1. Comment #9738 by Theo on November 25, 2006 at 7:50 pm

Dennis Prager is a hair's breadth away from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. Sam didn't have to exert himself very hard here.

The argument about whether smart people should or should not believe in a god seemed to come up again and again (usually in Prager's weak defense), and the fact is this: there's book learnin' and there's street smarts. Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence.

For Prager and his ilk, "truthiness" will always equal truth. And they are so completely in love with their delusion that clearly losing a factual debate won't bother 'em a bit.

We all turned out alright when we figured out Santa Claus wasn't real; why are grown men still unable to detach from the Old Man With The Beard Who Lives Above The Clouds?

2. Comment #9739 by Jared on November 25, 2006 at 8:02 pm

Well, I tried my damnedest to remain neutral, ignore all other feelings I have about the issue, and judge each side of the argument solely on the basis of this debate.

The conclusion?

Prager loses. I think that his points are quite often more assumptive and specious. He almost never argues to Harris's points and also commits the sweeping generalization that "secular" societies lose their will to live without EVER demonstrating statistics to back him up OR considering whether these societies turned "secular" in isolation or as a result of some enforced atheism such as that under Communism.

He calls people who have only one child "selfish," without bothering to ask if any of these people have the economic means to support more than one child or even the one child they have! All of his statements are based on hunches and do not come backed by evidence. He weasels his way out of his fallacial argument about the need for belief in God proving God's existence.

I don't know. I suppose I never could remove my biases from my evaluation and it was likely foolish to try. It just really seems to me that Prager's logic was more slippery and flawed than Harris's. Whether anyone actually holding neutral belief about their topic would agree with me is another story, but I'm hopeful that they would.

3. Comment #9742 by Ryan on November 25, 2006 at 8:10 pm

It irks me to no end how some Christians like to give their religion credit for everything under the sun. The scientific method? Women's rights?!

4. Comment #9744 by goddogit on November 25, 2006 at 8:28 pm

The best arguments the theists had to throw up [!] were all done, at least in English, in the 19th Century, and very elegant and moving some of them are - as poetry and fiction they raised bumper harvests. Since then, as we can see most vividly in Mr. Prager's writings (but is very evident to the most casually unbiased observer even in the case of a decent Christian and scientist like Francis Collins) the believers have endlessly tilled the same never-fallowed soils with the same worn and ever-duller, jury-patched tools, and with ever diminishing returns.
Their assumptions and techniques look simply foolish in a world in which so much more is known about nature and humanity's place within it, as silly as the 19th Century's flat- and hollow-earthers. They have exhausted their ideas to such a degree that people like Dubya and Robertson are touted as "deeply religious" when plainly they are simply "spiritually" blind and morally bankrupt to anyone outside their flocks, and many uncomfortably within.
Belief, as abused by the typical theist, however educated, is now an unfunny joke whose punchline can be told before the theist finishes clearing his throat to tell it yet again. You can see it coming in that dull twitch of his mask-like happy smile, like the symptom of nervous illness to which it can so easily be compared, mastering his humanity in the interest of its own survival.
Clowns like Prager (someone who's shows are regional variations of 1984's "hates"), when they give the opposition the chance to speak at all, resort to the same evasive blathering that should have become unacceptable in the debate 50 years ago. If they simply repeated honest nonsense they could be no less persuasive, except to those chanting along with them, afraid to be seen as less enthusiastic than their neighbor.
How tiring! And how uselessly, if for some profitably, dishonest!

5. Comment #9745 by Anonymous on November 25, 2006 at 8:38 pm

Congratulations to Prager...

He presented a dozen reasons why god is improbable, according to his own definitions, then proclaimed a proof.

1: The Creation Fallacy. If the universe was created, then it would be the handiwork of a physicist. It would be a fairly mundane task.
Theists avoid using the correct terminology.
A physicist would create a universe. A God would manifest a universe. They avoid the word 'manifest' because that moves God further into the unbeleivable and suprnatural.

2: The Superman fallacy. We know that Superman does not exist. It has nothing to do with the extraordinary abilites of Superman. They are possible. We know that Superman does not exist because we have Superman comic #1, in which he was invented. We can trace him directly back to his fictional source. The Bible is the fictional source of the Judeo-Christian diety. We know it does not exist because we can trace him directly back to his fictional source.

3: The "Life has Value' fallacy. Theist ague that religion gives value to life. Yes, value to God.
It is the same value that an automobile has to its driver. It denies that life, in and of itself, has value.


