MaxWilder argue me this (as an exercise...without picking on me)
This may be what he meant in the debate.
"I know God exists because it is consistent with everything I know from the world around me.

BRM: isn't there a big difference between "probably not" and "no"?

MaxWilder and Fletch: why the anger? you're all wound up and can't even engage in a simple conversation with someone not as well-versed in the topic as yourselves. Rather than call me names, why not just make the argument and educate me. Does it make you feel good to make subjective, derogatory comments about others, when those comments have no content or basis? I wouldn't be asking questions if I didn't want to learn. You're obviously answering them to make yourself feel smart. I don't think you're smart. I believe I could trick you into painting my fence! The fact that you can't just ignore my comments without ANNOUNCING that you're going to ignore my comments indicates that you would fall easy prey to my Jedi mind trick.

How come BicycleRepairMan and drattus are able to craft rational arguments without calling names or storming out of the room?

Thanks BRM and drattus. The links were very interesting.

questions:
Are there assumptions out there that if all eyes were opened, and an atheist society emerged, it would be intrinsically better? Or are we just getting rid of the flawed, and hoping the alternative is better? Do people think it will be more peaceful? Does a peaceful have anything to do with a better world, if there is not theist morality?

"If you believe in God Does your lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other..."
&
"We're all atheists about 1000+ Gods..."
Are you talking about atheism or aTheism? Why assume that a Theist doesn't believe in Thor or Greek gods?
Do atheists recognize a difference between belief and faith?

also...
"'atheist'...it's not a belief system, it's a lack of belief...they are both pushing belief in the end."
Atheism isn't a lack of belief. 28 comments later, these people do believe something.
Atheism is a lack of faith, rationalized by the lack of knowledge. And the resulting belief is so simple, it is assumed to require no system. But Sam Harris demonstrates that it DOES "compel" a system of resulting action.

if current society and morality aren't overtly influenced by or based upon theism, then what is Harris' problem with theism in society?

"If anything, society and everything we have now is based on the scientific method". ethnocentric?
Should only America become atheist? Only Western civilization? Isn't theism more universal among human cultures than the scientific method?

At question here is Harris' feeling compelled to confront the ascendent ignorance of theism.

..Roughy, what better way could there possibly be to harness solar energy than to power autonomous vaginas? Here we are at the pinnacle of our evolution, and we find that a divergent species of human has evolved completely unknown to us. A form of human which is perfect: That is a woman which has no other parts except for a vagina and a clitoris, and the whole thing is solar powered! You don't even have to buy it dinner!

I hereby declare Evolution complete! great job!

"lung-shreddingest bullets on the market". Americans can do anything.

*discard

*discard

some family values are instinctive. i.e. "no incest"
getting rid of religion won't get rid of family unit priorities (values). To say family values have no reason at all just because it is a term that has been hijacked by the religious right flies in the face of social anthropology.

As for ABORTION:
There definitely ARE non-religious arguments against abortion. I agree that true, worth life is developed over time.
I personally advocate aborting "fertilized eggs" up to 25 years of age. That's really how long it takes to determine whether or not an "egg" is going to turn out to be a productive member of "society" or not.
also... fertilized eggs are much harder to scramble, and make terrible omelets.

As for HOMOSEXUALITY:
in a rational world there would BE no homosexuals because homosexuality has not been proven to exist. There are simply people who really really believe that they are homosexual. And then there are lesbians, who have simply figured out that boys are gross, which IS rational.

good point.
I'm not arguing that religion is valid at all.
Only that it is necessary.
I don't think "society" has ever shifted from a theologically-based structure. Only WITHIN the theological structure.

therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
--- There are plenty of rational explanations (yellowcake) than can be available for use as justification for war. Loss of Theology would not be an end to war; not even an end to unjust war.

It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds.
--If abortion is only contested on based of "value of life" in and of itself, and if that is only Theological in origin, then what's the problem with war. If loss of Theology brings a loss of unquestioned value of life, then there's no need to contend against war, is there?

...The argument is that there are multiple opinions about what rationale would emerge. That fact there there is debate proves that point. The only point that is proven by debate is that there are multiple opinions.

MaxWilder should probably listen to some more things if that’s the dumbest thing you’ve heard. I’ve said dumber things than that since my last comment!

You’re arguing atheism. I’m arguing Sam Harris notion that he is compelled to fight against “ascendant ignorance”. That theological ignorance is hindering the better use of society’s energy to solve greater problems.

Harris:“It seems to be a moral and intellectual necessity for me to…argue against ascendant ignorance.”

Harris:“we don’t spend the same kind of emotional energy on nuclear proliferation that we spend on abortion and gay marriage.

Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.

If society stopped using Theological reasoning to determine social issues and began using rational reasoning, there’s no guarantee that the world would be a better place. Historically, society has resisted rational reasoning. So giving up theology would not necessarily lead to an ascendance in rational reasoning. Arguing against theism and for rational reasoning is not the same thing. Sam Harris claims that the use of “emotional energy” could be better allocated, but doesn’t present how a loss of theism would produce this outcome.

>> ^cindercone:
And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.


The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

Objectively viewing the worldview of ourselves and the worldview of others or of an "Objective Worldview" as an ideal, should permit us to refrain from using terms like:
"arrogant" The ego assures that we are all "confident" in our own belief, and we should assume that all others are too. No need to cast judgment labels here.

An atheist dosn't "doubt" or "doubt so strongly" that God exists. He believes that God does not exist. He is not convinced by the "proof" that is sufficient to others.

[Where as the atheist viewpoint is simply:
"None of these seems like good enough reasons to believe anything."]

Sam Harris takes that statement one step further.
For him it is his moral imperative to propose that "none of these ARE good enough reasons to believe anything." and he feels compelled to confront those for whom they are good enough reasons.

Regarding "Dogma"
Much like "stereotypes", Dogma is simply an extension of the human intellectual structure. We learn to associate, like many animals, but the ability to infer yet unconfirmed associations is what makes human intelligence unique. "Stereotypes" and "dogma" are terms used to described inferred associations that have been historically responsible for significant social structuring throughout humanity. Only in recent centuries, has man become empowered to survive the type of social "cleansing" that has always occurred, and thereby live to name and decry stereotyping, and its associated Dogma.
To decry religious dogma is to portend rational dogma. Neither can be proven or proven false. So since we live in a religious world, the greater threat comes from the rational dogmatic faction.

This is why Sam Harris is his own best argument.
If he rallies against theism, and therefore, religion because of the ills, that so often following its practice, then he must accept the ills that would come to pass if the theist world were to become atheist, and its entire social and moral structure were to fail.
Surely, the result would be disastrous. And if you doubt the assumption I made just there, then your doubt proves its validity.

1. "plant"-animal hybrid reference is appropriate because it is the energy pathways being discussed, not the food source.

2. Photosynthesizing humans may have evolved. but they would have been so appetizing in appearance and delicious, that they would have been eaten into extinction by the carnivorous humans before they ever left a fossil record.

3. i think they should study this to see if through reverse-engineering, they can learn to graft discarded human fetal arms onto apple trees, and thereby grow trees that can pick their own apples! Just like in the Munchkinland suburbs!