1. Comment #81259 by Kell on October 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Religion is not incompatible with science; "non-overlapping magisteria."

ETA:

In relation to the recent D'Souza debate; the claim that modernity - science, human-rights, abolition of slavery etc. - developed from christianity.

Other Comments by Kell

2. Comment #81265 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Science is almost totally incompatible with religion. I say "almost," but I do not wish that weasel word to be construed as weakness. The only point of compatibility is that there are well-meaning, honest people on both sides who are genuinely and deeply concerned with discovering the truth about this wonderful world. That having been said, there is no actual compatibility between science and religion. --Peter Atkins

I am always curious to see how failed prayer studies are better explained by theism, than atheism. Or how this is explained by theism... http://youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0

And somehow, magic just never seemed like a very good explanation for anything.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

3. Comment #81267 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 pm

putting heads together as such has got to be a good idea. this could be a very interesting thread/section.

once a debate point section has dozens of 'debate retorts' in then perhaps posters can start to use other posts to add/modify their own, eventually we many find a very strong debate point that has 'evolved' quite naturally from the input of maybe dozens of people, they will of course be continually modified to chase the othersides debate points, sounds a bit like the red queen here but hopefully alice will get ahead!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

4. Comment #81268 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Well, there are the common big ones like the many varieties of argument from design, first cause etc.

There's also the problem of evil - something I've debated at some depth.

"Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists"

"That's not my God you're criticising"

"Why do you care about something you claim not to believe in?"

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

5. Comment #81284 by Buddha on October 24, 2007 at 2:31 pm

"It's not possible to be a true scientist and believe in the supernatural"

This was Craig Venter's response to being asked if he was religious on BBC Newsnight the other day in a piece about his work on synthetic lifeforms.

Other Comments by Buddha

6. Comment #81289 by Horwood Beer-Master on October 24, 2007 at 2:39 pm

The question (in one form or other) of the lack of transitional forms keeps coming up from time to time in discussions of evolution, I can think of no better response to this than the following extract from 'Climbing Mount Improbable' which I've used before in this thread,
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13077

"There is a supremely banal reason why transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level. I can explain it best with an analogy. Children turn gradually and continuously into adults but, for legal purposes, the age of majority is taken to be a particular birthday, often the eighteenth. It would therefore be possible to say, 'there are 55 million people in Britain but not one of them is intermediate between non-voter and voter.' Just as, for legal purposes, a juvenile changes into a voter as midnight strikes on the eighteenth birthday, so zoologists always insist on classifying a specimen as in one species or another. If a specimen is intermediate in actual form (as many are) zoologists' legalistic conventions still force them to jump one way or the other when naming it. Therefore the creationists' claim that there are no intermediates has to be true by definition at the species level, but it has no implications about the real world - only implications about zoologists' naming conventions."

Other Comments by Horwood Beer-Master

7. Comment #81293 by johntfiorito on October 24, 2007 at 2:42 pm

In the D'Sousa debate, said debator claims that both he and scientists make faith claims...which is a true statement in some regards. The concept in the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norm Giesler and Turuk takes this position for an entire 300 page book.

BUT

The key difference is that a religious person who takes a faith position is not allowed to change the position while the scientist, if his faith in a, say "a singularity" before the big bang, turns out to be wrong via evidence, he can change his position with no burning at the stake. Key difference I think.

Other Comments by johntfiorito

8. Comment #81300 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 2:53 pm

decius.

I believe that we need to debate further the knighthood issue. I would much appreciate if Richard could clarify his position, in order to settle the controversy which has ensued between those who take a dim view on the matter and the others

im not sure the RD knighhood needs to be in the debate section, i think RD suggested the debate section for the core issues, religion,evo etc, im not sure RD would even include his possible knighthood as of remote importance in comparison.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

9. Comment #81302 by Martini on October 24, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I love this idea!

It would be nice to have a place to go when debating theists (even on other message boards) and have well structured retorts already made for common theist arguments.

One I encounter a lot:

Being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist, or the less aggressive version: Atheism is a belief too, which sometimes dwindles down to: Atheism is not lack of belief in God, it is the belief that God doesn't exist.

Another:

Why do you atheists care so much about what others believe when it can't affect you?

Also:

How can everything on Earth being so perfect for life all just be a coincidence?

Other Comments by Martini

10. Comment #81303 by Matt7895 on October 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm

I think weaknesses in evolution (gaps in fossil record, formation of the eye, bacteria with one protein taken out doesn't work, etc) is a major debate point and Josh if you could ask Richard if you could use his 'Evolution of the eye' video, and put it up on the website, that would be great since Youtube keeps taking it down for breach of copyright.

Other Comments by Matt7895

11. Comment #81305 by thirdchimpanzee on October 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm

One emerging favourite of the theists is to argue that science points towards theism on the basis that a Universe that follows "laws" implies a "law giver", and our ability to comprehend those laws is further evidence of the divine purpose of the Universe. D'Souza in his debate with Hitchins tries to have it both ways, arguing at the beginning that the rational nature of Universe that we can understand with mathematics supports the idea of a rational God creating such a Universe (he totally mistranalates omniscient to do this) - and then argues later that all Laws must allow of occasional exceptions - which leaves room for miracles.

Whatever shenanigans are being deployed, we do need a solid rebuttal to the idea that a rational universe implies a creator.

I propose three distinct grounds for rebuttal:

1. The Universe is not very rational
Whenever I've seen this argument put forward (as D'Souza did) - its usually buttressed by a simplistic understanding of the science. So D'Souza talks about the inverse square law of gravity, but has no idea that Einstein spent the rest of his career trying to reconcile gravity with the other forces, and failing. I don't think anyone wrestling with 11 dimensions, two of which may be time, would call their world very rational.

2. The Universe is not really "comprehensible" to us
This is a bit harder to explain, but if understanding is connected to the ability to predict consequences, then in many areas of physics, climatalogy, astronomy etc. we are basically reliant on computers processing models to generate visualisations or other "conclusions" that we can then "understand". Our evolved brains are simply no longer capable of performing the mathematics or other modelling required to come up with detailed predictions. Obviously we created the computers and the programs to do the analysis - but in the future we will probably have AI's doing scientific discovery on their own, and "keeping us posted". Either way, the argument that the Universe was strangely made comprehensible to us falls away - our brains simply can't handle 11 dimensions!

3. A Universe that follows laws implies a law giver
Maybe its time to ditch the word "Law" from the the scientific lexicon. There's no "Law of Gravity" - and its an 18th Century concept that looks increasingly suspect. What we have are "models" of various aspects of the Universe, and insofar as the models continue to generate useful predictions, we continue to support them. When they start failing, we refine the model to the point where it might have to be replaced. Our actual legal system (at least the Common Law variety) follows this same pattern - these "Laws" reflect transient understandings of how society or the Universe works. This has nothing to do with "immutable" laws drawn from the Bible or any other religious source - and therefore carries no implication of a "law giver"

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

12. Comment #81311 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

13. Comment #81315 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.

The computer I am typing on at this moment works through non-rational forces, but the results are neither incoherent nor meaningless.

EDIT: Paul, don't be sorry; I got the message just fine. (see you on the subthread, when I get time)




Other Comments by Quine

14. Comment #81317 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Paul-

Stating that God exists because we are rational simply begs the question about God. You are also assuming that God would be rational.

But assuming that God does exist, if we can find anything that he does, that is irrational, we have to then conclude that we didnt get our rationality from God. So... in 2 Kings, God sends bears to maul 40 children for making fun of a bald guy. This is irrational. So where did my view that that is irrational come from? Because it cant be from God.

And why should we assume that reason cannot come from laws of nature? Complexity can come from non-complexity, so why not reason? All we need to be rational is an information processing brain. Thanks to evolution, we have one.

But we arent born with reason, its not something thats planted in our heads from day one. We become rational by information processing, by learning, and by experience.

Check out the books "The Problem of the Soul" by Owen Flanagan and "How The Mind Works" by Steven Pinker for way more details on all of that stuff.

Regards

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

15. Comment #81320 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm

D'Souza slipped Pascal's Wager into the Hitchens debate.

A basic argument, but when debating one should be able to recognize the argument because it can be worded and thrown around in so many different ways.

I think D'Souza said "it's a leap of faith for both of us..."

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

16. Comment #81321 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

"We live in a post-modern world now. Atheists are being dreadfully old-fashioned to make truth claims at all.

God / religon all that stuff, well, it's just another paradigm, another worldview, another route to individual and cultural truth.

No given worldview is any better or worse than any other."

Other Comments by Corylus

17. Comment #81327 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm

The Tamil Tigers argument should be addressed too

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

18. Comment #81328 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm

One that keeps getting recycled: 'you can't prove God doesn't exist [therefore God exists].'

There is also the bottomlessly silly 'You can't prove love exists, either [therefore God exists].'

Expanded, that turns into the endlessly irritating pseudo-argument that criticism of 'faith' as a way of thinking amounts to an attack on imagination, story-telling, art, love, beauty, truth...happiness, laughter, walks on the beach, and Christ knows what. We see this a lot of course in the oh so witty riposte that Dawkins can't prove he loves his wife. Bleah. People were using that on Carl Sagan more than ten years ago, and it was just as stupid then. One, there's the endemic confusion between evidence and proof, and two, there's the absurd idea that God is the same kind of thing as a particular human emotion - that all 'unseen' things are the same kind of thing, and stand or fall together. Pu-leeze.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

19. Comment #81330 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Thank you Quine (15) and Zakie Chan (16) for your responses. I'll take them on board. But isn't this thread supposed to be merely a repository for arguments we atheists might encounter? That's all I was doing...depositing in the repository.

EDIT: Sorry, Quine, I can't resist this one: If I type qwerrtyuiddhfhgjgkghhk..

...is my computer still coherent?

Other Comments by Paul Creber

20. Comment #81333 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm

We can't possibly know either way, therefore the only reasonable thing to be is an agnostic; atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. (Actually of course we think they're much more so, but we pretend to think it's a toss-up between them, for the sake of appearances - but we do of course spend a lot of time ragging on atheists and no time ragging on theists.)

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

21. Comment #81336 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Atheists claim to know what they can't know, whereas religion is all about uncertainty; atheists are the real dogmatists.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

22. Comment #81337 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

23. Comment #81338 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Dawkins thinks science can answer all questions, but science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

24. Comment #81341 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Scientists talk about evidence but who decides what is evidence? Science won't accept personal experience as evidence, but it should. People who've experienced God know that God exists; people who don't accept that simply haven't had the experience, so they aren't qualified to evaluate it.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

25. Comment #81343 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

D'Souza slipped Pascal's Wager into the Hitchens debate.

Always remember that Pascal's Wager represents an arms race among religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk it? If Atheism is true, and you do not take charge of this, your only life, you have blown your chance for all eternity.

EDIT: After posting, I noticed Pascal's Wager had a subthread, so I reposted this there.




Other Comments by Quine

26. Comment #81344 by Zakie Chan on October 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Hey Paul-

My bad my bad. I thought you were just asking. I see your point.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

27. Comment #81346 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:52 pm

People aspire to freedom and light, but they also need obedience and shadows. (That's Roger Scruton, in his review of Anthony Grayling's book on the Enlightenment.)

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

28. Comment #81350 by Russell Blackford on October 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Good initiative.

Don't forget that some work has already been done at Ask the Atheists

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

It's a resource to draw on.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

29. Comment #81353 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 4:05 pm

At the risk of sounding negative, I have to say that this site is not optimal for collaboratively editing responses to these debate points. At best, each of us can tack on some additional disjointed comments, but then the result is a long, disorganized message thread, without also containing a concise, distilled result which we could take turns iteratively improving.

To do collaborative editing, and capture a real measure of our collective wisdom, we need the software specifically designed for collaborative editing. I.e., we need a wiki (rather than a blog/forum type of messaging/commenting system).

We have all seen examples of wikis that run on the MediaWiki software: Wikipedia, RationalWiki, EvoWiki, CreationWiki, Conservapedia, etc. If we haven't, here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - The English Wikipedia
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page - EvoWiki
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page - RationalWiki

What our opponents are doing with wiki technology:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

MediaWiki has an interesting set of features that allow communities of users with a shared vision to collaborate effectively with each other: built-in revision control (so mistakes and vandalism are easy to revert); "talk" (a.k.a. "discussion") pages attached to every page, so users can discuss what they are doing to each page; a compact "wikitext" markup language designed for quick typing, but flexible enough to lay out professional-looking pages; templates, to automate complex formatting commands, allowing efficient division of labor between users who specialize in the technical details and those who focus on content; user pages and subpages, so each registered user can have his/her own workspace for individual expression and to organize projects; and too many more to list.

I don't mean to discourage the efforts of the RDF admins, but a project of this type - to collaboratively construct responses to debate points - cries out to be wikified. Forum/blogging software only provides the "talk page" piece of the puzzle. The other components that make up a wiki are vital for making it work.

RationalWiki, for example, may be a suitable venue if RDF does not want to install its own wiki. I recently started editing on RationalWiki, and after an amusingly bumpy entry, I seem to have convinced the folks over there to tolerate my presence. Actually they decided to give me sysop privilege, even though I didn't ask for it.

Other Comments by Teratornis

30. Comment #81354 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Zakie Chan (28) No problem. But I do find this argument (sometimes called TAG - the Transcendental Argument for God) a particularly tricky one. It was put to Dawkins in his debate with John Lennox, but Dawkins didn't address it. The best response I've seen is from the brilliant Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier), but even that was not entirely satisfying.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

31. Comment #81369 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Many of these questions have already been asked on http://www.asktheatheists.com/ - with some useful answers too.

Other Comments by stereoroid

32. Comment #81377 by skyhook87 on October 24, 2007 at 4:28 pm

The organization and ease-of-use would be much better if this project were in the form of a wiki instead of threads. A wiki allows for a sort of memetic sieve, thereby leaving the strongest of the counter arguments to stand.

Other Comments by skyhook87

33. Comment #81378 by Lucas_the_heretic on October 24, 2007 at 4:30 pm

If I were to debate D'Souza, I wouldn't say much that I can type here in good taste. Let's see how Hitchens handles his juvenile blathering:

http://www.tkc.edu/debate/

Other Comments by Lucas_the_heretic

34. Comment #81392 by 35bluejacket on October 24, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Getting to the crux of nailing down a Christian or Moslem is to understand where they get their truth, and their faith stems from that. It is those Holy books. You must know and use them. They reject all other systems of knowledge. There is evidence enough in those books to support the diadem of rational thought.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

35. Comment #81401 by dloubet on October 24, 2007 at 4:59 pm

How do we present our counter-arguments?

In my opinion we need a sound-bite response as well as a carefully reasoned explanation.

We need the sound-bite to combat the lies-per-second ratio the theists present. We've got to have rapid-fire comebacks ready to prevent the eye-rolling of your audience that occurs when one launches into a more lengthy and tedious rebuttal.

There's also the issue of the sound argument versus the persuasive argument. Since many audiences respond better to emotional appeals, should we construct arguments that pander to that? I know it makes my skin crawl, but I have a feeling that a general audience will respond better to a good argument-from-consequences than a more carefully reasoned essay.

One thing I can't bring myself to abandon are the qualifiers I use to present arguments. "It seems" and "In my opinion" are completely accurate, but pale in comparison to the cock-sure arrogant presentation of theistic discourse. For some reason, audiences love a guy that speaks with certainty and confidence, even if he's spouting total bullshit.

So how far are we willing to edge out of the "present the facts" catagory and into the "manipulation" catagory? Neuroscience is finding that we're all rather manipulable. Should we use that?

Other Comments by dloubet

36. Comment #81411 by mmurray on October 24, 2007 at 5:12 pm

This is a great idea but at some point I think we need to a scheme to select the `answer' or a couple of `answers' from the all posts attached to each debate point. It won't be so useful if each debate point is followed by a hundred or so posts -- particularly if they are arguing the point!

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

37. Comment #81419 by ChrisMcL on October 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

D'Souza argues that Christianity can take credit for everything good over the last 2000 years, including science and morality.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

38. Comment #81422 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm

From the Debate Points page:

Here is a list of common debate points we will all most likely meet, either in a formal debate or casual setting. To participate, click on a debate point, and use the comment space below each point to write out your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if these were to be used in a real debate. Suggest new Debate Points here. Also see: AskTheAtheists.com

I think if we follow the instructions we'll be fine; let's keep each other on track, and argue somewhere else. This (Debate Points) is the post I wish I'd thought of.

We may be starting to herd cats; I can't wait to see the contributions!

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

39. Comment #81490 by scottbly on October 24, 2007 at 8:28 pm

'How's that atheism thing working for you?'or 'wouldn't you be better off with the social support of the church?'

I find these questions to be troubling because they open a door for ad hominem attacks by changing the topic to personal flaws.

a related question: "Isn't religion good for society?"

Other Comments by scottbly

40. Comment #81518 by oisha on October 24, 2007 at 9:25 pm

I agree with Jack Rawlinson. How often do you encounter this comment, even from agnostics and weak atheists:

"Why do you care about something you claim not to believe in?"

My answer (thanks to Imrational at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg for the inspiration to this - check it out if you haven't already seen it):

Apart from the fact that that's an ad hominem argument, you've bought into the falsehood that superstitious beliefs deserve respect and exemption from criticism. Even if I cared only because the subject sparked my idle interest, who are you to deny it to me as a legitimate subject of study? Just because I don't believe religion to be true, doesn't mean I don't find it to be a fascinating topic. You don't ask me why I care about history, or literature, or maths, or science, so why ask me why I care about people's belief in God? What you're really trying to say is, "Why don't you mind your own business?" For your information, though, there are many good reasons for me to care.

I care because I'm passionate about truth and reason and evidence and honest intellectual inquiry; I care because even as an Australian I'm concerned about the numerous theocracies in the world; I care because when the President of the United States declared war on Iraq he tipped his hat to God; I care because there's still many (even democratic) societies which criminalise homosexuality, euthanasia, abortions, and stem cell research and thereby cause needless human suffering, based on religious-inspired dogma and conservativism rather than a heartfelt desire to improve humanity's lot; I care because the ID lobby is trying to influence what is taught in schools; I care because faith schools peddle superstition on naive and trusting children; I care because private schools in Australia receive more Federal funding than supposed 'public' schools; I care because aspirants to Government in the most powerful nation in the world must conceal their lack of faith if they entertain any serious hopes of success; I care because a life without belief in God is rich and liberating and means that you don't have to feel guilty for enjoying the small things in life, like lunch, or lunchtime quickies for that matter; I care because the realisation that time is short gives you even greater impetus to achieve your life's ambitions; I care because the flipside of Pascal's Wager is that so many people are frittering their lives away in meaningless ritual, and worse, suicide bombings.

Other Comments by oisha

41. Comment #81539 by oisha on October 24, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Another argument from agnostics and liberal progressives:

"You place too much emphasis on the Bible - religion is much more personal."

My answer:
1. Ah, sorry, look at the world around you - many theists DO believe that their holy book is the perfect word of God, and they're prepared to die for it.
2. Be an atheist for a day and actually criticise belief in God. See how many believers start citing chapter and verse.
3. Alternatively, be a theist for a day and actually attend church. If you don't come across a single Bible, and if the priest/pastor/reverend doesn't give a reading from 'the Book', you can call me Zeus.
4. The protestant reformation placed greater emphasis on the Bible than ever before.
5. No matter how progressive or good or liberal they may be, the fundamental belief of all Christians is that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected. If they don't get that from the Bible then where do they get it?

Other Comments by oisha

42. Comment #81546 by mejdrich on October 24, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Just commenting to say:

what a great idea. Thank you again, professor Dawkins.

Other Comments by mejdrich

43. Comment #81581 by Enlightenme.. on October 24, 2007 at 11:30 pm

"...and have well structured retorts already made for common theist arguments."

We could program our very own 'pale blue' to wheel out and take on McGrath.

It will eventually spit out the conclusion: 42

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

44. Comment #81598 by wandapec on October 25, 2007 at 12:32 am

Comment #81341 by Ophelia Benson on October 24, 2007 at 3:50pm - Scientists talk about evidence but who decides what is evidence? Science won't accept personal experience as evidence, but it should. People who've experienced God know that God exists; people who don't accept that simply haven't had the experience, so they aren't qualified to evaluate it.

I agree. This morning I was chatting to Odin while he was out for a ride on Sleipnir. He was saying that it is quite crowded "up there", and getting together to make decisions as to which sports team gets to win on the weekend is such a mission, let alone getting to decide which of them each person on Earth gets to experience. He also said that spaghetti guy makes a mess at every meeting!

Other Comments by wandapec

45. Comment #81612 by Sigmund on October 25, 2007 at 1:07 am

What does atheism say about the purpose of life ?
This is a common enough question from theists yet if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective it makes little sense. What is the purpose of a bacterium's life? What is the purpose of a rabbit's life? What is the purpose of a nettle's life?

