It is never worthwhile to argue about the religion you haven’t got.
The person who boasts of having no religious prejudice quite often has no religion.

Just a terrific article.  The gorilla in the room has always been religion.  We can’t talk about it.  Islam’s commitment to jihad and suicide and Christianity’s somnambulist acceptance of Revelation and literal interpretation of the Bible should have everyone scared.

Harris does a nice job here and in his book of tracking the enablers of these monstrous and ancient beliefs.  It is the moderates who are the real problem, and this insight has escaped all of us, including myself, for a number of years.

I, too, was a religious person for most of my adult life.  A series of freak occurrences caused me to doubt those beliefs; therefore, I came to atheism later in life.  Thanks to Mr. Harris and others the wisdom of that change now is confirmed.  And I sleep better at night knowing that such archaic concepts as sin do not have to control ones life.

Peace, cml

Sam makes a lot of assumptions for an atheist.
He should try going outside…after all, the clock is ticking, and you atheist have shorter lifespans.  Tick tick tick tick tick…enjoy it man! go!

ps: StephX is a dumbass.

And MIKE and DAN obviously needs a jobs.

http://promotions.monster.com/keywordjobsearch/

responding to Devito.

Where do you get you info that a large part of the Stalinist government were Jews?  Stalin ruthlessly “purged” his government of Jews.

Frank DeVito, thank you for your comment!  That’s very observant of you!

I’ve always wondered why Sam Harris’s politics in “The End of Faith” are so neoconservative, and why he advocates the New World Order.  Well, to be fair, he only mentions the advantages of having a world government, and it is a small part of the book, about 2 or 3 sentences.

Maybe his failure to mention examples of “Jewish cruelty” IS “just an honest oversight,” but maybe it’s more than that.  If Sam Harris has Zionist connections, it certainly would explain a lot!

Herman (9123),

Your question #2 is essentially the question I just asked.  Dan’s answer (8851) was unsatisfactory.  He says the universe is eternal, which seems to be a religious statement. 

I asked for how something can come from nothing.  You mentioned the Big Bang, but that cannot be the beginning, since something had to be there already fo a “bang” to happen.

Everything comes from somewhere. I want to know what happened at the beginning.  There must have been a time when there was nothing… no matter, no energy, no photons, nothing… where did the stuff of the Bing Bang come from?  Again, I need a scientific explanation, not religious, of how it is possible for something to come from nothing.

You were justifiably harsh vis a’ vis Christianity. You validly provided a number of historical moral imbecilities. Curiously and conspicuously lacking were similar specific examples of Jewish cruelty, viciousness, and religious hatred. Just an honest oversight no doubt. Why not mention the largest holocaust of all time, that of Stalinist Russia, which featured a very high percentage of Jews at the highest levels of murderous bureacracy. They murdered 60 million.

In response to comment #8366 by Emily H

Emily, your said that God would often respond to your questions. Could you ask him couple of questions next time you talk to him:

1) Has life on Earth, particlularly humans, evolved via mutations and natural selection from microorganism or even inorganic matter, or have major species been created as is.

2) Has universe started from a big bang over 10 billion year ago, as physicists theorize, and expanded thereafter, or is it false?

Keep in mind that I don’t believe that the answer to these questions, whether positive or negative, implies existance of God or lack thereof, only the method of how this universe and humans came to be. Still would be nice to know… Let us know what he says. Thanks.

If there is no God, then why does it even matter?  It is neither good nor bad that moderate believers would appease religious extremists (not that I am aware that they are, by the way).  Nothing is good nor bad because everything is subject only to one’s own personal values about the goodness or badness of any action.  So, what’s the point of the essay?  Just a snarky personal observation by someone whose own acknowledged context renders his opinion sans merit.

Just loved Mr. Harris’s book!  Just came back from the Middle East and bounced a few thoughts from the book off some Muslims’ heads.  Great to say that some really got their wheels spinning and had the same success with Christian thinkers as well.  One key success point was to say outright that most people who believe in a certain faith get offended when someone argues against it because they see it as a personal attack, and that’s not what my intentions are.  Try to keep it a friendly exchange of thought and you’ll get better results.  Some smiling and shared laughter help facilitate better communication.  Another fabulous book to read is Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason” Parts 1-3.  Definately an all time “all-timer”!

“These poor people died talking to an imaginary friend.”

And an atheist would die talking to themselves or drowned quietly?  Even as delusional as it is, it seems a an imaginary friend would be more comforting!

I enjoyded this very much…Thank you!

This is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect to come from the mind of a person with no faith.  Some quite bold statements in there.  I applaude you for being so negative about life.

Rich S.,

I would propose that the difference between atheism and agnostism, as is often used by those who are neither, is mostly semantic. I don’t know a lot of things. In the absense of knowlegde I pose no theory. But in not theorizing, you cannot suppose that I am allowing a space for the beliefs of others to exist. I fill those spaces with child-like wonder and curiosity, forever open to new discoveries.

I hold no beliefs that I did not come to through experience. That makes me an atheist. Accepting, as I have through experience, that there is a spritual aspect to our existence does not make me an agnostic. I categorically deny that any of the world’s religions can adequately address sprirtuality as I have experienced it. In fact it seems mostly antithetical to it.

There are some interesting advances in our scientific understanding of quantum mechanics that does begin to address the everyday sprirtuality we sense. But I find the whole thing more interesting than important. My life is so full with love and the rewarding rigors of survival that I can’t imagine why that isn’t enough for everybody.

Rich,

Don’t get me started on agnostics. They’re the worst of both worlds. Agnosticism is just a cowardly cop-out. I think that most agnostincs think that God probably doesn’t exist, but are afraid to say so, JUST IN CASE that he might.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics seem to afford God much more benefit of the doubt than they do to other myths. Some of them even go to church and pray on occasion, JUST IN CASE. Most seem to think that it’s like a 50/50 chance that God might or might not exist. I, as an atheist, place God on exactly the same level as witches, UFOs, and superman. Sure just about anything is possible, but it’s gonna take a hell of a lot of evidence to make me even consider the notion. And until such evidence is produced, religion is nothing more than just another fairy tale to me.

As far as creation goes—I don’t think that asking what created God is a self-refuting question. It’s meant to illustrate that the idea of God is unnecessary. If you are willing to accept the idea that some kind of power simply exists and always has—why can’t you say the same about the universe? Why can’t you just say that the universe, as we know and see it, is a self-perpetuating entity that simply exists? Why would you need to add another level, and give that level a separate identity? Especially if that other level cannot be observed, measured, or influenced in any way by definition?

Dan,

Thanks for your response.  I did not suggest that God created the universe, although it is convenient to simply redefine God as needing a creator. If God needs a creator, by definition He/She is not God. Your assertion is self-refuting.

But I did not post to discuss God, I posted to ask how something can come from nothing.  You answered that you do not know. Wise answer.  I suppose that makes you an agnostic, doesn’t it?

You write the Ethiopia Versus Eritrea conflict is a “Muslims versus Christians” one. Are you for real sir? You may want to go back and research that a little bit because your claim is rather misleading if not comical.

Mike,

Your theory makes even less sense. So you say that Al Quaeda was behind the hijackings in advance, Israel knew about it, but didn’t make it public. Ok, I can see that. But why on earth would they set explosives? You think that crashing jumbo jets into buildings wouldn’t be enough to be considered an act of war? Would the additional “oomph” caused by the buildings’ collapsing really justify taking such a tremendous risk? Can you image what would’ve happened to Israel if such a thing ever became public?

And why on EARTH would ANYONE want to target WTC7? It’s a very small building by downtown NYC standards, completely impossible to pick out among others, and you’d have to be one hell of a pilot to be able to maneuver around all the other, bigger buildings nearby and hit WTC7. 99% of the people that lived in NY their entire lives were completely unaware of its existence prior to 9/11. Why would Al Quaida target IT of all things? That simply makes no sense. (Unless of course it was actually a top secret military base where the gmen were breeding combat mutants) If there was a third target in NYC, it would certainly have been the Empire State building or one of the other skyscrapers.

Nonetheless, even if Israel knew about it, it still would not have happend without Muslim extremism. And that’s what this whole arguement started with.

But as far as detectives and firemen not being able to find residue of explosives—that is as impossible as anything can be in this world. These aren’t the sort of people that practice their powers of deduction from their mom’s basement. They are specifically taught and trained to detect JUST that—any kind of trace of arson or foul play. If firemen can routinely establish if a forest fire has been started by a single match as opposed to natural reasons, they most certainly would’ve been able to detect explosives. Every chemical and physical reaction in nature leaves some kind of a trace.

Also you said:

“And I don’t buy the explanation that the steel losing 50% of its strength caused WTC 1&2 to collapse the way they did.  If the buildings became unbalanced as a result, as you claim, they would NOT fall the way they did.  Not so neatly and quickly.”

Well, if you had bothered to read it, in my previous post I provided links to a Popular Mechanics article that says the exact opposite. Are THEY part of the “closest neo-con friends” that you refer to? If you “don’t buy” the fact that a superstructure weakened to 50% (as low as 10% in certain pockets) strength can lead a building to implode on itself—well then there’s nothing I can say to you. That’s like arguing about evolution with someone that “doesn’t buy” dinosaurs.

(And even if you are right, certainly any group competent enough to pull off a conspiracy like this would’ve been competent enough to plant the explosives in such a way as to make it LOOK like the collapse was caused by planes, don’t you think?)

As far as these “other things” that you say I don’t have an aswer to—I don’t want to get into an exhaustive point by point analysis here other than to refer you to the links that I gave. I’m getting pretty tired of posting this, especially since I’m starting to realize that there is NOTHING that I can say, and there is no evidence that I can give that would make you change your mind.

If you insist on thinking that you’re smarter than everyone else, and the rest of us are blind fools—more power to you. I’ll stick with the real world.

We keep talking religion verses science as though they are two seperate identities…..they are not…..they are two sides of the same coin.
They always have been and regardless off the Religious and Atheist extremists, they always will be.
What is called for is a spirituality/religion that has The Earth as its diety and scientific investigation as its text.
The first and most important dilemma that we are ALL facing is overpopulation. In avery short time Homo Rapiens have achieved what no other animal has even come close to…..and if any fool thinks that this has happened via religion alone then I suggest a good read of history and a good honest study of evolution might be in order.
Tribalism is what we should investigate…...we humans are Tribal Extremists…..the question is can we overcome our biological urges?
I see little evidence that we can….and judging by the various Tribes we find posting messages on this site…..I truly doubt it!

The Universe is all Powerful
and loves nothing!
Good luck with it all!

Dan, I know it’s taken a little time for me to get back to you, I had to take a break from my blogging to watch NHL round 2 playoffs!  Yay hockey!

I appreciate your post, I really do.  Unfortunately, there it quite a bit of misinformation and things that don’t make sense I feel I need to clear up.

First of all, I don’t think I did “see the light” about the theory of evolution by your definition.  I still believe there is intelligence behind the creation of life.  I don’t see why the “Theory of Evolution” and “Intelligence Design” have to be mutually exclusive.  Can’t life evolve under the direction of intelligence?  Can’t it be both?

Second, along those same lines, unless I’m misunderstanding you, you say I can’t claim there were no 9/11 Muslim suicide bombers “Unless you want to make the claim that every single terrorist attack in the Middle East is actually masterminded by the US/Israeli governments…”  Why can’t some terrorist attacks be genuine and some staged by the government?  Why can’t it be both?  You’re a very black-and-white thinking kind of guy, aren’t you, Dan?  If it has to be one or the other, I guess I don’t find the non-existence of Muslim suicide bombers to be completely implausible.

On to 911!  I’ve arranged by comments into several catagories, let’s start with:

The Pilots

According to the official story, the 9/11 hijackers were NOT trained to fly Boeing jumbo jets.  They went to schools that taught pilots to fly small Cessnas.  A pilot who has never flown anything bigger than a Cessna is as likely to be able to competently fly a Boeing as a driver who has never driven anything but a 4-cyl automatic could competently drive an 18-wheeler, except less so.

The likelihood that 4 jets could successfully be hijacked at the same time is extremely small.  Under normal circumstances, NORAD can have a jet scrambled to any location in the continental U.S. within 15 minutes.  The need for a scrambled jet occurs much more often than most people realize, it averages once or twice a week!

The situation on 9/11 was abnormal because by some amazing coincidence, NORAD was running drills that day on dealing with hijacked planes that were about to be flown into buildings!  This confused the operators and caused them not to scramble jets, because they had trouble distinguishing the drills from the actual hijacked planes.

I have no idea where you got the notion I believed the jets to be flown by robots.  I said “remote control” but a guess I should’ve used the more common term, “automatic pilot.”  Boeings are equipped with automatic pilot systems, and they are used most of the time during commercial flights between take-off and landing.  Both the pilots and the operators on the ground have access to these automatic pilot systems.  Could the hijackers have used them?  I don’t know, it would depend on how much training is required and whether or not security codes are needed.  Could the ground operators have used their access to the automatic pilot systems to make the hijacked planes miss their targets?  Maybe, I don’t know for sure.

The Science

The Popular Mechanics article you linked covers a lot a points.  I would go through it point by point, but that would add much more length to an already too long post, so I prefer to concentrate on the one issue common the both the Popular Mechanics and the Scientific American article you linked.  That issue was the fact that the steel did not have to melt to fail.  I stated in my last post that the steel used in the WTC was rated to withstand temperatures of 1100F for several hours before failing.  I am well aware that 1100F is far below the melting point of steel.  I never said anything about the steel melting!

What I DID say was that jet fuel (which is mostly kerosene) burns at about 500F, which is far below the temperature at which steel fails.  Your articles don’t address this, they offer no explanation as to how a liquid hydrocarbon burning at 500F creates a fire that burns at 1100F!  It’s as if the authors are hoping their readers will just think, “wow! jet fuel must burn really hot!” and not even question this very important point!  Don’t you find that insulting?

Even if the fires could have weakened the steel, unless all of the supporting columns weakened equally within seconds of each other, the building could not have collapsed in on themselves, they would have fallen to one side or another (Mike #2 mentioned this in his post - Thanks!).

Some theorists try to get around this difficulty by proposing the “Pancake Theory.”  If you are unfamiliar with it, this is the theory in which the top floor failed first, crushing the floor immediately underneath, which in turn crushed the next floor down and so on, until you get to the bottom.  The problem with this theory is you would expect a slight time delay between each floor as the standing material gains the inertia it needs to move.  Everyone who has timed the collapses of the twin towers has concluded they fell at free-fall speeds: it would be physically impossible for them to fall any faster than they did!  The pancake theory has them falling too slowly.

By the way, did you notice the main author of the Popular Mechanics article is Benjamin Chertoff?  According to his mother Judy, Benjamin’s cousin is Michael Chertoff, director of Homeland Security.  You may not think this is significant, but I see it as yet another example of the Bush adminisration’s nepotism.

The Interviews

You say no interviews of the rescue workers at the WTC exists in the alternative media.  They’re not common, but they do exist.  Please read this one, it’s Alex Jones interviewing Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm he goes into some detail about how NYC firefighters are kept quiet about their work.  It’s a fascinating interview!

Alex Jones also interviewed Stephen Jones, the BYU professor of physics.  In his interview, he talks about how the steel from the WTC was packed up and sent to China without being examined and how pools of molten metal remained at the site for weeks after the attacks.  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/261105Jonestranscript.htm

I seriously doubt Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin would jeopardize their positions at their schools just to spread misinformation about 9/11.  They’re certainly not making any real money on their conspiracy theories: Sam Harris has probably sold more copies of “The End of Faith” than Griffin has sold copies of “The New Pearl Harbor.”  Harris’s book is on the NYT bestseller list, but Griffin’s books sure aren’t, which leads me to believe there is more money in neoconservative hatemongering than in 9/11 conspiracy theories!  I think Jones and Griffin are just patriots who sincerely want to get the truth out to the American people.

One last article I would like to direct you to is about Timothy McNiven, a 29-year U.S. Defense Dept. operative still under contract with the government.  He claims his military unit in 1976 devised a mock terrorist atack of the twin towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11.  http://www.rense.com/general63/TWIN.HTM  Which brings us to:

Who Is Responsible For the Attacks?

I agree with you that Dubya could never have planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.  He is nothing but a idiotic puppet who does what he is told.  But something else Timothy McNiven said was the CIA was one of the agencies overseeing his project, and who was head of the CIA in 1976?  George Bush Senior!

I believe the Senior Bush is much, much more involved in running the current administration than he or anyone else is willing to admit.  I believe the 9/11 plan is his baby.  I also don’t think the Bush administration is incompetent, I think it’s manevolent!  For example, the Iraqi war is a dismal failure if you believe it was launched for the reasons we were given, but if the real reasons were to get control of Iraqi oil and make lots of profit for the Bushes and their oil cronies, it’s a hugh success!

I agree with you that the mainstream media seems to be wriggling free from it’s censorship stranglehold, but to what degree?  The NYT editor Bill Keller, who broke the illegal wiretapping story, said he sat on it for a full year before he had it published.  What else are they sitting on?  And as bad as the news from Iraq is, it could be much, much worse it they reported everything (see DahrJamailIraq.com).  I’m anxious to see what else gets reported as time goes on…

I have no illusions that I am somehow going to convince you that Muslim suicide bombers were not responsible for 9/11.  All I wanted was for you to admit the theory that Osama bin Laden and his 19 hijackers carried out the attacks is just that - a THEORY not a proven FACT!  I know everything I believe is theory too, except for the stuff that can be proven scientifically.

It would be nice to be able to believe everything ONLY on the basis of evidence, but that’s just not always possible.  Sometimes you have to go by what your heart, or your gut or your intuition tells you.

re: Dan’s question about what came “before” ... A little Set Theory - if we describe the set of all those things we don’t yet understand—and it takes a little effort sometimes to do that—to automatically ascribe those ignorances to the Set of knowns controlled by some imagined paranormal entity ... is, well, like saying “Let’s call that list of unknowns the territory (Set) of the items known only to the Big Tooth Fairy Thingy.”

Then, as science discovers answers, we move an item from the Tooth Fairy’s Set to one of our human species’ “Sets of The Understood”.

One example: we knew that matter took three forms for a very long time. solid, gas, liquid. Then, along came plasma, a fourth state.

Dan,

I read Niece’s posts and your responses and don’t think you have come close to making a case for the “Official Story”.  I agree with you that it is very very difficult to believe that our government carried out this attack.  I don’t think you have to believe it did to believe there was a conspiracy.  I think it is possible that American Neo-Cons collaborated with Israel’s Mossad.  Let’s say that Al Qaeda was behind the hijacking plan and the leader of Mossad knew about it in advance.  He tells a few of his closest, most trusted Neo-Con American friends (who are very very pro-Israel) who see it as an opportunity to do what they have long wanted - create a pretext to invade and take over Iraq (whether to convert it to a Democracy, neutralize it as a military threat to Israel, or just to exploit it, take your pick).  Mossad knows that the twin towers and the next tallest building there, WTC7 (48 stories and 300 feet away from the twin towers), are targets.  Mossad agents in America (do you doubt there are such agents?) are able to get the explosives in the 3 N.Y.C buildings. 

The attack happens, the Mossad sets off the detonations in the Twin Towers and they come down.  But WTC7 is NOT hit by a plane.  Uh-oh.  That building WILL certainly be inspected soon by NYC officials to see if it has been damaged.  They will find the explosives that were placed there.  What to do?  Set off the explosives and bring it down.  It’s empty by now anyhow, so no more people will be killed, so why not?  After about seven hours of deliberation, they go ahead and blow it up. 

Would the people who later entered the rubble be able to find clear evidence (or recognize it if they did find it) of the explosive devices?  I don’t know, but maybe not.  There is no credible explanation for WTC7 falling.  And I don’t buy the explanation that the steel losing 50% of its strength caused WTC 1&2 to collapse the way they did.  If the buildings became unbalanced as a result, as you claim, they would NOT fall the way they did.  Not so neatly and quickly.  There are several other things Niece brings up that you don’t have a good answer to, but I won’t go into them.  I’m not a good enough typist to go as long as you did.  I did see the loosechange video and, while I don’t buy all of its premises by any means, I think it does show enough solid evidence to convince me that the official story is not the truth.

I’m not an anti-semite nor am I anti-Israel.  But I do think it is quite possible that the scenario I explained happened. There did not have to be hundreds of people conspiring on this.  There may have been less than ten Americans involved, and less than twenty Mossad personnel.  At least I think this is more credible than your scenario.

To Rich S:

There is only one answer to your question. We don’t know where “stuff” came from. Period.

Saying that God created the universe begs the question, “Where did God come from?”, and thus we’re back to square one.

Niece:

Now I’m glad you see the light on evolution, but you’re still did not responding to my main point about September 11. You’re pointing out all sorts of sources criticizing the official version, and yet you’re not providing a reason WHY you consider those sources more credible than something that was aired last week on the History Channel for instance. Even if Bush is a liar and a hardened criminal, that on it’s own merits does not make conspiratorial websites credible. But let me tell you why I believe that Muslim terrorists were responsible. Lets analize the two versions.

(As a side note, the reason I didn’t answer your question about who benefited from 9/11 is that it’s irrelevant. Even though I believe it to be bin Laden (you’re shocked, I’m sure) for the sake of arguement I’m going to concede the point that orchestrating 9/11 was the main hope and dream of George Bush’s life, and show you that a conspiracy is STILL an impossibility.)

To be fair lets apply your standards of evidence to ALL media. Lets say that all accounts of 9/11 ranging from Fox News to Al Jazeera, and everyone from George Bush to Osama bin Laden to “independent scientists” are completely unreliable, and cannot be trusted at their word. Let’s analize the different versions stricly on their own merits.

Version 1.
Muslim extremists hi-jacked the planes, and crashed them into WTC in the name of God.

Things that have to be true in order for that version to be credible.

1. There has to be an organized movement of Muslim terrorists that are willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs. Unless you want to make the claim that every single terrorist attack in the Middle East is actually masterminded by the US/Israeli governments, and ALL the tapes of suicide bombers claiming responsibilty for what they’re about to do are forgeries, you have to admit that Muslim terrorism is a real and credible threat, which manifests itself almost daily.

2. 20 members of that movement had to infiltrate the US and learn how to fly jumbo jets. Is that true? I suppose if we don’t trust anything you see on TV, we can’t know that for sure, but is it conceivable? Yes. America has fairly loose borders and pretty much everything in our society is available to anyone able to pay for it. So there is nothing extraordinary about several foreigeners coming here to take flight classes, therefore, it’s a premise that is believable on its own merits.

3. Those 20 would be terrorists had to actually hi-jack the airplanes. Did that happen? Again not something we can know for sure. Is it difficult to synchronize 4 simultaneous hi-jackings? Of course. But is it conceivable? Hi-jacking have happened before. It’s not something that screams impossibility. But at any rate, as I will show, this version is much easier to swallow than any possible alternatives.

4. And finally, those hi-jackers had to actually hit their targets. Again is that conceivable? Considering that standard hi-jacking procedure (the fact that there IS a STANDARD hi-jacking procedure, makes claim #3 seem all the more believable) dictated that everyone just stay put and do as the terrorists say. Given that, it doesn’t seem that remarkable to me that 3 of 4 planes reached their targets.

If you accept all 4 of those claims, the official version of 9/11 is believable. Did things actually happen that way? We don’t know. Is it conceivable? Yes. Nothing above the above requires extraordinary leaps of reason. Now let’s analyze the alternative.

Version 2.
The US government masterminded a massive conspiracy to murder thousands of its own citizens in order to start wars in the Middle East for George Bush’s personal reasons.

Things that have to be true for this version to be credible.

1. You imply in your posts that Bush wanted to start the wars before 9/11 for his personal reasons. I’m not sure what makes you think that. The fact that SOMEONE SAID SO? The fact that someone wrote a book and made a lot of money for saying so? Nonetheless, that’s not something that’s beyond the boundaries of reason, and like I said, I’ll give you this point.

2. The administration had to articulate the plan to pull off 9/11 and pass the orders down to its subordinates without anyone spilling the beans. Conceivable? Unlikely, but I’ll give you this as well.

3. The government actually had to execute the attack. Based on what you’ve said so far you seem to believe that the planes were flown by robots, and the explosives had been planted in WTC prior to the attacks by government agents. To me that’s much more difficult to believe than the claim that it was a team of Muslim extremists that hi-jacked the planes, nonetheless, it is certainly not beyond the capability of the US military. I’ll give you this point as well.

Now the cover up. Now this is where it all falls apart. Things that had to happen in order for the cover up to be successful.

1. All the government agents that were involved with investigating 9/11 had to swallow the official version and ignore the evidence that they obtained. Is it conceivable for federal agents to do that? MAYBE. One hell of a stretch, but I’ll give you this as well. But what about the hundreds of NYC firemen? And the NYC detectives? The people that were there from the beginning? The people that spent thousands of hours going through the wreckage. The people that have the know-how and expertise to determine what cause the collapse of WTC and who would certainly detect the traces of the explosives that were supposedly used. Is it conceivable that they would keep silent about it? IMPOSSIBLE.

They are not CIA, they don’t work for the federal government, they work for the people and city of New York. They lost their coworkers and friends in the collapse. Would they keep silent if they knew that it was the federal government that murdered their fellow firefighters and police officers? Is it conceivable that if there were even rumors about explosives in the towers that they wouldn’t sweep through the NYFD like wildfire? No. I live in New York, I know some police officers and some firefighters. I know the sense of comraderie and community that was prevalent throughout the city in the days after the attack, and if there were even RUMORS of explosives in the towers, it is inconceivable that the entire city would not have heard about them within hours. Yet I heard nothing of the sort anywhere except weeks later on obscure websites, written by people who probably have never even been anywhere near ground zero.

2. If the above is not enough, let’s talk about the media. If the press is in Bush’s pocket as you claim—why are they so critical of the Iraq war? Why are they reporting about the wiretapping program? Why are they reporting about the secret CIA prisons in Europe? Why are they reporting about prisoner abuse by US troops?

Certainly there is a certain spin that’s put on most stories depending on the reporters’ and the owners’ viewpoints. But up to an extent. You said yourself that “In most cases, the media does not outright lie, they just neglect to report significant details.” To call the claim that 9/11 was actually masterminded by the US government a “significant detail” is the understatment of the century. If a single one of NYC detectives came forward and presented evidence of explosives or anything else that even suggested that it was an inside job, is it conceivable that that could’ve been suppressed? Not just in the American media but in Europe as well? Hell if I was a firefighter convinced that 9/11 was caused by our government and completely ignored by the media, I’d go and do a live interview with Al Jazeera. And yet no such interviews exist.

Just sit back and think about the above for a second. Forget your preconceptions, forget everything you’ve read on the internet. Which of the two versions do you think is more likely? Which of the two claims is more extraordinary, and by extension requires more extraordinary evidence to believe?

Even in a theoritical world without any credible source of evidence, the Muslim terrorism theory is orders of magnitude more likely than the conspiracy theory. In fact, a US government conspiracy is a practical impossibility. But evidence does exist and some sources are more credible then others. I didn’t think it was possible for anyone seriously interested in this not to find it, but here are some examples. If you want a quick read here’s a link to Scientic American.  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

If you want an exhaustive point by point analysis of these conspiracy theories, here’s a link to a 10 page article in popular mechanincs. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

To answer your point about the melting temperature of steel (there’s more on this, and all the other claims in the article I linked above)—steel MELTS at roughly 2750 degrees F, but it looses 50% of its strength at about 1100 degrees. That caused the bars to bend, and the resulting uneven distribution of weight caused them to collapse. That’s all there is to it. And any credible authority would certainly be aware of this fact. Therefore, there are two possible conclusions we can make about your conspiracy websites. Either the person quoted doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or the website is purposely misrepresenting his testimony.

This can be applied to just about every point in the 9/11 theories, as well as just about any conspiracy theory, creationism included, out there. It’s the same style of arguing. Either misquoting or misrepresting legitimate authorities on the issue, or quoting a crackpot that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Not to mention flat out lying.

And these so called “independent” sources—are they really as reliable as you think? Ask yourself this—is it possible that someone like Stephen Jones made an honest mistake? That he simply overlooked the fact that steel need not neccesarily have melted outright? That something that SEEMS scientifically sound is not necessarily so?

Is it possible that others knowingly make up lies to support these theories? Is it possible that they would do it for the money? The publicity? Is it possible that some people that run these websites are simply crazy? Or bored? Is it possible that a good amount of them get a trill from the fact that people like you trust their rants more than they trust the government?

I understand that it’s fun to believe in these crazy theories. It’s fun to think that you’re smarter than everyone else and you know something that everyone else doesn’t. But is it possible that there is no big conspiracy? Is it possible that you DON’T know some great truth that the rest of us idiots are blind to? Is it possible that most of the things in the world are pretty much what they seem? Is it possible that maybe, just MAYBE Al Jazeera isn’t quite as fair and balanced as you think? Is it possible that our society is largely free and democratic, and that it’s the Arab world that’s suffering from fundamentalist governments and state-controlled press?

The fact of the matter is that just about everyone that criticizes the official version of the events has never even been anywhere near WTC. On the flip side, not a single person that was actually involved in the investigation himself and thus in the position to actually know first-hand what happened has put forth the conspiracy theory.

As far as I’m concerned, I’ll go with such ardently faschist sources as Scientific American and Popular Mechanics rather than conspiratorial websites run by god knows whom. And I’ll take the accounts and conclusions by the detectives that actually investigated the case and got paid their regular salaries over the claims made by people collecting book royalties.

And finally one more thing. It’s almost funny to say that the government was responsible for 9/11 and the cover-up. Which government are you talking about? The same one that has shown extraordinary levels of ineptitude in carrying out the Iraq war? The same administration that is practically falling apart in front of our eyes? The same administration that cannont even suppress a leaked identity of a CIA agent? Are you talking about the same President that cannot keep his top advisors out of PRISON? Are you talking about the same President who refers to himself as “The Decider”?? Regardless of what he did or didn’t have to gain from it, this is the man and the administration that you place at the center of the most brilliant conspiracy that the world has ever seen???? Come on. You can’t possibly believe this yourself.

Been reading these posts for a while, seems like everyone is talking past each other. The lack of respect is alarming from both sides, especially considering all the pretense about intellectualism.

One fundamental question (excuse the pun) that need to be answered is, how did something come from nothing?  Before the Big Bang, before anything happened, where did the first “stuff” come from?  Please answer scientifically, without addressing matters of faith or supposition.

Dan, I apologize, the correct link to Underwriter’s Laboratory scientist Kevin Ryan’s letter to Frank Gayle of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

Dan, let’s put aside the fact that Bush is from a very criminal family and concentrate on his record in office so far.  He’s started an illegal war under false premises, engaged in illegal wiretapping and “challenged” (a euphemism for “broken”) more than 750 laws.  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/  This behavior doesn’t inspire much trust from me or anyone else, as his approval rating has currently plummeted to 32%.  Do you trust him?  If so, why?

The Bush administration also has paid journalists to promote their agenda, most notably Armstrong Williams to plug the “No Child Left Behind Act”  http://www.wdsu.com/helenthomas/4334085/detail.html this is part of why I don’t trust the mainstream media.

In most cases, the media does not outright lie, they just neglect to report significant details.  I don’t understand why you thought having you read Osama Bin Laden’s FBI profile was inconsistent with my views.  If the FBI doesn’t have enough evidence to list him as being wanted for crimes of 9/11, don’t you think that’s news?  Why hasn’t any major news outlet reported on this?

I quoted the Al-Jazeera article because it was the most complete one I could find on the subject of wheter or not the Osama bin Laden tapes are authentic.  This is another detail that gets glossed over in the mainstream media, articles are usually worded like, “the CIA believes this tape to be genuine” without elaborating why.  If they gave some information about the voice analysis tests or whatever they used to determine it’s authenticity, I would be more inclined to believe they’re real.  Do you have some information on this?  Please share if you do.  Until I see some test results, I’m going to believe some independent Swiss scientists over the CIA, because the CIA has much less reason to be objective.

Something else which hasn’t been reported by the mainstream media is the reason why the WTC towers fell within an hour and a half after being hit by planes.  This is unprecedented: no building in the history of either buildings or planes has ever collapsed after being hit by a plane.

If the media had done just a little research, they would have uncovered the fact that the steel used in the WTC was rated ASTM E119, meaning it could withstand temperatures of 2000F for several hours before failing.  The temperature at which jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, burns at only about 500F.  It is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the steel at the WTC could have failed.  Consider this letter written by scientist Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratory (a well-respected organization) to Frank George of NIST:  http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004_11_11_ryan.php

The towers collapses are most consistent with “controlled demolition,” meaning thay were probably brought down with explosives.  Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU, wrote this paper on the subject, and I can’t see anything in it that’s not scientifically sound http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html can you?

So how did a bunch of middle eastern guys get past all the security at the WTC, plant massive amounts of explosives and not even get caught on the security cameras?  A more likely explanation was the explosives were planted by the CIA, as there were periods of time shortly before 9/11 when the security systems were down and the CIA was known to be in the buildings.

The last reason I don’t trust the mainstream media is because it is owned by corporate America.  If one of your bosses is a defense contractor, are you going to print or air stories about how Osama bin Laden wasn’t involved with 9/11 or how Saddam Hussein doesn’t have WMDs?  Of course not, because those stories might promote peace, and defense contractors thrive on war!  There’s a conflict of interest.  Go to http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/C2006_chap6.pdf to see who owns what media outlets.

