being destroyed and our quality of life diminished, our children’s futures in peril because of irrational god-beliefs. We are angry because we are demonized simply because we refuse to pretend that there is an invisible man in the sky watching all we do and waiting to judge us and dole out eternal reward or punishment. We are angry, you BET we are angry. We are maligned and mis-quoted, we are characterized as immoral, mean, narrow-minded, and arrogant all because we refuse to jump into bed with the delusional, thereby validating their fantasy view of life. Even our label, “atheist”, is misunderstood. It simply means “without theism” or without a system of belief that is based on supernatural beings. That being understood, we are all born without a belief system. It is learned. Often it is crammed down the child’s throat by force, threat, and intimidation. Therefore, we are all born atheists and atheism is indeed the default position. There is nothing to be proven by someone who is not making any assertion. An agnostic is one who is “without knowledge”. This being true, we are ALL agnostic with regard to the origins of the universe, the meaning of life, etc., etc. The onus is on YOU, dear theist, to demostrate the validity of your beliefs and you have not managed to do so convincingly in more than 2,ooo years. The bible is evidence of nothing, except that several people put pen to paper (or ink to papyrus, or what-have-you) and those writings were gathered together over a period of many years, several of the writings being discarded and not included in the “final cut”. This document was further tinkered with as sections were edited or “translated” to suit the purposes of various rulers throughout history. What we are left with is something that is neither an explanation of our purpose and origins nor is it even valuable as an historical document. Nothing in the bible is corroborated by any other independent source. If your “evidence” were presented in a modern day court of law your case would be DISMISSED. Yes, we are angry. I am furious that our communities, countries, the world are in the control of people who believe in things for which there is no good evidence and then have the arrogance to disqualify us atheists from public service, demonize us and slander us, mis-characterize our positions, and label us “bad people” simply because we will not join them in their fantasy.
Lori Welsh
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.”
We must not get ourselves into a stalemate. I don’t want an argument as such. I want to further my understanding. I am totally open to debating this question. The question of morals etc can get so muddy that the actual nub of the debate gets lost. One can so easily fall into traps of debating philosophical logic. I guess morality is borne out of survival instinct amongst other things. I won’t kill you, so don’t kill me. Hell is not the reason i don’t kill. heaven is not the reason i love. If heaven and hell were the reasons for my being good or bad, i’d be a shadow of a shallow man.
There are many old arguments that can be hit over a flagging net with tired bats. The omnipotent God that must know i will sin etc etc. But these debates can go around ad infinatum. If we throw away our own reasoning for the authority of a book (choose one depending on your creed) we get into very unstable territory. If you say that reasoning was given to us by God, then He must have known we would reason ourselves out of his domain. It is the age old problem with free will and omnipotence.
There are so many loopholes in the heaven and hell construct. I do not understand what constricts you. I would genuinely be interested to hear, at least, a view on the “my wings make up” post. It would be disingenuous for me to try to dissuade you from your beliefs ofcourse, and even if i could, i wouldn’t. What interests me more is how many heaven and hell believers accept the consequences (when followed through logically) of their belief. I have not had one real debate about it. And i have tried opening it up for general discussion. I feel strongly that when faced with decisions, our beliefs are truly tested. Let’s debate these things freely. See if we can kick them around awhile. Maybe learn something. Both of us.
Hope your holiday season is fine and that your god is with you.
Kindest regards
Mikejswalker
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.
Your response was so on the mark that I had to reply with a “Hell Yeah.”
For extreme gender equality and a bit off the topic, I suggest Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s ‘Letter to the Soviet Leaders.’ He points out the forced gender equality in the work place and its effect.
who is this too? what does it mean?
is it just me or have you already made up your mind about God as well? if we’re going to point fingers of who is close minded, lets admittingly start with you.
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.
I am more than a little sympathetic to your view. Theoretically I almost absolutely agree with you, and pragmatically I do agree with you. You have well illustrated more than a couple of the absurdities with the “down shaft” image (writ large). I think early on I proposed another as concerns “eternal suffering.”
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.
Some of us seem to need or at least desire to have our ideas very fixed and literal in nearly all, if not all, circumstances. Uncertainty creates a too large dislocation. Still, we do not have to agree with them, nor they with us because neither they nor we loose justification either way. Our ideas do not gain nor loose justification by making someone else adopt our own. Our ideas are justified in the lives that we live. And if they are compelling others may adopt them.
And so it goes.
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
At best science is currently limited to ‘educated’ conjecture on the state of our universe between the Plank Epoch and the Big Bang. It cannot “be presumed that matter, energy, and time have always been in existence” nor would any legitimate scientist make such a presumption. The best hypothesis science can offer, limited by our current knowledge and understanding, largely based on theory and extrapolations from empirical evidence (not faith,) is little more than ‘educated’ speculation that at or beyond time T=0 and before the Plank Epoch it is suspected that all fundamental forces were unified.
There is absolutely no accepted scientific consensus that the universe is “eternal.” Furthermore, there is remains nearly incomprehensible amounts of energy within the universe so one need not worry about an impending cold, dark death anytime soon; humanity has far, far more urgent concerns.
Regarding the macroscopic world, including biology, a reasonably cogent explanation is put forth by the Law of Maximum Entropy Production (MEP.) It states that a dynamical system not in thermodynamic equilibrium will follow the path or the sum of paths that minimizes the thermodynamic potential ‘energy’ (aka, the thermodynamic gradient) of the system thus maximizing entropy at the fastest rate. Likewise, if the universe acts to minimize thermodynamic potentials at the fastest rate, given the constraints, then the universe (of which the Earth is a constituent,) can be expected to produce order whenever the opportunity arises. In other words ordered heat flow is more efficient at dissipating or reducing thermodynamic potentials than disordered heat flow and will invariably increase entropy at a faster rate.
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)
This passage anonymously submitted is a very weak argument for god based on emotional blackmail. The issue of a small child being ill is something we all fear and empathise with in respect of those who have to suffer the circumstance. It also carries a veiled threat that if one doesn’t pray then they are not doing enough? Nevertheless, the science of medicine and a vast majority of its serving practitioners offer the very best care that a human being can give. Sadly though, sometimes all that results is the emptiness of complete loss. I find it strange that in spite of all this many people can still thank a god for a secret purpose that none can understand. Gut feeling and intuition often foster nothing more than superstition if that is all one goes by.
Cliff L
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
Neither side identified the reason for the disagreement: Harris refuses to accept the idea of God if it is not proven with science, and Prager refuses to use science to prove God’s existence. This is a non-debate. The terms of the debate were not clearly outlined and as a result both sides,while pretending to address the other, had different issues that they wanted to explore. Harris feels that if pure reason and logic fails to clearly prove the existence of a god with a distinct will, personality, purpose and who intervenes in our lives, then the idea of God is proven to be false. The key fallacy is his failure to grasp that the idea of God is simply outside of the realm of science, which only addresses concepts that are subject to being falsified. This is equivalent to complaining about a scale because it does not tell us how tall we are. Religion and God are in a different realm, which deals with morality, decency, developing gratitude and awe for the universe in which we dwell, and a search for ultimate purpose. That realm is in fact one based upon emotional appeals, and can be best measured by how well it functions. Harris only addresses the misuse of religion, and seems to concede its benefits. That is much like railing against fire for all of its destructive capacity, overlooking how when fire was properly harnessed, mankind was able to leave the caves and develop the modern world that we live in. Had the two sides understood why they disagreed, the debate might have developed more productively.
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?
Thank you.
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.
Dennis concluded his arguements with this amazing faux pas, quote: “The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
Does this imply that they leave it to the atheists to carry out all the research in science and medicine that enabled our society to advance throughout all these years?
Well now, no wonder it took two fcuking thousand years to abolish slavery and accord equal rights to women.
And even after two thousand years, it is still illegal in my part of the world to be caught performing homosexual acts. The religious forces are certainly doing nothing to redress this, indeed, on the contrary, this primitive law is blindly upheld largely due to the political pressure of religious groups.
Religion has put a stranglehold on a wide range of other human advancements such as stem cells, assisted suicide, organ transplant etc. Remember in the past, it almost prevented what’s-his-name from sailing round the world. Do we then really need to debate over why Atheists are so angry over religion ruining our lives?
Robert L
What constitutes “perfect knowledge“? Is “perfect knowledge” a desirable goal of humankind and if so why?
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.
Again, what is your evidence that this is the case?
But, we are obligated not to accept perceived or fallacious wisdom and commentary merely because we find it convenient to do so.
For those of you who think that a moral code is a product of divine intervention, please read Robert Wright’s “The Moral Animal”
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.
You sound like a reasonable person who is willing to accept the truth just like most reasonable people would. I wanted the same thing you did. If God iexists why can’t he reveal himself to me. It turns out Christianity does make this claim. If you ask God with honest intent to reveal himself to you, he promises to do just that. I myself did just that praying everyday for God to reveal himself to me if he is real. After about 30 days of praying I had what I call a born-again spirtual experience. I was filled with the Holy Spirit and felt the awesome unconditional Love of God filling my whole body. I felt like I could literally walk on water or fly.
Anyways, don’t believe me. Just pray honestly everyday for God to reveal himself to you and he will. However, if you really love God, God expects you to follow him after this for the rest of your life.
