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.
That’s fine. I have no problem with that. But then you cannot prove consciousness either, which we can add is the basis for your rules, and in fact the basis for the belief in rational thought.
did you actually mean
“I was wondering who was going to be first to take the bait on that one, MWA-HA-HA!!!”?
That feels kind of childish.
But i’m sure i’m wrong.
Where to start. You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot with your own arguments.
We are fallible. Absolutely. Wisdom is relative to the perceiver.
For me wisdom is knowing there is much we don’t know.
Wisdom is not acting like smartarses or omnipotent oracles here on earth.
It is difficult to take you seriously when you begin your posts with;
“I was wondering who was going to be first to take the bait on that one, MWA-HA-HA!!!”
That is a very old and worn out tactic. I could easily say in response “aah.. you fell for my wily subterfuge” etc etc.
WHoever posed the question had a point. A point you mocked and then answered. Let’s try keeping a sense of our own fallibillities and a keen eye on the debate, without schoolyard bullshit.
I think you’re being a little too sensitive, taking my comment a little too seriously. Relax. It was meant in a good-humored way, plus it’s an acknowledgement that even in my admittedly long-winded posts, I can’t cover everything. We have folks on your side screaming 4-letter words at this point (including you now) and you’re upset about me doing a little tweaking about taking the bait? I think you must be angry about something else much more serious than just the way I presented my answer.
Anyway, there is a lot more to wisdom than just knowing there is much we don’t know. (I think you’re talking more about humility than wisdom per se, but knowing there is a lot we don’t know is certainly part of wisdom.) That is certainly true and a point that I strongly imply via saying that our perception is pretty fallible, which would presumably make it clear that I’m not trying present myself as some sort of “omnipotent oracle”.
And to the rest of this ilk–if the shoe fits wear it.
I’m heartened to see that you have opened up your mind and are thinking outside the box. Now we can start talking about the nature of the metaphysical. I must caution you however that “This study is done rationally through observation of nature; That is science,” can be a trap.
Reason is always a tool in the service of something else.
Science as wonderful as it is, and it is, is the master at counting, but then that is all science does, and in fact can do. If it can’t count it then for science “it” doesn’t exit. That is science only deals in the quantity of something, never the quality of anything.
Bill Maher knows Dennis Prager. Prager used to appear on Maher’s old ABC program, POLITICALLY INCORRECT WITH BILL MAHER. The couple of times Prager appeared he was belligerent and bullying, Maher thought he was a joke and put him on because he appeared as a Limbaughesque Conservative fuddyduddy fatcat.
Waaah! Waaah! Boohoo! Aaaah! Waaah! BooBooHoo!
This is what Dennis Prager has been doing all day on his radio show about the pseudocontroversy (Sorry Dennis, but it seems that you ain’t that important to attract too much attention … just imagine if Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly had said what you said … it would be all over the place!). Listen, either apologoze for what you said or stand by what you said. But either way, SHUT THE HELL UP YOU BLUBBERING, BLATHERING BIG CRYBABY! (and tell the peanut gallery aka your redneck listeners to get a life and wonder where their spouses are getting off to while these jerks are listening to your dull and self-aggrandizing mouth all day)
Gee was this to ad hominem? Too emotive? Too much like a left winger with no argument who must resort to namecalling? Well, maybe it is, but you ain’t important enuff for good grammar and punctuation – let alone serious thought to argument.
A question to the floor: A number of you have expressed your appreciation for the comments of Christine Silk in this thread. We're inviting Ms. Silk to post something to one of the Jewcy blogs. Anyone have a particular topic they'd like to hear her address?
Louisville Lahore,
Joey
WATCH HOW PRAGER WILL SOON GO ON HIS RADIO SHOW AND TELL HIS FOLLOWE … OOPS! I MEAN LISTENERS ABOUT AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AGAINST HIM HERE AND THEN TELL THEM IN HIS OWN WEASELY WAY TO COME HERE AND SUPPORT HIM OR TO TELL THE WEBSITE TO DELETE THESE POSTS !!! HE DID THIS AT AMAZON & WIKIPEDIA. HE IS A BIG FAT BABY STUFFED FULL OF KOSHER LARD AND HIS LISTENERS WOULD ABANDON CHRIST FOR THIS JEW WHO IS MORE TO THEIR LIKING !!!
And please, spare me the hackneyed charge of “ad hominem” attacks! Prager wrote a stupid article trying to stroke his Christian fundamentalist listeners (as usual), in which he poopoohs Keith Ellison’s plans to swear in on the Koran. On Hannity & Colmes he then makes a smart remark about a Nazi being sworn in on Mein Kampf (and yes…on his radio show he has repeatedly made references considering the chance of a Scientologist being elected and then being sworn in on Dianetics – I love the way his followers love to lie for their pathetic desire at protecting their very on latterday Jewish prophet). Now that he sees he has pissed off most people who even know of him and care about what he says, he wants to whine and moan on his radio show, attack so-called “left-wing bloggers” and even get so melodramatic as to declare that “if anything happens to [him], then [his] blood is on their hands!” Is this guy having a nervous breakdown?
Prager would be ripped to shreds by Bill Maher if Bill’s show wasn’t on hiatus. Then again, I’m not sure if Bill Maher even knows who Dennis Prager is.
Rule One (The Golden Rule)
Whatever criterion applies to one, it equally applies to all. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Rule Two (Responsibility Rule)
Whenever a person makes a claim it is his/her responsibility – not anyone else’s – to prove that claim in any valid and legitimate way necessary and possible.
Rule Three (Failure of Proof Rule)
An event in which an attempt to prove a claim fails to prove the claim does not constitute a proof that the claim is false.
Rule Four (Retraction Rule)
At the moment of the conclusion of a failed attempt to prove a claim, the claimant should retract his/her claim, at least until such a time that the claimant finds a new alleged proof for the claim, at which point in time the claimant will be given another opportunity to attempt to prove his/her claim.
Rule Five (No Rational Basis Rule)
As long as a claim remains not proved, the participants in the discussion agree to publicly and openly state that as yet there is no rational basis for making (or believing or accepting) the claim, and as such it is irrational, against reason, to continue to make (or believe or accept) the claim.
Rule Six (No Need for Proof Rule)
There is no need to provide a proof for a claim if both participants in a discussion agree to accept the claim, at least until such a time that one of the participants demands a proof for the claim.
———- ———– ————- ———– ———
Example for Rule Three: The event that I cannot prove the claim “E equals M times C squared” does not constitute a proof that the statement “E equals M times C squared” is false.
What Rule Three says is simply that the attempt to prove the claim was unsuccessful. At the moment of the conclusion of the failed attempt, all that the participants can say is that the veracity of the claim remains undetermined; that there is as yet no sufficient reason to accept (or believe) the claim as true.
NOR is there any reason to accept (or believe) the claim as false just because the attempt to prove the claim was unsuccessful. In order to reach a point in time when you should accept (or believe) a claim as false, it is necessary to have proved the claim as false, in the first place. In order to know that a claim X is false, it is necessary to prove the claim that the negation of the claim X is true.
Let us say that you claim an entity known as God exists. Upon hearing this, I say “Really? Prove it to me”. Notice I am not making a claim that NO SUCH ENTITY KNOWN AS GOD EXISTS. I am merely asking you to prove your claim. My stance to not agree with you is not the same as claiming that what you say is false. In fact by not agreeing I am giving you an opportunity to prove your claim. We should not conclude that your claim is false if you fail to prove it as true. And if you fail to prove your claim, then you should – if you want to maintain a rational position – refrain from publicly espousing your claim as true until such a time that an actual proof, if any, is produced.
But, if I said “There is no such entity known as God” in response to your claim that an entity known as God exists, then I will be making a claim of my own. So, in this case, there would be two claims, one made by you, and the other made by me, each claim requiring a proof by its maker! So, in order to keep our discussion less confusing and thereby more manageable, it would be wiser for me to not claim “NO SUCH ENTITY KNOWN AS GOD EXISTS” in response to your claim that “an entity known as God exists”. In response to your claim “an entity known as God exists”, it is usually much wiser for me to not claim anything but instead ask you to prove your claim.
Wonderful!
But… there lurks a nagger: Where in nature does it say: “Here, This is the Work of God”?
If Thomas Paine were the only (human) consciousness that ever existed, how would he deduce by looking at nature that it is the work of God?
But TP is absolutely accurate in pointing out an obvious, honestly incontrovertible fact of reality: Every thing christian (or muslim, or jewish, or budhist, or animist) is the production of not god, but of human beings about what they claim to be a god. God, if it exists (iie), has never revealed itself to me or to anyone in a readily and publicly recognizable fashion. God, iie, allows incompetents like Prager and others to represent him/her? How come? God, iie, can but doesn’t save us the agonizing idiocy spewed from the loose mouths of preachers like Prager, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Michael Medved (the embarrassment of it all). Why? God, iie, can make everything so simple, and yet he/she doesn’t. If I or you have nay decent intelligence, that intelligence should arrest us in our temptation to utter the first word of an apologetics for God’s silence, iie. Simplicity, whenever achieveable, must be exercised at once. No human or otherwise intelligence can sensibly counter this! Yet, God, iie, in all his infinite wisdom, chooses to keep us agonizing. It is nonsense! There ain’t a God for the simple reason that he/she, iie, can reveal itself to each one of us upon request. And yet, there ain’t he/she!
I’ve been following a line of inquiry made by some posts here that refute claims this country is founded on Christianity. Many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Theists. So what is a Deist? This question lead me to Thomas Paine and “Age of Reason” which I’ve been reading in a version paraphrased into modern english by Stephen W. Dowell .
I just read this excerpt, which has quite blown my mind:
What I’ve learned from this reading is this. The bible is not the “Word of God”, they are simply stories told by man. They are not revelations from God, because a revelation must be direct from God, not secondhand hearsay. The Word of God cannot be based on language, because language is mutable. The true Word of God is revealed through his creation. It is in the study of his creation that his immutable truths can be discovered. This study is done rationally through observation of nature. That is science.
Brilliant! I think I’ve just become a Deist. I might be able to stop resisting any talk of the Creator.
Who said this discussion thread couldn’t spark a conversion of mind?
Well said, and you made me laugh.
I have to take a leave of absence after my short response below.
You ask excellent questions. I only know too well how difficult it is to forge a good answer for them. I certainly am not well versed in the intricacies of the fascinating subject of sanity vs insanity.
As you may recall I mainly attempted a first but crude approximation for the definition of sanity, albeit not very deep nor original. It seems self evident that ultimately there must exist some robust one-to-one correspondence between the ‘independent’ outside-of-our-heads reality, on the one hand, and the model of reality mapped inside our heads, on the other hand. I am not competent in philosophy to shed insight into this matter, although I am competent to comprehend it. This does not preclude me from identifying insanity or, alternatively, delusion, when it does occur. Yes, ‘insanity’ is too strong a word. But like a brick, the word does its job.
Let me throw out another thought. If human beings have the capacity for voluntary action, then it follows that we are more than an event of physical law, we are also creators of existence by the very fact of our actions, potentially giving added meaning to “created in the image of god.”
I would like to see a scientific examination and exploration of religion. That won’t happen, of course, because of religion’s special “sacred cow” status in this country.
Bravo! That will unlock the philosophers from the prison that they currently find themselves in.
Well, we have just touched on a definition of “God”, as the “something” responsible for the universe. But that definition has little in common with conventional, anthropomorphic conceptions of God. Rather, it paints God as something that exists in infinitudes and is timeless, larger than science, time, and space, but that is non-physical. Something that is incomprehensible to human thought in the same way that our universe compressed into a point of zero volume in incomprehensible.
Yet there is a note of familiarity. God, whatever it is, creates, like a human artist would. Clearly everything that in the painting that is the universe has form — the laws of physics, nature, evolution, and everything else.
But does God care? Does an artist have passion for his painting? Do human beings have passion for their creations because they are like God?
I apologize, I still haven’t been able to find the anon who condemns all of us who do not believe as “anon” does to “eternal hell.” I did find many references to the “eternal hell,” argument, but they invariably came from those arguing against theists in the abstract, not those who are present here (but I do not make this as an absolute observation). I certainly didn’t mean to waste anyone’s time. I assumed, mistakenly I’m told, that the damnation reference would be extant on this thread.
I assume you mean that by publicly accessible, that which any individual may apprehend (theoretically of course), but of course that leaves quite a large wide open door. And we wouldn’t want to shut it with a self serving definition.
As our knowledge is limited, so is the knowledge of our belief. Can we account for an exact correlation of our belief in all instances, and if not then does that mean we should be disabused of our belief? Are we limited in our believing to those concepts that have a self evident one-to-one correlation. And then is that belief at all?
For the record, I would not defend a statement concerning “eternal damnation.” One could even say, that if one were condemned eternally, that one would grow used to that environment, and the damnation would lose its effect, unless the freewill of the person was recurrently dismissed, in which case the whole point of eternal damnation would be futile.
I can only speak for myself. My personal experience was the exact opposite of what you've described. I found the abandonment of atheism to be a frightening and troubling experience. I have found that the uncertainty that results from a serious exploration of religion is much, much more painful and difficult than the blissful comfort and stability of atheism. I do not undertake the task because I enjoy pain, but because I find religious exploration to be far more intellectually satisfying than my previous atheistic view of the universe.
It seems like you see science and religion as mutually exclusive. I think this is a mistake. I myself come from a secular, scientific background, and I am certain both can coexist perfectly well.
Regards,
David
I think you are voicing a reasonable concern about the apparent existence of singularities – objects if infinite density and zero volume.
There are no laws of physics that preclude the collapse of matter under the influence of gravity into an object, that in the limit of that collapse, would apparently be of infinite density and zero extent. (i.e. – a black hole). But science cannot describe such an object. Perhaps physics will discover someday a mechanism that halts such a collapse – many physicists would breath a sigh of relief, because if mass is contained in a point of zero volume and infinite density, how can that “be” part of our universe? If something has zero spatial extent, where is it? Yet, astronomers think they have located specific black holes. We know where the black holes are in space, but “where” is the matter that fell into them?
Likewise, at t=0, the moment of the big bang, “where” was all the matter, energy, space, and time that was compressed into the primordial singularity? If that singularity had zero spatial extent, how can we say that it had actual physical existence? Where was our universe?
Even worse, since all of space-time was contained in that singularity at t=0, the singularity existed in a state of timelessness (this is why I said its existence was only potential.) So why did its existence become actual at all? What catalyzed it to explode into the here and now at all? Where did it get its physical existence, if that existence was not an intrinsic property of the singularity at t=0? And if the singularity had only potential existence, what does that mean?
So, it appears that “actual-ness” (i.e.- existence) is not an intrinsic property of the universe. What if that comes from something else – something that does have “actual-ness” as one of its intrinsic properties? What if that something “gave” “actual-ness” to the potentially existing singularity at t=0. What if that something “thought up” the form of the universe (the universe in its potential existence) in the same way an artist thinks up an idea for a painting or a sculpture, in a flash of inspiration? And then gave it “actual-ness”, causing it to explode into physical existence.
Well, we have just touched on a definition of “God”, as the “something” responsible for the universe. But that definition has little in common with conventional, anthropomorphic conceptions of God. Rather, it paints God as something that exists in infinitudes, larger than science, time, and space. Something that is incomprehensible to human thought in the same way that our universe compressed into a point of zero volume in incomprehensible.
Yet there is a note of familiarity. God, whatever it is – creates, like a human artist would. Because, clearly the universe, the laws of physics, nature, evolution, everything has form.
But does God care?
Germane questions!
While it is sane to seriously attempt to answer your questions, I can assure you most religionists never bother with an objective understanding of sanity. As a first but crude crude approximation, sanity might be defined as a one-to-one correlation (or correspondence) between one’s beliefs and belief system, on the one hand, and the publicly accessible reality, on the other hand. Plus the attitude and the desire to construct such correspondence.
I would assume that in a broad sense, reality itself, being the final arbiter, decides who is sane, who is not.
The Anon who posted a commentary titled “I know why atheists are so angry” has basically mentioned about the eternal hell, which you need to find on page 1.
It seems to me you have wasted my time and yours somewhat by not reading this Anon’s commentary first. You should know better!
Well ranting is a bit suspect, but be that as it may I’m wondering what is your definition of sane? moron? sickening sensibilities? What do you base your definitions upon–who gets to decide and why?
I’m also curious of your use of “eternal damnation,” who in this forum said that you were eternally dammed? What is making you sick?
You seem to be taking all of this personally, are you?
I am lost regarding the relevance of your response. I am for the free exchange of ideas, so much so that I would like to freely express my disgust at the ‘moronicity’ and stupidity of others. I think you’ve got problems. Oh, let’s say I do protest too much. What’s your point? Is the act of protesting not, at least in some sense, an exercise in free exchange of ideas? What should matter is the quality of the protest. You are free to assess that quality. Good luck.
It really does seem odd to be so threatened by the free exchange of ideas. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
You have instantaneously contradicted yourself if you are right in your first sentence!
Somehow I feel I must disagree with you! Here’s why. It is not just the personal attack per se that is said in my post. But why that personal attack vis-a-vis my commentary is apt. Words like “moron” or “stupid” either have a function in language or they are useless. I make sure they are used appropriately.
Because you seem a reasonable person, I will give you a chance to ‘improve’ upon our exchange. So, what dya say?
From one atheist to another, your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates your own moronic behavior. Your time would be better spent not posting assertions about other morons in this world.
I am an atheist and I like to live in a world of sane people who are not morons, because insane moronic people impose their sickening worldview and sensibilities upon me and others.
For example, you are certifiably a moron! You take atheists and frame them into a false constuction so that you can offer stupid pronouncements as to why they are so angry, while not realizing that your thoughts about atheists is mainly a reflection of your poor sense and understanding of reality.
I too am keenly aware of my finitude and eventual death. I am not at all worried about eternal damnation and all that butchery and criminality by your presumed god.
You are lost and hopelessly pathetic. I wish people like you would be equipped with self-silencing mechanism so that my little while here would be better spent. You sicken me. Go to hell!
True. Kind of like an atheist saying you can’t prove god.
Over and over and over again he posts the assertion that atheists cannot prove their consciousness or an ability for voluntary action without resorting to belief in the metaphysical.
He does it so much that I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t actually an automaton programmed to make this assertion ad nauseum. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps we don’t have consciousness or voluntary action. Perhaps he demonstrates the proof to his assertion, humans are just complex systems programmed to say the same thing over and over and over unconsciously.
Dave–
I appreciate your thought, and forthrightness. But I would submit to you that you have deposited God (metaphorically speaking) into your own mind. And the problem is that we can no more prove our consciousness than we can god, which is not to say you are incorrect, but rather it is an act of belief. We cannot claim an ethnocentric privileged status for our own being–consciousness. We assume it, but that doesn’t make so anymore than a Christian asserting Christ, or a Buddhist asserting Buddha, and so forth. Of course, that doesn’t mean Christians, Buddhists, and others are then relinquished from the
responsibility of demonstrating the aptness of their beliefs. But it follows that Atheists too must show the aptness of their belief.
And that is the point. Atheists claim to not believe in the metaphysical, but in fact they must if they are to believe in their own voluntary action.
That is, the understanding all of us have as to our lives is at the fundamental base of its structuring center, faith (faith in the broadest meaning of the word), as we do not have a certitude for justifying our action, thought, belief.
there is an oversimplification, in much of this discourse, of the non-creationist point of view regarding the existence of the universe. It is not that the history of the dimensional framework and matter contained therein are assumed to exist without explanation. Rather, it is that the mystery as to the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, et cetera is not resolvable, to any degree of intellectual accuracy, by crediting an invisible man with their generation. Having the humility and courage to admit that we don’t know the answer is the first step towards discovering one.
The abandonment of religious adherence is a frightening and troubling experience. Belief in an immortal and omnipotent being who will safeguard you through the vast expanses of the universe and consciousness is, in fact, very comforting. Abandoning the safety of self-delusion will not fill your heart with love, it will not make you feel secure, it will not make life easier. It will, however, make you intellectually and spiritually honest, which will be a big step in shaping a more intelligent future for our species and this planet.
Spirituality may seem an odd choice of words, but it is appropriate. By this, I mean the personal exploration of the experience of being a living consciousness. As the scientific method is increasing our understanding of the physical world, it may also increase our understanding of the metaphysical. This means, though, that religious declaration must again be disregarded in the pursuit of discovery of an understanding of consciousness.
It is cowardice, and nothing less, to hide inside religion from the burden of not knowing the answers.If you desire to bring to fruition the full potential of humanity, remove the roadblock to civility, discovery and understanding which exists in your own mind as unsubstantiated insistence on the factual accuracy of the allegories of your ancestors. It will make your life harder, fuller, and hopefully richer.
Dave
Ad hominem attacks seek to destroy the messenger when the message is unwelcome. They are destructive enough in a political debate, but in a philosophical debate they are truly odious.
I can say Mr. Harris is wrong, but to besmirch him for being Mr. Harris is foul. Further, besmirching Mr. Harris does nothing to advance my contention that he is wrong, but it does belittle me.
If I were to day Derrida is wrong because he was at one time sympathetic to fascism, that would in fact say nothing for or against his philosophical ideas. To be effectively argued for or against, the argument itself would have to be entertained.
Further, if I stated Derrida was clearly a fascist because he supported state managed capitalism–the welfare state, and said this was a benign form of fascism, and therefore that made Derrida a fascist and therefore anything he ever said was wrong. I would be engaged in foolish ad hominem attacks.
I would then in effect be dragging dialog into a name calling contest, metaphorically understood, as the gutter.
Can you point to any specific example of Harris’ “maneuvers”, lies, or behavior that should other wise embarrass the educated?
I think he ocassionally engaged in an unnecessary degree of ridicule (as with his slap against Mormon beliefs), but generally his points were well taken, and Prager was far more apt than Harris to dismiss a serious point out of hand and change the subject (e.g., his discussion of Russell’s teapot).
There is no evidence at all, that I can find, that Harris is “rejecting what he clearly knows to be true.” Please supply some evidence if you are going to make such a claim.
–B
Like most typical left wingers, Harris did little more than try and define the debate, reject clarification, insult, insinuate, and then declare himself the victor.
The one thing that I hope the readers see is that it truly was Harris who relied on maneuvers, while Prager did the best he could to rely on clarity.
The purpose of debate is not to get the other side to agree with you; it never has nor ever will. It was to show clearly what the other side believes.
Clear thinking readers will see Harris defines himself as an anti-JudeoChristian believer, rejecting what he clearly knows to be true in order to receive self congratulatory applause.
he’s an embarrassment to the educated.
toAn
Anonymous asks how long will take for Christianity to accept homosexuality and claims that Christianity has been in frequent opposition to scientific progress and even today has a hard time accepting evolutionary theory both biologically and cosmologically.Perhaps attributing our progress in these areas is unrelated to the “grandness” of Christianity.
Homosexuality was first rejected some 4,000 years ago by the Torah, and later by Christianity. It is the biblical perspective, that, as Prager wrote some time ago, 1,000 years before Roman emperors kept brothels of boys to have sex with, rejected homosexuality.
I find it curious that the author attacks Christianity specifically when it was a Jew that wrote the debate. No matter.
It is ludicrous to mock Christians for a lack of worshipping at the altar of Darwin when most so called “evolutionists” don’t understand what they are referring to when they claim to believe in evolution.
The teacup analogy is laughable as it’s not so much proving that a teacup is there, as it is pointing out that a teacup is there and then being told it happened by accident.
It is more laughable to think that our temperatur is hotter now than in 500 years because of SUV’s. . . so what SUV’s were around 500 years ago to make it so hot it served as a benchmark?
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your posts. You write really well. You wrote, "I was more tranquil in the certainty of my atheism". I can definitely attest to this sentiment; I feel exactly the same way. When I was an atheist, I remember thinking that religion was a crutch, a self-imposed ignorance clung to by weak people to block out painful realities. Having seriously explored the religious side for the past few years now, it appears I was completely wrong.
All the best,
David
I recommend you count up and total the number of ad hominem attacks in the comments on this debate. It is overwhelmingly done by those who disagree with Prager. In fact, Ive noticed this as a trend. Even though the non-religious are a much smaller portion of the population…representatively speaking, there seems to be much more utter hatred and contempt on their side for those of opposing views, suggesting their beliefs might be based more on emotion as opposed to reason. Hmmm…someone should do a study on the subject. Do I hear a Ph.D thesis in the making?
“It is small minded, weak, tedious, unworthy…somehow deserving of a cascade of vulgar ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. ”
Uh, looks like your the one making the ad hominem attacks and bringing the conversation into the gutter in your defence of Prager’s “wishes to preserve a tradition that marks unity.” Clearly the unity you speak of doesn’t exist. I for one will never “swear upon a bible” because that book doesn’t represent truth and honesty.
Thank you for admitting that your beliefs are based on superstition. At least we have something we can agree on.
Yes, but is equally incumbent upon atheists to dump their presupposition of voluntary action, and instead prove it, which is no easier than proving God.
It is small minded, weak, tedious, unworthy of discussion to suggest that because Mr. Prager wishes to preserve a tradition that marks unity is somehow deserving of a cascade of vulgar ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. Further, what any of this has to do with the topic of Atheism is none!
Further the atheists unwilling to debate further have acknowledged that their belief is based on nothing more than on their belief (no different than those they accuse of superstition). That is, they have accepted that Atheism is a statement of faith.
So we have evasion and invective serving to hide an untenable position. Well done. You have taken away an honest debate upon matters that are significant to human understanding, and dragged it into the muck and mire of your own self will that appears to be nothing more than a sewage dump.
My assessment of Dennis Prager’s views was purely descriptive in its scope. I did not imply whether he was right or wrong. I was merely clarifying his views to those who have nothing better to do than attack him personally and/or mis-state his opinions.
If you believe recommending to take an oath of public office on the traditional book that has been the basis of our modern society is a “socialist” notion, even though there have been many non-Christians who have done so, then there is nothing more one can possibly say. How it could be any more “socialist” than a national anthem is beyond me.
You may find him less trustworthy for taking an oath on a book that doesnt represent his faith…but I find him to be more trustworthy, as it shows a willingness on his part to honor the values of the nation as a whole ahead of his own values and interests.
Folks, you can disagree with Dennis….but for Gods sake (no pun intended) stop with the personal attacks (a.k.a. self-righteous, religious misanthrope, racist, islamophobe, etc.), and take the disagreement you have with him elsewhere, seeing as this forum is specifically for comments on the debate between him and Mr. Harris.
This sounds way too socialist a notion for this American to support. If I’m going to make an oath, I will demand the freedom to put my hand on whichever book is going to best support the validity of my oath.
That Prager would give an oath on a book that does not represent his faith tells me he doesn’t quite honor the oath he is giving. That makes him less trustworthy in my eyes.
“sorry, any first year law student knows that requiring public officials to swear on the Bible would be a clear cut violation of the establishment clause. The fact that the majority of Americans believe it to be their most sacred book is irrelevant, unless, of course, they have enough power to repeal the 1st amendment.”
First amendment — “CONGRESS shall make no LAW…”
Tell me, where did Dennis ever advocate Congress making a law requiring people to swear oaths of public office only on the Bible?
You dont listen to his show. He has admitted that his statement “should not be allowed to do so” may have been too strong, but he in no way meant it as a plea to legislation, as I made clear in my first point (look at my previous post). I have listened to all his various television interviews, and he in no way wants to FORCE people to swear their oath on the Bible. IF HE HAD WANTED THIS, then yes, it would be a “religious test” and therefore unconstitutional. What he is simply doing is criticizing Ellison for what he plans to do in the hopes that it wont start a trend of people swearing oaths on whichever books they please. In other words, he is making a moral judgment, saying that it should not be the individual who decides which book to swear the oath on, it is the SOCIETY (which the respective public office represents) which decides so. Which is why Dennis would also take his oath on the Bible, New Testament and all, even though hes JEWISH.
By saying the Mein Kampf is the Nazis “bible,” he didnt mean it as necessarily being a religious text. He meant it was the most highly regarded text by that group. Just like the Bible is the most highly regarded text in this group we call America.
But again, you are using a forum in which this is not the topic at hand, and we can therefore conclude that your sole concern now is to attack him so as to make him seem less credible in the current debate. Start a seperate topic elsewhere, friend.
In the words of Dennis Prager…
Contrary to what you’ve asserted, according to Mr. Prager’s own words, Keith Ellison intends to take his invocation using the Koran. I have little doubt that this will be the case.
Mr. Prager’s unyielding demand that the book upon which an elected official’s oath is administered be the Christian Bible is ipso facto a “religious test.”
And yes, Mr. Prager did state that Nazis consider Mein Kampf their “bible.”
Mr. Prager possesses the attributes of a self-righteous, religious misanthrope. His own words leave little doubt.
sorry, any first year law student knows that requiring public officials to swear on the Bible would be a clear cut violation of the establishment clause. The fact that the majority of Americans believe it to be their most sacred book is irrelevant, unless, of course, they have enough power to repeal the 1st amendment.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
“Dennis Prager continues to reveal his true colors.”
“(For the record Mein Kampf is no more considered a Holy Book than Aristotle’s Metaphysics or Nicomachean Ethics, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, or Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique.)”
I love how people who know nothing about the Constitution consistently make what they believe to be intelligent comments pertaining to it. If you had said something like this in law school, the law professor would have torn you to shreds.
Firstly, Prager is in no way advocating legislation to force people to swear on the Bible. Secondly, having people swear on the book which American society finds to be most important is not a “religious Test.” No one is making Ellison convert to Christianity as a condition for public office. If so, then that would be a “religious Test” and therefore unconstitutional.
Thirdly, Prager never said that Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto or Voltaires combined works were considered “Holy Books.” Why do people keep bringing religion to the table when its not a part of the issue? The issue is not which religion is better….the issue is which book do the people of American society consider to be most important.
Fourthly, Prager claims that he would take the oath on the Bible even though he is Jewish and doesnt consider the New Testament as representative of his religious beliefs.
For the life of me, I cant see how Dennis “continues the reveal his true colors.” It just goes to prove an earlier comment I saw on how the number of personal attacks against Dennis tells more about those who disagree with him than about Dennis himself…
But, oh well, THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC AT HAND. Using an opportunity for analyzing debate to instead bash bash bash one of the debaters is a waste of time. Please instead of taking out your anger against a radio talk show host, direct it towards something more constructive.
Yes, read what he said carefully. He doesnt believe in a PERSONAL God. Just because he doesnt partake in a specific religion doesnt mean he doesnt believe in a God. He was a PANTHEIST. One doesnt have to be religious to believe in some higher power.
But, again, it doesnt matter what Einsteins theological beliefs were. They are as irrelevant as what a coal miner thinks about running a Fortune 500 company.
The subject of this post reflects my take on the debate. I agree with the many others that the debate is unlikely to sway those already convinced one way or another, but is good food for thought for those as yet undecided. There are too many factors in the larger argument to be covered in such a short exchange.
The debate is passionate because both belief AND non-belief have consequences. Beliefs drive values. Values drive behavior.
One specific comment: RE: selective mis-application of reason. The atheists are right here. The burden of proof is on theist for God’s existence.
Scott
mmmmmI have always been amazed that otherwise intelligent people believe the bible bible to be the word of god. The writer above claims an IQ of 135 and thinkthinks Prager won the debate. Prager clearly lost; yet bible believers think think he won. Therein, I believe, lies the problem. You couldn’t conviconvince a muslim suicide bomber he won’t get those 72 virgins, and you can’t can’t convice bible believers that the bible wasn’t inspired by god, no mano matter how hard you tried. These thoughts are ingrained in them from childchildhood, and not from critical or rational thinking.
Yes, and I would trust you with my life. But your moral relativism is based on the sanctity of life; otherwise your moral relativism could not aide you in a decision. That is relativism is in service to the a priori of life.
But I am in absolute agreement as to empathy.
“The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair.” No there is no rational response–that is an ethnocentric response.
Meaninglessness is absolute. It does not matter what is thought, because anything that is thought does not have a basis. Period. There is no meaninglessness. Rationality does not exist.
You could say joy. But your joy is based on nothing. You declared it that. But that doesn’t make it joy. Joy does not have an objective existence, neither does meaninglessness. That is to say Kant offered, nor did Nietzsche offer, any solution, but they did offer an illusion.
Would you lie to save the life or lives of others? I would assume most ‘moral’ people would. While the answer to the question appears intuitively obvious one must concede that there exists circumstances that effect whether a lie is good or bad. There exists few circumstances where a person can make absolute moral judgment. Nevertheless, empathy provides a powerful motivation in favor of moral or ethical conduct.
So if I said that Genesis was merely the language available to a group of people at a particular time to describe abstract ideas you would still find it necessary to treat it literally? Meaning you cound not understand that what was being stated were what we call milestones?
Or don’t you think the four rivers descending from Eden are the four known forces of existence described by physics?
Fair enough, but I have empathy too, and mine doesn’t agree at all times, I think, with yours.
Pardon me, its my fault, but I don’t think good and evil is simple–so again we may have more agreement than disagreement.
We could say for instance that lying is bad. Why? Personally, I think it is wrong because you rob the person that you lie to of the ability to make the best determination of what might be a future action. That is, the person you lie to is deciding how to act based on faulty information.
However, it might be possible to lie literally, but tell the truth in another sense. You are laid off from work, you tell your spouse everything will be alright, but that’s a lie. You don’t know, but the truth is that you don’t want your spouse to worry. Good and evil is not necessarily easy.
I confess my example may be lame, but at another hour it might be better.
I wish I had the confidence you do in the act of questioning my actions and choices that you do sans a measuring criteria.
I reject the oversimplistic concept of “good and evil,” rather I posit there exists moral relativism, nothing more nothing less.
I attribute my ‘morality’ to a strong sense of empathy, which I believe substantially results from regularly questioning my choices and actions.
Don’t you know this is serious stuff, the legitimacy of your being depends upon it–you are having too much fun.
What is dogmatism? Why do you as an Atheist believe in good and evil? What do you base you morality upon?
The individual cannot both claim to not believe in God and then too claim to believe in voluntary action.
To claim a non-belief does not obviate the assertion of a belief, but rather states a belief in the negative.
It is intellectual subterfuge to claim that one is atheist, but then claim that one holds out the possibility of a metaphysical reality as winding up the universe like a clock, and letting it run. The honest statement would be “I am an agnostic.”
Splitting hairs on a personal god today is like monks in the 12th century arguing on the subtleties of the trinity.
I concede afore hand–yep could be wrong, but this is great stuff to speculate on.
Mr. Prager’s sanctimonious execration of Keith Ellison, duly elected, is blatantly obvious by his expectation/demand that Article VI, Clause 3 of our Constitution be temporarily modified for Mr. Ellison’s invocation.
Constitution of the United States
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/016.pdf
Article VI, Clause 3:
Dennis Prager continues to reveal his true colors.
(For the record Mein Kampf is no more considered a Holy Book than Aristotle’s Metaphysics or Nicomachean Ethics, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, or Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique.)
msanford,
You know, the only thing you said that I disagree with is the “non-exsistence of God” part (that and I haven’t read Harris’s book). I actually believe that evolution exsists (I know not the best word but it’s late) and I still believe in God of the Bible. I just cannot believe that everything came about all on it’s own. I admit that this is a matter of faith and that it cannot be proven. Anyway, there’s not much to discuss since I basically agree with what you have said. You seem like an atheist who isn’t angry at least. :)
Jeremy in Utah
Randomness and Consciousness Part 2
If we live in a purely phenomenological existence then perforce we as human beings are nothing more, or less–for that matter–than phenomena. Chance and randomness cannot exist if everything in existence is absolutely subject to physical laws unless those physical laws themselves have a finite spectrum. Observations of randomness and chance are nothing more than metaphors for a lack of knowledge. It is purely bad faith to state otherwise if one does not believe in a metaphysical existence.
If existence is without intention then existence is all there is. So what we believe to be consciousness is nothing of a kind (because consciousness is intentionality). Our minds being made-up of the stuff that makes up existence are subject to the same laws, and consequently our minds are ever the result of the interplay of those laws stretching from the origin of existence itself.
The idea that “I think therefore I am” is an illusion. Thought is an illusion. We are nothing more than water flowing down hill. Our concepts, thoughts, emotions are nothing (as far as consciousness is concerned). We live in a purely ironic state of being at best the host of the concept of being aware of our own intrinsic unconsciousness, which itself is not real, not a thought, but an illusion. We are pure phenomena subject to the absolute rule of a physically determined existence.
But of course such an assertion is a matter of faith, or not.
Randomness and Consciousness Part 1
So the question I would like to ask is where are the laws of physical existence suspended, exactly. Because without just such a suspension not only is chance and randomness impossible, but so too consciousness.
Let us suppose for argument’s sake that the big bang theory is correct. The question then to consider is whether it is an arbitrary ontological fact or a teleological fact: Is the Big Bang mere phenomena, or is it imbued with purpose?
If we were to presume that the Big Bang is the cause of all being, which is largely the de-facto position of our era’s intelligentsia (the majority anyway) then we would have to deal with the question of the origin of physics. If manifestation occurred according to an orderly process, by orderly I mean according to the observable laws of physics, then those laws must have been either existent prior to the big bang, or inherently existed within the Big Bang itself. We could even speculate that they were the cause and result itself.
What we could not say is that the laws of physics were the result–came after–manifested existence, unless we wanted to assert that the first law of existence is arbitrary and that the natural world itself is arbitrary and infinitely unstable; in which case, the assertion that physical laws are observable is a very vain assertion indeed; or rather, we are living in an impossible universe.
So then, I think we can take as a given that physics and the advent of manifested existence are coherent and in fact cohere through time and space. If this is so, then everything that exists proceeds from something precedent: Is in fact shaped and determined by what precedes. Every manifestation is the result of a prior determining force: whether a black hole, a speck of dust, or the smallest flight of a quark. Not only are they determined by what precedes them, but also their exact manifestation, coordinates in time and space, are absolutely determined. Chance is an absolute fallacy. But not only is chance a fallacy, but so too is our concept of consciousness.
I haven’t changed my mind from this exchange. I’m an atheist, and I read Harris’ book “End of Faith” and loved it. He’s honed his arguments even more since then.
I have however become much more open minded about religious ideas. I’ve spent many hours in discussion groups like this one reading the writings of religious people, and becoming aware of the many nuances of religious faith. Prager seemed articulate enough that I decided to give him a longer listening to, and got one of his books out of the library today ("Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism")
One idea that now captivates me is the idea of man in pursuit of transcendent principles such as moral goodness. It seemed kind of silly to me until I realized that science is devoted to pursuit of ‘truth’ which is itself a transcendent principle that is not obtainable in an absolute sense in this world (or at least I doubt it is). Morality is obviosly harder to measure, but the fact(?) that slavery is bad, work ethic is good, etc. suggests the pursuit is not futile. I'm 99.9% convinced of evolution, and the non-existence of a 'personal God', but I'm not so sure that the purely materialistic worldview is complete, or ever can be.
Probably a better format for this exchange would have been a series of questions, like in a political debate, where they have to stick to 300 words, get a chance for rebuttal, etc. so that they don't get so off topic, and open up new topics that never get adequately addressed.
I'm not sure that anybody 'won' the debate. It's just more of the never-ending dialog about human existence.
This canard about Albert Einstein's religious piety just won't die. I actually had one believer tell me that Einstein had discovered the theory of special relativity through a close reading of Genesis!
All because of the "God doesn't play dice" remark and the "God of Spinoza" remark, both of which were metaphorical.
Here's Einstein in a letter he wrote in March of 1954:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Einstein wasn't a believer, but he was a vegetarian. So what's up now?
Joey
In his writings, Sam has made it abundantly clear that the brand of atheism that he is supporting is simply the lack of belief in a personal god. You seem to be confusing his position with materialism. Nobody said anything about the nature of consciousness. Sam is a neuroscientist and he has been intellectually honest in admitting that we don’t what consciousness is. Even if consciousness transcends matter in some way, that wouldn’t give credence to the idea of a personal god.
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”– Albert Einstein
He was a pantheist.
I love how people automatically assume that any great scientist must be an atheist.
Alas, even if he was atheist, it would not mean diddly squat.
Albert Einstein was an atheist. People misunderstand him when he makes reference to God. He isn’t talking about his religious convictions, he’s talking about the wonders of science. Strange man.
Has America ever been less religious? Obviously not, so I have to wonder about the perceived persecution of the Atheist that seems to cause such fear and anger – but we’ll continue to pray for you.
The idea that people believe in God due to fear, but at the same time because it’s comforting, seems a little odd to me. The fact that the Atheist may fear losing control or may like the ego boost associated with being so smart as to not believe in myths is equally possible. And the fact that people don’t live up to God’s standards doesn’t begin to prove that God is the problem. But whatever.
I’ve lived both sides as I’m sure many have, but find it interesting that those who are most bitter with the thought of God and hell don’t contemplate this topic more. Perhaps hell is just the absence of the God you so despise (since he didn’t make the world to your specifications)? Who knows. Why would you want to be in Heaven if you hate God? Why?
God can’t be proved or disproved, so it’s up to you to choose what you think the truth is. All God hopes is that you choose to look for, and hopefully find, Him.
“I wish to highlight this point, “despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly religious people who have acknowlegded and fought the significant evils of his own lifetime?” Notice you said religious people and not religion.”
Yes, well it would seem pretty difficult to have religious people without religion, now wouldnt it? We call people who adhere to and practice a specific religion “religious.”
I am not the one twisting Prager’s words. He never compared muslims to nazis or the Quran to Mein Kampf. I heard the same radio programs and you are also misrepresenting what he said on his show. He did not compare Muslims to Scientologists, pornographers or nudists either. His remark may have been stupid but only because he should have forseen the response to it. I think that the point is quite apt though, even though I don’t necessarilly agree with the conclusion. Let’s see the actual article that spurred this whole thing:
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
Here is the context in which the statement was made:
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
He’s clearly trying to hold up the bible, not debase the Quran. Clearly the people calling Prager a racist are being over reactionary. Prager should have known this but it does not make him one.
Jeremy in Utah
Atheism makes a lot more sense. God is not visible, tangible, or perceived by any sense. He has a lot in common with imaginary creatures and other mythological concepts. Religious people pray for things and don’t get them. In fact, it appears the chances of them getting what they ask for in prayer are about the same as if there was no prayer. The fact that they focus on the times when the “prayer was answered” and they ignore all the times it went opposite is further proof of delusion and outright foolishness.
So why does history show a deeper trend of love, kindness, and generosity from those of faith than those without? Sure, you can say wars are fought over religion but this is besides the point because you can find people of every creed, belief, or perspective starting wars or not starting wars.
The one trend that truly does stick out is when you have a supremely amazing person that changes the world for good – that person tends to be deeply religious. And not just religious by association or family background or natural origin but with great affection for their religious convictions.
Mother Theresa.
Martin Luther King.
Ghandi.
St. Francis of Asisi.
All the founders of America had different shades and convictions about their religion but none was without some form that they held sacred and the source of law and truth.
Even Benjamin Franklin, arguably with no shortage of capacity for rational or deep thought, became more religious as he aged.
Albert Einstein spoke lovingly and deeply of how to him Science and Mathematics and God were all clearly seen in one another.
Socrates, the father of Philosophy says that he rigidly followed an inner spiritual voice that guided him.
Rene DesCartes, the father of Modern Philosophy says that it is mathematically impossible for man have any notion of God unless he truly did exist somewhere in some form.
Albert Einstein spoke lovingly and deeply of how to him science and Mathematics and God were all clearly seen in one another.
What kind of conviction could make Martin Luther King stand on the ashes of his house that was just fire bombed by the KKK and beg his own people not to retaliate but to forgive those who just tried to kill his family? He was living the words of his religion, as he quoted them.
Where does the atheist find such incredibly heroic standards to do such feats?
Why are there no atheists in a foxhole?
The only great man I can see in history who changed history for the good and was possibly an atheist is Charles Darwin, and even he renounced his agnosticim and embraced Chrisitianity on his deathbed.
So the atheist doesn’t see God, hear God, taste, touch, or feel Him. There may be a teapot in space but what does it matter?
What if it does? What if the atheist comes to the end of his life and God meets him and says, “Why did you blind your heart? I was there in everything – in the flowers, in the science, and in the love of religious people all around you.”
But what does this say if God really exists. Can any atheist here stop and just picture if God really did exist and they were really wrong the whole time? Isn’t that scary? I mean, it might sound totally stupid but just try it for 15 seconds. What would it mean?
It would mean 2 things: 1. – the religious people had an idea of the truth but were wrapped up in all kinds of delusions, unanswered prayer and such, but they had their focus in such a right direction that it still produced better characteristics in their hearts and in their actions than they would have had otherwise.
And 2 – there is something more flawed in the atheist’s heart or character that he has hardened himself from seeing what is considered possible for many agnostics and plain apparent to many religious people.
The
I bet Prager is making all of these posts all by himself and with his kid so he can look like a maytryr and like all of those chowdah headz who listen to a Jew so’s they think they can be better chrisitans will feel sorry for him and run on here and else weres and defend him !!!
Thionk bout it !!!
You seem to be using words to your own definition. Such as that of religion. Atheists aren’t religious in the true sense of the word. I suppose you could say they are spiritual but that still doesn’t go with me. I’d say passionate.
Your problem of atheism not dealing with world isues such as evil and stuff is because atheism is a non set of beliefs. Evil is a human issue and is defined by your own beliefs. Although religion alligns people’s beliefs who follow a set religion it doesn’t necessarily mean they are right, nor does it mean they will help the world be a better place.
I think to deal with evil in the world we need to take a humanist apporach because religions like christianity are still focusing on issues such as gay marriage, which to be honest is none of their business. The only people gay marriage should be of consern to is gay people and even then, there’s no need to make it illegal.
Please don’t take this as an attack, I just have a feeling you might have lost sight of what atheism is about. Like Richard Dawkins said, just because it brings comfort, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. Do you think you might be religious now because it brings you comfort?
This brings me onto my main issue with religion. It brings comfort, false comfort. I’m all for comfort, but I think truth trumps comfort. If I have cancer, I want to know, If I have 6 months to live I want to know. And although some people don’t want to know, that’s fair enough. But lots of religious people in the world want to impose this “ignorance” on others.
You can try to twist Prager’s comments any way you like but it is obvious tha for him to say “What if a nazi was elected, would we allow him to swear on the Mein Kampf?” was a stupid, stupid remark and one that I am surprized by because there was a time when Prager rightly condemned others for frivolously referencing Hitler and the Nazis. Now, though, it seems he has joined so many others, both Left and Right, who love to make Nazi, Hitler and World War II references in order to as you say, “bring home the point.” It doesn’t bring home the point to me, what it does do is show me on just what level Prager holds Muslim-Americans: By putting them on the same level as Scientologists, Porno fans and nudists (those references were made by him on on his own radio show over the last few days – let him now deny this), and worst of all Nazis. Perhaps Prager’s divorce situation is causing him to behave this way, perhaps he resents that he isn’t as popular as his colleagues and felt that if he tried a Mel Gibson/Michael Richards he would get noticed, I don’t know. What I do know is that his remarks were not appreciated even by many fellow conservatives and that those remarks do render this debate irrelevent. I don’t need someone posting that Prager is an Islamophobe, I already know it. Prager doesn’t speak for this theist here.
John Tacino
Upper Darby, PA
You can try to twist Prager’s comments any way you like but it is obvious tha for him to say “What if a nazi was elected, would we allow him to swear on the Mein Kampf?” was a stupid, stupid remark and one that I am surprized by because there was a time when Prager rightly condemned others for frivolously referencing Hitler and the Nazis. Now, though, it seems he has joined so many others, both Left and Right, who love to make Nazi, Hitler and World War II references in order to as you say, “bring home the point.” It doesn’t bring home the point to me, what it does do is show me on just what level Prager holds Muslim-Americans: By putting them on the same level as Scientologists, Porno fans and nudists (those references were made by him on on his own radio show over the last few days – let him now deny this), and worst of all Nazis. Perhaps Prager’s divorce situation is causing him to behave this way, perhaps he resents that he isn’t as popular as his colleagues and felt that if he tried a Mel Gibson/Michael Richards he would get noticed, I don’t know. What I do know is that his remarks were not appreciated even by many fellow conservatives and that those remarks do render this debate irrelevent. I don’t need someone posting that Prager is an Islamophobe, I already know it. Prager doesn’t speak for this theist here.
John Tacino
Upper Darby, PA
I think atheists don’t have much to laugh about at atheism because it is just a case of not believing in something. It isn’t really a belief system. Atheism is a declaration of non-belief so an attack on people who are atheists is a bit unfair. Anyway, religious people laughing at their own religion, that sounds like they either have doubts about their religion deep down, or they don’t take their religion that seriously. For me atheism is like mathematics. I have this secular view of the world and I follow logic. I don’t see anything funny about logic so I don’t really laugh about it. I’m not an angry person, but maybe I am an angry atheist. I wouldn’t mind religion if people believed quietly and privately. Religion affects me and I don’t like that, nor do a lot of atheists. That is why atheists are angry.
BT asks: If you don’t mind–what caused you to shift from atheist to religious believer?
Answer: In a nutshell, I gave up on atheism and secularism mainly because I wasn’t impressed with them anymore. I didn’t think they would lead me to a deeper understanding about existence, about what it means to be human, and perhaps most important, what to do about evil in the world.
I spent almost 25 years as an atheist. I had a lot of atheist friends, a lot of atheist and agnostic professors. Even now, I am truly sympathetic to the atheist position. I understand the attraction. I do not bear anybody ill-will because of their beliefs. I know peaceful, wonderful atheists that are terrific friends and neighbors, and religious jerks I’d just as soon send to the moon.
It is impossible to believe in nothing. Just because you are an atheist does not mean you have no religion. It means that your religion is something else, such as science, politics, environmentalism, activism, humanism, etc. Some people’s religion is all about career, money, status and consumption of material goods. For me, none of these constitute an adequate belief system, none are a satisfactory blueprint for living a good life. I don’t see how they will lead me to a deeper understanding of the human condition. I seek greater wisdom, greater understanding, and better ways to deal with the evil and suffering that are caused by bad moral choices. I am hoping I will find what I seek by taking a more religious path. I am not yet converted to Judiasm, but I am leaning in that direction because there is a lot in it that appeals to me.
I was raised a Catholic, belonged to a Unitarian Universalist church for a few years, and was an atheist for most of my life. It’s not as if I’m coming to this decision without having sampled alternatives. And intellectually, I still struggle with the notion of God. I still have serious doubts, and I still continue to question key tenets of Judaism. The stereotype that I’ve “found God” and now all is all peace and tranquility for me is simply not true. I was more tranquil in the certainty of my atheism.
For me, commitment to a traditional religion is not “either/or.” It is“and/and.” I can accept evolution and the benefits of stem cell research, and yet still hold religious beliefs. I can function as a highly rational, intellectual human being, and yet intuit, on a deeper level, that there is more to existence than what I perceive with my senses.
Let me emphasize that I am describing my own experience, my own opinions. I don’t expect all the readers on this website will agree with me. I am not trying to tell all you atheists out there to repent and find God. If you are happy being an atheist, good for you. I hope it brings you a lot of fulfillment, and makes you a better human being, and the world a better place to live.
Sincerely,
Christine Silk, Ph.D.
P.S. Thank you, Matt in Philadelphia, for your kind words.
I wish to highlight this point, “despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly religious people who have acknowlegded and fought the significant evils of his own lifetime?” Notice you said religious people and not religion.
What amazes me is that America has this big deal about its founding fathers and it being a Christian nation based on their tradition. They seem to be ignoring the fact that times change and things die out. I tihnk it’s coming time for Christianity to die. You don’t see countries like England clinging onto their founding beliefs. In fact if you ask most English people you’d find they are opposed to our monarchy.
Not only that, I have also noticed that self-deprecating humor appears to be exclusive to religious believers. I don't think I've seen a single atheist mock atheism here, but I've seen plenty of believers make fun of their own religion. I recall one poster in these comments referring to his transition from atheism to religious faith as his "lobotomy", which I found hilarious. I routinely refer to my own transition from atheism to religion as my "brainwashing".
It seems obvious that religious people are much happier people. They seem much more secure with themselves. Atheists' knee-jerk defensive posture betrays an underlying insecurity. I believe this is why they always feel a need to engage in personal attacks. I think this gives us a hint in our quest to answer Rabbi Gellman's original question: why are atheists so angry?
attack away,
David
Yes, the confession is interesting. He/she seems to have gone through a C.S. Lewis-esque series of doubts and questioning. But instead of emerging as more intelligent and stronger in character, has decided to despise Christianity and fight evangelicals from “forcing their beliefs on society.” (P.S. everyone wants their beliefs to prevail in society, its called democracy).
Who is more rational?…Dennis?…who believes some religion is good and even believes that atheists can be good moral people? Or Sam?…who thinks all religion should be done away with despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly religious people who have acknowlegded and fought the significant evils of his own lifetime? Hmm..thats a tough one.
Hey, Ms. Silk, are you the same Christine Silk who wrote "Why Did Kitty Genovese Die?"??
If you don't mind, contact me via my userpage, I've got a question for you.
??? ?? ???,
Joey
Someone should do a study and count up all the comments made on this site. I guarantee that there are at least 10 times as many ad hominem attacks against Dennis Prager by secularists than there are against Sam Harris by the religious. Shoot, half of those supporting Dennis dont even criticize Sam, they only comment on defending Dennis from all the personal attacks.
Ohhh, brother. Lets see, how many terms have I found so far?….hes a racist, an islamophobe, a “pompous blowhard,” and I could go on and on……solely for his belief that some religion is good, compared to Sam who believes that ANY and ALL religion is horrible, destructive, and dangerous.
I want to address a few points.
Anonymous writes: “Well, you know, Dr. Silk was an atheist for 24 years and so lacked the wisdom to be able to discern wisdom in others. …now after finding God she’s an expert on all things wise.”
Answer: I’ve been interested in wisdom for a long time, even during my atheist years. I do not claim to be an expert on it, nor do I claim to possess it to a significant degree. But believe I can spot it in others. And I can’t say I’ve “found” God. I’m still looking, actually.
Anonymous II writes: “Wouldn’t a person’s wisdom be based on your opinion? I suppose this means that people who are religious are going to seem more wise to you than an atheist.”
Answer: I agree that my list of “Who is Wise” is going to be somewhat subjective and colored by my perceptions, just as your list would be. But I don’t think I’ve picked the people on my “Wise” list based on a litmus test of whether they believe in God. Here is why: The two people I deem as having abundant wisdom were at the top of my “Who is Wise” list during my atheist years.
One person on this list is a woman I know personally. She helped me through some very rough times in my life. When I first met her, I considered her belief in God to be a strike against her. Over time, I became impressed with her insight and judgment. She has done immeasurable good in my life. Her husband, a brilliant, fascinating man, is an atheist. Of the two, she has more wisdom (I attempt to define what I mean by “wisdom” below). I offer this merely as an observation.
Another wise person on my list is Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. I started reading his books 12 years ago. I could see he possessed an uncanny amount of wisdom, even though I did not share his belief in God. I had the good fortune to meet Rabbi Telushkin last year. I watched how he handled the question from my children when they asked him, “Is God real?” He answered: “Well, I think God is real,” and then he went on to explain, briefly, why he held this view. He talked with humility, warmth, tolerance, and understanding, and keen intelligence. I was a waivering atheist at the time, and his character so impressed me, I started to seriously consider the benefits of having a belief in God.
Another individual I’d like to add to my “Who is Wise” list, but whom I have not met, is John Wooden, the UCLA basketball coach. His book, “Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations On and Off the Court,” is chock-full of wisdom. I formed my opinion of him and his book while I was an atheist.
I don’t expect that everybody will have the same people on their “Wise” list that I have on mine. Many people may not even consider wisdom to be a valuable trait. That’s okay. I don’t expect consensus.
I have struggled with what “wisdom” means. Let me offer a tentative definition. Wisdom is the ability to see deep patterns in human interactions, to have profound insight into what makes people behave as they do, and to have a talent for picking the right course of action in a given situation, especially where there is conflict or uncertainty. Wise people, in my opinion, tend to have humility, but also good judgement. They have a realistic perception of how the world works and they take into account the frailty of the human condition. They do not claim to have all the answers. They are aware of their own limits and their own faults, but they do strive to become better human beings despite their own imperfections. They are not necessarily educated. In fact, I have met many Ph.D.s who were the opposite of wise, and elementary-school drop-outs who were wise.
Besides the fact that the people on my “Who is Wise” list happen to believe in God, two other things I’ve noticed is that they are in their 40’s or older, and they have had children. I have a theory, wholly untested, that having children increases the likelihood that one will attain wisdom—along with more gray hairs—in one’s later years. It will be interesting to see if my theory is confirmed over time. I can already vouch for the gray hairs.
Sincerely,
Christine Silk, Ph.D.
If you advocate something you do not want to be left alone.
I suppose we’ll see if Prager’s “Islamophobia” is warranted if we have Islamic riots like they did in Europe over the muhammad cartoons. But that’s not even the issue is it? The issue is whether politicians should have to swear on the bible or if any set of scriptures, moral code book, etc, is acceptable. It is so obvious what Prager meant about some nazi swearing in on Mein Kampf. The point is that if we allow anyone to be sworn in on any book, what’s to stop a nazi from swearing in on Mein Kampf. He could have used Dianetics for Scientologists but a nazi brings home the point as it’s a more extreme example. To say that he compared the Quran to Mein Kampf, or muslims to nazis, is purposefully being deceptive and intellectually dishonest. Prager argues that this country was founded on principals found in the bible and as such, this book is sacred to this country. Do I necessarilly agree with his conclusion, no, but Prager is hardly an islamophobe based on the show I hear. So let’s stop this stupid ad hominim crap and attack Dennis’s points, not him.
Face it folks… Prager is only raising this stink because Ellison is a blackMuslim. Some of his right wing redneck bornagains support this because they don’t like the fact that Ellison is not only black but Muslim.
Oy, and now the race card. When you don’t have a good argument, use the race card.
alan Colmes had told him twice that, according to the Boston Globe and none other than the library of Congress, Franklin Roosevelt and William Weld did not swear on the Bible.
That’s probably because it’s a false statement. Franklin Roosevelt did swear on the bible and was actually the first to say “so help me God” after the oath. It was Teddy Roosevelt who didn’t swear on the bible but that’s because he was vice president when McKinley died. He didn’t have a traditional swearing in like others traditionally do. He was sworn in in a somewhat rushed way in New York. Could they have found a bible? I’m sure they could have but it should be noted that when he was elected he did actually use a bible when he took the oath. Same deal with Johnson after Kennedy was shot. William Weld, I don’t know, but it is interesting that the guy was a Reagan type republican.
Hang on a second… Isn’t this debate about Atheism or something? I kind of do hope they remove the “Islamophobe” posts since this isn’t really the point of this topic, especially when those attacking him don’t even have the curage of their convictions to sign their name.
Jeremy in Utah
I must say I was very disappointed in both presenters as neither one attempted a comprehensive defense of their position, but rather spent more time contradicting irrelevant points the other was making.
I’m not going to discuss WHY I’m an athiest. That point is irrelevant and irreversable. If you can’t put yourself into another person’s shoes and try to understand and tolerate their position, there’s really no point at all to asking why. You wouldn’t accept my answer anyway.
People want to “Save” me. They want me to know the “warmth and love of Christ as they do.” It’s happened on more occasions than I would like to remember that an aquaintance who I’ve met recently will discover I’m not coming along to church on a given Sunday, and I get a barrage of questions: Why? Don’t I like church? What denominatation am I? Would I like to come see theirs? Am I baptized? Hadn’t I read the Bible? –if only I’d read it, I’d know it was the word of God… Would I speak to their pastor/reverend/preacher? –they’re sure he could allay some of my doubts… I want to be left alone. I’m quite polite to those people who just can’t wrap their little believer brains around my non-desire to worship anything. I say I’m glad they’ve found a system that makes them happy, and I’m quite happy in mine. I have a question for them now. Why won’t you leave me alone? I said no thank you. I said I’m happy where I am. I said I’ve read the Bible (and the Book of Mormon and its numerous additives, and the Quran as well, in Arabic no less) and I didn’t find God in a single syllable.
I don’t want anyone to think I’m trying to impose my secular beliefs on them, but let’s face facts. If a member of the Judeo/Christian community sees a gay man or a lesbian, they call him damned. If they see a person with multiple tatoos and peircings, they call him misled. I call them minding their own business. Christians stand outside places of commerce, my grocery store, my Walmart, and hand out brochures about how good it is to be a Christian, don’t we want to be one too? I get handouts and flyers shoved into my windshield wipers in parking lots and my storm door in my very own home that tell me I’m not one of them, why don’t I want to be?? I get unsolicited phone calls asking me to support barring people from medical procedures like abortions, or to keep stem cell research at bay, so that all those unfortunate unwanted babies can go into gov’t homes where if they’re not adopted by the age of 2 they probably won’t be at all, and the Parkinson’s patients and the parapalegics and quadrapalegics of the world can finally get comfortable in their wheelchairs ’cause they ain’t gettin’ out of ‘em.
If you never get an abortion, abortion laws never affect you. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to participate in it. You can counsel people not to do it. But it’s not your decision, because it’s not your business. If you never marry a gay person, Gay Marriage laws never affect you. There aren’t a finite amount of licenses to go around, and unless you’re gay, you’re not going to have to marry someone who’s gay. Timmy and Tommy already live down the street anyway, so just let them to thier own business. It’s really none of yours. Stem cell research will probably affect you. You’ll get sick or injured, and you’ll want a cure THEN. No one is going to kill your babies to do stem cell research. NO one would ever think of that. But hey, don’t you think the people suffering from diseases and injuries deserve a full effort for a cure?
I’m always amazed at the kinds of things Christians call Family Values. In my home honesty, openness, curiosity, and empathy are valued. But these are NOT the same values I hear from the Christains around me. Censorship, anger, intolerance, and blame seem to be the order of the day for the church going crowd.
These are the reasons I’m angry. I want to be left alone. I want the people around me to be left to their own business. If for some reason, I come and ask for spiritual guidance from a church or belief system one day, then fine, but so far I’m not asking for your help or your opinion. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
Prager you don’t need Bill maher to make you a laughing stock. You do a good job of that all by yourself.
This debate is negated by Prager’s reactionary worldview. I can’t take a man who believes people should be forced to take part in a false oath seriously. Prager might look like a bullfrog but believe me he is really a reptile.
Whether Newtonian, Einsteinian, or quantum doesn’t matter. If anything the laws of macro breaking down and not being applicable to the micro suggests?
In any case if physical law is the only law then by definition it is deterministic. And everything we acknowledge is a result.
Complexity, chaos, and quantum physics must all obey physical law, unless we deny coherence to existence, which means that existence is in a continuous imminence of collapse.
Like he did with the negative reviews for his books on Amazon.com and like he did with his entry on Wikipedia Prager is going to demand that Jewcy delete all of the posts calling him out about this Keith Ellison thingy. Prager is insecure.
Sam Harris is giving legitimacy to an Islamophobe. Dennis Prager daily does all he can to play on the fears and bigotry of white Christian Americans against Muslims. The Keith Ellison scandal is just the cherry on the cake.
This debate means nothing to me.
As David Stowe has said, there is no virtue in insisting that a proposition must be provably false in order that it be provably true. Falsibiability is a pleasant little distraction, but it has nothing to do wiht the truth or falsity of the proposition in question. If one reads carefully, one will discover unsurprisingly, that Mr. Prager was not “proving” the existence of God. And for Mr. Harris to insist on that particular resolution and no other, betrays the absolute inability of the so-called atheist to come to grips with the question at hand: the existence of God can no more be “proved” than the First Principle or the state of matter the second before the Big Bang. Atheists are famous for criticizing the belief systems of others while ignoring the mote in their own eyes.
There are one two possible sources (in this discussion) for the existence of mankind (not to mention everything else): Revelation or evolution. Since evolution has failed miserably to “prove” itself (i.e., there are no transformational forms, no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, apostasy by Gould, etc., etc., etc.,), then an honest atheist would begin any discussion such as this one with the admission that his principles are all merely beliefs.
Once that is accomplished, Mr. Prager’s argument wins the day: the evidence for Divinity far outweighs the evidence for accidental or coincental origin.
On Fox News Channel’s HANNITY & COLMES Prager was up against black attorney -and New Black Panther Party member- Malik Zulu Shabazz. Now Shabazz doesn’t by any means represent the vast majority of Black Muslims let alone all other Muslims but he made good points and made Prager to look like the bufoon that he is. when answering that people should be allowed to take their oaths on the book they hold holy, Prager threw a zinger in at the end and said, “If a neo-nazi gets elected, should he swear on Mein Kampf?” That was nonsensical and in very poor taste to say the least. Nowadays, I seriously doubt that any neo-nazi would ever get elected to Congress and if by chance he did it would be something he/she would keep very well hidden. Furthemore, Prager attempted to cheapen and scandalize Islam yet again. Face it folks… Prager is only raising this stink because Ellison is a blackMuslim. Some of his right wing redneck bornagains support this because they don’t like the fact that Ellison is not only black but Muslim. prager even ignores the people who have corrected his statement that there have been others in the past who have not sworn their oath on the Bible. alan Colmes had told him twice that, according to the Boston Globe and none other than the library of Congress, Franklin Roosevelt and William Weld did not swear on the Bible. Prager is so vain and determined to keep his position that he ignored Colmes! A reporter for the New York Times told Prager that she knew of at least three Jewish politicians who swore on the Tanakh and not the Chrisitan Bible, yet prager still wants to keep up this “Ellison will be the first!” garbage.
I don’t think we can determine the future or predict highly complex series of events, quantum theory suggests that particles on the quantum level are completely unpredicatble and you can’t measure both speed and position, or something like that. I think there are a lot of religious people out there who don’t respect how far science has come in recent years, by the sounds of it most are still in the realms of Newtonian physics. Not that I understand complex and modern science, but appreciate it’s implications.
H.E.,
I’m sorry but your “confession” is hardly a rational reason to stop believing in God. You have decided to assume certain characterizations of God but when those don’t match with what you read in the Bible, all of a sudden you realize there is no God? You don’t have to believe but the “God isn’t a holy butler so He can’t exsist” argument is not very compelling.
Anonymous Prager haters,
Say what you will about Dennis Prager’s debating skills but he’s hardly unfair. He has guests who disagree with him on all the time. Also, it has not been my experience that he only takes callers who agree with him. The point about him waiting a long time to take callers is well taken but it seems it’s more out of him monolouging too long rather than him avoiding callers, which is a fair criticism in itself but it’s hardly because of him dodging disagreers.
I’m a listener to Dennis Prager’s show and often he irritates me to no end! He’ll drone on and on about a topic and keep callers waiting until there is only time for a couple and the rest get let go. Almost always the callers agree with him because Prager can’t take opposition to his views. He comes off like your fave menschy uncle but can become subtly demeaning and condescending to the rare caller who disagrees with him. He is obsessed about women breastfeeding! He tells his female listeners that their breast aren’t primarily for feeding a newborn infant but are primarily there for the enjoyment of men (what does he exactly mean by *enjoyment*?)! He asked a female caller one day who worked for UPS if she wears those brown shorts in the Spring and summer times! He offers to lecture to young teenage girls about sexuality! This man has some serious psychosexual issues brewing under that mop of white hair of his! He is so pompous that even though a Jew he consider himself an *expert* on Christ and lies to Christians telling them that they believe in the same God as Jews. Mr. *Expert* never heard that Christians believe in a Trinitarian God and we Jews believe in an Indivisible One God. No three persons/personalities/none of that.
He wants to force non Christian politicians and civil servants to swear by the King James Bible and wants it enshrined as THE BOOK for America! What kind of Jew are you Mr. Prager? And how dare you want to force nonChristians give their word to a book that they do not believe divine? You are a laughingstock Mr. Prager!
I’m a Roman Catholic yet puzzled as to why Sam Harris even agreed to “debate” Dennis Prager. As a believer in the Divine I would prefer Mr. Harris to have engaged a fellow scholar without a poltical agenda like Prager’s. Prager is a minor talkshow host who –along with Michael Medved– daily portrays the sympathetic conservative Jew to his socially/emotionally stunted Evangelical Christians in order that they continue their support for Israel. Prager almost daily loves to harp on another passion of his that he shares with an increasing number of Jewish Neo-cons: Islamophobia. This is the man who is at present trying to stir up controversy –and boost his ratings perhaps?– by posting articles in which he claims that newly elected Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, a black muslim, should be compelled to swear his oath of office on the Holy Bible and not the Quran. He further has had the insensitivity and hard-hearted gall to compare this farce of his own creation to 9/11! Dennis Prager is a pathetic bush league motormouth and someone to be ridiculed not debated.
Sam harris is closer i think. But for a real incite read “a confession”. The post above you. Who do you think is more rational and why?
Sam Harris finds all religion reprehensible. Dennis Prager thinks some religion is ok. Tell me, who is more rational.
A confession. With regret and embarrassment, I confess I was once a Christian, raised and brainwashed in a fundamentalist Christian family. I heard all those supposedly glorious stories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Samson, David, Jesus, Mary and Paul, the Passover, the exploits of Yahweh and the Israelites, the healing, raising the dead, the crucifixion, etc. Along with all the biblical stuff I was admonished never to question the existence of god and Jesus, never question the Bible because that book is inerrant, and fear god, fear Jesus, fear the devil, fear the end of the world. Sermons galore, praying, singing, tithing. Millions of Christians can identify with that trail of indoctrination. But in early adulthood, a light began flickering in my brain and the heresy of questions began to sprout. How could a loving, compassionate and merciful deity create natural disasters that kill, injure and destroy property of thousands of people every year? How could that god inflict diseases and trauma on infants, children, parents of young children, and adults, resulting in death or disabilities? Why are some Christians “blessed” and other Christians live in poverty? The questions began multiplying. I needed answers, a lot of answers, and not poppycock gibberish like “God knows best,” “God has a plan.” Then, for the first time in my life I read the Bible, every single word. I not only read the material but I also read with honesty and a sense of morality. I was shocked with content I had never heard before and the content that I had heard suddenly had a new and disgusting meaning. The Noah deluge became a murderous, preposterous tale. The Abraham and Isaac sacrifice story was one of attempted murder and child abuse. The celebrated passover was a tale of mass murder by the war god Yahweh. The tale of the Israelite wonderings was a tale of cruelty. The Israelites conquering of Yahweh’s “promised land” was a series of murder, armed robbery, genocide, slavery, rape and child molestation stories. The tales of the earth stopping in its orbital path and the earth reversing its path were tales for the walking dead. The great King David was nothing more than a gangster. Restoring life to the clinically dead, demons causing mental and physical diseases, exorcisms, ad nauseam, is material maybe suitable for cave dwellers. I could see quite clearly that the “Good Book” was anything but good for it explicitly or implicitly approves murder, child abuse, spousal abuse, polygamy, stealing, lying, cannibalism, communism, cruel injustice, human sacrifice, exorcism, adultery, rape, slavery, ethnic discrimination, gender discrimination, kidnapping, sexual promiscuity, incest, violence, conflict and belief in absurdities like a talking donkey. If you dispute that truth, you either have not read any version of the Bible, did not comprehend the material you read, or you lacked the integrity to face up to the reality of biblical contents.
Am I an angry atheist? Sometimes. I was certainly angry with myself for having believed and not questioned the garbage I was taught, but the freedom from the shackles of Christianity dissolved that anger. My ire now is toward those evangelicals who try to force their beliefs on society, who view non-believers not as human beings but as toys for their spiritual orgasms, who deem they have the absolute right to express their beliefs and conduct their rituals wherever and whenever they wish and non-believers have no rights, who demand a theocratic government, who proclaim their moral superiority based on their blind belief in ancient asinine literary called the Bible, and who ostracize and want to penalize non-believers be they family, relative, acquaintance or unknown.
Tolerance of jawboning Biblicists who have never objectively researched the background and sources of biblical contents including the mythical deities, or deny the sources of biblical contents, is beyond my reach.
I know that some atheists share my views but I would not generalize to all atheists.
Existing as an unthinking, robotic “me too” is an easy road as Dennis Prager no doubt can attest. It takes a sturdy backbone, a special individual like Sam Harris, to be a public freethought person in this god-mania society.
H.E.
Dennis Prager invoked the name Francis Collins as his evidence that ‘believers’ are rational. However, Dr. Collins, not unlike the Catholic Church, accepts Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as complementary to Biblical Creation.
In response to the argument that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis story Francis Collins responds:
The following is Dr. Collins response to the ‘young Earth’ proponents proclaiming the Earth is no more than 6000 years old:
How would Mr. Prager reconcile such paradoxical heresy from his chosen arbiter of reason, rational and Christian theology?
Mr. Prager undeniably exhibits great disdain for higher education; perhaps he should shun medicine, a product of such ‘secular temples’ and choose ‘laying on of hands’ to treat any illness or injury that befalls him or his family. I’ll bet his faith isn’t that strong.
Wisdom is relative; a person that spends a lifetime of persistently counterproductive behavior or pursuits would hardly qualify as wise to anyone… other than Mr. Prager.
I’ll wager that Mr. Prager, at the time he was in graduate school, did not have the courage or honesty to tell his professors that they "were wrong on virtually every important issue." Such bombastic assertions indicate a high degree of pride and ego, neither of which are considered respectable traits, particularly with respect to various religious doctrines.
It is worth noting there is an obvious overabundance of futility on this topic. Simply put, for some logic and philosophy will never provide the means to irrefutably prove or disprove the existence of anything supernatural, spiritual, etc. However if it makes you feel like the master of your own mind knock yourself out.
Hi, I meant that my point was kind of beside the point rather than your point was beside the point. There should have been a ‘that’ after the ‘but’.
Ben
“The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair, which cannot be reasonably relieved from an honest and logic-oriented mind without knowledge (or at least a knowledge-based hope) that this scenario is false.
What would life have to be for it to be meaningless?
DOes it mean no point?
And is that point God?
If so this is a statement full of fear. And arrogant to boot.
Hi Zhangliqun,
I just thought that I’d respond to this one, because I was thinking that the whole going to hell thing does make me angry.
Firstly, your response starts reasonably with the idea that atheists confuse a warning with hate, but then goes on to say at the end that atheists get angry at a warning, which seems a little confused, but is kind of beside the point.
Secondly, I don’t see how it can only be construed as a warning. Line of reasoning:
1) God puts atheists in Hell
2) God is just
3) 1 + 2 -> atheists belong in hell
Therefore a christian believes that I deserve to be tortured for eternity. How could that not make me angry, especially when a) I don’t have a choice to believe in God b) some of these people are my friends.
There are many other things about religion that make me angry and this is hardly the greatest of them but I hope you can see how this particular issue could make me angry.
Regards,
Ben
On Prayers and Miracles
Hey guys.
I believe that I am about as “free-thought” as atheists come. I was once a devout Christian, and I believe that this gives me the ability to see both sides of the equation with an immense amount of clarity. The topic that I am bringing to you guys right now is the controversial notion of the validity (or lack thereof) of prayers and miracles.
People debate these two concepts with such fervor that it seems as if there must be no succinct solution supporting the side of the miracle advocates or the miracle opposers. After all, nothing worth arguing over ever has a simple “right” or “wrong” answer.
This leads me to my thesis that prayers and miracles should not be included in the category of concepts worth arguing over. For reasons that I will soon address, I do not believe that the existence of prayers or miracles (as we currently perceive them) can be defended by coherent, competent human beings. In short, I believe that the entire notion of prayers and miracles are founded on inarguably paradoxical premises. I’m going to give my own (slightly modified for practicality) definitions of miracles and prayers.
—–
MIRACLE: An extremely improbable effect or event in the physical world that can not be explained on the bases of available knowledge or resources. This effect or event typically surpasses all known human or natural capabilities.
—–
Positive Miracle: When something improbable happens that most people see as “positive”, no one will hesitate to cry “divine intervention!” and give God credit for the good deed.
Negative Miracle: However, when something improbable happens that most people see as “negative”, they tend to shy away from the situation – giving no credit to God or to the supernatural.
The reason for this is the theological perspective that God does no evil. The theist’s solution is to either blame the devil, or fall back on the clichéd cop-out that the negative event was God working in His mysterious ways.
Paradox: I believe that the paradox here is obvious: why is a bad improbability “mysterious” whilst nothing mysterious is attributed to the good improbability? No matter how you spin it, this is nothing but an intentional paradox that leaves the believer with a win-win situation.
—–
PRAYER: A devout petition to God or an object of worship. Typically, a prayer is an act of divine inquiry in which the worshiper asks God or the object of worship for something to occur in the physical world through some manner of divine intervention.
—–
Paradox 1: I first want to debunk the first and most readily called-upon paradox: “God answers prayers with ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘wait’.” This is a paradox because it exhausts all possibilities – it can’t go wrong. If one were to pray to a fireplace, wouldn’t the same conditions apply? The idea here is that if this conclusion is drawn upon to defend the validity of prayer to God, it is necessary by logical extension to accept the validity of prayer to a fireplace.
Positive Prayer: We pray for things that we want to happen. In other words, we pray for things that we believe are “good”. If one were to pray for something that was generally seen as positive and it came true, the multitudes would praise God, proclaiming that the answered prayer was, in some form, evidence that God is there and listening. This is especially true of improbable prayers.
Negative Prayer: However, if one were to pray for something that was generally accepted as being negative, the multitudes would protest that their God had nothing to do with it. Improbable prayers are no exception in this case; if the prayer is perceived as “bad” and it eventually rings true, believers will still deny that it was “answered”.
Paradox 2: This is a paradox because it places the prayer’s “success” in a subjective state – at the discretion of the witnesses. As we know from before, we can’t judge good or bad because God works in mysterious ways.
———-
So, how do we know that 9/11 wasn’t the answered prayer of the thousands of Shiite Muslims who prayed for the success of the pilots?
How can we claim that a miracle hasn’t occurred when a 10 year old boy dies instantly and without warning from a lethal and inexplicable brain hemorrhage?
If I pray for a building to spontaneously collapse on President Bush and it happens, will Christians accept the validity of the prayer, or will they shun it off as a “coincidence”?
Long story short, I believe that prayers and miracles are nothing more than imaginary devices that were conceived of in order to provide followers with solace; “the Creator of the universe is on your side.” Every religion has that intention at its core, and such is apparent when one observes such promises as immortality and the promise that those that we love are not lost forever. Such promises are not specific to Christianity and had been around long before Jesus (as a bringer of atonement) was ever conceived of by Apostle Paul.
I am aiming to see how Christians address these (what I see as) untenable “paradoxical truths”. Hope you all had a Happy Thanksgiving!
–Channing
P.S. Requesting mature, unbiased responses if at all possible.
“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?
The world is not meaningless to me.
It is utterly beautiful.
If god created nature in all it’s beauty, would nature be more beautiful having created itself?
Like when a child finds out for themselves.
If god is a compassionate god, then hell is a human fallacy.
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’.
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.
Belief says nothing about the ethics or morality of the believer.
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.
This is human. Altruism. Love. The bible, and it’s god, are not born from such love.
To say god died for us, completely misses the point. I don’t believe he did.
It’s easy for god anyway. He’s god. He knows he’ll be back. 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.
Love to you all.
did you actually mean,
“I was wondering who was going to be first to take the bait on that one, MWA-HA-HA!!!”?
That feels kind of childish.
But i’m sure i’m wrong.
Where to start. You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot with your own arguments.
We are fallible. Absolutely. Wisdom is relative to the perceiver.
For me wisdom is knowing there is much we don’t know.
Wisdom is not acting like smartarses or omnipotent oracles here on earth.
It is difficult to take you seriously when you begin your posts with;
“I was wondering who was going to be first to take the bait on that one, MWA-HA-HA!!!”
That is a very old and worn out tactic. I could easily say in response “aah.. you fell for my wily subterfuge” etc etc.
WHoever posed the question had a point. A point you mocked and then answered. Let’s try keeping a sense of our own fallibillities and a keen eye on the debate, without schoolyard bullshit.
Could be.
I find the chaos theory particularly intriguing. I think in time we will be able to use it as a stable predictor. But time will tell.
I too have been disappointed in my own failures at extended flight. Its about the only way I could afford to get a veiw from up there.
You talk of randomness and chance. I talk of chaos and complexity theory. Could it possibly be they aren’t the same concepts?
I would direct your attention to the motion of particles in the Sun or rain drops falling from the sky as evidence of chaotic non-deterministic complex systems that still follow natural physical laws. I guess you could say they are predictable in their unpredictableness.
Yes, I attempted to fly. I succeeded for about a second. I didn’t make it into space, though. It’s to bad, really. I was looking forward to the view from up there.
We don’t disagree, except for the metaphor part about randomness and chance.
On your second point we do not disagree.
On your first, its not whether you succeed or not, but rather whether you attempted to or not.
But so it goes.
OK, I intend to fly into outerspace. Nope can’t do it. Guess I’m not free of the natural law of Gravity. Let’s see. I intend to be 20 feet tall. Nope, can’t do that either. Hmmm, I know. I intend to type on this computer. There, I’ve done it. I’ve defied the natural laws of nature. I’ve suspended the physical laws and done something unpredictable. I am God!
Observations of chaos and complexity theory are NOT metaphors for a lack of knowledge. They do not escape the laws of physical being for they are part of the laws of phyics.
Yes
Good questions, below is how I understand the problem.
Concept of consciousness: the idea that you exist. For consciousness to exist, it must be able to intentionally do anything of its own accord.
If what we call consciousness is the result of physical laws then what we are is the result of the interplay of physical laws since the very beginning of existence. We are the resulting phenomena, not the self creating consciousness demonstrated by intentionality.
In order to be free from the laws that determine the exact coordinates of all phenomena in time and space–then those laws must be superceded or suspended. Intentionality would be impossible otherwise.
Observations of randomness and chance are nothing more than metaphors for a lack of knowledge. Magnitude by scope, size, complexity does not escape the laws of physical being.
So it goes.
I am so moved by her comments more than anything I’ve read here, including the debate itself. I could never attempt to describe what it is about God and faith that is deeper and truer than the atheist’s hollow attempts to maquerade as a counterfeit version of everything the religious person thrives on. I just don’t believe short of a miracle of God I would have the language to describe it and do it justice for a nonbeliever. But she has not only taken on this task, but succeeded beautifully.
Matt in Philadelphia
you are right.
What concept of consciousness? Why is it false? What does intentionality have to do with a belief in God or not? I can intend for something to happen. I can even project that intention onto a rock and say “the rock intends to be a rock” which while true doesn’t mean that much. All this is quite natural. But why do you insist that intentionality and consiousness has to be sourced by some transendental Godhead?
am i right?
Quite brillant you are. You have successfully boxed me into a corner. Anything I say will be seen as “unfounded assertions.” Everything you say is quite simply the truth. So if I were to say I understand that the natural universe is quite complex in structure and chaotic in motion and that from this non-determinism arises (as a feeble attempt to refute your quite elegant assertion that “all I think I think is predetermined”), then you will quickly point out that I’m an illusion making unprovable statements that you have already predicted I would say because only you are capable of bringing a body of evidence to the table that is irrefutable.
Pah, I say. It is your philosophy that is untenable. And arrogant to boot.
According to your definition there is no thought. And let me add, because we are pretty far removed from where I conceded that Atheism may be the true construct of existence–that is, it cannot be disproved, but neither can it be proven.
Nonetheless, there are implications to Atheism that must be acknowledged, and not just given a pass: first and foremost, if true then the concept we have of consciousness is false. If consciousness entails intentionality then consciousness is not compatible with Atheism, which effectively discounts consciousness as a factor in existence.
No, why would I bother?
Source: Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
Wikipeadia is cool, but I don’t use it as a primary source, but as a jump off point.
The atheist does not disprove anything, but merely proves what can be proven. You weren’t born believing in god; it was handed to you. Belief in god is itself the interloper, it is not a native state. The burden of proof is on the person promoting the body of received wisdom.
I’ve read existentialist writers; some make some very interesting observations, but talk about untenable.
If your consciousness, as you put it, is not independent of physical law, then all that you think you think is predetermined, which is to say not thought at all, merely atoms doing their thing according to the laws of nature.
You can make all the unfounded assertions that you like, but they are in fact no different than those who assert a metaphysical reality. That is to say that you bring the same body of evidence to the table
This whole phenomenon thing is quite funny. Thought is a byproduct of brain activity. The implications are that I also believe that robots and computers have the ability, if complex to human degree can achieve the same level of consciousness. There is nothing metaphysical about thought, it is just an abstract term because when you think, you you are merely running “program” in you head.
They just happen to be complex enough for you to think of yourself in some special way that defies a “program” just like a computer. Genes are our programming and the environment is our input source of information. Our programming allows us to learn, just like some computers can learn. We just haven’t built them to be as complicated as us yet.
…and furthermore, wikipeadia’s definition of phenomenalism is the view that physical objects do not exist as things in themselves but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense-data.
Your definition isn’t the same thing. Are you making things up for the sake of argument?
My definition of Consciousness DOES NOT describe independence of thought. Did you not hear me say I can observe the act of a person thinking. Thinking is a phenonema. It can be observed. I do not have to assert anything ‘meta’ or external to the physical realm to recognize the act of thinking as a phenomena. Of course man obeys all the laws of nature. Consciousness occurs within this realm of nature. These laws are not suspended except when attributed to various supernatural superstitions, like your God concept.
What? What nonsense. Study some existentialism will ya. I exist. That you see me as an illusion is your problem. I certainly don’t need to prove my existence to you.
Well, you know, Dr. Silk was an atheist for 24 years and so lacked the wisdom to be able to discern wisdom in others. Something convinced her to be wise up recently, and now after finding God she’s an expert on all things wise. It’s sad to here that she was unable to appreciate fine musical orchistrations all those years she spent wandering the wilderness those 24 years. Glad to hear she’s found her wise sage.
It would seem that all the atheists seem to think Harris “owned” while the religious/believers think that Prager prevailed. Are there any atheists who think Prager won or any believers who think Harris won? Isn’t a sign of someone winning a debate that they were able to change more people’s minds? It would seem to me that neither of them really prevailed other than to convince themselves that they are correct (this includes the debate going on in the comments section). Honestly, I didn’t find this to be a very effective debate, even with regards to the clarity that Prager reveres. I say this as a devoted listener to Prager’s show. I generally agree with much of what he says and have great respect for the man but I just didn’t find his arguments compelling enough. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find Harris’s arguments all that compelling either. I don’t find the whole discussion that compelling. Perhaps it was such a weak debate because it was about something which cannot be proven either way. The debate should have been about whether religiosity/atheism is good/bad for society or something substantive related to the issue.
Jeremy in Utah
Well actually it’s not about me, and though you haven’t accepted the implications of your assertion–yea, we can move forward, but first:
I keep responding to the same argument made over and over (just in different terms), so the same response in different words is warranted–keep trying to clarify.
Thanks for the definitions.
Here’s one you might like: Phenominalism: the philosophic theory that knowledge is limited to phenomena, either because there is no reality beyond phenomena or because such reality is unknowable.
Here’s what you are denying: The man who asserts his own consciousness asserts a metaphysical reality, which many have called god.
Your definition of consciousness describes independence of thought. Independence from the phenomena which itself is. Independence from the laws that direct phenomena.
The atheist denies a privileged position for Man in existence. Therefore Man obeys all the same laws of existence that every other phenomenon obeys. The laws are absolute, or are you saying the physical laws of nature are suspended in the case of Man.
To assert that you observe yourself is unprovable, and in fact blasphemes to your own assertion.
The atheist asserts the illusion of his own being, and in fact, the illusion of his own consciousness.
Again, the Man who asserts his own consciousness asserts a metaphysical reality, or if you will, god and/or gods at the minimum.
I’ve read a half dozen posts from you repeating over and over about phenomena as if it’s somehow significant in proving atheists wrong. It’s the same argument over and over. You have yet to make your point or else you wouldn’t keep posting it over and over.
OK I admit it. I’m pure phenomena.
Defined: A phenomenon (plural: phenomena) is an observable event, particularly something special (literally something that can be seen) [from Wikipeadia].
So I can observe myself. I am phenomena. I can observe myself observing. I have consciousness.
Defined: Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. [from Wikipeadia].
I can observe you ranting about phenomena. I conclude you have consciousness. Consciousness is itself phenomena. It can be observed in humans. To a lesser extent it can be observed in other living species. It cannot be observed in rocks. Rocks are not conscious. It cannot be observed in stars and galaxies, nor the Universe as a whole. All these are phenomena. Conscious cannot be observed in God because God cannot be observed. God is not a phenomenon.
Does this make you satisfied? I admit it. I’m pure phenomena. Can you drop the “athiests are phenomena” argument and move on?
I am simply saying that I have never met an atheist who possessed great wisdom.
Discerning that mythology is not history is unwise?
Reasoning instead of emoting is unwise?
You’re piling it high and deep, Doc C.
It was not so much in favor of Harris as it was against Prager’s statement:
“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.” That’s where the problem was for me and thus the nature of my response. I’ve been to some of these events catering to the believers and sadly, I didn’t leave with anything close to the same impression.
Granted, Prager is far more sensible and less mean spirited than other peddlers of the said horseshit such as “Rabbi” Lapin or Medved or Rush Limbaugh for that matter…but their audiences don’t vary all that much, nor is what they’re trying to sell.
And I think it’s much safer to assume that Harris didn’t become an atheist to make a buck. The Judeo-Christian market is much more lucrative.
It was not so much in favor of Harris as it was against Prager’s statement:
“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.” That’s where the problem was for me and thus the nature of my response. I’ve been to some of these events catering to the believers and sadly, I didn’t leave with anything close to the same impression.
Granted, Prager is far more sensible and less mean spirited than other peddlers of the said horseshit such as “Rabbi” Lapin or Medved or Rush Limbaugh for that matter…but their audiences don’t vary all that much, nor is what they’re trying to sell.
And I think it’s much safer to assume that Harris didn’t become an atheist to make a buck. The Judeo-Christian market is much more lucrative.
But Atheists have to prove consciousness.
And by the way Harris does not understand what he is arguing and therefore cannot win his argument.
The first question is what is the case for a metaphysical reality. The second question is if there is not a metaphysical reality then what are the conditions of ourselves?
The atheist argues that we are pure phenomena: thus the elements of thought are ruled by the same forces that rule the elements of a rock. Thus we do not exist the way we think we do–we are not conscious; we are not ironically aware of our unconsciousness; we are merely phenomena obeying the laws of phenomena.
To assert you are conscious is no different then the man who asserts god–surely you see that.
I would have to say that both Dennis Prager and Sam Harris made good arguements. The topic of this debate is "Why Are Atheists So Angry?" Harris went way outside of the topic and seemed more preoccupied with stating reasons why God doesn't exist. Pragers points were more definitive and stayed on the topic. If this was a debate about God's existance, Harris would be the winner. Unfortunately it's not. Harris drifted way off coarse, and danced around many of Pragers points that related to the topic. I crown Prager as the champion!
Also consider this point, which may help as evidence to answer the question, "Why Are Atheists So Angry?" Many people who left comments have stated their beliefs or lack of belief. I choose not to. However, I couldn't help but notice that many of the people who left comments and stated that they were atheist whether insulted Prager directly, or insulted the writer of another comment. The negative overtone of the atheist comments answers the debate topic just fine for me.
Harris was far more adept at defining the argument, circling it, attacking it, and looking back in retrospect, but even in his own great capacity for intelligent thought he proves Prager’s point.
After using the evidence that scientists are far more likely to be non-religous over and over, he undoes his whole argument with this statement: “Even some of the best scientists can make lousy philosophers.”
Atheism is like Communism – it makes so much rational sense in discussion but proves disasterous as a social policy. The Soviet Union, Red China, and Cuba all prove both of these things. The three countries where both communism and atheism became the state-enforced belief are the countries with the worst record of human bloodshed.
The Judeo-Christian world did bring all the things Prager claims it did. Almost all of the scientists responsible for the founding of modern science were deeply religious. Even before any women’s rights movements women were treated better in Western Christian nations than in any other nations. Today America, which has held the deepest Biblical beliefs of any nation in history since ancient Israel, is also the country that all suffering people look to as a place of refuge as well as the only hope that they may be delivered.
Perhaps there really is greater truth in beholding a flower or a waterfall than there is in trying to fit the idea of an all-knowing, all-loving God into a finite mind.
A quote from a British journalist, Steve Turner:
IF CHANCE be the father of all flesh, then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear:
…“grim discovery”…“child pornography ring cracked”…“store clerk murdered”… “youths go looting”…”rape victim clinging to life”…“bomb blast at embassy”…
…it is but the sound of man worshipping his Maker.
Wouldn’t a person’s wisdom be based on your opinion? I suppose this means that people who are religious are going to seem more wise to you than atheist.
She clearly that SOME religious folks seem more wise, and that some clearly aren’t.
I have a feeling people you judge to be wise are people who are capable of capturing your heart and possibly your mind.
Doesn’t the same apply to you? Or are you totally unmoved by people you judge to be wise?
Perhaps this gives you the impression that no atheist you have met is wise.
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.
Zhangliqun
You’re using cheap debate tactics here–trying to reorient terms by pouring your own meaning into them; this is a frequent tactic by evolutionists who maintain that evolution is a fact, then look for ostensibly plausible transitional forms, only to redefine the term evolution in the process.
The fallaciousness here is by you, Mr. Wolle, and your atheist counterpart, Sam Harris. Harris avoided the major points Mr. Prager made, and then hurled elephants when really all he was throwing was stones.
Boy, you atheists are sad.
If you don’t mind–what caused you to shift from atheist to religious believer?
–BT
Thanks for the reply, Christine. So, if “wisdom” is a quality distinct from religious belief, can you define it, or provide examples of wisdom in a contemporary context? I can’t really evaluate whether this is something that only occurs among the religious unless I have a clear sense of your definition of that quality.
–BT
When you can’t argue the point, just change the subject and cast aspersions on the man’s character by saying he actually gets paid for his speaking engagments. Got it…
I take it Sam Harris goes on his book tours for free?
Wouldn’t a person’s wisdom be based on your opinion? I suppose this means that people who are religious are going to seem more wise to you than atheist. I have a feeling people you judge to be wise are people who are capable of capturing your heart and possibly your mind. Perhaps this gives you the impression that no atheist you have met is wise.
And that is why your task, Sam, is infinitely greater than mine.
All the best,
Dennis
P.S. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a high paying gig at a Chabad in Dallas. Strictly glatt kosher, standing room only with deep and moral thinkers at $75 bucks a pop. Lapin did the gig last week, said it’s a great room. Medved’s there next month (filling in for Abramoff). Judaism is so fuckin’ sweet.
Anonymous writes: Dear Christine, your last statement sounds very close to Prager’s claim–that “true wisdom” is non-existent among nonbelievers. To me, that sounds like a tautology: to be wise is to “hear” the religious chords, therefore those who do not accept religion are not wise. Have I got that wrong?
Dear Anonymous: My statement is not a tautology. Here is why.
I am saying there is a quality called “wisdom.” This quality is not synonymous with religiosity. Some religious people are wise, many are not. I am simply saying that I have never met an atheist who possessed great wisdom. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that committing oneself to a religion may be a necessary, though not sufficient condition, for attaining wisdom. In the same way, being able to hear sound is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for being a great conductor. Just because I am able to hear, however, does not mean that I will be a great conductor, or even a competent amateur. Just because I commit myself to a religion does not mean I will attain wisdom.
Sincerely,
Christine Silk
Zhang
‘You make my point for me. Because human perception is so limited and so fallible and so easily swayed and altered, whatever we perceive as good or great or noble, etc., is automatically suspect at best. In other words, it is just a headtrip based on feelings and perceptions, not on anything real or transcendent.’
Including your statement?
I was wondering who was going to be first to take the bait on that one, MWA-HA-HA!!!
This is the classic mistake of the atheist in such debates – assuming in advance the rules of a Godless universe before the debate begins on whether the universe really is Godless. This is rigging the game. You cannot say to your opponent “Before we begin our debate on whether or not God exists, you must first stipulate that God does not exist.” Both sides must, at least on a hypothetical level, begin from a neutral position and reason their way toward the point they are trying to prove. Neither side can use the very point they are trying to prove as evidence of the point they are trying to prove – classic circular reasoning. It would be like me saying to you “God exists because the Bible says so.”
More specifically to your point:
If there is no God, then you are correct. Anything I (or anyone) says really is just a headtrip based on feelings and perceptions, not on anything real or transcendent. But if God (the God of the Bible) does exist, then it stands to reason that if I put my trust in him, I can count on him to cut through my clouded, fallible and easily swayed consciousness and provide me with whatever knowledge and light I need to complete the mission he has for me on this earth.
In other words, my point was that while human perception is shaky at best for all of us, the theist has the rod and staff of the Great Shepherd to guide him through Valley of the Shadow of Fallible Perception while the atheist has to feel his way through on his own.
So to try to invalidate my point by saying “Including your statement?” not only assumes in advance the very point you are trying to prove, it ends up helping to prove mine.
Atheists don’t riot in the streets. Atheists don’t conduct crusades and lay thousands to the sword. Atheists don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up discos. Atheists don’t conduct running campaigns of violence between Catholics and Protestants.
Not true. They may not do these things in the name of God but they did do most of these things in the name of Marxism and Communism. The above nearly perfectly describes a typical Communist revolution.
Atheists don’t cherish a grotesque revenge fantasy against those who disagree with them called The Tribulation.
Objection, your honor, assuming facts not in evidence. It makes no sense to accuse Christians of believing in God without evidence and then claim to know every Christian’s mind about the Tribulation (or anything else) without evidence. The overwhelming majority of Christians would prefer to see as few people suffering through the Tribulation as possible. And besides, that is all God’s business and not ours: “Vengeance is mine” and all that. Which God himself doesn’t much look forward to because he says in Isaiah “Judgement is my strange work”.
I am very sorry that the members of the church around you have not treated you better. Again, to stay on subject, all I am saying is that the following statement is so logically flawed it hurts to read it:
“Everyone who is not a Mormon knows at a glance that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs.”
I understand that you can say what you feel about the Mormons, but this statement is completely undefendable. The use of the term “Everyone” is the key here. It simply isn’t true. It implies that the only people that think that Mormonism is not “obscenely stupid” are those who are not currently Mormons, i.e. grew up in the faith. I can prove it isn’t true because hundreds of thousands of people every year join the church. There were not a Mormon last year, now they are a Mormon. What does that make these people? Nothing? Nonexistant? Not really people? Somehow, they are not included in “Everyone”. Can’t you just admit that this statement is thoroughly undefendable? It is these kinds of sweeping generalizations that erode my opinion of Harris’s logic.
-Anthony
From my own personal experience, the reason that atheists are so angry is because their intellectual edifice does not suffice to hold off the deep seated terror they have in the face of death and a possible eternity. It is the ultimate threat of hell which angers the atheist.
I agree with your post in general and the above passage in particular about 99%. The one minor quibble is that in order to be fair to atheists, I think a large part of the anger comes from the fact that they tend to confuse the warning about Hell with hate. They hear “If you continue on this path, you’re going to spend eternity in flames” and interpret it as “You are scum and I hate you.” Some Christians have done a terrible thing in that with word and deed they have used this warning as camouflage for genuine hate, and unfortunately they paint all of us with the same broad brush they accuse us of wielding.
Yet the same atheists would not be angry at someone who warned them that the bridge is out up ahead and that they should turn around. Even if they knew for a fact that the bridge was perfectly intact, they would just dismiss the warner as a harmless kook and drive on – they wouldn’t say the kook hates them because they know that warnings of any kind are offered as an attempt to save, not to destroy. If an atheist wants to be angry at or fear a Christian or want to accuse one of hate, they should focus their concern on Christians who say “Don’t change a thing, you’re perfect just as you are”. Those would be the ones who actually want you in Hell.
But your point about Hell being just a fantasy in their view is a good one – why should atheists be angry at “kooks” warning them about Hell if it doesn’t exist? Do they have the same reaction to a child who runs up and touches them and says “you’ve got cooties”?
Zhangliqun
Dear Christine, your last statement sounds very close to Prager’s claim–that “true wisdom” is non-existent among nonbelievers. To me, that sounds like a tautology: to be wise is to “hear” the religious chords, therefore those who do not accept religion are not wise. Have I got that wrong?
Anonymity disguises a lot of good thinking in this list; unfortunately, if you cannot “own” your words, your words are essentially worthless.
I cannot understand why you would do this.
But most of the remarks here, for both sides, are perpetuated by people who won’t own their words.
I’ve been an atheist for 60 years, waning and waxing in my enthusiasm for getting the word out, and mostly waning; life has been getting in my way.
The very idea of “god” is silly… using the “word” of such a being (ultimately anonymous) as a basis for living is ridiculous.
Someone said (Mark Twain?) that you cannot reason someone out of a position that they got themselves into without using reason.
That remark has to be proven wrong, or humanity is in deep trouble.
O’wait! That’s where we are right now…
Maybe Sam can get us going down a better road, get us out of our closets and own our words and help us to build a better world?
nilky of nilknarf.net
I grew up Catholic, became an atheist at 16, and stayed that way until this year. I’m 40 years old, I have a Ph.D in English. I conducted psychology experiments in graduate school, took statistics, and have a basic grasp scientific method, so I’m favorably inclined toward science and rationality. There was a time when I adored Richard Dawkins, and loved to debate in favor of atheism.
But reading the debate between Prager and Harris, Sam Harris’s arguments ring hollow for me, and I can’t quite put my finger on why.
The only way I can articulate my discomfort is with an analogy. Imagine a congenitally deaf person who wants to conduct Beethoven’s Violin Concerto in D major (Opus 61). He becomes an expert in physics and music theory. He memorizes the orchestral score. Could he do a competent job conducting? Would the symphony, under his baton, achieve that transcendent, artistic quality that I hear when a first-rate conductor is at the podium? I think not. I’d be unable to describe what it is like to hear the majestic, ringing tones of the string section, or the sonority of the percussion in the opening measures of the first movement. Even if he and I shared a common vocabulary of music theory and physics, I could not articulate what I mean by “sonority” and “majestic tone” because we lack a common, crucial perspective. He cannot actually hear the sounds, but I can.
Similarly, when a theist attempts to talk to an atheist about why faith and religion are important to him, he ends up sounding vague, incoherent, mystical, and full of inaccuracies. Words fail him, just as words fail me when I try to describe what makes Beethoven’s concerto profound and transcendent. To really understand a religious person, you must be able to “hear” what he hears.
I have had a lot of exposure to Judiasm since I married into a Jewish family thirteen years ago. My husband and I are raising our kids Jewish, even though I was an atheist until this year. There is still a lot about religion that I find hard to deal with. I have doubts. I struggle with God, I am perplexed about the existence of evil, and I don’t have all the answers. But one thing I’ve observed is this: The people I’ve met who seem to have the most wisdom, kindness, and insight into the human condition also happen to believe in God. That is not to say that all people who believe in God possess these qualities – unfortunately, there are many rotten theists just as there are rotten atheists. I’ve hung out with a lot of atheists, many of whom had Ph.D., were fine, good-hearted individuals whom I would trust to babysit my children any day. But I have not met a single atheist –not a single one—who possesses true wisdom, or who has an insight into human nature or into the very mystery that I believe lies at the heart of our existence. Many of these people are very bright, they have a lot of words and sophisticated concepts at their disposal, but they cannot hear what I—and other theists—hear, however faintly.
Sincerely,
Christine Silk, Ph.D.
Los Angeles
If this is the result of an “intelligent design” the entire product line should be recalled, it is very flawed!
Zhang
‘You make my point for me. Because human perception is so limited and so fallible and so easily swayed and altered, whatever we perceive as good or great or noble, etc., is automatically suspect at best. In other words, it is just a headtrip based on feelings and perceptions, not on anything real or transcendent.’
Including your statement?
It Feel Bad For You
“Why do you rail so hard against God? Is it not clear that we are part of a design? I think it is interesting that people who don’t believe in the Bible, don’t understand the Bible try to use it to prove a point. If you can’t handle adult topics try and stay away from the text.”
DO any christians you know use the bible to prove a point?
Is there a hell?
Would you watch the non believers, mothers, fathers, children etc. go to hell?
would you wave back if one waved you goodbye?
Are we supposed to further our understanding of each other in this debate?
I know few atheists that rail against god. They mostly rail against despicable acts perpetrated in his name.
They don’t rail against something they don’t believe in.
The guy who posted “put the deck on the table” a few posts before yours, had some reasonable questions that nobody seems to want to answer. We must take resposibilty for what we believe. The bible is a tennis ball on these forums. Frayed after being hit with mostly the same strokes for years. Easy to debate when hell is a faraway concept. Much more difficult if you have to witness the release of the trap door.
I don’t believe in any gods. The idea is pure nonsense. I feel no need to justify my lack of belief nor do I care to hear any other arguments – whether in support or not.
Actually, I believe in a lot of stuff. (I believe in cake, for one.)
I’d rather you did not label me. You have labels – baptist, catholic, muslim, etc. Go ahead and use them but leave me out.
Evil seems to more of a function of a religious attitude than is morality.
A point not realized in these comments – hypocrisy can be exhibited by anyone – and usually is.
Who is insane? The person with voices in their head that say “kill the kitten”. Or the person with voices in their head that say “pet the kitten”.
I’m out-numbered. Therefore, I’m wrong.
I was as dead before I was born as I will be after I die. If I think of my life ending like this I don’t get upset.
My IQ is 1050. (In dog years)
Sincerely
Big A
Even if God does exist, does this neccesitate a universal moral law?
If you are talking about the God of the Bible, yes. If you are talking about the god of deism or pantheism or some other belief system, maybe not.
God being all omni-everything like he is can do what he likes I suppose, but does this mean his moral law is any greater than that we make up?
If you are talking about the God of the Bible, yes. Because being omniscient, he knows infinitely more than we do, and being the source of all goodness and light, he is able to translate this raw infinite knowledge into infinite wisdom, neither of which we possess, which means by definition any moral law we might come up with would never remotely approach his in greatness.
If you are talking about the god of deism or pantheism or some other belief system, maybe not.
What reasons could he have for giving these moral laws. God tells us not to lie, cheat and steal, but this isn’t for the sake of God. We don’t hurt God by doing these things, they are for the good of our fellow man.
If you are talking about the God of the Bible, it does hurt him and he repeatedly says so, that he is grieved by it.
If you are talking about the god of deism or pantheism or some other belief system, maybe not.
So I ask, what differenciates God’s moral law from man’s moral law?
Answered above.
Speaking from the sense that it’s towards society’s benefit. Also, would this mean that as society changes wouldn’t also God’s moral law? The implications being that moral law isn’t absolute as they change with society.
The application might change in minor ways – for example, there is nothing inherently sinful about walking into a house with your shoes on. But if your host is Japanese or Korean or from any other culture that requires you to remove your shoes before entering and you are aware of this fact but refuse to do so, you have committed a sin against God.
But God’s law, or more accurately, his intent behind his law, does not change.
(That's a Monty Python joke, son.)
Seriously, though, this debate is getting stale. How about taking it off the front page before Jewcy becomes known as the "Go Atheist / Go Believer" site. More Jewish arts and culture, please.
Surely this god would know what it would take to make me believe. As an experiment I confess right now if my cup of coffee sitting next to me now were to turn to wine I would fall on my knees and belive. Not only that but would preach it to everyone I know. But alas it has not happened and is not likely to happen.
I think it’s far more likely that you would convince yourself that you were dreaming or hallucinating because “alas it has not happened and is not likely to happen”.
In fact, they believed it enough for many of them to make difficult life changes such as stopping smoking, drinking, donating at least 10 percent of all their income to the church, giving of their time to serve in the church and numberless others. He must feel like his intellect is orders of magnitude rhigher than these 250,000 each year and that they were all magnificently duped to beleive in such a “stupid” religion.
As an agnostic that lives in Utah I can say that this religion does convince people to actually do these things that are stated. Give away 10% of your money so you can get blessings and the LDS church can turn around and invest that 10% with a huge pool of other CONVERT’s 10% into financial markets and real estate. All the time claiming tax exempt status. Just because the population of people that convert to your beliefs is going up is no proof of legitmacy. All it proves is that all the training (Marketing training) the mormon missionaries get in the MTC really works. The LDS church is doing a great job of convincing 250,000 new customers to give the LDS chruch money so that CONVERT can now get into the LDS heaven (it is a requirement to be a good tither to make it to the highest level of heaven in this religion) and the LDS church can keep on investing with the tax exempt status while giving interest off the interest to the poor so they can claim they do some work for poverty. Organized religions are rich. They are registered corporations in the US. They are businesses. If you want to give them money so you can buy their brand of heaven, go ahead. Talk about a tax on the stupid.
By the way 250,000 isn’t that large of a number. If you look at the number of people in the countries where the LDS church is having the most converts (mostly 2nd and 3rd world countries) it is amazing you don’t get more. The people in those countries are looking for help. Your missionaries look like they are bringing help. They will sign up for anything if the promises are great enough. But by no means does it prove the legitimacy of your religious beliefs.
And yes, Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs. I live with them everyday. I get reminded everyday of that belief system because the mormons in Utah think that anyone who isn’t a mormon is just a second class citzen living in their mormon state. That is why people think your beliefs are silly. Most mormons that I know are self-loathing, full of guilt, and are constantly ready to judge anyone who doesn’t adhear to their belief system. That is why mormons don’t leave this state. It is a save haven. They can ignore diversity.
Keep giving your 10%. I always wonder if mormons would still be happy to give away so much of their wealth if the tax break for religious contributions was taken away. Food for thought.
It seems clear to me that the problem here was that Prager and Harris were debating different topics. Harris was arguing that there is no scientific basis for believing in God while Prager was arguing that there is no need for a scientific basis for belief in God. As a Prager listener, I’m somewhat disappointed that he didn’t point this out and say it’s irrelevant if God can be proved or disproved, what matters is that belief in God, namely the judeo christian one, is generally good for society. He certainly mentioned it but this should have been the theme of his side of the debate, not wasting time countering irrelevant arguments on proof of the existence of God. I think that both had compelling arguments for the points they were trying to make but they weren’t really arguing the same thing.
Jeremy in Utah
“Everyone who is not a Mormon knows at a glance that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs.”
This comment is ignorant and reveals the Harris’s predisposed hateful feelings toward this religion. This statement is obviously false. Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It started with 6 members in 1830 and now is close to 12 million. Something like 250,000 people CONVERT to the religion every year. These are not children born into it, these are converts from outside the faith. These people obviously did not consider “that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs.” In fact, they believed it enough for many of them to make difficult life changes such as stopping smoking, drinking, donating at least 10 percent of all their income to the church, giving of their time to serve in the church and numberless others. He must feel like his intellect is orders of magnitude rhigher than these 250,000 each year and that they were all magnificently duped to beleive in such a “stupid” religion.
These kinds of absolute statements that Harris uses throughout his arguments only highlight his ignorance when it comes to religious topics and weaken his credibility to me.
Anthony
(Yes I am a Mormon in case you were wondering. That doesn’t change the above facts though.)
Now, to the author who wrote “What atheists have to account for…” on November 27, 2006 – 8:00pm:
Hi. You can call me Zhang…
In my opinion, you have made the strongest arguments yet of anyone arguing for the existence of God. Thank you. It is borderline painful to read so many seriously flawed arguments for the existence of God. But I think there are a couple of things you are missing and I’m naive enough to think that I can do an accurate enough job to explain them properly, so I’ll give it a shot.
I’m used to a lot of smarm, snark and sarcasm in response to my arguments, so you taking me seriously this way in such a respectful tone means a lot to me. Many thanks…
You write, “If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code.” I agree. There is no *objective* moral code. I argue that a moral code is firmly based on a time and a place. Killing is a terrible thing under almost every circumstance. But I say almost because there are times when killing is necessary. We can argue about what those times are, but what’s important is to note only that the moral code regarding killing another is relative to the situation. Other things like rape are never justified – at least not in any situation I can conceive, but I reserve the right to be wrong.
So far, no disagreements. As Prager himself likes to say, context is king, so we agree on that. That said, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a transcendent moral code. A full read of the Bible – even if you leave out the New Testament – shows a God who has an ultimate man and an ultimate humanity in mind that he wants to shape us into, yet at the same time he is like a father who understands the current limitations of his children’s knowledge and their inability to take everything in all at once and become an adult in just a few minutes. Over the thousands of years (perhaps longer) covered by the Bible, he takes into account the mass psychology of man and the limitations that places on us and gradually spoon-feeds us wisdom to get us where he wants us to be rather than trying to cram it all into us at once. A classic example is the horribly misunderstood bible verse, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. In the context of modern times, this is seen as barbaric but in the context of the time it was written, it was actually a call for cooler heads to prevail.
The zeitgeist in question is best explained in Genesis 4:23-24, where the original “Original Gangster”, Lamech sings to his wives:
23 Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed [h] a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
This is how you handled an offense in those days, the code of the gangster: you put one of mine in the hospital, I put two of yours in the morgue – exacting vengeance vastly and exponentially out of proportion to the offense. Eye for eye/tooth for tooth was a call to end this escalation madness and make the punishment fit (be perfectly proportional to) the crime.
Anyway, maybe this illustrates how the will of God takes two forms, there is the ultimate will of God and the circumstantial will of God – and to the point, how you can have an eternal transcendent moral code that is circumstantially fed to us bit by bit as the millennia pass, because we of the finite minds can’t take it all in at once any more than a boy can become a man within a day of being born.
At times in history, slavery was accepted – even endorsed by the Bible (and other holy books). Does that make everyone immoral who didn’t actively condemn slavery? I argue that they aren’t. They were living in their reality.
This is another example of, as you agree, context. People tend to think all slavery is the same, and in terms of human rights at its purest, that is true. But in terms of actual practice, slavery in the Ancient Near East, as in Israel, was most of the time actually relatively benign, more like being a butler who was well-treated and fed just couldn’t leave the house without permission, etc. It was not like the current connotation of slavery, of someone being whipped and beaten or even killed for the slightest disobedience, living in squalor, penned up like animals and given only filth to eat. Also, Israel often took slaves via conquest when the practice by most peoples around them at the time was to kill everyone, so taking slaves was in that context, an act of mercy. But we both digress somewhat…
Now, to answer WHY these things are wrong. We are primates. Primates are social animals. I read somewhere that “a lone primate is a dead primate.” We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us. I don’t want to be raped or killed, so I don’t do it to others. This pattern of behaviour is so ingrained in us though natural selection (those who regularly kill others are either VERY successful or very dead) that it has become instinct – or at least something we learn at an early age. (As an example, I was told that as a baby, I was a biter – until a little girl a couple of years older than me bit me back and I “realized” that it’s better to neither bite nor be bitten.)
This is where we disagree, or perhaps you just misunderstood my question/point. You didn’t answer why these things are wrong – you only answered why people behave the way they do regarding right and wrong which totally avoids the question. People often confuse “how” with “why”. That a lone primate is a dead primate or that I don’t want this to happen to me, that there is this or that pattern of behavior, etc., just psychological/sociological observation, not an answer to why this or that should or should not be. That is how, that is not why. In other words, you are telling me some of the details about how people rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic while avoiding my point that the Titanic is sinking which therefore renders all of this deckchair rearranging meaningless.
You wrote above: “We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us.” This observation is true as far as it goes but merely assumes it is important that the people around us not rape and kill us without explaining why that is so. What is so important about us that we should not be raped or killed? What does it matter if we or humanity or this planet live or die? If the universe itself is an accident devoid of meaning and purpose, then so are we. That is the nihilistic horror that belief that the physical world is all there is inescapably visits on us, and for which the atheist must account.
You write, “The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent.”
I agree with the first half (i.e. no transcendent moral code, only temporary pragmatic ones) but I disagree that these temporary morals (temporary is an overstatement, but the basis is accurate) do not have an objective basis. Quite the opposite, because they are based on the current reality, they are very objective. I also disagree that I “pretend” that human morals are transcendent. I think killing is terrible, but if it was a choice between going to war to defend my freedom or being enslaved, I could see killing another under that circumstance.
We do disagree. I said earlier that God adapts his moral code to the “current reality” but that is not the same as BASING it on current reality. As a driver, I may put chains on my tires to adapt my vehicle to snowy weather conditions but that doesn’t mean the car isn’t still essentially the same. If I were to base my car strictly on the current reality of winter weather, I would likely just sell it and buy a snowmobile, which would mean a) no more car, and b) I would be stranded when spring came.
You further write, “In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.”
I disagree with this too. Whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on human perception, not on some divine doctrine.
You make my point for me. Because human perception is so limited and so fallible and so easily swayed and altered, whatever we perceive as good or great or noble, etc., is automatically suspect at best. In other words, it is just a headtrip based on feelings and perceptions, not on anything real or transcendent.
I think it’s important to note that I am using the word “spirit” as “free will” not “soul”.
Since you are an atheist, I already assumed that to be the case.
I think there are a great many things that are good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit because, as a human, I share the same evolutionary past as you and other humans that admire these qualities.
A non sequitur. That is like saying, I think the sky is blue because you and I are both from New Jersey. That the sky is blue has nothing to do with where either of us grew up. It would still be blue if we were never born.
I very much agree that good and evil ultimately have no meaning – at least not the innate meaning that so often accompanies these terms. Good and evil are human constructs.
Being a theist, that is not true – I very much disagree. This whole scenario I have written is a “what if”, as in, what if the atheists are right, as a way of showing that the problems with atheism carried to its logical conclusion are far greater than the problems for theism.
But again you make my point for me – you believe good and evil are human constructs, which is to say, in light of the fact that human perceptions are so easily swayed and distracted, that they are ultimately arbitrary. Therefore the very meaning of the words “good” and “evil”, which carry the heavy freight of a transcendent and eternal moral code, are lost – replaced by imposters that are nothing but fashion statements decided by whoever has the most guns and gold.
In a sense, it doesn’t matter if the universe exists or not.
If there is no God, there is no sense in which it does matter.
But it does exist without a reason why in terms of a moral justification.
True only if there is no God.
I am sure there is an answer to “why” in terms of a scientific explanation, but I am also sure I don’t know it. I think it is accurate to say that no one knows it yet, but many smart, dedicated people are rationally searching for the answer.
Again, confusing how with why. And also confusing the moral with the physical. Science cannot give answers to moral questions any more than you can measure the Ph balance of the water in your pool with a ruler. Science can only answer how, never why.
I very much disagree with your conclusion that life (for an atheist) is ultimately meaningless.
There may be some confusion here – namely confusing what the atheist perceives to be true with with is ontologically true. I make no attempt to claim that atheists walk around believing that life has no meaning and they’re all ready to jump off a bridge because clearly most don’t. But my point is that this is so only because most atheists are so distracted by a desire to deconstruct theism that they haven’t thought their own position all the way through to its logical conclusion. Instead in debates they gleefully saw off the branch believers are sitting on, completely unaware that they are sitting on the same branch.
Nonetheless, if the atheist is actually right – that there is no God – then life is meaningless for atheist and theist alike (not just for the atheist), regardless of what either believes.
The strict answer meaning of life is the same for all organisms – from bacteria to oak to mushroom to human – is to procreate and continue the species (well, genes really, but the point here is the same).
That is confusing what organisms do with whether these organisms or the things they do have any meaning.
But I assume you are also talking about the “greater” meaning. I answer that because we have evolved intelligence, reason, imagination, and a host of other more or less unique traits, we are built to enjoy their use.
Accidents are not “built”. Only creators can build.
Which leads me to your next point: “The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair…” Not so – my response is to create my own meaning
Then you have two major problems to solve, one moral, one logical:
MORALLY, just arbitrarily creating your own meaning is the essence of nihilism. If you answer only to yourself, then given the human vulnerability not only to honest error but to bias, selfishness, greed, lust, etc., etc., you are an inherently unstable being who is a danger to both himself and his fellow man. Remember that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro and all the dictators and tyrants throughout history “created their own meaning” too, as has every mobster or small time crook or rapist or anyone who does whatever they feel like doing. There is not a single one among them that are not or were not creating their own meaning and being ‘true to themselves’ 24/7. Only if there is a transcendent moral code – something like the Ten Commandments, complete with a real Commander to keep you in line – is there any hope of us being anything more than a collection of impulses and appetites.
Moreover, from this idea of “creating your own meaning” comes the myth of “individual morality”. I say it is a myth because morality is about how you deal with OTHERS — not just what you think in your own mind privately.
LOGICALLY, if the universe itself has no meaning and you are part of the universe, then it is logically impossible to create your own meaning because meaning does not exist. To claim otherwise is like claiming you can get fresh fruit from a dead tree.
Which leads me to your last point: “the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith.”
As I said above, life is not meaningless – we are here to procreate and use our big brains. And if we do too much of the first and not enough of the second, your prophecy might just come true as we’ll destroy our children’s future with illogical, selfish, blind faith. (Sorry to have to steal your final two words, but nothing else will do.)
You can use the words, I don’t mind. But as I hope you can see, I’ve exercised my brain to a very extensive degree to arrive at the conclusions I have arrived at and it is, by the modern hypersensitive definition, bigotry to say that theists definitionally do not think their beliefs through very carefully and that atheists do. (On both sides, some do and some don’t – in part because some can and some can’t.) Don’t worry, I’m not offended, but it is a bit presumptuous to say or imply that theists can arrive at their beliefs only through a refusal to seriously think. Yes, it’s true that I said earlier that most atheists have not thought their position all the way through to its logical conclusion, but in my defense that’s not the same as saying they have made no attempt at serious thought on the subject. They just haven’t finished the job.
In any event, if my ‘prophecy’ comes true, it will be because our children were taught that it doesn’t even matter if their future is destroyed, especially if preserving it means the ending or curtailing of their pleasure of the moment.
I have a lot of questions I would like to ask theists, so perhaps you can answer me this: What would it take for you to not believe in a god Is there (theoretically) something I could show you to make you not believe?.
I’m glad you asked. To understand what it would take for me to lose faith, you would have to understand what caused me to gain the faith to begin with. I have laid out a fairly extensive but admittedly a circumstantial case for God’s existence, but it’s basically two parts: 1) The God instinct – no civilization has ever failed to search for God in some form or another. Even the Soviet Union created a mythical creature, the New Man, and his God, the State., and 2) The ramifications of their being no God, namely the lobotomization of the universe by the denial of the existence of meaning on an ontological level. I believe these are powerful arguments that are so far unrefuted, but I also – surprise – admit they are not enough by themselves. The deal for any Christian (I’ll be theologically specific because I have to, it’s me) is closed not by dry theological or philosophical arguments, although they help. This is the mistake atheists make in assuming that the theist (Christians in particular) must either arrive at their convictions strictly via cold reason or by making a deliberate effort at self-deception as a form of escapism. No – the deal is closed by a direct encounter with the risen Lord. Such an encounter appeals to a part of us that logic and reason can’t touch, just like the appeal of water to a thirsty deer or a mother’s face to a baby is not arrived at through the deer or infant sitting and carefully reasoning whether or not water or Mom’s face is a good thing first. They just know. There is no substitute for experience…
So for me, you would have to first give an overwhelmingly compelling rebuttal to the arguments that I have made in here and then show me that things in my life that happened that defy secular/scientific explanation really did not happen.
There are many, many things you could show me to make me believe in a god – pretty much anything the Bible claims Jesus did – water into wine, curing diseases with a touch, coming back to life days after dying, born to a virgin, etc. (Please don’t tell me these things have already happened. I don’t want to get into mythology as fact.)
I hadn’t intended to do that but your dismissive use of the word ‘mythology’ indicates a problem you would have to overcome, namely that in making the a priori assumption that everything I believe is a myth, you unfairly require me to stipulate in advance that my core beliefs are false in order for me to convince you that they are true. Not only is that rigging the game (intentionally or not), it shows that your bias against such possibilities are so strong that even if God stood in front of you and demonstrated all these things for you and much more, you would convince yourself that you were just hallucinating.
Moreover, God is not a slot machine or a circus freak show act where you drop your quarter in the slot and off he goes performing his ‘tricks’ mindlessly til he’s done and the next customer comes along. He says he will do what he will do, bless whom he will bless – however, whomever, and whenever it pleases him. But lest you think that means he is cold, cruel and moody and capricious, there is a reason Jesus refers to himself as the Bridegroom and the church as his Bride. Like any prospective husband, he wants his bride to seek him out and want him for himself. In other words, to genuinely love him — not for his wealth or any parlor tricks he can perform, but for who he is. Therefore he hides his face from gold diggers.
Anyway, all I can do is lay out the circumstantial case I have laid out. You and the Lord will handle the rest.
Zhangliqun
As much as we seem to love this debate, it is as pointless as our IQs. Noone wins because the whole discourse is based on the false assumption that science and faith are somehow mutually exclusive. We cannot, scientifically, prove a negative, (there's that damn teapot again), and we cannot scientifically prove the existance of God. If we could, then faith would have no value, and it is through faith that God makes Himself known to us. Faith has nothing to do with logic. The secular athiest wishes to demonstate his intellectual superiority over the religious, charactarizing them as a bunch of mindless, snake-handling lemmings blindly following Jerry Falwell into the sea, while evangelical, literalist Christians parade their piety, charactarizing athiests as a bunch of militant, child-molesting reprobates. In the meantime, ten million nutjob Muslim extremists plot how to kill, submit, or subjugate the rest of the world so they can reserve their rightful place in that big pussy plantation in the sky. YIKES!!!
it only encompasses one topic, God does not exist. To assume from that one belief a “world view” or credo forms is nonsense and arrogant. God does not exist. That one sentence is all there is. Not much else springs from that. It is totally seperate from my world view. I no longer question it, ponder the existence or see the merits in believing in god so my views are shaped by other things. Get it?
Prager’s argument was filled with straw men, and a misdirection into the ridiculous politics of Harvard as some kind of representation of all aethist. It’s unfortunate that all the time on the radio, where control of the mic, screening callers that agree with you (and inarticulate callers that disagree), and a few retoricle tricks, has weaken Pragers ability to make a real strong argument.
Just because you see the world and imagine a designer doesn’t mean it’s true. As evolution states, complexity comes from simplicity. How can a universe be explained by using something even more complex. This doesn’t explain the mysteries of the universe, it increases them. There are two types of people in the world, those who want to learn about the way the universe works, and those that assign it to God. There is also a third category of “I don’t care” but for the sake of this argument they don’t count.
Are theists “angrier” than atheists? Consider:
Atheists don’t riot in the streets. Atheists don’t conduct crusades and lay thousands to the sword. Atheists don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up discos. Atheists don’t conduct running campaigns of violence between Catholics and Protestants. Atheists don’t cherish a grotesque revenge fantasy against those who disagree with them called The Tribulation. And so on.
Prager, like all right-wing radio personalities, is a propagandist, and is therefore fundamentally dishonest, at least in his professional activities, of which this exchange was one. The most he has to offer are tautologies: people who are religious are “wise” (why? because they’re religious). Religion has a beneficial effect, except when it doesn’t, but then it stops being religion, because Stalin, etc.
Prager is the Rush Limbaugh of “faith.” His “arguments” aren’t worth Sam Harris’s witticisms, but we get some entertainment out of it, at least.
Who are you talking to? That post makes no sense–it hardly argues for an “adult” position.
And no, it is not clear we a part of a design, at least not in the sense I’m guessing you mean it. Read anything about natural selection and you’ll see why.
IQ is way over rated!
Mine is 135 and I think it’s pointless.
Kory Mikesell
Buena park, CA
Why do you rail so hard against God? Is it not clear that we are part of a design? I think it is interesting that people who don’t believe in the Bible, don’t understand the Bible try to use it to prove a point. If you can’t handle adult topics try and stay away from the text.
I agree that Harris owned this debate. The first day of posts were a debate, the rest were Prager going round and round the bush, not offering anything substantial.
The last quote of Steinberg hammers the point home with a wet noodle. The theist ‘has’ to explain suffering? The atheist everything else?
Prager de-evolves his ‘debate’ right back to the beginning.
Prager offers two explanations for why someone (Harris in this case) can believe that “All things came from no thing; intelligence came from non-intelligence; order came from chaos.” One is a university education. The other is an antipathy to religion.
I believe that antipathy to religion is the most common trait shared by atheists. But where does this antipathy emanate from?
First (and most common with the atheists I know) are the people who have had a bad experience in the past with things such as going to church, or attending religious classes as a youth. Perhaps a parent forced them to attend religious services without providing a clear understanding as to why they were going. Others may have experienced abuse at the hands of someone who claimed to be religious.
There are many possible negative experiences one can have as a youth. Some of those may have occurred in religious institutions, or while associating with “religious people”. But does that validate a complete separation from Christianity / Judaism, which have provided so much good to society as a whole?
Surely these same people had at least some negative experiences with the education system during their first 12 years of school. Did that cause them to abandon education altogether? In other words, do these people dismiss education as nonsense because of one or more bad experiences in school? On the contrary, most decide to continue their education for at least four more years. And education continues to be revered in our society – by believers and non-believers alike.
The second explanation involves those who have a complete lack of biblical understanding. If one has never been exposed to real biblical instruction, it seems inevitable that the stories of the bible will sound more like a fairy tale and less like valuable life instructions.
The fact that these individuals are on the outside looking in can also create a sense of not belonging. Some of these individuals may in fact desire to gain an understanding, but lack the abilities to pursue it or lack the knowledge of where to begin their search. Then there are those who are too proud to even act interested. Much like those who never learned to read, they will avoid all situations that would reveal their ignorance. Atheism is then used as a pretext for not subscribing to Christianity, or Judaism.
Tim Walz, St Paul, MN
I am facinated by the “places” from which Dennis and Sam aruge. If you believe we all come from sludge it would be obvouious that we (man) are the top of the ladder, or king of the world. If you believe we were created by a loving God, you have to allow Him to sit on the throne. It is very clear to me Sam can not take himself off the throne. Arrogance (pride) is a pathetic personality trait. Let me ask this question: If man comes from primordial soup, where did woman come from? Did we evolve co-currently? Did we somehow “split”?
It is not incumbent upon atheists to “prove there is no God,” nor is it reasonable to ask for such a “proof.” One can’t prove a negative, and in any case atheism is simply the position that there is no reasonable basis for believing in God or gods. The burden falls on the person who is making claims about the existence and identity of God (or any entity) to demonstrate the basis of their claims. Russell’s orbiting teapot makes this point quite concisely. If I instist that your mind is entirely controlled by a giant gopher hidden underground, is it fair for me to demand that you prove there is no such gopher?
By the way, I’m listening to Prager’s radio show, and he has again implored his listeners to counter the comments of the “anti-religious” here.
I think you misunderstand that the position of burden is placed on the believer. If you make an accusation it is your burden to prove the case, not the opposite. If God can’t be proved then don’t claim he exists. If he can’t be disproved then he isn’t an object of science and therefore of no concern for the athiest to do so. Atheists basically say, “if you can’t prove God exists, why should I believe in him, or have my country’s law affected by him?”
The teachings of Christ you say?
-)Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. -Matthew 10:34
-)Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -Luke 22:36
-)And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. -Matthew. 24:6-7 [also see Mark 13:7-8]
-)If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. -John 18:36
-)But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Luke 19:27
Quoting Jim Walker
“Belief and faith can have such a powerful hold on many Christians that it sometimes resembles an addiction to a powerful drug. In such cases, nothing can shake the addiction to their belief in Jesus, regardless of the teeth of Biblical evidence against him. But remember that just a few decades ago, a man named Hitler also held a fascination by faithful followers. Although, Hitler fought against Jews and created war, many followers dismissed these things for what they saw in him as “good.” Hitler himself said “I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Mein Kampf). He held a love for the German people and brought them out of poverty, acted kindly towards pet dogs, and ate as a vegetarian. Should we ignore the atrocities from Hitler and honor him? Of course not. And neither should we do the same from a character from any book, including Bibles.
“The problems of belief do not come from Bibles, Jesus, or Satan but rather from human gullibility. We have a tendency to believe that ideas and words equal great truths. But words cannot convey ultimate truths anymore than a map can serve as the territory. Our beliefs play out a dangerous aspect of humanity and the responsibility for them must lie with ourselves. Megalomaniacs like Hitler could not have gotten into power without the faith of millions of people. So also, the beliefs in the Biblical Jesus can influence the trigger of the greatest destruction of all: the self-fulfilling prophesy of the end of the world. Let us hope that we gain the ability to use our reasoning ability instead of naive unexamined belief for such a flawed character in a book.”
I don’t know what debate you were reading, but it sure seemed to me that Harris was the one fumbling around, not addressing the questions posed, and meandering all over the landscape. Prager would write one thing, and Harris would a.) ignore it, b.) mis-state it and argue against the mis-statement, or c.) go off on a totally different tangent.
It is utterly bizarre how the believer is so easily let off the hook for
accounting for the existence of God in the first place. Once you manage
to believe in God, then he’s magically exempt from being accounted for?
If one thinks the atheist has to account for “everything else”, then one
should accept that the theist has to account for God.”
I see this all the time from atheists – ‘It is up to the theist to prove God’ OK – how about the atheist proving there is no God as well? ‘No, it is up to the theist to prove God’. Very convenient.
Even if God does exist, does this neccesitate a universal moral law? God being all omni-everything like he is can do what he likes I suppose, but does this mean his moral law is any greater than that we make up? What reasons could he have for giving these moral laws?
Surely his reasons for giving these laws would be to give some structure to society, just in the same way secular morals do. God tells us not to lie, cheat and steal, but this isn’t for the sake of God. We don’t hurt God by doing these things, they are for the good of our fellow man.
So I ask, what differenciates God’s moral law from man’s moral law? Speaking from the sense that it’s towards society’s benefit. Also, would this mean that as society changes wouldn’t also God’s moral law? The implications being that moral law isn’t absolute as they change with society.
Harris does answer the question why he is so angry because he states that it is religion and irrationality which threaten to destroy mankind.
There is another reason he and other “militant” atheists are so strident. On Day Two of the debate, Harris writes:
“Atheism does not assert that it is all made by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. One of the extraordinary ironies of religious discourse can be seen in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other nonbelievers for their intellectual arrogance. You have done a fine job of this above. And yet, there is no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: The Creator of the Universe takes an active interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell…
An average believer has achieved a level of arrogance that is simply unimaginable in scientific discourse—and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists.”
It is the “eternity in hell” line which causes the anger. It is one thing to have a system of beliefs which can be neither proven nor disproven; it is quite another to state that all those who do not agree with you will suffer eternal torment.
Which leads to the next question: if Christianity (or Islam for that matter) is merely a fantasy, why should the atheist be threatened by people who assert that eternal torment awaits the unbeliever? Shouldn’t they simply laugh it off? In fact, isn’t this what Sam Harris advocates, the public ridicule of the faithful?
From my own personal experience, the reason that atheists are so angry is because their intellectual edifice does not suffice to hold off the deep seated terror they have in the face of death and a possible eternity. It is the ultimate threat of hell which angers the atheist. I know because that is how I felt before the lobotomy. Now I am blissfully deceived and only get angry at bad drivers.
Intellectual honesty is not the problem. The biggest problem with atheism is a lack of existential honesty. This is obvious whenever an atheist tries to defend the words “should” or “ought”. If “should” and “ought” magically spring forth from the blind vector of genetic replication, then why “should” I care? Not why should the human race care? Why should I personally and individually care? I prefer to be Stalin.
As a scientist (biologist) myself, I find it interesting that we have become such a central part of this debate. First and foremost, I want to point out I agree with Dennis (on this ONE point) that there is a very large difference between an agnostic and an atheist — AND that the polls taken from the NAS lump them together. As an agnostic, I find this unacceptable — and an especially useless tool in this arguement. Secondly, what gives a biologist any insight into the existence of god? Isn’t it possible the personal traits that would lead one to become a scientist are the same that might lead one to question or deny the existence of god — namely requiring experimental results, empirical observations, and testable hypotheses to find something “true”? None of these are applicable to the existence of god, and I find no reason to assume scientists are any better equipped to answer this question than anyone else.
One last point: The Popperian falsifiability thesis states: any scientific theory must contain within it the conditions under which it may be shown to be false. One can not prove that God does not exist — taking this question out of the realm of science.
No.
Anecdotal stories are not evidence. That’s why eyewitnesses are considered unreliable unless their testimony is supported by real, physical evidence.
To quote a poster upthread:
"Theism — at least of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety — is nothing short of repulsive [and deserves] to be dumped in the garbage."
And it is, by the billions of non Judeo-Christian-Islamic theists!
Oh, I forgot, as Prager says: they're all filthy dirty immoral people living in backward places where equality is only a dream. Doesn't sound at all like America…
If a million people read a book or see a film that has interpretation as a centre point for discussion, then what you get is the discussion above. Everyone holds tight to their own interpretation.
This is ofcourse, very stimulating. But what if we, for a moment, all think about the implications of the consequences of believing and non believing. The consequences are all too real and heartbreaking here on earth. But what about when we die?
This was nearly opened up a few posts back. I copied them for perusal. Any thoughts?
an atheist accounting
Forever is a long time to think on all those who you loved that didn’t make it to the party. It does not make sense. 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? Where does that place your moral code? Or god’s moral code? These are real questions. Tea pots, universal constants and God, pale into insignificance when you see the child edging toward the cliff.
Submitted by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 – 3:55pm.
reply
To “an atheist accounting”
“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?”
Great question. If you are talking about the God of the Bible, the question is moot. We are all responsible for our own choices, so I cannot swap myself with anyone else. Also, eternity in the Bible is very different from our finite thinking here on Earth. We cannot measure our future thoughts there based on our thinking here.
I know that I am responsible for my child, but at a certain point he will be able to make his own choices, and just like here on Earth, his choices will have consequences. My moral code tells me that I must make sure that his choice is an educated one – that he knows there are consequences, some of them eternal. One of the biggest problems on Earth is that we do not care about the consequences of our own choices, and then we blame others for them, but that’s another huge discussion!
Anonymous
RE; an atheist accounting
I have some problems with the rationalising of a human response that is based on love. The kids did not believe. That was their choice. You were responsible for them. It is that responsibility, born out of love, that makes most parents altruists. From a comfortable chair, you cannot swap with them. But in the moment, all rationality, if indeed one can call it that, surrenders to love. No one to blame. Just beliefs that we must adhere to, whatever the consequences. If we believe in eternity in the bible, then we believe in both eternity’s. Heaven’s and Hell’s. We then must believe in the bibles own criteria for admission to both. This means we are left, if god allows us memory of our children, with the torture of their everlasting agony. The main point here is, you might not believe God is possible of such cruelty. But millions upon millions do. And they hold it up and praise it, in all it’s God forsaken glory. I sit here and type. godless. trying to understand. There will be many down there with me who got it wrong, but tried to understand.
Simple, thoughtful, caring non believers. And someone, somewhere thinking, ‘well, they had their choice.’
thanks for your comments. mikejswalker
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll consult the professor of astronomy on all of this stuff today (he’s taught many types of physics and astronomy classes for the past 30 years of his life and was involved in some renowned space program; if you remember that big space rig that they blew up in Goldeneye 007, he was on that :).
Hopefully he can fill in gaps of knowledge that we don’t seem to have. My only problem is the quantity of infinity to describe how small everything was. If all of the mass in the universe was all in one point, I’m sure that the density would have been so incromprehensibly large that gravity packed things in pretty tightly. However, to say that it was packed into “infinity” is pushing it, knowing how particles act at the quantum level.
As we both know, Wikipedia says that “The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions pertinent to elementary particles.” The Plank Epoch, according to Wiki, occurred after the previous state of heat and density, and was responsible for universal growth and inflation.
A black hole is tightly compacted matter within the universe – one rests at the center of virtually every galaxy. No matter how compact the matter is, I don’t see how it is possible to deny that it is still “inside” of the universe. The word “infinity”, as far as I can tell, is a means of claiming that it wasn’t really there (extant). My argument is that this stuff – this unchangeable balance of cosmical matter and energy – was never outside of the universe; it always “existed” no matter how hot, dense, and infinitesimally small (smaller than we can measure, calculate, or assign a definite quantity to – yet still extant) it was.
Theism — at least of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic variety — is nothing short of repulsive. After all, what do we have?: a) racism (all hail the sacred chosen mitochondria), b) stupidity (the Trinity?, the divine in history?) and c) legalistic authoritarianism (or else). All three deserve to be dumped in the garbage.
“Once you manage to believe in God, then he’s magically exempt from being accounted for? If one thinks the atheist has to account for “everything else”, then one should accept that the theist has to account for God.”
Absolutely. Presumably the rabbi believes that god accounts for himself; it seems more reasonable to suppose that existence accounts for itself -Parmenides “ex nihil nihil fit”.
The framework for the revolution may or may not have been based on a Christian framework, but did the action of the revolutionaries in beginning the revolution and propping it up reflect the teachings of Christ? Not so much.
Speaking as an atheist, the “debate” was disappointing especially as it was labeled “Why Are Atheists So Angry?” and that subject never came up. Sam Harris made many intelligent arguments against religion and Dennis Prager avoided responding to those arguments.
But, I’d really like to see further debates or discussions. The topic “Why Are Atheists So Angry” does interest me and I’d like to hear reactions from theists on that. I’m angry because I feel threatened. Christians are trying to impose their beliefs and symbols on this country. I can picture a not so distant future where Christians would hunt atheists like me down and either imprison me or kill me. Thankfully, because the Republicans lost the House and Senate they have diminished power.
I’m also interested in topics like “Why Are Christians So Angry?,” “Why are Christians So Intolerant?,” “Suppose There Was A God, Why Should I Worship It?,” and “What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?” There are many good discussion topics.
You said (mostly lifted verbatim from the Wikipedia big bang article):
“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).”
This description is accurate for the state of the universe after the Planck time. It is NOT an accurate description near the moment of the big bang. The best guess of physicists today is that the density of the universe does approach infinity, and its size approaches zero, in the limit as you approach t=0 (the moment of the Big Bang). There are no laws of physics yet that preclude the existence of an object of infinite density and zero volume (in the limit). See “Black holes”.
Admittedly, it is an extrapolation and deductive to say “all matter, energy, space, and time only existed potentially” at the moment of the big bang. However, since we do not have a physics for infinitudes, this description seems to fit as well as anything. It is analogous to saying that the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force existed only potentially until the temperature of the universe cooled sufficiently after the big bang for them to exist actually. Likewise, it seems reasonable that elementary particles (matter), as understood by physics, only exist potentially in the limit as you approach infinite density at t=0. Likewise for energy, space, and time. Perhaps as physics progresses, a better description in that limit will be developed.
Allow me to take another stab at attempting to describe the situation at the exact moment of the big bang:
“The universe existed potentially in the eternal now, but it became actual in its first moment, for reasons that we will never be able to quantify. A moment later, and it became describable to science.”
This is of course metaphysics, not physics.
They weren't Pagans in the modern sense (Neopaganism), or really in the ancient sense either. My impression is they used Norse/Teutonic mythology and trappings to stir up feelings of ethnic unity – the 'master race' thing. They used anything to gain power, Christianity, pre-Christian Pagan symbols, socialist promises to workers, vilification of Jews, Gays, Communists. They did anything they could to secure power, then maintain it. It is a horrifying example of how irrationality can wear a rational face and act with careful thought while setting the stage for an atrocity.
In the longer run, I still think you were right to call me on my use of jargon. Jargon serves nothing but one’s own ego–yuck. Doesn’t mean paradigm doesn’t have its proper use–but like all jargon–it is a loaded term. Oh well–so it goes.
Well, I seem to be missing something here, if I’m mistaken in how I am taking the passages which have been mentioned. Let me try another approach:
You said “whereas I don't know of any passage that, understood in its proper context, is putting women as second-class citizens.” This is where I am stuck. You see, I have not seen, from your answers or any others so far, how expanding or explaining those contexts changes the meaning of those passages. Certainly, the Southern Baptist Convention seems to take them as I have – they passed an edict (if that is the right word for their process) a few years back instructing wives to obey their husbands as the head of the house, just as Christ is the head of the Church. Obey as you would the unquestionable head of your spiritual life who has absolute control over your eternal soul – yeah, I think that is where I see submission and subjugation as getting awfully close.
“Also, we have large amounts of historical data from the Scriptures and elsewhere showing that women in the early Church were very much not treated as second-rate . . .” I agree with that, and my limited understanding is that this changed quickly as the Paulists rose to power (isn’t it all about power at some point when it comes to these kinds of organizations?) and was only true for a long period amongst the Gnostics, who were violently suppressed in the end.
“Someone else said:
'Pick a group labeled in a holy book as inferior or lower on a hierarchy (say, blacks as inferior to whites, or believers in another faith to those believing the one held out as 'correct'). Insert said group into the above quote [...] How would that read if it were a black person instead of a Pagan person? "Of course we'll listen to the black folks, they just don't get to vote on the matter once it comes time to decide". [...] Christian marriage is not seen as an equal venture between two adults, but a hierarchy in which one might speak but must yield.'” That someone would be me. You snipped a couple of critical elements in your reply. For example:
“You have not established that Christian marriage is such a hierarchy. You have merely established that marriage CAN be.” I did not set out to establish anything. I started that sentence by saying “Thus, I would conclude, that Christian marriage is not seen . . .”, which is to establish nothing more than my reading of the passages presented, and essentially that apologetics aside, I do not buy the argument that you can “respect another at a higher level than oneself” and not have them placed above you in a hierarchy, particularly if they get the last word.
You said “Yes, if I used pagans, or blacks, instead of women, then that would be bigoted and wrong. It would be bigoted and wrong because I would be doing so from a hierarchy that places them as lower and inferior.” I fail to see how this would be true if the persons involved were of different ethnicities or faiths, but not true if they were of different genders. Does marriage play into this in some way? You allude to it later on in your post.
Then you said “IF there was a system in which there WAS no such inferiority, yet one side DID get the final authority, then such a system would not be a hierarchy of inferiority since, as was one of the premises, it already wasn't one.” That strikes me as circular reasoning: One person has the final authority. The people involved are not inferior to each other, because it is stated that their relationship is one of equals. The person who does not have final authority is not inferior to the other, because it is stated that she (in this case) is equal to the other. She must submit to the authority of the other, but that is not the same as being higher than her, because we have said it isn’t. I see this as an illogical line of thought – if you are anointed the head of the house, than others are inferior, at least in terms of their ability to exercise power and autonomy in that setting. You then say “The only difficult thing is how there can be such a system, which I see no problem with and I know many who have worked it out well. It's difficult because it requires application of the principle of selflessness, which is directly contrary to what human nature and modern culture all tell us.” I would agree that it seems difficult to accomplish, but I an unconvinced about the application of selflessness in this case. Unchecked authority (I get the last say) tends to stroke the ego, maintaining selflessness in that case would take extraordinary mindfulness. And while modern culture may not foster selflessness, I disagree that it is directly contrary to human nature. It is part of our common palette of responses, part of us just like ego, and humour, and indifference. Many can be moved to selfless deed and relationship, without being told by others or by a Divine voice that they ought to.
You asked “I would ask this final question: What would you say when there is an unresolvable dispute?” If you are talking about a household or marriage, or any other meaningful partnership, then the options are many: Take a break and come back to it, agree to disagree and not pursue the matter further, agree to try one way then if that is not successful try the other, get a mediator to see if there is a hidden issue at the bottom of the dispute that neither party can see, declare that it is so critical to both parties that they must split rather than live with the unresolved dispute, to name a few possibilities.
Your final point was “Assuming there is a problem with an inequality assumes that there is no real difference in role when it comes to the matter under consideration – a Christian and atheist deciding political policy should be given equal weight, I see nothing in Christianity or atheism that affects their roles in government. I do not think it's quite so equivalent when it comes to marriage, so the same argument does not apply.” I am happy to hear about your belief regarding government, but am sad to say many don’t share it. My understanding is that a current poll revealed that a large majority of Americans would not trust or elect a stated atheist, even if they were the best qualified AND from their party. I doubt that is as much an issue in Europe, but I don’t know, I do know that atheists and other faith minorities have been elected in Canada. As for marriage, this is where we differ – I see it as a partnership, and even if the roles aren’t identical, that shouldn’t matter in terms of the worth and voice of those in the marriage. Since I’m bi and Canadian, that is something that I can see as gender neutral, since I could marry a woman or man. If your faith dictates that you marriage must be man & woman with each having specific roles and one getting final say, well, you should follow the precepts of your faith. If it is untenable, I would recommend getting out. The impression that Christianity does dictate these terms of marriage, and that it doesn’t welcome queers like me long ago provided all the evidence that I needed that it would never be a choice of faith for myself.
Credo: any creed or formula of belief.
It does not matter whether you have articulated your belief or not. You cannot escape having a worldview, therefore credo, foundation, prism for viewing your life, making decisions, existing. If we are conscious then that is the human condition. If we are not there is no human condition.
”
“Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?”
There is no such thing. Everything that is necessary for the survival of humanity exists obviously. So it is perfectly correct to make once again the trivial conclusion: If belief in God is necessary for the survival of humanity then belief in God exists. By what reasoning does this suggest the existence of God? ”
It would seem that belief could not be maintained if God did not exist. There are enough skeptics in the world to affect that.
But a more useful answer would be to ask you in return, Why would something like a belief in God be necessary for the survival of humanity without their actually being a God? If humans have a prior-to-birth need for believing in God, who could fulfill that need for the first human child?
It all comes to the same thing, no need to prove the existence of tea pots, you’ve only a need to prove the way by which mankind can come into existence with a prior-to-existence need for belief in order to survive, and at the same time a prior-to-existence concept of something to believe in.
Thom B.
I'd like to apologize for my jab. It was silly and totally unnecessary.
Actually, I agree with much of what you write.
All the best,
David
Phenomena is unaffected by belief. Phenomenological morality is merely the law of physical being and has nothing to do with morality. Morality cannot be apprehended by the five senses, consequently it is not phenomena.
Creed:
1. Any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. Any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
Atheism is not a creed.
Atheists don’t believe that the world has forsaken them, and yet they do. They don’t believe that they have a reason to live, and at the same time they believe that they have everything to live for. They are not insecure, but at the same time they are.
Some atheists are very reasonable, others form their own destructive ideologies about the world (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung, etc.), and still others believe that there is no greater feeling than sitting down in the grass in a large field far from city lights and staring into the stars. An atheist feels that there is no greater feeling conceivable than loving (and being loved by) everyone around him, yet at the same time there’s an atheist who has decided to construct her entire life on the foundation of rising to power. Atheists love sex, abstinence, pain and pleasure. Atheists love to get high and atheists love sobriety. Atheists are habitual liars and atheists believe that the truth will set them free; atheists want to protect the environment and wildlife and atheists can be seen sporting $3000 fox-skin scarfs; they cheat on their spouses and they practice strict fidelity.
If that was confusing, it served its purpose; religions are composed of people who share the same beliefs – atheism is defined precisely through a lack of beliefs (lack of a creed). Atheists find their own purpose in life and come to their own conclusions of “right” and “wrong” – but other than those two things, atheists really don’t have anything in common. You see, you can’t group atheists together under a “creed”, because atheists are the definition of diversity! (Notice how I never said “we” when referring to atheists, even though I am an atheist.) There are no ideals to rise to when you feel that you can find your own calling in life without having an ancient book delegate it for you.
If Christianity makes you happy, I’m happy for you and hope that you stick to it for as long as it gives you what you need.
I think you're mixing me up with someone else. I was an avowed atheist for 25 years, so the concept really isn't that alien to me. I think there might have been a miscommunication somewheres.
Stay well,
David
If the foundation of your being is that you don’t believe in God then that is the foundation, worldview, of your being, and is, whether you acknowledge it or not, the prism from which you view your life and everything that effects it. That it is an unexamined, or unelucidated credo is irrelevant–it is your credo.
Faith in phenomena is belief and by self definition is bad faith within the tenets of atheism and existentialism.
As phenomena you cannot possibly be conscious. You are phenomena obeying the laws of phenomena. You don’t observe anything. Actually, you’re right, you can’t even have “bad faith,” because that in and of itself presupposes consciousness–which phenomena, obeying the laws of phenomena, forbids.
I am not threatened in the least by Atheism. The world is what it is–so be it. If you want to believe in the Atheistic worldview–okay. Really, I’m being sincere. But please acknowledge what you believe in.
TO the objector of paradigm–sorry for the jargon.
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”.)
Start humming. Here’s your proof.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
not the point my friend. All those he was preaching to clung to that religion. They followed. That doesn’t condemn the religion itself. It’s simply illustrates how dangerous a tool religion can be.
bing
Yeah, I don’t know about y’all but I’m made of flesh and bone.
Please don’t try to hammer us poor atheists with semantics. Morality is as much a phenomena as anything else; it is the representation of a particular person’s ethics. Just because some us don’t believe that morality is magically granted through a belief in the supernatural does not mean we lack it. The Atheist has as much right as a Theist to believe whatever stupid things he wants, the differnce is that the Atheist limits his discussion of those beliefs to things that can be commonly observed and reproduced.
you are making it needlessly difficult. It’s simple an atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m sorry that’s so difficult for you to grasp. I’m an atheist, I know a few and you are just way out there wrong. Life just is my friend, it just is.
bing
Why are religious people so ________?
Come on. “Why are you so angry?” is the sort of question which door-to-door proselytizers duck behind for cover when they can’t explain who created their creator or why their all-knowing, all-powerful god allows evil to exist.
Holding a debate under the “Why are atheists so angry?” banner when the real topic being debated is “Is there a god?” is the same sort of thing as asking somebody of a different political stripe “Why do you hate your country?” It’s a loaded, prejudicial question.
Innocent child: “The emperor has no clothes!”
Loyal subject: “Why do you have your mind in the gutter, you perverted child?”
Who needs doctors?
To the parent that has gone through the wretched experience of having a child with a serious, life-threatening health problem–I’m sorry that you had to go through that awful time. (I’ve been on the receiving end of that news, myself. Praise be to Asclepius–we had a happy ending.)
That said, am I the only one baffled by the fact that so many who claim to find comfort in faith will rush to a hospital when it is truly a matter of life or death? What need have you of a physician when you have a priest? What need have you of prescriptions when you have prayer? What need have you of operating rooms when you have altars? What need have you of modern science when you have faith?
For that matter, why resist your god’s plan by seeking medical help at all? With all due respect, your actions are testifying so loudly that I can’t hear your profession of faith.
Or even more telling, if you love your god so much–and your “afterlife” is going to be so wonderful–then why on earth are you so keen on postponing your ascension?
* * *
Closed circuit to Prager: There are those who, quite rightly, believe that having no more than one child is anything but selfish.
Here’s the latest stats from the US: Those active in a religious way are 25% more probable to give to charity than those who are not. They also outgive the non-religious by 4 times.
This is meaningless, since religious organizations in the US are given charitable status. What you’ve just said is that people who are members of churches give more to their churches than people who aren’t members of churches. In other words, a blinding flash of the obvious.
You’ll have to do better than that.
WarrenS
No the implications of atheism are not clear as there are no implications morally or otherwise. Atheism is only the refusal to believe in God. I don’t know how plainer I can get. Your theories of phenomena aren’t words or thoughts that ever crossed my mind. I know I don’t have all the answers to the universe nor do I think our feeble minds can comprehend it anyway. However you come to the conclusion or how you percieve the outside world after you’ve got there is as different as to each individual who claims they are an atheist. What you are arguing goes beyond the definition of atheist. You are making assumptions, and you are incorrect.
I reject any notion that a belief in god is essential to morality. That’s just flat out false and quite arrogant of believers to assume so.
bing
Can't quite follow it, but it does sound cool.
um you failed to tell me how it is a credo or what that credo might be. Atheism isn’t a philosophy it’s simply the conclusion that there is no god. That’s it. End of story. That is the extent of atheism. It is not a credo and I am not sure why you would insist that it is. Why are you so threatened by a person who chooses not to believe in god?
bing
how is belief in phenomena “in bad faith?” Faith has nothing to do with observing phenomena, processing information and coming to a conclusion with the knowledge that new observations may yield more information to process and possibly re-evaluate previous conclusions.
And no that is not what atheists believe. Atheists simply don’t believe in God. That’s all the label applies to. It’s not a world view it’s merely a conclusion. You’re just speculating as to what atheists believe. As I have said before there no credo with atheism.
bing
No my understanding of Atheism has nothing to do with Atheists I know or have met. And it doesn’t matter what I or you believe. The implications of Atheism are clear. We are pure phenomena and as such we do not exist in the way we would like to believe we do. We ourselves are pure phenomena–moral code does not exist as phenomena. Our thought does not exist. Our thought like all phenomena is pure phenomena. I’m sorry that is difficult, but that is the way it exits in an Atheist’s paradigm.
The Nazis used centuries of old antisemetic Christian propaganda as a political tool to stir up the people, but the Nazis were pagans. I encourage you to read the quotes I linked to in my original post, particularly the following 'Hitler youth' chant:
"We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again."
Your assumptions about athiests may be based on your experiences but that isn’t accurate of all who don’t feel the need to pretend in god. I’m an atheist and a buddhist. Introspection and evaluating behavior and conduct are part of my daily routine and I could care less about what people percieve me as. The only reason an atheist might be concerned about people knowing they are an atheist is probably because we are out numberd 9-1 and most believers find it offensive for some reason if you don’t believe in god.
bing
to re; to whatever.
Yes, belief in phenomena is belief in phenomena–and I might add “in bad faith.” And yes that is what Atheists believe, or please state otherwise. Please do go on for hours.
if Hitler was a pagan, then why did the nazi’s use chrisitanity to rise to power and why did Hitler invoke him so much?
">> "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.", that is demonstrably false.
Ok, so demonstrate that God did not form Adam first.
I'll be waiting…"
Are you asking me to repeat myself? Well then:
1) There is an abundant fossil record indicating that humans evolved slowly, over millions of years, from a common ancestor we share with our closest living relatives, the other great apes, who all share a vast majority of of the same genetic makeup as we do. These facts are on file in various museums, labs, and textbooks, and are not in dispute by any serious biologist. Thus, humans were not suddenly created whole cloth, rather, if you would like this to be poetic, they were woven slowly into what they are now.
2) There is an ongoing study of the human genome that includes both quantitative testing and modeling to determine how the modern human genome has changed over recent time (like 4-6 million years) by looking for indicators of subtle changes to the genetic makeup of humans over many generations (such changes, BTW, are the engine of evolution). The predictions and measurements indicate that we all originated in Africa, probably emigrated in waves, owe our striking similarity to each other to a relatively few very successful ancestors (last I read, something like 7 females and 4 males in relatively recent generations, but that was a while back – anyone have more current data?). If you are looking for one single ancestor of each gender, then this might be interesting: "All mitochondrial DNA, it now appears, came from a single (female) individual who lived 160,000 years ago. More recently . . they also found that all Y chromosomes on Earth can be tracked down to a recent (male) ancestor in Africa. But instead of 170,000 years, the age of "mitochondrial Eve," they found that their "Y-chromosome Adam" lived about 60,000 years ago." The interesting part is what may be the best answer for the discrepancy is polygyny – one man with several wives. So much for the "traditional" one-man-one-woman marriage, guess the OT had it right on that one. The news recently reported that there is evidence of some very limited interbreeding with Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, a very successful branch of humanity that died out in the relatively recent past. No Adam and Eve in the Garden at the same time, and certainly not in the past 10000 years. Oh, and Eve came first.
3) As I mentioned in my earlier post, sexual differentiation is the result of a change to the X chromosome, the Y being a varient (and an incomplete one at that). Embryonologic development follows a predictable pattern – we all start as female, and if the environment of the womb is right and the correct genes on the Y chromosome are turned on at the right time, then we (the males) differentiate and develop into males. Why would Jehovah or any other diety create man first, then make woman from man, but make it so that when babies are developing, their default was female?
To conclude: Asexual creatures arose first, then sexual differentiation came along which made it easier to improve the diversity of the genome – with females as the default and males the varient (made second, if you like), then sexual reproduction over many many millions of years lead the the common ancestor of the great apes (our relatives and ourselves), then a very small number of highly successful individuals managed to give rise to the billions of humans we now share the planet with. All of this information is available in current journals and textbooks, and rests on demonstrable data placed through a peer review process and/or replication of studies. I'll leave it up to you to figure out where Jehovah (or the Goddess, or whatever divine being you like) fits into the picture, but there is NO evidence of an "Adam and Eve", and certainly not in the literal sense that some would suggest the Genesis story be taken in. Oh, and let me point out again – the DNA evidence says that Eve was first.
I hope you have found your wait rewarding. Best regards.
PS: Details on the DNA quotes above are from http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/005799.html
Of course atheism is a credo. It assert a worldview and is therefore a credo (or it is nothing). Mr. Harris is disengenuous to say otherwise. He seeks a privileged status based on nothing but the presumptions of his own mind, which is to say his own mind is his credo.
bearded guy in heaven, metaphor for what some call god. By we I meant other atheists. As for,
“Surely you see how believing in nothing but phenomena is the belief in nothing, or non-being? Yes?”
that is not the definition of an atheist that is an assumption on your part. Atheist don’t believe in God. That doesn’t mean belief in nothing but phenomena. I could go on for hours about perception but that’s not the discussion. Your definition of atheist above isn’t relevant. And furthermore believing in nothing but phenomena is believing in something, phenomena.
bing
No, numbers add up to nothing–did Dylan say that? What you express is nothing more than the “will to power.” Beyond that it has no validity whatsoever–it is based on nothing but mere preference which is based on nothing but pathology. Justice under such a system is nothing.
Making witty, snarky barbs against religion is SO EASY. So, I have a suggestion for all you atheists out there: try something more challenging!
When I was an atheist, I too enjoyed years of gazing lovingly into the mirror at my own magnificent razor-sharp wit. Lest any of you accuse me of being an egomaniac, rest assured I'm being entirely sarcastic here.
Here's a basic difference between a believer and an atheist: a believer doesn't care what others think of him, he just seeks the Truth. An atheist is always concerned about other's opinions, hence this obsession with being witty, or appearing terribly intelligent, or the endlessly repeated cult-like mantra: "Sam Harris won". Repeat it over and over so your congregation feels energized, and maybe you'll even demoralize the enemy. Heck, you don't even need to read the actual debate. Here's my guess on the total number of believers who defected upon the arrival of the messiah Sam Harris: zero.
Incidentally, when exactly did religion become obsolete? When cell phones arrived on the scene? The Enlightenment? Perhaps it was the iPod Mini that dealt that final, devastating, historic blow.
To anonymous who said, "I would suggest to you that it would be much easier to discard Christianity completely. That is the simplest way to get out from the tyrany of these "laws".". I agree with you: I have indeed found being a religious Jew MUCH more difficult than being an atheist. It has forced me to do some difficult introspection. Incidentally, there was another person who desired to escape the tyranny of the myriad laws. He was a pagan, and his name was Adolf Hitler.
Regards,
David
and can not be defined as such. Atheist is a term that believers need to use to legitimize their belief that they are right. As Sam harris pointed out, we shouldn’t have to use any label to describe the absence of a belief in god. Looking for some kind of list of atheistic principles is pointless. Those who are called atheists have one thing in common, non-belief. If your looking for a moral code, I imagine it would come in all kinds of stripes.
Bing
What? A bearded guy has nothing to do with a belief in Atheism. Your use in we is confusing. Do you believe in a metaphysical existence or not? Surely you see how believing in nothing but phenomena is the belief in nothing, or non-being? Yes?
“Why is rape or murder or the sexual torture of infants or genocide – or any other crime that the average atheist and theist would agree is heinous – wrong?”
Well, it is plainly wrong because we decide it is wrong. When I say “we” I mean that in most of the civil world; we have developed systems of law, and these laws are written and executed by mere mortals, not any supernatural being. Even if these laws are based on a particular religious text, their legitimacy stems from the consent of the populace. From time to time, that consent is revoked, resulting in wonderful developments like the end of racial segregation, or the overthrow of dictatorships. God isn’t the legislator, judge, or hangman, this is evident by the fact that all three of those people can hold different cosmological beliefs, yet still have faith enough in their fellow citizens to do their job.
PS Harris PWNED :]
Um I think you miss something quite obvious. Slavery, and subserviance of women and other abominations against others were rooted in biblical interpretation at the time. Just as homosexuals are treated today. The bible addresses homosexual sex incidently not homosexuality as a whole. The bible is once again being used to perpetuate bigotry and intolerance. If that’s judeo chriatian values Prager and the rest can keep them to themselves.
Dear Oh well–what exactly were you looking for? Personally, truly, I’m neither offended by believers or non-believers. I have friends and family in both camps. So it goes. But I do believe that Atheists have been given a pass on their belief system. I just think they should acknowledge what they believe in. We’re not talking about good and bad people here–I hope anyway. But we are discussing the formulating principal of world views, and I don’t think Atheists have deconstructed their own worldview, which is to their own detriment. They have the tendency to point to “believers” and call them silly and don’t realize they too are “silly” in their own belief by the very definition of their own belief.
that’s nonsense. Homer Simpson once said What is mind? doesnt matter, what is matter? nevermind.
Who or what can not exist? Faith or athiests? Or athiests believe that faith can’t exist? And non-being? I’m a buddhist so I can dig that but I don’t see how that applies to athiests. we simply don’t believe in a bearded guy in heaven and find organized religion to be more harmful than not. Read the Diamond sutra and we can talk about non-being.
I had such high hopes for this. What a bunch of crap.
Your problem is that whatever you think is right and if Christianity does not accept it, it is Christianity’s fault. Bible never said positively about slavery or subservience of women. Only slavery it talked about was when a person could not pay his own debt. Even that has to be renegated after 7 years. But bible clearly mentioned about homosexuality.
Theory of evolution is just a theory which still needs lots of proving. Rather than finding and showing definite evidence, you are blaming us for not accepting it.
Slavery, teen pregnancy, homosexuality and others, which are considered as pursuit of happiness may be the pursuit of happiness by our own eyes. But what Christianity teaches us is that God sees farther into our life and try to advise us that there is no happiness in there and it will lead to more confilict and unhappiness for you and/or people around you. Whatever we do would not help or hurt God. The only reason God showed us ‘the way’ is because He wants us to find happiness in the right place.
Baseless. The writer assumes a privileged status that does not exist. The writer assumes meaning to prove meaning–ridiculous tautology.
ScienScience won’t help to justify the existence of God, but it won’t help to justify the non-existence of God either. As only a person who lost his own son can understand the feel of loss of the other person, only a person who experienced God could understand the feel of awe. Only a person who drove Porshe would know how it feels like driving a sports car. This cannot be described with scientific knowledge.
‘
‘
No he/she doesn’t. I am tempted to stop with this 3 or 4 work statement, because it has as much evidence and certitude behind it as the other. However, should my point not be clear I will expand a bit. We should be able to agree that life is interesting. Humans feel pain, joy, comfort and most have a drive to live life for some extended time with a sense of personal worth. The idea that life has these attributes gives life some meaning. Also, most humans are members of some societal unit. It can be argued that damage to the society humans live in is likely to result in a decreased likelihood of the people in that society living comfortable, joyful lives with selfworth. If we accept these points then we can develop a moral code without a theist belief. Such a code could include prohibitions against murder, thievery, rape, fraud, false witness and many other “crimes” against individuals and the societies they live in. In fact, as Sam Harris so correctly points out, religion divorces morality from considerations of what is appropriate to the happiness of people and focuses on what is proscribed as “sinful”. Some examples he uses are slavery, teen pregnancy (the resistance to use of family planning services), homosexuality and stem cell research. In the name of brevity I will ask the interested reader to explore the argument of why these “sins” are contradictory to a morality based on the best interests of individuals and the societies they live in by reading “Letter to a Christian Nation” specifically pages 7 through 32.
I don’t have any problem with Natural selection–what presupposes you to think I do. But again natural selection does not prove we exist. Nor does “I think and therefore I am.”
Further, I have not made any assertions on the nature of god. So to argue about disappearances from complex societies is jumping the gun a bit.
Again, if the premise of Atheism is true, “we do not exist the way we believe we do.” We are pure phenomena. Absolutely no different than other phenomena. We obey all the same laws of phenomena that other phenomena obey. Yes?
I have been following your argument for a few entries. I think you are quite out of your mind. You are very deluded. I presume you are a woman who is religious and fancies herself quite a liberal christian. It is commendable that you should defend the equal rights of women. But your analysis of the relevant biblical passages is completely disingenuous and obviously wrong.
I would suggest to you that it would be much easier to discard christianity completely. That is the simplest way to get out from the tyrany of these “laws”.
In this earnest discussion between these to parties, I would like to clarify a few points:
- Actually, since the universe is a closed system, the sum of the amount of mass AND energy is constant in the universe, since mass and energy are equivalent under relativity. Mass can be destroyed and turned into energy, and vice-versa.
- Time is not simply motion. The “arrow of time” (seen for example in the action of entropy) differentiates forward time from reverse time.
- There is probably a minimum time interval – the so-called Planck time, which is about 10-44 seconds. Below this in various quantum theories, traditional notions of time, space, and measureability of motion break down.
- 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”.
- Matter certainly will not always exist. All known forms and configurations of matter decay, from protons to black holes. Fast forward and the universe consists of very evenly and thinly diffused energy.
- The universe may not always exist in the future. We now know with reasonable certainty that as long as time exists, the universe will keep expanding. Beyond a certain point of expansion, some scientists think that time will cease to exist. This would be a different kind of singularity than the big bang, but analogous in that it would — along with the Big Bang — be part of the boundary condition of the universe.
Two words: natural selection. Small things becoming, slowly and over millions of years, more complex things. That’s how. Below is from Wikipedia. Find me something in the next two paragraphs that asserts that “we” as homo sapiens do not exist. Of course we do. We just don’t exist in a way that is palatable to you. That may suck, but its the truth.
“Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits. It works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the offspring, with the result that favorable, heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process results in adaptations and speciation (see evolution).
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book The Origin of Species,[1] by analogy with artificial selection, by which a farmer selects his breeding stock.”
Even discarding scientific claims against a personal God, one glaring historical coincidence remains. As societies have increased in size and have improved in record taking, God has suddenly vanished. Why do the religious ignore this damning evidence? 2000 years ago, in primitive, agrarian societies, God frequently appeared on earth (to enjoy the cool evening breeze in the Garden of Eden; to share a meal of cheese and veal with Abraham before jotting out to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah) and then, for some reason that just happened to coincide with the expansion of cities and increasing scientific knowledge, suddenly fails to show Himself ever again. Christians would put forth that Christ’s Return (the rapture folks delight in this) is imminent, but believers in the first decades after his death thought this too.
The true question should not be why are athiest so angry, but why are thiest so angry? with a HUGE majority of civilization belonging to the later group, you would think they would be happy.But they won’t be untill every last vestige of controll lays in thier hands, that way they can be content to falsely beleive, without the worry of having a rational minded person bring down thier fragile belief system.
I never said a word about empiricism or Darwin or other sacred icons of Atheism.
It’s not my fault if you don’t understand the implications of your own belief. But go ahead, tell us how Mr. Dawkins, and Mr. Harris, and others assert we exist. Oh, while you are at it. Please define existence. And if you read my post you would know that I wrote, “we do not exist the way we think we do.” We are instead pure phenomena. Are you asserting otherwise?
Yes, you are correct about my mistaking a misunderstanding on your part of the first law of thermodynamics. It is the Law of Conservation of Mass, you are correct.
As for whether the universe came into existence, lets let the astrophysicists speak for themselves, shall we? Paul Davies, in his article, “Space–time Singularities and Cosmology,” says,
“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space–time, through such an extremity. For this reason, MOST cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space–time itself.”
And your analysis of time makes absolutely no sense. By an infinite number of “moments,” I meant that an infinite temporal regress of events is in actuality impossible.
Time itself by definition means a sequence of events. Do you deny that any sequence of events is taking place in the universe? There was a moment in time that this post didnt exist….but in this moment it does exist. If this doesnt make sense to you, then give me the accurate definition of “time.”
“Neither time nor motion (synonymous) began 13.7 billion years ago, but rather the current motion of the universe began.”
Does anyone else find this statement nonsensical?
Nothing in this previous post makes any logical sense, and doesn’t even attempt to understand what empiricism and Darwinian natural selection is about. No atheist or scientist would ever, ever consider that human beings don’t possess “awareness.” In fact, consciousness is one of the most researched and discussed subjects in science today, and one that befuddles scientists a great deal. So please, read up before posting these ignorant comments, such as the assertion that atheists believe “none of use exists.” If you had a chance to speak to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other atheists, they would all assert that we (human beings as a species) definitely do exist. We are one species living on a planet that hosts millions of others. Come to the discussion with at least a superficial knowledge of the subject you’re discussing.
“I was going to explain; but honesty is the key, and the honest answer is that I frankly don’t have the time or the interest in clarifying the accurate theological concept of hell. (I’m an atheist!)”
Yeah, I should have gotten that. ;)
Nevertheless. My main point was not so much to show why I think Universalism is false as to say, yes, you can provide reasoned-out critiques of things like, say, the traditional view of hell – nevertheless, it is not a closed-case afterwards. The hell issue is not quite as comparable to the women issue, since I think in context certain passages are rather anti-Universalist, whereas I don’t know of any passage that, understood in its proper context, is putting women as second-class citizens.
Also, we have large amounts of historical data from the Scriptures and elsewhere showing that women in the early Church were very much not treated as second-rate, and we just don’t have anything like that kind of evidence for Universalism – in fact, I think it quite contrary to the simple fact that the early apostles did a LOT of converting people… why, if they thought everybody was going to heaven anyway? Though I suspect some Universalists have a bit more developed view of it than that.
Also, I might add, if you care, that I think that guy is wrong, and he doesn’t appear to have heard of my view of what Hell means. Shrug.
Someone else said:
‘Pick a group labeled in a holy book as inferior or lower on a hierarchy (say, blacks as inferior to whites, or believers in another faith to those believing the one held out as ‘correct’). Insert said group into the above quote [...] How would that read if it were a black person instead of a Pagan person? “Of course we’ll listen to the black folks, they just don’t get to vote on the matter once it comes time to decide”. [...] Christian marriage is not seen as an equal venture between two adults, but a hierarchy in which one might speak but must yield.’
You have not established that Christian marriage is such a hierarchy. You have merely established that marriage CAN be. Yes, if I used pagans, or blacks, instead of women, then that would be bigoted and wrong. It would be bigoted and wrong because I would be doing so from a hierarchy that places them as lower and inferior. IF there was a system in which there WAS no such inferiority, yet one side DID get the final authority, then such a system would not be a hierarchy of inferiority since, as was one of the premises, it already wasn’t one. The only difficult thing is how there can be such a system, which I see no problem with and I know many who have worked it out well. It’s difficult because it requires application of the principle of selflessness, which is directly contrary to what human nature and modern culture all tell us.
I would ask this final question: What would you say when there is an unresolvable dispute?
And one final thing: Assuming there is a problem with an inequality assumes that there is no real difference in role when it comes to the matter under consideration – a Christian and athiest deciding political policy should be given equal weight, I see nothing in Christianity or athiesm that affects their roles in government. I do not think it’s quite so equivalent when it comes to marriage, so the same argument does not apply.
I came over to this web page after hearing Dennis Prager mention this debate on his radio show–essentially, he was asking his fans to add some pro-Prager posts to the overwhelmingly critical ones he had seen here. He seemed truly dismayed by the preponderence of people who concluded that his arguments were poor: he said he was firmly convinced that he had soundly defeated Sam Harris in this debate. While I didn’t hear Sam Harris on the radio with Mr. Prager, I have heard Prager’s program many times, and I think he does an excellent job of sounding authorative and persuasive, just in terms of vocal delivery and the rhetorical gambits possible on radio. He consistently comes off better in that medium than in writing, where his ideas often seem groundless, and “wisdom” or “common sense” are the terms he uses to describe his own deeply held predjudices, however irrational they may be. That may be why he seemed less able to counter Harris in this venue.
Of course. It’s a matter of faith. Except, that Atheists cannot think, or have faith, because they cannot exist. That is they have a non-existent faith in their non-being.
I am sure no one would besmirch a parent for talking to their God while in such a state of anxiety and suffering. All Harris should be saying- somehow he didn’t repeat it enough- is that, while this may have comforted and consoled the parent in a way that no doctor or nurse could, that does not prove the independent, objective existence of God. The two are in no way connected. Darwinian natural selection even explains and provides reasons for why such a belief can be so extremely useful. It simply doesn’t make this useful tool, this belief in God, in any way objectively and independently true.
Atheism is silly. Really, it isn’t rational. It is the opposite of rational. Atheism cannot make a claim on anything except an assertion that none of us exists, at least not in the way we suppose we do.
At best the Atheist asserts we are pure phenomena, and any awareness we think we have is not real. We have no awareness. We aren’t even aware of our unawareness. And while this may be true. It must also then be acknowledged that rational thought is itself non-existent. So to assert atheism is to assert your non-being.
Have a good non-existent day.
I have to agree with numerous previous posters, Sam Harris’ arguments seemed very rational and logical, and Dennis Prager’s either didn’t or were spurious. Certainly not logical, at least not the ones that were pertaining to the issue being debated. For him to claim that the teapot-in-space analogy wasn’t appropriate is ridiculous, as was his apparent complete lack of understanding of the logical argument that “belief in a God/diety”, no matter how useful, does absolutely 100% completely NOTHING in regard to validating that God/diety’s existence. It really did seem to me that Mr Prager was “squirming” in his creative interpretations of Mr. Harris’ comments and his off-topic rebuttals (where he often changed the subject to issues not pertaining to the debate), and that he was also genuinely unaware of doing so. Ugh – so many instances of Mr Prager unnecessarily splitting hairs when it had no bearing on the issue (eg the genome guy becoming a believer in God after witnessing the waterfall) and seemed in fact to distract from it. I could go on and on…
“The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
Let’s flip this coin over. The believer (who hasn’t managed to account for unjust suffering in thousands of years of trying) doesn’t have to account for anything else…. because an ancient book tells him all he needs to know!
The atheist has to account for everything else indeed. Scientists are working on it, in spite of the incongruous religious beliefs of some of them. Their virtue is in not admitting that they already know everything–even despite the fact that they tend to know a lot more than theists like Prager.
“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.”
This is the biggest bunch of question-begging horse crap I’ve read today. Of course they’re more profound and moral, because to be a thoughtful Christian, according to Prager, is to be, a priori, more profound and moral. Someone get this man a book on logic, stat!
OK, I stole this from a bumper sticker, but it suited me well: “Millitant Agnostic, I don’t know and you don’t either.” If I was uninformed that Atheism does not reject the possibility of the existence of any being or force that created, organized, willed or observed the begining of the cosmos and merely a rejection of the “God of Abraham,” then I suppose I am an atheist.
I wonder why religion spends so much trying to comprehend that creation and so little time on comprehending, who we are and why we have a comprehension of that creation. I guess that is more the realm of philosopy.
It’s always interesting to watch the religious hold up Stalin’s atheism and mass-murdering as proof that atheism is “more” immoral. As if that lets religion of the hook for all the mass-murders (and other crimes) done in its various names.
Basically, this line of reasoning argues that “we killed tens of thousands less people than that atheist Stalin did, thus we are morally just and pure and have the absolute truth, and atheism doesn’t”.
Get this: Mass-murdering is immoral period. Having someone else murder more than you does not absolve you of your crimes, nor provide proof for your belief system.
the theist starts his debate by declaring that, wow we have a super genius scientific head of the genome project who beleives in god, then he goes on to debase most scientists as indocrinated fools. he cut down one of his main arguments himself. in his mind i guess that only scientist that beleive in god are also wise and may therefore be used as example, but the rest are educated fools whos views are suspect at best.
He also makes a statement about one man wanting to wage a pre-emptive strike against russia (hmmn, pre-emptive strike, must have been a born again neo-con), including the use of nuclear weapons, then he changed his mind once the russians acheived nuclear capabilities.
well if a thief comes into my home with a knife, i may shoot him, if he comes in with a gun i may try to talk some sense into hime so we don’t both end up shot. It goes back to einsteins statement about mutually assured destruction, if we would have nuked them AFTER they had nukes, there would be reprisals.
how can any one lend any credence to this man after relizing that he can’t understand that one simple argument?
Perhaps you should read, “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark. He does a wonderful historical explanation of why the scientific method was developed in the Judeo-Christian west and why it was incompatible with other religions.
Ty Steward
The growing ANGER of Atheists over polite toleration of absurd Religious dogma being imposed on society and all the unnecessary misery it causes IS LONG OVERDUE.
The need to debunk religion (the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humankind) and to spread secular reason is becoming more and more critical. The detriment and burdens to which religion has subjected society and the progress of civilization have long since exceeded an acceptable level of secular tolerance. Too many wars and atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of Religion and/or motivated by zealots of religious teachings.
The passive “live and let live” secular attitude toward religion is a luxury that can no longer be afforded. The stakes are two high. In serious jeopardy, is our right to live a rational life in a rational world. A world that does not deny us the promise of extraordinary health improvements emanating from “embryonic” stem cell research. And, does not deny us the right to control our own procreation and life-span including birth control, a woman’s right to abortion, and the right to voluntary doctor assisted suicide.
AND THAT’S WHY ATHEISTS ARE SO ANGRY.
I can’t believe Dennis Prager made the statement below. Everything in it is contrary to factual history with the exception of “establishing the sanctity of human life”. And, that Sanctity of Human Life dogma is one of the biggest impediments to Medical Science and one of the biggest contributors to unnecessary human misery at the beginning, during, and end of life.
I was going to explain; but honesty is the key, and the honest answer is that I frankly don’t have the time or the interest in clarifying the accurate theological concept of hell. (I’m an atheist!) However, I do highly suggest that you check out Gary Amirault’s messages. Two of the good ones are posted below.
1. Explanation One (long and in-depth)
2. Explanation Two (not as long, and more “to the point”)
Give me the Old Testament book of Job any day. It was not settled for him without an epiphany. Life, as I experience it, is an epiphany. Does that make me a believer in the Yahweh god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition? I don’t think so. It just makes me a weird kind of atheist.
That is all religions. All religions purport that man is flawed and must be redeemed. This is why many contend that communism/socialism or Leftist thought is in itself a religion. With its own dogma and arrogance.
Thus it is not exclusive to Christianity.
On the roles subject, you said:
“However, I believe that it is undeniable that men are to be respected (by women) on a higher tier than women are to be respected (by men).”
I do not see the problem here. One might just as easily say that women are to be loved (by men) on a higher tier than men are to be respected (by women). Also, it is noteworthy that this is only in the context of a marriage relationship, not quite a general relationship between any arbitrary two people of the opposite gender.
In addition, I see nothing in this that is responsible for the lamentable historical oppression of women, which is somewhat relevant to the original point (religion’s effect on society, etc).
And then you said: “By presenting these circumstances, you actually dig a grave of inconsistency for yourself that an atheist such as myself will quickly abuse.” To which I say: Excellent! Very excellent! If your arguments are not based on serious study, then we can have no meaningful discussion. If my arguments are not based on serious study, we likewise cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion. If you want to provide a serious and well-thought-out argument on some point or another, I applaud that. I have but rarely encountered an athiest who was willing to take more than a cursory look with no contextual understanding at the Scriptures.
There are a good deal of theists who are more than willing to engage in serious discussion of the very sort you bring up. Far from “digging a grave,” it’s the only way to actually have a rational discussion.
Now, you had quite a bit to say about hell, and there were a LOT of verses thrown out, but none of them in context. What you’ve given would take reams to actually study myself, so I plan to do some searching and asking – naturally, I wouldn’t be able to provide a serious contextual study of each and every passage. I’ll get back to you on that.
Nevertheless, based on what I know, I think the argument is flawed. There are few references to the word hell, for sure, but I don’t think hell is a specific place but more of a state of being in eternal shame before God, so I don’t think it surprising that they didn’t make up a completely new word for it.
Now. I don’t think Universalism is a proper Scriptural understanding. Take Luke 13:22-30:
’22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26″Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27″But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28″There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”‘ (NIV)
I do not see how Universalism can be reconciled with this passage.
And the references to frequency of mention: I think all that really means is that the fate of unbeleivers was not considered important enough to put in the OT, which was written to Israelites, and that it means that the modern anachronism of “beleive or the bogey-god will throw you into the FIRE!” was not used back then. No problem. As mentioned, I don’t think Hell is a literal place anyway but a state of shame, which I think is well consistent with the OT’s dealings with sin and God’s rejection of the sinful.
And in the NT, you said: ‘If the Old Testament is basically void of warnings of eternal torment, how many times would you expect a loving Father to warn you in the New Testament if such a horrible fate was His plan for the “unrighteous.”‘ Not very many. I think this is a bad argument. Take the letters of Paul. Why, why at all, would he have any reason to say “all the unbeleivers are going to HELL!” when writing letters to various churches or close friends of his?
This is an argument from silence, and for it to be valid, it must first be established where Hell should have been mentioned but wasn’t.
I have to go right now, but I’ll continue i I find I have more to say. Good discussion, and I appreciate that you seem a bit more respectful and winning to discuss intelligently than most athiests I’ve had the displeasure to speak with. Not that it’s hard to be more respectful than Sam Harris.
You were doing so well until you said “16 billion years”! It’s 13.7 billion since the Big Bang, and eternity before then. Otherwise, you hit it right on the nose.
I’m opening my eyes. I see a keyboard, some pens/pencils and a computer. Step one failed.
Long and thoughtful? Your argument is that the reality of God is obvious because God is in everything (reality). This is circular logic, and it is reached when you assume that God is exists with no basis.
Give us a reason to believe that God is a probable answer without begging the question, and we may respect your views. Until then, they are no more probable than Zeus or Poseidon.
These arguments would never happen if people were actually taught (not just by our failing public school system) about probability, large numbers, and small numbers. Take a look at the numbers and probabilities that are involved in the Universe. Understand that miracle is another name for low probability of an event happening. With our large system (Universe) built on such a small scale (particles) you have to realize the number of probabilities of outcome are extremely large. We tend to not look at the losers in this system. Only the miracles. For every miracle (low chance of an event happening) there a large numbers of non-miracles (high chance of an event happening). Don’t confuse this with some god. Once you have opened you mind to how infinitly large and infinitly small the Universe truly is, it is much more difficult to believe this is being guided by some god. Just take infinitly large numbers, infinitly small numbers, and a lot of time (roughly 16 billion years) and you get our Monte Carlo system of probablity events. Just open your mind to large numbers. The clarity will follow. It is ok to be insignificant. There is true personal freedom in that realization. Pale Blue dot.
Science has NEVER claimed that it could explain everything. As a matter of fact, it is through science that we are able to profess a profound ignorance of the cosmos around us. Religion, on the other hand, does believe that it can explain everything with one single answer: God.
In fact, it was this “profound” notion of an ultimate explanation to everything that led Christians to cease (by force and blood) the acquisition of knowledge for half of a millenium.
Sam Harris claiming that he “knows” there is no God is not an absolute claim. He simply knows that there is no Yahweh (Abrahamic God) as much as you “know” that there is no Poseidon (Pagan God).
What in God’s name? “. . . forced secularism in the government.”
Wow.
When the Founders wrote the nation’s Constitution, they specified that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day – giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution – not once.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “in no sense founded on the Christian religion”. This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims – they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
Thanks for standing up to the onslaught of secularism forced by atheists who’s only way of propagating their beliefs is by way of forced secularism in the government. The open hatred and contempt of other beliefs, as espoused by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and friends, is nothing short zealotry of the same flavor Christianity regrettably practiced in the middle ages.
And thank you, Dennis, for shooting down the false idea that science can explain everything. What an absurd, pompous idea that science can explain right and wrong, ethics or morality. A cell cannot discern right and wrong, animals do not worry themselves with moral questions before acting. It is uniquely a human trait, this belief in morals, ethics, and God.
But just as religion doesn’t explain everything — how engines work, how flowers grow, the nature of cells, for instance — science does not explain everything, nor is it meant to; it doesn’t concern itself with things outside the natural world. If it did, then we ought to be studying God in science classes.
Science indeed does explain virtually everything about the natural world, and that’s where science should thrive. It does not, however, explain anything about God and God-based morality and ethics. That is something we can all agree on.
The problem arises when certain atheists, such as Mr. Harris, naively assume that if something cannot be measured by science, then it is not reality. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has made, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can’t see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine nature.
Thank you Dennis for standing up to this hate mongering anti-theist. Mr. Harris is right: men have, in the name of religion, made mistakes throughout history. It’s sad that men like Mr. Harris — so gladly proclaiming his superior intelligence — apparently do not have the smarts to learn from history and have some respect for others’ beliefs. Instead, he opts for ridiculing and mocking anyone that doesn’t share his beliefs. Thanks for standing up to that, Mr. Prager.
“First, you misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics.”
Wrong. I never mentioned the First Law of Thermodynamics (concerned with energy), I mentioned the Lomonosov-Lavoisier Law, also know as the Law of Conservation of Mass (concerned with matter). There is a definite distinction, so you would do well to clear up your own understanding of my claims before attempting to clear my understanding of them.
Now, the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter does indeed state that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. This is equivalent to matter changes form, but cannot be created nor destroyed. Interestingly enough, this is what I said in my previous post – so what exactly was I “misunderstanding” again?
“But most every astrophysicist (see Stephen Hawking) knows that the universe CAME INTO existence with a constant amount of matter and energy as always was, is, and will be. Denial of the universe coming into existence (going from non-existence to existence) is a denial of the very laws of physics you cite.”
Wrong. These men do not “know” that the universe (and I assume that by the universe, you are referring to all extant substance) “came into” existence. They simply compile evidence that the current motion of the substance in the universe began at a common location and time – the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory of the origin of modern cosmical motion, not a theory of the literal creation of substance (the pulling of all substance into the cosmos from nothingness), as such a theory would have no foundation whatsoever. The only groups that invoke the argument that “substance was pulled into existence from nothingness” are Deists and Theists; precisely due to the shaky foundation that this conclusion is based upon, it is not a “theory”, it is a “hypothesis”.
You also should study up on Hawking Radiation before you make false claims about Stephen Hawking’s theories; the compressed matter in a black hole exists – it doesn’t “come into” existence. It is COMPRESSED by gravity. Once, again, matter is neither created nor destroyed. This means that all extant substance was packed into a tremendously dense and hot state until it exploded 13.7 billion years ago. Neither time nor motion (synonymous) began 13.7 billion years ago, but rather the current motion of the universe began.
I’ve been taking on a number of independent studies with a professor of astronomy over the past 3 and a half months, so I’d advise you to do your homework thoroughly before attempting to cite unfounded theories that back up your claims.
“The argument as you put it doesnt prove anything that you yourself wouldnt agree with. The conclusion doesnt include the word God anywhere in it. It just says the universe had a cause.”
Wrong. Did you actually read my argument?? I am actually going to quote myself to refute you.
“there cannot be an infinite number of causes (meaning an infinite number of moments, seeing as we would never arrive at the current moment if moments go back infinitely), there must therefore be a finite number of causes…after which we logically assume there is a first cause. This first cause by logical necessity is uncaused.”
Wrong. There aren’t an “infinite number of moments”. Do you have any understanding of what time is?
Time Is One, Not Many
We measure time in seconds, hours, decades, so on and so forth. Each of these measures can be distinguished insofar as they can be divided into smaller individualized segments. That is, I can say that this second is separate from this second. What we perceive to be time—the mere measurement from moment to moment—changes constantly and evenly. However, true time does not ever change.
Let me clarify:
When you watch a movie in a theatre, what is happening on screen? Dozens of independent clips are rapidly flashing on the screen every second. If you pause the movie, you find yourself looking at an individual picture that is NOT authentically connected to the rest of the clips. Essentially, when you watch a movie, you are simply watching tons of individual pictures. (Or tons of individual “moments”.)
Now let’s move to real life. Stand on the sidewalk and observe the people that walk by. Real life motion seems to be exponentially smoother than the likes of a motion picture, doesn’t it?
But it gets much deeper than that.
You see, real life motion is not composed of a trillion tiny clips that are pieced together every instant. As a matter of fact, there is (technically) no such thing as an “instant” when it comes to real life: as aforementioned, everything is ALWAYS in motion, no matter how close you come to ‘pausing’ time; reality is perpetual motion.
In reality, we aren’t seeing a bunch of frames (moments); we are seeing one BIG frame (moment). The you of right now exists in the exact same “frame” of time as the you of right now. In the same regard, the you of now exists in the same “frame” of time as the you of 20 years ago. You see, it isn’t that time doesn’t exist (a common philosophical misconception), it is simply that time can not ever change from a moment 5 billion years (human measurement) ago, to now, to forever.
As previously mentioned, we (for convenience, organization and practicality) view time as a measurement between periods of motion; but in reality, time is simply the single unified motion of existence. There was no beginning of substance (Lomonosov-Lavoisier Law), so there was no beginning of “time”.
All the best—
>> 1) Is there ANYTHING (in theory) that I could show / tell / offer you
>> that would lead you to believe that God does not exist?
Yes
>> 2) If so, then what?
Show me the so-called true source for all the good I see, the order and harmony in the universe, all the joy I have, despite the secondary stuff I have and continue to experience.
Ive heard Sam Harris on both of the occasions that he was on Dennis’s show. Dennis may not have won the debate here, but he absolutely massacred Sam on his show. Sam simply cannot stand up to the own arguments he makes when they are scrutinized.
please don’t spend too much time praying for me, do something constructive!!
>> “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”, that is demonstrably false.
Ok, so demonstrate that God did not form Adam first.
I’ll be waiting…
I think what angers me the most is the hypocritical ministers, such as those that officiated at my mother’s funerral and my nephews a few months later. At my mother’s, a minister that never even knew her gave a testimony of her life, making her out to be almost a saint. She was not even close, I loved her dearly but by everything said in the bible she is certainly destined for the lake of fire. My nephew’s was similar (with the exception that the minister knew him) was a confessed atheist, but that minister chose to leave that out of his ceremonial drivel. He even went so far as to talk about them being reunited in heaven, which is in no way biblical. If the bible were at all true, I hope that when I die, any minister officiating my funeral would have the guts to say that I am now fueling the fires of hell :)
>> I really could not care less if someone choses to believe in a god or
>> any combinations of gods.
Thank you
>> I don’t particularly care if you pray yourself into a coma.
Thank you
>> As an atheist… what does anger me is when these beliefs are imposed on
>> others.
Hrm..
>> A marriage is basically a civil contract between 2 people
It is?
>> a minister should have no more right to make that legal than he has to
>> oversee a deed transfer.
But didn’t you just say you get angry “when beliefs are imposed on others”?
>> I am part of an activest atheist group only because of the laws regarding
>> women’s rights, gay’s rights, laws regarding stem cell resarch, laws
>> regarding faith healing being considered health care for children, laws
>> regarding death with dignity (doctor assisted suicide) and any other law
>> that imposes a specific religious belief on others. If these beliefs
>> were benign there would be no real reason for organized atheism.
An activist group that does what.. cross-stitch? Play cards? Swim? Or perhaps impose its view, its opinions of the stated issues, over others?
>> I don’t really care what god/gods they believe in. I just want them to
>> keep it to themselves.
I wonder if you can take your own advice.
If you are unable to find the truth, I pray the truth finds you.
To quote:
"The last century, the most secular so far, was the bloodiest ever. Every religious conflict pales in comparison to what the secular world conjured up through the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao Zedong. Stop blaming the Christians for conflicts and chaos. The role they play is helping after the catastrophes have happened. Give me one example of a major conflict that or chaos that Christians have caused in recent history."
This is a tired argument, which over-simplifies complex conflicts and abuses of power, not to mention makes a spurious suggestion that because one atheist was a monster, atheism (or any other belief system not of the Judeo-Christian line) must lead to monstrosity. As someone has already pointed out, there have been more people around in the last century, so more people to kill as well. Furthermore, we get more information from far-flung parts of the world more efficiently, so we are more aware of the horrors being done. To make the numbers meaningful in comparison, we would have to look at proportions, for example – how do the numbers killed by Stalin in relation to the entire population he had influence over stack up to the number of people the Roman Catholic Church deliberately killed for heresy, blasphemy, or being born with the wrong skin colour in some distant part of the world where there might be gold in relation to the entire population the Church had influence over. Additionally, the despotic regimes of individual rulers are not comparable to the spasms of religious violence that grip whole groups of people (I offer Iraq as an example both of sectarian killing and of complexity that denies sectarianism as the sole source of that misery). I didn't see where Christians in particular were singled out, I believe that the charge was leveled at organized religions in general and monotheism in particular, but since you asked, there are numerous conflicts in the last half century, including Lebanon, Serbia/Bosnia, and Sudan that all come to mind where the Christians had a bloody hand to play, and hundreds of thousands have died. As for "helping", where were the Christians, some of whom were leaders of Western countries like the US, when the East Timor people were being slaughtered? Why do many Christian groups insist on blocking information that would help prevent the spread of AIDS, like the use of condoms? Is it because their view of sexual morality does and must trump the value of the lives that might be lost to ignorance? I would also point out that it is easier to track grand atrocities (particularly when the perpetrators keep records, like the Nazis did) than the thousands of daily miseries resulting in death visited upon individuals or small groups by the unreasoning application of religious or other ideological belief, for example, “honour” killings or queer teens driven to suicide.
Now to quote:
"And that in itself depends on what is meant by "submission." I do not think that this means that whenever a husband and wife disagree, the wife should shut up. What this means (as I understand it) is that when there is an unresolvable [sic] dispute between a husband and wife (just husband and wife) about matters of estate (not things like philosophical disputes) the husband gets the casting vote. Basically, the husband has higher authority when it comes to matters of household. Naturally, a man who loves his wife is going to consider her input and knowledge on the matter, and may be persuaded if she knows what she's talking about."
Even if this were restricted to the household, and not civic life (how this would be accomplished, I don't know, since people's expectations in one realm tend to bleed over into the next – why else would it be important to have a decent home life to maintain a decent civil society?), I am failing to see how submission and subjugation are that different. Let's try switching some words and see if this still seems reasonable:
Pick a group labeled in a holy book as inferior or lower on a hierarchy (say, blacks as inferior to whites, or believers in another faith to those believing the one held out as 'correct'). Insert said group into the above quote, like this – "when there is an irresolvable dispute between a True Believer and a Pagan (just True Believer and Pagan sharing a household) about matters of estate (not things like philosophical disputes) the True Believer gets the casting vote. Basically, the True Believer has higher authority when it comes to matters of household. Naturally, a True Believer who loves his fellow human (who happens to be Pagan) is going to consider this person's input and knowledge on the matter, and may be persuaded if said Pagan person knows what he or she is talking about." How would that read if it were a black person instead of a Pagan person? "Of course we'll listen to the black folks, they just don't get to vote on the matter once it comes time to decide". Doesn't that seem like shades of the Deep South? It certainly flies in the face of the concept of the equality of people, and therefore of their voices in decisions that affect their lives, which is a foundational principle of democracy. Thus, I would conclude, that Christian marriage is not seen as an equal venture between two adults, but a hierarchy in which one might speak but must yield. I don't know about anyone else here, but I want none of that for myself.
As for this tidbit: "For Adam was first formed, then Eve.", that is demonstrably false. Leaving aside, for a moment, that this is a creation myth and does not stand up to the fossil record which demonstrates the evolution of humankind, it does not stand up to our examination of genetics, which Collins referred to as "the language of God" (if I'm paraphrasing correctly). The default gender is female, not male. You can live with one X chromosome, but not one Y, as the latter is a variant of the former, which has modifications that give rise to the differentiation of a second sex (male) that allows for a much greater range of diversity, particularly for species that reproduce slowly. Indeed, the expression of this gene can be blocked, so that you have babies born who are genetically male, but appear female or ambiguous. The female is first folks, and that is a fact. If one were to build religious commandments on this knowledge, then it is men who should be silent and obey.
Last, the infamous house of cards. Once again, this is a useless comparison, for more than one reason. Here are two:
First, this confuses an enormously large, complex system that is whole in itself (the universe, as it came into being as theorized by the Big Bang), and a small, simple system contained within a large and influencing system (a deck of cards tossed into the air on a planet in said universe). The universe is thought to have arisen over almost 15 billion years from a singularity that contained all the energy (and therefore matter) that is present in the universe we see now. No, we don't know where that singularity came from. Yes, it organized itself as it flew outwards, following natural laws that can be observed and tested. In fact, the way a deck of cards will organize itself when thrown in the air is both observable and predictable, based on those same laws – you are just not going to get a house of cards that looks like it was designed.
Which brings me to the second point – confusing self-organizing with non-self-organizing. Cards are not going to arrange themselves, period. That requires an energy input, and perhaps even ongoing energy availability to maintain homeostasis (in other words, not fall down). Planetary systems are self-organizing because of the force of gravity (and other forces that are still being worked out, like dark matter and dark energy, which may actually be properties of open space). Living organisms are complex, but they follow a predictable pattern – there is genetic instruction that has evolved slowly, over hundreds of millions of years, which manages how the structure of the organism develops and maintains itself (how the place the cards) and those structures are capable of creating or obtaining energy sufficient to build and maintain the organism (place and maintain the cards). When we – meaning humans – build something, we are causative agents, determining where things go and providing energy to do the building and maintaining. So, we can build a house of cards, or an airplane. That we, as intelligent beings, can assemble non-self-organizing materials in a planned, non-random way to make wonderful, complex things does not necessarily mean that we, as complex, non-random beings need an even more stupendous intelligent being to have "made" or "designed" us.
The problem, as I see it, is that many religions anthropomorphize Divinity, and do so unthinkingly. What comparison could there be between any force or intelligence that for whatever inscrutable reason caused or guided the universe into/through existence and our meager selves? Science is a tool to answer many (but I doubt all) of the hows, but few of the wherefores. Meaning is for us to find, and we appear to be meaning seeking and meaning creating creatures. Telling others that you have found the ultimate knowable meaning, when they may have discovered their own meaning for themselves, is likely to result in a perception that you are making a rather incredible truth claim that requires some tangible backing before any change of mind might occur. Of course, you can always just force them to see the "Truth" at the point of a sword, which all three of the Abrahamic, monotheistic faiths have done at one time or another, a history lesson not lost on those who developed the modern secular democracies, and those of us who now defend them.
Just for the record, I am not an atheist, but a panentheistic Pagan.
A previous poster wonders why theists say that “…nothingness is the natural state of the universe”.
Well it is more accurate to say that the universe (composed of space-time) does not exist necessarily in the eternal now and everywhere here. The universe (including all of space , and all of time) is in fact radical contingent on a higher — but unknown to science — realm of existence. Central to that realm is Existence itself, commonly known as God. God contains the universe, but the universe does not contain God.
I think that atheists are much more openminded than theists, for an atheist to be converted solid proof is all that is needed. For a theist to be converted (deconverted if you prefer), there is basically no proof that would be sufficient. If the beginning of matter and energy were determined at a specific point there is always the argument “god did it” if proof were given that god exists then at least most atheists would accept it. Although most atheists still would not worship said god, they would probably just acknowledge the existance.
I’ve heard Sam Harris live, debating Dennis Prager. The first time he did so poorly he asked Dennis for another chance, which Dennis gave him. He did not do better. He is a master at shifiting language and dodging the issues.
Dennis Prager is the more clear thinker, which is quite obvious when you read these exchanges. Atheists ought take no solace in the performance of their champ.
The point of these exchanges is not to try to change the minds of those whose minds are made up, but it should help the truly open minded to see just how fatuous the dogmatic atheist case really is.
Well done, Dennis.
Your explanation of the cosmological argument is hardly a refutation. First, you misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics. Second, you leave out an important aspect of the argument.
The law is not “matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed,” it is “the amount of matter and energy in the universe remains constant.” WITHIN the universe matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. But most every astrophysicist (see Stephen Hawking) knows that the universe CAME INTO existence with a constant amount of matter and energy as always was, is, and will be. Denial of the universe coming into existence (going from non-existence to existence) is a denial of the very laws of physics you cite.
The argument as you put it doesnt prove anything that you yourself wouldnt agree with. The conclusion doesnt include the word God anywhere in it. It just says the universe had a cause. Once we establish this, we move on to the argument that because there cannot be an infinite number of causes (meaning an infinite number of moments, seeing as we would never arrive at the current moment if moments go back infinitely), there must therefore be a finite number of causes…after which we logically assume there is a first cause. This first cause by logical necessity is uncaused. Also, since it came from outside the universe, it must be immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless. This we call God. But this is just barely skimming the surface.
Surely this god would know what it would take to make me believe. As an experiment I confess right now if my cup of coffee sitting next to me now were to turn to wine I would fall on my knees and belive. Not only that but would preach it to everyone I know. But alas it has not happened and is not likely to happen.
I would find it as easy to believe at this point that “Little red riding hood” proves that wolves can actually speak than to believe that the “Holy bible” proves that god and jesus are real.
As an atheist, I really could not care less if someone choses to believe in a god or any combinations of gods. I don’t particularly care if you pray yourself into a coma. What does anger me is when these beliefs are imposed on others.
Such as with gay rights for example. A marriage is basically a civil contract between 2 people, and a minister should have no more right to make that legal than he has to oversee a deed transfer. What consenting people do in private should be nobody elses concern unless it is hurting someone else. If propogation of the species is the concern, there have always been homosexuals and the species does not seem to be in any danger of extinction. On the contrary overpopulation seems to be more of a danger.
I am however sure that if true equality of rights were extended to homosexuals, the theists would proudly pronounce years from now that they were instrumental in securing these equal rights! They would find chuches that avocated equal rights for all (including homosexuals) and assert that this was the norm for all theists.
When we create a “god of the gaps” and these gaps close in through science the theists become threatened and much more vocal, that seems to be the case in the last century. These gaps are slowly being closed. When a “missing link” in evolution is found, theists then just claim it creates a “missing link” on either side of it. The answer for the creation of matter and energy may never be known to us, our species may truly go extinct due to natural disaster or unfortunately a self induced disaster before these origins can be determined.
I do not generally debate with anyone over their religious beliefs, because I think they are a bit silly. Debating them only gives them more credence and as I said I don’t really care what god/gods they believe in. I just want them to keep it to themselves. I am part of an activest atheist group only because of the laws regarding women’s rights, gay’s rights, laws regarding stem cell resarch, laws regarding faith healing being considered health care for children, laws regarding death with dignity (doctor assisted suicide) and any other law that imposes a specific religious belief on others. If these beliefs were benign there would be no real reason for organized atheism.
I’m sorry, but my wife and I lost four babies. I can understand why you would pray in those times of difficulty, but if that opperation had gone the other way, I guarantee you it will rock your faith.
The folks doling out comfort when you needed it WERE scientists (doctors), and intelectuals (doctors) and may even have been athiests (doctors). The PEOPLE who saved your child educated themselves with skill and technology gained through science… not prayer.
I see the separation between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager as largely due to the difference between Intellectual and Emotional reasoning. Harris’ reasoning is exclusively Intellectual scientifically based logic while Prager’s reasoning is largely Emotional gut felt reasoning.
That’s not to say that there’s no useful place for Emotional gut felt reasoning. It may be particularly useful in the intuitively subjective areas of Justice and Morality where Emotional gut felt reasoning may serve a need to moderate the hard conclusions of purely Intellectual logic.
However, in this debate between Science and Religion over the existence of God, Emotional gut felt reasoning is the antithesis of Scientific logic based reasoning and isn’t relevant to whether or not God actually exists. The splendor, beauty, and wonder of nature isn’t an argument for the existence of God, its an argument for the tendency to believe in the existence of God. That and arguments that belief in God makes for a better world in which to live is where most of Prager’s arguments were. And even those arguments were countered by Harris’ strong arguments to the contrary that the world would be a better place to live without Religion and beliefs in imaginary Gods.
I personally find Sam Harris’ arguments more compelling.
“Christianity does not advocate suffering at all, nor does it stand in the way of science. Rather for 2000 years, many of us know what suffering is all about. Further, we get many of our best scientific advancements because of Christianity.”
You need to study history a little more, like the middle ages or “Dark Ages” as it’s sometimes called. If it wasn’t for Christianity, we’d would have colonized our solar system by now.
Why must theists always, always make this unprovable assumption- that nothingness is the natural state of the universe? Have you ever considered what this implies- that at one stage the universes didn’t exist… and I don’t just mean matter, I mean dimensions as well… no space, no time. What proof or reasoning justifies this “nothing” you keep referring too? Can you even grasp what it means… an absence of everything, even ‘empty’ space. I for one can’t, yet it is something you see as proof of god, that without him there would be nothing, not even darkness, not emptiness, not anything.
On a personal note, as an atheist, I find the cyclic universe theory very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Universe_Theory
Oh, and btw who/what created god? (PS-try and answer that without saying uncreated or uncaused)
It’s an unfortunate fact that even the eleven disciples didn’t believe Mary when she brought them the good news and that it’s rare to continue the 1 Corinthians 11 reading to
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
It’s even more rare to read “Submitting yourselves one to the other” in Ephesians 5 as the proper beginning of that section.
The status of women as described by Paul was a great improvement over the cultural norm. In this, Paul followed Christ, Who taught women, Who traveled with them in His company, and Who even argued scripture with them.
The Christian background of the founders of the Enlightenment and of the vast majority of the abolitionists in the UK and the US, as well as the men who voted to allow women the vote and full citizenship is a fact.
Beverly Nuckols, LifeEthics.org
Before I get started, I’d like to profess my apologies. It simply seemed as if your initial proposition was an insult to atheists:
I was simply turning your insults back onto you, but now that I come to think of it – two wrongs don’t make a right. Now, onto my argument about where the universe came from. It seems to me as if you’re using the Cosmological Argument (correct me if I’m wrong), and I believe that it doesn’t work for reasons that can be found in the following argument.
Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.
There it is. The implication of course, is that the “cause” is God (in some shape, form, or fashion—it doesn’t matter). This is, in my humble opinion, the most widely called-upon, yet most largely under-examined argument in the history of philosophy.
There is a key premise that requires a specific assumption. That premise, of course, is premise number one: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” In order for this premise to work, we have to have witnessed at least one instance of existence “beginning”.
“Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but only altered in form.”
According to this empirical truth, substance can not have a beginning. I have no beginning, as the physical components that make up my body (fats, proteins, etc.) have been in existence for billions of years that I know (scientifically speaking) about; evolution simply led these components to come together over time to compound my biological (physical) body.
So it is a fact that matter has no beginning. (If you can rationally argue against this based on observation, which is possible, I’ll be thoroughly impressed with you.) Hence it is erroneous to use the “all matter has a beginning” proposition as an argument for the “necessary” beginning of the universe. No one has ever witnessed the “beginning” of any substance whatsoever. Where did it all come from? Inductively speaking from the foundation previously drawn out, matter is eternal.
The argument that an intelligent theist would resort to next is that, even if matter per se has no beginning, the motion of all matter has a first cause. However, this implies that we’ve seen motion begotten by a cause — which is demonstrably false. This is because all substance is in constant motion in time and space — whether we see it or not (consider an inanimate object that you perceive as being stationary — like a house or a statue — and then consider the rotation of the planet). Although it is true that substances are prone to influence (or alter) motion by force-interaction with other substances, it is impossible to witness the “beginning” of the motion of physical entities by means of a cause, because the physical entities never “began” (in motion or existence) in the first place!
Flipping the Cosmological Argument Upside Down
The one concept that we can attribute a beginning to is sentience. Sentience (having the power of perception by the senses; consciousness) is an incorporeal, yet ever-present attribute that is projected into existence through neurobiological functions.
In other words, we know for a fact that sentience is a manifestation of specific combinations of matter and energy in the physical brain. How do we know about this tie between the physical brain and the intangible “mind”? (1) When an individual’s brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience. (2) Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all. (3) Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged. (4) When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.
Although we do not know the precise moment in which sentience intially appears among an individual – we do know that sentience does begin at some point between conception and birth (as the brain has not yet been developed before conception).
The only rebuttal to this is the infamous near-death-out-of-body-experience (NDE). The argument is that “because the core features of NDEs are almost invariably reported by experients, NDEs constitute evidence for an objective afterlife reality. However, these core features can be explained by physiological models. The same brain processes occur at the onset of dying: (1) Oxygen Deprivation, (2) Endorphin Release, and (3) Random Neural Firing. Thus their subjective experiences are (and should be) similar.
1. Ever felt light headed before? I have, and I could have sworn that I was floating (outside of my body). Well, when your heart stops and oxygen no longer pumps to your brain, the feeling of light-headedness is greatly amplified.
2. Endorphins are natural pain killers – if you have an abundance of these things released (which happens during death), you aren’t going to feel the pain of your body. In fact, you won’t feel your body at all.
3. Neurons are cells that are excited in the nervous system via electric pulses. They are the core components between the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves; in other words, they facilitate mind-body communication. If these babies start randomly firing off signals (which they do upon the onset of death), you are going to feel quite disembodied, indeed.
Furthermore, because NDEs “feel real” to experients, this doesn’t mean that they are real. I can “feel” a hallucination, but that doesn’t make it authentic.
Conclusion
[1] Principles of Observation prove that substance has no “beginning“. (Matter didn’t have to “start”.)
[2] Principles of Observation prove that sentience does have (and has always had) a “beginning“.
[3] Principles of Theism (which we have never observed) claim that substance does have a “beginning“.
[4] Principles of Theism (which we have never observed) claim that there exists a being whose sentience does not have a “beginning“.
[5] Theism obviously does not work according to logic, insofar as it is literally the OPPOSITE of logic. According to the conclusively inductive argument provided above, God does not exist (or, at the very least, “God” is not a reasonable solution). Basically, to believe in God is to call what we can observe with our own eyes false, and what we cannot observe with our own eyes (and know of only through ancient hearsay) true. Hope this answers your questions!
All the best—
Wow. I must have struck a nerve. You insulted me on a personal level no less than six times. I didn’t mean to send you into an emotional tizzy.
First off, you have debunked nothing. As for arrogance, let readers of these posts decide who smacks of arrogance. I get a kick out of the fact that when the discussion centers around creation in general, most atheists run to “evolution”, or the “origins of life”. Note that I never once mentioned these topics – you did.
Rather I was speaking of the existence of all things, and how that could be. Every theory I’ve ever heard from an atheist regarding this subject is one that begins with chance. It has to. That’s all you have.
From nothing, all things came. If that isn’t what you believe, then please state where it differs. It will be a first for me to hear an atheist explain where he/she thinks all matter and energy came from.
By the way, rather than just typing insulting sentences, perhaps you could find it in your heart to explain things. For instance why my “deck of cards analogy applies to absolutely nothing”. Or is the answer: “because you said so”?
Lastly, you don’t know me, or virtually anything about me. After failing miserably to respond to ANY argument or thought that I wrote, and then bloviating about an outdated 150 year old theory that in no way was relevant to anything I wrote, you finish by naming me, a complete stranger, a “not very bright thinker”. You’ve got to be kidding, right? ;P
Hate to see your “brilliant” hypothesis ruined, but you are the only one who is logically bankrupt. No atheist ever claimed that the complexity appeared by chance. No atheist ever claimed that out of nowhere, there was a Big Bang and then there were cars honking on busy streets and skyscrapers and little children playing Super Nintendo games.
You need to check your facts. Your deck of cards analogy applies to absolutely nothing. Your problem is that you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking that because (1) God blinked everything into complex existence from nothing, atheists must believe that (2) nothingness blinked everything into complex existence from nothing. If that was the case, your cardhouse analogy would hold some grounds.
However, atheists realize that nothing began in complexity. Humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans came from a common ancestor – which has been virtually proven. The complexities of today were less complex a thousand years ago. Through evolution, complexity came from simplicity, and as we go further and further back in time, things become simpler and simpler. Eventually, we find out that amino acids became the building blocks of life.
Once we’ve explained how life began (which we have more or less done), everything else falls into place. We can explain the formulation of earth and the solar system (solar origin) and we can explain the age of universal motion (14 billion years). Of course, there are things that we can NOT explain. When it comes to the cosmos, there are trillions and trillions of macro and micro qualities that we can not explain. However, because you can not explain something does not mean that “God did it”. Such a hypothesis is at once the most ignorant and the most arrogant hypothesis ever formulated by mankind. It assumes that (1) we know everything, and (2) therefore all things that we don’t know are impossible (supernatural) so God is the only possible explanation.
Let me debunk your cockeyed hypothesis with a simple sentence that will go in one ear and out the other: we don’t know everything. Morever, we hardly know anything. Arrogance is not an atheistic characteristic as much as a theistic characteristic. We’re (atheists) OK with the facts that there are things in the universe that we can’t explain, where as theists must implement their God of the Gaps and proclaim to be the center of the universe of divinity.
You are not a very bright thinker, and therefore you can’t seem to conceive a reality without God. However, this does not mean that everyone else is as intellectually primitive as you are. The irony of your accusations of atheistic illogicality is astounding.
All the best
I’m just wondering, how can athiests call themselves even remotely logical? There being no ‘creator god’ is IMPOSSIBLE. Chance is not a thing. It has no being so it has no power. CHANCE CANNOT DO ANYTHING! How is that tough to understand. The universe is not chaos but order (cosmos). Order can only arise by design, never by chance.
Do yourselves a fovor, drop a deck of playing cards on the floor repeatedly. Then post how many times it took before it landed in a perfect four-tiered card house.
I can’t prove it, but I can guarantee that in 1,000,000,000,000,000 years it won’t happen even once. In fact it’ll never even be a two-tiered card house. I’m sure that anyone reading this would agree.
The above is an example of an intelligent force purposefully dropping a known object which is capable of being used to create said cardhouse, and not having any CHANCE at doing it. The person would have to design the cardhouse, painstakingly.
This is a flippin’ cardhouse we’re talking about. Yet somehow, I am to belive that the grandness of the universe, and all of its exponential myriad of complex order and wonders…..that can have arisen by the same chance that CANNOT build a cardhouse.
I’m not trying to say any one religion is right (although I do believe this), but rather- use your heads, athiesm is logically bankrupt by definition. Think.
The first reply didn’t necessarily argue more than “the Bible wasn’t being oppressive to women”. I never claimed that it was being oppressive – I actually admitted to love/respect being requested to go both ways. However, I believe that it is undeniable that men are to be respected (by women) on a higher tier than women are to be respected (by men). My analogy should have done the job:
Men : Women :: Father : son
A father has responsibilities to his son, including love and respect. If one were to lay out the specific characteristics of a father-son relationship, one could point out how there is nothing “oppressive” that goes on. At the same time, more respect flows from the father to the son than the other way around. The father has more responsibilities than the son – who is forbidden from partaking in many responsibilities (i.e. paying bills, buying groceries, and making the rules of the house).
One may nod one’s head and say “obviously”, but that’s precisely what I’m trying to say. The Bible describes nothing more than a patriarchical relationship
As for the second presentation of how I was taking these quotes out of context based on premature biblical study: by presenting these circumstances, you actually dig a grave of inconsistency for yourself that an atheist such as myself will quickly abuse. We see these passages in plain view, and there are at least three components that you find excuses for. Now, don’t get me wrong; every argument that you presented is 100% valid. However, if one has the ability to pick and choose which contexts are being taken incorrectly in modern day Bible study, one can rip the Bible apart. Let’s take hell for example. Using parallel methods to the ones that you used, I can downplay or even eliminate hell from the Bible. Here’s my grand presentation of why hell is false theology. This was first presented by Gary Amirault, who is a devout Christian theologian. Read more of his stuff at TentMaker.Org.
No Hell?
How many times is the word “hell” used in the Christian Bible? Surely, with as much as is taught about the subject in most present day churches, one would think this word would appear hundreds, perhaps even thousands of times in the Bible. The word “heaven(s)” occurs 603 times in the leading Christian English Bible translation, the New International Version. The New American Standard has the word heaven(s) 635 times. Well, interestingly enough, the word “hell” in the New International occurs only 14 times, and The New American Standard has it 13 times. What is even more astounding is that, like the Jewish Old Testament, neither of these leading Bibles has the word “hell” in the Old Testament at all. Not even once. The Creator, according to these top selling Bibles, agreed with the Jewish Old Testament that the concept of the place of eternal torment for the unrighteous could not be found in the first three quarters of the Bible. Adam was not warned of “hell.” Abraham never heard of “hell.” Moses, who brought the Creator’s Law into the world warned that “the wages of sin is death,” Sheol, the grave. He never ever warned about being roasted, toasted, and endlessly tortured. David, when chasing after Bathsheba, suffered the consequences of his sin, but eternal torment was not on his mind. How could the Creator be so thoughtless, and not warn millions of people of a fate they did not even know awaited them? Could this be just? Could this be loving?
The word “Hell” in the Bible was a mistranslation of the word “Sheol”. Sheol means “the grave” (the place of the departed; both good and evil), but the King James translators chose to translate it “the grave” 31 times, “hell” 31 times, and “pit” 4 times. “Eternal torment” is also a mistranslation. When looking at the words in Greek, we see “age-during correction”.
Revelations 20:10 (King James Version, 1611) “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Revelations 20:10 (Revised KJV, 1881) “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night unto the ages of the ages.”
You might say: “Whether a person is in the ‘lake of fire’ for many ages, or forever, they are still being terribly tortured.” But when we see that the word translated by KJV and Company as “tortured” is the Greek word “basanizo, ” its literal meaning being “touchstone, ” then one can bring perfect harmony to the Scriptures. A “touchstone” was a stone mined in Lydia used to test the quality of gold. Gold in Scriptures speaks of Divine nature. The “lake of fire” in Greek is “limnen tou puros tou kai theiou.” “limnen” is lake; “puros” is fire; and “theiou” is sulfer. Sulfer “theiou” and God “theos” are related. In other words, the lake of fire is a “Divine fire” to test, not torture, whether something be divine or not. Separation from God is punishment, but it is not eternal and it is not torture (in the traditional sense).
1 Corinthians 3:15 || If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Zephaniah 3:8-9 || Indeed, My decision is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out on them My indignation, all My burning anger; for all the earth will be devoured by the fire of My zeal. For then I will give to the peoples purified lips, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him shoulder to shoulder.
Fire purifies the soul, it is not a device of eternal torture. The notion of Hell as eternal suffering has simply been passed down from generation to generation because The Church decided to abandon the image of a loving God for an image of a fearful God. (It’s easier to convert people that way!) But the Yahweh that you (Christian readers) worship sent His son Jesus so that He could save ALL of mankind.
I believe that it is common sense to claim “the great majority of mankind (90% or above) are lost and destined for damnation by biblical standards.” I mean, surely, those who will be saved are greatly outnumbered by those who have not repented and those who have no faith. So then, how might God manage to save all, as He promised, if He banishes them to eternity in the fiery pit of Hell?
1) 1 Tim 2:4 God will have all to be saved. (KJV)
2) 1 Tim 2:4 God desires all to come to the knowledge of truth (NIV)
3) 1Tim 2:6 Salvation of all is testified in due time
4) Jn 12:47 Jesus came to save all
5) Eph 1:11 God works all after the counsel of His will (can your will overcome His?)
6) Jn 4:42 Jesus is Savior of the world
7) Jn 4:14 Jesus is Savior of the world
8) Jn 12:32 Jesus will draw all mankind unto Himself
9) Col 1:16 By Him all were created (will He lose most of His creation?)
10) Rm 5:15-21 In Adam all condemned, in Christ all live (the same “all”?)
11) 1Cor 15:22 In Adam all die, in Christ all live Again
12) Eph 1:10 All come into Him at the fulness of times
13) Phl 2:9-11 Every tongue shall confess Jesus is Lord (what about the Holy Spirit?)
14) 1 Cor 12:3 Cannot confess except by Holy Spirit
15) Rm 11:26 All Israel will be saved (But most Jews don’t believe yet…)
16) Acts 3:20, 21 Restitution of all (Case in point.)
17) Luke 2:10 Jesus will be joy to all people (joy in “hell”?)
18) Heb 8:11, 12 All will know God
19) Eph 2:7 His grace shown in the ages to come
20) Titus 2:11 Grace has appeared to all
21) Rm 8:19-21 Creation set at liberty (How much of creation?)
22) Col 1:20 All reconciled unto God
23) 1Cor 4:5 All will have praise of God
24) Jms 5:11 End of the Lord is full of mercy
25) Rev 15:4 All nations worship when God’s judgments are seen (Could His judgment be mercy?)
26) Rm 11:32 All subject to unbelief, mercy on all (All?)
27) Rm 11:36 All out of, through, and into Him
28) Eph 4:10 Jesus will fill all things (Including “hell?”)
29) Rev 5:13 All creation seen praising God (Including Satan?)
30) 1Cor 15:28 God will be all in all
31) Rev 21:4, 5 No more tears, all things made new
32) Jn 5:25 All dead who hear will live (How many will hear?)
33) Jn 5:28 All in the grave will hear & come forth
Sick of the word “all”, yet?
34) 1 Cor 3:15 All saved, so as by fire (How can fire save you?)
35) Mk 9:49 Everyone shall be salted with fire (Including you?)
36) Rm 11:15 Reconciliation of the world (Will fire save the world instead of destroy it?)
37) 2Cor 5:15 Jesus died for all
38) Jn 8:29 Jesus always does what pleases His Father (1 Tim 2:4)
39) Heb 1:2 Jesus is Heir of all things (Does “things” include people?)
40) Jn 17:2 Jesus gives eternal life to all that His Father gave Him (How many did the Father give Him?)
41) Jn 3:35 The Father gave Him all things (Repeated for emphasis; study the word “things” in the Greek).
42) 1 Tim 4:9-11 Jesus is Savior of all!
43) Heb. 7:25 Jesus is able to save to the uttermost
44) 1Cor 15:26 Last enemy, death, will be destroyed (The Lake of Fire is “second death”)
45) Is 46:10 God will do all His pleasure
46) Gen 12:3 All families of the earth will be blessed
47) Dan 4:35 God’s will done in heaven and earth
48) Ps 66:3, 4 Enemies will submit to God (Can any stay rebellious in “hell?”)
49) Ps 90:3 God turns man to destruction, then says return (How can one return from “destruction?”)
50) Is 25:7 Will destroy veil spread over all nations (All nations?)
51) Deut 32:39 He kills and makes alive (Kills to bring life?)
52) Ps 33:15 God fashions all hearts (“All” hearts, including men like “Hitler?”)
53) Prv 16:9 Man devises, God directs his steps (What about “free will?”)
54) Prv 19:21 Man devises, but God’s counsel stands (So much for “free will.”)
55) La 3:31, 32 God will not cast off forever
56) Is 2:2 All nations shall flow to the Lord’s house
57) Ps 86:9 All nations will worship Him
58) Is 45:23 All descendants of Israel justified
59) Ps 138:4 All kings will praise God (catching on yet?)
60) Ps 65:2-4 All flesh will come to God That sounds wondrous.
61) Ps 72:18 God only does wondrous things
62) Is 19:14, 15 Egypt & Assyria will be restored
63) Ezk 16:55 Sodom will be restored to former estate
64) Jer 32:17 Nothing is too difficult for Him
65) Ps 22:27 All ends of the earth will turn to Him (why?)
66) Ps 22:27 All families will worship before Him
67) Ps 145:9 He is good to all
68) Ps 145:9 His mercies are over all his works
69) Ps 145:14 He raises all who fall (Who hasn’t fallen in sin?)
70) Ps 145:10 All His works will praise Him (For “eternal torment?”)
71) Is 25:6 Lord makes a feast for all people
72) Jer 32:35 Never entered His mind to eternally torture his children with fire (which came from man’s mind.)
73) Jn 6:44 No one can come to Him unless He draws them (You can’t “choose” to follow Him. Hence we have no “free will”.)
74) Jn 12:32 I will draw all mankind unto Myself
75) Ps 135:6 God does what pleases Him. (What pleases Him? 1 Tim. 2:4)
The concept of evil men going to a place of torment after death first appeared in Jewish apocryphal writings of 3 to 1 B.C. These writings came from the thoughts of the Babylonian religions which the Jews brought back with them from Babylon. It was these books which spoke of eternal separation of good and evil and equating it to man’s ultimate fate. Many Jews mixed these teachings with Judaism which brought about great problems. These writings, found their way into the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint was used by the early Church. From there these writings got into the Latin Vulgate. Early English translations relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate. Those that used the Greek, also relied heavily upon the Septuagint. The early English translations were either translated from the Latin with the Apocrypha, or the Septuagint, which also contained the Apocrypha. The King James directly copied much from previous translations that came directly from the Latin Vulgate. Many of the early Common Language Bibles contained the Apocryphal writings. These writings had a great effect on their view of things and on how to translate other portions of the Bible.
Ever wonder why Jewish Bibles of today do not contain hell? Because it does not belong in the Scriptures! But the Roman Catholic Bibles, Orthodox Bibles, and the original King James Bible as well as many early Common language Bibles contained them.
As I mentioned earlier, a loving Creator would trumpet the warning very loud, clear, and often, if eternal punishment was the fate of the unrighteous. English Bible translations generally have between 600,000 and 700,000 words.
Question.
If the Old Testament is basically void of warnings of eternal torment, how many times would you expect a loving Father to warn you in the New Testament if such a horrible fate was His plan for the “unrighteous.” The New Testament contains 27 books. Would you expect Him to mention the word “hell” a thousand times? Would 500 times be enough? He used the word “heaven” over 600 times! Would you be surprised if He mentioned it only 100 times? Could He be so cold hearted as to only mention it 50 times? Surely, He would most definitely mention it at least once in each New Testament Book! Right? Wrong. Most translations that mention it at all, mention it only 12 to 14 times, the King James being the King of Hell mentioning only it 22 times in the New Testament, not even once per book! Many translations don’t even mention the word “hell” even once! Now if the Creator is the All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Sovereign One, surely He did a terrible job of warning mankind of their terrible fate…if eternal punishment awaited them.
Think of it, He supposedly gave a commission to Paul the Apostle to write almost half of the New Testament. Paul was to declare the Gospel of the uncircumcision to the whole world. Would you believe it if we told you Paul, the apostle to the nations, never used the word “hell” once? King James didn’t put the word in Paul’s mouth, NIV didn’t do it, NASB didn’t have the nerve. Check them out. Check every Bible you can get your hands on. The one responsible to warn the nations of the whole world…and he forgot to use that nasty little word “hell.” Either Paul was very irresponsible or His boss was…or maybe our theology is very irresponsible. Who do you think missed it? Perhaps we should look into our own backyard before we accuse the Creator, or Paul, of being irresponsible. But one thing is certain, if one’s eternal future is determined in this lifetime, and Paul, as a bondservant to Christ, was to make plain the truth, he plainly forgot to mention that “hell” was part of the deal.
Now, I personally believe that I have a much greater case for Hell not existing than your case for those “uncertain” passages about patriarchy-based authority. I could go on to pick many other parts of the Bible apart if I wanted to. But that’s just the problem. Things are written in black and white, and if we want to be critical about them – we can’t “pick and choose” which parts to be critical about. (That’s selective literalism.)
Overall, I thought that Harris definately won this debate. However, it seemed like Harris implied that the oppression caused by Stalin was from a corrupt political system, which had nothing to do with atheism. However, that seems to create a double-standard because he believes that oppression from the religious occurs in a strickly ideological sense rather than in an economical or political one. Couldn’t it obviously be both in either case? This part of his argument came off as weak to me, but is nesscary for his aggressive stance. While I agree with his position on many of the issues, I think this kind of aggression is going to be harmful for atheists. I have no doubt that there will be some form of counter-aggression. For example, it could be easily argued that arguements for creationism and intelligent design are reactionary to the ideas that were proposed by Charles Darwin. The previous idea was from Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God.” Overall, I think I currently agree more-so with Miller. Regardless of whether or not Harris is right, religious positions are highly favored and still do function well within society in the right context. It does this becuase of its focus upon community, tradition, and for being an inspiring and interesting way to view the world in most cases. Religious organizations have certainly impacted my own community positively by providing charity for people, helping the poor, and many other social services. While other religious insiutions have had negative implications, it is obvious that there are possible favorable outcomes for religious insituttions in some communities. Therefore, religion will not be abolished as long as it provides these positive functions. We need to focus on those religious organizations that are harmful to society and abolish them. If those organizations are exposed as negative, I can’t imagine why people would want to support them. Perhaps loyalty? This is the concept that needs exposure… We don’t need to abolish all forms of religion, and as I previous said, any attempt to do so in contempory society would be futile anyway. Focusing on the second method binds the non-religious and religious alike and promotes understanding and growth.
The 1 Timothy passage is a bit less obvious, but it certainly is not saying what you think it is.
For an overview of Paul’s teachings on women, I suggest the article http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html which addresses this passage (about 2/3 of the way down, or do a search for 1 Timothy) as well as others.
Noteworthy excerpts: “Verse 11 is a non-issue, and actually provides limited evidence for preparation for a teaching ministry.” He then quotes from the book “Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry” (Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo) thus:
‘The women are to “learn in silence.” Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century “silence” (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail “not speaking,” as is evident in Paul’s use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders.’
He adds: “The phrase “in submission” is closely related to this notion, and together the two images call up the memory of Mary, “sitting at the feet of Jesus” in rabbinical student style (cf. Luke 10.39).
The interesting thing about this is that this was used of “future or current teachers”! Rabbincal students were generally preparing for a teaching ministry, ‘wise men’ and ‘leaders’ ALREADY were in teaching/authority roles. So, the very cast that this imperative is set in suggests a FUTURE teaching ministry for those women who learned in the proper fashion of students.”
So he’s not saying “women should be submissive and shut up,” he’s saying women students should be respectful and diligent students.
Verse 12 is quite a quagmire, the word translated in the KJV as “usurp authority” is not an entirely well understood word, but take note of another excerpt:
“Traditionally, authentein has been understood to connote a sense of “domineer” or “to usurp authority” and the term is even associated with murder. Although not all of the evidence and arguments have been fully assessed, two points seem relatively certain. First, the term is unusual. If Paul were referring to the normal exercise of authority, his otherwise constant exousia/exousiazo (“authority/to exercise authority”) vocabulary would most likely have been used. The choice of such an unusual term itself indicates that Paul intended a different nuance or meaning. Second,…many uses of the term seem rather clearly to carry the negative sense of “domineer” or “usurp authority.” Thus I see the injunctions of 2:11-12 as directed against women involved in false teaching who have abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere to women) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus.”
Also:
“It is VERY important to point out here that it is PURE FOLLY to base an entire doctrine affecting half the human race (!)–”women should not have authority over men”–on the basis of ONE SINGLE VERSE, and even worse–a single verse where the most important verb is (1) unusual; (2) negative; and (3) not even understood clearly!”
The article also succinctly sums up the whole shebang thusly:
“There were false teachers, at least one of whom must have been a woman, that taught a reverse-bible story about adam/eve.
These teachers argued for their position that women preceded men, and also did not suffer from ‘deception’.
They therefore would have claimed to be a source of ‘purer’ revelation than the apostolic circle and the OT scripture (a standard “Gnostic” claim).
Paul deals with this situation (1) defensively first–TEACH the women the Word; and (2) offensively–Forbid these false women teachers (also characterized by immodesty, pomp, and bragging of godliness) to teach/proclaim this doctrine, and make sure they take their place in the ‘classroom’ with the other people being discipled according to the Word.
What this would mean for our study, is that this passage does NOT restrict women’s role in the early church, but only the roles of FALSE TEACHERS–in this case, with the special case of women heretics.”
Not an easy passage, bu study can be quite revealing. After all, one should not expect something written nearly 2000 years ago in a different culture and language to have its meaning leap out at you effortlessly.
The Holy Bible
King James Version
1 Timothy 2:12
Hello,
I’m a different person, but I wanted to comment. The writer never claimed that the doctors didn’t study. What he was saying that their giftedness as doctors was a gift from God. Nobody here is trying to claim that we do what we do apart from hard work and study. That’s why God gave us a brain, he WANTS US to use it and learn!
In the same way, God gave the gifts to the engineers who designed the technology. Those guys went through years of studies to be able to hone their skills. I know, I’m an engineer.
Talent is a gift, skills are learned. If you put an awesome violinist into medical school, you might be asking for malpractice. But even the violinist spent countless hours practicing their skill…
Hope this helps…
I’m a new combatant here, thought I’d put a word in on this subject.
First of all, you said: “Her and her husband spread the word of God – and I would be willing to bet that her husband did the majority of the speaking.”
I really see no reason to assume that. Can you provide some justification for that? We don’t really have any information on that whatsoever.
Now, let’s look at that passage in Ephesians. I’m afraid you are just picking up a couple verses and assuming they in themselves give the complete picture. They don’t, if I randomly pulled a few sentences out of a letter you wrote I doubt I’d get a clear and consistent idea of what you were saying either.
To provide some sort of context, I’ll start my explanation back several verses, since there seems to be a start of a coherent “black” there.
Verses 15-20 are talking about behaviour of a Christian. Not getting drunk, encouraging one another, living joyfully and thankfully, etc. The last words before the “wives and husbands” bit is the sentence in verse 20 “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” I think it is not a stretch at all to put this in with the immediately prior context, of living joyfully and communally. Right after that, it even gives an example of this submitting to one another, namely, the case of wives and husbands.
Verses 22-24 are: “22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Right. Wives submit to husbands as to the Lord, in everything.
Now, I think the problem is that “submission” has a somewhat negative connotation for some. “Submission” seems to conjure up images of poor, downtrodden women bowing in subjugation before a rapacious and domineering husband. That is completely and utterly NOT what is being talked about here. That just makes no sense in context. As has been mentioned, that grossly violates the principle of “selflessness,” namely, that in a proper relationship, the husband would not be such a domineering jerk.
But what, you may ask, should the husband be like then? If you read but a bit farther you’ll have an answer in vv 25-28:
“25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”
Now, if the husband was a domineering jerk, I think it would be entirely unreasonable for a woman to just submit to whatever he says, the “yes honey” sort of relationship. However, I do not see that that is compatible with those verses. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (we know how THAT went) and love their wives as their own bodies. I don’t quite see anything in that that would be such a terror to have some form of submission towards.
And that in itself depends on what is meant by “submission.” I do not think that this means that whenever a husband and wife disagree, the wife should shut up. What this means (as I understand it) is that when there is an unresolvable dispute between a husband and wife (just husband and wife) about matters of estate (not things like philosophical disputes) the husband gets the casting vote. Basically, the husband has higher authority when it comes to matters of household. Naturally, a man who loves his wife is going to consider her input and knowledge on the matter, and may be persuaded if she knows what she’s talking about.
This in the end is summed up in verse 33, after a few not entirely relevant verses: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
To recap that whole idea:
Verses 15-20 show a picture of what Christian life and community is about. In verse 21, he gives a general injunction for people to submit to one another. This transitions into a digression about husbands and wives, summed up in verse 33, husbands love their wives as themselves, wives respect their husbands. Verses 22-24 for the wives and 25-28 for the husbands discuss the specifics of this.
This isn’t about putting women as inferior any more than it is about putting men as inferior. Both have responsibilities to treat each other as equals, and these responsibilities show themselves in different ways. Since, women and men in my observations do have different needs relationshipwise.
And as a finale – the Ephesians bit here is not about the status of women in general, but the specific case of husbands and wives, whcih I think is pretty solidly portrayed as non-oppressive. Nothing to do with, say, the right of women to have a say in government. If people did take such things as such, they would be quite erroneous in their doing so.
Now, I will say that some people have opposed women’s rights, human rights, progress, and other good things in the name of Christianity. They were wrong to do so, and universally did so in contradiction to what the authors meant. So that does not reflect poorly on Christianity proper as much as it reflects poorly on the human tendency to hear what they want without going to the effort of understanding what’s being said, which leads to errors like those mentioned.
Maybe you should apply some of these traits into your own writings. It is preposterous to claim that El Shaddai and Yahweh are different gods. You are mixing the God of Christianity and equaling Him with Roman gods, which truly are numerous. Your argument shows only one thing: Baal was an idol and is attacked by God throughout the Bible. How then could he be “of the El pantheon?”
So the Jews have the five books of Moses and the Christians add the four Gospels? Last time I checked, the Bible had 66 books, so you’re ignoring 57 of them. It’s like reading the first chapter of a 1200-page book for a test and then blaming the writer for failing!
“Combine the puppeteering with the repulsive holy books and you have the religious conflicts and chaos we see around the world.”
The last century, the most secular so far, was the bloodiest ever. Every religious conflict pales in comparison to what the secular world conjured up through the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao Zedong. Stop blaming the Christians for conflicts and chaos. The role they play is helping after the catastrophies have happened. Give me one example of a major conflict that or chaos that Christians have caused in recent history.
“Regrettably, the brain of millions of religious earthlings has not evolved beyond the donkey-rider mentality of 10,000 years ago.”
I’ll let your words speak for themselves. I have no need to trash you or your brain. It appears that you do, and it reveals your rigid attitude towards anyone who doesn’t share your belief system.
Please read the Bible first. Even the English versions show your claims to be completely ignorant, and the original languages prove you completely wrong.
Hi,
My current answer to your first question is, "I'm not sure". Sorry, I know that's not the most satisfying answer in the world. : P
In response to your request to see some miracles, I think that can be arranged. A rabbi from New York told me a story: a martian visiting Earth asked a human to show him the most spectacular things here. First the human showed him the grand canyon. The martian yawned and said, "yeah, we've got tons of these up on Mars". Then the human showed him Mount Everest, and the martian was bored with that too, because he'd seen tons of those on Mars as well. Finally, they passed by a hospital, and the martian saw a woman giving birth. The martian exclaimed, "Whoa! What the heck is THAT?!?", to which the human replied, "yeah, that's just a woman giving birth, it happens all the time here". The martian was blown away, exclaiming, "a new human emerging from another human! Extraordinary!".
Isn't it unbelievably amazing and bizarre that a human emerges from another human? I think it's pretty wild. Even though it happens all the time, I would call it a miracle.
All the best,
David
> I don't see how the tone of his argument affects the truth of it.
> Cogent argument doesn't depend on how nice you say it.
I completely agree.
> You must certainly, by definition, believe that Mormonism is (at the least) not worth practicing. Why must you be so nasty to Mormonism? Everyone should practice every religion out of deference to their existences. Otherwise it's just plain "nasty".
I'm not sure I understand you here.
G-d bless,
David
No one who believes in God uses the argument that because one cant disprove Gods existence, he must therefore exist. I merely made that assertion in order to counter your inquiry about showing you what I would accept as having disproven his existence.
Proofs is an overly powerful term when talking about God. I do not have undeniable evidence to prove that God absolutely exists. Do I have what I find to be extremely powerful and compelling arguments in being able to assert the positive, and construct a complete and rationally consistent worldview out of those reasons? You bet I do.
Where would I start? How about the Kalam cosmological argument…after which I would give the argument from design, and end with the argument for the need of a transcendent source for an objective morality (applying to all people at all times).
Once one understands this, they will inevitably see how Sam equating this God with the likes of Poseidon is intellectually simplistic.
I very much appreciate your response. Although I don’t think I have the proof you require (obviously).
If it would make it easier for you to show me proof, I would happily accept those proofs for the existence of God. I would think that a person who can walk on water would be easier, but if you think proving something is eternal, then that would do fine.
I agree that “just because something cant be disproven doesnt mean it doesnt exist” but that is a dead end argument. You can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist and I don’t therefore suggest you believe in unicorns.
Although Christian apologists have listed a number of ancient historians who allegedly were witnesses to the existence of Jesus, the only two that consistently are cited are Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE.
If all that these two men had were “eye-witness” accounts, then nothing is proven or even evident. Rael was an “eye-witness” account for the aliens.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a firm believer in the notion that Jesus Christ lived. However, his story is a blatant fabrication.
The word “god” is a noun. The word “lord” is a title. What are Judaic believers and Christians referring to when they use these words? A generic deity? A specific deity in antiquity? Their information source is the Pentateuch with Christians appending the four gospels. The Pentateuch has two major deities. The god El, a Canaanite deity, was the primary deity worshipped by the Aramean/biblical Israelites in Northern Palestine and the god Yahweh, a tribal war god possibly from the Edom deserts, was the primary deity worshipped by the Judahites in Southern Palestine. The authors of Deut. 32:8-9 and Ps. 82 have Yahweh a son of El. The god Baal was also a deity in the El pantheon. In time, El and Yahweh were coalesced by the Judahites into one god. If the coalesced Yahweh, the singular god of Judaic believers and one-third of the Christian con-joined triple deity (Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit), existed in reality, then El and Baal also had to exist in reality as well as the deities Molech, Chemosh and Ashtoreth that are mentioned in the Bible. Do those deities exist in reality today? There were thousands of deities in antiquity. How were they created? In the same manner as El, Yahweh, Baal, Molech, Chemosh and Ashtoreth—in the imagination of the ancient people. Gods and goddesses were imaginary puppets and their worshippers were the puppeteers who could have their deities do or say anything the puppeteer desired. Astonishingly, god puppeteering still exists in the 21st century. Combine the puppeteering with the repulsive holy books and you have the religious conflicts and chaos we see around the world.
Regrettably, the brain of millions of religious earthlings has not evolved beyond the donkey-rider mentality of 10,000 years ago.
Let common sense, realism, knowledge and rationality prevail.
Aquila was a Jew from Rome, who with his wife Prisca or Priscilla had settled in Corinth, where Paul stayed with them (Acts 18:2-3). They became Pauline Christians and fellow-workers with Paul, to whom they seem to have shown their devotion in some special way (Rom. 16:3-5). See also Acts 18:18-19; 1 Corinthians 16:19; and 2 Timothy 4:19.
Aquila was responsible for (with his wife Priscilla) solidifying Apollos in the faith. They also lived in Ephesus. The teaching ministry of Aquila with his wife Priscilla were known in Ephesus. This is interesting because Ephesus is recipient of several epistles that give instructions regarding wives/women in ministry:
Ephesians 5:22-23
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Her and her husband spread the word of God – and I would be willing to bet that her husband did the majority of the speaking.
And when I referred to Susan B. Anthony, I wasn’t attempting to make some argument about how no Jews, Muslims or Christians (theists) contributed to the feminism movement. The point is that Prager claimed that Judeo-Christian values led to the equality of men and women, and I argue that this is a complete lie. Christians may have lent a hand, but to claim that they led to equality is such an extremity that it compels me to look into the other claims that Prager makes (I don’t even need to look into the abolition of slavery, as Christianity demonstrably did not primarily influence this).
So you state that the Bible claims that women are inferior. How do you then write off Priscilla, who is one of the church’s leaders in Acts, whom Paul writes about? Surely “inferior and submissive” women should never be bestowed such an honor.
So what if the most influential female rights activist was an atheist? I can give you a Christian women’s rights advocate towards every atheist you throw on the table. Your point is irrelevant. Look at the feminist movement’s achievements, they are not singularly good! Neither are the achievements of the atheist century for the last 100 years…
Quote: Anonymous
“All the above quotes regarding the dress and conduct of women were written by Paul in a letter directly to specific churches, where women were behaving inappropriately and in relation to the societal norms of the times. Just as men were required to behave well, women were, too. The Bible is full of warnings and correction to men, and this is one of the few spots where women are corrected directly. Do you suggest that women should be allowed to run around in bikinis at church? That’s what their conduct was analogous at the time . . . The message was modesty for all, not suppressing women . . . Paul was addressing unruly women at a church, where they were taking the concept of freedom in Christ in the wrong way. They had misinterpreted it to mean that they can start disrespecting the culture around them, even though we’re called to respect authority as long as it is not of evil.”
The only argument that you presented was that Pauls epistles (letters) were responses to unruly women at a specific church. If you pay close attention to the content of the epistles, you’ll note that such a fact has absolutely no bearing on the argument that women were meant to be inferior and submissive. No, I’m not misunderstanding your claim as you certainly suspect I am doing. Here, let me illustrate this more lucidly.
Your only solid claim in regards to the conduct of the women was that they were “disrespecting the culture around them”. Before you made this claim, you pointed out that the manner in which they were disrespecting their culture was contemporaneously analogous to modern-day women running around in bikinis. This is an entirely relevant argument, so now let’s check out the passages that I originally posted.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
(1) Women should remain silent in the churches. (2) They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (3) If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for (4) it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Okay, there are a few things in this passage that we need to look at. When someone is disrespecting their culture, you address them on their points of disrespect – which is precisely what Paul does.
(1) “Women should remain silent in the churches.” Here, Paul is addressing the misconduct of the women. Context clues tell us that the misconduct could have ranged anywhere from whispering amongst themselves to incessant/obnoxious ranting. Hopefully further passages can shed some light on this ambiguity.
(2) “They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” Ah, here we are. If what you said is correct, and this passage in Paul’s first epistle to Corinth was addressing the disobedient/disrespectful women of a specific Corinthian church, we now know that he was reprimanding the women for being audible. We also know from “as the Law says” that this authority was not stemming from Paul himself, but from Christ (moreover, it is a universal that the content in all of Paul’s epistles was allegedly derived from his visions of Christ Jesus per Gal.1:16, 1Cor.11:23, 1Cor.15:8, 2Cor.12:9, Acts9:4, Acts18:9, Acts22:7, Acts22:17, Acts:23:11, Acts26:19, etc.) The mention of this passage being [divine] “Law” will become an integral component of my argument in just a second.
(3) “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.” The clarity is only increasing. At this point, it is undeniable that the female misconduct was within the parameters of women merely making their presence audibly noticed in the church. We now know that if a woman misunderstood something during a sermon, it was wrong for her to attempt to better her understanding while in the company of the congregation. Does this in and of itself provide evidence of female irreverance? Nope, not yet. So far, all we know is that Paul was lecturing the women for speaking up in church – but it’s not to be labeled as “inferiority” until we distinguish that the same rules didn’t apply to men. Which brings us to the final passage:
(4) “[because] it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Presto. This seals the deal. According to the Law, it is disgraceful for women to speak in the church, but it is not disgraceful for men to speak in the church. The situations and the context of this portion of Paul’s Corinthian epistle are now all crystal clear: Women were uttering in the church (most likely inquiring about the sermon) and this was in direct violation of the Law, which stated that anything more than complete silence among women in church was disgraceful. The key to this argument is that no matter how loud the women were screaming or what they were doing, all we need to concern ourselves is the reasoning that Paul gave for their conduct’s classification as a transgression.
So, according to those passages, all I need to take out of them is that, according to the Law (as opposed to ‘according to Paul’), it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Your certain (even inevitable) cop-out will be that Paul was only addressing that specific culture (of that specific time), and that the rules of different cultures change. Well, here is where I will cut you off in advance: in Isaiah 40:8, God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25. In other words, in the eyes of God, there is no “correct conduct for x culture”, or “Laws that apply to y society”; God’s Word applies to all, and stands forever. So here we have God, in his eternal and everlasting Word, saying that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Now, I feel that to complete my painting, it is appropriate to mention that you never addressed all of my biblical quotes (you only addressed the ones in which you felt you had a relevant rebuttal towards):
Ephesians 5:24
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God . . . For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [Here there is no excuse. According to this passage, we know for a fact that men are above women. Whether or not there are other passages that say "men should love their wives" is irrelevant. A slaveowner can "love" one of his slaves, but that doesn't excuse the inferiority and submission to authority.]
1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in silence and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be restored through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. [The Bible NEVER says that a man should learn in silence or submission. This is because women, according to the Bible, are supposed to learn FROM men. It also mentions that women are not to have authority over men, and the inarguable implication is that this is because men have perpetual authority over women. It's in black and white, and it holds no ambiguity. Refer to Genesis 3:16 for greater clarity into this passage.]
Now I want you to recall my original argument. I am arguing that, according to the God of the Bible (all of Paul’s epistles are “according to God”, and if you want to argue this concept I ensure you in advance that you will be doing yourself more harm than good), women are “inferior”. By inferior, I don’t mean that men should not respect them or that they have to be the slaves of men. I simply mean that they are supposed to universally regard men in the same likeness as a child regards his parents. If the Bible argues for the innate authority of men, Judeo-Christianity could not have POSSIBLY influenced EQUALITY (i.e. no upper hand of authority; everyone equal) in America.
I then went on to back this claim up by noting that Susan B. Anthony – arguably the most influential female rights activist in American history – was an atheist.
>> I can read about it in the Bible. I have read a lot of Greek, Roman,
>> Norse and other mythologies in which gods can do a lot more supernatural
>> things than that, and I don’t accept them either.
You seem to allude to the Bible being a mere “book of faith”. Rather, it is inasmuch a book of history that tells of events that happened in space and time. You said it yourself, “mythology”. The Bible is none of that.
If the Bible is still an issue for you, then consider the non-sacred writings of those who wrote before the assembling of the New Testament Canon (end 2nd century, mid-3rd complete).
For this, here is a starting point if you are serious: “Early Christian Fathers”, look for it at amazon.com. Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, etc. 1st and 2nd Century writers who were closest to the days of Jesus, who received the eyewitness accounts first hand, and many paying the ultimate price for it.
Lastly, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matthew 12:39).
That sign has already been demonstrated.
I don’t see how the tone of his argument affects the truth of it.
Cogent argument doesn’t depend on how nice you say it.
You must certainly, by definition, believe that Mormonism is (at the least) not worth practicing. Why must you be so nasty to Mormonism? Everyone should practice every religion out of deference to their existences. Otherwise it’s just plain “nasty”.
The answer is yes. Show me that the physical universe is eternal, self-existent, and uncreated.
But even if the answer was no, just because something cant be disproven doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
It’s obvious that Mr. Prager cannot distinguish the argument Mr. Harris is putting forth.
The argument isn’t atheism versus theism, it’s irrational belief versus rational argument. The fact that Stalin may have been an atheist is beside the point. That he was a madman is more pertinent. We all realize that religious or no, a madman can still do very destructive things. I love how the religious side of this debate always resorts to listing bad atheists (which amount to two, Stalin and Mao), but neglects essential facts. These individuals also engaged in personality cult, systematically and secretively murdered opponents, whether religious OR economic OR political, abolished free speech, and a host of other things that are clearly the quintessence of irrational thinking.
I also think there is a distinction to be made between the true definition of rationalism and its colloquial understanding. Commonly, when someone “rationalizes” something, they trick themselves into doing something they consider bad/immoral/whatever. This is not rational. Having evidence is not enough to be rational. You have to have good evidence. Now, what possibly could have been Stalin’s good evidence for killing millions of people? I can’t think of any, which is why atheists above even theists deplore the actions of Stalin. Stalin is the black sheep of atheism. And this distinction (obviously) needs to be made. The argument isn’t: atheism leads to rational thought, and rational thought is good, therefore atheism is good. The argument is rational thought is good, period. Atheism is just a byproduct of a system of understanding.
Now, Mr. Prager claims theism is rational. Or at least he thinks so, since he is a theist, and must certainly think he’s rational. What good evidence is there for theism, then? Mr. Prager makes a big fuss about something coming from nothing. But that characterization is completely fallacious. No scientist or atheist suggests that something comes from nothing. What we do say is that things which we have no evidence for, we don’t comment on. How was the universe created? Scientists answer easily, “we don’t know”. We know that it happened, that there was a beginning to it and that beginning was the Big Bang, but how it happened? No claim is made about that. And besides, what is Mr. Prager’s definition of “nothing”? What causes gravity is “nothing” only because we can’t detect it. That doesn’t mean that the planets formed from nothing. That doesn’t mean that when you throw a ball, “nothingness” pulls it down to the ground. I’m amazed at how many times this has to be reiterated: Just because we can’t scientifically explain something at this very moment (to satiate your blind rage to find a truth for every little thing) doesn’t mean we will never be able to. Obviously the “something from nothing” argument was the height of refutations of Darwin’s theory. Now it just seems silly, because we know it isn’t just “nothing”. There are specific biological and physiological reasons that creatures evolve. They happen to be some of the most complex phenomena we know of, which is why it’s taken time to fully understand them.
>> As far as the quote: “The believer in God has to account for the
>> existence of unjust suffering;
Man
>> the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
I would be content for the atheist, and all anti-theists, to explain the source of all the good in this universe … the order, the harmony, the peace, etc..
>> I am angry on behalf of those who will be killed tomorrow because
>> religion held back the science that would save their lives (stem cells,
>> etc).
I am sorry for any suffering you may have endured, but this is fallacious reasoning.
Christianity does not advocate suffering at all, nor does it stand in the way of science. Rather for 2000 years, many of us know what suffering is all about. Further, we get many of our best scientific advancements because of Christianity.
What Christianity opposes is making a victim to save a victim, especially when the paradigm of making a victim has no basis for the claims it promises to provide in science.
I believe Dennis Prager was not a very good representative for the theistic worldview here. Bring on William Lane Craig! He eats atheists like Sam Harris for breakfast.
I have a two-part question for the theists among us.
1) Is there ANYTHING (in theory) that I could show / tell / offer you that would lead you to believe that God does not exist?
2) If so, then what?
I submit that if you answer “no” to the first question, then a) you are honest and I thank you and b) there is no point in discussion.
If you answer “yes” to the first question then I am genuinely very interested in hearing your answer to the second question.
There are many, many things that you could show me that would persuade me to believe in God. Anyone who could part water, cure disease with a touch, be born from a virgin, etc. would be proof to me.
(Please don’t say that it has happened already and I can read about it in the Bible. I have read a lot of Greek, Roman, Norse and other mythologies in which gods can do a lot more supernatural things than that, and I don’t accept them either.)
Some commenters seem to be forgetting that Tibetan Buddhism, an atheist religion, contains an incredibly strong moral code including the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This would seem to disprove (or at least call into question) the argument that theism is required for a moral code.
I’m an angry atheist because Christians stomp on evolution. I don’t care if evolution is “true” or not. It expands our practical understanding of the world around us. It is a useful tool. And Christians (whatever their reasoning, I don’t care), want evolution supplanted by ID, which is useless because it fails to address the practical mechanisms of speciation.
Religion holds back science. Ask Galileo. And I am alive today because of science. I am angry on behalf of those who will be killed tomorrow because religion held back the science that would save their lives (stem cells, etc).
As far as the 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.”
We’re working on it! Stay out of our way!
-Isaac
I have some problems with the rationalising of a human response that is based on love. The kids did not believe. That was their choice. You were responsible for them. It is that responsibility, born out of love, that makes most parents altruists. From a comfortable chair, you cannot swap with them. But in the moment, all rationality, if indeed one can call it that, surrenders to love. No one to blame. Just beliefs that we must adhere to, whatever the consequences. If we believe in eternity in the bible, then we believe in both eternity’s. Heaven’s and Hell’s. We then must believe in the bibles own criteria for admission to both. This means we are left, if god allows us memory of our children, with the torture of their everlasting agony. The main point here is, you might not believe God is possible of such cruelty. But millions upon millions do. And they hold it up and praise it, in all it’s God forsaken glory. I sit here and type. godless. trying to understand. There will be many down there with me who got it wrong, but tried to understand.
Simple, thoughtful, caring non believers. And someone, somewhere thinking, ‘well, they had their choice.’
thanks for your comments. mikejswalker
>>>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.<<<
Except that the doctors were scientifically trained in Western medicine. They don’t count? Those doctors did not have their skills implanted in their brains by revelation, they went to school and they learned empirical methods of practicing the art and science of medicine. So you are saying–if we read you literally–that these doctors were given their skills by god and not by the sweat of their own brow. If THAT were the case, why didn’t your god simply heal your child direct? Why would your god need to give–implant–the knowledge of medicine in the minds of these doctors and then have them risk legal censure for practicing medicine on a false license (the only people who can be licensed to practice medicine are those who went to a medical school)?
Thanks Jewcy for this great debate!
“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?”
Great question. If you are talking about the God of the Bible, the question is moot. We are all responsible for our own choices, so I cannot swap myself with anyone else. Also, eternity in the Bible is very different from our finite thinking here on Earth. We cannot measure our future thoughts there based on our thinking here.
I know that I am responsible for my child, but at a certain point he will be able to make his own choices, and just like here on Earth, his choices will have consequences. My moral code tells me that I must make sure that his choice is an educated one – that he knows there are consequences, some of them eternal. One of the biggest problems on Earth is that we do not care about the consequences of our own choices, and then we blame others for them, but that’s another huge discussion!
Sam Harris said, "Everyone who is not a Mormon knows at a glance that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs."
This statement is both a) unnecessarily nasty and disrespectful, and b) incorrect. I am not a Mormon, and I do not "know" that Mormonism is an "obscenely stupid system of beliefs".
I understand that Harris wants to lift the oppressive taboo forbidding religious criticism that hangs like a dark cloud over society so that the light of rational independent thought can shine through and liberate us all (yes, that was sarcasm). Pop culture has been on this crusading mission for a while now. We've had South Park, Howard Stern, disgusting modern "art", The Life of Brian, and countless others. Harris' titillating jabs (my personal favorite: "the sky-god of Abraham demands fresh sacrifices") against others' sacred beliefs are hardly revolutionary. Every time I read one, I hear Beavis and Butthead snickering in the background. As a religious Jew, I just roll my eyes.
Sam, you're clearly a very intelligent man who can articulate great points without resorting to childish attacks. Where does this nastiness come from? I suppose this returns us to Rabbi Gellman's original question: why are atheists so angry?
G-d bless,
David Lantos
Truth is truth, by definition, exclusive of all “professed truths.”
Jesus said “I am the truth”. He also said “no one gets to the Father except through me”.
So which way does the elephant face with regard to this?
Hint: “belief” is not the elephant
Forever is a long time to think on all those who you loved that didn’t make it to the party. It does not make sense. 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? Where does that place your moral code? Or god’s moral code? These are real questions. Tea pots, universal constants and God, pale into insignificance when you see the child edging toward the cliff.
A lion and a zebra are animals. I have had pets that I had to put down
and was upset about them, however, I didn’t pray or talk with GOD about how to protect them as I did my child. We humans were given brains wih reasoning abilities and we all have the choice to believe or not
believe. My child made it through two surgeries and is doing fine, than you for your concern.
p.s. (and I’m sure that the parent wasn’t dumb enough to not realize that there would be some sort of response to their emotional comment about their child’s experience as you suggest). That really does suck about your child, I’m really sorry that you had to go through that.
( My child’s experience? This wasn’t a playdate at the park. And using the word “suck” is inappropriate in any context, please.)
I am a Christian and I must say, though I am a fan of Dennis’ and subscribe to his blog, I don’t think he argued a very good case for Christianity and the existence of God.
It is true that we are handicapped by the fact that God is invisible and not “proovable” by normal, scientific means and God is a God of revelation, not only reason.
In other words, God’s existence is hinted at by a myriad of scientifically proovable facts, but true presence is only seen by special revelation. This is true throughout the Old Testament and even Jesus, said that only those with ears will hear. i.e., if you are not truly looking for God, but only looking to avoid Him, you will not see Him.
Be that as it may, Dennis should have cited more scientific facts regarding Creation that is extremely well documented and prooven by the folks over at ICR. There are too many elements to be quoted here.
If you were born in Turkey, you might say:
It takes a Muslim to see the elephant for all its worth.
If you were born in India, you might say:
It takes a Hindu to see the elephant for all its worth.
If you were born in Hollywood, you might say:
It takes a Scientologist to see the elephant for all its worth.
If belief is the basis of truth, then truth is relative. Except, of course, for the believer. Each believer has his or her own personal monopoly on truth.
Sam Harris: What we need, across the board, is intellectual honesty
——
It takes an atheist to “philosophize” that the elephant standing in plain view is actually not an elephant.
It takes an agnostic to not know if the same elephant is standing in plain view.
It takes a Christian having changed mind who is able to see the elephant for all its worth.
Hi,
I never claimed that you said “women are scum.” My comment still stands, since you did not provide the context to the scriptures you referenced regarding women. Paul was addressing unruly women at a church, where they were taking the concept of freedom in Christ in the wrong way. They had misinterpreted it to mean that they can start disrespecting the culture around them, even though we’re called to respect authority as long as it is not of evil.
Nothing you said in your reply refuted anything I said earlier. You have effectively ignored the rest of the Bible by picking and choosing your favorite quotes to back up your already decided bias. My claim still stands.
I need to comment on “Many modern day Christian anti-feminists even blame 9/11 on homosexuals and feminists while they quote passages from the Bible that are similar to the ones I quoted.”
You make it sound like these people represent a huge part of Christianity. Again I state: Check the facts. Even though such voices get huge media coverage, it doesn’t mean that their opinions are endorsed or even supported in the church.
All God’s best!
I am an Orthodox Jew-in-training, and thoroughly enjoyed this sophisticated debate between two delightfully intelligent men.
I was raised by a passionate atheist who is quite mortified at my serious exploration of religion. I have an engineering background, and find that science wonderfully compliments serious religion. Frankly, I have never understood why science must shun religion, or why religious people need fear science. Quite to the contrary! At the furthest limits of scientific research (quantum physics, the big bang, etc), the line separating science and religion becomes pretty fuzzy. Serious researchers in both areas can dance together beautifully. The two don't really even overlap. One cannot deduce moral principals from science (I suppose the Nazis did delve into that one), and one cannot deduce mathematical equations describing the behavior of particles by reading Torah. Both are critically important tools for humanity. In this sense, I believe Prager makes an excellent point.
A big thanks to whoever organized this great debate! I hope there are many more. Finally, a very big thank you to both Sam Harris and Dennis Prager.
David Lantos
God is in full view. That you suppress His plain revelation is self-inflicted blindness rather than the One you cannot see hiding from your view.
The Soulless Atheist
by Gary DeMar
11/8/2006
“The Thing’s shifty scientist, Carrington, helps to keep the ‘super-carrot’ alive, hiding it from the military men who want to destroy it; according to him, ‘There are no enemies in science… only phenomena to study’, and he is awed by the creature’s evolutionary perfection: ‘No pain or pleasure as we know it. No emotions. No heart. Our superior. . . in every way’, although the compliment isn’t returned.”
An atheist creates a closed system of his own making. Only those things within his worldview are real. Of course, he defines the nature of reality. Those things that do not fit his rationalistic worldview do not exist. As a result, the consistent rationalist will reject the reality of God, the soul, special revelation, miracles, providence, immortality, sin, and the need of salvation. For the atheistic rationalist, “‘Good’ and ‘bad’ as ideas are rooted in bodily tissue as realities.” Only those things that can be seen, handled, and analyzed are real and verifiable. “Good” and “bad,” whether conduct or opinion, are subjective terms that are defined for the moment.
In rejecting God, the atheist still has to face evil in the world and explain where it came from. Can he? I doubt it. But the atheist also has to explain where good comes from. If there is no God, it’s hard to make any sense out of either of those concepts. If there is no God, then there is nothing that is evil or good. You have to have a standard of good and evil that stands outside of us to define what evil and good actually are.
New-atheist advocate Sam Harris believes that one day science will tell us what’s good, what makes us happy, why we love, why it feels good to smile. “These are ultimately questions for a mature science of the mind. If we ever develop such a science,” Harris writes, “most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers.” The definition of what’s good and bad can (and often does) change tomorrow in the random worldview of the rationalist since he defines the parameters of his own worldview. If he wants to include a new behavior and declare it to be moral, he only has to redraw the lines of his worldview. When a group of high level Nazi officers met to confer on how to rid Germany and Europe of the “Jewish Problem,” the issue of how to identify a Jew arose. It was a matter of biology. Science was the determining factor on identifying Jews and how to exterminate them. Their arguments were very reasonable given Hitler’s operating presupposition “that ‘Juda’ was ‘the plague of the world’ and that Germany’s future health depended on eradicating it.”
The biblical understanding of reason and the use of the mind in pursuing rational lines of arguments is quite different from that of the rationalist. “The Christian is not hostile to reason as reason, but to Reason as god. The Christian does not believe in reason [as an ultimate authority]; he believes in God and he uses reason under God.” We were created to use our minds. “Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding” (Prov. 32:9a). The Christian who does not think in terms of God’s Word is described as “senseless and ignorant,” like the “beast” (Ps. 73:22). They act “like unreasoning animals” (2 Pet. 2:12). Reasoning is required of the Christian and non-Christian, but on God’s terms. In this way, “reason can be thought of as a tool — man’s intellectual or mental capacity. Taken in this sense, reason is a gift of God to man, indeed part of the divine image. When God bids His people ‘Come let us reason together’ (Isa. 1:18), we see that, like God, we are capable of rational thought and communication. God has given us our mental abilities to serve and glorify Him. It is part of the greatest commandment of the law that we should” love God with our mind (Matt. 22:37). In general, the church agreed. Take, for example, Tertullian (c. 155–230): “Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason—nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason.”
The Bible tells us that the world is a rational place in which to live. The world runs by fixed and predictable laws. This is why it can be studied, investigated, and analyzed with the assurance that what’s true today will be true tomorrow. Is it any wonder that science, music, and the arts, to name just three areas of study, had their greatest advances in the Christian West where an environment for inquiry and experimentation was cultivated? Loren Eiseley writes in Darwin’s Century that “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. . . . [T]he sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpre ted by rational minds . . . . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
I do have to say, that despite me being a professing Christian, Sam was pretty darned funny! I disagreed with much of what he said and assess that he fell victim to at least one of the fallacies he accused of Prager (response to Prager on “religiously active”), but I respected at least his achievement of a cogent argument. The problem, of course, is that he was so overly dismissive of religious beliefs that he lends himself to be incredulous. Of course, I can overlook that because I thought he was so humorous. If only all atheist were so funny!
Amen!!
You’re a generic apologist who nothing more than to shun all biblical quotes off as “taken out of context.”
I’m sure that we are all mature adults here, so I’d like to point out that this is not some contest to see who knows more about the Bible. However, I’ve been studying the Holy Book regularly for the past three years, and I know what context passages are meant to be taken in. These passages do, in fact, single women out as inferior to men – I don’t quite see how you could even attempt to refute such a fact.
I never claimed that the Bible called women the scum of the earth or said that husbands should beat them. I claimed that the Bible called women inferior to men.
“Do you suggest that women should be allowed to run around in bikinis at church?”
No. But you should be careful to avoid the straw man argument. That has nothing to do with “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
That passage is not taken out of context, no matter how you try to misrepresent the quote. Church is meant to be a place of leadership, and the Bible considers it a disgrace for women to assume any kind of leadership whatsoever.
The Bible claims that women must let their husbands rule over them as a punishment for falling first into original sin.
Genesis 3:16 “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’”
Make no mistake about it – women are to be submissive to their husbands. Just because something quoted from the Bible sounds bad does not mean that it was quoted “out of context”. No where in my rant have I claimed that the Bible encourages men to abuse (physically or emotionally) their wives.
“And husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her.”
Most definitely. This, however, does not change a thing about my stance. “For God so loved the world” does not mean that the world is equal with God, and you know it. Love is a universal command by the Bible, as everyone is supposed to love everyone. This, however, does not change the patriarchical hierarchy that God allegedly set up among his followers.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ [Christ loves man, but Christ is superior to man], and the head of the woman is man [man loves woman, but man is superior to woman], and the head of Christ is God [God the father loves Christ the son, but God the father is superior to Christ the son] . . . For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
I know of the instructions that Paul gave to man, and although they do give a code for how to live, they do not speak of inferiority to anyone by God and Christ. Men are to have more responsibilities (just as God has responsibilities over men) and women are to submit to men. I never called women scum, so you need a lesson in keeping ME in context. The point is that Judeo-Christian tradition had nothing to do with anything but the perpetuation of female inferiority – Christians were the ones crying out that God made a role for women and that they should always adhere to that role. The next generations of those same radicals can be seen today holding up anti-homosexual signs that say things like “Turn or Burn” and “God Hates Fags”. Many modern day Christian anti-feminists even blame 9/11 on homosexuals and feminists while they quote passages from the Bible that are similar to the ones I quoted.
EVEN if everything you say is true (which I don’t think it is, but that doesn’t matter), how does this in any way prove that God exists?
All it can possibly hope to prove is that people who believe in God are nicer than people who don’t. (I don’t agree with that either, but also doesn’t matter for this argument.)
And it can’t even prove that, because you haven’t proven a cause and effect, just given questionable examples. For instance, your “more people were killed in the last century” argument – there were more people alive in the last century so all things being equal, you would expect more people to be killed. Factor in there were more powerful weapons allowing the same number of “killers” to kill more people more quickly, and your argument is just pointless.
But again, it doesn’t really matter because your argument completely misses the question of the existence of God in the first place.
This debate was centered around the question, “Why are atheists so angry?” These two men never really answered the question, so let me make an attempt. If the word “god” refers to the ultimate power in the universe, then I believe the “god” of the athiest is the scientific method. God has built within man a great desire to prove things. That is why faith is so difficult, and why the scientific method is so desirable. Unfortunately, there are so many areas of life which can not be proved by scientific method (i.e. Why do I love my wife? Why do some children misbehave? etc.) These areas are those areas that deal with the spirit of man. It is in the area of spiritual matters where those whose “god” is scientific method become so frustrated. Why are they so frustrated? Because this is the area in which their “god” – scientific method – utterly fails, and the Creator God of the theist prevails, as it was He who created the spiritual side of man. Only by a greater understanding of the creator God, can an individual better understand the spiritual side of man
It is the failure of the scientific method to explain the spiritual side of man that makes atheists angry.
First, to the parent with the sick child. I do not (yet) have children of my own, so I cannot begin to know what you went through. And with all respect, I hope you understand when I say I hope I never do have to know what you went through.
That being said, I did lose my mother to a heart attack when she was 49. I saw her at midnight and she was fine, then at 3:00 in the morning my father woke me up to tell me he had called the ambulance because of the heart attack. She was never alive after that.
The whole thing hurt immensely, as I’m sure everyone can imagine. For me, I found the watershed moment of coming to grips while watching a nature documentary about the African savannah. A lion killed a zebra. The zebra died because that is nature. Nature is both beautiful and cruel – at least as we humans interpret it. But in fact, there is no love nor is there malice. It’s just the way it is. My mother didn’t die for a reason – she wasn’t being punished, nor was I being tested. It’s just the way life is. I could either look for an excuse or accept the reality and move on. I chose to move on – of course with the love and support of my family and friends.
Please understand I’m not saying that you or anyone should be the same as me. I’m only saying in times of sorrow, not everyone needs to look elsewhere for solace. Some look at the loss as part of the highs and the lows that is reality and continue living to create more highs.
Now, to the author who wrote “What atheists have to account for…” on November 27, 2006 – 8:00pm:
In my opinion, you have made the strongest arguments yet of anyone arguing for the existence of God. Thank you. It is borderline painful to read so many seriously flawed arguments for the existence of God. But I think there are a couple of things you are missing and I’m naive enough to think that I can do an accurate enough job to explain them properly, so I’ll give it a shot.
You write, “If there is no God (or any other supernatural being or beings that infuse the universe with meaning and morality), then you cannot have any sort of objectively based moral code.” I agree. There is no *objective* moral code. I argue that a moral code is firmly based on a time and a place. Killing is a terrible thing under almost every circumstance. But I say almost because there are times when killing is necessary. We can argue about what those times are, but what’s important is to note only that the moral code regarding killing another is relative to the situation. Other things like rape are never justified – at least not in any situation I can conceive, but I reserve the right to be wrong.
At times in history, slavery was accepted – even endorsed by the Bible (and other holy books). Does that make everyone immoral who didn’t actively condemn slavery? I argue that they aren’t. They were living in their reality. It is unfair for us to judge them on our morals as it was a different time and place. I am grateful that our morals have evolved since then and the idea of slavery now sickens us. However, I would think that at some point in the future, history will look at us in 2006 with disgust at some of our practices – global warming is the issue that springs to mind, but over population might also be one. I don’t think it would be fair for future generations to think that everyone who drives an SUV in 2006 is immoral, nor anyone with more than two children. It may be that neither of these is important to future generations, but surely there is something that we justify now that will not fit into future moral codes.
Now, to answer WHY these things are wrong. We are primates. Primates are social animals. I read somewhere that “a lone primate is a dead primate.” We have to get along with the people around us. If we kill or rape those around us, they are likely to do the same to us. I don’t want to be raped or killed, so I don’t do it to others. This pattern of behaviour is so ingrained in us though natural selection (those who regularly kill others are either VERY successful or very dead) that it has become instinct – or at least something we learn at an early age. (As an example, I was told that as a baby, I was a biter – until a little girl a couple of years older than me bit me back and I “realized” that it’s better to neither bite nor be bitten.)
You write, “The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent.”
I agree with the first half (i.e. no transcendent moral code, only temporary pragmatic ones) but I disagree that these temporary morals (temporary is an overstatement, but the basis is accurate) do not have an objective basis. Quite the opposite, because they are based on the current reality, they are very objective. I also disagree that I “pretend” that human morals are transcendent. I think killing is terrible, but if it was a choice between going to war to defend my freedom or being enslaved, I could see killing another under that circumstance.
You further write, “In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.”
I disagree with this too. Whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on human perception, not on some divine doctrine. I think it’s important to note that I am using the word “spirit” as “free will” not “soul”. I think there are a great many things that are good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit because, as a human, I share the same evolutionary past as you and other humans that admire these qualities.
You write, “And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person’s life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist must either give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless.”
This is the argument that you make that is the hardest to counter. Perhaps you are very close to being correct. I very much agree that good and evil ultimately have no meaning – at least not the innate meaning that so often accompanies these terms. Good and evil are human constructs. But from nature’s point of view, they are neutral.
In a sense, it doesn’t matter if the universe exists or not. But it does exist without a reason why in terms of a moral justification. (I am sure there is an answer to “why” in terms of a scientific explanation, but I am also sure I don’t know it. I think it is accurate to say that no one knows it yet, but many smart, dedicated people are rationally searching for the answer.)
I very much disagree with your conclusion that life (for an atheist) is ultimately meaningless. The strict answer meaning of life is the same for all organisms – from bacteria to oak to mushroom to human – is to procreate and continue the species (well, genes really, but the point here is the same). But I assume you are also talking about the “greater” meaning. I answer that because we have evolved intelligence, reason, imagination, and a host of other more or less unique traits, we are built to enjoy their use. Humans cannot survive “in the wild” solely based on the physical abilities of our bodies. Pound for pound, humans are the slowest, more awkward terrestrial mammal. We have become as successful as we are because we have this big, energy sucking brain in our heads which allows “higher” functions such as reason that we must use to survive. Like having sex and eating fatty foods, we have evolved to “enjoy” the use of something that is beneficial to us. This is not too far from your “deer / water / instinct” example. We instinctively think.
Which leads me to your next point: “The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair…” Not so – my response is to create my own meaning. The proverbial “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” I create my own meaning for my life by using the thought, reason, imagination, etc. that evolution has endowed me with. I do not look for someone else to provide it to me (supernatural or otherwise). I’m very happy to engage in discussion to see what you have to offer, then I take it, process it, see if it makes sense, and incorporate it into my life if it does.
Which leads me to your last point: “the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith.”
As I said above, life is not meaningless – we are here to procreate and use our big brains. And if we do too much of the first and not enough of the second, your prophecy might just come true as we’ll destroy our children’s future with illogical, selfish, blind faith. (Sorry to have to steal your final two words, but nothing else will do.)
I have a lot of questions I would like to ask theists, so perhaps you can answer me this: What would it take for you to not believe in a god? Is there (theoretically) something I could show you to make you not believe? There are many, many things you could show me to make me believe in a god – pretty much anything the Bible claims Jesus did – water into wine, curing diseases with a touch, coming back to life days after dying, born to a virgin, etc. (Please don’t tell me these things have already happened. I don’t want to get into mythology as fact.)
Morgan
“If God created the universe, what created God? To say that God is uncreated simply begs the question. Why can’t I say that the cosmos is uncreated?”
Some comments on this statement from Sam Harris:
- We have learned that Mr. Harris is pursuing a degree in biology. However, the above statement betrays a lack of scientific knowledge on his part concerning physics and astronomy. In those scientific disciplines, the evidence continues to accumulate that the universe is finite in extent – it has finite boundaries in both space and time. Apparently everything in it (including itself) decays.
- Therefore, our universe must necessarily have been “created” or instantiated within some other enclosing system, either physical or metaphysical (beyond physical). It is illogical to say that the cosmos is uncreated.
- Since the scientific method is limited to operate within the boundaries of our universe, it will never be able to provide information about the properties of the enclosing system.
- Therefore, through the operation of science, we have discovered that science can never provide a complete description of physical reality.
- It is reasonable for a rational person to seek a complete description of physical reality – a complete worldview.
- Therefore, it is not unreasonable for otherwise rational scientists to seek a complete description of physical reality, even though nonscientific knowledge is required, and even though that nonscientific knowledge can never be verified in a laboratory.
- At this point, many people, including presumably many scientists, will “throw in the towel” and adopt an agnostic stance, saying in effect, “I prefer not to think about this.”
- A few people (atheists) will adopt an arguably unreasonable stance, and say “I will never accept anything but scientific statements, even if science can’t (and never will be able to) explain some of the things around me.”
- Many other people will adopt a nonscientific belief system to “fill the reality gap” in pursuit of a complete worldview. They will complete their worldview by finding a system of nonscientific thought promulgated by an individual or a religion. Arguably, there is a human instinct to seek a complete worldview. One can say therefore that man is a “religious” animal.
- Now, a fair question is “where did the promulgator of a particular nonscientific belief system (religion) get information?” A good question, since science itself can’t get any information outside this universe. Is this information just made up?
- The great monotheistic religions, building on Jewish thought, get around this by saying that the information was injected from outside our universe from the system that encloses our universe. The information was “revealed”.
- The Jewish revealed information starts with the messenger identifying itself as “I am who am” – which tends to indicate that the enclosing system where the messenger exists is meta-physical (beyond physical) in that it does not exist in time or space, and that the messenger is uncreated. The Jews name this messenger or being “God”.
- How does the person hearing this revealed information judge its veracity? On the authority of the messenger, or the authority of the parties relaying the message.
- This is of course the very means that nearly all individuals get their knowledge – even Sam Harris, in pursuing a degree in biology, is getting 99.9% of his biological scientific knowledge on authority from teachers and textbooks. He accepts the scientific credentials of those parties.
- What is the authority of the Jewish prophets, and Jesus Christ, who is to many, the final Jewish prophet? To assess the authority of a messenger, you check his credentials, which involves getting to know him or her.
- Jesus apparently said that if are willing to get to know him (even though he is not physically present at this time), that he will give you – person-to-person – absolute assurance that his credentials are bona fide (“I am the way, the truth, and the life”). How this happens is a mystery, but billions of people throughout history have accepted his credentials.
- This Christian variation of the Jewish solution has the advantage of being ontologically and methodologically complete, with the caveat of the above-mentioned final step, which involves a person-to-“person” transaction with a messenger who is currently beyond this universe. If this is criticized as unscientific, note that we left the realm of science behind at the beginning of this argument.
- So in summary, the choices are (A) Decide to live in willful ignorance (atheism), which is unreasonable; (B) Not think about it (agnosticism), which is lazy; (C) Accept a body of revealed knowledge to complete your worldview (theism), at the cost of accepting the credentials of some individual or religion, which requires faith. The only easy out is (B).
Your comment about this debate being sad is pretty darn patronizing. If we all just believed what you said would make you happy and the world a dandy place, is that it? I wanted to comment on some of the emoted statements you presented above:
“Atheism is a default position, and we are all atheist in regards to many religions.”
That’s a bit confused. “Atheism” means believing that there is no God. How can all then be atheists in regards to many religions, if some believe in God, however different their image of him might be? What makes atheism the default position? It might be for you, but there’s 6 billion plus people here.
“The burden of proof is given to he/she that makes claim of something other than what is proven by the scientific method.”
Science is not the ultimate gauge. It is only our incomplete picture of a much greater Universe that we’re a part of. Until science has ALL the answers, it shouldn’t be used as a crutch by those who deny the existence of a greater power. We are a long way from figuring everything out scientifically, and it cannot explain everything. And I have a Master’s degree in engineering with plenty of physics & chemistry to know that to be a fact.
“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.
Hi,
Have you ever spent time with a theist? First of all, a theist is a person who believes in a god of some sort, but you can’t generalize a Muslim terrorist believing in receiving 72 virgins for murder to represents all people of faith! An agnostic is a theist – believing in a God of some sort.
The last century was the most secular so far, and more people were killed by secular tyrants than by any religion ever. As a matter of fact, more people were killed, period.
Your claim “A theist believes that a life of piety is sufficient to earn them the ultimate reward (like 70 virgins) and as such is not obligated to partake of anything except their religion.” Where is your proof that any or all theists live their lives like this? Here’s an example of the Christians: The Bible has specific commands to bless the poor, the widows and all those who are vulnerable. Jesus went as far as to say that those who don’t will not get to heaven.
Here’s the latest stats from the US: Those active in a religious way are 25% more probable to give to charity than those who are not. They also outgive the non-religious by 4 times.
Your other factual error is in stem cell research. There was never a policy to ban it by the government. Private parties and states have full freedom to raise and use funds in any which way they want. The government just stated that it will not give tax dollars into stem cell research that uses new lines. It even allows the use of existing lines for research. Also, many scientists are saying that the true potential of stem cell research is way smaller than the hype. I’m not discounting the research, I’m saying that it’s probably not an end-all cure for cancer. We would need one, though.
You have to back up your claims by facts, not by feelings…
I think it’s sad that we must still debate this.
1. We must come to terms with our equally incompatible religions.
2. Atheism is a default position, and we are all atheist in regards to many religions.
3. The burden of proof is given to he/she that makes claim of something other than what is proven by the scientific method.
4. The existence of god can not be proven. Atheism doesn’t need to be.
To clear something else up: Anyone claiming evolution is based on coincidence doesn’t know what evolution means, and the assumption that it is random is even dismissed by Darwin.
There is no difference between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, other than the fact that it was a different myth. They are equally unfounded, and should be equally critizied.
For Sam Harris’s sake it is Moroni not Maroni and it wasn’t the “Final Revelation.” That is confusing Muhammed and J Smith. But as for evidence what about 3 men seeing an angel come down from the sky and show them the gold plates and tell them it was from God? And everyone of them claimed it was true to their death beds even after having a falling out with Joseph Smith? How about 12 other men seeing those gold plates and not one of them denying it to his death bed? Is that evidence? What about the purported translation of those plates (the Book of Mormon) that was analysed by a group of objective linquists who determined that it was most likely a translation of a multi author manuscript by an author of limited vocabulary (Joseph Smith). These things are evidence aren’t they?
Collin Simonsen
I would like to make a some points regarding atheism that I rarely (or never) see addressed in discussions such as this. Firstly, atheists do not declare life to be meaningless. I would argue that matters are quite the opposite. A theist believes that a life of piety is sufficient to earn them the ultimate reward (like 70 virgins) and as such is not obligated to partake of anything except their religion. On the other hand, an atheist must accept that the little time given to him is all there is and so he must make as much of his life as possible. An atheist must account for every moment of his life. The only concern of a theists is getting into heaven.
Secondly, atheism is not equivalent to lack of moral character. The very specific conflicts that I have with theists pertain to stem cell research, evolutionary theory and science education, other scientific matters in general, and religious wars. What men like Sam Harris hope to achieve by engaging in debates such as this are, for example, an end to ridiculous policies such as government bans on stem cell research, with the ultimate goal of ending human suffering. What could possibly be more moral than that? Not ending human suffering?
thank god I was born in secular Europe !! we had had this kind of discussions in the XVIII century, and we won the battle ;-) good luck !!
It would be interesting to know more about the nature of beliefs and how they can change (both for born again christians and those losing their faith) as I believe (sic) that this is one of the central problems that faces man.
Never mind changing the beliefs of others. As an individual I can not even easily change my own irrational beliefs that lead to me being anxious in certain situations even though I know on a rational level that the belief or world view that causes my behaviour is false and counter-productive.
It seems to me that religion shares many characteristics with phobias in that there is rational thought on one level and a deeper belief that you actions and thoughts must somehow be consistent with on a lower level, no matter how much they confict with reason. To gain temporary control over my anxiety I have to struggle to tell myself that I have no reason to be fearful. I just wonder if Prager and those like him are not trying hard enough to see that they have no reason to fear the lack of god.
If we could unlock this and more easily changes our beliefs I believe on one hand the world world have far less fear of irrational things that lead men to do the most awful things and yet the threat of having our beliefs more easily controled by those that master this power.
Hello.
Your Bible quotes beg for comments, and I’m not the one who you commented on earlier.
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.
Example: All the above quotes regarding the dress and conduct of women were written by Paul in a letter directly to specific churches, where women were behaving inappropriately and in relation to the societal norms of the times. Just as men were required to behave well, women were, too. The Bible is full of warnings and correction to men, and this is one of the few spots where women are corrected directly. Do you suggest that women should be allowed to run around in bikinis at church? That’s what their conduct was analogous at the time… The message was modesty for all, not suppressing women.
It is easy to find justification to any thought by quoting out of context. Understanding the Bible takes understanding the context as well as the meaning of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. It also takes reading the whole Bible, not just parts of it.
Hope this helps you to sooth your distaste for the way the Bible instructs us to treat women. Here is another quote from the New Testament: “And husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her.” In other words, the same Paul told men to love their wives and sacrifice themselves for them. In this way, it’s a union of mutual love and respect. The key is to think that the other one is more important than self, also known as selflessness.
I will try to be brief in responding to the above comments. Sam did not have time to cite the many biblical commands by “higher powers” that nearly everyone today would consider highly immoral- including killing your own child or wife for various transgressions which today illicit a time-out or slammed door. Morality defined by humans means so much more, just because it is not forced upon us by an outside “authority”. Doing good because it helps people or animals or nature is pure goodness. Doing it because you fear for your own safety in an “afterlife” seems more selfish than altruistic.
Appreciating beauty in nature is also unconnected to belief in a creator. I am a nature photographer. I also find the concepts of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. fascinating, and worthy of study because we don’t yet have all of the answers. If your answer is “God created it all and watches over it”, that kind of takes the fun out of the searching for knowledge.
For the record, I come from a Jewish family, but found it depressing and sexist (for starters). They are clever tho- you can still be “Jewish” and do nothing about it. Guess I’m in trouble either way- if the anti-semites come around, they probably won’t be too fond of atheists either…
I believe that Sam Harris decidedly came out on top in the argument, but neither side presented anything that was bogus with this one exception. Prager claims that Judeo-Christianity is responsible for equal rights. I open my Bible and I don’t even know where to start. Apologists like to claim that the Old Testament counts for nothing, so let’s have a look at the New Testament:
Ephesians 5:24 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God . . . For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Paul’s epistle, New Testament)
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in silence and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be restored through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Now what, exactly, was it about Christianity that influenced women’s rights? If my member is serving me correctly, Susan B. Anthony was a pretty staunch atheist.
Prager's closing paraphrase of Milton Steinberg states that the onus is on the atheist to account for the existence of everything apart from evil. In his Evil and the God of Love, John Hick, himself a devout Christian, refutes this argument decisively:
"[T]he atheist is not obliged to explain the universe at all. He can simply accept it at its face value as an enormously complex natural fact. It constitutes an environment that is for him partly pleasant, partly unpleasant, and partly neutral; but he need find no special intellectual problem either in its pleasantness or in its unpleasantness."
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.
Thanks for the comments, keeps things alive!
First, my comment about personal beliefs just intended to put both sides on the same line, not to change the topic of the debate. I wanted to point out that both the atheist and the believer come in from a faith standpoint. So, I indeed appreciate both sides of the argument and the people who hold such views. So, I state it again: Both the atheist and the believer have made up their minds. One side believes in God and the other denies God. This does not negate in any way the importance of understanding and respecting the way the other side thinks.
Second, I was commenting on “the human mind is quite adept at creating delusions in stressful situations”. In context it was an answer to the hospitalized child’s parent, and it does not sound like a “perfectly reasoned argument” but a rejection of the parent’s right to believe in God, whether the situation is stressful or not. As the parent confessed that they trusted God, the comment stated “delusions in stressful situations.” How would an atheist like such a comment about their “faith?”
Third, our debate does not prove the existence of God either way. If he exists, he is a being outside of us, and our writing doesn’t do anything either way…
Thanks for the challenges, appreciate your response!
It is utterly bizarre how the believer is so easily let off the hook for accounting for the existence of God in the first place. Once you manage to believe in God, then he’s magically exempt from being accounted for? If one thinks the atheist has to account for “everything else”, then one should accept that the theist has to account for God.
The theist can account for God precisely by asking the atheist to account for “everything else”. Or by doing it for him. Allow me:
I cannot offer any direct evidence for God’s existence but the circumstantial case is extremely compelling when viewed in light of the bleak ramifications of there being no God.
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. You can either make up a moral code that everyone knows is a fairy tale and requires the same suspension of disbelief required to watch a movie or play, or you can be honest and descend into a hellish swirl of nihilism and relativism. But you cannot both say there is no God and then declare any acts — including the acts of Islamo-terrorists — wrong because you are left with only opinion and taste, which, without a God to create a transcendent moral code, are by definition arbitrary.
Why is rape or murder or the sexual torture of infants or genocide – or any other crime that the average atheist and theist would agree is heinous – wrong? If all we have is amoral atoms and dust, then all of these “crimes” are just atoms and dust rearranging other atoms and dust. Where is the crime? For that matter what IS a crime — and who decides? To what authority do these atoms and subatomic particles appeal to determine which random movements of other atoms and subatomic particles are criminal?
This is the very thing Sam Harris and friends are never asked to account for. Harris has a problem with Islamo-fascism and all those beheadings and massacres but never tells us why. He apparently assumes that because the average atheist and theist agree that the things the Islamic terrorists do are bad that he doesn’t need to explain why they are bad. Faulty logic in light of this topic. But whatever – so why are they bad? Because Sam Harris says so? The atheist cannot believe in a transcendent moral code, he can believe only in a series of temporarily pragmatic ones that have no objective basis while pretending whichever one is current is transcendent. In other words, if the atheist is to be taken seriously, whatever is good or great or noble or beautiful about the human spirit is all based on a lie, because these very concepts are themselves lies.
And then finally, the atheist has to account for why anything even matters at all. What difference does it make if a child lives a full life and dies in bed at 100 or if the same child is thrown in a dumpster in a Boston alley moments after birth to slowly freeze to death? You might answer because the child might grow up to make a difference in someone else’s life, find a cure for a disease. Then the question is why should a difference in this other person’s life be made? Why should this or any disease be cured? To save humanity? To relieve suffering? Why should humanity be saved? Why should suffering be relieved? Why should there be any ‘should’ at all? Why does it even matter whether the universe exists or not? These are the questions that the atheist must either give a compelling answer for or admit that if there is no God, acts of good and evil ultimately have no meaning at all because life itself is ultimately meaningless.
The only rational response to the discovery that life is meaningless is despair, which cannot be reasonably relieved from an honest and logic-oriented mind without knowledge (or at least a knowledge-based hope) that this scenario is false. Atheists argue as if there is no real difference between a human being and a computer, by which I mean that there is no other form of knowledge than the purely academic. Yet we see a very different knowledge in all the other life forms around us – instinct. A deer in the wood knows it needs to drink water. It doesn’t know why. Yes, we humans know why but that is irrelevant to the point because the deer doesn’t know why. It only knows that it needs to drink this stuff (water) or it will start to feel really bad, and – to the point – it knows this from birth without having to consult a book on biology or read a periodic table or go to college or to engage in any sort of logical/cognitive thinking at all. It just knows, and this ‘just knowing’ allows it to live.
I submit that humans likewise have instincts, to which any biologist would agree, but where I’m sure most part company with me is that these instincts include a homing device for God. There has been only one civilization that was based on the belief that there is only physical matter, and it lasted only 74 years – the Soviet Union. The rest all believed in God or gods or some form or plane of existence beyond the purely physical, and that both the physical and the spiritual planes were infused with transcendent meaning and morality.
If this high a 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 an a priori assumption that there is no God.
This is what Dennis meant when he said that the believer has to explain some very difficult things, that it is not as difficult as explaining what the unbeliever has to explain. The believer has to account for why God allows unjust things to happen; the unbeliever has to declare that life is meaningless but that we must pretend otherwise so we can continue to enthusiastically rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate blind faith.
“All of you have made up your minds about whether God exists or not, and your comments are based on your personal beliefs!”
Um, isn’t that exactly what this discussion (argument, if you prefer) is about? Should people be using impersonal beliefs, or be arguing without any definitive mindset? Even agnostics have a fairly definitive mindset and I’m sure they could argue theirs quite well.
Even though it doesn’t seem likely that any side will change its mind, it is still important to understand the perspectives of others – the worst thing that could happen is it could strengthen your own views on the matter.
Oh, also, you really misinterpreted that “other person’s comment”. It was clearly a very honest and mature response to the affected parent’s comment. He/she was simply putting forth his/her own opinion on the subject matter, just as the parent did (and I’m sure that the parent wasn’t dumb enough to not realize that there would be some sort of response to their emotional comment about their child’s experience as you suggest).
I believe that these last statements have effectively proven that God, in fact, does not exist. Er, something…
ps. That really does suck about your child, I’m really sorry that you had to go through that.
I am sorry that the last comment (people,people…) attacked a perfectly reasoned argument. If one posts on these forums, then we must respect them enough to give them honest opinions. This is a hard set of circumstances. But this kind of openness can bring us all to a greater understanding of the many issues raised. If we believe in heaven and hell, then we have to face the fact that our children might not. This leads to what one guy has suggested. namely that our lift marked ‘up’ watches their lift marked ‘down’. Are we really supposed to ascend smilingly into the arms of God knowing the fate of our children? Are we to discuss it with fellow believers for eternity?
This is a critical argument in the heaven hell debate. It does not make sense. My love to you and your child.
Am I the only one that thinks that these comments are made by people with closed minds? All of you have made up your minds about whether God exists or not, and your comments are based on your personal beliefs! 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. The atheists don’t have rational thinking cornered, and neither do people of faith.
On another note, it’s flat out dangerous to say that Stalin’s philosophy had anything to do with Christianity. It does not matter what he or the philosophy he represented said, but what matters is what he DID! That’s what we have to live with, and Soviet Union died in the nineties with the blood of millions on its hands. Those people were killed unjustly for a sick ideology that had nothing to do with Christianity. That faith doesn’t only state it’s philosophy. If you ever read the New Testament, you would find several commands to live it out, as well. It goes as far as saying that if you don’t live it, you don’t have it.
Lastly, I am so sorry for the one commentator’s child having been seriously ill, and I am sickened by the other person’s comment about creating delusions in stressful situations. I can only assume that the person has never had their back against the wall like you have. I hope and pray that your child is well and happy.
“The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
It seems that the people who would believe the above statement would also be fans of Dennis. Unfortunately (for everybody), this statement is not very intelligent. For example, wouldn’t the believer also have to account for how God came about? (You could just “believe” that God always existed or that God is “uncreated”–whatever that means–but that does not give any good reason for an existance of God.)
Belief is a settlment that avoids responsibility to rationally answer the great existential questions. Rationalism is making progress, however. New discoveries force god from his hiding place to retreat to areas where his great kingdom of mystery still exists. God can only be found in mystery that does not include the cosmos He incorrectly informed us about. Where are You hiding now?
If Prager met Immanuel Kant he would still not see his irrationality. Prager believes development of a logical reticulate is all that is required to form logical certainty as it applies to religion. What he dosen’t understand is that logical reticulates can form on any set of assumptions and appear beautiful. It is a false rationalism he will never see because he’s too invested. His reticulate can be an interesting taspetry of logic on a level but is formed on assumptions that cannot be proven and, hence, without foundation.
Mr. Harris, thanks for your insightful arguments and leadership on this important subject. I’ve read some of your books and am delighted to learn of your views regarding the Islamic threat.
“the belief in a spiritual being gives one comfort”
And it doesn’t matter that god doesn’t exist, the human mind is quite adept at creating delusions to help us cope with highly stressful situations.
I hope your child pulled through ok.
Irrelevant. IQ and wisdom are not the same thing. IQ is a sharp knife. Wisdom is (in part) about the most effective use of the knife you have. A sharp knife in the hand of a man without wisdom will do far greater damage than a dull knife in the hand of the same man.
Having a higher IQ does not automatically confer wisdom on anyone. In fact, it is quite the opposite for anyone who believes this is so: it means only that you have the capacity to be an even greater fool. I would bet that the overwhelming majority of dictators have/had above-average IQ’s.
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 think that it’s undeniable that the framework for the Marxist political view even seems Christianized. A glorious revolution that redeems mankind and brings justice, peace, and equality? Redeams the fall of mankind? They might have been atheists, but the framework for their ideas, I believe in the least, is somewhat Christianized.
For the thinking student (consider the frame of reference):
Sam Harris does not exist
I give Harris a 40 point IQ spread over Prager
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.
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.
Wow, I’m sorry to inform you of this, but this was such a one sided debate it wasn’t even funny. Harris owned Prager with clear, rational arguments, while Prager… well, he talked a lot and gave lots of anecdotes without making any cogent arguments.
Great comment, Theo! It was quite frustrating to read Prager’s contributions to the debate, so often did he miss points, beg questions, use vague language, and so on. I’ve seen this sort of thing enough from others too that it makes me suspicious that, at least subconsciously, religious apologists have partitioned their minds so that they can use tortured reasoning whenever they need to protect their faith-based beliefs, but relatively straightforward reasoning otherwise – and not notice that they are doing it! I’d love to see some studies along these lines, tracking degrees of mis-reasoning to various kinds of beliefs.
One comment on Prager’s final 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.”
It is utterly bizarre how the believer is so easily let off the hook for accounting for the existence of God in the first place. Once you manage to believe in God, then he’s magically exempt from being accounted for? If one thinks the atheist has to account for “everything else”, then one should accept that the theist has to account for God.
-godma
That takes some serious balls to give religion credit for that.
And taking credit for the scientific method? Ummmm…..that’s just downright bizarre.
Dennis Prager writes "If we both acknowledge that without faith in God humanity will self destruct." If I'm reading Sam correctly, I think he would argue that even with a faith in God humanity will self destruct.
I ended up here as the result of one of the designers asking for reviews of their work, and got sucked into this article. There's no better compliment to design when your focus is drawn straight to the content, and I've browsed through the other articles and really like the way you guys are addressing your subject.
That said, I have to admit, this exchange was great entertainment, but a very poor debate. My immediate reaction was to yell "Stop it! You guys are what's wrong with belief!" Pitting two polarized ideologues against one another isn't useful; in this instance, they were so clearly convinced of the other's stupidity that they connected only very superficially with the opposing view.
It took the west almost 2 thousand years since Jesus to finally renounce slavery and to begin to give equal rights to women. Still it has not yet come to accept homosexuality. How long will that take? Christianity has been in frequent opposition to scientific progress and even today has a hard time accepting evolutionary theory both biologically and cosmologically.Perhaps attributing our progress in these areas is unrelated to the "grandness" of Christianity.
Dennis Prager praises Judeo-Christian civilization for “discovering science and the scientific method, affirming rationality” (among other very controversial claims) but insists on using fallacious logic. He writes
“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.”
That’s true, of course. Later Dennis makes the odd assertion that the following conclusion is not “fair-minded”:
“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.”
That’s a very simple statement and it is obviously true. It can be true or wrong. There’s nothing in between like “fair-minded”. It’s elementary logic. The final question is:
“Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?”
There is no such thing. Everything that is necessary for the survival of humanity exists obviously. So it is perfectly correct to make once again the trivial conclusion: If belief in God is necessary for the survival of humanity then belief in God exists. By what reasoning does this suggest the existence of God?
Using “scientific methods” (those by Karl Popper) to decide whether the hypothesis of the existence of God is rational we must look for statements that are falsifiable by observation. If one of these statements turns out to be false then the theory is disproved. If there are many such statements that pass the test, then the theory is considered to be useful. Judeo-Christianity including the Holy Scriptures can be falsified easily. Dropping all falsified statements of Judeo-Christianity will leave nothing that survives Ockham’s razor. So science won’t help to justify the existence of God, no matter how many scientist are cited that believe in God.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!