The alternative media has much more freedom to report the truth, because it’s outlets are run by individuals with no conflicts of interest.  That makes them more trustworthy to me.

I trust David Ray Griffin because his credentials include being Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Religion and Theology at Clermont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, but more importantly, because he is a professional author, having written and/or edited some 30 or so books.  His work is professional and well-documented, but don’t take my word for it.  Read http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391 and tell me why he is unworthy of trust.

As for your accusation “you completely reject the videotapes and the testimony by all members of the American government involved in investigating 9/11,” I have addressed the 9/11 commission and given you resources to support my view for why it was inadequate.  Are you talking about something else?  Dan, I need specifics, give me names and links to their statements or videos or the titles of the books they wrote and we’ll discuss it!

This all started with my request for some real, solid evidence for Osama bin Laden’s involvement with the 9/11 attacks.  So far, you have given me no such evidence, just a bunch of hearsay and demands I explain why I believe what I believe.  So why don’t you explain to me why you DO believe the mainstream media, because it seems to me you are taking a whole lot on faith instead of evidence.  Please, just answer my one question: Who had more to gain from the 9/11 attacks than the Bush administration?!

As for my question about the theory of evolution, so the answer was “I don’t know!”  O.K., fair enough, but I sure hope you have a better answer for my question about the Bush administration!

A Grain of sand ...
My physicist friends tell me that for each grain of Earthly sand ... there exists a “body” of one sort or another (planet, comet, star, asteroid, etc.) in the U (Universe).
In fact, the physicists, mathematicians, and other scientists have proved this assertion within well known basic laws of large numbers.

Now, ... and this might really (!) hurt your head ... if the rest of the solid matter comprising the Earth were to be pulverized into grains the size of the aforementioned sand(s) ... there would still be more “bodies” by count in the U (Universe). Of course, the U’s bodies are both very large and very small ... compared to our now revised Earthly sand grain count.

Tell me ... how is it that all the talk of gods, religions, other paranormal equivalents ... happens to have taken place on the one grain of sand ... the “interpreters” have specified as and developed for this speck of dirt we call Earth?

There are a whole host of other very basic questions now to be answered ... like ... “has your god(s) run the same religious ‘screenplay’ you describe, Mr./Ms. Interpreter ... on any of those other grains/bodies in the vastness of the U? Or, do your gods do a little revising for the miniscule (by count) other bodies floating around ... out there?

etc. etc

teddyrodo

‘You either believe or you do not’

Translation:
You’re either with us or against us

In the meantime Exxon/ Mobil is laughing all the way to the bank…

Niece:

I did answer the evolution question in my original post, you simply ignored it. Let me re-state:

The fact that we DON’T KNOW the logical answers to EVERYTHING does not mean that those answers don’t exist, and in no way infers the existence of a higher power. Thousands of years ago people didn’t know what caused rain. Instead of saying “we don’t know YET what causes rain”, they said it was God. Were they correct in that assumption?

The same applies today. The fact that we don’t know everything about the way our bodies work does not mean that there is not a logical and reasonable answer waiting to be discovered. And it certainly does not mean that we have to resort to fairy tales to make up the answers.

As far as 9/11 goes, again, you completely ignored my point. You say that you don’t trust the American press and yet you trust Al Jazeera. Why? What reasons do you have to trust the alternative press? What reasons do you have to trust David Ray Griffin as opposed to George Bush? What reasons do you have to trust the people overseas that say that Bush is involved in drug running? You completely reject the videotapes and the testimony by all members of the American government involved in investigating 9/11, yet you take websites that criticize the investigation at their word. Why?

Note to all:

I hope you can all see from previous posts that atheists and fundamentalist Chistians like Emily H, Neice and Irene cannot really have a rational conversation about faith. Thousands of words and all we’ve got is: I’m an atheist and your a big doodie head vs. I beleive in god and your a big doodie head.

Sam Harris knew this when he wrote his book. That’s why he is calling upon moderate believers (those who have made accomodations in their faith for the existence of evolution, global warming and other scientific realities). He’s asking people who have seen the light on these matters to see the ramifications of holding on to the last shreads of their faith.

I’m asking, althought I have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT, to ignor future postings from fundamentalists. These are circular arguments and they don’t address the challenge that Sam Harris has set for us. Get the moderates on our side.

We’ll never crack the veneer of people like Emily H. She isn’t seeking anything. She’s found her truth and has stopped looking. She lives to make people like us squirm, while she demonstrates with pride her unwavering faith and luny revelations. We know that no atheist is as certain of our position, since we acknowlege our ignorance. Fundamentalists see a vacuum in the admission and seek to fill it with their absolute certainty.

I think with the world in the state its in, we atheists have to start making an impact. I think the best way to do that it two fold:

1) Vigorously debate faith with those who are receptive to a different worldview, as it relates to organized religion (that would leave out the Emily Hs of the world).

2) Put our heads together on a moral/intellectual belief system that offers a true spiritual alternative to religion (i.e. The American Ethical Union http://www.aeu.org/). If we have organizations all over the country that compete with organized religion, community-by-communtity, someday we might make a dent.

I imagine a time when every Sunday morning my family and I would drive down to the Ethical Culture Temple. There, community leaders and people from all walks of life would share their life experiences of the week, and give sermons about how a lifestyle based on ethics and love of your fellow man can deliver the planet into a glorious future. Would you join me there? There might even be room for Emily, if she’s willing to check her faith at the door.

Emily H,

You wrote. “True, these examples may not serve to prove anything to you at all. However, they are all the proof I need.”

Why are you not willing to see the possiblity that your own brain, clearly more complex than anyone can know, is the source of your supposedly divine experiences?  Isn’t it much more likely that your own unconscious is working through the only mechanism you’ll accept to help guide you?

Of course not. What a hollow, empty, unhappy world this would be if that were true. Hallelujah!

Dan, oh, by the way, if you recall I did recommend David Ray Griffin’s book “9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions” to clarify the discrepancies in the government official’s account of the events of 9/11.  Griffin also has another excellent book, “The New Pearl Harbor” named for a phrase in the document “Project for a New American Century” signed by the neocons Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.  There are also many websites I can direct you to if you’re interested, just say the word and I will provide the links.

Dan I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “dual stardard.”  If you are saying I trust the WORLD press but not the AMERICAN press, you are correct.  The world press is not as censored as the American press.  Consider what Al Jazeera had to say about Bin Laden’s tapes, for example: http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy-theory/fullstory.asp?id=291 in short, they say they are all fakes.  Umimbedded journalist in Iraq Dahr Jamail has a story about how an American embassador to Turkey tried to censor his stories http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000256.php in Turkey!  If American government officials are trying to censor stories overseas, what do you suppose they’re trying to do here in the States?  My younger brother lives in South Korea, and he is the one who tipped me off to the fact that part of the reason we wanted to invade Afganistan was because the Taliban was cracking down on opium poppy farmers.  In America, we are brainwashed to believe we’re fighting a “war an drugs,” but overseas in the far east people are acutely aware of the Bush family’s involvement in international illegal drug running.  Those Bushes will do anything for a buck.  If you haven’t heard, the poppy fields are thriving and Afghanistan is now a narcotic state.

If you are saying I don’t trust the “mainstream” press but I do trust the “alternative” press, you are also correct.  Give me one good reason why I should trust the mainstream media!  These are the people who assured us the Iraqi war would be short (if remember right, Rumsfeld said he would be surprised if it stretched out to more than six months), that Saddam had WMDs, that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators, not despise us as occupiers and that we could easily afford this war financially.  I knew in my gut it was all lies, and I think many others did as well, but desperately wanted trust the government and not be unpatriotic.  Let’s face it, Dubya could not have started the Iraqi war without the full cooperation of the mainstream media!

To lighten this up a bit, let’s turn to my hero, Stephen Colbert, who explained it all so well to the press corps: “Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions.  He’s the decider.  The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions.  Make, announce, type.  Just put ‘em though a spell check and go home.  Get to know your family again, make love to your wife.  Write that novel you got kicking around in your head.  You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the adminstration.  You know - FICTION!”

Any wonder why the press corps weren’t laughing at his presentation?  Because they know it’s TRUE!  Then they have the gall to print stories about how Stephen Colbert wasn’t funny, although he struck a chord with much of America who was laughing their guts out!  See http://www.thankyoustephencolbert.org

I notice you didn’t try to answer my question about the theory of evolution.  How come?

Niece:

You seem to have a dual standard of evidence. You completely reject the world press, as well as all members of the US government, yet you list a whole bunch of rumors found on obscure websites as gospel. Care to share your reasons for that?

Also, strangely enough, you maintain that the government and the press are not to be trusted in their account of 9/11, and yet you point to nothing less than the FBI website to support your points. Care to explain that little discrepancy as well?

I remember I saw this dude a few months ago on C-SPAN 2 talking about his book THE END OF FAITH and thinking to myself I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think I’m really an atheist yet but at this moment I guess I’m still a Christian with ALOT of doubts. I was born and raised a Catholic, but no one in my immediate family really believes in those foolish notions anymore. I have a friend who’s an atheist. I haven’t heard from him in a while but I know he used to meet with other atheists that he met at meetup.com on Saturdays. I kinda wanted to go to have something to do, but I’d feel weird since I wasn’t really sure if I was an atheist or not. I guess the reason why I still believe in God is that I wanna go to heaven. Anyways, it is pretty scary that the United States, now the only “superpower” in the world is also the only first world country in which so many people especially in such high places hold these backward beliefs.

I would like to respond to Mr. Harris’ ‘Manifesto’. I have to say that I was very dismayed at what he wrote. Not because I have a problem with athieism, or people who believe anything that is different from what I believe, but because I saw the same self-righteous attitude in his writings that he himself was railing agianst throughout his essay. Saying that his persepctive is the only ‘rational’ perspective to have is really just fundamentalism in a different form. The fact that this world is so full of suffering is not the fault of religion or faith or belief in things that can’t be scientificly proven, it’s the result of people, any people, anywhere, feeling that that they have the right to tell other people what to think, how to feel, and how to live. Many of the greatest crimes in human history used religion as an excuse to bruatlize people, but look at Communism- this was supposed to be the ultimate triumph of reason over superstition, and hundreds of millions of people died as a result of it. Why? because Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot thought they knew better than anyone else how people should live. If Athieism works for Mr. Harris, that’s great. I’m happy for him. I wish him nothing but peace and happiness in his life. But if he thinks he’s helping anybody by blaming the world’s ills on the ‘irrationality’ of religion, he is sorely mistaken. Every religion teaches compassion, respect, and humility for all human beings. The fact that this hasn’t produced a perfect world is just the result of human frailty and imperfection. Let’s stop blaming everybody for our problems, and take responsibility for ourselves. I’m working to do my part.

Emily, Yes I do occasionally have DAK errors in spelling. And yes I insult you. Mostly because you are intellecually dishonest and you use the common mental gymnastics of all cultists.

Now remember you said..” If you told me my husband cheated on me, what kind of evidence do you imagine you could give me? How many cheaters are actually caught on tape or seen in the act? How would this evidence be tested over and over again? Personal evidence would be all that’s required. And if your evidence only amounted to “He told me he cheated on you”, that would be evidence aplenty.”

OK Emily, if my word is good enough then I tell you your husband cheated on you. What will you do about it? Nothing I suspect. If you do nothing it proves you dont really believe what you say you do. And if all you do is ask your husband if he cheated then you believe him over me. Why?

There is fossil evidence of macro-evolution Emily.
You however, again, will selectively choose to not believe it. Why? Because you are intellectually dishonest. Just in the last 10 years there have been many discoveries of transitional fossils. For example, hippos are related to whales. They have discovered transitional fossils where the nostrils have moved back on the skull and have moved closer together. They have also discovered transitional fossils where there are feathers on a reptile. These indicated that there can be massive changes in a relatively (like how I was able to sneak that word in there) short time frame. Google it just like you Googled the verses and you will find plenty of emperical studies.

I don’t know why Christians try to force the bible to be a book of science. Every time they try it it backfires on them. The bible is not a book about science. Lets see…the earth is flat,the sun revolves around the earth, or the rabbit chews its cud (Leviticus 11:5-6). You can keep talking all you want about spiritual things but I suggest you not venture into the realm of science unless you want to be judged by its standards (emperical evidence). Not that you would believe it anyway. Your mantra is ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts I have my mind made up’.

In addition, you question my statement that I know biblical greek. Hmmm my word not good enough for you?
The verses you pointed out (John 7:53 - John 8:11) were exactly the ones the ones I am referring to. So what do you say about that? These verses dont appear UNTIL THE 12TH CENTURY but its all the inerrant ‘word of god’. NOT. Obviously someone other than John wrote those words. See the reason people want to make fun of you is exactly because of things like this. Again dont confuse me with the facts…..

And I leave you with four examples of mistakes in the bible..

1. Mark 2:23-26. The incident Jesus quoted from the Old Testament (see I Samuel 21:1-6) was when Ahimelech was high priest NOT Abiathar. So Jesus made a mistake!!

2. Mark says that Jesus was crusified the day AFTER the passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12 and Mark 15:25) but John says it was the day BEFORE the passover meal (John 19:14). So which is it. Again an error.

3. Luke indicates (Luke 2:39) that Joeseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after being in Bethlehem but Matthew says they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:19-22). Again an error.

4. Paul says he converted on the road to Damascus and did NOT go to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:16-17) but the book of Acts syas that the first thing Paul did was go to Jerusalem after Damascus (Acts 9:26)

So Emily there is the emperical evidence that the bible is NOT inerrant.

These debates often center on evolution v. intelligent design.  The ID people argue from the mere conceivability or possibility of ID to the conclusion that it is probable.  Typically, you should weigh the positive evidence for inconsistent theories against one another and accept the one that is more probable given the current evidence. 

It is nonsense to simply point out that evolutionary theory is not an absolute certainty (what is?), posit intelligent design as a possibility, then conclude that it is more probable than evolution.  It is as if I convinced the driver that it is a possibility that some evil jerk manipulated the steering column last night so that when you steer left the car turns right and vice versa.  Then, concluded that it would be rational to steer the same direction as oncoming car to avoid a collision based on that unlikely possibility.

Furthermore, the inference from complexity to creator, though consistent, is not necessary.  However, the ID argument depends on it being a necessity.

Luckily, the debate should not even reach this point.  Notice that the attributes attributed to God-omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.-are not logically related; that is, the existence of one trait does not logically entail the other.  Supposing the ID argument is a good one, all of these characteristics do not follow.  It would prove a sufficiently powerful and intelligent creator.
 
You cannot hold a belief without that belief having content.  If the typical attributes are indeed content, they are incoherent.  The events in the world contradict such a conception.  How you prove an incoherent conception of God exists is beyond me.  If you retreat back into the insufficiency of the human intellect to conceive God, then you admit that you do not know what it is that you are claiming exists.  It is as if I were to say that hobbernaftas exist but refuse to define the term with any conceptual content—complete nonsense.

Once you understand why you do not believe in Zeus, you will understand why I do not believe in god(s).

Dan, I asked for REAL evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, and you didn’t give me any.  All you gave me were a bunch of questions.

Yes, the tape of Bin Laden confessing he was behind the 9/11 attacks was a fake.  YOU could verify it was a fake if you ever saw it!  The actor they got to play him was almost as wide as he was tall!

I could direct you to a number of articles by people with the expertise to determine whether or not the tape was faked who said it was, for but brevity’s sake, I’ll direct you to Bin Laden’s profile on the FBI website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm where it says “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  These attacks killed over 200 people.  In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”  Bin Laden isn’t wanted by the FBI for 9/11!  It doesn’t say ANYTHING about 9/11, and I find it unbelievable the deadiest terrorist attack in history that killed 3,000 people would just be lumped in with “other terrorist attacks!”

If you trust the media to give us the truth about 9/11, you’re being very naive.  The press is Bush’s lapdog.  Any whistleblower who comes forward is completely ignored by the press.  Have you even heard of Sibel Edmonds?  How about the half dozen or so people from Shanksville, PA who claimed they saw flight 93 being shot down by a white unmarked jet?  How about the Saudi Arabian embassator to the U.S. who claimed 5 of the 19 hijackers are still alive and were residing in Saudi Arabia when the attacks happened?  There’s no money in coming forward, and anyone who does also runs the risk of being “suicided” by the brutal Bush family, just like Hunter S. Thompson (who was planning to write a book exposing 9/11) and James Hatfield (the author who uncovered Dubya’s cocaine possesion charge in his book “Fortunate Son”).

The 9/11 Commission, ran mainly by insider Philip Zelikow, was a whitewash (see David Ray Griffin’s book “9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions” for more info).  The Bush administration heavily resisted an investigation for several years and this one came about only after much lobbying by the families of the 9/11 victims, but it still left many questions unanswered.  A truly independent investigation is badly needed.

As for the pilots, the planes were most likely remote controlled, as this technology has been around since the 1950’s.

As I said before: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!  YES, I believe our own government was behind it!  I’ll give YOU a few questions: Who had more to gain from the 9/11 attacks than the Bush administration?  How could Dubya have ever started his wars with Afghanistan and Iraq without them?  How would he have gotten the fascist patriot acts passed that pave the way for him fulfilling his dream of becoming a dictator?  All of these actions were planned before 9/11 ever even happened!

Be a religious bigot if you want, although I find bigotry based on creed to be every bit as ugly and potentially dangerous as bigotry based on race or gender, but please don’t use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse for your bigotry.

As for the theory of evolution, exactly how do YOU explain cellular biochemical reactions too complex to have come about randomly?  I think it’s evidence there is a universal intelligence behind the existence of life, but we don’t have to call it “God” if you don’t want to….

In response to Comment #8389 by druidbros

You say - I can tell your getting to the end of your rope Emily becauise you dont really answer my questions.

My reply - And I can tell you’re getting to the end of your’s because you have ceased all actual discussion and have stooped to insults (however misspelled) and are pretending I haven’t answered you.

You say - 1. The song either exists or it doesn’t. But there is emperical evidence of it in some form.

My reply - Really? Show me. Not everything that exists has empirical evidence to prove it. Somtimes the only thing that exists is a recounting of personal experience.

You say - 2. NO YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT. If we both agree there is a third person then there is emperical evidence they exist.

My reply - Again you are mistaken. I didn’t say anything about proving the other person exists. I said prove their thoughts (or a specific unspoken thought) exist. We’ll take Terry Schiavo for example. Poor lady was brain damaged. Her husband wanted her dead. There was no way of proving she was capable of thoughts, so the courts allowed it. It didn’t matter how much empirical evidence of her existence there was, there was no way of proving her thoughts.
People have come out of comas, who, while everyone thought they were unconscious, were fully aware of everything that went on around them, and they wanted to communicate, but couldn’t. Again, plenty of empirical evidence the comatose patient existed, but it has no bearing on proving their thoughts exist.
Again, I ask you, where is the empirical evidence that someone’s thoughts exist? (Thoughts being a spiritual matter as God is.)

You say - 3.You cant use the bible to prove God exists. Mostly because its NOT written by God. You again cant prove this point. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

My reply - I don’t have to use the Bible to prove God exists. I wasn’t trying to. This is just more evidence of you not paying any attention to what’s being said here. You are so hell bent (no pun intended) on refuting everything I say that you don’t even bother to find out what I’m saying first.
But while we’re on the subject of providing empirical evidence… Where is your empirical evidence that the Bible is not God’s Word given to man to be written down? I ask not for proof it was physically written by man. I ask for empirical proof it was NOT God inspired.

You say - Using the bible which contains so many ERRORS is not a logical argument. For example, can you tellme which passage in the New Testament didn’t appear in any manuscript until the 12th century? And just so you know Emily I can read biblical greek. The original language the NT was written in.

My reply - The passages you’re referring to are John 7:53 - John 8:11. There are also numerous books that arguably should be part of the Bible but have been left out as yet.
While it may seem on the surface to be impressive that you can read the Biblical Greek, unfortunately, it apparently doesn’t mean you actually understand what you’re reading.
Beyond that, where is your proof of errors? And how do you intend to prove said errors using a text which you claim cannot be used to prove anything?

I find it interesting that a person who so strongly professes to disbelieve in any God has devoted enough time to thinking about the supposedly non-existent God that he bothered to learn the original greek, and has read so much of it, and studied it (no matter how erroneous the conclusions at which he arrived).

You say - Evolution has loads of emperical evidence. And its provable.

My reply - Really? Apparently you have surpassed the scientific world in your ability to prove evolution. Micro-evolution is certainly believable, and marginally provable, but the macro-evolution required to have gone from nothing to a planet heavily populated with complex lifeforms and laws of nature has been unprovable thus far. Perhaps you should consider sharing your wisdom with the scientific community. They’re floundering without you.

So, where is this empirical evidence of macro-evolution?

You say - You can talk all you want but your operating outside of reality. Evolution is the truth. And dont give me any crap about how the ‘flood’ messed up carbon dating and all the other nonsense. Or about how ‘Satan’ planted all of the fossils. You have to deal in emperical evidence Emily. Go get some lithium for those voices will you please.

My reply - I’d love to know who decided that YOUR personal experience is what gets classified as reality, as opposed to anyone else’s experience. I’m just operating outside your comfort zone, that’s all.
Evolution has not been proven as “the truth”. It is merely a theory at this point in time. Micro-evolution is truth, as far as I can see, but macro-evolution is nothing more than theory.
I have nothing to say for or against fossils and carbon dating. I’m not one of those people who believe the world can only be a few thousand years old. It could be billions of years old. How should I know? (Satan planting the fossils? Hahahahaha! Do people really say that?)

Since you “must” deal in empirical evidence, I await your’s sir.

I’ll keep my “Voice”, thank you. I like Him.

Emily H

To Niece about evolution:

Similarly to what I wrote below about atheism, no biologist worth his salt is going to proclaim that evoltion is the absolute perfect truth that’s not open criticism or improvement. But it all comes down to EVIDENCE. Yes, evolution cannot explain EVERY SINGLE event that transpired over the last 3 million years. Yes, there are certain things that we still don’t know. But the fact that there are mysteries that remain to be solved, does not disprove the entire theory any more than the existence of black holes disproves the theory of gravity. The fact of the matter is that there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that evolution did take place (far too much for me to name here, but if you are sincerely interested, I suggest you read some books about evolution written by it’s supporters, not opponents), and there is not a single shred of evidence that suggests any kind of spontaneous creation other than what’s written in the Bible. Is it possible that we’re are complety wrong about evolution? Absolutely. Is there any coherent evidence that points towards another theory? No.

Instead of stretching the facts to their absolute limit trying to puncture wholes in evolution, show me verifiable evidence of another theory and I will gladly believe you. Until then, evolution is the only game in town.

To Niece about 9/11:

Let me get this straight, you seriously don’t believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslim terrorists? So what’s your theory? That it was a grand conspiracy perpetrated by the US/Israeli governments? I suppose the tapes of Bin Laden happily taking credit for the attack were forgeries. And every single one of the thousands of government agents investigating the case are so loyal and patriotic that they’re all sticking to the story even though they could become millionaires overnight by spilling the beans? As are all the members of the world press? And what about the pilots that flew those planes? If they weren’t Muslims that did it in the name of God, you’re saying they were government agents who murdered thousands, and willingly and knowingly sacrificed THEIR OWN lives out of sheer loyalty to the government?

Just curious, what kind of evidence WOULD you need, to accept that it was an act of Muslim terrorism? A personal visit by Bin Laden himself?

To F. Hudson:

You miss the whole point of atheism, as well as science in general. Atheists and scientists DON’T claim to have all the answers. The main difference between a man of science and a man of religion is that the man of science has the courage to admit just how much we DON’T know. No scientist worth his salt is going to tell you that he knows the nature of the universe. The whole point of science is to admit that we DON’T know where we come from, we DON’T know what our purpose in life is, so let’s do our best and see what we can find out. Scientists have theories, scientists have observations that SUGGEST certain things, but no legitimate scientist in the world is going to tell you “This is the way it is, case closed, period, end of discussion”.

That is of course the position of religion. For whatever reasons, religious people are unable to deal with the harsh reality that we have absolutely NO IDEA why we’re here, and they feel compelled to make up a fairy tale about some just and caring higher power, proclaim that tale as the ultimate truth, and then shut their eyes, ears, and minds to all possible evidence or discussion. It’s the religious people that proclaim to know the ultimate truth that others don’t, not scientists.

Atheists don’t say that God does not and cannot exist under any circumstances. Atheists say, “show me the evidence”. If and when you show me verifiable evidence that proves, or at least suggests, the existence of God, I will be more than happy to believe you. But until then, I refuse the give the idea of God any more credence than I give the ideas of unicorns, alien abductions, and Superman.

Dear Mr. Harris,

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe at this very moment that there is NO GOD.

What difference does it make for the girl?

Why don’t you just try and find this “statistical” girl, before it is too late (because, yes, her torture is a reality) instead of talking endlessly about your precious (dis)beliefs.

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link, it’s http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com no apostrophe in “darwins.”

Driudbros, the theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact, no matter what Sam Harris claims.  A scientific fact is only a fact when it can be reproduced predictably in a scientific experiment.

Scientists have been questioning the theory of evolution on scientific grounds for many decades.  Most notably, the microbiologists say the complex chemical reactions that occur on a cellular level are too complex to have occurred randomly.

There is also the question of “is survival of the fittest the only factor that drives evolution?”  There is much competition in the natural world, but there are also many examples of cooperation.  You wouldn’t be able to digest your food, for example, if it weren’t for the helpful bacteria residing in your gut.  Insects provide pollination for flowers and flowers provide food for insects.

Speaking of flowers, Darwin himself said his theory didn’t explain them.  Three million years ago there were only asexual reproducing plants, then a million years ago all a a sudden there were flowers!  No “missing link” has ever been found, although I suppose that could change.

I’m not saying the theory of evolution is entirely wrong and should not be taught to schoolchildren.  I’m just saying if you atheists are as open to making all your beliefs based on “evidence” as you say you are, you will be open to accepting the possibility that Darwin was partially or completely wrong based on new scientific discoveries.  Don’t dogmatically hold on to the theory of evolution as if it were the God’s truth!

For more information, go to http://www.Darwin’s-theory-of-evolution.com

Apparently from Mr. Harris’ essay he has solved the great question of existence and the very complicated mysteries of life itself by simplistically assessing the visual world and asking that a primitive, (dare I say fundamentalist), view of what is a “reasonable” explanation of our existence prevail for all rationally minded persons. 

But what is a truly “reasonable” explanation by SCIENCE of the earth and our universe anyway?  What is it you think you know Mr. Harris? What is it you think you see around you? Ask any reasonable or rational astrophysicists and they will tell you that what you think you see as reality is just so much energy of atoms and chemicals reacting to one another. In fact our universe, (the only one we see and know) could be just one of thousands in what is being purported as the “String Theory” (think a hundred strands of thread twisted together with each one representing a dimension of a different universe). 

And why is this new theory gaining momentum in the scientific community? Simply because there are just too many variables in our present understanding of the material universe and what we can ascertain that many, many questions arise that have no present explanation.  Oh, but wait, that’s right Mr. Harris has all the answers because he and other atheists are the only reasonable and rational individuals. 

What astounds me more than the arrogance of religious fundamentalists is the sheer sanctimonious argument of the avowed atheists: their so called reason.  The atheist’s logic of attempting to bring order to the unexplained is truly childish as childish as the religionists waiting for a Santa Clause Jesus to return someday in the clouds to save or condemn humanity. 

I say a curse on both your simpleminded explanations of the natural world. 

The religious fundamentalist relies on superstition and tradition to support his arguments and Mr. Harris relies on the assertion of being reasonable. 

Reasonable?

Really? 

Does Mr. Harris think that because he can write with knowledge on religious and philosophical subjects that he somehow has gleaned (through some unexplained brain osmosis) the wisdom of men like Albert Einstein, who himself struggled with the concept of a higher power?

From his rather defensive and wordy diatribe I think the answer is a resounding YES. Yes, Mr. Harris and all avowed atheists have soared so far above Mr. Einstein’s wisdom because they have perhaps studied philosophy and the world’s religions that now they are experts on denouncing other views of creation and purporting their own as the correct one. My, my, what arrogance… Their logic sounds somewhat familiar to the supernatural religionists.

Mr. Harris (and other atheists) why don’t you try spending sometime with physicists at MIT or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and perhaps you just might find yourself a little humbled about what you think is a reasonable explanation of the material world.  One would hope that the more honest thinker is one who looks out upon his universe and wonders, hoping that in someway he may know, but like a flex of blue in a massive colorful mosaic of creation he may only ever see his immediate universe and never know what IS and what IS NOT the TRUTH.

I can tell your getting to the end of your rope Emily becauise you dont really answer my questions.
1. The song either exists or it doesn’t. But there is emperical evidence of it in some form.

2. NO YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT. If we both agree there is a third person then there is emperical evidence they exist.

3.You cant use the bible to prove God exists. Mostly because its NOT written by God. You again cant prove this point. Saying it doesn’t make it so. I could just as easily maintain its written by the Giant Spaghetti Monster and theres nothing you can prove either way. Using the bible which contains so many ERRORS is not a logical argument. For example, can you tellme which passage in the New Testament didn’t appear in any manuscript until the 12th century? And just so you know Emily I can read biblical greek. The original language the NT was written in.

Finally 4. What a maroon you are. Evolution has loads of emperical evidence. And its provable. Your dead end, unscientific idea of Intellegent Design doesn’t hold even the slightest scientific water. You can talk all you want but your operating outside of reality. Evolution is the truth. And dont give me any crap about how the ‘flood’ messed up carbon dating and all the other nonsense. Or about how ‘Satan’ planted all of the fossils. You have to deal in emperical evidence Emily. Go get some lithium for those voices will you please.

In response to Comment #8358 by dr

You say - What we are discussing is you telling me that God exists. I am saying he does not. If we were having this same discussion about the song you could show me the song. There would be some emperical evidence outside of yourself which indicated it existed.

My reply - Actually, the very reason I mentioned the song is that I CAN’T find anything about it. I know the song, and I know about it, but I’ve never heard a recording, nor do I personally know of one. I can’t find the lyrics printed anywhere, etc, etc. I have no empirical evidence outside of my own experience of having it sung to me by my parents, and hearing them tell me about it and how their parents had sung it to them. But no, aside from merely other people’s personal experience, I have no other proof the song exists.
The only way I could “show you the song” is to write it out myself, which would be no different than what I’m doing here, telling you about my experiences with God.

You say - My request to have you give me emperical evidence of God is very different than asking about some third parties thoughts. For starters we would both agree that there IS a third party.

My reply - You’ve missed the point entirely. One can no more give empirical evidence of a spiritual God than they can a spirit in a person. Your spirit is the thinking, etc part of you. Prove that exists. You can’t. Not without involving some physical aspect of you. Try to give empirical evidence of a dream you had. God has no current physical aspect. He deals solely in the spiritual realm. If you choose not to look there, that’s on your own head.
As for personal experience being insufficient… Even empirical evidence has to be shown by personal experience. You simply take the word of scientists that atoms exist, unless you’ve seen them yourself. Have you? How about dinosaurs? Ever seen a dinosaur walking around? Sure, you’ve seen fossils, but how do you know they aren’t just really neat sculptures? How do you know trichloroethylene exists? Aren’t you simply taking someone else’s word on this stuff? Aren’t you going off of someone else’s personal experiences?
No one has empirical evidence God exists, but hey, there’s no empirical evidence of global warming either (the overall temp of the world hasn’t gone up since 1998, and the second leading cause of the previous rise in temps [behind cattle] is the plants themselves) and yet many people choose to believe in that. (Do you?) There’s no empirical evidence of evolution. All supposed evidence turns out to be falsified - I can give you plenty of examples if you insist. And yet, if there is no God, do you believe in evolution? Why is empirical evidence only required of those who believe in God, but not in those who believe in global warming or evolution?

You say - (3. Emily says “I do not doubt that the Muslims hear a voice too, but that doesn’t make it God’s voice they’re hearing.”)
Exactly. And it also means that we dont know that YOU are hearing Gods voice either. Thats exactly why I ask for emperical evidence. And in addition, you cant use the bible to prove anything about God. Simply because it was written by man.

My reply - No, you don’t know if I am hearing God’s voice or not, but if I told you what He said, you could weigh it against the Scripture I gave you, and then you would know.
The Bible is the Word of God. It says so. I also talk to God. If the Bible was not His Word, He wouldn’t encourage me to read it, which He does.
Just because God didn’t burn Scripture into book form by Himself doesn’t mean He didn’t write it. That would be like saying that every book that is dictated by the author to be typed by someone else is actually written by the typist (or whatever you call them).
Just because you disregard the Bible as the inerrant Word of God doesn’t mean that everyone else does or should.

Besides, I have no need to “prove God” to you. I have given you the only evidence I can offer, my personal experience. If this is unacceptable, then I suggest you go on your merry way and continue believing as you see fit. Should God decide to prove you wrong, I won’t ever know about it, I’m sure. But at least I know I’ve tried.

Emily H

In response to Comment #8305 by Herman

You say - Emily, could you elaborate a bit. When you say that God speaks to you, how to you actually perceive it? Do you hear His voice in your head? What kind of voice is it? Male, female, young, old..?

My reply - I hear it in my head, but the only reason I know it’s in my head is because no one else is hearing it. I can drown it out with music or other thoughts if I choose to. You have to be open to hearing it. He generally doesn’t force Himself on you. I hear it as a male voice, neither old nor young. If it was human, I’d guess it at about 45 years old, sound wise. His tone is pretty calm, no matter what.

You say - Can you respond with a question and receive a reply?

My reply - Yes, I pepper Him with questions regularly, both ordinary and spiritual stuff. However, not every question is answered. Some things I just don’t need to know. He most likely wouldn’t tell me if someone was saved, for example. None of my business. He won’t answer things that are asked for our own personal whims. Like, if I wanted to impress someone, I’d be unlikely to be successful.

You say - Does He speak in words, or images, or otherwise; in daytime, or when you sleep?

My reply - He mainly speaks in words, but once He showed me an image of my future children as teenagers, and once He decided to give me a tiny glimpse of everything I didn’t know about Him yet, and I nearly passed out from the experience. I had asked Him why no one person had all of the truth, and He said it was too much for us. I questioned Him further about it, so He just showed it to me. It felt like someone had opened a door and there was an endless chasm before me, with an immense tornado of truths that I could see but not fully grasp. It was really scary (but only in a “finding out how small I really am” kind of way), and I asked Him not to show me any more.
He pretty much only speaks to me during the day, but He’s spoken to me in a dream or two.
I have on a couple of occasions of severe grief felt His “hand” on my head. It felt just like a very warm human hand, but I was alone. It was a great comfort when mere words wouldn’t have sufficed.

I talk to Him mostly when my mind has no pressing occupation, like while I do chores or while showering, etc. He says we don’t talk enough, and He’s right. I think I talk to Him quite a bit, but really, I can go most of my day without talking to Him if I’m not careful. I like music, and it tends to drown Him out.

He’ll talk to me whenever I want to talk, and then He’ll talk when I need a good talking to. I’ve been in the middle of a fierce fight with my husband, something that doesn’t happen anymore, and had God stop me mid-sentence and tell me to humble myself and apologize to my husband - in front of guests, no less - when everyone knew hubby had been the one who was wrong (which he admitted later). I was mortified, but I did it. The results, as with everything God has ever told me, were glorious.

You say - Did He ever tell you something that you couldn’t have known youself, i.e. that couldn’t have come from your subconscious mind?

My reply - The very first thing He ever told me, that my doll was in a closet, was something that I couldn’t have known, since my sister had hid it from me. I couldn’t have known what my husband would be like, or what his name was. In fact, when He told me his name, I fought against it, since it was also the name of my brother-in-law, and I feared my mind was playing tricks on me, as though I meant to marry my sister’s husband. I avoided God for more than a year after that, sure that I was just crazy. I forgot about it after that, and several years later, long after I had met and married my husband I remembered that incident. He also told me (years before I was to meet him) that my future husband wasn’t a virgin, but he was waiting for me. From talking to my husband, I discovered that he had been dating up until then, but had broken up with his long term girlfriend, and he didn’t date again till me.
He has given me things to tell other people that I knew nothing about, but they did. Like one person, I was told to bring up an odd subject, and then when that person turned the conversation towards family problems, I was told by Him to say she wasn’t following Him, was she, she had been shutting Him off. I was shocked, because I had always thought she was a close follower. She was shocked, because I couldn’t or shouldn’t have known, but had spoken so truly. She admitted she hadn’t been, that she had been angry at Him and had been avoiding Him.

He really is just like a parent. So, if you imagine what a really loving, intelligent and honest Dad would say and do, you might get an idea of what He’s like. I’m not the only person He talks to, by any means. He has a relationship with a vast number of people, I would have to assume, since I’m not special in any way. But, as with all parents and children, relationships vary, so everyone won’t have the same stories to tell.

I hope that gives you some idea of my experiences. If you need more, I’d be happy to oblige.

Emily H

I usually do an about turn when I see the word god, jesus or religion. I was sent to this site however and since the writing wasn’t from a religious sort, I decided to give it a go. I would like to know how, even as a young child I knew religion was nothing but a farce? I wasn’t raised by athiests, but I was allowed to have my own beliefs. I grew up not understanding how anyone can believe in anything so insane as religion. To believe in one instance that “god” is good because “he/she/it” saved you from drowing while “he/she/it” let 120 others die? This sort of reasoning is simply ludicrous. I’m sorry to crack all your holy illusions people but all we’ve got is each other, and the sooner you realize that and treat people like people/regardless of language or color the better off we’ll all be. Religion shouldn’t have a place on our earth. The so called bible was written by mortals people, and I personally think they were having one hell of a party when it was written. Drugs aren’t new to us! Parents, why not do your kids a favor and let them chose what they want to believe, rather than trying to cram this religion down their throats. I personally don’t want to be part of a flock of mindless ‘sheep’ believing in something that doesn’t exist just because someone said it was so. I won’t bother writing any more because I know the religious won’t listen, but it’s nice to express myself at times. “God” knows I have to listen to people every day asking someone to pray for something…baaaaaa.

Oh Emily, you are good at obfuscation but not much else. Keep to the subject. Dont try and distract the discussion with straw arguments.

1.Emily says “I notice you labor under certain assumptions too. You assume your belief is based on reality. However, just because you personally don’t know about something doesn’t negate the reality of it.”

A straw agrument. What we are discussing is you telling me that God exists. I am saying he does not. If we were having this same discussion about the song you could show me the song. There would be some emperical evidence outside of yourself which indicated it existed.

2. Emily says “Asking me to give you empirical evidence of God is no different than asking me to give you empirical evidence of some third party’s unspoken thoughts. All anyone can offer is personal experiences.”

What? Please Emily dont insult my intelligence. My request to have you give me emperical evidence of God is very different than asking about some third parties thoughts. For starters we would both agree that there IS a third party.

3. Emily says “I do not doubt that the Muslims hear a voice too, but that doesn’t make it God’s voice they’re hearing.”

Exactly. And it also means that we dont know that YOU are hearing Gods voice either. Thats exactly why I ask for emperical evidence. And in addition, you cant use the bible to prove anything about God. Simply because it was written by man.

In response to Comment #8307 by druidbros

You say - You see you labor under certain assumptions. I, as an atheist, challenge those assumptions. Believing there is no god is a belief just like yours. However, it is a belief based on reality. Your belief could be based on a mental defect (hearing voices).

My reply - I notice you labor under certain assumptions too. You assume your belief is based on reality. However, just because you personally don’t know about something doesn’t negate the reality of it.
There are innumerable obscure insects and bizarre sea creatures being discovered every year in this world. Until they were stumbled upon by scientists one would have never known they existed. This doesn’t mean they only came into existance the moment they were discovered.
There is an old song called “Johnny’s in the Pantry”. I can tell you all the lyrics; I can hum you the tune; I can tell you who wrote it; I can tell you when it was written, and yet, I can offer you no empirical evidence the song exists. If one never heard it mentioned before, they might think I made it up myself. It’s recorded somewhere I suppose, but I don’t have it. Does this mean it doesn’t exist?

You say - Lets say I told you your husband cheated on you. I am quite sure you would ask for proof/evidence of that fact. As I would. This is all I want-evidence-emperical evidence that your specific god exists. Personal testamony is not acceptable. It must be evidence which can be tested over and over again.

My reply - To use your example… If you told me my husband cheated on me, what kind of evidence do you imagine you could give me? How many cheaters are actually caught on tape or seen in the act? How would this evidence be tested over and over again? Personal evidence would be all that’s required. And if your evidence only amounted to “He told me he cheated on you”, that would be evidence aplenty.
My God is spiritual. He is not something to be seen. You can’t see air either, but you don’t deny it’s there. As a spiritual being He is not subject to the senses any more than thoughts are. Humans have a spirit too. It’s that part of you that thinks, feels emotions, has opinions, etc… it’s what makes you, you. But try proving that you think anything without going outside the spiritual realm. You can’t do it. God can. Asking me to give you empirical evidence of God is no different than asking me to give you empirical evidence of some third party’s unspoken thoughts. All anyone can offer is personal experiences.

You say - (Emily) said “A great many people hear God’s voice.” OK. How do you distinguish your God’s voice from the Muslums who say they hear God’s voice? The truth is….you cannot. Again there is no emperical evidence to suggest you are ‘right’

My reply - Good question! The truth, sir, is you can, easily. The answer is to be found in the Bible (naturally). Read James 3:13-18. In brief… “Wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.”
I do not doubt that the Muslims hear a voice too, but that doesn’t make it God’s voice they’re hearing. Satan speaks, perhaps more often than God, and ALWAYS immediately following God’s speaking. But if what you hear doesn’t match up with the verse above, it isn’t from God and is to be ignored. Note the “peaceable, gentle and full of mercy”... Doesn’t sound much like Islam, does it?

You say - you and your kind will lead us all into destruction.

My reply - Well, I and my kind will at least continue to listen to our God and if His leading matches the criteria mentioned above, we can hardly do society any harm. If you are headed to destruction, it won’t be my doing.

Emily H

Dan, believers don’t fly airplanes into buildings either.  There is no SOLID evidence whatsoever that Osama bin Laden and 19 Muslim highjackers were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  If any of you have any REAL evidence, I’d sure like to see it.

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!

I myself don’t believe in supernatural powers. However, if belief in such provides an anesthetic palliative for those who cannot accept that we’re carriers for genes and not much more, why not indulge if that’s one’s choice?

Some of Harris’ article strikes me as an argument against pain relief, that those who have concocted a relief against an otherwise therapeutically inoperable condition are somehow wrong to take that course.

People trapped in attics and facing certain doom should do what they must to make their last moments less painful.

It’s true that these powerful beliefs tend to get under our feet in many annoying and even fatal ways. Perhaps rather than attacking belief itself, Harris would do well to focus on separating belief from worldly existence.

Emily Emily Emily, I just have to respond to your last post. You see you labor under certain assumptions. I, as an atheist, challenge those assumptions. Believing there is no god is a belief just like yours. However, it is a belief based on reality. Your belief could be based on a mental defect (hearing voices). Lets say I told you your husband cheated on you. I am quite sure you would ask for proof/evidence of that fact. As I would. This is all I want-evidence-emperical evidence that your specific god exists. Personal testamony is not acceptable. It must be evidence which can be tested over and over again.

Secondly,Emily, you dont know your bible very well do you? Go read Deuteronomy. It has multiple examples of commanding followers to harm those who dont do/think as you do. Including but not limited to disobediant sons, adulterers, and unbelievers. It says to KILL them.

Thirdly, you said “A great many people hear God’s voice.” OK. How do you distinguish your God’s voice from the Muslums who say they hear God’s voice? The truth is….you cannot. Again there is no emperical evidence to suggest you are ‘right’

Many years ago the Greeks really believed in the Gods. Zeus, Apollo, and etc. But they eventually progressed to the point where they realized the Gods were just a myth. I can only hope we get there someday too. Because if we dont, Emily, you and your kind will lead us all into destruction.

(Emily said—God speaks. I didn’t see Him. I don’t need to see Him. I hear Him… He acts as a Father to me, giving me advice, directing my path.)

Emily, could you elaborate a bit. When you say that God speaks to you, how to you actually perceive it? Do you hear His voice in your head? What kind of voice is it? Male, female, young, old..? Can you respond with a question and receive a reply? Does He speak in words, or images, or otherwise; in daytime, or when you sleep? Did He ever tell you something that you couldn’t have known youself, i.e. that couldn’t have come from your subconscious mind? Please tell us more specifics about your first-hand experience. After lengthy theoretical debates, this would be quite refreshing. Thanks.

In response to Buvan:

The reason why the existence of green dragons does not arouse such passionate discussion is that believers in green dragons don’t fly airplanes into buildings in “defense” of their beliefs.

In response to walfy:

Yours is merely a rehash of the old arguement that God must exist simply because we can conceive of him. As Sam Harris points out in his book, that is akin to saying that if I believe that Nicole Kidman is in love with me, the mere fact that I can imagine it must make it so. I don’t think I need to point out how ridiculous this notion is.

Comment by Walfly about double delusion in atheism is intriguing and I thought would have been discussed more by others.
Whether it is atheism or agnosticism, one still subscribes to concept of a Supreme Being.

It is pointless to discuss if there is a green dragon seated in your family room under normal circumstances. Why must the idea arise? The same disinterest should have been in place for atheists and agnostics.

But unfortunately instead of a disinterest it is quite evident that the atheists and agnostics are only spalshing in a quagmire of uninterest instead.

I would just like to ask the believers in religion her, how exactly is it that religion benefits mankind?

We’re told that religion provides a meaning for life. Yet scratch a little beneath and we find no extra meaning wahtsoever.

What, by adding an extra (after)life, we somehow provide purpose for this life?

The con-trick revealed.

An appeal to simpletons. And those who wish for an afterlife, rather than those who have found one.

Why did your god create us?

We must know this to understand the purpose of life.

To praise him and generally make him feel good about himself. What a pointless exercise.

You are revealed as fakes or fools.

Such sophomoric raps we’ve heard before. The writer studied Eastern religions, but did not understand.  He completely leaves out the concept of karma, which is understandable, since karma is difficult to grasp and easily misunderstood by many. 

If one claims to be an atheist, doesn’t that mean you have to first project an idea of God in order to cut it down?  it’s funny: to be an atheist you have to have an idea of God!  Which means you would have to define God.  And to define God you would have to assume you know God (in order to say God doesn’t exist)!  In this light, agnosticism is much more reasonable.  Atheism is double-dose of delusion.

Candide, you say”...we unbelievers are far less likely to kill than believers in God.”  Is that so?

If you will recall back in 2003, Pope John Paul II spoke out against starting the Iraqi war, saying it did not meet the criteria for a just Christian war.  He even went so far as to send a local bishop to the Oval office to try to talk Bush out of his insanity!

Sam Harris has also spoken out against Bush’s illegal war started under false premises, writing of Bush in “The End of Faith”: “No matter what you think of the man’s politics - or the man - there is no reason to believe he would have sanctioned the injury or death of even a single innocent person.”

No wait.  That doesn’t sound like a condemnation of Bush!  It sounds pretty supportive!  I wonder where he got his “evidence” to make that statement, I couldn’t find it in the footnotes.

Sam Harris has insisted we hold the high moral ground in Iraq, made a case in favor of torture and tried to convince us that pacifism is “immoral.”  I realize he does not speak for all atheists (thank God!), but he does seem to speak for many, and I don’t see his political views are any different from those of the neo-cons and religious right (who are not really Christians).  Besides, I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t have a sense of humor!

As an Atheist I say that the problems we face are truly the problems of our “Religions”.....
Let me use another word instead of religion; PROGRESS!
One thing that Sam left almost alone in his book were the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc….he called these religions of a political nature. They were indeed political….Marxism is a western philosophy that grew out of western religious beliefs…..a belief in PROGRESS.
Western secular humanism has the same goal as western religions founded on monotheism….that is that we are heading to some better world whether here on Earth or some strange heaven.
We human beings are stuck in this belief that we can control the destiny of the world either by the “LAWS” of god or by the “LAWS” of science. Unfortunately both IDEAS are based on FAITH.

“Darwin showed that humans are like other animals, humanists claim they are not. Humanist insist that by using our knowledge we can control our environment and flourish as never before. In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity’s most dubious promises - that salvation is open to all. The humanist belief in progress is only a secular version of this Christian faith.
In the world shown us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress. To anyone reared on humanist hopes this is intolerable. As a result, Darwin’s teaching has been stood on its head, and Christianity’s cardinal error - that humans are different from all other animals - has been given a new lease on life.”
        “Straw Dogs” by John Gray

When Gray talks about progress he does not deny the progress of science, he means the progress of the human condition….technology is progressive….we use it to make really good weapons and we use it to heal the sick.

When I meet a future friend, I don’t ask whether they are religious or secular in nature…..I ask if they believe in PROGRESS….if yes then I move far away.
The Universe is all powerful and loves nothing.
    “If you understand then all is as it is,
    if you do not understand then all is
    still just as it is. 
            Zen proverb

Good luck with reality…...Harry in Australia.

In response to Comment #8134 by Howard Mandel

Howard said - We don’t not assume anything. Thats the point. Please spare us the volumes and volumes of drivel you use to dance around this question. Please for goodness sake, give us something real. “I saw Jesus in my bathtub”, or something. I beg you, give us some little straw to grab onto so we can rip this ignorant mental flytrap to pieces, once and for all.

My reply - God speaks. I didn’t see Him. I don’t need to see Him. I hear Him. I’m not the only one. A great many people hear God’s voice. He acts as a Father to me, giving me advice, directing my path. He encourages me when I’m unsure of myself. He soothes me when I’m sad. He is happy for me when I am glad. He exhorts me to do better than I do, be better than I am. He provides for my needs and wants.

Do you want specific examples?

He told me about my future husband, including his name, his personality, what he looked like, and what he was doing at the time. He told me about the children I would have, and showed me what they would look like. He told me I cannot have a piano or a new house yet because I wouldn’t take good enough care of them. He is encouraging me in my housekeeping skills.
He has saved my marriage several times by instructing me to say and do things I either didn’t want to do, or wouldn’t think to do.
He has told me to call someone, whom it turned out needed my call just then.
He has provided money when we needed it most. He has provided things we needed right when we needed them. He has provided many wants. (The only wants I have ever been denied so far are the piano and the new house, and He said I’ll get those when I will take care of them.)
We used a wood-burning stove all this winter to heat our house. By the end of January we were on our last wheel-barrow of wood. My husband put that wood in a cabinet on our porch, and showed it to me. We had enough for two more days and that was it. Yet, somehow, we burned that wood all through February without restocking it. 2 days worth of wood spread out over more than 28 days. Now, you can say that someone snuck in and restocked it for us if you choose not to believe in miracles, but even that is the Lord providing, for we told no one about needing the wood.

I have a relationship with Him. I talk to Him and He talks back. He’s not verbose by any stretch of the imagination, but He does have a great sense of humor. Sometimes what He says surprises me and sometimes it doesn’t, but He always says the right thing - and it’s always the truth. He never says something that turns out not to be.

No, I didn’t “see Jesus in my bathtub”. True, these examples may not serve to prove anything to you at all. However, they are all the proof I need. You may say you assume nothing, but I have to assume that Someone I have a relationship with, whom I speak to regularly, who helps me in so many ways, exists. It might be irrational for a person to believe in a God who has nothing to do with them; they simply go to a specified building to worship a silent and unapproachable deity. But when He speaks, listens, responds and provides, I’d be irrational to deny Him.

God may yet decide to prove to you He exists. Or He may be content to leave you as you are.

Emily H

Response to Comment #8036 by Mike

Original poster said - You won’t find anything in the Gospel’s that argues for killing or mistreating anyone for just about anything. That just ain’t Christian.)

Mike said - Surely you’re not serious! Here I address the concept of “mistreatment”:

(And then you listed a bunch of verses, followed by…)

How is this NOT mistreatment? And for what, mere lack of belief? I can only assume that you have not read the Bible in its entirety, or that—if you have—you have misunderstood it completely.

My reply - Sir, it is you who have read the Bible and misunderstood it completely. If you will bother to take notice, every, and I mean every, verse you listed referred to what GOD will do with non-believers. Not even in one instance does it indicate humans are to do anything to harm those who do not believe.

Emily H

Yes, some of you would like atheists to have more of a sense of humor.  Fine.  But if you really believe, as atheists do and I certainly do, that western civilization has been misled for at least 2000 years by Christianity, you don’t have much time left for humor.  Nothing about the evils Christianity has accomplished leads one to humor.  When I hear the word evangelical or Christian, I reach for my gun—metaphorically of course, since we unbelievers are far less likely to kill than believers in God.

Candide, people come together for fellowship for all kinds of reasons.  For example, I play amateur ice hockey, so I get together with other amateur ice hockey players to practice and play, drink beer afterwards and talk, mainly about hockey, especially since it’s NHL playoff time!

I suppose to people who don’t like ice hockey we would come off as “mentally ill,” but there’s no substitute for people coming together for a common goal or interest.  It’s about sharing enthusiasm, not reassuring each other we’re sane.

As Jesus said, “For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them” Matthew 18:20 (NIV).

Candide, I’ve seen guests on the Colbert Report who could keep up with Stephen and engage in lots of lively and entertaining banter.  Sam Harris’s appearance only confirmed what I suspected of him: he has no sense of humor!  His book would be so much easier to read if he didn’t take himself so seriously and lightened up with a joke or two now and then instead of relying on his constant heavy sarcasm.

It really amazes me that anyone can write on this blog that there is a God. There is absolutely no evidence of a God and lots of evidence that holy books and holy churches are total frauds.  If you believe in God, have the courtesy to keep your mental illness to yourself.

The reason Christians like “Christian fellowship” is that they know their beliefs are ridiculous but to have another person or persons share them makes them more comfortable.  If others believe, well maybe I am not crazy….

Guest on the Colbert show are not supposed to be anything other than props for Colbert.  Sam did what he was told to do.  When Colbert announced a guest and then has the cameras trained entirely on himself it sets the scene:  the guest is just a prop.

Emily H,

Mike challenges you to talk about why you believe and all you can say is.

“My reply - And you assume there is no God and go from there, do you not”

We don’t not assume anything. Thats the point. Please spare us the volumes and volumes of drivel you use to dance around this question. Please for goodness sake, give us something real. “I saw Jesus in my bathtub”, or something. I beg you, give us some little straw to grab onto so we can rip this ignorant mental flytrap to pieces, once and for all.

Andrea (#8088),

I couldn’t agree more. Campaign finance reform is the medicine this threatened democracy truly needs. A true multi-party system would emerge out of that. Everything else on the the table is smoke and mirrors. 

I would like to see that message get out in 2006. But I fear, as with believers and religion, getting politicians to rethink the way they see their world is going to be a long uphill fight.

I saw the Colbert Report last night, too.  I thought Sam Harris came off as an idiot with no sense of humor and nothing of any real significance to say.  Stephen was sharp and funny as usual though….

I would suggest that Everyone interested should see the movie “What The Bleep” and get a clue. No more damage has ever been done than in the name of religion throughout history. And Yet, we seem to want to keep recreating it as UGLY as it is. From the deepest core in your souls how could anyone follow such hollow comdenations of those you don’t even know for a belief that you cannot prove to be true and all evidence points away from. Why in places where religion is the LAW of the land do horrifying things happen, why do famines exist and kill millions of people including children and babies that don’t even know that religion exists yet..how can their deaths be their fault? What.. because they are not religious enough? I’m not saying that the spiritual does not exist but I don’t think it all lies in one place. To think so is dangerous to all. A little common sense please.. My thoughts.

Howard,

Thanks for the response.

“But Andrea, the problem in trying get into that discussion is that true believers will not give up the power of their numbers. They see any discussion about government that does not include faith as naive and stupid. They claim that this is a Christian country, by extrodinary majority, and the government should reflect that. To them, seeking common ground would be catering to special interest groups. If you are in the minority tough luck.”

They can claim that all they want, but the only reason anyone in goverment listens is because of the cash. They only have that power because government gives it to them. This country wasn’t founded on the idea that one religion controls the goverment or has any more say than the others and there’s no reason that any citizen or the government should have to subscribe to it. And really - there isn’t anyone in public office today who ultimately gives a damn about spiritual philosophy - their motivations are purely political and economic.

If we had REAL campaign finance reform we would see the power of the private interest dwindle. Ditto if we had run-off elections that allow smaller parties like the Green Party to actually vote for their candidates without penalty. Reform of the political system is the only way out of privately controlled government, whether it be by churches or corporations.

Prayer in schools wouldn’t be an issue if Congress enacted an act that said they had to be prayers of all faiths and not just Christianity and if you’re going to offer access to Bibles you also have to offer access to the Quran. Displays of the ten commandments wouldn’t appear in public places if the law said you also had to allow displays of the Buddhist Damaphada.

Christianity has cash, and therefore power. All of these things, if actually put to a vote, I’m sure would rapidly change. There is a huge changing of the guard happening - led by several generations of 2nd and 3rd gen. immigrants, gays and lesbians, people of color, and the highly educated (all those perceived as ememies by most Fundamentalists), but how do you get young, intelligent, tolerant people to vote when they see time and time again that the vote goes to the highest bidder? I know a lot of young people who don’t even bother to vote in the presidential election anymore because they simply believe the election will be rigged anyway - and who can blame them?

If we want to see the power of fanaticism go away - and I mean that with respect to all forms of it, not just religious - then we need to reform the system.

“Talk less. Do More” should be the manifesto of anyone who actually wants to see the world change from a place controlled by fanatics into a place where all people live freely and with respect for each other.

Added to my heroes list, along with Sam Harris, is Cornell political scientist Ted Lowi (“The End of the Republican Era;” “The End of Liberalism”). Yesterday, on Al Franken’s Air America show, Dr. Lowi exposed the illogic of Franken’s insistence that “morality” be the foundation on which the Progressive argument is built. Dr. Lowi pointed out that when the argument is pinned on (religious) morality, disagreement with the argument is then equated to “immorality.”  Progressives can never beat the religious moralists at their game.

Also, loved the riff between Sam Harris and Stephen Colbert, on “The Colbert Report.” Harris’s point couldn’t have been more succinctly made, anywhere!

Cook you are a kook,, who is going to read all that shit you wrote,, Go read a book

“I sympathize with you atheists. God (if there is one) knows how much death and destruction have been done in the name of religion. But you lack self-awareness. Atheism is a religion too, and often just as narrow-minded and fanatical as any other. Look at the Chinese Communists - proud atheists that they are, suppressing other religions such as the Falung Gong and Buddhism (which, by the way, is an essentially atheistic religion). I doesn’t matter what religion you do or do not espouse; it only matters whether you treat people with understanding and compassion. Can’t we all, atheists or not, agree on that? “

hah.. this is laughable.. .atheism is NOT a religion.  its the denial of a religion.  i thought sam made this clear…  or maybe you didnt read the article.

as far as treating people wiht understanding and compassion… atheists are leading that department.  just look at the most atheistic countries in the world… highest standard of liiving, highest in the Human Development Index… lowest in crime and murder, etc. etc. etc.

I loved Sam Harris’ appearance recently on the Stephen Colbert Report.  Too bad he didn’t appear on Ash Wednesday when Colbert had ashes on his forehead.

Mr. Wicher (#7959)

“Atheism is a religion too, and often just as narrow-minded and fanatical as any other.”

You can’t debate truth if we can’t agree on language. “Atheism” is just a word that describes how we feel about faith. Since faith is not a part of our lives, atheism plays no role in our lives other than to describe how we feel about the nutty things you believers think. It seems that believers cannot conceive of a world without irrational belief systems, so therefore we must have one, too. It’s so childish.

We structure our lives on learning, experience, hope and a vested interest in our own survival. We form no views that do not spring from these. We are open to new and changing views of our world. They come everyday. What I know about my world is radically different than what I knew 20 years ago. And, it is that changing reality that has changed my view that moderate followers of faith were not a risk to me. I know now with the help of Sam Harris and my own experience that it is precisely those moderate believers that have put our world in imminent danger.

Mr. Purvis (#7763),

There will be those who are unhappy that I am giving you the time of day. Someone so obviously blinded by faith to the realities of the twentieth century life is bound to allow this debate to descend into meaningless argument. But as a gay man I just couldn’t let that comment go.

“For instance gays… how do gays help reproduce the human race?????”

As you are undoubtedly aware if you’ve read any of the posts here we are not ingorant of the teachings of the bible. So stop trying to convince us that if read that one part you think is incredibly enlightening we’ll be converted. That fact that there is wisdom in its teacings only amplifies the inconsistancies. We’ve read it, re-read it, studied it and in the end were unimpressed Deal with it. But when you pick out some little thing in that emormous volume of ideas to give voice to your prejudices you enter into the realm of the hate groups. All hate groups use divine justice to condone its behavior.

The whole “be fruitful and multiply thing” hardly holds water in a heavily populated planet of growing numbers and shrinking land mass. This argument against homosexuality clearly shows how believers are on a collision course with survival. Thank you Mr. Purvis, for allowing me to make this point.

Andrea (#7845),

Thank you. Of course, that’s exactly the problem. As an atheist I feel the existence of god is besides the point. I want to talk to believers about our common ground and how it is in the interest of all people to keep the issues of faith and government apart, for the protection of both. Government cannot effectively govern us if it is hijacked by those with an agenda they ascribe to faith. Religious institutions cannot remain spiritually pure if their leaders are tied to the political fortunes of our government representatives.

But Andrea, the problem in trying get into that discussion is that true believers will not give up the power of their numbers. They see any discussion about government that does not include faith as naive and stupid. They claim that this is a Christian country, by extrodinary majority, and the government should reflect that. To them, seeking common ground would be catering to special interest groups. If you are in the minority tough luck.

So, how do you suggest we convince the Christians that by keeping their faith out of government they are protecting themselves. By talking about faith. By showing them that we will not be converted; that their reasoning is flawed; that the only way to make this troubling argument go away to for them to retreat behind the cloak of their faith and leave us alone. Which we will be more than happy to do if they leave our government alone.

By engaging in this debate everyday; by never backing off; to fight forever if need be…this will either cause people to convert or retreat. Either way the cause of justice is served. I have no desire to destroy someone’s belief in god, if they keep it to themselves and stop making it a litmus test for public office. Until then, I will take the intellectual fight to them. Where them down with the truth until the fight has gone out of them. As Rummy says, “the long war” rages on.

To David Cook, Re: post 7842

You wrote:

(EvilEd (#7758) says: “The notion of an all-knowing god that passes moral judgment on every individual is such a transparent ruse that believing it borders on a mental disorder.” I don’t know if Ed read my essay, but here is the problem. Only some Christians, even if that means millions of them, believe in that God. I don’t. The God I believe in is a God of love and compassion, if also righteous, but He does not pass moral judgment on every individual. Whether believing that, however, constitutes a “mental disorder” can be open for discussion.)

My question to you is:  does this mean, then, that you don’t believe the Bible to be the infallible, inerrant, Word of God? Because here’s what your Bible says about God:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known ... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.—Deut.13:6-10

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts “a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.” Ex. 11:7

God favors Israelites “above all people.” Ex. 19:5

The first commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. Ex.20:3

God, “whose name is Jealous”, will not tolerate the worship of any other god. Ex. 34:14

Now, let’s get “New Testament” regarding judgment and compassion:

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. Matt. 7:13-14

Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). Matt.10:14-15

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matt. 11:20-24

The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the pharisees “hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous.” Matt. 15:2-3

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn’t sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: “bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me.” Luke 19:22-27

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. John 3:18, 36

The “wrath of God” is on all unbelievers. John 3:36

Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. Acts 3:23

God will torture forever those who don’t know the password to heaven. Acts 4:12

The first Christian book burning occurs when Paul’s converts at Ephesus burn 50,000 silver pieces worth of books. Acts 19:19

God abandons those who don’t know him to “uncleanness and vile affections.” Rom. 1:24, 26, 28

Homosexuals (those “without natural affection”) and their supporters (those “that have pleasure in them”) are “worthy of death.” Rom. 1:31-32

“He that doubteth is damned ... Whosoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 14:23

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Rom. 16:17

Need I continue?       

You wrote:

(From Alberto (#7757): Alberto is comfortable with his own “belief in science” (an oxymoron?) and has led him to withdraw from all organized relgions, specifically those with hierarchies and authoritative dogmas. Not surprising. My own “organized religion” is neither hierarchical nor dogmatic. But it is Christian. I don’t begrudge or question Alberto’s comfort with his “belief in science” but if that slides into “scientism” then he is into religion not science!)

My question is:  which “Christian” belief do you espouse? I can’t but help wonder which denomination doesn’t practice “hierarchy” (with God at the top, a preacher/priest in the middle, and the “flock” at the bottom), or “dogma” (with a specific book dictating everything from what to believe and how to believe it).

You wrote:

(FrikkenKids (#7740): I haven’t read the post by Emily but I was intrigued by your basis for challenging her contention that “nowhere in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated.” Your reading of Matthew 5:17-18 is very literal and fundamentalist and as a result doesn’t even come close to what Jesus is trying to say there nor does it take the context of his statement into account. You won’t find anything in the Gospel’s that argues for killing or mistreating anyone for just about anything. That just ain’t Christian.)

Surely you’re not serious! Here I address the concept of “mistreatment”:

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.

Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 22:13
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41, 46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Luke 16:22-24
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Revelation 20:14-15
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

How is this NOT mistreatment? And for what, mere lack of belief? I can only assume that you have not read the Bible in its entirety, or that—if you have—you have misunderstood it completely.

Response to Comment #7740 by FrikkenKids

You said - First, you say “No where in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated in any way.” Wrong.  Simply wrong.  Matthew 5:17 - 18…“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” From the mouth of your savior, the old laws (meaning the laws of the old testament) are to be followed.  The old testament is quite clear about the many, many reasons people should be slaughtered - and not following the right god is one of them.

My reply - With all due respect, you are mistaken in your interpretation of these verses. He is saying that He is not changing the laws, but fulfilling them. How He does this is what you are missing.
God expects you to follow all of the laws He has laid out for us. However, human beings are flawed creatures, and our fallen natures prevent us from be able to do as we should. (Romans 7:14-25) We cannot keep His laws. God, loving Father that He is, knows this, and He sent His Son to help us. He fulfills the law for us. His death on the cross is the sacrifice required by our sins. Yes, we should be stoned to death for any number of laws we have broken. Yes, we should be cast into Hell (separation from God) for our sins, it is required by God’s law. However, God realized that for all intents and purposes, every man woman and child would be dead by now. No one is sinless. No one. Our only hope is Jesus. He fulfills the law for us. He takes our punishment. The only sin that is unforgivable, is the sin of calling God a liar. You cannot deny that Christ died on the cross for your sins, and then take advantage of His sacrifice when you stand in judgement before God.
The rest of the chapter refers to the laws in more detail. They are referring to the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of Christ in your life. In spite of how the laws are written, God actually expects us to be even more righteous than the law. This is even harder than that which God regarded as impossible for us. How are we to do this then? Well, by allowing Christ to rule our lives directly, He fulfills this as well. What God requires, Christ provides.

You said - So GOD ALMIGHTY told you where your lost doll was?  I simply cannot comprehend what it must be to have a mindset that would allow me to believe in a god who will answer the prayer of a little girl who lost her doll but ignores the prayers of billions of people with more pressing concerns.  How many people - at this very second - are praying to god to relieve their illness or the illness of loved ones?  How many are begging for love or happiness or enough money to feed their family?  To use one Sam Harris’ examples, how many are praying for the safe return of their lost daughters who are already raped and dead?  Your god ignores those pleas but, holy shit, he told a little girl where her doll was.
Simply pathetic.

My reply - My example was of the very first time God spoke to me. It was not the greatest or most important thing He has ever done for me.
I find it interesting that (if you did believe in God) you would consider yourself of enough importance that He should allow you to decide who’s prayers should or should not be answered. Some things to consider…(Mark 11:12-26)(James 4:1-10)(Luke 11:1-13)
God is a loving and generous Father, but He is not our servant. We cannot insist that He do what we want. Nor can we expect that we can ignore Him all our lives and then when we suddenly feel we need Him, pray fervently and expect Him to suddenly be at our beck and call.
One must take into account who you are referring to when you say “God”. There are many religions out there that have gods other than the Lord, God. If people pray to them, they will get the most powerful answer their god can provide… silence.
Also, it is important to consider that we do not have the whole picture as God has it. We cannot know if what we are praying for will actually be good for us. God says He will withhold “no good thing”. (Ps 84:11) Money ruins quite a few people every day. Some of us are blessed to be poor.
Sometimes, in order for our prayers to be answered, something is required of us, but we are unwilling to do it. Those who are praying for love sometimes are guilty of things that cause others to stop loving them, or are looking for love in the wrong places. Those asking for happiness must be willing to live as God would have them live, because that is the very reason He sets those laws above us. God wants us to be happy. However, it is not His job to keep us that way. We are required to respond to Him and allow Him to work in our lives.
As for the bad things that happen to people, I don’t know the purpose. However, there is a good reason for everything, whether we know it or not. Perhaps one child’s murder helps to prevent many others. Think of John Walsh’s son. Yes, his murder was horrible, but from that loss sprung “America’s Most Wanted”, a show that helps catch dangerous criminals and recover missing children.
God doesn’t cause bad things to happen, but He doesn’t prevent all of them either. If He did, we would only complain about lesser evils. We don’t complain about the bubonic plague these days, do we? Only a small percentage of the world complain about ebola.
And we can’t know how many times we are protected from harm. The car accident we missed because we took an extra 10 minutes to find our car keys this morning; the kidnapping that didn’t happen because the would-be kidnapper got into a car accident; the illness our baby didn’t catch because the person who would have given it to him died the day before.

Just because God would answer the simple insignificant prayer of a little girl doesn’t mean He is not worth believing in. (Luke 12:24) God takes care of birds and beasts, and so He takes care of His children.

Emily H

Comment #7726 by Mike

Mike says - Prove god exists, then we’ll discuss this.  Once again, you assume the existence of this being as a given, and go from there.

My reply - And you assume there is no God and go from there, do you not?

Mike says - Just as if I were to form a group, decide that basketball is evil, then try to persuade the government that legislation should reflect our beliefs—then, if our beliefs weren’t properly adhered to, we could claim that the government is slanted against us.  The martyr syndrome doesn’t impress me.

My reply - Mistakes have been made by “Christians” in government in the past. Look at Prohibition… idiotic at best. The less government control, the better. Hence the Christians belief that the government is slanted against us, but it is not because they want to shove our beliefs down others’ throats. We feel that way because we are prevented from expressing our beliefs as the first amendment permits. 

Mike says - Show me a politician that doesn’t pander to the religious, and I’ll eagerly vote for him. 

My reply - Which is exactly what I said. Government officials pander to whomever gets them the most votes. Atheist are too small in numbers to matter at this point.

Mike says - Actually, I was referring to the Israelites and their massacre of the Canaanites.  After all, God told them they could have the land, correct? So, using that twisted reasoning, I should be able to come over to your house, proclaim that God told me I could have your TV, CD player, and various other appliances, and that would be okay, right? But God said I could have it, and I’m sure I can provide the written evidence (anybody got a pen?).

My reply - Well, your wording said that people were being massacred because they disagreed with the religion. That doesn’t completely cover the whole story. However, if God did indeed actually tell you you could have my belongings, then come get them. If He did, then you wouldn’t be an atheist anymore. You’d believe in Him. The price of your soul is worth far more than all my earthly possessions. If He wants you to have them, then surely we’d all be better off if you had them.

Mike says - What would it hurt, to have all your bases covered, in the event it all might be true? In fact, why not convert simultaneously to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, and Shintoism—after all, any one of them MIGHT be the ONE TRUE BELIEF too, right? What would it hurt?

My reply - To believe in ANY of the others would be to unfaithful to God. If you get married, you are pledging faithfulness to that one man or woman. You don’t hedge your bets by keeping several other lovers on the side, just in case the marriage doesn’t work out. It would be unfair to your spouse and undermine the marriage before it even got started. A relationship with God is no different. In fact, God refers to His relationship with the church as a Bridegroom and His bride.

Mike says - It seems to me that Christians should refrain from going to the doctor, taking prescriptions, and living healthful lives. Aren’t you eager to meet your loving god in the afterlife? What’s the holdup?

My reply - God gave me life. Life is a gift. Why should I throw it away or not appreciate it? Life has a meaning and a purpose, and I intend to make the most of it. Through God, my life is one of infinite blessings. Besides, I don’t have to wait until the afterlife to meet Him. I have a very close relationship with Him now. 

Mike says - Yes, I’m sure you have a handle on the “right path”.  It’s not like this belief system is the dominant doctrine in the current regime that rules the current era.  I’m sure your “right path” was discovered independently of any outside influence whatsoever.

My reply - So, you are saying that because many people seem to share my beliefs, they must be wrong? Actually, if you were to actually pay attention to the things I say, you would realize that my beliefs are NOT the dominant doctrine in any era. To put it plainly, I do not believe in a physical second coming of Christ, or a physical Kingdom on Earth. I believe it is spiritual and it is here and now and yet I almost totally disagree with Calvinists who believe that all are in the Kingdom. There are so few who believe as I do that I have only ever heard of two other people who agree with me on every point.
Am I wrong to believe I could be right? Do you not believe you are right? Other people agreeing or disagreeing is not what decides right and wrong.

Mike says - At last, an honest answer.  God is real because the Bible tells us so, and the Bible is the final workd since it’s God’s word.  No circular logic there.

My reply - All of my answers are honest, whether you agree with them or not. The Bible is the Word of God because God said it is. God is real because He said He is. I find proof of Him in my daily life. If you have no relationship with Him, that doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. There are over 6 billion people on this planet whom you have never seen nor spoken to. You don’t have any real evidence that they even exist, and yet, you don’t assume that they don’t.

Mike says - It’s all a matter of how you look at it, right? Okay, so how do YOU look at, say, the Koran? Or the Tao Te Ching? Are you honest enough to see that if you found a contradiction in the holy texts of others, that their prevarications that it’s all “contextual” or “how you look at it” is verbal gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty?

My reply - Honestly, I don’t look at them at all. I see no reason to. It wouldn’t matter to me whether or not there were contradictions in texts of other religions. My interest is in making sure people don’t misinterpret the Bible.
There is an old joke about taking Bible verses out of context….
A man was looking into the Bible for some guidance. Not knowing where to look, he simply opened the Bible randomly and point his finger at a passage. Wherever his finger lands, he will take as advice.
Here’s the first: “Judas went out and hanged himself”. Not knowing what to make out of that, he tried again.
This time it is: “Go and do likewise.” Completely baffled, he tried a third time.
“Whatever you are to do, do so quickly.”
Now, that is just a joke, but it illustrates a very valid point. Context is extremely important.

I originally wrote - (Christians today are regularly ridiculed, derided, mocked and, in certain parts of the world, tortured and killed. Finding an error in the Bible could hardly add to the problem.)

Mike answered - I’ll give you “ridiculed” (and justly so), but please provide the instances of tortured and killed here in the U.S. And I’ll need documentation of this. 

My reply - Please look back at my original words. Note the phrase “in certain parts of the WORLD.” Why do they have to be killed here in the U.S. to be valid? But, given the opportunity, certain Muslims would love to do that for you.

Mikes says - You assume what you believe to be true, and no argument to the contrary will sway you. 

My reply - So, what you are saying is that you do not assume what you believe is true? And if what I believe, I believe to be true, would I not be a moron then to be easily swayed to believe otherwise? Perhaps you are accustomed to conversing with Christians who are wishy-washy or unable to defend their beliefs. I am not one of them.

Mike says - If Jesus were to appear before me right this very instant, and perform miracles proving his supernaturally-endowed divinity, I would be a fool not to accept him as a god.  Would you agree?

My reply - I would agree. And if God were a performing monkey, subject to your every whim, I’m sure He would do so for you.

Mike says - Now, give me a reason—any reason at all, be it evidenciary, historical, or otherwise—that would make you doubt your beliefs enough to cast them off permanently.  There isn’t one, is there?

My reply - Once something has been proven to you, it is difficult to shake it off. Once I married my husband and lived with him, having had a couple of his children, you’d have a hard time convincing me he never really existed. My relationship with God is no less real. He speaks to me, and everything He has ever said has proven to be true. The only means of “convincing me” to doubt my beliefs would be to convince me I am entirely insane, and believe me, Satan has tried that one already. It didn’t work.

Emily H

I am an Atheist…...loved your book Sam….am reading it a second time…..we have a similar problem in Australia….we cannot talk or critisize religion…..we are not allowed to tell a child to question superstitions that are passed on to innocent children…..and we, like the USA are one of the most educated countries in the world.
Unfortunately, as John Gray points out in his wonderful book, “Straw Dogs” we homo rapiens have become another plague on this planet….our problem is overpopulation….a subject which is also a taboo….by the year 2050 we will have managed to reach 7 billion….but as James Lovelock has pointed out as with all plagues this will not continue….war and disease will help the Earth to recover, but the biggest health benefit for the planet will come from our own pathetic greed…..climate change will rid the Earth of many human animals via changing climate conditions and war and starvation that will come as a natural Darwinian consequence.
The Earth has been here for a long time and to think that the human animal can destroy it is nothing but hubris…..this planet is a living organism and like all living organisms it fights off invasions by other organisms…like we fight viral and bacterial infection.
Three cheers for the beauty of blind evolution.
The Universe is all powerful and loves nothing!

I say this without trying to be perverse or precious.  I and most of the people I know are much nicer than the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim gods.  I am a teacher and have three adult children. Suppose I had commanded all of them to follow me into the teaching profession (as one, in fact, has done), but two refused.  If I had then had them both tortured and killed for disobeying my will, I would have been behaving like the god worshipped by most of the world’s population—a cruel, vindictive, and even petty being obsessed with being worshipped.  But reflect: Jews, Christians, and Muslims affirm that their god is just and merciful.  If there is a just and merciful deity in the sky, most of us have nothing to worry about.  Gods are created my humankind to qualm their fears and validate their hatreds.  Besides, if there were a deity so powerful and intelligent as to have created the entire universe out of nothing, why would an appropriate theology appeal only to morons?

Sorry, Tony, but atheism isn’t a religion at all, but a lack thereof.  Yes, atheists can be just as stubborn as religionists, but I see their position as more defensible.  After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.  I suggest that you pick up a copy of Carl Sagan’s book, “The Demon Haunted World,” and check out the chapter about the fire-breathing dragon that “lives in my garage.”

This is certain: Atheists didn’t carry out the Crusades or Inquisition.  They didn’t burn witches.  They didn’t gas the Kurds.  They don’t fly commercial jets into buildings.  The world would be far more peaceful if there were no religion in it.

It was fun to see Sam Harris as foil for Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central last night. I know from various sources that Stephen is a practicing Catholic who comes from a large and very healthy family. I think he is the youngest. But on the Colbert Report he is playing a pompous caricature of a right wing, anti-intellectual crank. So in true fashion to his character he hit Sam with all the stereotypical fundamentalist crap you would expect such as the inerrancy of the Bible, my God is better than your god or even your “not god”, and this is all so because the Bible says so and the Bible is history. Sam gamely defended his atheistic stance but the whole thing was a perfect send up of his arguments because Stephen was skillfully baiting him with Sam’s own bete noir version of Christianity. I thought it was very funny.

There was no beginning and there will be no end.
God, as defined, is a creator.  So, she doesn’t exist.

I sympathize with you atheists. God (if there is one) knows how much death and destruction have been done in the name of religion. But you lack self-awareness. Atheism is a religion too, and often just as narrow-minded and fanatical as any other. Look at the Chinese Communists - proud atheists that they are, suppressing other religions such as the Falung Gong and Buddhism (which, by the way, is an essentially atheistic religion). I doesn’t matter what religion you do or do not espouse; it only matters whether you treat people with understanding and compassion. Can’t we all, atheists or not, agree on that?

God really is dead.

I saw you on Colbert Report.  After 10 seconds of the interview I immediatly bought your book first to read it, and second, to support you.  In these days where religion dominates the news it is sad that your the first person I have seen on tv that I agree with.  I wish you the best of luck to bring reason to the world.

The high net worth religions are welded to the Establishment in a symbiosis that was galvanised by the emergence of city states some 10 large years yore. These shifty spiritual pickpockets of multiple denominations always occupy the best locations on the block, from Tehran to Toledo to Timbuktu. There’s no mystery here, guys. The big G is a real estate developer, and the pickens are choice in Sin City, where the rubes stumble over each other, propelled by emotions of fear, guilt and shame, outsourcing all reason to “epistemological Ponzi schemes” flogging the hottest “pie in the sky when you die” deal around.

Levity aside, Sam Harris, your manifesto is inspirational. I’ve printed it and can refer to it often, as it nestles with my favorite essays on my bedside shelves.

I agree with some of the less articulate arguments stressing the Bible’s lack of existence during the millions of years which preceded its creation… Same with other religious works.  Until proven otherwise these tomes must be treated as works of fiction, or idealized philosophies in story book form.  There are many contradictions in these religious scriptures and all of it is interpreted as a good vs. evil perspective.  There is no such thing as good or evil.  There is self-interest and there is different manners in which to obtain these self-interests.  These interests vary only in self-value and harboured morals.  Realistically we know not whether a god would want us to be murderers or passive faithfuls.  Rationally I would think that God, who needs his angels to wage a war against the Devil and his followers would want the most efficient murderers he could find; however, the bible teaches us differently, perhaps because those who can freely murder could challenge god, but more likely the author realized that mankind needs to negotiate a social contract with each other so as to prolong his own well-being. Self-interest.  Man kills for fear, for anger, for power, but regardless, it is always out of self-interest.  But, it is of everyone’s best interests for everyone’s self-interest to reflect murder as a non-negotiable taboo.  So, in my opinion, the Bible and other religious works were either philosophical reflections, or idealistic hopes for society: guidelines to help influence people’s morality and general well-being

I just fucking love these idiots.

The “tenants” of the bible.

Morons.

While everyone’s standing around debating the existence of God (good luck with that one) and gouging out each others’ eyes about what is “rational” to believe, we might want to start thinking about the core problem here - the non-existence of absolute separation of church and state.

Even in the U.S. we don’t enjoy it. And why? It has nothing to do with the spectrum of rationality or religious belief, but everything to do with the base, unmitigated greed that is our capitalist system. Even here in the richest, most educated society on the planet we are held hostage by the pandering of politicians who masquerade as public servants yet have parlayed government office into a do nothing job with outlandish payoffs. Fundamentalists of any kind are only powerful because our politicians cower at the loss of their support and their cash. And we have allowed this to happen. As a nation we have allowed this model to survive because we actually like the idea that money and numbers buy us influence in this screwed up idea of “democracy” just in case we happen to fall into the group receiving preferential treatment.

Ultimately, everyone should (at least in an advanced society of any kind) be allowed to believe anything he/she wants to. No one should have anything to say about anyone’s personal spiritual belief of anykind. But these beliefs obviously lie outside of the domain of logical SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE, and the people that we elect should be not only demonstrating it, but pushing forward a system that seeks social responsibility that isn’t tied to any particular spiritual belief.

Maybe if the U.S. could actually somehow become this socially transcendent nation that it keeps touting itself to be - by removing the power and greed factor from so-called public service, and removing religious group preference from it’s standard business practices as a result of their wealth, we WOULD actually begin to see a world built on the fundamentals of “rational” thought.

Until then, you can keep arguing about the existence of God all you want and Harris can keep railing about the existence of believers of all things.

But it ain’t gonna change cr#p.

Harris’ time would be better spent trying to change our disastrous political system - and that is my one large criticism of his work - it is useless, divisive and essentially unimportant.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have expensive guitars to worship.

I entered this discussion with a long post (#7738) primarily because I thought Sam’s original manifesto needed a thoughtful, respectful, response from the point of view of a non-fundamentalist, non-dogmatic “believer”. Having written it I thought I may as well post it here for other comments.

I have zero interest in proselytizing anyone about anything. But the fact that Sam’s manifesto has drawn such extensive and often furious discussion from lots of angles certainly confirms that he has touched a nerve that deserves attention. Humans who are religious believers of whatever stripe can be both a blessing and a curse to other human beings and those who profess their unbelief in any god can fall also in either direction.

So this is hopefully a civil discussion along a rather serious divide between those who profess a belief in God which lacks any empirical verification and those who profess their unbelief because there is no way to verify such a belief that is acceptable to them. And there are some on both sides who seem to feel that the well being of humanity may hang in the balance between which group gets control.

I have no case to make in either direction but since I regard any posts here as being points made in a discussion and open to a response here are some responses made to recent posts after my own essay was posted.

To SD (#7806) You quote my remark that I am unconvinced that life without a relationship to God can be as full as one lived in relationship to God and suggest that this contention would be disproved by meeting your family. Point taken. Everything depends on what kind of relationship one has with God and what kind of God one has a relationship with. Not all combinations necessarily contribute to a full and healthy life.

To StephX (#7780): StephX is nothing if not passionate about what he thinks and how he feels about this discussion. Great, we are in the realm of believing strongly what we believe and I see nothing wrong with that.

He writes: “I can well imagine that many of the believers (like David Cook, who doesn’t even get Mr. Harris’ name right) have simply come here to proselytize, or threaten us non-believers with (presumably) an eschatatological ‘rude awakening’. Hey, thanks for sharing Jesus’ love, Mr. Sociopath. You must be swell at parties.”

This is a bit harsh as I never referred to Harris as “Scott” in my essay (as you suggest later) which makes me wonder if you read it. I came to this site to discuss and share my own opinions as a “believer” not to proselytize or threaten and it is hard to know how you got that from what I wrote. Nor do I understand what any reference I might have made to “jesus’ love” makes me a “sociopath”, if indeed it is even me you are referring to.

So let’s just get to what you say is the point and I will try my damndest not to sound “condescending”, though I won’t hide the fact that I’m a “believer”. Your point is “to simply acknowledge that there is no logic behind faith, and as a result, the conclusions people draw based on that faith are all too often - speaking strictly in terms of verifiable evidence - erroneous, to say nothing of extremely hazardous to the health of many of the rest of us.”

I won’t argue your point that there is no logic behind faith. You worry about “the conclusions people draw from that faith.” As I made clear in my essay I agree that many religious people draw conclusions from their faith that result in very dangerous and sometimes destructive behaviors. But then there are many other believers whose conclusions based on their faith lead them to take actions that resulted in wide spread benefits to the lives of people of all faiths or no faith. Think Martin Luther King, Jr. as a single example.

I respect your strongly held beliefs as you lay them out and I try, not always successfully, to live by the same golden rule you propose at the end of your post. If I seemed to come off as a “sociopath” in what I wrote I sincerely which you would point out to me exactly where that was in what I wrote.

Tim (#7765) is absolutely “my kind of atheist”. Tim does a beautiful job of critiquing the weak spots in the atheistic passion from within the “body of atheists”. Although in my essay I was critiquing Sam’s atheistic view of religion from within my frame as a believer, I was also critiquing many of my fellow faithful for their dogmatic blasphemies and bad behavior. The passionate spirit of many of the posts from the “unblievers” belies the notion that they aren’t, in their own way, as religious as I am.

EvilEd (#7758) says: “The notion of an all-knowing god that passes moral judgment on every individual is such a transparent ruse that believing it borders on a mental disorder.” I don’t know if Ed read my essay, but here is the problem. Only some Christians, even if that means millions of them, believe in that God. I don’t. The God I believe in is a God of love and compassion, if also righteous, but He does not pass moral judgment on every individual. Whether believing that, however, constitutes a “mental disorder” can be open for discussion.

From Alberto (#7757): Alberto is comfortable with his own “belief in science” (an oxymoron?) and has led him to withdraw from all organized relgions, specifically those with hierarchies and authoritative dogmas. Not surprising. My own “organized religion” is neither hierarchical nor dogmatic. But it is Christian. I don’t begrudge or question Alberto’s comfort with his “belief in science” but if that slides into “scientism” then he is into religion not science!

FrikkenKids (#7740): I haven’t read the post by Emily but I was intrigued by your basis for challenging her contention that “nowhere in Christianity does it say that those who don’t agree with it should be killed or mistreated.” Your reading of Matthew 5:17-18 is very literal and fundamentalist and as a result doesn’t even come close to what Jesus is trying to say there nor does it take the context of his statement into account. You won’t find anything in the Gospel’s that argues for killing or mistreating anyone for just about anything. That just ain’t Christian.

Thanks for reading. This is a challenging discussion.

Atheist is a funny word. I don’t need to analyze the existence of a god. I just don’t have that particular sixth sense that religous people say they have. BTW I don’t know where missing people are buried either. I don’t even have a lucky number. I just don’t know what the hell they are talking about.
I’m also Swedish where most people are like me. Is there a spooky gene involved?

Mr. Cook,
I appreciate your strenuous attempt to bring the progressive Christian perspective into the debate. However, by so doing you clearly demonstrate the how moderate believers (read “moderate” as Sam meant it: those who moderate fundamental theologies as a accomodation to modernity) engage in exhaustive intellectual gymnastics to include rationality into their faith. (See your original words in quotes.)

“But once an atheistic critic starts down that road the brush tars not only a multitude of sins but also blots out a multitude of “good works” over a multitude of centuries, if not millennia.”

Atheists don’t ignor the history of good works, we just don’t credit religion for their execution. Clearly, when everybody in a society is obliged to be a follower of faith, individual acts of charity or accomplishment cannot be rightfully credited to the faith. There’s no scientific “control” for that argument.

“Since I am definitely not a fundamentalist Sam would mark me as one of those cowardly “moderates” who don’t have principled beliefs like the fundys do (however irrational, if not idiotic, those beliefs may be).”

Moderates are not cowardly. Merely accommodating. If you don’t tolerate all faiths you risk other people being intolerant of your own.

“One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns – about ethics, spiritual experience and the inevitability of human suffering – in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.” For me it is my Christian faith that speaks most deeply to those concerns and I find nothing particularly irrational in that.”

This is the crux of the dilemma. You say it’s your faith thats speaks to these things. How is that exactly? How does your faith speaks to these things. That’s what we atheists don’t understand, and you won’t talk about. To me these are clearly issues of concern that any empathetic human would be hard pressed not to care about. Why do you need faith to do that? Where is your humanity?

“It is hard for me to imagine that Sam or any other atheist cannot find that kind of yearning within themselves, though I also recognize that there might be some sort of reflexive pulling back from the notion that anything might be thought of as “sacred” or that any purpose for our lives might be “transcendent.” If that is the case, then I can only say, “so be it” but you are missing something.”

Atheists do yearn for the same things that all people do. But for me the yearning is my motivation. The yearning drives me toward connecting with other people and providing comfort for me and my family. Why do we need a belief system to sanctify those yearnings. To the degree I have achieved, or am on the path to achieving the states of things I yearn for, I am happy.

“Where Sam Goes Wrong Mostly Out of Ignorance”

Point of courtesy here: Mr. Harris might have drawn some conclusions about faith that your are understandably not happy with. But to call anything he says that has emerged out of “End of Faith” (arguably the most researched book on the subject in history) ignorant is out of character with what was otherwise a very respectful and carefully considered posting on your part.

“It is clear that Sam and his compatriots have a huge problem with “dogma” and “certainty” and they tend to identify these irrational faults with “religion”, essentially equating a belief in god, which is by definition irrational, with dogma and certainty.”

This is not our doing. You have to recognize that your are in the minority amongst the faithful when you give such high praise to rational discourse. That said, even you are only available to employ rationality when all else fails. It does not drive your faith. Rationality is your last defense against abandoning it.

“Since I obviously can’t provide such evidence on Sam’s terms that ends the discussion.”

The truth is you can’t even start it. You started your post with “This is the kind of Christian I am…” But if you really wanted to talk you would say instead, “This is why I am a Christian…” (we don’t care what kind). To an atheist you’re all on the other side of the canyon.

“Sam is confusing science with “scientism.” Rabbi Lerner defines scientism as “the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured.”

I hear this all the time, “Your just substituting science for religion”. To that I say, you folks are projecting. Science is a method by which we come to understand how our physical world works. That’s it. No more and no less. Sam acknowledges in his book that there are all manner of experiences that fall into the spiritual realm. Whether you attribute them to the complexities of the brain, quantum physics or some super-natural reality, I still see no reason to ascribe them to some handy fable. As we grow older and more mature individually we grow more accepting of the limits of our understanding and draw humility from it. However, culturally we seem unwilling to make that leap into spiritual maturity.

“As a religious person, I don’t rely on science to tell me what is right and wrong or what love means or why my life is important. I understand that such questions cannot be answered through empirical observations. Claims about God, ethics, beauty and any other face of human experience that is not subject to empirical verification – all these spiritual dimensions of life – are dismissed by the scientistic worldview as inherently unknowable and hence meaningless.”

I find it incredibly tedious that every cogent argument against atheists seems to paint our world as bleak, practical and without beauty or meaning. This is the “reality sucks” argument. Well, I guess if your fantasy world involves kindly angels with wings and heavenly resting places reality pales by comparison. But my world is one of endless unknowable wonders, awe at the beauty of our planet and love for my fellow man. Without some unknowable fantasy of some imaginary world I am predisposed to seeing the beauty and magic in this one.

“OK, so I am one of those “spiritual progressives” on the Christian side of the religious divide, though there is precious little that divides me from Rabbi Lerner. And, I might also assert here, that I have listened to and read some of the work of a young Muslim progressive in America that makes him feel kindred to my own faith.”

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus et al are only separated by tiny structural fissures of dogma. The largely insignificant differences between religions has fueled man’s inhumanity to man throughout history. The faithful’s constant splitting off into factions in its efforts to remain relevant is a big turnoff for non-believers. You have to see that if their is any great divide, all believers end up on one side with us on the other.

“Certainly no purely rational or empirical analysis will be able to predict how such a tragedy will be faced and dealt with. But in my experience, a belief in God, by itself, is seldom an impediment to dealing with life’s changes and tragedies. What kind of God one believes in or what image of God one has can and does make a difference in how one responds to changes and tragedies.”

All you are saying here is that “your faith” (as you describe it) doesn’t get in the way. But you don’t say how it helps. Is it somehow better to draw comfort from fantastical notions or be driven to action by knowledge that such actions can turn tragedy to accomplishment; changes into progress. Like every other human I have dealt with change and tragedy. I have come through it stronger and more resolute by the act of surviving and the support of my loved ones.

“The question of suffering and evil in the world is a deeply spiritual and theological question.”

What is the spiritual and theological question here? Evil is a fact. Suffering is a fact. Their causes are quite mundane. By relegating these things to the spirit we abdicate our responsibility to take the earthly steps needed to curtail them.

“We have no question that this God is loving and compassionate.”

How can you say “no question” and still pretend to be willing to discuss this rationally. You don’t say there is no question that the new testament says that God is loving and compassionate. You say you have no question to the truth of it. For me, and I imagine other atheists, this is not an argument.

“As shocking as this may sound to Sam and his cohorts, Christianity is fundamentally a religion of non-violence.”

Nobody argues that Christianity at its core was a re-imagining of Judaism with happy, peaceful thoughts..just why you believe it.

“I disagree with Sam that Islam is inherently violent based on statements from the Koran, any more than one can judge Christianity or Judaism to be inherently violent because of the stories in the Bible of God wiping out men, women and children deemed to be his enemies.”

So, how is one to judge it then. I know you can’t judge a book by its cover, but I thought it was perfectly fine to do so by its contents. Surely you can see how many of the faithful have engaged in just the kind of violence the books call for. And while all violence is bad, violence that is done specifically in the service of religion is especially egregious because the perpetrators claim divine absolution. Remember, you all base your religion on the same books. To fundamentalists you are imperfect believers. We appreciate that you are not engaging in the violence your books prescribe, but leave you out of the rational debate because your on there side about the books containing divine truth, in whole or in part.

“That does not make violent actions right. Nor do such actions in the name of religion make that religion somehow null, void, and dangerous.”

What makes religion “null, void, and dangerous” is its intractability at every level of belief. If you can’t be convinced to abandon your faith, how will we convince the dogmatic followers to abandon or ameliorate theirs. Nobody, once they’ve found the faith that’s true for them can be convinced to question that revelation unless all faith is up for grabs.

“This brings me to my final argument with Sam. The main “devil” in Sam’s argument against religion are the so-called “religious moderates” whom he accuses of appeasing religious extremists of all faiths and which “continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a sustained assault on reason.” This strikes me as one of the most breathtakingly wild conspiracy theories ever uttered in the name of reason.”

No one is suggesting that moderates are conspiring to protect fundamentalists. It’s just the practical truth that when atheists talk to fundamentalists we have a theological discussion, which ends as it always must, polarized. When atheists talk to moderates we have a political conversation which starts at “let’s agree to disagree about whether their is a God”. We can’t get past that. Therefore, while the fundamentalist truly is willing to discuss his faith, he won’t give up any ground. But the moderates, who understand in their hearts where the fundamentalists have strayed, are unable to get into the debate. They can talk about how their faith is not inconsistent with a rational world, but they can’t deliver their fundamental brethren into their worldview.

“Beginning with the fact that Sam is simply ignorant of what it means to be the sort of “progressive Christian” that I am, albeit part of that vast amorphous group of “moderate” Christians that Sam condemns.”

Once again, you’re using the word ignorant inappropriately. If someone seeks the truth of a thing, and has through careful study, chosen to deny a thing, the resulting opinion cannot be described as ignorance

“The very fact that Christianity in America appears to the Sam’s of the secular non-believing world to be the dominant “face” of Christianity is largely a testimony to the extent to which “the religious right” has hijacked Christianity and entered politics in a big way. These Christians have also taken over the airwaves where they spew out their apocalyptic dogmas and other certainties that are far removed from the actual practice of Christianity.”

Agreed. However, since we are the only Christian country that has been projecting it into foreign policy we have to discuss the impact that is having on the rest of the world.  It’s the answer to your “why now?” question.

“Sam is stuck in the notion that being “religious” or being a “believer in God” or being a Christian is all about having irrational beliefs.”

So tell us in detail, what your beliefs are and why they are not irrational. Fundamentalists have no probelm discussing what they believe and why, but they don’t claim to be rational.

“Yet Sam cannot see the “beam in his own eye”, the dogma of “scientism.”

Because there is none. To say “I don’t know” is the antithesis of dogma. Redefine words as you will to cage us in some intellectual cubby that allows you to dismiss us. The truth stands in contrast. There is no dogma in what we say; only a clear vision to form a world view with knowledge and common sense; to embrace with child-like wonder the mysteries of the universe, and without the childish impulse to label and define the unknowable into complex and contridictary systems.

“These become the “false gods” that Yahweh warned us against in the first commandment to “have no other gods before me.”
Yes, dogma is a human problem but “religion” is not the cause. Falling prey to dogma is a spiritual problem of humanity.”

Being dogmatic is not inherently human. Its inherently political. Dogma is generated by institutions that must restrict debate to maintain their power structure. That leaves religion and the state as being, more or less, the sources of all dogma.

“I remain sublimely unconvinced that life without a relationship to God can possibly be as full and as complete as a life lived in relationship to God.”

And therein lies the true ignorance. You imagine that life without god would be empty, so you choose not to go there. End of debate.

I believe religion and god are facades that people like to hide behind; convictions used to rationalize their actions (or inactions) and (for some) to control the masses. These facades of the insecure and the control freaks are inhibiting our evolution.
Mr. Cook (post #7738), you and I can be respectful and tolerant of each other’s beliefs. We are capable of having healthy discussions. However, the majority of people are not like us.
Following a religion and/or believing in god is accepted. Not doing either is not mentioned because it’s a taboo in American communities. 

“I remain sublimely unconvinced that life without a relationship to God can possibly be as full and as complete as a life lived in relationship to God.” You haven’t been to my home and met my family