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.
“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.”
True. Or any other book considered sacred by anyone. Exactly.
Just a side note: an infinite being would be infinite in morality as well. But of course man will never be.
New dialogue about the nature (or lack thereof) of God, for those who are interested.
it takes this to say what! my god man thats brilliant, absolutly brilliant. if an elephant was standing in front of an atheist he wouldnt
even know its there, thats such a flawless use of logic- NOT!!!!
listen equating the obvious elephant with god is a no brainer ok.
as an athiest looking at a bloody elephant in front of me i think i would see it.
it would be big, have a trunk, big flapping ears and all that.
but most important i could see it, touch it, smell it so i would know it
w was there yes….. fact.
god …. you cant do any of that there is no evidence for a god at all, much less the god of the bible who created this and that and actually cares one bit about any one
if god was perfect then he would have created a perfect world right!
last time i checked it was not so perfect.
sme with people…created in the image of a perfect creator…..its just plain wrong. its time people grew up and stoped believing in fairy tales and started to get things done
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.
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.
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.
Very well said, indeed.
“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.
Yes, so my question is, which is preferable? Which is more workable? Which results in love and which results in fear? What difference do we have when we take one belief over the other?
I also have friends that are pagan and taoist and buddhist and wiccan and christian and jewish and new thought and free thinkers and atheist. We all operate from a place of “we’re OK”, not “we’re sinners”. Conflict happens, but eternal judgment does not. That’s why it works. My contention is that we’re not operating from the tenets of traditional faith based beliefs with each other, and if we did, we’d be much worse off.
One thing I’ve come to realize in this debate. Belief in a God of Creation isn’t the problem. Even most atheists could allow this concept to represent the unexplainable source of it all. It’s harmless. We protest because this concept gets collapsed with another. It’s belief in a God of Judgement, Vengence, and Condemnation that’s the problem. These are not the same Gods. They produce two separate experiences of life.
I should have said, “and can have a sense of self superiority.
In reply to the question “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?”
I don’t know.
I do think that all adherents to a belief system of any sort, whether secular or non secular are certainly prone to and have a sense of self superiority. In fact I’m sure of it.
An interesting thought is whether perfection is “out there,” or if we are in fact a “perfect expression” of existence as it is. Either is possible.
I have long and enduring friends and family who are Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Evangelical, Jewish and other. So it goes.
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 find the wikipedia definition of cynic to be perfect.
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?
aaaaa”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?”
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?” I don’t understand why we have such a hard time holding god accountable for his crimes against humanity, namely genocide. If god is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent…there should be no heaven or hell because everything is supposed to be occuring by his design and he is incapable of making an error. That means that god knew before i was born that I would not believe in him and therefore wind up in hell. God preselected me for hell before I was ever born? You can’t have it both ways. Either god is an illusion and we have freewill. Or choice is the illusion, god is all powerful, and all of history is laid out in advance and I could sit right here in front of this computer and never eat another bite of food…and eventually die. Either way, god already has it planned out so my decisions have no effect on my future. Which is it? Why is it that we as humans, inferior to god as we supposedly are, seek just punishment for criminals in our society and our creator does not? If your child refused to listen to you is it appropriate for you to snap it’s neck? If god knows our limitations as an inferior race that he created, why the excess cruelty? Aren’t we basically “all god’s children?” Why is murder by deity morally acceptable?
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.
How can anyone explain members of communism in terms of atheism without a bare mention of atheism coming from them? Unfortunately even many atheists fall prey to this myth. Just because Bolshevik Communism curtailed the churches, what in the world has this got to do with atheism by that fact alone? If a hurricane swept through a Christian city and destroyed all the churches, should we blame it on an atheistic hurricane? If, indeed, communists justified their beliefs through atheism, then where do we find their arguments? In religious crusades, pogroms, and inquisitions, for example, we find a plethora of theological arguments to justify these atrocities from the theologians and religious believers themselves. But what atheistic reasons did the Communist leaders use? Where do we find their exegesis? One should think that with all the claims and accusations we should find abundant sources. Where do we find them? Although I have not read the entire works of Marx and Stalin, I tried but failed to find where they even admit to their own atheism, much less an elucidation about their philosophy of atheism. This seems rather odd considering all the hoopla spent, ad nauseam, on the subject of atheistic Communism. Imagine a god based religion started by people who rarely speak about God, and you get a flavor of the absurdity of the atheist-Communism argument. So whenever some believer wants to defend the evils of religion by comparing it with the evils of Communist atheism, simply ask for the evidence of atheistic justification. I submit that they haven’t a clue about what they talk about.
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.
For a look at ties between rightwing Christianity and Nazi fascism, look up “Council for National Policy”. Barbara Aho (I don’t subscribe to all her religious views) has compiled a shocking report and database. Also, look up “Origins of the Overclass”.
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
Was that it?
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.)
… and home to Ted Haggard and his (former) flock. Maybe there's sumthin in that thar Rocky Mountain water.
One can never underestimate the militant religionist mindsets that gives way to movements such as the Christian Identity, which all to often produces organizations not unlike the predominantly (if not exclusively) Protestant Ku Klux Klan, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, the Aryan Nations, the Army of God, and others.
For anyone interested have a look at the following U.S. government document:
Further underscoring this ever growing potential threat to civil liberties one need only examine the overzealous militant religious inculcation of children in the movie Jesus Camp.
Lest anyone think a religion considered as peaceful and passive is immune from these effects should read the following report:
It does seem that Karl Marx was somewhat prophetic when he declared that “religion is the opium of the people.”
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.
The atheist believes in something unprovable: the self. Therefore by his own tenets the atheist does not exist.
I agree that it’s cynicism, but I don’t believe that the view represented carries sufficient influence to represent the potential threat it might have.
Ignore the religious trappings a moment and this becomes the declaration of a political/lobbying body whose limited mandate has been revoked. Religious observance, particularly among the more traditional and storied sects, has been declining steadily over the last three generations and has given no indication of slowing. While various protestant evangelical sects have increased membership somewhat, overall the net gain is negligible due to an inability to retain membership and has no impact to the overall total, since much of the new membership derives from people switching churches. Depending on whose statistics one accepts, all of the growth is within the “unchurched” demographic — but there are studies that suggest as much as ten percent of the population is, in fact, secular, and almost four percent of those consider themselves atheist.
Still. Looking around Jewcy and not noticing a fairly pronounced and radical change in the expression and cultivation of faith is like standing around on a melting glacier, watching the polar bears mill around looking for a place to stand without falling in the water, and not noticing that the temperature seems to have gone up a little lately.
Historically, organized religion enjoyed a degree of public deferral to it’s authority as a whole that limited most major challenges to internal politics among the leadership.
The enlightenment and reformation have been catching up with us at a glacial pace for some time, however, and the progressive liberalization of social attitudes, shifts in cultural exposure and individual experience and a number of other factors have diminished the degree of power held by sectarian authorities substantially.
Faith has ceased to be wholly synonymous with obedience to the leadership of one’s sect.
Ironically, Archbishop Chaput is, himself, a greater threat to his own office than the secularists he’s railing against. While confidence in leadership is at an all time low across the board, Catholicism has taken a much deeper hit than many because it was both self-inflicted and because the weakening of institutions like assumptions of inerrancy have a cascade effect in terms of undermining the authority of leadership.
Beyond merely adapting, religion is discovering that there is no alternative to embracing basic philosophy and attempting to demonstrate it’s cultural and social value.
Ultimately, this is a much more difficult proposition than it would appear on the face of it, since the disconnect between secular and religious philosophy has always been religious philosophy requires it’s conclusions support what are considered it’s religion’s own inerrant truth(s).
On average, even atheists who never make any effort to consider a particular faith generally spend some reasonable length of time learning about it’s precepts.
But consider that it’s possible to make a strong argument suggesting that people overwhelmingly fail to spend a fraction of that same period of time studying epistemology, and of those a fair number have no idea what it is much less why it’d be necessary.
And for this reason, I’d admit that I’m not exactly dancing around waving the last couple of coffin nails and getting jiggy at the prospect of, at last, burying God.
As an atheist, issues like this are “religious” to me solely because they involve someone claiming that they are. Otherwise, they’re simply policy disputes that, by necessity, must be decided by examining the positions involved and the arguments that support them.
While one’s personal philosophy and ethical sense are paramount to the content of one’s character, I don’t believe atheism or theism motivate personal behavior or reasoning to any measurable degree. Though I wouldn’t oppose such a development, whether people embrace one or the other from the larger vantage is immaterial — if the world woke up Godless tomorrow I’d still be part of a nearly infinitesimal minority that did not observe the Judaeo/Christian ethic as it’s most influential intellectual influence.
But the possibility that we’re going to see an outbreak of actual violence owed to religious intolerance in the near future? I don’t think the people who’d go that route have sufficient influence to persuade enough people to take part in it.
One must always beware of straw men.
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/
Paralogical statements and inferences abound in your seemingly contemplative discourse.
There are a multitude of distinct disciplines in science where reductionism is not applicable. You have a misconception of science as a whole and have mischaracterized atheism or non-belief with respect to belief in supernatural or spiritual causality.
