All Comments (612)

One of the ideas that seems to be driving Mr. Harris' argument is what is called evidentialism in the philosophical literature. Evidentialism is roughly the view that one is only justified (i.e. within their intellectual/rational/epistemic rights) in believing a proposition if that proposition is based on sufficient evidence. Mr. Harris obviously believes that belief in God is not based on sufficient evidence, and is therefore intellectually subpar at best (irrational at worst).

However, there are two problems with evidentialism. The first feeds into the second, so I will start with it. What exactly is evidence? What can count as evidence and what cannot? Does it have to be publicly accessible (i.e. if I have evidence for something, I should be able to share it and have others see it too)? Does it have to be strong enough to convince an impartial 3rd party in order to count as evidence? The reason I bring these up is that Mr. Harris may (I don't know exactly what his views on the matter are) have a high standard for what counts as evidence; it can't just be any willy-nilly reason (in fact, it has to be high enough to rule out mystical experience or intuition).

However (and this is the 2nd problem) what is the evidence for evidentialism? What publically accessible reasons can Mr. Harris provide (or can anyone provide) that can convince an impartial 3rd party that evidentialism is true? The challenge is this: if he has too high a standard for what counts as evidence (ruling out things like intuition or a priori aprehension), then his evidentialism more than likely will not meet this standard. However, if he lowers the standard in order to justify his evidentialism, then it loses its bite against religion.

Religious people should not tremble at his charge of irrationality until they see an evidentially justified evidentialism that actually has some bite.

Notwithstanding happy childhood memories of mine and others' beautiful Easter bonnets, frilly pink dresses, candy peeps, chocolate bunnies and green eggs and ham, there's no better way for me to spend my adult Easter than catching up on my reading of the truly inspired Sam Harris. Thanks Mr. Harris for rising above the imaginary to the real.

RfjK57 U cool ))

RfjK57 U cool ))

"Fatih" is not the antithesis of understanding (ie. processing of evidence). Faith/disbelief is (1) the credible/not credible evaluation of evidence, and (2) the "what does that mean" for evidence accepted as credible. Faith is not "circumventing reason," faith is the "therefore" based upon how we have "reasoned from evidence" the world to be comprised. Everyone has a "faith," and proceeds in "faith" that their understanding of the world (by evidence) is correct. Therefore, step 2 is a "straw man" that is not proposed by the Christian faith.

Hahha! That is brilliant, bravo!

Dr. Albert Ellis said that 95% of Americans are emotionally disturb. Multiple examples: divorce rate, crime, drugs, smokers, religion, etc. People are highly irrational. Maxie Maultsby, a Rational-Emotive psychotherapist, defines rational and irration with his criteria of rational thinking: Rational thinking is based on objective reality (give me the evidence), life preserving, goal producing, prevents unwanted personal conflict (anger, depression, anxiety, etc., and prevents unwanted environmental conflicts such as with people. A persons thinking should meet at least 3 of the 5 criteria. The primary criteria is evidence. Ask yourself why people end up in psychotherapy: they smoke too much, they suffer from obesity, they drive too fast, their not realizing their goals in life, their not feeling the way they want to, and they have too much conflict with others. Belief in God is irrational: no evidence of his existence, creates unwanted feelings and behavior (many religious people experience anger, guilt, fear, depression), and unwanted conflict with others. Irrational thinking individuals based their religious beliefs on feelings, not evidence. They can't offer any evidence but subjective opinions. Many people support their believes with feelings. "I feel it is right so it is right." Reason escapes them. How many people do you know that ask themselves if their thinking is based on evidence. Arguing over the existence of God is meaningless conversation and a waste of time. Religious individuals are not critical thinkers or logical thinkers. Many individuals think they are rational thinkers but it is unlikely. Rational thinking individuals feel the way they want to, are healthy (doesn't smoke, drink excessively, or eat excessively), realize their goals, and get along with people, and beliefs are based on objective reality. Rational person knows the difference between must and want, need and prefer. He knows awful and terrible doesn't exist. He knows that when he is angry or depressed he or she is thinking irrational. I find arguing with a religious person is a waste of time. Harris and others argue with religious scholars but they won't change their position. Like Nietzsche said, "Faith is not wanting to know." Religious people are driven by emotions, not evidence. Harris' arguments reveal the importance of evidence.

I am glad to find this forum !
http://unikont.com
So interesting there was that I fell asleep...

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

uflmg wmfz polwfutj nfldmr pevrd bfvyh zucpl

uflmg wmfz polwfutj nfldmr pevrd bfvyh zucpl

uflmg wmfz polwfutj nfldmr pevrd bfvyh zucpl

Thanks again, Sam Harris.

Lapses in rationality occur in the dark. Having just completed a master's level course on gnosticism, I can tell you how true that is. But the problem is that many of the people who have those lapses know it. They believe they are better served by "intuition", something they believe can be divorced from the cognitive. It is the "feeling" that guides them--they do not trust rationality.

What can you say to such a person?

In fact, it's foolish to assume that a God doesn't exist. Interestingly, instead of accepting that a God exists and living the life he has given them, people choose to "believe," in a God - until it becomes irrational to do so. What does Christianity serve them? Nothing. Their "religions" are the black market for ALL irrationality.

post me back at princmos@excite.com

I love your reports and essays. They are enligthening,
Receive my congratulations
Professor Sylvia T. Herrera

Hi Father O'Marlowe,

I read your post, but I cannot agree with some of what you are saying. I would remind you that we are instructed to worship God with all our heart, mind, spirit and body. The Apostle Paul reasoned from the Scriptures numerous times in the book of Acts, and we are to renew our minds daily in the Word of God. He has called us to reason with Him and to meditate on what He says. In that way we will be true worshipers of God because we must worship God in spirit and in truth.Without an accurate knowledge of God we are open to all kinds of deceptions.

Thanks for your support!

Father O'Marlowe

Heavy stuff man.Beyond perceptive.

Hey Father O'Marshmallow, well bejasis, ye sound like an Irish priest, defrocked or is it unfrocked? and no wonder if ye're involved with the Catholic anathematised, demonised Ouspensky supernaturlaism?
When d'ye celebrate yer next black mass? And do you always get first go with the sacrificial virgin?

Harris left out one important part of how to believe in God (perhaps because it isn't relevant to the article or perhaps because it's stating the obvious). It's not as simple as WANTING to believe in God. Before that step, you must first have the ability to believe in God.

Yes and it is surely lovely to see the honest Christians here beating off the atheists with their ridiculous notion that there is no God the Father.
What sacrilege! What idiocy!
To atheists I say save yourselves before its too late.The end is nigh.Stop now with your silly logos.
It has no place in righteous souls..
Twas the devil himself who created the brain to undermind God's creation of the soul.
It is through the brain that Satan infects the mind with doubt and thoughts that suggest that there is no God. Weak minds can be overwhelmed by such devices,and confusion and anxiety can lead to 'thinking'. As the poet has said ,"The truth arrives when thinking stops".
Thoughts impede the truth. Ouspensky has said that with practice we can stop all thought;the necessary condition in which to observe God and His divine spirit.
Peter Huff and Thomas Baum prove this truth with their every utterance; thinking is anathema to true belief,and is a hindrance to seeing the actuality of Our Lord.
Keep up the God work boys.

Where are you reeling this carp in from Mr. Ken Mock? Which pool are you fishing from?

Through a process imprinting during early childhood development, your cortex is systematically contaminated with societal concepts to define for you the world as defined by said society...Sadly this contamination is difficult if not impossible to shake in later life...You can dupe yourself into thinking (intelectually) that you can rise above your roots, but in the end early imprinting wins out - when push comes to shove......

Thomasian Christianity and Buddhism are designed to help you escape this vortex of societal conceptual contamination so you can once again see [t]ruth...As Jesus said "an old man will look to a child of seven days"...The child of seven days represents pre-contamination before the ability to see truth was diluted or neutered....

I myself believe that only the occasional sage can pull this off and the rest of society will remain chained up in the [C]ave believing the shadows to be truth.........

Bernie Bee, you said,

"It can also be asked, with justification, who actually recorded what had happened if the only eyewitnesses were bribed to say otherwise?"

They were not the only eyewitnesses, and this is a sharp point made in the empty tomb narrative and later, the resurrection narratives. Word would undoubtedly circulate, as recorded in the Gospel accounts as to the Risen Lord and then the confirmation in His physical appearing to over 500 people, most of whom, at the time of writing were still alive.

But the Bible records women at the tomb with the guards, also at the time of the earthquake who would have reported the unusual circumstances.

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake...His appearance was like lightening, and his clothes were as white as snow. The guards were so afraid...The angel said to the women..." (Matthew 28:1-5)

So besides the guards, the women were there.

To continue your thoughts,

"And why did the Roman soldiers report to the Jewish chief priests instead of their own superior officers?

I'll let Frank Morison wrote "Who Moved the Stone?" as a reply to many of the skeptical questions, including his own, on what he thought was a myth, only to come away a believer reply,

"It was pointed out that it was an unheard of thing for soldiers, particularily Roman soldiers, to sleep at their post of duty; that even if they declared they had done so nobody would have believed them; and finally, that the reasons given for posting a guard at all were themselves highly improbable and belonging to a later and secondary epoch.
I accepted these statements at the time without question...[now Frank gives evidence to the contrary]But all the accounts are in fundamental agreement on two points:
1. Pilate was approached and gave permission for such a guard to be set.
2. The guard kept watch during the night preceding the visit of the women.
Now the reported approach to Pilate is extremely significant. The position of the Jews in relation to the remains of Jesus was peculiar and in a certain sense delicate. Although He was a Jew and had been prosecuted at the instance of the Jewish leaders, the punishment and sentence was Roman. Technically, the body of Jesus was Roman property and the disposal of it a Roman concern....Had the priests a strong incentive, or indeed any incentive at all, to concern themselves about the tomb of Christ?" p. 152, 153, 154, 155

"Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them (Matthew 27:62-66) p. 156

So in these Biblical accounts you have the reason for the posting of the guard and the reason for the cover up, in that if Jesus has risen from the dead, all that He preached and has been said is true, and He is who He said He was. That takes away worshipers from Judaism. It also creates a revolution in the Roman world of the time that could be thought of to have political implications and allegiance to One other than Caesar.

The point to be noted is that Christianity could have been squashed extremely fast if the Jewish or Roman authorities could have produced the dead body. Because they could not, they payed the guards to say that His disciples had stolen the body so that the resurrection accounts would not be taken as an actual historical physical resurrection, but as a myth.

"Can you bring yourself to see that there seems little doubt that the story is a later—as well as somewhat implausible—fabrication?"

No, can you?

I will not be able to respond, if you have any more questions until Sunday or Monday.

Hello Bernie Bee,

Thanks for the post. It is seldom that I do not detect a hidden agenda at undermining the Bible, but I sense that you are sincere in your questions, so I will do the best I can at answering them.

I don't know a lot about Herod the Great except that his Herodian dynasty roots emerged from the Hasmonean dynasty and Herod ruled in Israel from 37-4 B.C., and was an alleged convert to Judaism.

Here is what Craig L. Blomberg had to say about the infantcide,

"Thus, although there is no independent confirmation of the story in Matthew 2:16 of Herod ordering the massacre of the young children of Bethlehem, the account is entirely in keeping with his character and actions at the end of his time in office." Jesus and the Gospels, p. 20

So although it may seem unlikely to you that an historian such as Josephus did not record the massacre, to confirm its authenticity, the question would be two fold, how many boys aged two and younger were actually killed in Bethlehem and surrounding region, and how would you rate the Biblical account as an accurate historical document?

If Josephus did not research the Biblical accounts, what are the chances that he overlooked the massacre of a remote region comprising Bethlehem?

As for Herod's political motives, Matthew 2:2 gives reason for Herod wanting the death of Jesus to eliminate later rivalry to his throne.

The accuracy of the historical narratives have been attested to by many over the centuries. It is not until the 19 & 20th century liberal revisionists do we have the massive push to discredit the historicity of the Bible. That is an interesting study in itself.

However, the Biblical text does mention numerous political figures of the first century that secular historians and archaeological digs have confirmed existed.

But regardless of how people interpret the findings, 20 centuries removed, as a Christian I have the sure Word of God, who does not lie, to confirm the truth.

I will continue with your thread on the next post.

Peter, unlike Timmy I’m prepared to believe what you say with regard to your biblical-derived truth provided what you say is reasonable.

I mean I find it nigh impossible to follow the story where almost at the start there are anomalies such as where the writer of Mathew wants to fit in the ‘prophetic’ verse that is fulfilled after Jesus’ birth (presumably at home) so that he sends Joseph, Mary and Jesus into hiding in Egypt to escape from King Herod who has heard through “wise men from the east” that the “King of the Jews” has been born. This says Mathew is:
‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.

Herod then slaughters all the children of two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding area, “so that it might be fulfilled, according to the prophet Jeremiah”:
‘In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.’

Don’t you find the difficulty with this story is that however tyrannical Herod the Great might have been, he would not have got away with mass infanticide? The Romans would hardly have turned a blind eye to it and the people would certainly not have tolerated it. Moreover, there is absolutely no record of such an outrageous act anywhere in the history of the period, neither in Josephus (who carefully compiled a list of all Herod’s other crimes), nor anywhere else, not even in Luke. The general history of the period is quite well recounted and such a horrific deed would certainly not have gone unrecorded.
In any case, can you really believe that God would have permitted the birth of His Son to be heralded by such cruelty?

Also unique to the Mathew gospel is the interesting story and comment concerning the popular Jewish explanation of Jesus’ disappearance from the tomb. Mathew relates that after the crucifixion, when Jesus’ body had been placed in a sepulchre, the Roman guards first sit through an earthquake and then witness an angel of the Lord (whose countenance was like lightning and raiment white as snow) roll back the stone from the tomb and sit on it. According to the story, “they did shake, and become as dead men”. As well they might!

Jesus’ actual resurrection and exit from the tomb is not recounted. But at the conclusion of their watch the soldiers go into town and tell the chief priests what had happened. At this they are bribed with large sums of money to spread the story that Jesus disciples had come during the night and removed his body from the tomb, while they (the soldiers) slept. Mathew then adds, “And this saying (story) is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”

Now quite apart from the unlikelihood of anyone accepting a bribe if they had just witnessed an obviously divine event, Mathew’s story is clearly told to counter the prevalent belief that Jesus’ body had disappeared from the tomb because some of the disciples had come and taken it. And his comment, that the story was related “until this day” presumes that a considerable period had elapsed between the supposed events and Mathew’s writing of them.

It can also be asked, with justification, who actually recorded what had happened if the only eyewitnesses were bribed to say otherwise? And why did the Roman soldiers report to the Jewish chief priests instead of their own superior officers?
Can you bring yourself to see that there seems little doubt that the story is a later—as well as somewhat implausible—fabrication?

Although only just two examples from the Holy Book that leave me floundering, I really would be thankful to know what you make of the foregoing.

Again, not an answer to my question Gerry. How do you know what is true Gerry? Are you the standard for truth?

They possessed what they thought is truth. You possess what you think is truth.

How could they have possessed truth Gerry? They went against the One who is true. Ethically speaking, we don't make truth up, we discover it by thinking God's thoughts after Him.

What was their standard for truth?

I agree with you Justin. Atheism is a complex belief system based on naturalism.

Evening Timmy,

When you say,

"One can choose to be 100% sure about anything if they want.
It's really quite easy. Just say it. And it is so."

Really! What would you base you 100% batting average on? Your own subjective opinion? Science? We know that science is a poor standard. How much will evolutionary science have changed in ten years? My God never changes. He is the same forever, plus He never lies.

"Why should I believe anything you have to tell me?"

I don't expect you too Timmy. Without the grace of God you conform exactly as He has said you would.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

"the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful mind cannot please God." (Romans 8:7, 8)

The trend to me seems that atheists like to tout their 'religion' as one that is completely reasonable and, in fact, the only reasonable explanation. Naturalism is a faith in itself. It fails to explain the widely-accepted notion (by atheists and the religious) of the big bang. It cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. It can't explain the human need for relationships. It can't explain the initial creation of DNA. It can't explain the creation of complex protein machines such as the flagellum. And the list goes on. There is a lot of bad science out there. People are twisting science to support their own belief instead of looking at the evidence and using the most plausible explanation. It takes a lot of faith to believe there is no God.

Hitler was dead sure of German superiority. "Providence" asked him to invade countries, just like Bush.
Stalin was dead sure of communism. To create "paradise of justice" on earth, no price was too high.
Pol Pot was dead sure of his "revolution".
Saddam was dead sure of his dictatorship.
Bush is dead sure about his divine mission to wage aggressive wars, for which the German generals were hanged. They were as sure as Bush to possess the truth.

They all possessed truth.

A decisive element of human dignity is doubt, curiosity, question, development, process. That is life.

Possession of "truth" is death. Be careful with bragging about your possession of your truth, Peter. Even for you, there is no "truth" outside your brain!

Peter,

"I'm 100% sure that God exists."

One can choose to be 100% sure about anything if they want.
It's realy quite easy. Just say it. And it is so.

"Why should I believe anything you have to tell me?"

Back at you sir.

Morning Timmy,

My quote,

"Is that absolutely true Timmy? Or should I say, how sure are you of that Timmy?"

Your reply,

"As sure as you are of anything Peter."

I'm 100% sure that God exists.

"None of us are sure."

Are you sure of that last statement Timmy? How can you be? Then please do not include me in your irrationality.

"You are the only one claiming to be sure about anything."

No I am not. You just don't come in contact with people who are sure in your circle of friends. That is why you are the skeptic(s), never able to come to certainty about anything as you yourself have just admitted in writing. Why should I believe anything you have to tell me? Why should anybody? You don't know.

Well, there is a wealth of posts to respond to but no time today.

Thanks for the chat!

Thanks Gad, I am well aware of the Infidel Guy. I have listened to four or five debates between him and Christians. He has an agenda that he is promoting, but I will look at the article on my days off.

Thanks Timmy. Same here: I gave up religion years before I knew anything substantial about Darwin. I simply refused to cultivate a split brain: One for reality and one for obvious lies. Lies are the dominant factor of, among others, the present US administration, and it is no wonder that it is tightly connected to the champion liars of the Pat Robertsons and their ilk (Bush himself is even too stupid to realize that he is lying all the time). If people (voters, ha!) were not so damn socialized to accept any sort of lies, religious or other, the lie politics would be less successful.

Luther must have struggled with this problem from the bigot vantage point, otherwise he would not have condemned reason as the satanic arch-fiend of faith.

So please, nobody of the religious camp tell me they regard reason as a worthy tool! They use reason for sophistry, Peter Huff is a colorful example, but never for a realistic assessment. Never.

The famous "credo quia absurdum" of the church father means, properly translated: "I believe in lies (I add: and I am proud of it)". That is where we still stand today, alas.

Peter Huff,

"Rubbish, evolutionary science more than likely brought you to the conclusion that there is no God. "

Nice try, but Rubbish.
I didn't believe religion long before I even knew what evolution was.
Why?
Because, being an open minded person, I tried to find God with the help of a couple of different christian ministers. I remember the experience well. I was told all of the things that I needed to do find god including asking Jesus Christ to come into my heart. I did everything I was supposed to do, including having faith. I believed. My god Peter I can't tell you how much I faith I was able to summon up but it was a lot. I believed with shivers. I asked Jesus to come into my heart. Many many times. Nothing happened. No revelation. No reward of confirmation for my leap of faith. Just the same feeling I had always had. The minister of course tried to tell me that the feelings that I had always had are God and I would just have to believe that and never expect confirmation, and one day, God would confirm it for me. In the mean time I had to believe that God would punish me for masturbating. I was told to believe that my thoughts are god. So I do.

Here are my thoughts that I was told "are god".

Religion is man made for obvious reasons.
The Bible is not the word of God.
Anyone who claims to know anything about God is an impostor.
If God exists, he/it speaks directly to me and doesn't want me to believe what anyone else says about him without proof. God will let me know when someone is telling the truth. God let's me know what is right and wrong and doesn't want me to listen to anyone else about that. And God is emphasizing to me right now actually that I should especially not listen to Peter Huff. "He is one of those confused impostors that I told you about" says God.

God is telling me that those who are agnostic to the big question, and atheist to man made gods have it right. Follow your heart and rely on your reason. And most importantly, do what you can to help Peter Huff see the light and discard the bible and listen only to me. And know that he need not tell anyone else about me, because I speak to everyone directly and they don't need his interpretation of me.

So I do what I can.

For the literalist, a version of genesis:

In order to create the nearest neighboring star within the same week as the earth, god had to travel thousands of times faster than light. He then had to accelerate a little, say, to some billions times faster than light, create a few trillion stars in a hurry and than return to the Near East nomads home to relax for the weekend.

Where are the limits of ignorance? There aren't any!

Peter,

"Is that absolutely true Timmy? Or should I say, how sure are you of that Timmy?"

As sure as you are of anything Peter.
None of us are sure.
You are the only one claiming to be sure about anything.

Saturday, October 6, 2007: On "absolutes" and "relatives." I think this is a completely false dichotomy.

It's a completely false dichotomy because, to some extent, every "absolute" is also a "relative," and every "relative" is also an "absolute."

From the standpoint of everyday human experience, a diamond or a piece of granite rock is certainly an "absolute."

But, on the other hand, looked at under an electron microsope, both an apparently "solid" and "hard" and "immutable" and "unchangeable" diamond, and an apparently "solid" and "hard" and "immutable" and "unchangeable" piece of granite rock, are actually very much "mutable" (that is, changing and changeable), perforated (that is, filled with all kinds of open spaces and "holes"), and not so "hard" as we humans might have first thought if we had not looked at a granite rock or diamond under an electron microscope.

So, both a diamond and a piece of granite rock are simultaneously "relatives" and "absolutes."

There we are talking about a phenomenon in physical reality.

If we look at a phenomenon in social reality, we see something similar.

Supposedly, for instance, the Middle Ages of Europe were a very "solid" and "unchanging" period of time, in which the place of all men, women, and children, was "fixed" by the nature of the society. Each person had "his" or "her" "place" in the social and economic and political and religious "scheme of things."

But, in reality, this supposedly unchanging and "immutable" situation was imbued and suffused in its core "being" by a kind of molecular change which, at first, was too slow to perceive.

However, eventually, the change "sped up," and then, in the period of the Renaissance, and later, the Enlightenment, and then, in the period of the democratic revolutions, we saw this "speed-up" of change become much, much, much faster, until it literally exploded the entire kind of Middle Ages-based society apart, and replaced it by a more modern capitalistic sort of society.

Again, looking at the Middle Ages from the standpoint of history -- which means, looking at it from the standpoint of a developmental sort of perspective in which change is inherent to the perspective itself, -- we see that the notion that in the Middle Ages, everything was "unchanging" was an illusion. It was appearance. But underneath the appearance, the reality was quite different.

Again, this means that here, an "absolute" was also a "relative" and a "relative" an "absolute." But each was the other at a different moment or point in history. That is the point.

--Allan Greene
a/k/a tompaine1917@yahoo.com
a/k/a ag_1863@hotmail.com

Thanks, Gad! After reading this article, I can refer to religion in these days only as an institutionalized effort to keep as many people as stupid as possible. Of course, it was the major purpose of monotheistic religions from the very outset. ("Tree of knowledge", forbidden!)

And it works, alas.

And my last remark to Peter Huff: Is there any nonsense, paradox, self-contradiction imaginable which can NOT be "proven" by the bible? I don't think so. The knee jerk reaction of the faithful: God can do anything. Where nonsense dominates all thinking, bolstered even by "moral" claims, nonsense cannot be falsified. Think about it, if you can.

Where did the water of the flood come from, god opened the windows of heaven and drained the firmament of course!

I highly recommend this article, it is well worth the read.

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

Inquisition - heliocentric system - Galilei/Bruno etc.

Peter Huff etc. - science - atheists/agnostics.

With the sole difference (hopefully!):
We are out of your reach to be burned at the stake.

Since Einstein had such an extremely low opinion of human intelligence, mankind will have to wait at least another 350 years until "creationism" is finished.

The evolutionary box is the only one that is NOT magic.

But you will stay with the herd, as you so well described. Good luck.

BTW: I am an artist, not a scientist.

Gerry, Gerry,

You are confusing me with Charles. We are two separate people.

When you say,

"An atheist develops his ideas by thinking for himself without being told. Nobody ever, ever told me NOT to believe in Christianity. It was a pretty long process, btw."

Rubbish, evolutionary science more than likely brought you to the conclusion that there is no God. You've been swimming with the school of mudcats all this time. Sorry I mistook you for a herd dweller, not realizing you hadn't made it out of the water yet. (It's a joke Gerry, maybe a poor one, but nevertheless, a joke).

Gerry, ideas are influenced. You have heard, read and been taught enough about evolutionary science that you are stuck in that magic box. You cannot think outside of it to test any other hypothesis. I can't blame you for that. It is deceivingly believable to most people.

"Your circular reasoning is almost amusing: "The divine scriptures prove that the scriptures are divine". And you think I should buy something like this?"

So is your evolutionary science: Science assumes that evolution is true to prove that evolution is true. In other words, you use science to prove science is true. It's pretty hard not to get involved in circular reasoning. In order to prove something is logical, you have to use logic. Therefore, you use the very thing you are trying to prove.

"Do you really believe that the Grand Canyon was dug out by the biblical flood? Pretty couragious idea: Where did all the water come from? From Turkey to Arizona? Remember, the earth was still flat at that time, lol! Unbelievable."

I do believe the Grand Canyon was a result of the global flood. Do you want to know where the water came from? The Bible tells us, but then I'm sure you do not want me to quote Scripture, do you? And yes, unbelievable to you because you refuse to think outside your evolutionary magic box.

Take care and have a great weekend Gerry! Unfortunately I'm working this weekend.

Is that absolutely true Timmy? Or should I say, how sure are you of that Timmy?

Peter,

"You can't Gerry. Neutrality is a myth."

Like moral absolutes.

Charles Huff,

no, I don't believe in the supernatural.

Nature is infinitely "super - ior" for me, and the god idea is plausible, but in reality dimensions inferior and more primitive as to what miracles, secrets - and "revelations" nature has in stock for us.

God is a man-made transitional concept mirroring human attributes like love, revenge, hatred, murder, forgiveness, reward, trade, sometimes even justice, but preferably the more dark side of these attributes (genocide, e.g.). Nature belittled. The god concept serves to explain what at a given time is unknown - yet. Interesting that you for the first time even speak of religion adapting to modern times - hark!

Thor was the god of thunder, and the present Christian god is a wildly discussed political compromise arranged towards the end of the 4th century (Arians, Athanasians etc.). The "trinity" concept arrived at at this occasion doesn't make the slightest intelligent sense to anybody, and I have never heard any definitions by believers other than illogical blather, which has been learned "phonetically" (I remember!) by people when they were children.

You would have a hard time showing me where I contradicted myself in all these posts. I know very well what I am talking about and what I have been talking about.

No Christian can develop a Christian idea without being told extensively, logically. Or did you invent Christianity all by yourself?

An atheist develops his ideas by thinking for himself without being told. Nobody ever, ever told me NOT to believe in Christianity. It was a pretty long process, btw.

Your circular reasoning is almost amusing: "The divine scriptures prove that the scriptures are divine". And you think I should buy something like this?

Do you really believe that the Grand Canyon was dug out by the biblical flood? Pretty couragious idea: Where did all the water come from? From Turkey to Arizona? Remember, the earth was still flat at that time, lol! Unbelievable.

Gerry,

You defeat your own arguments every time you post. Examine what answers you are given first please.

You say: Nobody ever channelled me into any way of thinking as opposed to you. Nobody taught me my "world view", even if this seems impossible to people like you who have been brainwashed from their childhood onward. I don't "borrow" my ideas: I developed them as irrefutable all by myself, something you will never be able to unserstand, having been wired the way you are.

Answer: Most Christians have also developed their own ideals on their faith and have also "developed them as irrefutable all by" themselves. Of course we can understand.

You also say: Don't you finally understand that no bible quotation proves anything except that it is a quotation from a bronze age collection of writings by dozens and dozens of contradicting superstitious authors, which was, (and unfortunately still is, q.e.d.), the norm in those days?

Answer: Modern religion is too the archaic forms the same as is science. I could use your own quote with regards to scientific enquiry. Of course it is still relevant as the basis for our continued growth and understanding. Just as man once believed that "humors" defined their world (based on then present science), today we know that to be false.

Many christians have no problem accepting the bible as a guide, divinely inspired to help us see the truth of God's message. of course it was filtered through the societal and personal bias of the times because ALL men/women are creatures of the times and philosophy of their times and we are taught that each is flawed. God wants us to CHOOSE him over any other path and so we have free will.

Just look at the scientific arguments of nature vs. nurture. You too are part of this cycle and are defined by what you have studied (did you really do all the experiments yourself or do you rely on experts?), the people you surround yourself with (you obviously would never feel comfortable with some of the other posters as companions), and the city, state, country that you live in (the laws that define your sense of right and wrong).

Nobody ever channelled me into any way of thinking as opposed to you. Nobody taught me my "world view", even if this seems impossible to people like you who have been brainwashed from their childhood onward. I don't "borrow" my ideas: I developed them as irrefutable all by myself, something you will never be able to unserstand, having been wired the way you are.

OK then, I sure hope that your "eternal truth" will be more and more unmasked as a scheme to suppress people's minds, of which you are such a splendid example.

I cannot be neutral if the question of reality vs. superstition is at stake: I choose reality and honesty, not fake and make belief. No neutrality there.

Vast parts of your article could have been written by me, concerning your herd thinking, by just changing a few words. Don't you even realize that you have just described your own limitations by accusing me of it? Example:

(Your words): "...channeled just as you have been channeled into your way of thinking. It is difficult to break away from the herd mentality when you are living with the herd, day after day."

I don't have any herd around, as opposed to you, the herd mentality seems to be your professional surrounding. I have just very few good friends, and we have other topics to discuss, like art, music, attention, learning, perception, communication, languages, pedagogy, history, politics (also US politics, alas.)

Don't you finally understand that no bible quotation proves anything except that it is a quotation from a bronze age collection of writings by dozens and dozens of contradicting superstitious authors, which was, (and unfortunately still is, q.e.d.), the norm in those days?

One other thought Gerry,

When you say,

"Of course I am not neutral! Why should I?"

You can't Gerry. Neutrality is a myth.

Oklahoma norm, please define good and tell me where your standard comes from and why you can be absolutely certain that it is good?

Ever considered that what Sam Harris is doing is bad and detrimental to society? If you haven't then you are stacking the cards and they are not neutral.

There again Gerry, you completely discard anything supernatural, but your worldview cannot explain the very things you use and take for granted every day, such as how you can obtain "good" without and absolute standard, how logic comes from a chance beginning (i.e. intelligence from non-intelligence), how living beings come from non-living matter (basically how we get uniformity of nature such as natural laws, that work from a blind, chance, random beginning. Why should they continue to work tomorrow as they have in the past and present?), how you can have certainty in knowing anything is true without an absolute, objective, ultimate standard (and what that standard is), how to explain the origins of life.

So your worldview is shaky in its analysis of reality. You simply do not have the answers.

Then, as an atheist, you look at the evidence with your rosy colored glasses on that prevents you from seeing reality in the color it really is.

God has given use abundant evidence to His existence, but the Bible says the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. (Psalms 14:1) The Bible is an historical document that reveals God's dealings with mankind. The names, places, cultures have been confirmed over and over again. Your revisionist historians who are twenty centuries removed from the actual times and documents have planted the seeds of doubt in your mind. They have as much bias as you admit that you have by saying you are not neutral.

You borrow your ideas from a myriad of subjective opinions, all the while counting them as true with no means of certainty as to their validity.

Your number one god, evolutionary science, is a monster, constantly evolving. What is true one day is discovered to be false the next. The geological table, as proposed by Charles Lyell cannot be seen in the real world. Darwinian evolution has also "evolved", punctuated equilibrium is now in favor. Your dating methods are in question and so are your transitional links. As for fossils themselves, the reason you have so many fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth is best explain by catastrophic events, or as the Bible reveals, the Great Flood. You refuse to look at the evidence from this perspective because you would have to release your highly prised presuppositions. Louis Pasteur has shown the absurdity of life arising from non-life. Events that Darwin witnessed on the Galápagos Islands do not show transitions between kinds, but only adaption within the kind.

Then you have the irreducible complexity in simple living organisms. To think that these organisms could spring to life without numerous systems all functioning together is hard to fathom. Take away any one of these complex systems and you do not have a living organism. Just looking at the design of a DNA molecule shows the complexity and intelligibility of a grand design.

As for your children thinking for themselves, they have been channeled just as you have been channeled into your way of thinking. It is difficult to break away from the herd mentality when you are living with the herd, day after day. I'm sure they are smart, intelligent children, nevertheless they still filter everything through the worldview they have learned, as I am sure you are too.

As for Christianity or the Bible being a fairy tale, these mythical religions that atheists say Christianity built from do not faintly resemble Christianity and atheists would be extremely hard pressed to demonstrate such. Christianity has its source in the Old Testament. There is a unity between the testaments that prophesy, for one, confirms.

http://tektonics.org/copycat/raglan.html

I have answered the question you posed, you just chose not to accept my answer,

"You haven't answered the question I posed above: Both the criminal atheists and the criminal believers in their wars "knew" what is good."

"All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:12)

How did the criminal atheist "know" what is good? From the posts on this and other forums I very rarely find an atheist sticking his/her neck out and saying that they can know anything with absolute certainty. Unless you presuppose God as that absolute, objective standard what is your standard for affirming any absolutes or knowing any certainties?

As for the believer, his/her knowledge of "good" would have to conform to God's revelation for him/her to know for certain that what he/she calls good is actually good.