4: Factual knowledge decreases wisdom. I can see how he came to such a conclusion. Teaching religion certainly decreases wisdom.

5: Revisionist History. Religion has re-written its historical role. The undeniable truth is that religion has stood in the path of all social progress. In an outrageously racist absurdity, religion claims that it was love of God which caused Black people to oppose slavery. Does he really believe that Feminists oppose rape because it offends God? Perhaps he should read about the role of women according to his bible.

6: The Judeo-Christian morality is amoral. "No obedience without Consultation'. The Judeo-Christian diety did not consult with us about his laws. That relieves us of any moral obligation to obey them. I believe the correct term for such a system is tyranny. The justness of such laws is irrelevant.

Prager's arguments can be sumed up as: I like Christianity. It provides me with benefits and priviledges. It may cause harm to others, but they are outside the group receiving benefits, therefore we can ignore them.

It is nothing more than a justification of being in the Priviledged Elite.

6. Comment #9754 by Chris on November 25, 2006 at 9:52 pm

As an atheist, it is hard to view this discourse in a neutral light, however, surely Sam Harris has delivered something of an intellectual hammering here.Any theists here interpret this differentluy?

I enjoyed the discourse very much, it was a riveting read.

7. Comment #9756 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 9:56 pm

There is no real point in trying to refute his statements as there isn't a single statement worthy of the term argument in any of his posts to Sam Harris. For they all appear to amount to no more than a repetition of I say so, so it must be and even if it isn't you are still wrong, so there. Plus the usual generalised ad hominem against all atheists. The level of debate one would expect from pre-school child.

8. Comment #9759 by Kingasaurus on November 25, 2006 at 10:08 pm

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

Damn, that's horrible.

Dennis, I'll type slow for your benefit. If the BELIEF is essential, that's all it means. The belief exists. That's not disputed. It doesn't mean that the thing believed in is really there.

Prager commits the horrible fallacy of presuming religious belief is necessary, then doubles the error by presuming his particular religious beliefs reflect factual reality.

If humans REALLY needs supernatural beliefs to make a living in the world, Prager needs to explain why the majority of people who live now and have ever lived in the past are worshipping the WRONG god(s).

Five out of every seven people on Planet Earth are neither Jews nor Christians. Are we really supposed to believe that Prager (an observant Jew) thinks the utility and universal nature of supernatural beliefs reflect some reality about his particular god, yet over two-thirds of the world's population have screwed it up and are worshipping gods that don't exist by mistake?


Pull my other leg, Dennis.

9. Comment #9761 by Chris on November 25, 2006 at 10:15 pm

Chumly,

#9755

One must be careful not to set up straw men here. It is obvious that the US prison population would claim Christainity because this positively impacts parole considerations. This is why Prager cites acively practicing theists, I reckon he is right abou this.

Of course the morality of differing theological viewpoints has no impact on their accuracy

10. Comment #9763 by Roy on November 25, 2006 at 10:25 pm

Rabbi Milton Steinberg probably thought the Earth was only 6000 years old too. I might as well say "One beautiful crisp winter's day I saw a waterfall frozen into three parts, It made me think of the great trinity, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris".

11. Comment #9764 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 10:36 pm

Atheist Simpleton vs Francis Bollins (or any great scientist)

Simpleton: Mr Bollins, I know that you are a famous scientist; I also know that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in your god because there is no evidence for his existence. If evidence was available I would change my mind and accept your god with joyful excitement because I'd then be able to tell him how bad a job he's doing and how much of an evil bastard he is. I'm a simpleton but I'm confident of winning this debate because science is an entirely evidence-based discipline, without evidence, your great scientific credentials are useless in this discourse. As a person claiming the existence of God and as an honest scientist, I know you will accept that the onus of proof lies with you. I wonder therefore, how are you going to convince me to accept your claim?

Bollins: 'Er…I can't.

End of Debate.

Result: Atheist Simpleton wins.

We all know that a dishonest Bollins would give in so easily, but no matter how much elegant bullshit he may spin, the simpleton need only say:

Mr Bollins, you have spoken very eloquently for some time, but frankly, you bore me because you said nothing to prove your claim. If you're willing to renounce your god-belief and admit you don't know, then I will concede a draw, otherwise you must logically grant me victory.

……………………………………

After reading debates like Harris vs Prager several times, it becomes boring. Why do atheists feel the need to endlessly debate theists who must always lose because they never will admit the possibility of being wrong? Once one has heard all the arguments, repetition causes a loss of interest. In my view, debating a theist about the existence of a god, is a waste of time.

12. Comment #9767 by maryhelena on November 25, 2006 at 10:57 pm

Yorker

"Why do atheists feel the need to endlessly debate theists..."

That's one question I'd really like to get to the bottom of!!

I have been any atheist for well over 20 years - and never, not once, have I felt the need to debate with theists. I just don't get this missionary zeal among atheists...or should I say the New Atheists...

13. Comment #9769 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 11:51 pm

"Atheist certainty and religious certainty are both faith claims that transcend reason and common sense."

They ALWAYS try to frame the debate as one religion against another! This is part projection but also by doing this they create a 'feeling' that the validity of both sides is equally dubious and so make the casual reader think both sides are a match for one another.

"But at least religious believers have the intellectual honesty to admit theirs is a faith claim."

After establishing in peoples minds the idea that both positions are equal to start with he then delivers the 'punch'. An attack against the atheist character intended to portay atheists as weak and proud. Indeed a smokescreen to conceal the weakness and arrogance of his own position!

14. Comment #9770 by BracesForImpact on November 26, 2006 at 12:02 am

Yorker

"Why do atheists feel the need to endlessly debate theists..."


I can't answer for everyone, but there may be people watching the debate who haven't made up their mind, or have but don't know how to put it into words. I was a liberal Christian when I started reading internet debates, now I'm an atheist.

It does make an impact. It may not be a resounding one, like when the new believer is announced to the congregation in front of their church, with music and fanfare.However, enough pebbles falling down the slope will eventually create an avalanche.

15. Comment #9771 by walter on November 26, 2006 at 12:02 am

to maryhelena

I wouldn't call it "missionary zeal" to debate theists. At least I don't think of it that way. Perhaps others do.

As for myself I consider it just plain fun!

16. Comment #9778 by David on November 26, 2006 at 12:33 am

One of Dennis' parting shots has already attracted some criticism:

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

I'll answer that with another question, where 'does not exist' means 'is not rationally proven to exist':

"Can you name one thing that does not exist but a significant proportion of the human population believe in, outside of the religious arena?"

Even if belief in something IS necessary for human survival, there is NO PRECEDENT for it mean something exists.

From my atheist perspective, Sam annihilated Dennis. Dennis basically credited his religion with everything good, and tarred everyone else with everything bad (including God?).

17. Comment #9782 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 1:10 am

Comment #9770 by BracesForImpact

Yes, I agree that some people will be convinced.

My point is that long-winded debate is not required, it's simple, that's what I tried to illustrate with that little scenario above. Some time ago, Dawkins and Gould made a pact that neither would debate creationists because doing so would make it look as though creationists had a case worthy of debate. I think that debating people who insist upon an existential god for which there is zero evidence, is a similar 'non-case' like creationism, so why help theists by debating them and making it look as if their claim has merit?

People who make unsubstantiated claims they insist are true, cannot possibly win a logical argument. Debate requires that involved parties MUST be prepared to change their mind in the light of logical argument. When did you last hear a theist even say: "Hmm...perhaps you're right, I will have to re-evaluate my beliefs"?

If our aim is to convert people (and it should be) then I suggest putting together an atheist FAQ which could include the reason for not debating theists. I know from personal experience that hard-line atheistic ranting reduces the chance of converting people, no matter how truthful and logical the argument may be, people don't like it rammed down their throat, some will shy away even if they recognize the truth. Certainly, if theists take a hard line and attack us, then we should pour scorn and ridicule upon them and hand out a verbal thrashing.

Overall, I feel our time might be better spent publicising our case, setting goals and taking positive action to achieve them.

18. Comment #9793 by Mickey on November 26, 2006 at 2:03 am

"And that is why your task, Sam, is infinitely greater than mine."

Yes, of course it is! Atheists are very excited by the seemingly never-ending quest of understanding. We don't look for easy outs.

What a perfect way to end the debate. You all but admit that you believe in God because it is simpleminded and easy.

19. Comment #9822 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 6:13 am

"Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise."
Partially correct. But this conveniently ignores the issue of US support for Israel as a counter measure to an Muslim middle east. Admittably, that in itself was partially religiously driven. But Harris is overly crude here - more often than not, religion is not the cause, it is merely, by an order of magnitude, the best possible excuse.