To anyone familiar with Gödel it should be obvious that you have grossly misstated and abused Gödel in an attempt to validate your desired ontological conclusion.
Sophistry is distracting and invariably makes for unenlightening and dissuasive discourse.
I am open minded and would like some links to sites that have information on debating various Christian points, etc.
Thank you very much
Its funny how religionists here are trying to fall back on the “well we can’t know everything, so God might be true,” argument.
From the time of Paul until around 200 years ago the mantra was quite different, then it was, “WE DO KNOW EVERYTHING, BECAUSE GOD HAS REVEALED ABSOLUTE TRUTH TO US.”
Funny how all of their ABSOLUTE truths have been refuted by “mere mortals”, who “can’t possibly know everything”.
“Reason” has limits… so just make up nonsense and call it “the word of God,” that’s a good solution!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re right, YOUR reason does have limits, and your reasoning ability is obliviously so limited that you can’t see the gaping holes in your own arguments.
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.
Wonderful. I look forward to reading Gödel and Turin.
The problem with atheism is that its logic, its use of reason and science, is always reductionistic, which is always absurd in the truest sense of the word. The atheist repeats the mistakes of the past. Pre-Socratic thinkers understood that a finite, atomized universe, reasoned from the bottom up, as it were, resulted in un-resolvable contradictions, leading these early thinkers to actually believe in absurdity as reality. Many who believe in Quantum Theory come to the same conclusion. “Absurdity” is apparently now a basis for rational discourse? Bertrand Russell and his friends, who founded philosophical Positivism, tried once again to show that all things in the universe-of-reason can be self provable – which would be a circular argument at best. Actually Gödel (and Turin) have had the last word. Gödel showed that reason itself is incomplete – that no system, or system of thought, of any type can “prove” itself without contradiction, much less explain its own first principles, laws, or axioms.
So now we have the astounding situation that nothing is provable, but everything is intelligible from the top down as it were. This is a beginning for religious thinking. If we human beings ever ask the question “Why?” then I believe that I can argue fairly that we are asking a transcendent question leading to only a religious answer by definition by reason – we have no choice here! Plato saw the same thing several thousand years ago. The only resolution to absolute absurdity is absolute and infinite Being, Plato would say.
My physics prof. would always lead the class in such a way that at the end of a lecture the students were drawn to ask, “Why?” To this the Prof would respond that we are not allowed to ask “Why” – because we can prove the form-function of things from the physical laws but we cannot prove the physical laws from the things themselves. The universe is an unexplainable architecture of ideas (laws)! And in this my Prof was in agreement with Gödel. The laws of the universe are perceived by independent, free minds as “best explanations”, yet without proof (albeit, perhaps inductive proof) (And by the way, an independent free mind cannot be derived from energy and chemistry). All laws therefore demand a kind of faith, a faith in ruling ideas that are inseparable from reason. And perhaps by starting from these conclusions I might discursively move toward a religious opinion as the only sensible opinion worth having – improvable too, yet completely intelligible.
The House of Cards Argument: And so, the concept “house” is an abstraction or law given its “being” by a free, independent, intelligent mind. The “cards” can in no way either prove or predict “house”. In this case, the person literally acts as an analogy of God.
Matter: Even if “matter” is understood as “always existing”, it cannot be understood as anything but “formless and void” without some absolute abstract intelligence entering the picture.
I finally got around to reading this debate today and it was very stimulating. I feel that Sam missed several opportunities to make a clear argument on a couple of issues. I also feel that Mr. Prager openned up some of the biggest doors for completeing the debate within the last exchange. Too bad.
While I agree that it is nearly useless to expect that someone’s opionion might be swayed during a debate such as this, there is still a mountain of logical argument that religious, dogmatic believers must overcome in order to justify their position.
On the issues of Hitler, Stalin, and “religiously active people”, which is worse: an insane individual of extreme powere bent on exterminating a race claiming no religious conviction to do so or an indivual who claims religious belief but takes advantage of hundreds (or thousands) of pious followers?
The burden of proof is not on the non-believer (as Mr. Prager suggests in his final quote). If an individual claims a positive, he must prove it. Science is not required to prove a negative.
What bothers me most about Mr. Prager is not his belief (per se) but that he is in a position where people ascribe to his message.
It is easier for an individual to be persuaded in private but impossible to convert masses to common sense. This is the reason we are in the global mess we are currently in.
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.
You’re free to believe what you like but the antidote has been delivered.
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
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here other than avoiding confronting the beliefs of your own religion. Every point that I made was taken straight from the Bible. Maybe the problem is that atheists just take the Bible too seriously, is that it? *sarcasm*
Now, why don’t you tell me what you believe and what the basis for these beliefs are, and why it is that believing in them is just as reasonable as believing that there is going to be a floor under your feet when you get up in the morning.
What points from what I mentioned do you not believe, and why don’t you believe them, since that it what the Bible says.
Its funny, I just heard a conservative Republican claim that Barack Obama is nothing more than a blank canvas onto which people project what they want to see. I couldn’t help but think how ironic is was for a conservative Christian to say that, since that really is all that Jesus is.
It doesn’t. What makes atheists angry is other people who can’t see that it is just that, myth and metaphor.
In case you haven't figured it out, let me lay out your little story for you:
Thanks, in all my 40 years of working in the church I never saw it that way. Perhaps its because none but the most fundamental of believers have a literal interpretation of their myths. Some of them drive me crazy too. Most ancient mythology sounds insane to logical linear thinkers. Someone recently asked a native woman, an elder on her reservation about the concept of the world on the back of a turtle. "What is the turtle standing on?" "Ah I've got you there." she said, "It's turtles all the way down."
The whole debate is why does myth and metaphor, the stuff of the art and drama and literature and of theology make (some) logical linear thinkers so angry! "Methinks they doth protest too much!"
Oh I don't know? If it's evidence you need, just read much of the preceeding.
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:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????
It’s in the lesson of peaceful debate. It is this debate that we should take to those that opress in the name of their God. We give our thoughts wings here. Across seas. I have learned much here.
wingless birds.
Thankyou for answering my mail.
“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?”(Zhang)
My point is that your point is meaningless. It just proves itself. it does not move the debate on any further. Like, “the cup is half empty therefore it is half full” or “in a shrimpless world their are no shrimps.”
I think you have created your own meaning. That meaning is called God. Of which there has never been any proof.
On an island that has no access to the word of God, people live by rules. They don’t randomly kill each other. They would wipe themselves out. They develop a moral code. It’s called Survival. They fall in love. Read up on it. It’s interesting.
“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”. (zhang)
You need to follow this point thru. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you saying you would fear death if there was no God
“Forgive me, I don’t understand the point or question there.”(Zhang)
Like when a child finds out for themselves.
Finds out what for themselves?”(Zhang)
If you were looking at nature thinking “wow, God is so smart to create such a wonder” then you subsequently found out he didn’t, would you regard nature as even more beautiful, because it created itself?
Like when a child is left to find answers for themselves. When they arn’t guided constantly down the path their parents took. They take their own path. A new path.
” If god is a compassionate god, then hell is a human fallacy.” (mike)
“Why?” (Zhang)
“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’.(mike)
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”.)(Zhang)
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.(Zhang)
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.”(Zhang)
I need to really understand exactly what you mean. you don’t seem to understand fully the concept of altruistic love. You are trying to rationalise a human trait. I”m talking children who understand the god concept but reject it. They come to their own conclusions and reject it. If circumstances put parents and children into seperate lifts, one marked down and one marked up, Then parents are faced with the prospect of the eternal torment of their children. If you loved me as a friend for many years, you may reject me at some point. But you have no choice in remembering the things about me that you loved.( Don’t think of a red balloon).
If all those things are wiped from memory, Then what you have in heaven is a jumble of happy families and childless parents who are not allowed the wonderment of their own offspring. In short, heaven becomes the chess board of a God who knows the outcome, as he always has, of a rigged game. Moreover he knows the childless parents once had children. It is too evil to contemplate.
“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.”(Zhang)
This is not the point. You miss the point completely.
This is the point. Crying can be beautiful. Sorrow hollows out more room for joy. Your heaven does contain hell by definition. My point is this; ask any theistic parent now, would they swap. I believe most would. The rest are lying.
“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.”(Zhang)
Again, you miss the point. Being three in one gives a slight advantage. You get another chance. a parent does not know that for sure. Most parents would take the bullet for their child. I find this infinitely more moving.
One more thing Zhang, How do i highlite our previous debate? Yours is much easier to read in blocks.
Much love to you all. mikejswalker
Yes, based upon your presuppositions.
HaHarris wiped the floor with Prager. I am a Christian and Pragers retorts where rather embarrassing. I haven’t read an argument that one sided in quite some time.
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.
And exactly why should I believe in your fairytale?
“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.
I just must say, that as an atheist I am so sick and tired of all of these wannabe tough guy conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, and, of course, Dennis Prager, who bitch and moan about “political correctness”, and they sit there with their smug macho attitudes, belittling people and acting like they are just so though and “hard nosed”, etc., etc., when the fact is that all of these Christian conservatives are the biggest bunch of whiners and cry babies on the planet.
