Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I do know where the universe came from. And I know where it's going. I take great comfort in knowing that someday, I'll stand before God and be counted among those in the Book of Life. If you're wrong we can continue the discussion in Hare Krishna Hell. I'm sure you just happened to be born into the "right" religion though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Even better, you are absolutely sure of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I do know where the universe came from. And I know where it's going. This coming from a guy who likely as not mismatched his socks this morning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 This coming from a guy who likely as not mismatched his socks this morning... Socks are insignificant next to such a deep understanding of the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Well lookie here...an anti-religious religious crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 "Anti-religious religious crusade" is such an interesting choice of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If you're wrong we can continue the discussion in Hare Krishna Hell. I'm sure you just happened to be born into the "right" religion though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Even better, you are absolutely sure of it. If I am wrong, and you are right, I lost nothing. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you're screwed. If we're both wrong,then we're BOTH screwed. Finally, you make a point that is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If I am wrong, and you are right, I lost nothing. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you're screwed. If we're both wrong,then we're BOTH screwed. Finally, you make a point that is correct. No, if you're wrong you've wasted vast amounts of the short time you have praying, going to church and lecturing reasonable folks about the absolute truth of your beliefs. Please don't argue the ridiculous idea that such self-deception would not be a waste of time. You need not worry, of course, because of your absolute knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 No, if you're wrong you've wasted vast amounts of the short time you have praying, going to church and lecturing reasonable folks about the absolute truth of your beliefs. Please don't argue the ridiculous idea that such self-deception would not be a waste of time. You need not worry, of course, because of your absolute knowledge. Vast amounts I pray once a day, go to church once a week and occasionally have arguments with anti-faith bigots. The VAST majority of my time is spent in being a dad, doing my job and sleeping. So if a small portion of my time is spent worshipping the Almighty, it's not THAT much time lost, and the time spent is priceless. And, Gene, you're ANYTHING but reasonable. And I'm not lecturing you, I'm defending my beliefs from an attack that is unwarranted at best, and completely ridiculous at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If I am wrong, and you are right, I lost nothing. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you're screwed. If we're both wrong,then we're BOTH screwed. Finally, you make a point that is correct. That's not an argument for God, though. That's just a justification for belief. And not a very good one. If I were God, I'd smite you for merely playing the odds. (Of course, if *I* were God, I'd smite you just for ***** and giggles.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I pray once a day More on Sundays during football season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Vast amounts I pray once a day, go to church once a week and occasionally have arguments with anti-faith bigots. The VAST majority of my time is spent in being a dad, doing my job and sleeping. So if a small portion of my time is spent worshipping the Almighty, it's not THAT much time lost, and the time spent is priceless. And, Gene, you're ANYTHING but reasonable. And I'm not lecturing you, I'm defending my beliefs from an attack that is unwarranted at best, and completely ridiculous at worst. Let's call a lifetime of spiritual delusion 65 years. The average lifespan is between 70 and 75 years I think and we'll cut the first 5 or 10 before you've been brainwashed. Setting aside the "getting ready" and travel for a moment, let's say church takes 1 hour per week. Let's additionally assume that you pray for 15 minutes per day. 1 (Sunday) * 60 (Minutes) * 52 (Weeks) * 65 (Years) = 202,800 (Minutes) 365 (Days) * 15 (Minutes) * 65 (Years) = 355,875 (Minutes) 202,800 (Minutes) + 355,875 (Minutes) = 558,675 (Minutes) 558,675 (Minutes) = 9311.25 (Hours) 9311.25 (Hours) = 387.97 (Days) 387.97 (Days) = 1.06 (Years) 1.06 full years of your life. If my math is no good, I'm sure I'll hear about it. Not as bad as I thought, but it was a conservative calculation. You're right in that you probably waste more time watching TV, but think about how much more TV you could be watching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 , but think about how much more TV you could be watching! Or more time arguing with idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It's only a good post because he pasted it. Credit Sam Harris, not dedouche. Agreed and the premise of its comparison is still to attack religion, instead of letting atheism stand on its own two feet and justify itself without the comparison. My making the comparison and ad-hominid attacks on religion, it reveals the writer's own insecurities and arrogance toward religion and his own insecure belief in atheism. Though I agree organized religion is full of hippocracy, however belief in or faith in a God does not. And though I could make a much better argument then this for atheism, I think that a lot of atheists are well meaning people but way too self-reliant and therefore tend to be anti-humanist in practice though not in thought. That being this attitude I am pointing out is not relegated solely to nor exclusive to all atheists. Many religionists exhibit such behavioral arrogance. Which brings us back to Dellaspew, here is someone who is both arrogant and ill-informed and though I enjoyed reading the paste, I can only wonder if he actually understood the implications of what he pasted....not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 On a bit of a "crusade," aye? Read the ToS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 On a bit of a "crusade," aye? Read the ToS. He's crusading for stupidity. If it was just another religios debate thread, who would care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Anybody want to hear my LITTLE BANG theory about the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Anybody want to hear my LITTLE BANG theory about the universe? Don't go stealing theories from your wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. Given that we know that atheists here consistently demonstrate the least intelligence and/or the incapacity to develop and defend a reasoned argument... All kidding aside...where in the hell does that first part of the sentence come from? "The average atheist is smarter than you"? WTF? Q: Based on what? A: Conjecture and wishful thinking...once again. Anybody else see the pattern? Oh, and yeah...all those college professors and ACLU lawyers have really been disenfranchised and don't play a large role in government? Right. Oh, my mistake....they want a LAAAAARGER role in government. How large? Stalin-size perhaps? 1) One word. Abortion. Two words. Moral relativism. And finally,(once again doing my job at exposing the phony) if you say it the way "Sam" did, then this means that an atheist placing any meaning, even a sliver, on life....gets to to say that at least s/he doesn't believe life is meaningless. Hence, another example of moral relativism. Notice also that instead of talking about each individual's worth, which is is the definition of life, duh!, this tool is talking about things you do and/or people you do them with. Living life fully, and having relationships has nothing to do with placing value on individual life. The argument against atheists is: that they do not value individual life...enough(see I can do it too). Go back and read what this guy wrote again...looks like he did a fine job of affirming, rather than dispelling, that argument. 2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history. People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. This is absolute folly. Communists the world over have justified their murders, rapes, theft and lies, precisely because their world view was based on "reason". Therefore they were justified in these acts, because THEY individually, and not moral principles, became the arbiters of right and wrong. Dogma has nothing to do with it. These individuals have largely been tried and held accountable as individuals. The "dogma" has never been put on trial, because you can't hold an idea accountable. However, you can hold the douchebag leftist who kills children accountable, because his mother taught him better than that, period. It is in fact the absence, or rejection, of moral principle that Communists and Fascists require form those they govern. All religion is based on almost the exact same principles(Don't lie, cheat, kill, steal, etc.). So, QED, you reject the religion, and you can reject the principles it is based on as well. Next thing you know, Stalin kills 6 times as many people as Hitler, and, "it's ok...because at least we aren't being controlled by religion"? Like I said...folly. 3) Atheism is dogmatic.An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. Right. And the ACLU wasting millions of $$$, theirs, the government's, and the people they sue, for the most inoffensive things like singing Christmas carols, is a fine example of being "non-dogmatic". Is this guy serious? Yeah...nothing dogmatic about suing people because they set up pieces of wood and plastic in the park for 3 weeks out of the year. Perhaps they are "threatening" pieces of wood and plastic? 4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself. The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species. Read: "Sam" has no REAL counter to the charge that, due to a lack of anything else to talk about, yeah, it must all be due to dumb luck. Or...."we know this and we know that, and, we have written an entire paragraph with out defining what exactly we believe the 'thinger' that makes natural selection go is...but remember that we are denying that it all comes down to luck" 5) Atheism has no connection to science. Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is. Who says this? Really? I think this one is simply made up. 6) Atheists are arrogant. When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty. "Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society" Where oh where would we ever get the idea that atheists are arrogant? I wonder. And, perhaps somebody needs to explain what ironic means to "Sam" the same way Tom explained a priori. Ironic is this sentence: "One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility" By definition, you cannot praise yourself, for humility or anything else, and be humble at the same time. So what is "Sam" doing here other than projecting? And then trying to use that projection as a replacement for, and basis of, actual argument? Sam: because I decided that's what religious people do...then it is ironic when they do something else? Retarded. Religious people praise the act of being humble...not themselves, in every faith I am aware of. The "mysteries of the faith". Hmm. Apparently the word "mystery" is lost on good ole Sam. Clearly if we say something is a mystery...then we are admitting that we don't know wtf happened...only God does...which is the exact opposite of "claiming to know". This one is simply retarded. More contradictory evidence for atheists being smarter than others. 7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience. There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences. There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate. Yes....so Jesus wearing a beard or not has something to do with, or even crosses your mind, while praying for help when you are being shot at. Right. Each person encounters the spiritual in their own way = the way that is right for them. Attempting to tell others that they aren't allowed to feel what they feel, because you haven't, is again, retarded. We are talking about feelings here right? How the hell are we supposed to quantify...feelings? More importantly, I thought atheists were saying, as was said above, that ALL religion was wrong. Why the sudden change here to only go after Christianity? Apparently there is evidence of spiritual, and therefore, behavioral improvement from all faiths by Sam's own admission. This commonality is an argument FOR religious belief ...and not against it. And tell me please about the last atheist spiritual experience....you can't, because by definition that is a contradiction in terms. 8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding. Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists. From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation. So....Sam's speculation about aliens is supposed to serve as better explanation than the Bible or the Koran because...Sam said so? It's just as likely that said aliens have their own version of the Bible or Koran. Hell, since we are speculating, it's just as likely that these Aliens have their own football team whose offense decides to play terribly for no apparent reason. The point is that Sam has no point here, just conjecture. The Pope has openly stated that there may in fact be other life on other planets...but that nobody knows for certain. Therefore, the religious, even the Catholics, ARE in fact able to freely entertain such possibilities as well. In all cases, life on other planets '= God doesn't exist. And of course, Sam can't help himself = the aliens are brilliant too! Hysterical. What if the aliens are idiots? Does that mean God doesn't exist too? And, how does religion trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe again? Oh, that's right, because Sam said so... 9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society. Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth. In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it? HAHA! Reading this article defines "wishful thinking" and "self-deception" to a tee. It also defines "speculation passing for reason" and "hypocrisy" as well. So instead of addressing the point: overall faith-based religion has produced better behavior, he dances around it and then talks about why good deeds are done, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters = the good deeds being done. And nothing about the fact that COMMUNISM, an atheist ethos, not religion, has killed far and away more people than any other ethos in history combined. Hmmm. Oh that's right, because nobody is fool enough to argue for how much benefit we have gained from Marx's retarded theory. 10) Atheism provides no basis for morality. If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness. We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe. Yes....we got to the store, but let's not give credit to the car that got us there. The car is just a car after all and even though that is the tool that has been used to accomplish the goal, now that we are at the store, let's just forget about the car. What an idiot. I am so sure that the moral progress that has been made would have happened on its own without the spiritual texts that have been the basis for all of it. Yes...if only we had stuck with Aesop's fables or the Grimm brothers. Hell even social scientists use the concept of a "case study" to illustrate larger points. If we look at the Bible as a series of case studies, then you will find no better document to use as a moral instruction manual. Its a simple concept: the Bible is largely there to say "don't learn this the hard way. Take this story and learn from it". Now...having said all of that, please understand I couldn't care less about religion, or religious activity I just hate it when a phony a-hole makes a series of terrible arguments, and then gets praised for it by other phony a-holes. This screed above has no place in any debate, because as I have clearly demonstrated, it is nothing if not a poorly veiled attempt to "explain atheism" by taking shots at religion. In fact, I learned NOTHING about atheists due to this article. IF this was an attempt at promoting understanding of atheism, then the atheists have been severely under-served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Gotta love Sam Harris. I sure don't know about that. As you may have guessed, I'm not a big fan but my comment comes not from a disagreement with his beliefs rather from his misuse of logic. Based on the original post in this thread, I would rather be on the other side of a debate than be on Harris' team, regardless of topic. It is too long to get into now but I'll post a reply to the list when I'm able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 If I am wrong, and you are right, I lost nothing. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you're screwed. If we're both wrong,then we're BOTH screwed. Finally, you make a point that is correct. Ahh pascals wager, another horrible idea... that like saying u only believe because u dont want to burn..like fire insurance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts