All Comments (167)

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I got this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

A question from another atheist on another of Sam's forums:

"... I want you to pretend you are an atheist and answer all your own questions to me. No fair just saying you don't know, can't think of any answers etc, you have to give the best answer you can from an atheist POV, i.e. there is no god.”"

QUESTION: "If there is no god:
Where did, matter, the universe, come from. (remember these things are, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist it cannot be known where all the matter, and for that matter the universe came from. All an atheist can do is take a relative stab at it based on the evidence that is now available and might have been available in the distant past, in the atheist's frame work, billions of years ago, since what happened in the beginning, if there was a beginning, is nothing an atheist was privileged to witness.

An atheist can speculate on an eternal universe or multiple universes, but have no evidence for such other than imagination on why there is something instead of nothing. Based on the current line of thinking however, as an atheist, the evidence of an expanding universe, the gradual death and decay and wearing out of the universe all seems to point to a beginning but, as an atheist, it is only speculation from what.

QUESTION: "How did life come from an amoral, random, blind, chance beginning.. ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: As an atheist the question can only be speculated upon, since an atheist does not see and has never seen life coming from blind chance beginnings. There is order and information (design) in all of nature, in everything seen, so how a random, chaotic process can produce this stuff over time is still a mystery that science will hopefully one day be able to give the answer to, because evolutionary science is the only thing that the atheist has hope of in being able to answer the deep questions of life. It takes faith to believe.

QUESTION: "How did love, compassion, thinking, personality, morals and truth come from non-living matter (remember that all these things are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: The problem of ethics alone is one of the more puzzling problems an atheist has to answer, and that is how can something qualitative and intangible, immaterial such as a concept or idea like "good" come from physical, lifeless matter substance? Yes, the human race is connected to this terrestrial ball in that all the physical attributes needed to sustain human life are interconnected, but this does not explain how something that came from a rock stores knowledge and thinks and is able to make moral judgments. One of the preconditions for thinking, logic and intelligibility is a mind. The atheist has yet to hear a rock offer an intelligent defense for its existence, but maybe that is because the atheist does not think on the same plane that a rock does. Is that a possibility? Yes, it does seem foolish to believe, but hey, why not? It all depends on how the electromagnetic impulses in any particular mind are triggered. The human mind is such an amazingly complicated and apparently well designed piece of matter for the atheist to explain how it could come from chaotic beginnings and be able to think not only of physical, material concepts such as rocks, but also of immaterial, non-tangible concepts such as good, love, justice, right, wrong. But the alternative is not an alternative to an atheist - created by God.

How does one establish a moral principle "good" without first a standard to compare good too? In an atheist world from a unpredictable, chaotic, random, chance beginning it would be established by experience, trail and error. How an atheist first got to this point is hard to imagine, but even at this point, whose experience, whose trial and error? Why does ones ideal of good become the standard another "ought to" necessarily accept? Why is your "good" good? Whose choice of what "good" is is the right choice? As an atheist the only justification for good is just the mere opinion of what good is for what does the atheist mean by good? What things possess the properties of goodness? What is it rated against? To each his own idea. That is the atheist standard, himself, for good cannot be that which is to the benefit or happiness of the greatest number for any number of factors, such as the ability to determine the outcome and consequences of any given "good" action or decision.

QUESTION: "How did something come from nothing? ( remember we are here so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: To an atheist something has never been witnessed coming from nothing, for from nothing, nothing comes. So it is reasonable to believe that something did come from something else, but what that something else is the atheist knows not. He can only speculate. Every effect that he has ever witnessed has a cause. What is the cause of the universe since the current trend is that it had a beginning? The atheist has no idea, just pure speculation, one being that of multiple universes that have eternally existed.

QUESTION: "What are people who are following the bible (or any religion) really following? (remember they do and even kill for it, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: The atheist believes they are following a pie-in-the-sky, a do to not die, a crutch of wishful thinking so that they do not have to face the fact that existence will soon be over and it will all be meaningless.

QUESTION: "What happens when you die. (remember we do die, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

Answer from an atheist perspective: "Nothing happens when you die because after you are dead you are nothing. Your essence, your nature ceases to be and your body and physical makeup are used to push up daisies and provide hey for another dumb beast to feed on, maybe even one that will ponder the same questions?

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. Utter meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

QUESTION: "Why should anyone be nice to anyone else (remember that they are, so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Because being nice may possibly be beneficial to the atheist. It's the selfish gene that calculates what benefit being nice will be to ones existence.

QUESTION: "How can we know what is good or bad or measure horror (remember we do so there must be a reason, but you can' use god because your an atheist)?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: We can't know, we can only decide what our perception of good and bad and horror will be. One atheists perception of good could be another atheists bad. Ones perception of horror could be another's joy and excitement.

QUESTION: "What is the meaning of life?"

ANSWER from an atheist perspective: Whatever you make it to be. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose in existence. There is nothing to look forward to once you are dead, so, "Eat, drink and be merry," for tomorrow you die! Go for the gusto! Get what you can out of life for you're going to be dead longer than you are alive. Don't worry about hurting someones feelings or even doing them bodily harm if you can get away with it and it is to your benefit, to the extent that you can determine that benefit.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

You have not attempted to answer a single question I have asked you. You are not being reasonable if you want a discussion. Your post is like a seething rage beneath the surface in which you are slinging mud because you cannot answer my questions. You are letting emotion play too big a part in all of this. You will not here from me again unless there is some give and take. Give me some answers and I will answer your last post and continue our discussion.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

I am not able to post under my name? I don't know why.

I am not being allowed to send my post. Sorry Pierre.

Hi Pierre,

PIERRE: "I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)

Where did natural selection come from? Did it choose to make an eye or create a mind? If not then it was a blind, random, chance process. Was natural selection around before the supposed Big Bang? Ever seen an explosion of any kind order or design information? How could it organize information in the first place unless it was mindful? What made something "choose" to select something else? If it was not chosen then it was blind, random happenstance.

PIERRE: "So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random."

Was the origins of evolution, the "Big Bang" (or the multiple universe or however else you want to conjecture on how we got here) a blind, random, chance happenstance? If not then was natural selection behind the "Big Bang" organizing information and selecting it? You are saying natural selection is responsible for the design and intelligence we see and witness today? The scientific community believes the Big Bang was a random, chance, happenstance that started the ball rolling. Either way explain how the Big Bang or natural selection is mindful or chooses (shows intent) instead of blindly and randomly selecting.

PIERRE: "This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point."

So I see you are not going to answer my questions. Fair enough, it's hard to have a dialog with someone when it is so one sided. There is no exchange taking place as to your reasons. You have not been able to show how natural selection came to be in the first place. How can something organize information when that something is is not mindful? Have you ever seen anything but a mind with intent? My intend (being mindful) is to show how the evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of the universe. Does a stone have intent? Can a chemical? How can life originate by chemical means? Ever see chemicals dissolving from stones produce life? To think of this biotic soup made from all these dissolving chemicals producing the diversity and complexity we see around us! No life comes from the living and that is all we ever witness. It takes a lot of faith to believe otherwise.

With the origins of the universe, how would chemicals mixing together know that they needed eyes to see or a mind to think? How would chemicals work towards this process? If they did not know these things then it was a blind, random, chance, chaotic process. It just happened. Yet that is not what we witness in the real world.

I quote (add http://),

www.icr.org/article/352/

"Darwin, in his writings, letters, and memoirs, promoted natural selection as a means by which the incredible design obvious in every living system could be derived through purely mechanistic, naturalistic processes. He devoted great energy to refuting the writings of William Paley, in which Paley reasoned that one can infer from the functional complexity of a system that

intelligence was necessary in its formation.

[Did you get that Pierre? What is your intelligence source - natural selection? ]

Just as a complex watch necessarily implies a watchmaker, so living systems, much more complex than a watch, demand that a Creator was involved in their origin. His position was eminently logical, but necessarily implied a Creator-God.
And this helps explain why Darwin and his modern disciples combat the concept of design with such vigor. If such a Creator exists, He has the authority to set the rules for His creation, and the authority to set the rules for breaking His rules. Accountability for our actions to a holy, Creator-God is not easily accepted by the natural man.

Jesus told Nicodemus, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

If no supernatural agency has been at work throughout history, then creation is dead. But if evolutionists even allow a spark of supernatural design in history, then evolution is dead, for evolution necessarily relies on solely natural processes.

But design in living things is obvious. Even the single-celled organism is complex beyond the ability of scientists to understand, let alone duplicate. All of life is governed by the marvelously complex genetic code, which contains not only design and order, but what is equivalent to written information. This DNA code must not only be written correctly, the rest of the cell must be able to read it and follow its instructions, if the cell is to metabolize its food, carry out the myriad of enzyme reactions, and, especially, to reproduce. This code had to be present at the origin of life. How could it have written itself? And how could all the various organelles learn how to read and obey it?
Carl Sagan, the modern-day evolutionary spokesperson has admitted:

The information content of a simple cell has been established as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.[5]

And yet he believes the code wrote itself, by purely random, natural processes, as non-living chemicals sprang to life!

Is this view really credible? Is it really scientific to ascribe to natural processes functions and products which clearly are the result of intelligent design? The Bible tells us that even "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)."

End of quote.

Another quote (add http://),

www.icr.org/article/385/

"Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and also keeps the earth circling the sun. It draws rain from the sky and causes the tides. This mysterious gravity force continues to puzzle scientists even as it gives stability to the universe. How is gravity able to act across empty space, and why does it exist in the first place? Science has never been very successful in explaining such "natural" laws. After all, these universal rules cannot slowly arise by mutation or natural selection; they have been here since the very beginning. Gravity, as well as every other intricate physical law and constant, is actually an absolute testimony to creation….

The properties of gravity illustrate just how unique this essential force is. Consider six points, chosen from many others.

1. Gravity does not change with time. Many researchers have looked for a possible variation in the strength of gravity, without success. Some feel that stronger gravity in the distant past might possibly have helped trigger star formation or the Big Bang itself. Even with a long time scale, however, gravity appears to be perfectly constant.[4] Gravity therefore does not solve the problems of Big Bang cosmology.
2. Aside from air resistance, large and small objects fall downward in exactly the same time. Drop two compact objects and you should see and hear them hit the floor simultaneously.
3. Gravity is always attractive, while other forces such as magnetism can either repel or attract. This beneficial property makes gravity the universal "Elmer's Glue" which binds the universe together. Even the distant galaxies, which appear to have been created with an outward expanding motion, are gradually slowing due to the inward gravity pull from all other galaxies in the universe.
4. Gravity cannot be fumed off or shielded in any way. Intervening objects have no effect on the original gravity force between two separated masses. This means that there is no antigravity chamber available in which the occupants can continually float freely. The weightless, gravity-free feeling you may have experienced on an amusement park ride results from a temporary falling motion. Orbiting astronauts appear weightless only because their fall toward the earth is balanced by the outward directed centrifugal force.
5. Gravity attraction does not depend on the composition of objects, only on their mass or weight. Several blocks composed of glass, lead, ice, or Styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will attract each other identically.
6. The gravity force decreases with distance but is actually infinite in its extent. Gravity acts instantly between the earth and moon, as well as across the millions of light years of space between galaxies, according to classical theory."

End of quote.

The evolutionist has quite a dilemma. It is like the chicken and egg scenario. How does he make sense of it? The creationist has no problem answering it with certainty, for God has revealed this much - the chicken came first. The evolutionist is left with much speculation as to how it all came about, just like in every other area that I listed in the previous posts in which you have not responded to, nor do I believe you can.

Peter:
I'll try to explain one more time.
You said, in reference to evolutionary theory, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
I said, evolutionary theory says that the main mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is NOT in any way "random". (The Dawkins quote amplified this point.)
So, you say evolution must be wrong, because it is described as random. I repeat, natural selection is NOT in any way random. This is a common (and inexplicable) misconception among those who oppose evolutionary theory. Those who repeat this misconception are simply, undeniably wrong on this point.
So, shouldn't you correct yourself now? Shouldn't you say something like, "Oh, I thought that natural selection was random. I was confusing genetic mutation (which IS random) and natural selection (which is NOT random, and which is the central mechanism of evolution in Darwinian theory). I don't know if I made this mistake on my own, or if I was just repeating what some other writer had written. And if I get this clearly false idea from something written by another person, I wonder if that other writer really believed it, or was being deliberately dishonest. Dammit, I repeated that writer's lie, that evolutionary theory is based on random events, and made a fool of myself in the process. Man, I sure do resent that other writer, whoever he or she is!"
If you have an honest bone in your body, you'll start typing it right now. Otherwise, you're just another liar for God.
And if you have God on your side, then why must you lie?

Hi Pierre,

You: "1) Learn to spell my name. (If you can't manage that, try cutting and pasting it.)"

Sorry, my apologies. It was not done intentionally. I just read the "r" as a "c" without my glasses on.

YOU: "2) I asked, "Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?"

Here is what I originally said,

"It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings, that information and logic just suddenly or laboriously materialized from what?"

You failed to answer my original question and the adjoining questions on that post. As I said before you pontificate the way things are and yet you cannot answer how it all came to be, so you are the one who can't make sense of it, and you expect me to? So is it not right to think exactly the opposite of what you said, that you are the foolish or ignorant one? I have an explanation of why things are the way they are and how they came to be.

Why don't you ask a leading evolutionist on how it all began?

‘The interpretation of evolution is in a state of upheaval: the rapid advancement of Molecular Biology has led into question many of the tenets of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism which, although valuable approaches at the time they were formulated, never fulfilled the criteria demanded by real scientific theories… In the author’s opinion, no real theory of evolution can be formulated at present.’

From the publishers’ advertising of a recent evolutionary book, Evolution Without Selection, by A. Lima-de Faria, Esevier Science publishing Co. Inc., New York (NY) USA, 1988 372 pages.

‘I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed.’

‘I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.’

Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.10.

‘The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.’

Dickerson, Richard, Scientific American, Sep. 1978, p.70

In September 1992, a Scientific American article called ‘Mind and Brain’ said that human brain is …

‘the most complex structure in the known universe, complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina’.

A few lines further on, the author said,

‘the current version [of the brain] is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is difficult to understand the brain because, unlike a computer, it was not built with specific purposes or principles of design in mind. Natural selection, the engine of evolution, is responsible.’

This is the stark reality of what evolutionary science is teaching our generation-even the most complex structure in the universe is said to have no plan, no purpose, in defiance of all ordinary logic. Trying to explain design without a designer-in other words, justifying atheism, is what evolution has always been all about, despite the attempts by ‘theistic evolutionism’ to disguise the obvious.

(Source: Gerald D. Fischbach, ‘Mind and Brain’, Scientific American 267(3):24, September 1992.

‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools’ (Romans 1:22).

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

So you answer my questions if you can or if you dare. Maybe you should be honest and admit that you do not have the answers. Ah, but that would show in principle just how shaky a ground you really stand on, like a belief planted in mid-air without a foundation.

Peter,
1) Learn to spell my name. (If you can't manage that, try cutting and pasting it.)
2) I asked, "Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?" Answer the question -- or refuse to and yet again reveal your dishonesty (or ignorance) and cowardice.

Hi again JC Pierce,

I would like to add to your previous post in which you said,

JC PIERCE: "There are only physical, biological and psychological forces in the world, and no magic ones."

There again, you would have to show me how something intangible, non-physical, logical, organic can come from a tangible, material, physical, illogical inorganic beginning. I'm convinced you threw in the "psychological forces" as an afterthought to cover your tracks. Where do you ever find a thinking or rational rock or chemical, yet supposedly after the Big Bang and through countless ages of time, magically we got intangible, non-physical thought and logic coming from this matter - thinking, rational man.

JC PIERCE: "Death is the permanent end of all experience. There is no final justice in the end for anyone. From the moment we die, we have no chance of ever seeing our loved ones, living or dead, ever again."

How do you know?

Are you all knowing? Since you are not dead how are you able to say what is beyond death unless you are either all knowing or have experienced death, or know the One who is all knowing? You couldn't say it in either the first or second (especially the second for it is contradictory to your viewpoint), of these three propositions, only in the last.

JC PIERCE: "It's not all bad. In a universe with no gods, eternal souls or afterlife, one thing is for certain: All pain is temporary."

Are you absolutely sure. If so explain to me how you, of all people know these things.

How do you get your meaning and purpose out of life Mr. Pierce? I contend their is a true and living God who is able to give meaning and purpose to life from whom we know and without Him it is all absurd. Without God (and I only contend for the one and only true God - the God of Judea-Christianity) how do you establish meaning or purpose as anything other than arbitrary? How do you establish morals? How do you establish truth? How do you establish logic? How do you establish order. Where does information come from? I mean a stone does not formulate information, only a mind does. It does not think, it is not living.

Would you care to answer these questions?

Hi Pierce,

ME: "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."

Pierce: "Yes, Peter, it would be a stretch of the imagination -- if you were describing evolution with any accuracy. But your description ("blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings") is completely and totally inaccurate."

Are you saying that when this process all began it had meaning and purpose? Are you saying that something was planned when the Big Bang happened? You do believe in the Big Bang, right? Or do you have a different theory such as the multiple universe theory as to why we are here? If you do you are going against the commonly held position in science today. Which brings me to the next point in who is right? What can you say is actually established about evolution? BTW, since I have answered some of your questions, why don't you tackle some of mine Pierce, on my previous post? My questions are usually, and some of them always avoided because the atheist does not have an answer to why he can pontificate his position.

PIERCE: "The primary mechanism is called "natural selection," and it has NOTHING to do with chance."

Where did it come from? Why is it able to organize information and matter? If it is not able to organize matter or information then it all happens by chance. Why are there natural laws that follow certain conditions? Where do you see or can you demonstrate a law not coming from a mind, and I mean demonstrate.

PIERCE: "(As Richard Dawkins wrote over a decade ago, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.")"

Sure, it is long, long, long ago. Who was around to witness it? No one. As God said to Job,

"Where were you when I laid the earths foundation? Tell me if you understand." (Job 38:4)

PIERCE: "Peter, you seem sincere in your point of view, as do the many believers who repeat it."

Pierce, there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. A persons mind is formed upon basic foundational presuppositions in either one of four options that I know of; the universe was created, it came about by chance, it always existed or everything is an illusion.

You have been influenced by the prevailing worldview of your time. Try tracing that worldview back in time. The question for any worldview must be is it true? How do you know what you know is true and conforms to what is real? The atheist cannot show how his worldview is true or conforms to reality. He cannot show how something living can come, comes, or has ever come from something non-living. He cannot show how an amoral process can produce ethics and morals, since a process does not think, only a mind thinks. He cannot show how logic comes from a process that supposedly began randomly and by chance. He cannot show how information can come from such a process for anything resulting from an explosion does not produce order or information. A mind produces both. He cannot show how truth, beauty, knowledge, love, compassion can come from a mixture of any non-living, non-thinking, physical material chemicals. He cannot show evolution taking place today where a human, or any animal is mutating and changing into another form. All the atheist can do is point to animals who were designed to adapt to the conditions in which they live, not change into another form of life. Show me where these things are happening? No, the atheist's position is foolish.

Then there is the question of authority. On whose authority does the atheist base their judgments and why? Can you show me why they are anything other than subjective and relative?

PIERCE: "This begs these questions: Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid?"

What evolution? There is another side to the equation. Are believer's (or atheists for that matter) that believe in evolution right? On whose authority? You, Pierce, naturally assume that the Christian or person that believes that evolution is the fairy tale are the ones in error. But it all depends on your starting point and how you build on that starting point that determines your worldview and what is the authority of your starting point? One thing about a skeptic is that by nature he won't believe something no matter what the evidence. They suppress anything that does not line up with their basic, foundational beliefs. That is why he is a skeptic. The Bible makes this clear,

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For, although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like moral man and birds and animals and reptiles... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen." (Romans 1:18-23, 25)

The skeptic by nature is hostile to God and will not accept the Word of God, nor is he able to do so. It takes God's mercy and grace to open an unbeliever's eyes, ears and heart tom the truth of Scripture, because they live in rebellion to God believing they are autonomous and wise and always choose what they desire and want.

"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires, but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful nature is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." (Romans 8:5-8)

So there is no way I can convince you unless God is a work within your heart, but I can show you that you have no foundation for your belief. It is firmly planted in mid-air. That is how silly it is.

PIERCE: "Do they think they have any right to discuss an issue they plainly know nothing about? Do they think they can impress others by parading their ignorance?"

Maybe you can explain and show proof of the issues I have mentioned above Pierce, then we can talk? What do you know for sure Pierce? What can you say is absolutely true and what do you base your conclusion on? The Lord Jesus Christ is my sure foundation! As the apostle Paul said, in which I wholeheartedly agree,

"I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those in Laodicea, and for all those who have not met me personally. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments."
(Colossians 2:1-4)

How complete is your understanding of evolution? What have you read about it and do you understand about it? Who has convinced you it is true? How wise do you feel they are?

PIERCE: "Tell us Peter; we'd love to find out."

It is a two-way street Pierce. You are going to have to give me some answers too. Are you willing to do that?

Peter Huff wrote, "It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings."
Yes, Peter, it would be a stretch of the imagination -- if you were describing evolution with any accuracy. But your description ("blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings") is completely and totally inaccurate. The primary mechanism is called "natural selection," and it has NOTHING to do with chance. (As Richard Dawkins wrote over a decade ago, "It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.")
Peter, you seem sincere in your point of view, as do the many believers who repeat it. This begs these questions: Are believers who claim that evolution is random pitifully ignorant or simply stupid? Do they think they have any right to discuss an issue they plainly know nothing about? Do they think they can impress others by parading their ignorance?
Tell us Peter; we'd love to find out.

Oh goody! More ranting from Sam Harris on the virtues of being a rational, noble, sane minded atheist and the vice of being a merger, irrational, immoral Christian.

How do you get virtue and morality and rationality from evolution? How does a non-thinking, non-living, amoral process give birth to living, rational, ethical human beings? How I wish an atheist could answer these questions before he attempts to put his foot in his mouth and mumble something totally incoherent and unbelievable, so unbelievable that it takes greater faith to believe than even T.D. Jakes or Jack Van Impe or John Hagee in their "last days madness," as Gary Demar wrote in his book by the same name.

No, in all we ever see or witness life comes from life, thinking from being, intelligence from a mind. It is definitely a stretch of the imagination to believe that the origins of what we see came from blind, random, chance, chaotic happenings, that information and logic just suddenly or laboriously materialized from what? How can something intangible and non-physical in essence such as logic come from something physical and non-living. These are questions the atheist needs to answer before they start mocking other faiths. And their belief is a faith, but a leap in the dark rather than a rational faith.

Hi Jihadist! Long time no read. Still fighting the battle of ideas I see.

Readers of these comments may have noticed the techniques used by most critics of Sam Harris' remarks.
First, they call Harris names. They call him smug, elitist, etc. Then they proclaim him wrong. He is just so wrong, they say.
Then, they offer no specific criticism of anything Harris wrote.
How odd. They are so sure that they are right, and they have this handy forum for demonstrating how each of Harris' ideas can be refuted and they... choose to offer no criticisms other than name-calling.
A rational person may assume that these critics have no reasoned arguments to offer. (After all, saying "I believe my magical, invisible friend is real, and that makes it true for everyone" doesn't have much persuasive power.)
One might also assume that, because they have only derision to offer, these critics may not quite grasp the concept of "civil debate."
Perhaps these critics respond with such strong emotions because Harris draws attention to the part of religious faith that is truly embarrassing -- that faith in most religions requires belief in magic. But magic isn't real. There are only physical, biological and psychological forces in the world, and no magic ones. Death is the permanent end of all experience. There is no final justice in the end for anyone. From the moment we die, we have no chance of ever seeing our loved ones, living or dead, ever again.
It's not all bad. In a universe with no gods, eternal souls or afterlife, one thing is for certain: All pain is temporary.
Bravo, Mr. Harris.

MM, very well said. And I say this as a Christian.

However, I disagree that science has not been used to justify atrocities. Eugenics certainly comes to mind.

karen

Mr Harris,

It is no more logical to discount the wisdom that can be gleaned from the various traditions that are labeled 'religion' as it is to discount wisdom that comes from the traditions that are labeled 'science.' You have argued that these are not equivalent in that people justify horrible actions via religion (or misinterpretation of religion) whereas people do not justify atrocities via science. This is true; but it does not mean that we can't benefit immensely from the practices and teachings of the so called 'religious' traditions.

It seems to me as though 'atheists' are trying to put up resistance to the threat of closed-minded religionists, to counter the religionist's use of irrational/dillusional thinking to control the country/world. But in so doing, you are trying yourself to control things. The truth is that religious folks will start to see that questioning their own tradition can be healthy, but not when you tell them to. It can't be forced upon them.

The tone of most atheists, while I agree with most of their arguments, is quite negative and condescending towards religious people. This isn't necessary. What is your goal, after all? Is it to create more divisions, or is it to bring people together and out of ignorance? If it is the latter, would it not be wiser to use a more constructive and respectful tone? Many, many so called religious people are extremely intelligent, sensitive, well-meaning people. They would probably be much more open to questioning their own traditions, in a healthy way, if the argument for doing so was presented with a positive tone.

I understand the anger that seems to simmer beneath the surface of the atheist message; and while I do feel it is warranted in many ways, I think a more measured approach may better serve the cause. (Perhaps it won't sell as many books, and maybe therein lies the rub...)

Mr. Harris,

Let me also add the following, which comes from the "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems."

TOP 5 COUNTRIES in TOTAL CRIMES PER CAPITA:

Dominica, New Zealand, FINLAND, DENMARK, Chile.

Hmmm. Seems like your aforementioned countries might not be the utopia that you would like everyone to believe. I know, I know. The Jerry Springer and Oprah Winfrey audience that you're targeting are probably too stupid or too lazy to do anything more than regurgitate whatever you say.

Mr. Harris,

Are you aware that Saudi Arabia has a lower, per capita murder rate than any of the four countries you championed? I would assume then that it would be your hope that the U.S. move itself toward a more Saudi Arabian society?

And how exactly does Chistianity hinder the develop of education in the U.S.? We spend more money, per student, on education than any other country in the world and have less to show for it. Where is religion to blame in this equation?

And when countries around the world need financial or military help, whom do they call? Sweden? Denmark? I don't think so. It's the U.S. You know - one of the youngest countries in the world who also happens to be the only superpower. Yes, America - what a terrible place to be.

I'm willing to vote for Obama even if he claims to believe in the bible. I'll bet he still believes in Newton and Einstein too - but wait!

If even Newton and Einstein are only speaking the relative truth based on the new frontier of quantum physics, doesn't that further marginalize the absolutism of religious faith - which is based on evidence somewhat more tenuous than particle physics??

I personally don't see how science is making the case for religious belief - on the contrary, the mystery only increases as time goes on. How is this evidence of the Absolute???

Religion and religionists on the other hand, claim to have all the answers, at least according to numerous hundreds of posts on these threads ....... how so???

If you're looking for a keen rational mind and a logical problem-solver in your political candidate of choice, I'd think religion would be that last thing anyone was talking about .... but that's just me.

Okay, your piece is a little bit funny, with lots of entertaining, if a bit sophomoric, vitriol. But it is hardly credible to point out that some Confederates believed God was on their side, while completely ignoring that the abolitionist movement was shaped by Christian belief, and carried out by Christians. Christianity didn't create slavery, though defenders of slavery cherry-picked from the Bible to justify the institution. But the movement to end slavery was fundamentally Christian, not atheist.

TYPICAL WHITE PERSON (EXCEPT I'M NOT), Hi
Why should I be fooled by your saying, "Don't be fooled?" I don't know anything about what you represent. As for Obama, I've read both his books, listened to all his speeches, sat through two of his rallies, and read his entire web site and innumerable interviews of him and his wife. Until I have as much information about you, I'm sorry to say I'll have to ignore your advice, though not you, of course.

Mr. Foster, Hi,
While I very much respect your feelings, I feel you've mistaken Harris's larger point in mentioning Romney's clothing, which was to further his point that evangelicals doomed Romney's campaign by their prejudiced refusal to grant legitimacy to another Christian sect. If you substitute Catholic prayer shawl or Jewish yarmulke for Mormon undergarments, you'll perhaps see where I see Harris coming from. That the intimacy of the garments mentioned is apt to provoke snorts is a unfortunate side effect of what we silly humans find humorous. Harris is not so naive as to be innocent of baser forms of humor but would also know that humor might better drive his point. As a nonMormon, I actually missed the humor for seeing his larger point of Romney being unfairly evicted in favor of lesser candidates. Admittedly this may be because he was my GOP favorite, being the one successful executive in the whole race, a true star.

"Obama’s candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he still stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope."

Bull hockey, It will be triumph of one of the most cynical politicians , who it willing to throw anyone under the bus, who uses race to move ahead (using race to divide us), and who is an empty suit.

Obama's campaign is about Obama, not improving America.
Don't be fooled

Mr. Harris, you are a bigoted moron. You vainly try to appear oh so intelligent and sophisticated with your snide comments about religion. Then, while discussing Mitt Romney you write, "the Governor had been wearing consecrated Mormon underpants..."

Do you realize how offensive a comment like that is to Mormons? Somehow, I don't think you would be making snide comments about prayer shawls, yarmulkes and religious clothing from other religions. For some reason though, making fun of Mormons' sacred garments is fair game among pseudo-intellectual elitists like yourself. I guess that's because Latter-day Saints quietly sit back and take the vicious abuse of morons like yourself.

So, all I have to say is I see you for what you really are and I am very unimpressed.

ALICIA, Thanks for speaking so well and eloquently to remind us what's important: those realities the press sets aside for being too unattractive and complicated while YouTube clips of Rev. Wright have the lifespan of Britney Spears (hah). Those who'd never vote for Obama are obviously having a field day, crushing the pearls he casts, as if to swine, his brilliantly high-minded speech dismissed mindlessly as "fakery". I hear the echo of Kerry swiftly downed by his honorable war record hurled against him by a candidate whose father got him into the Guard where he failed to complete his service. How Kerry's coming out against a war he had fought in was held to be worse than Bush being for a war he refused to fight in...If Obama overcomes this problem in what our MSM panders to in the worst of us it will indeed signal a new dawn, a good morning in America.

This whole news coverage is a major distraction for what really ails America. Yes, the remarks were inflammatory and could easily be seen as hateful. Anti-America comments, no, it's the truth many people see and not just African Americans. The last presidential election it was "same sex marriage" that got the people stirred up and Bush a second term. This time it's anti-patriotism, a distraction!

I feel sorry for hardworking Americans trying to survive in this economy (regardless of race) and soldiers dying or wounded in a needless war. Our unstable economy and loss of jobs and what NAFTA has produced is what concerns me. These are the issues that affect my life, not seeming anti-American statements of a Chicago preacher. In Chicago, in the Black community, Dr. Wright and the Trinity Church has and is doing marvelous social work and is considered a beacon of light. Wright is not perceived as a hate-filled preacher and craze ministry. The Black community don't always understand how easy Americas are distracted, especially, when we're really hurting and at the hands of our own leadership. With films like "Iraq for Sale" and others, they don't make a dent in the American people ability to see that we're a very much imperfect union. It's almost as if we prefer to be deceived and issues sugar coated if stated at all. Racism promotes white supremacy and this is no substitute for a true sense of self-worth and fairness. At the end of the day, we're all trying to feel good about ourselves and hopefully, make this world a better place. Distractions such as this will always hinder blind-sighted, Americans, who have good intentions, but are taught and guided to be judge and jury on race issues and not real issues and resolutions that sustain growth...this war, gas prices and companies taking jobs overseas and still getting tax credits.

The great thing about the Obama Presidential bid is that Americans are getting the chance to think for themselves! Out of this new America will become a stronger and more viable country. "The People" will have a true voice, politicians will do their job or lose them. This distraction is to take this away and I guess this is the real reason for stopping the Obama train. Obama's win will most definitely benefit White people more than other people, thanks to Bill Clinton and well as other democratic presidents (think welfare and public housing), we're caught up in the industrialized prison system (modern day slavery)...mandatory minimum sentencing and three strikes laws have crippled black America substantially with 1 out of 4 blacks incarcerated. So, not to elect Senator Obama and instead McCain will mean many more families will lose loved ones, our foreign relations around the world will be strained and we'll continue to be viewed as imperialists. This war will continue to erode our economy and jobs will be not be brought back into this country anytime soon. You weigh these concerns against a Chicago preacher with inflammatory remarks that can be viewed as racist and anti-American, depending on one's knowledge of the oppression that has and still exist in this country.

This current media culture really shapes and molds attitudes and thinking. The extreme energy place on what Dr. Wright preached and Obama being a long-time member is going to be the winning ticket for McCain. So be it. It's not about race, it's about money, greed and power.
As an African American, we have no other choice but to see America quite differently and can understand Dr. Wright's statements. The difference is that many or most black preachers won't be so forward with exposing America's oppression. Indeed, there have been many changes and progress has been made. But it's still new...the 1965 voting act, the end of Jim Crow Law in the 60s, lynching’s and a legal system that's put many innocent men and women on death row. We have titans like Oprah Winfrey, Ben Carson, Michael Jordan, Bill Cosby, Dr. Jonetta B. Cole and others prominent preeminent Americans. So I can understand how white people feel Dr. Wright's comments are unwarranted and unpatriotic. John Hagee, Pat Robertson and Ron Parsley really irritate me and I have to turn them off.

Let's not be distracted, let's move forward from this point...

In conventional politics, campaigns will play dirty and use whatever tactics possible to gain an edge. The problem is playing the race card is not an edge to gain. Everybody loses. The Clintons have done very well marketing themselves to African Americans over the years. Was it genuine or just for the assets? Consider the bag of bricks Obama has to carry when the Clinton campaign allows open ended racial accusations, words and phrases to slip. When it comes to dodging the race card anyone who ponders the weight of Hillarys bag needs to look no further than Geraldine Ferraro. Clearly racist. Hillary denounces the comments and apologizes days later and it goes away. Damage done. Assets protected. No other presidential candidate has ever had to go through what Barack has had to regarding a former pastor. Is that what we call tough love here in America? Americans should stand strong through this process. Slavery and its residue of racism happens to be a much larger part of society than some would admit. Hillary will benefit from that for a minute. Barack Obama will be president.

I am glad you wrote on this topic Sam. As a man of Northeast African heritage, I have been very proud of Mr. Obama since 2004. However, his embrace of faith after his election has made me nervous as to how much he will go with faith at the expense of reason. So far, he has been a balanced man. Hopefuly, he will tilt towards reason in at least his policies if not in his personal spirituality. He seems to be a thoughtful man capable of thinking, curiousity, and respect for intellectual engagement. That gives me the audacity to hope.

I am totally amazed at the number of people willing to pass judgment based on a few seconds of Fox "fake news" sound-bytes. How many of you who are so quick to condemn took the time to view the full sermons from which the bytes were snatched out of context? How many of your churches could withstand this kind of attack where someone is looking for 1 minute of unrestrained anger among 20 years of love and forgiveness?
Watch the entire sermons or shut up!
http://www.youtube.com/trinitychgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
And yes, it would be refreshing if we could drop all this religious nonsense like a lead balloon and get on with solving our very real social and environmental problems.

What a Crock of Crap

DAVIDO, whether Obama owns DVDS of Wright interests you, because you've never watched them, which is telling of the value you place on the imaginary over the real.

Sam Harris is dead on as usual with one exception: he treats religion as a cause rather than effect or tool of an even deeper cause, greed.

He mentioned Southerners giving their lives for slavery because their churches told them to, but the churches were telling them what they wanted to hear, that their sociopathic behavior that made them a lot of money was morally acceptable.

Harriet Beecher Stowe put these words in the mouth of one of her characters in chapter 16 of Uncle Tom's Cabin:
____________________________________

"suppose that something should bring down the price of cotton once and forever, and make the whole slave property a drug in the market, don't you think we should soon have another version of the Scripture doctrine? What a flood of light would pour into the church, all at once, and how immediately it would be discovered that everything in the Bible and reason went the other way!"

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/uncletom/utfihbsa16t.html
____________________________________

I sometimes wonder if this isn't exactly what happened. Slaves were replaced by sharecroppers who instead of getting a subsistence living from their masters ended up owing them money, and today, we have illegal immigrants who rather than being fed and clothed year round as slaves were can be dismissed to starve on their own dime after the harvest or even removed by a call to la migra (now ICE).

Wow what a wonderfully insightful essay. Its rare to read an original thought in the blogosphere.

I'm sure you'll get lots of vitriol for it. Please keep writing anyways.

Obama and his campaign made sure that Wright was not allowed to speak for himself and the question should have been about that. Where is Rev. Wright and why hasn't anyone questioned him about his sermons? Why don't they just ask him if he remembers Obama being in church on the days he gave his anti-American sermons? Isn't this America and can't a pastor preach whatever he wants? The issue of whether Obama agrees with whatever Wright said still hasn't been answered but Obama used to his advantage by making it into a race issue and not one of religious freedom.

I'd be interested to know if Obama owns the DVDs of Rev. Wright attacking America.

swp,
Thanks for bringing some new insights to this old American problem.

This is so breathtakingly true as to be rather a miracle of language. That the godful in power willfully mock reality everywhere in America, instead of tending to the creatures they claim are protected by the sky, is so obvious a dereliction of duty as to shame our nation. Until Americans throw off the yoke of superstition, we'll not enjoy the fruits of reason that have brought the good life of peace and plenty to Scandinavians. Truth alone will bring us to reason, so the words of Mr. Harris are greatly appreciated by those who love America.

The most revealing event in this election is the battle against racism is being won in the South, while the rest of the country is still struggling. It's a relief that Bill Richardson has spoken up as an influence in the Hispanic community because these are voters who have also experienced righteous anger at White oppression. As the dynamics of this race changes, the changing of the tide won't predict how the result will play out. Obama may have won a new base.

It would be a terrible event for the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and the women's movement if Hillary was perceived as winning the racist White vote.

WYZEPRINCE,

You say, "The problem, as I see it, is that because we are not perfect, any institutions we create (including religious ones) will not be perfect. Therefore, we humble ourselves, recognize a higher power and seek guidance. Recognizing our own fallibility, observing the amazing complexity of the universe, and coming to the conclusion that there is higher power at work, seems eminently reasonable to me."

STOP RIGHT THERE!!! It is NOT eminently reasonable to conclude that there is a "higher power" at work. Why? Because you are using a classic logical fallacy, the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Since you can't explain the amazing complexity, you accept a wholly unfounded explanation, namely a "higher power," for purely emotional reasons. I won't get into the fact that "higher power" doesn't even amount TO an explanation, I'll just say that this is the Achilles' Heel that so many religious people try to slip into what might otherwise pass as a rational argument.

The funny thing with your sentence is that you begin by recognizing your own fallability, then proceed immediately to manifest it in your logic.

I recommend that, recognizing your own fallability, you proceed cautiously in your argument, examining each step carefully. What follows from the (apparent) "amazing complexity" of the universe? Well, first, define your terms. What do you mean by complexity? Biological complexity? That's largely explained by evolution. The large number of astronomical bodies? That's explained by cosmology. The bottom line is that your question itself begs many other questions. So what's the reasonable response? Follow the questions! That's science, and it doesn't lead to "a higher power did it." In field after field we find that things look more and more like we think they would IF THERE WERE NO HIGHER POWER. In NO CASE does scientific inquiry lead us closer to the "higher power" "explanation." Wyze up!