"
Nevertheless, I am not as certain about God as you are about no-God. When I look at the unjust world God created, I have questions, sometimes even doubts. But not atheists like you, Sam. No, they look at love and consciousness, at the grandeur of the universe, at the birth of a child, and they hear Bach's music and conclude that all of this and everything else just came about by itself."
So because something is magnificent, it logically cannot have come about by chance. This is one of the main cancers of Christian thinking, traceable back to Augustine's door - everything wrong in the world is man's doing, everything good is God's. Ugh. How utterly repulsive, to claim that the only source of any worth in man or the world is not that it inherently worthy, but because the diety put it there.

"On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he "knows" is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable."

Teapot! To try and paint the atheist as intellectually dishonest because he cannot do the logically impossible (something most Christians believe even God cannot do) is beyond belief. Loaded semantics to boot - the theist "believes" the atheist "knows". This despite the fact that the prof Dawkins, considered a "militant" atheist states "ther almost certainly is no God" while theists are sufficently sure of God to live their whole life under assumptions that he exists, but also about his specific nature (what happened to mysterious God?). Sounds like knowing to me.

That's just a couple of cherries to show that both of these two are not exactly at the summit of intellectual prowess for their respective sides.

20. Comment #9824 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 6:34 am

"On the other side, we believers look at the evidence and believe that there is a God. In that sense, the atheist has considerably less intellectual honesty than the sophisticated believer. The atheist says he knows, despite the fact that what he "knows" is unprovable. The believer believes because he knows that what he believes is ultimately unprovable."


Ugh.

Is Prager confident enough to "know" that there are no leprechauns, or does he just "believe" there aren't any?

The inability of Prager to understand his adversaries' position is quite maddening. Do you know how many believers have told me through the years that "I don't need proof, I just know it's true by faith?" Claims to "knowledge" are legion among religious believers about there particular dogmas.

Why is it so hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that if you think the evidence for god(s) is extremely weak scientifically, and then consider the evidence that these beliefs are culturally constructed and contingent - then it makes perfect sense to simply put "god' in the same category with a whole host of other things which even theists would mostly agree are imaginary.

The atheist sees no good reason to put "god' and "leprechauns" in different evidentiary boxes. The fact that most theists can't see this train of reasoning leads to continually ridiculous rejoinders like "you atheists have faith (pretend to know) that there's no god."

If I hear that nonsense one more time, my head might explode.

21. Comment #9831 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 7:14 am

Mark, don't bother.

I'm sure David Mathews just turned off his evil, scientifically generated computer, and went back to his cave to hunt and gather food with his bare hands.

22. Comment #9832 by Nobody on November 26, 2006 at 7:20 am

There's a fundamental problem here of trying to use rational argument against irrational people. Even these 'sophisticated believers' *need* to believe more than anything, that's what religion does to your mind to keep itself alive, so they will forever refuse to see the holes in their arguments and keep spewing out the same fallacious bunk.

Unless we can get these people to be honest enough with themselves to admit that fear, not reason drives their belief, no rational argument will ever reach them. Not that these debates can't be useful in swaying a few undecided spectators, but it's probably a better use of our time to have constructive debates with intellectually honest people rather than battling deeply entrenched faith-heads.

23. Comment #9833 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:21 am

35. Comment #9827 by David Mathews

Sorry David, you can't be allowed to get away with stuff like this.

>>Science has a long and dismal history of service to human violence.<<

Bollocks! Science gave you everything you have, including the capacity to make this glaring error. Science simply makes things possible, human misuse of it does not confer blame upon it!

>>Science has also provided humankind with the tools to destroy...<<

See my last answer. You are badly confused. I could provide a list as long my arm of the benefits science has given humanity, a similar list regarding religion wouldn't even be the length of a fingernail.

If you cannot see the truth here, I pity you.

24. Comment #9837 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:33 am

40. Comment #9835 by David Mathews

David, your inability or unwilligness to see sense and understand simple truth, typifies your species. You're like a faulty machine that's B.E.R., you exclude yourself from sane conversation.

N.B. B.E.R. = Beyond Economical Repair

25. Comment #9839 by Brett on November 26, 2006 at 7:35 am

The debate should end with the first question -- why do you doubt the existence of Zeus and not the existence of the Judeo/Christian God?

Either at this point the person says they have evidence (which we can evaluate) or he says on the basis on faith (which means there is no rational way of debating the issue).

