All Comments (371)

I was very young (maybe as young as 10) when I first heard of "Pascal's Wager". Even at such a young age it struck me as very silly reasoning; or lacking in reason, I should say. (I should also mention that I was still very much under the influence of religion...
It's a waste of time to discuss "The Empty Wager" as anything but a novel statement to dampen intelligent discourse. It's purely a statement that you could (usually) get a child behind because it has no depth. It's a very floral and cute thing to spout out but believers should try something with some substance- which would excuse the divine entirely, so, I would guess that is why we still hear of Pascal's notorious wager.

Nice site. Thanks:-)
http://kikimura.by.ru/ ы

Nice site. Thanks:-)
http://kikimura.by.ru/ ы

Nice site. Thank you!
http://svetikrus.by.ru/ к

A rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition for which he has no evidence? Ah, but true Christians have plenty of evidence in the form of life-changing experience. The Bible is true. The evidence of God is clearly seen in creation. (Romans 1:20) The god of this world has blinded the eyes of those who refuse to believe. (2 Corinthians 4:4) Pascal was only trying to remove that blindfold in the same way any good person would warn others to flee from a burning building. I am thankful for his efforts. Trust Jesus and live or reject him and die in your sins; it is a choice we all must make either willingly or by convincing ourselves that it doesn't exist.

Great job Sam! I have only one additional thought. Pascal did not live in a time when there was 33,000 denominations in the "christian " church and that many of those denominations hold incompatible views on doctrines that are considered necessary conditions for salvation.

I think the rhetorically most efficient way of countering a person who envokes Pascal's Wager is to say "thank you for rejecting Christianity and Islam". After all, these faiths reject the idea that mere belief in God is sufficient for salvation. Christias are supposed to believe that even the fiercely God-believing Muslims and Jews will necessarily go to hell, and that even devout Christians can only be saved by the Grace of God, which is arbitrary from our point of view. So where Christians and Muslims would agree with the negative part of the wager - that rejecting God sends you to hell - they fully disagree with the positive part, that accepting God sends you to heaven regardless of religion.

Even if you have not bothered to read my other posts; let me ask you:
Is Pascal's empty wager half empty or half full?

Obviously Pascal was an agnostic. He was intelligent enough to dispel the Biblical God concepts but also intelligent enough to be uncertain as to what might have been created by something that might not be explained by the probabilities of any understood mathematics.

Pascal did not know that television or airplanes would be common in our century. He probably wouldn't give them much odds of being possible... but we know that they are. That is because they can be made by Man. Man has yet to create life from inorganic chemicals. Man may never be able to do so. Knowing much about DNA, stem cells, etc has not enabled man to create any high form of life yet. When man can do so I'll bet on there being no creator or at least give that idea greater odds...before that I won't believe in anybodie's god ...but I won't eliminate the fact that a creator, by my own limited definition, may exist. My definition is that if Man can't ever do something then som,e supreme being might have done so because there is after all lots of life on Earth.

I am wot I am.
--Popeye the Sailor Man--

I forgot to mention that in addition to the two Pascal wager conditions there may be a third condition and that is that every living thing was created by Artificial Intelligent Design. This opens up another possibility as to who or what we can pray to or curse for anything we like or don't exactly care for about nature.

I admit that I can't prove or disprove this possibility. I can't prove or disprove the other two either. Pascal didn't think about it because he only knew about natural intelligence before there were computers that had hard drives with minds of their own sand irrelevant pop ups to curse at.

A wager is a bet... and in this sort of bet who is the dealer? I am an atheist but I am also a skeptic. As a skeptic I do not logically believe in anything that I can't prove myself except for a few laws of physics, and thus I only believe in the Laws of physics that were proved and the basis for all practical engineering. They basically include only the laws of Newton and Ohm. Everything else is up for grabs. Now I see lots of problems with what you write Sam...even though I am an atheist. Much of the devastation and murder attributed to religious differences might also have been motivated for economic, nationalistic or political reasons with religions being used for excuses to fool the gullible.

Neither Darwin's theory of Evolution, in serial steps on a flow chart or Behe's theory of intelligent design by mathematically miraculous parallel steps can prove or disprove the concept of a creator. In spite of this with little knowledge of these theories debates are held that have little to do with rational inquiry, secular humanism or Pascal's wager. This is because logically there may not be a yes or no answer to either the Pascal bet or the certitude that a theory must prove anything to be true or false about creation or religion. Even when we can understand something with a good degree of scientific certitude we must allow for the
"don't know and don't care case" that really makes our hypothesis irrelevant.

