sam harris is opposed to religious dogma..check.
thats a fight i have been waging for 20 yrs.
then he goes on to say that atheism is not a belief system,yet in the end of the discussion talks about changing people in the intelligencia's belief system that is religiously based,into something that resembles his own.
thats called proselytizing and not a little hypocritical.
his argument is with dogma and doctrine,and i do not have a problem with that at all.
he just uses contradictory logic too much for my tastes.

sam harris is opposed to religious dogma..check.
thats a fight i have been waging for 20 yrs.
then he goes on to say that atheism is not a belief system,yet in the end of the discussion talks about changing people in the intelligencia's belief system that is religiously based,into something that resembles his own.
thats called proselytizing and not a little hypocritical.
his argument is with dogma and doctrine,and i do not have a problem with that at all.
he just uses contradictory logic too much for my tastes.

Atheism is not a belief-system, no, but that doesnt mean Sam Harris (or any other atheists) "don't believe in anything" That was part of the point. You can still believe, for instance that reason, science and evidence-based reasoning should always come before faith-based "reasoning", and that people who subscribe to iron age mythology are probably making a big mistake. In a sense that is perhaps proselytizing, yes, but not necessarily in a bad way. Imagine, for instance you were to come to a primitive island where they threw virgins into the volcano every full moon, would attempts to persuade people to stop this horrible practice be "dogmatic" or "proselytizing"?

We atheists are also vocal opponents of childhood indoctrination and threats of death on conversion, brainwashing and so on, but that doesnt mean you are never allowed to try to change someones mind with some effort. To call this hypocritical is in my opinion like saying you should despise all forms of work because you think slavery is wrong.

then call it what it is..agnostic.
which literal translation means "not-knowing".
i am not attacking sam harris's premise.
it's his execution that is lacking.

ok,let me try it this way.
i am a man of faith.nothing you say or do will change that.
the only problem you would ever have with me is if i tried to convince you my faith should be yours also.
but i never try.i never attempt to impose my belief on you.
that by itself should suffice,but what if i am a reputable scientist?
would you feel obligated to help me see the light of reason?
would the fact i am a man a faith color or cloud my theories and conclusions in your eyes?
could you still be objective about my work knowing i had a belief system entirely different from your own?
or would you villify my work as false and unreasonable due to the fact i was a man of faith?
make it your mission to help me see reason,see the light of logic and abandon my silly,childish ways?
what tools would you use to accomplish that goal?
there is a name for that.
we call them evangelicals.
truth is a relative perception.
i agree with sam harris on many things,but when militant atheists use the same tools of the very entity they abhor,they become the thing they despise.
narrow and close-minded.
atheists core problem is with dogma and the church.as it should be,these are tangible texts,documents and written addendums.
they should be debated and argued ad nauseum,and all contradictory points should be brought to light for the hypocritical nonsense they are.
there is honor is rebuking a doctrinal system that stunts the imagination and excretes fear.
but to be just as absolute in righteousness as a fundamentalists.
can breed the same stagnation of mind as any biblical fundamentalist.
any form of absolutist thinking is dangerous,not only for the individual but for society as a whole.which is what i believe atheists are against,but so are people of faith against.
we have been tolerant long enough,and while we slept,holding our philosophy of tolerance and understanding,those with an agenda using dogma and doctrine have exploited the weak and ill educated to foment a massive fundamentalist movement.
based on bad theology and even worse theosophy.
we all need to stand against that,because if we dont we may find ourselves in another "dark ages".
this,in my opinion,is the real crux for atheists.
it is the same crux for many people of faith.
do you think a person of faith,who is not a fundamentalist, can look at the "creation museum" and not cringe when they see jesus riding a dinosaur?
it is preposterous and silly and not a little frightening that 30% of america believe that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.
but that is the charlatans,the used car salesmen of salvation abusing the fear,and ignorance to perpetuate their own devices.
atheists see that,but so do people of faith.
dr kenneth miller of brown university destroyed the latest I.D and creationists attempt to put creationism into the science class.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Is-Hearing-Both-Sides-Fair
he is a roman catholic.
my point to all this is simple.
call it what it really is=agnostic.
because when it comes right down to it,
you dont know,and neither do i.
and as long as i am not imposing my beliefs on you,nor you me.
there should never be a problem.
the real problem is fundamentalism and the manipulation of religious dogma to influence and control the weak and ill educated to perpetuate a system of papal dominance that lost its relevance a long time ago.
in that respect,we are the same.