26. Comment #9840 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:40 am

43. Comment #9839 by Brett

>>Either at this point the person says they have evidence (which we can evaluate) or he says on the basis on faith (which means there is no rational way of debating the issue).<<

Exactly as I said in my first post on this thread.

27. Comment #9842 by Randy Ping on November 26, 2006 at 7:44 am

Technology is neutral. Humans are the ones who choose to use it for evil or for good.
How many more people would have died if Japan had been invaded instead of using the bomb?

Answer: All of them, the Japanese were willing to fight and die to the last man woman and child.
Study some history, David. But take off your religion tinted lenses to do it.

28. Comment #9843 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 7:49 am

This wasn't a debate. It was Harris doing the standard rational arguments and Prager ignoring them. Quite a typical theist-atheist discussion and Prager certainly didn't learn anything.

I was however impressed with the degree of nonsense in Pragers responses. Incomprehensible how somebody with a straight face could say that:

-
"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of the sacredness of human life; linear history and therefore the idea of moral and scientific progress; universal standards of good and evil; the abolition of slavery; the scientific method; the development of democracy; equality of the sexes; the greatest experiment in non-ethnicity-based society (America); the greatest music ever composed; and the greatest art ever drawn."

-

I mean, that kind of level of ignorance combined with arrogance is just astounding.

How do you open such a closed mind? Probably not the Harris on Dawkins way. Aggressive attacks make them only more irrational. I sympathize with Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and the others - I wouldn't either be able to debate in any other way, but I suspect that such an approach changes no minds.

The religious bunch have been indoctrinated from childhood. In America you have the added complexity of nationalism and patriotism being tied to religious belief.

29. Comment #9849 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:06 am

"Suffice it to that Judeo-Christian values alone gave humanity the notion of... the scientific method...."

Wow. Talk about ignorant. Anyone with any historical knowledge knows the Greeks came up with the scientific method as an actual codified discipline. The Greek mystics eventually squelched it and the Christians never reversed the trend.

When these systematic methods were reapplied during the Renaissance, the Church came along only kicking and screaming. They were no help during the Enlightenment either.

Prager wants to have his cake and eat it too. Western culture is a synthesis of the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman. Because say, Galileo and Newton were Christians (for example), Prager wants Judeo-Christian influence given credit for anything ever discovered or codified by any member of Western civilization. This kind of intellectual glomming-on is the worst kind of unseemly arrogance.

30. Comment #9852 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 8:18 am

42. Comment #9838 by David Mathews

David,

This will be my last response to you, it sounds like you are a badly deluded young man, I say young, because your pathetic arguments are unworthy of adult consideration. Are you even aware that scientists insisted that a harmless demonstration of nuclear weaponry would be the best option? The war-mongering religious politicians didn't even want to consider that.

I just wanted to say that you're a perfect example; you nicely make my earlier point that debating your kind is a waste of time. However, you're also a good example of a theist who comes here attacking a largely atheist group with a non-existent argument, you therefore deserve the ridicule and scorn I pour upon you now. If Homo Sapiens selects itself for extinction, it won't be a bunch of crazed scientists who press the button, it will most likely be a god-befuddled politician's MISUSE of science that does the deed.

Lastly, don't attempt to place your low opinion of humanity upon people here, it clearly applies to you; that's all. Further rantings by you, will be ignored by me.

31. Comment #9855 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:24 am

The Greeks believed in the Greek Pantheon generally, though those who purveyed the scientific method in ancient Greece were willing to question or ignore the god hypothesis, which is why they are the intellectual precursors of today's non-believers.

And I missed the part where I said Nature or the Universe cares about us. But WE care about us, which is why we're going to try like hell to keep ourselves from going extinct. Or shouldn't we bother? If you think nature is better off without humans, perhaps you should kill yourself immediately. Just give the rest of us the common courtesy to attempt some alternative options.

Your basic premises in this thread boil down to the ridiculous theological canard which state that if our existence has no "cosmic meaning", then why should we even care what happens to ourselves in the long run? One of the oldest and hoariest straw men around, I suppose.

32. Comment #9856 by G Bile on November 26, 2006 at 8:24 am

I am an atheist and .. I have 4 children.

Am I starting something new here ??

33. Comment #9860 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 8:32 am

Sigh.

The modern computer was first invented in the late 1940's in order to accurately calculate the effectiveness of artillery projectiles.

Since the computer was invented by scientists for a military purpose ("killing people"), I insist that Dave turn his off immediately and throw it away. We'd all be better off.

34. Comment #9871 by Kingasaurus on November 26, 2006 at 9:05 am

Dave, I've intimated twice that you should throw away your computer and any other "science and technology" which makes your life easier.

Please do so without delay. Othwise I can only assume rank hypocrisy on your part.

If we don't hear from you again on this thread, I'll assume you've taken my advice. If otherwise...

35. Comment #9876 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 9:14 am

I don't know why I'm bothering, but...

Mr. Matthews, your arguments hold no water. If our inevitable extinction is so pressing upon you that you insist that there is no point even discussing anything, then what are you doing here?

Certainly, science has been responsible for creating "bad" things. It has, and continues to, create the means by which wars are fought. That is because science, like most other tools, goes where the money leads it in many cases. During wartime, it is FAR more likely for science that contributes to the effort to find funding.

Science does not exist in a bubble. It is just as affected by politics, ideology, and even (at times) religion as any other human endeavor. There were far more "average" people complicit with the Nazi regime than there were scientists. Let's bring your logic to its conclusion, shall we?

Scientists worked with Nazis
Nazis are Evil
Therefore, Scientists are evil

Why not:

Air and water kept Nazis alive
Nazis are evil
Therefore, air and water are evil.

It's almost the same proof, isn't it?

If you're so concerned about our impending extinction, then DO something about it. Science certainly is. It's not the majority of scientists who deny global warming. It's not the scientists in the US who believe that the rapture is imminent and that, therefore, any thing we can do to speed up the coming of the end times is a good thing.

Not all scientists are good. Not all religious people are bad. If you believe that either of those groups is entirely one way or another, you're a naive human being. If you think that the average atheist thinks anything of the sort, the odds are you just plain don't understand our position. Certainly there are those who follow blindly, but I'll guarantee you the percentage is far, far fewer than the percentage of the same in any given religion.

You speak of the wars, but rarely of their reasons for happening. You blame science, but never those who pressure science or who fund it. Maybe we are doomed to extinction. But if we survive, you can bet your a** that science will be responsible, not prayers and not your god. Good day.

36. Comment #9888 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 9:59 am

Mr. Mathews:

I put the question to you baldly. If extinction is imminent, how is belief in a god any better than the lack thereof?

37. Comment #9905 by Vadjong on November 26, 2006 at 11:30 am

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

What a totally weird!! question !
If something doesn't exist and it would be essential for human survival, what the hell are we doing here ?!
Is he talking about God ? It's probably that I'm not conversant in theological reasoning, but I just don't get this point. Does he mean God is essential and/or that He doesn't exist ?
My answer would be peace, goodwill and understanding between all world citizens. (Or is that more than one thing?)

38. Comment #9912 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 11:48 am

"I mean, that kind of level of ignorance combined with arrogance is just astounding.

How do you open such a closed mind?" - 47. Comment #9843 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 7:49 am

9mm?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

39. Comment #9914 by Vadjong on November 26, 2006 at 11:55 am

David Mathews
As to the question of humankind's extinction: You know that Homo sapiens are inevitably fated to go extinct. 600 million years of evolution conclusively prove that extinction is the fate of all species.

Homo sapiens are not exempt. Don't you agree?

Don't you concede that Homo sapiens is an animal species inevitably fated to go extinct?


I do agree Homo Sapiens will become extinct, and maybe sooner than we think. We're still part of something called EVOLUTION, so hopefully our children's children's children will become Homo Galacticus. Maybe we'll have enough scientific understanding of genetics to help speed this process along a bit, or we can wait for God to do it for us (it's supposed to be his job after all).
Will Homo Galacticus believe that Jesus died for their sins and all that stuff ? Somehow I sincerely doubt it.

40. Comment #9920 by anders on November 26, 2006 at 12:31 pm

It saddens me a bit, as a European (Swedish in this case), to see Mr. Prager displaying such disdain for, well, Europe in general. I am somewhat disappointed myself in the lack of resolve, unity and cohesiveness of international policy coming from the EU experiment. However, Mr. Prager would do well to get at least some basic (world) history education before shooting his mouth off like he does in this debate.

Lets just say this, while people like Mr. Prager see Europe as a failure in "fighting the good fight" combatting terrorism at present, please remember that most countries in Europe chipped in quite enthusiastically in both the first gulf war and the Aghanistan war AND were very much a driving force at setting up comprehensive international policing cooperation (which is A snd O) to combat terrorist activity after 9/11. A lot of us drowe the line (apart from the very religious Mr. Blair) at the new Iraq war PRECISELY because it was geopolitically poorly motivated and religious undertones/overtunes? came out from the Oval Office.
Europe has over 2,000 years of history, and most of you folks in USA originate here. Real politik is not a German concept but it originates with the Roman Empire, without which there would not have been a christian civilisation to start with. The history description in USA as having USA being the sole torch bearers of democracy for the last 200 years is a bit overdone I think. Possibly it is because your domination on the world scene has been so intense and so very, very short, that you (some of you) tend to lack the "birds view" necessary to make a little more cool headed approach to humananity and its endeavors. I have heard some Americans say that the US has been a great power for the last 200 years! Sorry, you were not a superpower in 1806. Some people think that Europe has been a christian civilisation for 2,000 years! Sorry, after the downfall of the Roman Empire some 1,600 years ago, there was basically NO civilisation worth the name in Europe (spotwise in small areas you had something you might call civilisation) and when the new christian empires slowly came into being through slaughtering and conquering, it took another 500 years before you had any kind of cohesive power structure which in turn only lasted so long before you had more sectarian wars. Sweden was christened 1,000 years ago, iow, it took 1,000 years for the creator of the universe to make his disciples cross the fantastic distance of 1,300 miles from Rome to Stockholm?? to spread the world that he indeed created the universe (and he still has not made it in style to China, my god, is this god slow or what?). I can now do this trip in one hour and thirty five minutes without prayers.
If someone thinks that USA will prevail because god is on their side...well...god help them!!

41. Comment #9923 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 12:55 pm

"Isn't science responsible for the existence of the nuclear bomb?"

Science was needed to make it yes. So was a lot of other things, including political decisions. The decision to actually use it to kill tens of thousands of civilians was Truman's. He was by the way a devout Christian (Baptist).

Science is morally neutral - it only concerns itself with exploring how the universe works. The findings can be used for creating technology which may or may not be morally neutral. Building a bomb falls in the category of probably not so neutral. And finally you have the usage of the technology which is where the real moral decision takes place.

"Anyhow ... I am concerned about science's role in creating all of the weapons of mass destruction and the millions of humans killed throughout the modern secular scientific age."

Removing religion from the equation won't solve all the problems in the world. Not even close. Your argument is like saying "Why are you insisting on road safety when so many people are dying from heart attacks?". Religious violence and killings are to a large degree a phenomenon of its own and while the world may not become safe if we abandon religion, it will become safer.

Atheism is the far more safer choice as people generally don't kill each other over lack of beliefs. And while there certainly have been atrocities committed by regimes who were atheistic, they weren't doing so because they were atheists. Also, although religion corrupts morality, getting rid of it is no absolute guarantee of moral behaviour. People on average know right from wrong and act accordingly, but there are always exceptions. The problem with religion isn't immoral individuals - it is that the system of belief and the scripture can override the natural morality that we humans share. As the saying goes, simplified, religion can make good people do bad things.

Your concern for the development and usage of weapons of mass destructions are perfectly valid and I along with countless of people share those concerns. I however fail to see how religion in any way would solve that problem. On the contrary, religious extremists are basically the ones that might actually be crazy and suicidal enough to use them.

42. Comment #9926 by Robert on November 26, 2006 at 1:14 pm

This is a controversial statement but I regard the nuclear bomb as a good thing. Take Hiroshima. The alternative would have either been a land invasion of Japan in which tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Japanese would have been killed or else a blockade of Japan in which the Japanese people would have been starved out. Also the Japanese armies in China would have fought to a finish. Hiroshima was a blessing to the Japanese as well as their victims.

Without the bomb I am convinced that there would have been a Third World War with Russia. As it was the jihad against Communism was conducted by proxy in the Third World because those states weren't in a position to threaten Washington or Moscow.

It is warfare itself that is hideous not WMD. The Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes. The worst genocide in history was possibly Genghis Khan's rampage across Eurasia and his armies simply consisted of mounted archers.

WMD puts politicians in the firing line. When they themselves fear for their personal safety they may be less willing to send young men to die in foreign countries while ensuring that their own sons are safe in the National Guard.

Iraq's tragedy is that Saddam was only pretending to have WMD.

43. Comment #9930 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 1:23 pm

DM:
"> "The modern computer was first invented in the late 1940's in order to accurately calculate the effectiveness of artillery projectiles."

I don't need to make any arguments if you people confess your sins to me. Yes, science and technology have both played a tremendously helpful role in the cause of human violence from the beginning."

Blaming it on science and technology is nothing but moral cowardice. If you post something rude and insulting here, is it the fault of the inventor of the computer and the programmers that wrote the software that allowed you to do so?

The people who built the atomic bomb were not doing science, but engineering. Those that knew what they were part of, that they were building a massive bomb that would presumably be used against civilians are morally accountable. Even if you assume they were all atheists (in the 1940s, not very likely) your logic is still flawed. It's like saying that because Ted Haggard sniffs crystal meth and is a Christian that Christians are drug users.

44. Comment #9931 by Robert on November 26, 2006 at 1:27 pm

On the subject of Israel a debate on Zionist crimes against the Palestinians is one for another thread. I will simply point out that Prager's knee jerk support for Israel is hardly evidence of morality.

What's more if Israel is more advanced than its Arab neighbours that is because it is largely secular and Orthodox Judaism is less virulant in Israel than fundamentalist Islam is in the Arab countries.

The reason for this is not hard to seek - Israel was founded by Jewish refugees from Europe who were dominated by liberals and socialists committed to Enlightenment values. In so far as Israel is superior to the Muslim fundamentalists that is because it is further from God.

45. Comment #9933 by paul fauvet on November 26, 2006 at 1:49 pm

If scientists are to be blamed because of the use the military and politicians make of scientific knowledge, then logically they should also be praised for the use that doctors, engineers and architects make of that same knowledge.

Dave Matthews laments the 100,000 deaths at Hiroshima, and blames them on science. But the eradication of smallpox, and the near eradication of polio have probably saved many more lives than were lost at Hiroshima.

Smallpox was not eliminated by the power of prayer, but by the application of scientific knowledge of how micro-organisms work, and how they can be combatted.

We are having this conversation because of science - at least I presume that Matthews is using a computer and not a carrier pigeon to send us his contributions. And I can only participate because my disability - extreme short-sightedness - has been corrected by a pair of powerful spectacles.
Without the science of optics, I would be almost blind, and certainly in no condition to use a computer.

Yes, it's true that homo sapiens is currently living beyond his means, and dangerously depleting the resources we all depend on. But it was scientists who discovered that unpleasant fact, and it will be scientists, rather than priests, who discover solutions to the planet's current dilemmas.

46. Comment #9938 by goddogit on November 26, 2006 at 2:19 pm

Dear $9847 Dave,

Please breath deeply a few times and clear your mind, then attempt to view the issues that you have seen fit to comment upon once again.

I suggest that in your comment above, you are passing along the most hackneyed of all dishonest responses from the belief community, and it is as powerful in its logic as "up is really down" and "black is really white" in its persuasiveness.
Bother yourself to THINK FOR YOURSELF half a minute and you will notice a yawning void where prayers yield no echo at all.

47. Comment #9945 by RG on November 26, 2006 at 3:04 pm

"...If the extinction of humankind is a good thing (you say so explicitly) and science and technology speed it up (you also say so explicitly) it follows that science and technology are themselves a force for good."

That's as great a debate-ending retort I've ever heard. Well said sir.

48. Comment #9950 by Peter on November 26, 2006 at 5:59 pm

I think the need to debate theists is because the world hangs in a perilous state due to blind faith of people. If enough people state atheist beliefs, then politicians will be less afraid of more rational stances.

49. Comment #9962 by Chad on November 26, 2006 at 7:21 pm

David Matthews,

Are we talking about an equation here? Is it the net number of lives saved/lost that interests you? Because obviously scientific/medical breakthroughs put any numbers you have to shame. Or did Jesus give us penicillin?

50. Comment #9970 by Blake on November 26, 2006 at 7:45 pm

If I'm going to surrender my logic, senses and overall better judgment for something as flawed as religion, then I'm going to pick one that is more fun than Christianity. BoB Dobbs, Cthulhu, Odin, hell even Zeus knew how to have a better party than the God of Abraham. (Although Jesus did know how to get it on at the whorehouse, foot fetish aside.)

If you are going to pick a fairytale for your reality, make it a good one! Freedom of religion should be free-as-in-beer, not just free-as-in-speech.

As for the rest of the 90% who hold on to old story books, lets find a way to make a buck off of them. Most adults don't believe in Santa, but he still is good for sales this time of year. So when we all turn our faith to the one true Lord in America ($$$), let us not forget to give our respects to P.T. Barnum.

Praise Bob, hail Xenu, and Cthulhu ftang...

Blake