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

hello there everybody

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

I don't think it is fair to attack Pascal's wager without first examining the rest of his Pensees. It is very clear that the wager is not intended to create belief. It is merely a hot poker to get people to seek. People will not be convinced to have faith from other people. It can only come through reading the Bible and discovering God's grace for themselves. If the fear of God triggers someone to seek answers to life's questions, then I think the Wager does exactly what its author intended.

Travis East

cagbf wjxrm uaghxq zbpgaxrs vqmphji lfhsae mthd

cagbf wjxrm uaghxq zbpgaxrs vqmphji lfhsae mthd

Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it expresses lack of faith!

Assume there is a God.
You come before him on Judgment Day and say
"Hey, Dude, you were the safe way to bet."

Where do you think you will end up?

Whoever bets on God dooms himself exactly because he merely BETS on God.

That's NOT faith, Dude!

Is it just me or can Sam Harris make anything put in parentheses sound offensive?

Sam is brilliant as usual.
But for...uh, Jupiter's sake.
Get another photo of him for the site!

Sam is brilliant as usual.
But for...uh, Jupiter's sake.
Get another photo of him for the site!

Sam is brilliant as usual.
But for...uh, Jupiter's sake.
Get another photo of him for the site!

Pascal's wager falsely assumes only two courses.
What if there is a "GOD" but the way to salvation
is not in believing in GOD based on faith, that may
actually get you into hell. The way to heaven may be
learning the physical laws of the universe GOD created and belief in him is irrelevant.
With all the scientific inaccuracies in the Bible not to mention its condoning of slavery and second class treatment of women it can easily be argued that it is more the work of the devil than GOD.

One thing that proves to me how ridiculous religion is: I was baptised as a teenager and I really beleived in what I was doing. After I grew up, I realized how stupid the whole religious system is. According to the Bible, I am going to heaven. I professed my faith in the appropriate way, therefore I have my ticket to enter eternal bliss. I continue to live my life in a way that does not harm others and I help wherever I can. The fact that I have not been going to church doesn't matter- all I have to do is make a deathbed confession and I'm covered. Or, some religions say I'm not covered- the convicted murderer who goes to the prison chapel each day to pray may get in-- or not. How stupid! And, if there was to be a God, won't he take whoever he wants? There is just no way any of this can be true!

Well Said.

Hi, nice very nice page..!
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-strategy/index.html]mutual fund company[/URL]
fund raising strategy - allfunds.free-site-host.com/world-wildlife-fund/index.html
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/provident-fund/index.html]elementary school fund raiser[/URL]
elementary school fund raiser
fund raising strategy

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
non profit fund raising
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]mutual fund company[/URL]
nonprofit fund raising
church fund raising idea - allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html
elementary school fund raiser

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
non profit fund raising
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]mutual fund company[/URL]
nonprofit fund raising
church fund raising idea - allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html
elementary school fund raiser

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/nonprofit-fund-raising/index.html]mutual fund company[/URL]
elementary school fund raiser - allfunds.free-site-host.com/globe-fund/index.html
world wildlife fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-strategy/index.html
world wildlife fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/church-fund-raising-idea/index.html]high school fund raiser[/URL]

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/nonprofit-fund-raising/index.html]mutual fund company[/URL]
elementary school fund raiser - allfunds.free-site-host.com/globe-fund/index.html
world wildlife fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-strategy/index.html
world wildlife fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/church-fund-raising-idea/index.html]high school fund raiser[/URL]

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
mutual fund company - allfunds.free-site-host.com/world-wildlife-fund/index.html
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/nonprofit-fund-raising/index.html]nonprofit fund raising[/URL]
world wildlife fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/world-wildlife-fund/index.html]fund raising strategy[/URL]
globe fund

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

Hi, nice very nice page..!
mutual fund company - allfunds.free-site-host.com/world-wildlife-fund/index.html
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/nonprofit-fund-raising/index.html]nonprofit fund raising[/URL]
world wildlife fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/world-wildlife-fund/index.html]fund raising strategy[/URL]
globe fund

Good luck !
PS: do you listen Linkin Park ?

HI good suite can you look on my sites
child defense fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html]child defense fund[/URL]
child defense fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html
fund raising jewelry
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html]fund raising jewelry[/URL]
fund raising jewelry - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html
money market fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html]money market fund[/URL]
and on this
money market fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html
fund raising letter
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html]fund raising letter[/URL]
fund raising letter - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html
index funds
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html]index funds[/URL]
index funds - allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html
college fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html]college fund[/URL]
college fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html
non profit fund raising
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]non profit fund raising[/URL]
non profit fund raising - allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html
easy fund raising idea
and:
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html]easy fund raising idea[/URL]
easy fund raising idea - allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html
state fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html]state fund[/URL]
state fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html

HI good suite can you look on my sites
child defense fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html]child defense fund[/URL]
child defense fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/child-defense-fund/index.html
fund raising jewelry
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html]fund raising jewelry[/URL]
fund raising jewelry - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-jewelry/index.html
money market fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html]money market fund[/URL]
and on this
money market fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/money-market-fund/index.html
fund raising letter
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html]fund raising letter[/URL]
fund raising letter - allfunds.free-site-host.com/fund-raising-letter/index.html
index funds
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html]index funds[/URL]
index funds - allfunds.free-site-host.com/index-funds/index.html
college fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html]college fund[/URL]
college fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/college-fund/index.html
non profit fund raising
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html]non profit fund raising[/URL]
non profit fund raising - allfunds.free-site-host.com/non-profit-fund-raising/index.html
easy fund raising idea
and:
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html]easy fund raising idea[/URL]
easy fund raising idea - allfunds.free-site-host.com/easy-fund-raising-idea/index.html
state fund
[URL=allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html]state fund[/URL]
state fund - allfunds.free-site-host.com/state-fund/index.html

11. Women who love too much by Robin Norwood

12. The Casanova Complex by Peter Trachtenberg

It goes without saying of course that in this day and age of sexual "revolution" there are female versions of the Casanova, women who cheat their partners and there are men who love too much. Men and women are truly equals both in virtue and vice.

Since my suggestions for reading (to get a balanced view of sexuality) was deleted on another thread, I post it here (as much of it as I can remember):

1. Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach

2. Siddharta by Hermann Hesse

3. Mount Misery by Samuel Shem (a hilarious take on Freudian psychoanalysis)

4. The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm

5. The Road Less Travelled by Scott M Peck

6. An apropos to Lady Chatterlee's Lover, (essay) by D H Lawrence

7. Sexuality (essay) by C S Lewis

8. Books by Patrick Carnes: Don't Call it Love, Out of the Shadows, Betrayal Bond...

9. The Book of Proverbs (The Old Testament)

10. The Ramayana (Hindu Epic)

After posting my initial comment, I took a look to other commentators. I think that many rationally proned people would agree with me, and I most certainly do not want to offend any person that feels otherwise, but each time somebody defends his or her faith on account of a man or god, whose accountability rests on the far past (like Budha, Jesus, or whoever)saying I am a Buddhist, or I am a Christian, etc, I cannot help but think in the following comparison, I imagine a person two thosuands yeras from now, proclaming: I am a Mickey Mouseian, or a Donald Duckian...Can just we grasp whatever we could from God HEAR AND NOW without resorting to some past, unprovable and alien experience?

Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
www.manuelgerardomonasterio.blogspot.com
www.foroplanetario.com.ar

Sam Harris is, together wih Richard Dawkins and a little bunch of first line scientific writers,one of the few that is confronting the madness of a belief structure that has, systematically and inexorably, led to innumerable colective catastrophes. He is worried, very much so, and with outstanding reason.Religious belief as has been preserved by organized religions, is a calamity that has to be confronted by rational minds all over the world.The clash between those beliefs and super-advanced technology will provoke further holocausts, poisoning, in way to that final destiny,our daily lives in every possible manner. 100% support to Dr. Harris work.

Dr. Manuel Gerardo Monasterio
www.foroplanetario.com.ar
www.manuelgerardomonasterio.blogspot.com

Suppose I said the following:

"I have had an epiphany. I was visited in my sleep last night by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He told me that every night before sleep we should repeat 'spaghetti is awesome' 9 times whilst hopping on one leg. The mighty one said that if we did not do this then we would go to noodley hell after our deaths but would go to noodley heaven if we did. Pascal's wager implies we should do as I profess - it's a good bet."

So why don't we? The fact that the above proposed behaviour's only possible source of credibility is derived from Pascal's wager is telling.

Let A + B denote the union of the sets of statements A and B.
If X(Y) is the threat 'you will suffer after death if you don't believe the statements Y but go to heaven if you do' then Pascal's wager implies we should believe both A + X(A) and Not(A) + X(Not(A)). In other words we should believe A and Not(A) simultaneously!

It should be clear that adding threats to any statement does not make that statement any more likely to be true.

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/]desk lamp[/URL]
desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/]lamp shades[/URL]
lamp shades - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/]office desk lamp[/URL]
office desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/]desk lamp[/URL]
desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/]lamp shades[/URL]
lamp shades - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/

[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/]office desk lamp[/URL]
office desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/

nice site... look on my site

http://www.desklamp.fora.pl - desk lamp
http://www.lampshades.fora.pl - lamp shades

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

PS: On a Muslim thread I had already mentioned that when two people fall in love (provided they continue to cultivate love actively after the intense romantic phase has passed), they act instinctively just as Jesus taught (even if they are atheists or behaved like bonobo apes before) - they want to remain together for the rest of their lives, remain faithful to each other as a given (feeling completely ripped apart if the other partner cheats), are able to deal with temptation from outside and are not even tempted themselves (or if tempted they are able to overcome it and say "no" to it) no matter how beautiful the other person nor how seductive a game another plays (for they find beauty in the one they love and love is what gives anything value and lasting beauty); and stick with each other through thick and thin, through sickness and sorrow until death does them apart.

Most people understand the value of a lasting companionship (centuries of stable relationships and families practised because it was forced by society) and hence choose to settle for one partner for the rest of their lives whether they are believers in God or not. They choose to invest their creative energies in pursuits other than chasing and conquering attractive members of the opposite sex, which religion tells us is an insatiable need arising from the false ego, and has nothing to do with a legitimate human need for contentment and complete happiness of the human being.

Those who preach hedonism and bonobo ape sexual behaviour as religion get their following of course. But whether such hedonistic materialism serves the best long term interests of the society has been disproved by the modern day chaos stemming from quarters practising extreme sexual liberation. The Indian sex guru Rajneesh is a case in point and has a lesson to teach too: he carried the 'sex as religion' experiment to the very extreme and despite all the impressive psychological techniques used, created the perfect disaster.

As creatures with free will, we can choose the chaos of our liking of course.

Dear CHAM

I'm going to give a go at the questions you raised, tricky as they are. My delay in the response is due to being caught up with other urgent matters, not because I was spending all the time thinking these issues through!

I do not think anyone denies the fact that ALL human beings have a legitimate need for one sexual partner. The problem starts when sex is equated with love, i.e sex is love. Sex is NOT love. Sex is merely an instinct and as such needs to be regulated and tamed like any other instinct. Noboby applauds a glutton. But the society tends to applaud successful skirt/pant-chasing Casanovas, females who lure the most men into their sex toilets. (The Buddhists tend to refer to casual sex as using the toilet.)

The Bible makes it clear in the very first chapter of Genesis: "It is not good for man to be alone." According to God's plan, sex is an integral element in a companionship in the context of a loving, and committed relationship. So that point is not even up for debate.

The question is: what about those who need a legitimate sexual partner in a meaningful relationship and are not married, or what about married partners who love their partners and expect faithfulness. How does one find sex within companionships in a society which offers sex as recreation? Young sultry seductress, whether married or not, get far more sexual partners than they need and yet their need remains insatiable. Those who are not sultry seductresses or young enough, find no partners at all as a result. Men get the best of such "liberation" on the part of women because they aren't exactly excited about sex which involves committment.

Religions merely give instructions on how everyone in the society could have that legitimate need for sex satisfied in a meaningful relationship - in a companionship which is based on love and committment. Love and committment is after all not a fickle feeling, but a choice one makes to answer that legitimate need and one should not have to depend on answering one's legitimate need like winning a lottery. But if the society adopts as norm bonobo ape sexual behaviour as "liberation," then satisfying legitimate needs of a lifelong relationship and stable family becomes a matter of winning the lottery. But "liberation" from what to what purpose is the question. Just as human beings, (unlike animals), eat more than they need, they similarly crave for sex with more than one partner even though they don't need it. In the animal, sex remains a pure instinct. But we all know that in human beings that is not the case. Sex can be used as a power tool (done mostly by women who are endowed by nature with extremely seductive bodies), men do it in other ways, and in general human beings use the sex instinct in a whole lot of other ways that are not found in animals.

As for Catholic priests and mandatory celibacy: I do agree that it opens the door to all sorts of problems. All of the Apostles of Jesus were married. Paul, who was not an Apostle in the lifetime of Jesus, was the only one who was celibate. Mandatory celibacy for priests was introduced much later in the Catholic church.

As mentioned in my earlier post, we need a realistic solution to the sexually liberated society of today. A proper sex education very early on highlighting the use and abuse of sex; and returning to the practice of early marriage is one important way to answer the legitimate sexual need in a meaningful way. Evolving more and more into bonobo ape behaviour is certainly not the ideal nor the answer, even if the rigidity advocated by religions may not always be realised. It is necessary to keep the highest ideal in mind and try to work towards it as best as possible rather than make the lowest denominator (bonobo ape sexual behaviour)as the new standard.

If religions can't explain the difference between black and white, who can? Of course religions realise that white is not the level at which human beings live, but that is what one is supposed to aspire towards. At least Christianity recognises that we are all sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness while we work towards living the life Jesus proclaimed God had in mind for the greatest happiness of human beings, whom God created and loves, more than human beings love themselves.

Just my thoughts for the moment.

Best wishes
Soja

I think Sam Harris is an educated and reasonable man, yet I think the evidence he sees leads him to the wrong conclusion. I am a Christian, and though this may not be the place for me in the eyes of many here, you can't just have a hundred people in the same room agreeing on the same thing without outside accountability, or parity of beliefs.

Wrong conclusion 1: religion has no value to the world. I would counter that Christianity is the one true religion, because it's not actually a religion with rules and customs followed incessantly; it's a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Jesus did everything needed to provide a living testimony for everyone (not just Jews, Americans, Europeans, etc.). Blaming Him or God the Father for the sinfulness of mankind and the evils they have wrought is not going to provide any answers. If a Muslim terrorist kills people because he thinks Allah receives warriors and martyrs with open arms, he has been deceived, because any god worthy of worship does not condone murder as worship.

The danger I see with atheism is that there's no acceptable moral conduct in its philosophy that isn't shaped somehow by the Bible. Case in point: if right and wrong are simply what we make of it, who decided what was right or wrong to begin with? Even religious folk snap and kill people, so how do we figure that we could figure out what was correct for ourselves? We could follow the code of conduct for the animal kingdom, and many actually do in their lawlessness (tongue in cheek), but I don't think the human race functions well without a standard morality. Is that possible? Probably not with human sinfulness, but that doesn't mean morality is useless.

I also think of natural selection and the theory of evolution, and I have trouble thinking that science is the supreme authority over mankind. Same with philosophy. Without a higher power to create and govern incredibly complex lifeforms such as ourselves, it's hard not to think of picking up a box of Lego's and shaking them into building a castle. The chances of that are nearly impossible to attempt. I can't shake a box of loose Lego's into forming a train, or a police station, or a car...why think nature just bumbled its way until it got it right? Somehow the chances of natural selection occurring probably outlast even the 4.5 billion year lifespan of the Earth - that is, in that space of time, it's hard for such a small chance of life forming through evolution.

What it really comes down to is this: The Bible explains clearly those who don't believe in it, what they value instead, and why they do. And from what I see in nonchristians, they confirm the Bible's words. In that light, nonchristians are the ones who look uneducated. I was a nonchristian myself for 17 years, so I can understand the opposite view that none of us have seen God, prolly not in the last 6,000 years. But the Bible is enough for most people who follow Jesus.

I think that Christianity implores more peace and love to others, as well as a reason WHY, that other religions and philosophies don't have.

I do my best to question everything in terms of not blindly believing what I'm told. And believe it or not, there are millions of educated, well-meaning Christians whose only crime is not doing enough. If you believe religion is a poison or deficiency, you have admitted the lesser status of the majority of the world. Reason and morality do poorly in converting the homeless, the sick, and the dying. Atheism has its limits too. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to singlehandedly convert people; it was using simplified terms to support belief in a God. NO ONE should base their faith on that wager, because it CAN be seen as a fearful decision and an insurance policy for the next life. True faith, and true change is not out of fear or ridicule...it's out of love. God is love. Too often, religion and atheism are ridicule. You won't win many over to your side through that. Therefore I contend that atheism is not the answer to a divided world in itself.

I think Sam Harris is an educated and reasonable man, yet I think the evidence he sees leads him to the wrong conclusion. I am a Christian, and though this may not be the place for me in the eyes of many here, you can't just have a hundred people in the same room agreeing on the same thing without outside accountability, or parity of beliefs.

Wrong conclusion 1: religion has no value to the world. I would counter that Christianity is the one true religion, because it's not actually a religion with rules and customs followed incessantly; it's a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Jesus did everything needed to provide a living testimony for everyone (not just Jews, Americans, Europeans, etc.). Blaming Him or God the Father for the sinfulness of mankind and the evils they have wrought is not going to provide any answers. If a Muslim terrorist kills people because he thinks Allah receives warriors and martyrs with open arms, he has been deceived, because any god worthy of worship does not condone murder as worship.

The danger I see with atheism is that there's no acceptable moral conduct in its philosophy that isn't shaped somehow by the Bible. Case in point: if right and wrong are simply what we make of it, who decided what was right or wrong to begin with? Even religious folk snap and kill people, so how do we figure that we could figure out what was correct for ourselves? We could follow the code of conduct for the animal kingdom, and many actually do in their lawlessness (tongue in cheek), but I don't think the human race functions well without a standard morality. Is that possible? Probably not with human sinfulness, but that doesn't mean morality is useless.

I also think of natural selection and the theory of evolution, and I have trouble thinking that science is the supreme authority over mankind. Same with philosophy. Without a higher power to create and govern incredibly complex lifeforms such as ourselves, it's hard not to think of picking up a box of Lego's and shaking them into building a castle. The chances of that are nearly impossible to attempt. I can't shake a box of loose Lego's into forming a train, or a police station, or a car...why think nature just bumbled its way until it got it right? Somehow the chances of natural selection occurring probably outlast even the 4.5 billion year lifespan of the Earth - that is, in that space of time, it's hard for such a small chance of life forming through evolution.

What it really comes down to is this: The Bible explains clearly those who don't believe in it, what they value instead, and why they do. And from what I see in nonchristians, they confirm the Bible's words. In that light, nonchristians are the ones who look uneducated. I was a nonchristian myself for 17 years, so I can understand the opposite view that none of us have seen God, prolly not in the last 6,000 years. But the Bible is enough for most people who follow Jesus.

I think that Christianity implores more peace and love to others, as well as a reason WHY, that other religions and philosophies don't have.

I do my best to question everything in terms of not blindly believing what I'm told. And believe it or not, there are millions of educated, well-meaning Christians whose only crime is not doing enough. If you believe religion is a poison or deficiency, you have admitted the lesser status of the majority of the world. Reason and morality do poorly in converting the homeless, the sick, and the dying. Atheism has its limits too. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to singlehandedly convert people; it was using simplified terms to support belief in a God. NO ONE should base their faith on that wager, because it CAN be seen as a fearful decision and an insurance policy for the next life. True faith, and true change is not out of fear or ridicule...it's out of love. God is love. Too often, religion and atheism are ridicule. You won't win many over to your side through that. Therefore I contend that atheism is not the answer to a divided world in itself.

Or as I once saw it written:

"God does not believe in atheists.
Therefore atheists do not exist."

Just three things:
1. If you are prepared to claim that God does not exist, at least be honest with yourself and ask yourself if your REAL motivation for doing this is because it's easier than having to deal with your predicament if God actually does exist. Why? Because then you would be forced to do something about it.
2. If you are prepared to claim that God does not exist, at least be honest with yourself and decide whether what you are saying is that it is ACTUALLY thus not possible for God to exist. As...er...'Jesus' wrote earlier in this thread: "You take it as a 100% certainty that there is no Hell or Satan. But nothing - let me repeat - nothing is 100% certain."
Can you in all honesty tell me, with 100% certainty, that God does not exist? Can you PROVE that? If so, I'd like to hear how...
3. Can you prove that any actions of humans performed in the name of God are actually God's will? Can you prove without a doubt, for example, that killing in the name of God is what God wants?

If, as some have suggested, using Pascal's Wager to incline people towards (Christianity) makes God far smaller than he may be, isn't summarising how you view a potentially infinite God by pointing to any actions of anyone who claims to be acting in his name, also reducing the scope of God just a tad?

Don't, for example, discard the value of my opinions but wanting to quickly classify me as a Christian, when I am not one of the "sheeple".

Dear CHAM

Thanks for your response. I needed to take a longish break from The Post On Faith forum for reasons beyond my control. I will post a detailed response to your post addressed to me - soon.

I take it you are American. I wish you, Sam Harris and all Americans who visit this thread, a Happy 4th of July! Have fun! Long live the American dream for ALL Americans!

Best wishes
Soja

I speak as someone who believes there is a God.
Mr. Harris makes yet another sincere comment on insincerity and hypocrisy. To pretend to believe in a God through fear of being punished if there does turn out to be one, well, that's simply abhorent. Living a lie. Just Mr. Pascal's sense of humour, perhaps.