Other Comments by Sigmund

46. Comment #81622 by 601 on October 25, 2007 at 1:25 am

Our largest challenge is the emotional basis of faith and religion. No amount of logic and reason can overcome a profound mortal fear.

Most theists feel it is unsafe to thoughtfully consider (even hypothetically) the absence of the supernatural. Nature is amoral and dangerous, but denial is a way to cope.

Take evolution, random mutation is the ultimate basis for a "fear of the unknown." And natural selection is as much (or more) about death than life.

faithful	FEAR > REASON
agnostic	FEAR = REASON
atheist	FEAR < REASON

Other Comments by 601

47. Comment #81650 by raam on October 25, 2007 at 2:05 am

Here is an argument that I often encounter. This is offered by people who have read the Vedas and the Upanishads, both ancient hindu scriptures. My understanding is that the Upanishads ultimately says that there is no personal God and that the entire universe is a manifestation of the consciousness, which they call God. Consciousness, they say, is all pervading and it manifests itself as matter and energy. And they also say that science has not got around to understanding the problem of consciousness and that try as hard as they might, the scientists are looking at the wrong places because no analysis of the material world will yield an understanding of the consciousness.
I am skeptical of this argument as it seems to me often that the persons offering this argument don't really know what they are talking about. But I am keen to understand if there is any merit in these arguments.
I enjoyed Prof.Dawkin's de-bunking of the major world religions in his book. I wish he can turn his attention to Buddhism and Hinduism(not the idol-worship version as is practised but the more sophisticated Vedas and Upanishads) and explain whether their philosophies have any merit in terms of evidence.

Other Comments by raam

48. Comment #81651 by ridelo on October 25, 2007 at 2:07 am

Well, I'm not very good at debating and surely not in a foreign language (English for me), but I suppose this part of the site will be kind of a summary of the whole thing. Therefore I propose to make it multilingual. I would be happy to cooperate as translator to Dutch.



Other Comments by ridelo

49. Comment #81657 by raam on October 25, 2007 at 2:21 am

Argument I encounter - "This is simply a criticism of Christianity/Islam/Judaism. Hinduism and its Vedas and Upanishads offer much more sophisticated worldview/philosophy. All existence is a manifestation of the supreme conciousness that is made from the fabric of God. In fact quantum physics too seems to indicate something like this."

Other Comments by raam

50. Comment #81659 by Tumara Baap on October 25, 2007 at 2:24 am

Conservative thinking is comfortable being ensconced in tradition, and is almost always grounded in a deference for authority. Religious conservatives start being anchored to an emotional position, and then cherrypick factoids and arguments to bolster the initial stand. They are not stupid. They will actually devote a lot of thinking energy to their pathological mindset. They are suspicious of fresh ideas. Their closed-box thinking can be reliably delineated on the Wilson&Patterson scale.
Spin. Ad hominem pitches. And always unfailingly facile. These are not D'Souza traits, but the very lifeblood that conservative casuistry thrives on. Understand this, and we'll have a better shot presenting our case to the public. As Drew Westen of Emory would argue, arcane reasoning of the sort the scientifically inclined value isn't optimal. D'Souza talks rubbish, albeit with well strung sentences. He spins and frames issues to his convenience. His understanding of science is the pits. And by his standards, aspiring to social equality, a more central marxist ideal than peripheral features like atheism, should also be blamed for countless deaths. And if we did have the "leap of faith" he purports, we'd still believe space and time were immutable. His arguments are piss poor. He fares well only in spinning the issue, framing the discussion agenda, and in making an emotional connection with his audience.

Frankly, we already have all the answers to whatever he and his ilk put forth. However, we must be willing to make an emotional pitch ourselves. And doing so is not being dishonest. We must frame and pace the discussion. Reiterate clearly our premise: reason, a congruence of known facts, the parsimony of explanation, etc. Pull no punches in diminishing their religion, especially against other defunct religions. Pit Zeus against Jesus (as the professor knows too well); the Ten commandments versus The Negative Confession; Genesis versus Upanishadic monism. And whenever the opening presents, impugn their credibility, like when they selectively present examples of Christian scientists only from a bygone era with science in its infancy and the charge of blasphemy very real. Take the gloves off, incorporate emotionally charged tactics, and the other arguments will take care of themselves.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap