51. Comment #9975 by Tom on November 26, 2006 at 8:03 pm

I would've just told him to shut the hell up and accept that other people have opinions. Just because you don't believe in god, doesn't mean no one else can.

I'm sure he'd hate it if someone tried to convert him back to god. I don't know who I hate more Atheists who try and turn people away from god or the religious who try to bring them to it.


FREEDOM OF CHOICE doesn't just mean if you want to be gay or have an abortion. It also has to do with FREEDOM OF RELIGION, even if that religion is no religion at all.

52. Comment #9979 by John P on November 26, 2006 at 8:11 pm

>>Why should the burden of proof be on the Christians or on the Muslims or any other monotheistic or polytheistic belief. The atheists or nonbelievers are the one who have to prove that there is no God or Gods. Where is your proof?<<

Do intelligent people still ask this? I thought this was a real non-starter. The basic rules of logic, argument and debate need to be constantly re-hashed, it seems...

Ok, Atheistsarefaithless, let's take it from the top.

In any debate, the proponent of a position has the burden of proving his position.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. For instance, I cannot prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns. Somewhere, in some place we've never looked, there might be one hiding. Therefore the burden to prove they exist is on the person who asserts that they do. In a court of law, we don't place the burden on the accused to prove that he didn't commit the crime, until after the state has proven that he did.

The position put forth in this debate is whether God exists.

Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god, (the negative position) the burden was on Prager, as it is in all debates with this issue, to prove god's existence (the positive position). The burden was NOT on Harris to disprove the existence of god, because in order to do so, he would have had to assume the existence of the very entity he was being asked to disprove.

Got it?

Good. Try to keep it straight in the future.

53. Comment #9984 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Folks, the whole point isn't about "conversion" or who is right or wrong. The Harris/Prager debate was about logic, and who could use it better to explicate and defend their point of view. That is as far as it really goes.

As for the rest, the point is that WHATEVER religious path you choose (even the lack of religion) there is no reason why that choice shouldn't be open to debate and discussion. It should be just as free as any other choice that people make, from the choice in snack foods, political party, or literary genre. We can discuss and debate all of those things, and no one's feelings get hurt, so why is it different when it comes to god?

Surely, freedom of religion is not harmed by thinking and questioning and discussing beliefs. If anything, discussion might serve to INCREASE the pool of choices you see as fitting your world view. I would never suggest to anyone that they cannot believe the things they choose to believe. All I (and MOST of the atheists/secularists/rationalists I know) would ask is that we stop being so sensitive about the topic. That hypersensitivity to faiths and the differences between them causes far more harm than good.

And, Re: David Mathews...

There is no point in continuing to answer your posts. At all. If your perspective is simply that humanity is doomed and, therefore, nothing else matters, then neither you or I should waste the time we have remaining any further in discussing these issues as they are all ultimately as irrelevant as what brand of soap I use in the shower. While I will continue to try to make whatever time I have as comfortable as possible for those that I can, you can continue to whinge and bemoan a fate which is likely beyond either of our lifespans. That's what freedom of choice is all about. Good day.

54. Comment #9988 by John P on November 26, 2006 at 8:25 pm

>Comment #9987 by Currency of Faith on November 26, 2006 at 8:22 pm<<

>>How to liberate yourself from Jewish Slavery........<<

Howard? Is that you?

55. Comment #9990 by Jared on November 26, 2006 at 8:29 pm

Re: Currency of Faith

Dangit, who let Mel Gibson in here?

56. Comment #10000 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 9:03 pm

Woo! Comment #10,000. :D

Err, sorry, no useful contributions from me. I just wanted #10,000...

57. Comment #10002 by CF1 on November 26, 2006 at 9:24 pm

That was a good read!

I have one question for Dennis Prager:

Is the existance of what we can observe, made easier or harder to explain by suggesting the existance of things we can't observe?

Thank you Sam for all of your efforts.

58. Comment #10012 by Mitch on November 26, 2006 at 10:02 pm

Athieists and I agree on one point. Empirisism is the best criteria for running human affairs. Though I am a believer, I don't want my goverment invading another country because it 'believes' it is a threat. I think there should be proof.

Empirisism is an awesome critera unless you aim to prove God. You can't prove God to another person. Can't be done, any religious person including myself is a fool to try and engage in this debate.

God is the most awesome circular argument/ logical falacy you ever heard of...

God created the universe in such a way that we can't prove he exsits.

Its just crazy isn't it?

Logical debate depends on a few agreed upon premises. If you can't agree on the premises, why go on from there?

I can't prove God to you, but why do I have to? If we both agree that I can't do it can we get along?

(Keep in mind that I too think goverments and rule makers need to stick to empirisim when it comes to making decisions. But I probably can't prove that to you either.)

59. Comment #10015 by Randy Ping on November 26, 2006 at 10:17 pm

Albert Einstein was not religious. Not in the slightest. That is incorrect.

60. Comment #10023 by paul fauvet on November 26, 2006 at 10:28 pm

So humans don't deserve any praise at all, concludes David Matthews. Has this man got no friends ? No loved ones ? No children ?

Does his condemnation of the entire human species include Homer, Mozart, Shakespeare, Picasso, the Beatles, and any other artist who has created joy and beauty ?

If we are so worthless, were our ancestors wasting their time when they fought to end slavery, or to win votes for women ?

His attack on over-population is woefully misplaced. It is science which, through the various forms of contraception now known, that has provided humanity with the possibility of controlling the size of its population.

It is scientific techniques that have vastly improved crop yields, and ended the mass famines that were once taken for granted in India and China.

And it is scientists who are developing cleaner forms of energy, which might allow us to overcome the current global warming crisis.

There's nothing inevitable about this, of course. Unfortunately too many of the people who take the decisions, most obviously George W. Bush, trust in religion rather than science. They are the ones dragging the planet towards disaster.

61. Comment #10027 by Mitch on November 26, 2006 at 10:34 pm

I don't think people need God as an excuse to opress other people. Those who have the need and oportunity to opress others will always find a 'reason' to do so.

I think opression is a bigger problem than whether or not you believe in God(s).

I will join you in any effort to end oppression. I am glad you are trying to do something about it.

62. Comment #10028 by Aussie on November 26, 2006 at 10:35 pm

Using David's logic:

1. Scientists made the bombs that vaporised 100 000 Japanese.

2. Therefore scientists are to blame

Hmm interesting.

But David can actually go one step further with the same logic:

3. God made the scientists

4. Therefore God is to blame

63. Comment #10031 by RG on November 26, 2006 at 10:40 pm

To Aletheia Sinclair:

*Atheism leads to nihilism and an insidious form of existentialism and it is at the root of mankind's ills, not religion. As for science, it does not begin to answer the questions addressed by religion.*


The actions of Hitler and Stalin and nihilists are explicitly not products of their non-belief, of their atheism; they result from irrational belief in some other ludicrous ideology that just doesn't happen to be orthodox Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

I, as well as several others from my observation, have had our lives enriched by the realization that we create our own meanings in our lives. However, this does not follow that we are free to create our own morality, as we inevitably share our space in the world with others. A lack of belief in a supreme creator is not an immediate gateway to lack of morals or values, and to assert so is monumentally offensive to intelligent open-minded thinkers because it is absolutely misleading.

It is key to remember that any reasonable person rejecting a belief in God, as Sam Harris has pointed out, does not endorse atheism as a dogma. And so much of religion is encompassed within its own dogma, as Dawkins and Harris have highlighted ad nauseam.

As for your statement that science cannot answer the questions posed by religion, it takes an appalling lack of candor to say such a thing, considering the abundant number claims throughout history that religious institutions have made in support of their faith that have been thoroughly decimated by the discoveries of a certain tautology.


*Why we are here and how we got here are huge questions and science offers no possible answers to them because they are outside of science's boundaries.*


Science is constantly pushing the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe and its workings, including the working of ourselves, further and further out at an amazing rate.

What I and several other fellow atheists take great umbrage with are those who claim to know answers to which any honest person could not possibly admit to actually knowing. Each religion makes specific (and incompatable) claims as to the way things are. Any yet it is precisely these beliefs people have in the answers to the 'ultimate questions' that serve as a primary impetus for many of the most powerful leaders and individuals in our global society. We atheists are frightened, and rightfully so.


*So, why don't some of you know-it-alls gain a little wisdom before you commit yourself to ideas and beliefs for which you have no basis in thought.*


It is blindingly obvious that only the religious apologists claim to be know-it-alls here.


*It is obvious that most of you have not lived long enough to gain any wisdom.*


Seriously? Speak for yourself... and for the know-it-alls.

64. Comment #10036 by denoir on November 26, 2006 at 11:37 pm

Aletheia Sinclair:
-
"This forum is a collection of ignorance and arrogance beyond just about any I have ever witnessed. Yes, science is evidence based... AFTER deciding on its axioms. Science has no idea of first origins. Scientific proof is by logical necessity based on symbolic logic, be that logic verbal, mathematical, or otherwise. This is necessary because it is the ONLY way to transfer your proof from your mind to another mind. The symbols are a self referential system and all scientific proofs are tautological in a very real sense."
-


Funny you should mention ignorance: perhaps you should read up a bit on the scientific method. There is no such thing as a "scientific proof". There are theories that are supported by observation, not proven. And yes, it is based on a number of assumption, like for instance that our sensory organs on average show a consistent picture. These basic assumptions that are needed are universally supported - even by religious people.

You are confusing science and math.

-
"Kurt Godel showed in his theoroms that there are always truths that can't be proved in a self referential symbolic system such as math or verbal language."
-

Indeed, I can write something like this:

1) The next statement is false
2) The previous statement is true

It's a solid argument against a closed system of mathematical logic such as the Principia Mathematica attempt. It is however no argument against the scientific method that has never made a claim to be a closed system and its axioms are not artificial paradoxes (as is in Gödel's case).

As for tautology - that's the best thing you can hope for in a scientific theory - a reduction to a self-evident statement. Natural selection is a beautiful example of that. "What is good at surviving survives". It is self-referential, self-evident and tautological. Through these features you eliminate the need for further speculation. No sane human being would say "Yes, very well but why do things that are good at surviving survive?". The tautology removes the need for a meta-level and is subsequently not a bad thing. The alternative is infinite regress.

65. Comment #10039 by Ernie on November 26, 2006 at 11:45 pm

Let me begin by saying that Dennis Prager engaged in this debate to illustrate the differences between the beliefs of atheists and theists. I will say that from a purely arguementative standpoint Sam Harris won the debate. This begs the question does this change the mind of any Christian person. I highly doubt any theist was swayed by Mr. Harris's arguments and I'll tell you why. As believers we accept the existence of God based on faith. We require no proof. So debates between atheists and theists are at their core futile. As a believer I have simply weighed the benefits of believing (possible eternal life, possible afterlife in paradise), with the drawbacks (a little effort on my part to live a decent life, a little time spent in prayer). Now lets look at the benefits of Atheism (you're able to do whatever you want while here on earth with no regard for sin). Now the drawbacks (possibility of eternal damnation and burning in hell). Lets break it down further. If I'm right-->life in paradise after death. If I'm wrong-->nothingness after death. If an atheist is right---> nothingness after death. If an atheist is wrong ---> They burn in hell. Now tell me why I should bet atheism when I have so little to gain by betting atheism.

66. Comment #10042 by Robert on November 27, 2006 at 12:30 am

What is the answer to Davids question about the inevitable human extinction?

Well, i am sure any open minded person can look at the problem and say with some conviction that yes, we will go extinct. Its a matter of time, not a matter of gods. All it takes is one large rock from outer space, or even our own political stupidity to make sure that humanity does not live as long as the dinosaurs did.

What does it do to my non-religious beliefs? nothing. I accept that humanity is a blip in the history of our planet. We are tiny, tiny little things in a universe so massive that we cannot properly perceive just how big it is. People tend to use faith to hide from this problem, making them feel bigger then they really are.

If we are talking about the 100,000 people who died in Hiroshima and the vile heartless scientists who invented the atom bomb, why don't we talk about the church during the crusades?

They sent just as many (if not more) people to die in a far off land to 'reclaim the holy land.' Which is another way of saying "go grab that city and bring back lots of loot for us to spend".

Perhaps the childrens crusade? when thousands of children were marched off to war? Most of them were sold into slavery, or died on the way.

Do not be so quick to accuse scientists of being evil. While Jesus turned water into wine, and fed his people with bread and fish scientists developed hot running water, plumbing, cooked food, water flourinisation, medicine, pasteurization and antibiotics.

Without scientists, we would not have 6.8 billion people on this planet.

Another question interested me, which was why atheists keep on arguing about this issue and why wouldn't they just leave us alone?

Well the answer is simple i suppose.
Why do you constantly rush at us and try and 'save' us?

More specifically, we are being preyed upon constantly. did you know that in 30 states of the union, an atheist cannot run for public office?

People may form rallies and mobs when a white cop shoots a black child, or when a comic strip depicts a religious figure in a satirical way.
When people beat up an atheist, or force him to learn religions he does not want anything to do with, do you see them massing and demanding revenge? Do you see atheists marching upon city halls demanding the right of office?

No.

There are several reasons for this.

Reason number 1. Atheists are scared. yes, thats right. i won't deny it. I would rather have a rabid weasel shoved into my pants then to deal with an armed religious Zionist. If atheists gather in one place, it means that a lot of people know where they are, and possibly who they are. this can effect their lives, and makes them a very large target. We know what religious insanity can do to those who think differently, we don't want it happening to us.

2. No one in power will take us seriously. It has already been stated that people would not vote for a man or woman who is atheist even if he is the best suited for the job. this means people will vote for a chimpanzee instead of an atheist.

3. We desperately hope that people will wise up. This is one of the reasons why we argue it so much. We hope that if we give them enough reasons, we will give them what they need to 'open their eyes' so to speak.

4. Many of the most outspoken atheists are young, inexperienced, or in positions that are not taken seriously. There are people who are very outspoken and in positions to make quite a difference. But lets face it, people don't want to believe upstart youngsters



On to the next subject.

Why are people so wound up about the beginning of time and the universe anyway? does it really matter that much? sure scientists want to know, but does the average person really need to know? will it put food on the table? will it pay taxes?

What makes knowing what will happen after your die so damned important? your not dead now, i say don't worry about it. That does not mean you should not be a moral person, but it doesn't mean you should be worrying what will happen after death. You should be more concerned with raising your kids, or making the world a better place for everyone, not just yourself and a select few people. Scientists do this every day


Does it matter what happened in the beginning? the beginning was X amount of years ago. THIS is not the beginning, and as far as i can tell, its not the end. The point is, we are here. this planet is here, this huge universe is here.

If any of you want to know what i believe in, what i REALLY believe in, i will tell you.

I believe in myself. I believe i have the power to do anything i want to do. I believe that i hold just as much power as the president of the united states, or the poorest beggar on the street. I feel i can mold the world with my hands, and i do so every time i run my hand through the sand on a beach.

I believed that i could change myself without the help of others, and i did. I believed that i could succeed in life doing the things that i enjoy, and i am. I believe that peoples opinions of me and what i do should always be taken with a grain of salt, and i do. And finally, i believe that everything, yes, everything should be observed from the perspective of skepticism. Religion, science, everything. I feel skepticism was the greatest gift my father gave me, and i will pass it on to my children when I have them.

This is Robert, logging off

67. Comment #10043 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 12:32 am

68. Comment #10044 by Traytheist on November 27, 2006 at 12:46 am

Makoto:

For lack of a better term: Amen!

69. Comment #10049 by Martin on November 27, 2006 at 1:04 am

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.)

Well, as a European I take offence at Prager's almost Nazi-like pro-American nationalism.

Has Prager not considered the fact that Europeans, not blinded by religious non-sense like his contemporaries, might not be having as many children because we see the world as already over populated? Actually I suspect it has more to do with cost of living than anything else.

Also Europeans correctly cringe in horror at the unqualified support the US provides Israel, when Israel itself is the source of the problem in the middle east? While I don't think Israel should be wiped off the face of the map like the Muslim nuts, I also don't think unequivocal support of Israel and it's almost terrorist-like actions against the Palestinians and Lebanese is going to help the situation either.

One final point for Mr Prager... Europeans know well and truly what it was like to have the church in charge...it was called The Dark Ages. 500 years of ignorance and scientific stagnation, witch hunts and inquisitions, crusades and almost non-stop war.

70. Comment #10060 by Traytheist on November 27, 2006 at 1:43 am

To expand on #10052:

Quite often when I point out Biblical inconsistencies to Christians, they respond with "There must be a problem with translaton" or something to that effect, so I propose:

What if the whole book was translated incorrectly? What if the abrahamic god is, in fact, the exact opposite if what is written? What if he rewarded people for thinking for themselves and sent dogmatic, unthinking sheep to hell? Then you go to hell for believing and I get an eternity of bliss, although I doubt god would allow me my idea of bliss; he has a problem with adultery, and I do not! Pascal's wager has been debunked a million times over, so why keep trotting it out to be debunked by someone as unqualified as myself? Try a new argument, if any exist.

71. Comment #10063 by Don on November 27, 2006 at 1:56 am

I have always found the debate over the existence of God to be complete waste of time. Once a person reveals that he or she practices atheism I simply excuse myself from their life. I have no need or desire to use any amount of this lifetime on any person who has such a overactive ego as to believe that we just happened and that this present life is all that we possess. We all have within us the capacity for faith, I use mine to believe in God and Jesus Christ while atheists use there's to trust in chance. Best I can say is, "Good luck with that."

72. Comment #10065 by Traytheist on November 27, 2006 at 2:09 am

Don:

Why do you believe in god? I'm not asking this to be mean, or to set you up to be bashed by everyone, I really want to know what your specific reasoning is for your belief in god? I hae to believe you weren't raised Catholic, because I was, and that's about the shortest path to atheism :). I sincerely would like you to respond to this, no ridicule, just discussion.

73. Comment #10068 by Traytheist on November 27, 2006 at 2:21 am

Please, let's not attack Don, let's allow him the opportunity to explain his beliefs to us in a calm and rational manner and perhaps they will be sufficient to change our minds. Or perhaps our rebuttals will be enough to change his. Gotta start somewhere.

74. Comment #10069 by John Phillips on November 27, 2006 at 2:23 am

Bobbo: I have no problem with teaching about the beliefs of the creationists or IDers as long as it is in a philosophy or religious education class. What I object to is teaching either in science as if they have equal standing with the theory of evolution. In fact, if it was explained honestly and openly in a philosophy class I think that most pupils would have the intellect to see ID for what it really is. I.e. a means to sneak religious indoctrination into science classes as well as leading to a debasement of the scientific method which has and continues to serve us so well.

75. Comment #10075 by Katie on November 27, 2006 at 2:48 am

To quote an athiest who knew where his towel is, "47."

76. Comment #10088 by Gary on November 27, 2006 at 4:01 am

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

The really amazing thing is the context in which Plager says the that: "Don't bet your farm quite yet. I have in fact made the case for the unique legitimacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition in 25 essays I wrote in 2005."

So this utterly ignorant, obvious nonsense is "THE" case for Christrianity above other religions. He went to the length of writing 25 essays to make the case, and this is the best he can come up with?

If there is no more reason to believe it than that, then it is stupendous that so many believe in Christianity above all else.

77. Comment #10112 by Gary on November 27, 2006 at 5:07 am

Aletheia: you say "Kurt Godel showed in his theoroms that there are always truths that can't be proved in a self referential symbolic system such as math or verbal language."

My understanding is that the above statement untrue. It seems rather that you repeating a misunderstanding of it that often comes up in the popular press, stated by writers who also do not understand it.

Godel's proof is pertains to specific systems that allow one to define the natural numbers. The included systems also enable self-referential statements to be made; however an ability to make self-referential statements is not enough to bring Godel's theorem into play. Specifically, verbal language isn't enough, except for the area of language where it is being used as the tool for making statements about systems that define the natural numbers. Specifically, the area of language that is used to talk about gods does not fulfill criteria.

So my understanding here is that you simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are complaining about "know-it-alls."

I think there is something to be said for actually knowing what one is talking about. But there will always be those who resent those who do, and who create a world-view where there is something wrong with them because it makes them feel better about themselves.

78. Comment #10119 by John on November 27, 2006 at 5:33 am

It's embarrassing to see Prager time and again resort to the same old fallacies - even after Harris called him on them! To go from "belief in x useful" to "x is true" is irrational, no matter how many time you repeast it.

Dennis Prager:
." Can you name one thing that does not exist but is essential to human survival?"
---
Easy! A cure to destructive aging, cancer and disease. Many humans who have clearly not survived to this day because of those destructive forces would have if the cure were available. So such a cure was essential to their survival. But still it does not exist (until hard working scientists invent it).

79. Comment #10123 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 6:01 am

Will someone take away David Mathews f****ng keyboard. I am amazed that one person con come up with so much bullshit. He consistently avoids giving direct answers to direct questions, a tactic used by all god botherers.
David Mathews why don't you do us all a favour, and go and get yourselfe a big bottlee of paracetamol, as obviously from your rantings the end can't come quick enough for you.

80. Comment #10169 by Chris Davis on November 27, 2006 at 9:04 am

Interesting to see how Prager sidesteps the fact that religion is responsible for so much ghastly bloodshed over the years. Although this is really irrelevant to the existence of a deity, the superstitious are very fond of waving Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler at atheists as evidences that atheism Really Screws You Up. (They tend to go a bit quiet about Hitler if you point them at images of Nazis cuddling cardinals at http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm, though.)

Prager neatly avoids this problem, however: oh yes, religion causes conflict, but only the false ones. His own version of fundamentalist Christianity has an unblemished history.

And how do you tell the difference between false, murderous superstition and the One True Faith? Easy: if they've ever done anything reprehensible, they're filthy, idolatrous pagans - regardless of how they paint themselves.

CD

81. Comment #10171 by Mitch on November 27, 2006 at 9:21 am

In responce to
168. Comment #10089 by asdf on November 27, 2006 at 4:05 am

"Why do you believe?"
I believe because of my experiences. But I won't go on, it is pointless because I can't 'prove' any of it to you.

But why do I have to? You said...
1) So much harm is done in God's Name e.g. war
2) Religion infiltrates public policy and law
3) Religion takes up valuable resources

In responce...
#2)) I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. My particular religion would have been well served by it. I don't think religion should infiltrate public policy.
#3)) There are a lot bigger 'resource' problems out there than religion. Materialisim for example. There are a lot of believers in that one regardless of your belief in God. Calling out religion for being wastefull of resources is like making everyone drink bottled water for the health benefits, but allowing smoking and cheezeburgers to go on.
#1)) I don't think people need God as an excuse to oppress other people. (like your communisim example) Those who have the need and opportunity to oppress others will always find a 'reason' to do so.

Oppresion is a bigger problem than whether or not you believe in God(s).

I will join you in any effort to end oppression. Also, I agree with you. I think religious organizations (or any organization) SHOULD push more 'green' policies.

82. Comment #10173 by Chris on November 27, 2006 at 9:29 am

Apologies if I am repeating something already said, I have quite a lot of sympathy for DM's position and I agree with a lot of what he says about the future of humanity. I think in the grand scheme of things that humanity may well be a disaster for the planet, other species and itself. It is certainly true that the Earth wont miss us and the universe never noticed us as David pointed out.

The point about atheism is that it does not require that humanity is special in any way or that we have some kind of purpose, we have no purpose other than to survive (and ultimately we may prove not very good at this). We evolved big brains because that gave us a competitive advantage in our environment. But those same brains are may alter the environment to the point where we can not survive any longer. I don't really see what this has to do with God?

The desire to advance and prosper beyond the resource limitations of the planet may well be our species ultimate undoing and the Malthusian disaster may be inevitable.

The one point I would make is that ultimately, life on Earth is doomed because the life of the Sun suggests that Earth life will all die at some point anyway. Also, whatever aspect of humanity is responsible for our curiosity (and therefore science) may well be the reason we are still here today.

Science offers the only reasonable hope of surviving into the distant future, it may be a long shot and it may kill us before we get there but it is surely the only shot that humanity and life on earth has of surviving(even if ultimately something else will get us anyway). To state with certainty that we are an evolutionary dead end is obviously wrong, it is one possibility but there are others.

Chris

83. Comment #10178 by Shadow on November 27, 2006 at 10:19 am

Sometimes, mankind amuses me...

I was hoping to avoid getting into a theological debate, yet once again, but it seems that fate has conspired to ensnare me in her whimiscal traps.

What I am about to say will by no means end the debate, but I'm sure there are those out there who will be driven to acts of violence by it.

Mankind created the incarnation of whatever deity it chooses to worship. As I have said many times before, a christian is only a christian because he perceives himself to be such. God is no different, but therein lies the problem.

Let us assume that God is a real being and at this time due to circumstances beyond our control, is not perceivable by us. Therefore we must resort to belief and interpretation.

However,in order for something to exist, it must be perceived by an outside observer who can then make interpreted observation of the subject in question. Unfortunately, because interpretation is an opinion based on facts presented by the observed subject in question, there is naturally going to be interpretational flaws to the description that ones gives to such an object.

For example:

If one were to describe God, one would be constrained, based on observational data, that God is a superior being due to factual representations of existence, abilities and cognitive stance. However, without any data to truly support such statements, those of the christian persuasion would label God as perfect.

The problem:

Without observing God in his natural state of being, it is impossible for one to describe God with any accuracy. Basing ones assertions on the very tome designed to praise such a being is also inherent of inaccuracy as such statements could be easily construed as "influenced beyond a reasonable sense of impartialility."

However, one must also take into consideration a key thing that christians, as well as every other faith, possess. They all share a common bond of faith.

Faith itself is not a bad thing. Blind faith is, but only by design of intent. I have blind faith in my wife, but is it a good or bad thing? No one can be the true judge of that except for her as her actions and words are measured by others, but their true meaning is known only by her, unless she chooses to share them.

To atheists, I am a man of faith. I am pagan, and proud of it. My feelings on christianity are hostile, but I ask you to give them the same treatment as I do. I respect their right to believe what they believe and I cannot tell them that they are wrong, otherwise I am no better than them for telling me that I am wrong.

To those of faith, I ask that you consider the "truth" of what you believe. Thousands of years ago, the Egyptians believed that they, too, were right and all others were wrong and they lasted for 3500 years. Now there are few traces of their once proud civilization. Consider your own intentions for believing what you believe. Do you believe out of love, or out of fear?

To all others, faith is a powerful thing and one not to be used frivolously. One's words and deeds reflect the nature of one's faith and for one to deny others the right to be who they are simply because their beliefs say those individuals should be denied goes against everything that this nation stands for.

I hope that my words hold meaning for someone out there who understands.

shadowreign666@gmail.com

84. Comment #10186 by Mitch on November 27, 2006 at 11:21 am

Well, I read it and Dennis looses imo. I've heard that people generally only hear what they want to hear, and i can clearly see this with Dennis's arguments. He tries to argue w/o full comprehension of what was meant by Sam Harris.

Not that, that even matters. Sam basicaly said, look we can live w/o god, the whole idea is ridiculous and science does not suggest god exists. Then Dennis says, Some smart people believe in god, we couldnt survive as a scociety if he didnt exist, because of god we are a better people.

Dennis never tries to prove god exists, he never actually ties any scientific evidence behind the fact. To be honest, its silly to ask Dennis to provide good reason for believeing in god other than its "good for you" because you can't.

Of course, maybe im biased, since i am an athiest myself. I believed in God for a good long time, but i got into an argument with a friend, and if there is one thing i wont do, its lie to myself. The facts are simply laid out, and i can honestly admit the thing that kept me from becomming an athiest so long (it took many arguments) was out of fear.

I didnt want to accept the fact that there is a chance i will die and thats it. But, i wont lie to myself and really, there is no proof in god, so i simply cannot believe in god. THere are more arguments that show how bad a thing religion is than how good it is. I dont kill people and rape children because i would feel bad. Just like you feel sorry for people who are w/o a home, not because if i dont i'll go to hell...

God just dosn't exist, there isnt even an argument.

85. Comment #10247 by Michael on November 27, 2006 at 2:53 pm

Here's the thing with Atheism. In a way, it really is another belief system. It is the belief that everything that exists can be weighed, measured, verified, logically explained, and logically argued for.

If you did not believe this, then at best you would be an Agnostic, because you would believe that some things may be unobservable, untestable, intangible, ect.

If you don't believe those things (and therefore, are not an Atheist) then you are free to believe things may exist which are not substantial, cannot be argued, and cannot be explained.

In the end, you can take all demeaning claims of a old man with a beard in the clouds, or superman, or heaven or hell, and boil them down to believing (with no proof either way) in a universe which is strictly substantial, or a universe containing elements of both the substantial and intangible. I see no burden of proof on either side to change beliefs.

86. Comment #10339 by Nichodeemous on November 27, 2006 at 10:16 pm

Mark Twain once said: "you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." This observation is tailor-made for Dave.

Dave can't be argued with because he doesn't use logic or reason to argue. He won't be convinced by any reasonable argument, because all of his arguments are based on things he just 'knows' are true. If you could prove every one of his assertions wrong with no room for error he would still go on believing in his fantasy world-view.

Some people are just too invested in their own beliefs to ever find their way out again. Dave would risk being emotionally and mentally crippled if he were to confront the lies he has been told and the lies he has told himself. Imagine coming to terms with the knowledge that everyone you ever trusted lied to you for your entire life or that they were so fallible and gullible that they fell for such a self-evidently flawed belief system and fed it to you? It is a sad thing, but Dave is a theistic vegetable at this point. He is no longer capable of independent thought and must cling to his faith in desperation. He will lash out at anything that conflicts with his views because in a way they threaten his sanity. He is terrified of reality and all its implications… which I guess would be some people's definition of Hell, wouldn't it?

No wonder Dave is so depressed and nihilistic. It is kind of understandable that he assigns blame to science for some future Armageddon while ignoring all the good that science and technology has been used for, because it is science that threatens his entire sense of reality (skewed as it is). He will never see the good because he believes some future bad will come of it that ultimately defines it somehow.

I doubt very much that Dave actually believes in evolution since he hasn't bothered to learn much about it (note his statement about elephants above). If he did study real science a bit more maybe that lethal combination of faith and denial strangling his brain and choking his heart might be weakened enough for him to confront a universe without any gods or holy books to package it all for him in childishly simple terms.

87. Comment #10492 by Kingasaurus on November 28, 2006 at 8:24 am

Roy,

I wouldn't bother crediting David Mathews for anything in this thread to bolster your particular case, because he apparently invented his own god that looks nothing like, behaves differently, and has different attitudes than yours.

At least one of you is wrong, so why don't you both go off by yourselves and hash it out before pointing fingers and giggling at atheists?

88. Comment #10495 by Lucas on November 28, 2006 at 8:38 am

david matthews, Isn't religion responsible for hitlers ethnic cleansing. there are always two sides to the argument. science has been also responsible for alot of good in todays world, however, i dont see the scientists singling out minorities and treating them like shit just because it doesnt fit in with their little rule book for everlasting orgies

89. Comment #10532 by maryhelena on November 28, 2006 at 10:20 am

Hi, Tom

Well said - and necessary. My thanks.

Atheists, being like cats, are, as Dawkins has said, difficult to organize, to herd. It's going to be difficult to ever get an agenda to which all will subscribe...It's not an easy task before atheists - they do need to enlist the help of others if the danger within fundamentalism is to be curtailed.

I have used, in an earlier post, the analogy of 'elephants' to describe religionists - an analogy that does put the atheists cats, on their own, at a considerable disadvantage...

(As an aside, since religionists can be herded, how about 'like elephants' for the religionists? Thick skinned they are - even have their own 'language', low frequency infrasound. Generally peaceful but prone to attacks of madness now and again - the male musth/madness period of sexual or dominance activity. The occasional rogue male. And of course, not to be forgotten, elephants never forget - an old adage which science has now backed up. Quite an interesting perspective from which to view atheists and religionists! Clearly one in which it becomes obvious that, because of the size difference between cats and elephants, - the idea of a battle, let alone a winnable battle, is nonsense. If atheists 'cats' want to stop any rogue religious 'elephants' from their destructive path - then they simply have to enlist the help of some game rangers to work on their behalf - caterwauling from the rooftops just won't do the job).

90. Comment #10672 by dan on November 28, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't atheism a belief system? I guess I have some trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that atheists insist that there is no God....not that there is no Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. God, but NO God at all, personal or non-personal. It's easy to poke fun at organized religion, but atheists tend going beyond that...hmm...I guess things get confusing when one starts to ponder questions such as, "Why does the universe exist?"

I would hesitate to call Dawkins a true atheist... if anything, he is agnostic. He largely seems to reject organized religion and the idea of a personal God, no? See below:

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

91. Comment #10692 by IANVS on November 29, 2006 at 12:45 am

The topic of debate, "Why are atheists so angry?", is unfair & unbalanced -- not to mention misleading -- by implying that all atheists are angry.

Shouldn't it be, "Why are some atheists so angry?"

Or, even more accurately -- since a majority of Americans are believers -- shouldn't we be asking, "Why are some atheists and theists angry?"

Angry atheists and theists are probably most upset about the same thing -- that their positions are not understood, recognized, or accepted by the other side.

I say live and let live... for worms are graciously agnostic and will feast on both.

92. Comment #10774 by dan on November 29, 2006 at 6:18 am

Is "Lack of belief in any god" equivalent to "Belief that there is no god"? If not, how so? Do you reject the idea of belief?

I find it strange that scientists will prop up something like the multiverse "theory" (a theory that is based on ZERO experimental evidence/observations), in rejection of the anthropic principle (hell, at least we can observe our own universe). This, seems to me, is hypocrisy at its finest.

93. Comment #10824 by Vigilant Watcher on November 29, 2006 at 10:23 am

Quote by David Mathews:_
"The Universe is very large and complicated and the human mind simply lacks the capacity to perceive, interpret and understand everything. "

So by definition, then, as we don't fully understand it all, it had to be created!

An example of the wooly-headed 'reasoning' of the creationist. Enough said!

94. Comment #10827 by dan on November 29, 2006 at 10:44 am

"So by definition, then, as we don't fully understand it all, it had to be created!"

I don't agree with this reasoning, either. That being said, it sounds equally absurd to say that universe created itself, or that it always existed. Any way you look at it, you get stuck. In answer to the question, "Why does the universe exist?" the answer "God" is as good as any other answer....though I suppose that from a scientific point of view, "I don't know" is the best answer to give....it's kind of unsatisfying, though, since that will always be the answer.

95. Comment #10832 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 11:04 am

Is "Lack of belief in any god" equivalent to "Belief that there is no god"? If not, how so? Do you reject the idea of belief?

------------------

No, it is not, nor are the statements logically or semantically equivalent. There are plenty of gods in which most people do not believe, that is, it is a very rare person who believes in all gods. So you, for example, might not have a belief in the Jade Empororer, or in Kali, or whatever. There are likely some god or gods that you believe in and worship, and other gods that you don't believe in, and don't worship.

I'm just like you, except the number of gods that I believe in and worship is 0.

As for your second point, there is nothing hypocritical about multi-verse conjectures. No scientist that I am aware of thinks that multiverse conjectures are on firm observational ground, they don't claim to be, and they are not meant to avoid the anthropic principle but to explain it.

Hypocritical would be to take the anthropic principle as evidence of design, because THAT would be to assert falsely that you had reached an edge of human knowledge, an act of unbridled hubris based on the flimsiest of evidence, claimed not as a conjecture (after all, it would explain nothing) but as a statement of absolute truth.

96. Comment #10847 by maryhelena on November 29, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Hi, Tom

I'll keep a lookout for a thread on the forum - although posting to a forum is not really my cup of tea - but neither was posting to a webpage either! I much prefer the mailing list format for discussions - but I don't think there is one dealing with Dawkins/atheism and his new book.

Regards
maryhelena

97. Comment #10866 by dan on November 29, 2006 at 1:19 pm

On your first point:

You seem to be caught up with the idea of believing in a specific god/gods. I am avoiding that subject entirely, because, like you, I think that it is downright insane for someone to pontificate on the nature of a supreme being or beings. I'm just talking about the idea of believing in a creator or creators. That's it. No denomination, no specific religion, no religious text. No claims of insight into intention. No name. No identity. But I digress...so as I see it, you lack belief in any god/gods, but this does not imply that you believe in the non-existence of a god/gods (because belief, any belief, is bad, right?) If I'm wrong here, let me know....that brings me to the second point:

As far as multiverse conjectures not being on "firm observational ground"....they are not on ANY observational ground! They are a BELIEF, period. You say they are meant to "explain the anthropic principle"....hmm...sound familiar? Wow, the laws of nature seem so finely tuned, so to explain this, I can choose God or the Multiverse? Are those my only two choices? What makes the multiverse any better?

Thus, the hypocrisy.

I'll take you one further...ok, let's say I BELIEVE in the multiverse. Or, better yet, there is experimental evidence suggesting that there is a multiverse. I'm still s-t up a creek! Where did the multiverse come from? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist? These are fair questions, but they fall into the metaphysical realm. They are unanswerable questions. They will always be unanswerable - now I know what you are thinking right now - that's a cop-out explantion for God. But it is not. I'm not saying, "I don't know how this works, so God must have done it." I'm not saying that at all. Science can always figure out the "hows", but the "whys" are impossible, and unanswerable. And that is where belief, in my view, enters the picture. Not denominational belief, but simple belief in a creator(s) - no more, no less.

98. Comment #10924 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 2:17 pm

Dan, where you go wrong, IMO at least, is that you don't understand that atheists have no problem with saying we don't know about certain things and don't need to posit a god to cover what we don't know. Especially with no evidence for one, at least none we can accept rationally. If we believe in anything it is that the scientific method has so far proven the best method in describing our universe and it is not yet finished doing so. Though unlike religious belief, there is no faith involved only acceptance of what has withstood proper scientific scrutiny. Whether there will be areas that science will never be able to explain, we simply say we don't know, at least not yet. But it is early days so far and it is not yet possible to say one way or the other whether there will be areas we can't explain and it may never be. Atheists are OK with that viewpoint, though it doesn't stop us continuing with our search through the scientific method. After all, it is our curiosity that has brought us this far and our very curiosity might well partly explain the positing of a supernatural creator to cope with the need to know before we had the tools, i.e. the scientific method, we now have to investigate the universe.

99. Comment #10926 by RG on December 1, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Dan -

In response to comment #10866


Dr. Dawkins addresses your concern directly in The God Delusion on page 146-147:

"It is tempting to think (and many have succumbed) that to postulate a plethora of universes is a profligate luxury which should not be allowed. If we are going to permit the extravagance of a multiverse, so the argument runs, we might as well be hung for a sheep and a lamp and allow God. Aren't they both equally unparsimonious ad hoc hypotheses, and equally unsatisfactory? People who think that have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection. The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence."

Hope this clears things up a bit.

100. Comment #10939 by Andrew on December 1, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Solve from the beginning. "There was nothing and then", how does it go? How about you have all the proof then you crash me beliefs....Your just a religion until you can prove otherwise.