I like Sam Harris.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Only a fool can believe that GOD does not exist. In this day of age there are a lot of fools walking around.

Where atheism dips into dogma isn't at its core belief, but in how atheists prejudge and reject ideas that come from religions. Just because the Christian god is a myth doesn't mean that there's no value to silent personal reflection, participating in local community events, a personal relationship to an impersonal world, and belief in extra-physical connectedness between living things.

You don't have to practice or believe any of these things, but just don't deny them all and claim science on your side. Real science closes very few doors. Science doesn't say "what we can't prove doesn't exist"; science says "what we can disprove doesn't exist." That's the distinction in which I find many atheists to be on the wrong side.

> ^bobknight33:
Only a fool can believe that GOD does not exist. In this day of age there are a lot of fools walking around.



Agreed. Thor does not approve of non-believers.


> ^Lodurr:
Where atheism dips into dogma isn't at its core belief, but in how atheists prejudge and reject ideas that come from religions.

You don't have to practice or believe any of these things, but just don't deny them all and claim science on your side.




There is a difference in believing something may exist and believing that it does exist. Gods may exist, but we have no idea what they would be like, or how many there are. Believing any particular god does exist is based on emotion, not evidence.

Personal reflection, community, and relationships are all wonderful things, but they are not bound to religion. You don't have to be a Christian or Hindu to help others and learn more about yourself. Superstition is not required for interpersonal relationships.

Many atheists do have a definite belief that no god(s) exist. Such a belief is also a logical fallacy because, as you stated, science cannot prove such a statement. Any definite belief for or against something that cannot be observed is basically "faith". One could rightly state that there is no evidence for the presence of gods, but it is incorrect to say that there is evidence disproving their existence.

*quality

I think he is one of the best voices out these trying to UNFREEZE atheism from its fundamentalism. It doesn't need to be this way, as he says. To be atheist, UNLIKE TO HAVE FAITH, is to be FUNDAMENTALLY UNCERTAIN!!!

Good show on this sift, friend.

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by griefer_queafer.

oops. and good show to you, too, Wiz.

>> ^Lodurr:
You don't have to practice or believe any of these things, but just don't deny them all and claim science on your side. Real science closes very few doors. Science doesn't say "what we can't prove doesn't exist"; science says "what we can disprove doesn't exist." That's the distinction in which I find many atheists to be on the wrong side.


you're right, science can not prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical higher being. But it can disprove various accounts depicted in the Bible (i.e. genesis), and the personal god that many theists believe in (i.e. one that answers prayers). So while we cannot invoke science to refute that Christ is our savior, we can use science to disprove many of Christianity's beliefs and dogma.

>> ^Psychologic:
Many atheists do have a definite belief that no god(s) exist. Such a belief is also a logical fallacy because, as you stated, science cannot prove such a statement. Any definite belief for or against something that cannot be observed is basically "faith".

As mentioned frequently on the sift, atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods, not the belief that there is no god. This is basis of Dr. Harris' claim that atheism, or the rejection of various gods, does not depend on dogma.

I think you'll find that very few atheists profess in a definite belief that no gods(s) exist. For example, Dawkins is a self described "de facto" atheist because there is very little probability that god(s) exist.

Personally, I'm an apathetic atheist because I believe that since god has no observable effects on the universe, the question of his/her/its existence is moot.

Sam Harris. The je ne sais quoi of his protestant, middlebrow, middle of the wrung face, makes my spine twitch and my nerves freeze.

>> ^Psychologic:
> it is incorrect to say that there is evidence disproving their existence.


Technically, yes. On the other hand, "God" is unlike Russell's orbiting teapot in an important sense: that if there was a god, the universe would probably be a very different place, and God's presence would presumably be pretty obvious. More like an elephant in a room than a teapot in space. So in that sense, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And while we yet have much left to explain, science has provided some amazingly accurate and powerful alternative answers to the mysteries formerly occupied by gods. A blind man cannot describe the room that well, and technically, he cannot even be certain that there is no elephant in it, but he can, by fumbling around in the dark, shed some light on what the room does contain, and that the elephant is nowhere to be found.

> ^mentality:
As mentioned frequently on the sift, atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods, not the belief that there is no god.
I think you'll find that very few atheists profess in a definite belief that no gods(s) exist.




"Atheism" has many assumed meanings. I've seen several self-proclaimed atheists on the sift, and elsewhere, say they believe no gods exist. It would be easier if we had a singular meaning for atheist, agnostic, etc, but people tend to apply their own definitions.

I suppose a definite belief against would be something like an "anti-theist", but given the ambiguity of labels it's often easier to address beliefs directly rather than the labels.

>> ^Psychologic:
"Atheism" has many assumed meanings. I've seen several self-proclaimed atheists on the sift, and elsewhere, say they believe no gods exist.



That would be the position of strong atheism.

>> ^Lodurr:
Science doesn't say "what we can't prove doesn't exist"; science says "what we can disprove doesn't exist." That's the distinction in which I find many atheists to be on the wrong side.

You are wrong, sir. It's "what we can prove exists". Science will never attempt to prove a negative. If a scientist told you he managed to disprove God, you would only change your own definition of God and say "A ha, science, you are the one who's wrong".

What you are doing is called Arguing from Ignorance, which basically means you maintain that something is true because no one proved it isn't.

If we were to actually debate the merits of religion, God and why your particular faith is the correct one, you would not be able to finish the argument without invoking either the "Because the Bible says so" or "God did it" arguments. In the place of the words "Bible" or "God" insert the names of your holy scripture and deity, as are relevant to your particular faith.