These guys believe in the most insane fairy tales, and as soon as their beliefs are challenged they go into a tirade, they get all defensive and emotional, and the fact of the matter is, that is it the very POLITICAL CORRECTNESS that they complain about that they then go ducking under and hiding behind.
The continued existence of Christianity DEPENDS ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!
“Ohh, I’m a big tough conservative Christian, blah, blah, blah.” I’m sorry, but I can’t take anyone seriously whose life is dependent on beliefs in ancient legends and fairy tales about going to a “perfect place” after you die. Here is one for you conservative Christians: Suck it up big boys!
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.
I’m sorry, but if you are trying to equate reasonable expectations with beliefs in invisible all powerful beings, then that’s a no sale.
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”.
I don’t know if you are a Christian or not, but I hear these kinds of things from Christians all the time, and it strikes me as quite funny. To try and justify “faith” in a defined God, who has lots of stories written about him, but for which there is no evidence that “he” exists, and indeed a lot of evidence to the contrary, with “faith” that the floor is going to be beneath your feet the next time you take a step is a grave misrepresentation, and the saddest thing is that you have to go to these lengths to try and make your “faith” justifiable, because it so obviously isn’t.
A phrase it may be, but it is a lie. I know several atheists in the military, and I know an 80 year old veteran of World War II, who was actually a member of the Communist Party at the time of the war, which was not uncommon as we were allies at the time, but he no longer is of course, and at any rate, we discussed his military experience and, of course, he said that when under fire those kinds of thoughts aren’t even in your mind, you are just trying to figure out how to survive, and at any rate, being in the middle of bloody war doesn’t give one much faith in a benevolent god.
You can read lots of stories from military atheists here:
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Now, I’ve never been in the military, but I have have several near death experiences, including one car wreck at 150 MPH and one at 80 MPH in which my convertible Jeep flipped 3 times and I broke my back, due to a blowout on the highway. In neither case did I suddenly have any kind of religious feeling. The idea that this kind of thing happens is just ONE MORE of the string of lies perpetuated by Christians. Can you guys even keep track of all the lies that you use the justify your nonsense?
Think about this fact for a second. The majority of human cultures in the history of mankind haven’t even possessed a notion of an afterlife. “Afterlife” notions aren’t even found in the Pentateuch, they were uncommon in early Greek religion, few Native Americans had notions of an afterlife, many Asian philosophies have no notion of afterlife at all, a vast array of African tribes had no concept of an afterlife, etc.
Stop projecting YOUR delusion into everyone else’s head. Maybe you live your entire life by what you think is going to happen to you after you die, which is really quite pathetic, because you would be disappointed, however you won’t be disappointed because you won’t be alive to be disappointed, but there is something quite sad and pathetic about grown adults who fantasize more about how happy they are going to be after they are DEAD, than they spend time fulfilling the real life that they have.
This seems fitting:
Dance Monkeys, Dance
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.
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?
There’s been some recent chatter about how the believers are being unduly harse in our ad hominems and we should be more civil.
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?
Though that is a different discussion, it sounds to me like a very interesting one.
“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.
Yes, and so in reading Harris’s “End of Faith”, we find a call for a rational review of our personal worldviews to see if certain actions we take may not be working out for the best.
Change the presumptions, change the world.
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.
I assume that by "faith" you mean believing things with no evidence or in spite of evidence, correct?
Actually, no. Faith is believing in and acting on what you take for granted. To be really symplistic, you have faith in the fact that the floor will be there when you get out of bed in the morning. You don't thnk about it. You take it for granted. If you didn't, you would have a fobia about getting out of bed. You take for granted that the bridge you cross on the way to work will support you. You unthinkingly have faith in the architects and construction company who built it. We put our faith in taxi drivers, dentists, doctors, clergy, politicians, lawyers, … well, you can see that there may be limits. Those who have a fear of flying or elevators have lost faith in those things. We develop faith through the trust we have in parents and their counsel and those in authority that we trust. Or.. we test it. For a child, first time on an elevator, escalator, sitting on Santa's knee is a test of faith. It is a risk they are willing to take. Faith in a diety is the same. If we have been indoctrinated sufficiently we have faith in God. If like your rain dance example it happens to rain while we are gyrating we have the proof we need and our faith in that process is strengthened.
However, there is also desparate need. The phrase, there are no atheists in foxholes bespeaks the faith of desperation. Faith and hope are closely linked here. Victor Frankel's book on concentration camp inmates speaks to the difference between those with hope who survived and those who had given up all hope and a greater number of them died.
We must have faith or we couldn't function. It is a matter of how far and in which directions we are willing to push that envelope, – Don
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!”
I find this kind of comment boring. No point. this is such a self important comment. An unimaginative diatribe. Why make the effort? Debate the points made or go away and learn to let go of the need to control.
DO you posters, both theist and atheist alike, realize how pathetic and self-important you sound?
Get lives people!
And therefore we are either something or nothing.
That would appear to be the respective positions.
Given your assertion that science is that which can be counted, perhaps a good definition of God is that which can’t be counted.
The faithful would equate God with Infinity (a number that can’t be counted). The atheists would equate God with Zero (a number that can’t be counted).
Is there really a difference between the two positions, since neither can be counted (that is, IT distinguished from NOT IT).
“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.
Yes, man must have faith. Yet faith that I won’t wreck my car when I drive home is entirely different than faith in Saint Christopher, patron saint of automobile drivers. The first naturally develops through experience while the second is pure wishful thinking.
Either faith could be employed in explaining why I safely made it home last night, but first has me ultimately responsible while the second places that responsibility on a demigod.
If I don’t make it home on night, whom I going to blame? Will I rationally determine why the accident happened or will I look to unrelated behavior that may have displeased the gods in some way?
And we must note that your equation has again reduced “beauty,” to a quantity that is counted.
Actually I would say that this is very far from true. “Faith” is not quite natural at all, it only seems to arise in people who have been inculcated from infancy to believe things in spite of the evidence.
I assume that by “faith” you mean believing things with no evidence or in spite of evidence, correct?
This is actually pretty uncommon in cultures. Anthropologists note that historically most cultures that had superstitions also didn’t have any evidence to counter their beliefs, and when presented with evidence, many of them give up their beliefs. Though some do continue, its typically due to a lack of education, not in the face of education.
People are simply looking for what works. If you show someone who does rain dances to get the rain how to build irrigation ditches instead, they will tend to do that and stop with the rain dances.
Most people, unless they are heavily indoctrinated with a very strong bias, and fear of punishment, will not cling to beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary, which, I would suppose, is what “faith” is.
It just happens that Christianity and Islam are two religions that are such heavily indoctrinating systems that invoke a deep fear in the believer should they swerve from “the faith”.
The wonderful, horrifying? aspect of faith is that it is universal. It is the inescapable condition of Man.
Oh, also an interesting point to add, is the question of why flowers and fruits are “beautiful”?
I mean, after all, plants can see other plants, so why do their forms conform to measures of beauty such as symmetry, etc?
Well, because flowers and fruits are selected for BY ANIMALS!
Insects choose to go to flowers, and many animals choose which fruits to eat, thus “we” have selected flowers and fruits that conform to “OUR” standards of beauty!
Isn’t evolution fun :)
“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.
For myself, one of the best qualitative studies, accounts on the subject of man is Hamlet.
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.
Okay, this itself is an instinctive reaction. You think its a “rational” reaction? Humans are just as driven by “instinct” as all other animals are, indeed these terms have already broken down and are now out of favor among behaviorists and neuroscientists, these are just old folk terms.
That “wow” feeling is an instinctive reaction of curiosity. When people have new experiences such as this, that feeling can prompt them to investigate the phenomenon and try to learn more about it.
And being attracted to big breasts and sweet food is useless to you now too, indeed your “instinctive” attraction to sweet food, which originally evolved because nutritious foods in nature are sweet, such as fruits and honey, now works against you, attracting you to completely unhealthy food such as candy that has no nutritional value.
And what of our xenophobic “instincts”, which have led to untold wars and genocides? Indeed, the only reason that we can’t “all just get along” on this planet is because of our “instinctive” behaviors, which religions feed into.
And this is different from people how? People get themselves killed all the time by following their senses, victims of spouse abuse are a classic example.
No they haven’t. I have before me right now an article reporting on a study titled “Study: Ask with Care – Emotions rule brain’s decisions”.
The opening sentence is: “The evidence has been piling up throughout history, and now neuroscientists have proved its true: The brain’s wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making.”
New studies on the hormone oxytocin show that administering the hormone to the brain via a nasal spray influences people’s trust levels and feelings of love.
See: http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/index.html
What is “love”? Nothing more than an instinct that drives individuals to seek out mates, care for their young, and protect family members, etc. This instinct has evolved because it increases the chance that your genes will be propagated.
There is nothing fundamentally different about human thought from other thought, indeed several animals, including apes, dolphins, and several species of birds, are shown to make and use tools. Elephants and many more animals mourn their death and even have rituals, apes are shown to have creative abilities and artistic skill, though none of these are as elaborate as ours, its only a matter of degrees. You think that animals can’t express and comprehend emotions? Have you ever paid attention to your dog? The amazing thing is that animals can read us better than we can read them.
Thought and “intelligence” is a matter of making connections between various objects and events. Our brain is simply able to make more connections than other animals. This is an example of a quality rising out of quantity.
This is what explains both our “advances” and our “problems”.
A connection is, for example” “Rock hits bird, bird dies”… “Rock hitting bird causes bird to die.”
Almost all animals can learn and have some basis of cause and effect and draw relationships between objects and between events.
The difference with us is that our brains find many times more relationships than other animals. This is what allows us to learn more, to use symbols to represent ideas, to express artwork, to have music, etc. Its all extrapolation on a theme, which is “pattern building.”
Now, unfortunately, this has also had some “negative” side effects.
Our brains are connection finding and pattern building machines on overdrive. As a result, our brains also find connections where they actually don’t exist, and this is what we now call “superstition”.
Here is an example. I am out in my field and I have planted some seeds. I have made the connection that seeds cause plants to grow. I also know that seeds need water, I have made that connection too, but there has been no rain for months, so I have no plants. One day I am very sad because my plants are not growing, and I go out into my field and I sing a song of sorrow and I dance in the field. The next day, it rains. Now, my brain tries to make some connections to see if there is a cause and effect relationship to be made. My brain identifies my dancing and singing in the field as something different that stands out, and it links that event to the rain, so that now I believe that dancing in the field causes rain to fall.
Now, as you can see, this “false” belief is established in the exact same way that a “true” belief is established, but I have no way to know that. The only way that we can really figure out which of these relationships that our brain forms are “true” is through controlled experiments and peer review.
We can also build models that allow us to anticipate how the world works, which we can use to compare relationships to, to tell us if a certain perception fits with an expectation.
The materialist model defines a set of rules that we expect the world to follow, and this model says that all material phenomena have material causes, and in addition, the only phenomena are material phenomena. The advantage of this model is that when we experience a phenomena if we go by this model then we know to look for material explanations, and indeed this has been invaluable in figuring out how things work, because through experimentation and careful study, we have found that every time we look really hard, we can come up with a material explanation for events, or at least a material expectation, even when most people didn’t think that was possible.
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
This brings up a good point, which is a long time contention of mine. Religious people are becoming increasingly delusional over time.
To believe in gods 4,000 years ago is quite forgivable, and who could know any better right?
To believe in gods 2,500 years ago in Greece or Rome was a bit questionable, as naturalistic philosophy and science had come up with some pretty good explanations of things by then, but still forgivable.
To believe in gods, or “god”, 1,000 years ago, after the Christians had brought civilization back down to its knees, was quite forgivable again. After losing so much knowledge its no wonder that people were confused.
But to believe in gods today is something else entirely, because today one has to believe in this nonsense IN SPITE OF overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the past people didn’t really have evidence to the contrary, so to hold the beliefs then was understandable, but now you truly do have to be delusional to continue to think that this stuff is true.
Its like if I show a magic trick to a child and they believe that it is really magic. Okay, they’re not crazy, that’s understandable. But if I show them that trick again and I show then exactly how its done, a complete behind the scenes look at what takes place, and basically prove to them that its not really magic, and after seeing that they don’t believe the explanation and they continue to believe that it really is magic, now we have a problem.
This is the place that our society is at today.
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.
There are many scientific studies on beauty. There have even been documentaries on the subject, one of which is called “The Science of Beauty”.
See also:
Beauty – Part One
Our perception of “beauty” is just an evolved mechanism that attracts people to certain forms and repulses us from others.
These attractions and repulsions are part of an evolved emotional mechanism that has developed because attractions to certain qualities tends to improve survival and reproductive successes.
Animal minds work through a series of chemical behavioral modifiers, that respond to the environment. The chemical pathways have evolved over time and have been impacted by the types of behaviors that are successful in given situations.
The core of this system probably developed a few hundred million years ago, and has just been tweaked since, with an increasing array of modifiers coming on line in various species.
“Beauty evaluation” is probably a pretty old modifier. When animals view other animals this causes a variety of chemical reactions in the brain. Those animals that received a pleasurable effect, i.e. in the form of dopamine release, etc., from the viewing of symmetrical forms were naturally selected for because they became more discriminating than animals in which this did not take place, but those that did not receive pleasure (the release of dopamine, or a like hormone) from seeing symmetrical organisms were likely to #1 mate with genetically inferior mates and #2 expose themselves to diseases.
So, that’s what beauty is, it is an instinctive guide to “fitness”, but like all evolved mechanisms, it is crude and certainly not a guarantee of fitness, but it is one factor that goes into our evaluation of fitness.
That same mechanism isn’t very precise, so it is applied to many objects, not just mates, because after all, we had to look for fitness clues about our food as well, you don’t want to eat diseased animals or rotten fruit, etc.
More goes into it than just symmetry, but that’s a basic building block.
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.
Well, all I can say is that I was operating under another understanding of Phenomenalism
than was given by Wikipedia. So is Wikipedia a contributing understanding, sure, why not. I believe I said in my only post on that matter that I used Wikipedia as a jumping off point, not my sole source. I’m still comfortable with that.
If information were shown to be false from any source then I am under no obligation to accept it–I’m sure you feel the same way.
I did not say that the Wikipedia sourcing was wrong, but rather there is more understanding to the term, particularly as I understood it. And it was my understanding that was being dismissed. That somehow not knowing the meaning meant therefore the substance too was dismissed. A variation on attacking the messenger when the message isn’t welcome.
Be that as it may, I do use Wikipedia. Yes, I think your theory is worth considering and pondering, and you may be right that Wikipedia is an early manifestation of that.
There’s no dogmatism like dogmatism. You insist on proofs from your opponent that you are unwilling to engage in for yourself.
“Furthermore, qualitative results can be translated into meaningful questions that can then be probed with quantitative methodology,” i.e sophisticated counting.
“Lived experiences?” Are these measured against each other, classified, given statistical significance, etc.”
How does science study beauty?
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.
"Again, all sience [sic] can do is count." Ouch. Wow. Is that ever wrong, and I'm saying that as someone trained in both qualitative and quantitative methods. So the reply "#2) It was discussing "social sciences", not "science"." and "its certainly not a level that is gone to in the social sciences." serves to confuse things by intimating that somehow social sciences are not really science. The level of detail in describing assumptions, constructs, methods, bias, and other particulars is just as rigorous in the ‘soft’ sciences as the ‘hard’. The parts of the reply that read "The key to science is that it is an open system of careful data collection and peer review." and "Ideally, especially in the hard sciences, you want to devise experiments or studies in which no other possible conclusion can be justifiably drawn from the data" are more useful and closer to fleshing out a complete picture of science, although I would add to the latter that the reporting that is peer reviewed should include enough detail that someone could reasonably replicate it. In a qualitative study of human experiences, replication may not yield the same data (and therefore, conclusions), but that is expected, as the goal is to seek out the breadth of experiences and understandings. Furthermore, qualitative results can be translated into meaningful questions that can then be probed with quantitative methodology. The key, indeed, is careful methodology. Science is the systematic collection and interpretation of observable data, whether in the form of counting instances of a phenomena, or the lived experience of a phenomena. Taking that back to the point of the debate (why are atheists angry?), this is kind of a qualitative question, and one which people have pointed out might have a quantifiable answer too (like, what proportion of atheists are angry, and is it greater in the US than Britain, for example?). Some have suggested it is because atheists perceive theists as ignoring or discounting science and the answers about our shared universe that can be found using its many methods. I don’t know that anyone has studied that enough to give a scientifically sound answer to the question.
So then, in a follow-up post, this is stated: “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.” What the hell does that mean? I can’t make any sense of it.
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:
We are the only life forms that can comprehend the universe, so a creator must have created the universe for us.
In favor of a purely natural universe:
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:
In favor of naturalism:
Oh, I’m long past caring about the appropriate source for a definition of Phenomenalism. I trust Webster has it right and I’ll give you the quibble.
My question is, why is the authority of Wikipedia discredited so easily? It was done twice in this thread, stated as fact, dismissed without a second thought.
Granted, Wikipedia is maintained by the masses and anyone can make a change to its contents. There will be times when entries are less then credible. I would think these errors are corrected over time as part of the “open source” peer review. I’ve read some of the “Talk” notes for some of the pages and the debates I see tells me the contents are evolving constantly, as if this knowledgebase undergoes a type of growth and is ever and always evolving.
Contrast this with items that are given to us either from the ivory towers of academic publishing or presented to us by the priests of the cathederals. Both claim some special authority granted to them from their elders in the field. We, the underclass, are to take this revealed truth on faith. This knowledge tends to be more static and rigid, don’t you think? These aren’t really living documents?
I see internet technology as part of the next transformation of life on this planet. We humans are merging with our technology to produce the next evolution of life, a collective consciousness that allows for knowledge (yes, and wisdom) to be shared and to grow throughout the world. We humans are becoming virtual cells of one living organism and our technology is serving as the neural network connecting us together.
Does this not fascinate you? I get more juice in participatng in this blog about ‘God/No God’ not because of the subject so much as because of the interaction with you all. I learn more arguing with you then I do reading the same from books because the knowledge has a life in this debate that it doesn’t have coming from the printed page.
Some may think that this debate has been between two sides stubbornly stuck in their position and that its all for naught. I don’t think this way. Yes, I started here as an atheist and I’m still one even now (though I got to be a deist for a bit, thank you Thomas Payne). But I’ve got insights into the mind of the faithful and I’ve got distinctions in evolution and ethics and biology and more that I didn’t have when this started and for all this, I am grateful.
Christine says these comment threads show just how rabid and unfair atheists can be. Check it.
Victorville Vladivostok,
Joey
It seems quite odd to give moral authority to an unintentional and disinterested quantity.
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.
I have no doubt that belief in God gives many believers comfort, but as you and I know that is a willful decision on their part. There is no self-evident reason why a belief in God should be “comforting.”
Of course a parent, should take his child to the doctor if sick, but if the doctor ultimately said nothing could be done, would it be more rational to try a faith healer which would hold out the possibility of a cure? or to decide that is all superstition and allow the child to die?
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?
You did have the sense to bring your child to a person of science and not to a faith healer, a witch doctor or to believe that your child’s disease was some sort of perverse punishment from God for your imperfection as a sinner. I commend your choice. I also find it comforting to believe I was made in God’s image but that’s an insult to the creator of the cosmos. Trust me.
Yes, and that is the whole point of free will. I can’t help it if my fellow theists don’t see that.
I am not here discounting anyone’s reasons for anger. So I suggest as an addendum and not a mutually excluding proposition.
I think that atheists hold more hope for the perfectibility of Man and the physical world than do theists. Naturally, people who believe in a metaphysical reality would appear to the atheist as being a significant, if not the most significant, barrier to world harmony, perfection, or nearest we can humanly get to either. And that becomes a moral imperative. So aside from all the other reasons–this creates, I think, a natural friction point.
Just a thought.
Lets not quibble over quables. I’ll accept your Wikipedia definition if you’ll accept my Webster’s–deal?
Yes, exactly, very good and so forth; very enjoyable, and fun. Oh, and you definitely made your point. Slightly different debate, but what the hell.
You are obviously talented.
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.
Dennis, you ended with:
And with that goal in mind, I will end with my re-wording of a superb summary of the argument for belief in God that was made by Rabbi Milton Steinberg (1903–1950), a rationalist (and non-Orthodox) rabbi: “The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
And that is why your task, Sam, is infinitely greater than mine.
Uh, uh, Dennis. Sam’s task is merely to prove why there is something rather than nothing.
It is upon YOU which falls the task of accounting for the existence of unjust suffering, PLUS proving (not speculating) why there is something rather than nothing.
Good luck with that.
Saul Selzer
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.
Forgive me father, for I have sinned. I’m a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Bush supporter. I know that you, the almighty God, designed me to be this way, but I feel guilt because I’ve alienated the atheists who don’t seem to appreciate your power and authority. Please God, give me the power to legislate your will. Give me the grace to support your holy war against the heathen infidels. Most of all, my Lord, give me the skin of an elephant so that I may withstand the taunts of my godless brethren, your mercy upon their souls. Your will be done in the name of our savior, Jesus, Amen.
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:
Also, on the Nazi’s religiosity:
Fascism Part I: Understanding Fascism and anti-Semitism
I guess you have contemplated the irony of your Beethoven quote vizzavi appreciating and conducting music whilst deaf. Your assumption that people who are kind and wise also believe in God, is not only naive, it is dangerous.
It’s dangerous because it is so honestly and sincerely expressed. This is exactly what people like dawkins and harris dread. Fundamentalists holding up the views of moderates to put flesh on the tired bones of ancient fear based allegories. Fuel for the fire they want us to burn in christine. Think before you think.
Mikejswalker, Music professor
And Jesus was a known criminal.
So exactly what classifies a quality authority on something? If wikipedia doesn’t qualify, but Webster’s Unabridged dictionary does (See definitions of “Phenomenalism” above) what is the criterion used to assign authority?
Wikipedia is peer reviewed. Webster’s Unabridged is not.
This seems relavent to me because Darwin’s work is peer reviewed but the bible is not. Yet many will claim the bible has more authority. Who’s assigning this authority? Is it the priests in robes with a vested (pun intended) interest in promoting this authority?
Phinnaeus,
A lovely way to make a point. merci mon ami.
mikejswalker.
Dear God:
I would like to ask for a new and improved Earth (or at least some sorely needed upgrades):
It would help if we had a bit more useable land as well as less salt water and more drinkable water. Also please fix Your defective weather design as it is killing too many people. It would also be helpful if we didn’t need worry about those annoying volcanoes and earthquakes – again, as You’re well aware, too many people are getting killed. I think something must have worked loose somewhere (after all 6000 years is a lot of wear and tear you know…) While You’re at it is there any way You could turn down the ultra-violet radiation – it makes working and enjoying Your wonderful creation unpleasant after awhile. We’d much rather bask in Your glory than in the excessive UV radiation; too much of a good thing you know. And one last request, if You’re so gracious we would really benefit from some sort of protective shield to deflect all of the meteorites, and such. While I’m fairly certain You may enjoy Your pastime of hurtling large interstellar objects about some of those meteorites can be a real buzzkill.
I would really prefer if we didn’t have to wait for the Apocalypse to get these fixes or upgrades. I know You’re a very busy deity with omnipotence and all, but the human race really would appreciate a little extra consideration when it comes to our habitat.
Your humble servant,
Phinnaeus J. Whoopee
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.)
Anonymous wrote: “Russell’s orbiting teapot isn’t concise. It isn’t so much as to prove that a teacup (or pot, or whatever the hell you want orbiting) exists. . . it is to understand that it DOES exist, and now you have to explain who put it there.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. It doesn’t seem to respond to Russell’s challenge.
“The Earth was formed with a clear design, to say otherwise is foolishness.”
Well, if you mean by “design” that some conscious entity deliberately engineered the earth for their own purposes, that is very far from clear. If you are extending “design” to the idea that the engineering was the result of undirected natural processes, then most people would concur with one or the other version of a “designed” world. If you aren’t willing to extend “design” to Darwinian processes, then you are calling most scientists fools. Is that what you want to say?
“If you agree there’s design, the next question is who designed it. I would say God, others would say chance.”
Who says “chance”? I’ve never heard anyone say the earth–or human beings, or gophers, or the universe–evolved by “chance.” Chance, luck, randomness, whatever you want to call it does figure in to the Darwinian explanation of life, but much, much more of the “design” work is done through natural selection, a process that is quite the opposite of random chance.
“…Others would say even if it were designed, that’s meaningless because I’m a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Bush supporter. This is what dialogue has become.”
Who says that? I’m the one that wrote the comments you responded to above, and I don’t think you’ll be able to point to any such name calling from me. You, though, seem quick to throw around charges of “foolishness” and to gross mischaracteriztions of others’ views (as with the “chance” business). Perhaps you should work on raising the level of the dialogue by example.
–B
Right, and furthermore, bananas are shaped perfectly for man.
And, er, monkeys.
Oops.
I have no problem with the burden of proof falling on those of faith, however, we must clarify what it is they should prove. And as stated in the articles, we state that what we cannot prove, by definition, we believe in through faith.
Russell’s orbiting teapot isn’t concise. It isn’t so much as to prove that a teacup (or pot, or whatever the hell you want orbiting) exists. . . it is to understand that it DOES exist, and now you have to explain who put it there.
The Earth was formed with a clear design, to say otherwise is foolishness. If you reject that there is design, there is nothing more to say. If you agree there’s design, the next question is who designed it. I would say God, others would say chance.
Trees use CO2 and convert it to oxygen, while mammals use oxygen and convert it to CO2. I would say this is design, others would say it’s chance. I would say God designed this. Others would say even if it were designed, that’s meaningless because I’m a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Bush supporter.
This is what dialogue has become.
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 not posted, but I’ve read every entry. Very interesting to see how people think (or not think).
To Wonder: EXACTLY!
cheers
®b
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.
you said, “he would argue that even with a faith in God humanity will self destruct.” We might more accurately say – it is precisely because of the infantile, yet fervantly held beliefs in ridiculous, inhumane, and divisive passages contained within our alleged “Holy Books” that our world is teetering on total annihilation within our lifetime.
Here is what Harris wrote:
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.
As for this statement:
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.
Thankyou for answering my mail.
“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?”(Zhang)
My point is that your point is meaningless. It just proves itself. it does not move the debate on any further. Like, “the cup is half empty therefore it is half full” or “in a shrimpless world their are no shrimps.”
I think you have created your own meaning. That meaning is called God. Of which there has never been any proof.
On an island that has no access to the word of God, people live by rules. They don’t randomly kill each other. They would wipe themselves out. They develop a moral code. It’s called Survival. They fall in love. Read up on it. It’s interesting.
“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”. (zhang)
You need to follow this point thru. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you saying you would fear death if there was no God
“Forgive me, I don’t understand the point or question there.”(Zhang)
Like when a child finds out for themselves.
Finds out what for themselves?”(Zhang)
If you were looking at nature thinking “wow, God is so smart to create such a wonder” then you subsequently found out he didn’t, would you regard nature as even more beautiful, because it created itself?
Like when a child is left to find answers for themselves. When they arn’t guided constantly down the path their parents took. They take their own path. A new path.
” If god is a compassionate god, then hell is a human fallacy.” (mike)
“Why?” (Zhang)
“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’.(mike)
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”.)(Zhang)
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.(Zhang)
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.”(Zhang)
I need to really understand exactly what you mean. you don’t seem to understand fully the concept of altruistic love. You are trying to rationalise a human trait. I”m talking children who understand the god concept but reject it. They come to their own conclusions and reject it. If circumstances put parents and children into seperate lifts, one marked down and one marked up, Then parents are faced with the prospect of the eternal torment of their children. If you loved me as a friend for many years, you may reject me at some point. But you have no choice in remembering the things about me that you loved.( Don’t think of a red balloon).
If all those things are wiped from memory, Then what you have in heaven is a jumble of happy families and childless parents who are not allowed the wonderment of their own offspring. In short, heaven becomes the chess board of a God who knows the outcome, as he always has, of a rigged game. Moreover he knows the childless parents once had children. It is too evil to contemplate.
“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.”(Zhang)
This is not the point. You miss the point completely.
This is the point. Crying can be beautiful. Sorrow hollows out more room for joy. Your heaven does contain hell by definition. My point is this; ask any theistic parent now, would they swap. I believe most would. The rest are lying.
“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.”(Zhang)
Again, you miss the point. Being three in one gives a slight advantage. You get another chance. a parent does not know that for sure. Most parents would take the bullet for their child. I find this infinitely more moving.
One more thing Zhang, How do i highlite our previous debate? Yours is much easier to read in blocks.
Much love to you all. mikejswalker
“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.
#1) The wikipedia isn’t an authority on anything, just a handy reference
#2) It was discussing “social sciences”, not “science”.
Now, I’m not sure that you mean by “all sience can do is count”, but I’ll take a guess.
My guess is that you are desperately searching for gap than your god can hide in.
Now, I would certainly say that “quality” is emergent from “quantity” at a fundamental level, i.e. yes, everything can be worked down to mathematics at the most basic level, but we don’t typically do that in our every day lives, or even in social sciences, though we do try to do that in “science” in general, but this isn’t always practical, but that doesn’t mean that it cant’ be done, just that doing so isn’t alway the best use of resources.
For example, we can say that something is hard or soft. Those are qualitative statements, and are of course relativistic, but we do use then in science nevertheless because this degree of accuracy may be all that is needed. If we wanted to, however, we could get into density, and taken it down to the level of atoms per cc, or whatever you want to take it to, to get to a quantitative description of the data.
That’s not really the point of every bit of scientific analysis, and its certainly not a level that is gone to in the social sciences.
The social sciences are considered “soft sciences”, not “hard sciences”. They used many of the methods of science, but certainly more it up to interpretation, we are typically dealing with more complex and abstract issues in the social sciences than the hard sciences, we can’t just put people in a test tube and heat to boiling, etc. and when you try to understand motivations and influences for behavior on a broad scale, as the social sciences do, then yes, there is some level of abstraction and generalization, but that does not make those abstractions and generalizations meaningless.
Here is an example of applied social sciences.
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
This is a study that collects data, analyzes the results, and then publishes the study in a peer reviewed journal so that other social scientists can look at the data and analyze the data and review the results and see if they think that #1 the data is valid, #2 the analysis explains the data.
To say that “all science can do is count”, is to greatly underestimate science.
The key to science is that it is an open system of careful data collection and peer review. The peer review is key to this whole thing, that’s what prevents any wacko from just making some unsubstantiated claim and then touting it as the truth. As a scientist, of any kind, hard or soft, you MUST support the integrity of your data AND justify the conclusions that you draw from that data. Ideally, especially in the hard sciences, you want to devise experiments or studies in which no other possible conclusion can be justifiably drawn from the data. A good study or experiment is one in which results can only be justifiably explained in one way.
“All” that science has done is revolutionize the world, develop more cures to diseases in the last 100 years than all the cures found prior to that for all time, put men on the moon, make the Internet possible, split the atom, hell identify that there is such a thing as an “atom”, etc., etc.
Here is a question that you may want to ask yourself. When an oil company or pharmaceutical company, who wants the greatest return on their investment, goes looking for employees to help them find oil, or build new technologies, or develop medicines, etc., do they hire priests, diviners, soothsayers, and swamis, or do they hire scientists?
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.
Actually the above is adressed to “re: to first mover.”
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.
I have never understood what they mean by “meaning”. Do they mean purpose? My purpose is to rid the world of alcohol, one sip at a time.
Zhangliqun:
I’ve never understood why christians believe that having a God results in there being any more meaning.
Ben
“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.”
So they may observations–based upon what? Then they count their observations. In other words they take an abstraction, give it a quality that they can count, and in a moment of self subterfuge, call it a qualitative study.
Again, all sience can do is count.
So I googled quality in science and discovered this from wikipedia:
So is your assertion correct that science cannot address the issue of quality but only quantity?
Atheists aren’t angry. Atheists are resentful and frustrated. More than a third of the American population describe themselves as born-again or evangelical christians, our president included. This means that not only our civil legal code, but also our foreign policy are wrought in many ways by the belief that their imaginary friend deserves a vote more powerful than mine. I don’t care what people believe, at least in a vacuum. But we don’t live in a vacuum, so the delusions of the majority are forcibly brought to bear on the rest of us, and I strongly resent the fact, not to mention the arrogance with which it is delivered. When you hear the anger expressed by the faithful in this country over taking “under god” out of the pledge or the ten commandments out of our courthouses, the experience suddenly becomes conceivable. And those are neutral measures. Imagine the outrage if there was a serious movement to post readings from the Quran in our courthouses. It is inconceivable that this would be calmly reeceived by Jews or Christians, but it is the same experience that we atheists and agnostics have when we look at our national currency, our court procedures, our oath to join the military, etc.
On another point: I don’t want to engage with a prostitute, but reasonable civil law would allow consenting adults to do as they please. The same goes for smoking pot, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, etc. [Note: all of these carry risks which are accepted by the individual and which society at large is in no way culpable for.] A secular perspective requires taking an honest look at the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or any number of policy decisions based on theological matters rather than civil realities. But rather than witnessing substantial progress in the world, we are hearing arguments against environmental conservation by those who believe that we can not cause any harm to the environment since the rapture is coming first. We see constitutional amendments against gay marriage. [lPease note that this is civil marriage we are discussing, and that the issue is not a religious union. I was raised as a Christian and do not recall the scripture in which God accepts mans laws as his own. If civil law must macth God's decrees, the we must legalize incest, slavery, human sacrifice, public stonings, etc.] Living in a world which is still hamstrung by the superstitions of people who used prayer as an antibiotic is frustrating.
I was raised to respect people’s religious faths. I have decided to reject that practice. I respect People, but hold them enmtirely responsible for the clap-trap they profess and the lack of logical capacity they demonstrate. I respectfully request that those who are capable begin to think for themselves.
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?
actually, no, you’re jsut plain wrong.
I grew up in a VERY religious house, loved sunday school, and even tried to get my elementary school teachers to come to church. I’ve read the bible literally a dozen times, front to back. I left the church and became an athiest when i was in my late teens because – after all that reading, all that study, all that devotion – I realized that the christian god is a bigot, a sexist, and an anti-human monster.
How can I worship a god that condones slavery as teh god of the old testament does? a god that condemns homosexuals for being nothing more or less then themselves? a god that disenfranchises women? a god that demands we grovel and beg for forgiveness every day? a god that teaches us that someone else (jesus) can “pay” or “atone” for our sins? If I have sinned and done something wrong it is my duty to make it right, not to beg for forgiveness and let someone else take the punishment for me! Asa moral person who believes in personal responsibilty, equality, and freedom I am morally compelled to reject such a god and everythign he stands for.
leaving the church was the hardest thing i ever did, it cause huge rifts in my relationship with my parents that have never really healed and meant that I was completely disowned by many of my friends, people I’d grown up with and known all my life. It was not a decision I made out of some irrational antipathy to religion, and your arrogant insulting characterization of something you cannot even begin to understand is beyond offensive. Rejecting god and taking personal responsibility to create my own moral code based on my own conscience does not make me ignorant or a coward, it makes me a person of integrity who is willing to pay the price to stand up for what he believes in.
and you? you’re just another small minded pathetic snivelling worm. If hell exists I’ll see you there. the difference is I’ll be able to hold my head up and know that at least I stayed true to myself, and you – who have never dared to take responsibilty for your own moral autonomy – will be just another bit of firewood for the fires that keep your merciless bloodthirsty god warm at night.
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.
Yeah for “the meaningless universe”. I love it out here in the void. This is exactly the kind of universe I want. Faced between the choice of making up my own meaning versus giving you and your brethren the opportunity for telling me your meaning, I choose freedom. Look, if I can’t be free to make up my own meaning, if I have to adopt someone else’s meaning, then there are better choices for me than Christianity. I’d take Taoist or Buddhist teaching anyday. No need for God with these schools.
Sure you can. Zero divided by 2 = 0. God is cut in half. The fundamental problem with your God is he’s got it all wrong. He’s actually quite a nasty chap to be around, don’t you think, based on his behavior in the Old Testament, condoning rape, murder, war and mass destruction. And then to suggest that God has to murder his child to atone for my personal flaws sounds to me absolutely ludicrous.
This is why I don’t quote the bible. Clearly given you just now quoted James from the bible tells me you must be somewhat closer to the Devil’s behavior than me.
Indeed, how certain you are of these alleged miracles and prophesies. You believe in magic. Why does your belief of what happens take precedent? You are right, of course.
Oh the drama of it. God being “All Knowing” knew already how it ends and that his destiny includes resurrection and a trip back home real soon. This was such a dramatic suicide, fully planned and executed by the ultimate suicide bomber, God himself. Look at all the attention he’s received from the gullible masses throughout the years, quite a bit more than these putz today with their shrapenel belts strapped to their waist, don’t you think.
No, I know he did not. He is in heaven preparing a place for you. When he returns, he’ll be one bad ass warrior fighter, cause the bible says so.
I’d like to close with my recent reading of Thomas Payne’s “Age of Reason”
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.
I still say “Letters from the Earth,” is better, less mock and more fun.
You are right. Prager is nothing.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and reasoned response, but I respectfully disagree with your summation of my argument.
But so it goes.
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
Let me try to summarize what I understand is your thesis:
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.
4) Therefore God exists.
Let me summarize some issues I have with your thesis:
1) Physical existence exhibit chaotic complex systems that are not predictable.
2) Any attempt by a human to disobey the fixed rules of physical existence fails. I cannot fly into outerspace because the law of gravity prevents it.
3) An animal (like a dog) exhibits voluntary action when it chooses a mate or attacks its prey. Humans are not the only creature with this capability, yet we don’t attribute this behavior in animals as equivalent to human consciousness.
4) It can be said that all things in nature exhibit an “intention to be” exactly what they are. A rock intends to be a rock and a human intends to be a human. So an assertion that intentionality cannot exist without a metaphysical cause does not follow.
5) It is possible that our complex behavior is predictable and that we are automatons doing the predictable “human” thing.
6) One of the fixed rules of nature is that complex systems emerge out of chaos. The Big Bang gives rise to energy which organizes into matter which organizes into single cell life which organizes into multicell life which organizes into self-aware life which organizes into collective consciousness. The complexity called “consciousness” happens at the end of the sequence rather than being a precondition at the beginning of the sequence.
7) An answer “I don’t know” is preferable to making up a story and defending it as the truth.
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.
The debate over First Cause should be relegated to the history books. Those who insist that a first cause was necessary are unable to accept that the universe may not have a clearly defined beginning or end. However, the same contingent resolves this issue by crediting God with universal creation, and this God has always existed. The problem here is that if it is possible that something has always existed with no point of initial creation, the most likely thing would be the universe itself, not a Man of Mystery who precedes it.
While the Big Bang theory presents as many questions as it proposes answers, it does have a large body of corraborating evidence to support it. The main question is where everything came from and what caused the bang. What I like most about this question is that it is one of the few questions that creationists seem to really want a substantiated answer to. I wish I had one. Regardless, a solid “I don’t know” is a very respectable answer in this case, as I really don’t know. Maybe it was the invisible man. maybe there is a better explanation in a hyperdimensional region of the universe which we can’t detect. I honestly have no idea. And I hope that my children grow up in a world in which more people can muster the humility to admit to themselves that they don’t either.
She talks about atheism in the universities, and her journey from Catholicism to Objectivism to Judaism.
It's here: From Catholicism to Ayn Rand to Pirkei Avot.
Let us know what you think in the comment thread to that post. Would you like to hear Christine address another topic?
Milwaukee Maharashtra,
Joey
The first issue isn’t religion(s) and atheism, but instead first mover and no mover. The issue is not resolvable by proof. It is an issue of faith, or if that term seems too loaded, then a matter of assertion that remains unprovable.
Feynman. By name. by nature.
My view is more that they do think for themselves, but then they attribute their own thoughts back to “God” or “Jesus”. Most Christians have no idea what the Bible says, they just work out their own natural morality, and then attribute it back to Jesus, and they just hold their own personal idealized image of Jesus in their head, which has nothing to do with the Bible, save a few aspects of common cultural images that come from movies and popular stories.
The same, I am sure, applies to Muslims, Hindus, etc.
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”
David,
We've got an atheism-related post from Christine going up later in the day, probably on the faithhacker blog. Not exactly what you asked for, but very interesting nonetheless. I'll leave a note here after it goes up.
Massachussets Meggido
Joey
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.
I would be interested in hearing Christine's thoughts on the following: in my experience, atheists frequently view believers as automatons, as people who cannot or do not think for themselves. I have a few questions: firstly, is this indeed an impression that many atheists hold? If so, where does this impression come from? Is it justified? Is independent, critical thinking indeed the exclusive domain of atheists?
Regards,
David
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.
To the Christian population,
If I robbed you, raped your wife, and beat you, would it make it up to you if I tortured your children to death? This is the most basic premise of Christianity, you realize: we committed horrible sins against God, so to get his forgiveness we had to brutally slaughter his only child. That is a very strange mentality. To be more like God then, we should open the prison gates and invite the inmates to ravage our families.
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.
It is extremely regrettable that I have never met one of the most enlightened, perspicuous, bohemian luminaries of our time – Richard P. Feynman (an atheist by the way) – though I have read most of his books, listened to his lectures and watched or read his various interviews. Of the people throughout my lifetime whose lives have made profound contributions he is one of the very few that possessed the wisdom, knowledge, and humanity to which every human should aspire.
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?
THat is the trouble with text. One has to be very careful. Like some guy said before, WISdom is in the eye of the perceiver. And that can be a very dangerous thing. Also, I thimk God would want all his followers to be honest about what was in their hearts at the time they said what they said. As someone previously pointed out, people change the rules when they realise they messed up.
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 think Sam shouldnt even speak to these people. Go straight to us ‘lower class’ working atheist. I dont have a PHD in anything, dropped out of high school, and work for low pay. I am with Sam Harris on this. I have been a christian for 20 years (am no longer christian), and have persued the religion with a believing mind. And some 12 months ago realised it was all crap. There are many people like me. What I have learnt is that what christians accuse atheist of, they are guilty the most of themselves. For example, this dickhead Prager claims that people who get an education in a university increase in factual knowledge and decrease in wisdom. Well, thats what these christian leaders and preachers appear to be doing so damm often. They increase in theological nonsense and decrease in wisdom. They get all the more arrogant and pompus the more they learn of their theology.
Attention Sam Harris (if you read these things)
Increase in learning, keep the vocabulary but just encourage and educate atheist and forget ‘debating’ these morons.
Peace
I beg to differ–it’s Atlas.
really!
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.
Turn off the caps button and tell us what you really mean.
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.
And then there are people who shouldn’t be allowed to play with a key board.
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.
Very provacative, but I have no way of knowing that anything you said is actually the case.
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.
Both Harris and Prager should stop with the stupid finger pointing at various characters in history, that accomplishes nothing.
There are shared reasons, however, why we see widespread crime, violence, abuse, and corruption in both highly religious societies and in the Communist societies of the USSR, etc., and that reason is the lack of openness.
In any system where certain things are secret, challenging authority is not allowed, and questioning the beliefs is looked down on, abuse and crime follow.
This is why we have child abuse in the Catholic Church and why there was corruption and murder in Stalinist Russia.
What is essential is an open system. Unfortunately, all religious system are inherently closed and cannot but be closed systems. Yes, you can also create non-religious closed systems, as the Communists did, but things aren’t inherently that way.
In any system people must be free to question authority, see behind closed doors, and challenge beliefs. Every traditional religion has a problem with such a system.
Look at the reality:
1) A poll showed that the state where women have the highest number of sexual partners in Idaho, an ultra-conservative state.
2) A study showed that Utah is the state that is the highest per-capita consumer of porn.
3) Churches are the most likely institutions where a child will be molested.
4) Rape is extremely high in the Middle East, where they cover women and ban most form of sexual expression or discussion about sex.
5) Financial scams are most often perpetrated under the name of religion.
6) Studies of the financial of churches show an tremendous amount of fraud and waste.
7) Teenage pregnancy is highest in the Bible Belt.
etc., etc.
The fact is that when you put a system of beliefs and institutions up on a pedestal, and when you make certain subjects taboo, all that you do is invite abuse, and this is exactly what we see.
If these religious people really wanted to make society a better place, then they should stop with all of these taboos and dogmatic systems and invite open discussion and challenging of beliefs. We can see the result of this in the fact that states that are more secular tend to have lower crime rates and lower cases of teen pregnancy and abortions, etc., and countries like those in Scandinavia have some of the best human rights records in the world and low rates of violent crime, etc.
It is true that absence of religion alone is not enough to improve society, as the Communist regimes showed, but it is one of the factors. Improvements come with openness, and religion is always a stumbling block to openness.
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?
I was married to someone. they were totally into christianity. I knew their was something missing. something I felt but couldn’t grasp. I recently re married an athiest. And I felt i was in the midst of a strength i had never felt before. It was wisdom. That was what was missing. It was a kind of beautiful inner strength. A quiet strength. It was something missing from my christian friends. I know what christine silk means.
Professor Menzies.