Enoch, it's not in your interests to type in an unprofessional typing style. It distracts from your message and implies you're not considerate of the people reading your message.

So here's my beef with that:

Person A: I believe there is a magical pony that I can pray to and he makes my life better and has a plan for me ! The first magical pony wrote it in this old book thousands of years ago; it's true !

Person B: I have no evidence that expressly disproves the existence of a magical pony, so I must be agnostic when it comes to the magical pony.

It just seems like intellectual cowardice to say "by definition I have to be agnostic" when confronted with ridiculous belief systems. It's perfectly rational to see the multitude of contradictory and idiotic notions of a whole range of beliefs, their obvious relevance to their historical period, and the laundry list of similiarities in their mythologies, and come to the conclusion that God is a man-made fiction. It simply is not equally rational to just pick one of those said beliefs and expect to be treated on equal footing.

That said, I know there are plenty of reasonable, intelligent, religious folks out there who get angry as well. However, like atheists, I think they are in a vast minority, and unlike atheists, they have something to lose when arguing against it.

"would the fact i am a man a faith color or cloud my theories and conclusions in your eyes?
could you still be objective about my work knowing i had a belief system entirely different from your own?"

Yes and yes. Luckily the scientific method will weed out your theories if they are biased by your belief system. If your theories are biased every time, you will not be a successful scientist.

>> ^chilaxe:
Enoch, it's not in your interests to type in an unprofessional typing style. It distracts from your message and implies you're not considerate of the people reading your message.


i am not a professional writer,as those who have read my comments know.
but if someone is offended by my comment,it was not my intention to do so.

Surely there must be something wrong with enoch's brain.

(I'm sorry if you actually are mentally challenged or something.)

Sam Harris is hot. Though he should wear a tie with his suit.

>> ^enoch:
i am not a professional writer,as those who have read my comments know.
but if someone is offended by my comment,it was not my intention to do so.


I don't think anyone finds you offensive; it's just that your punctuation is inconsistent and, for some reason, you make each sentence its own paragraph. It makes it a little difficult to read.

It's like trying to read one of westy's comments except you usually have something worthwhile to say.

Enoch,

I'm going to approach this as logically and without emotion, so when you read this, think Spock.

I understand your conclusion in your long post but I find it to be fundamentally false due to your premises being products of misunderstanding the term and qualities of "atheist".

Here are three unique statements to ponder. "There are no gods." "I don't believe that there are any gods." "We can't know if there are any gods."

Which one of those three best describe something that a purely atheistic person would say, and which would best describe what a purely agnostic person would say?

.
.
.

The correct answer is that a purely atheistic person would say "I don't believe that there are any gods" and that a purely agnostic person would say "We can't know if there are any gods".

The reason why neither are the first statement is because a purely atheistic person does not make any positive claims to the non-existence of any gods, a purely atheistic person an only make the statement that they do no believe in any gods. In this sense, someone can be both atheistic and agnostic in what they understand.

If anyone ever flat out says "There are no gods", they aren't just an atheist. I don't know what the term is for someone who makes the positive claim for there are absolutely absolutely no gods but it certainly isn't "atheist"; i don't even know if that term exists.

You know, someone should invent that word, it would clear up a lot of misconceptions.

Your rant seems to be littered with misconceptions about the terms of atheism and about what, in your mind, atheists are claiming. I just want to clear that up. I think that once you understand that purely atheistic people do not make any positive claims to the existence or non-existence of something, you'll understand that someone can state that they don't have any god beliefs -and- that we don't know what claims can be true, that people can be both atheistic and agnostic without containing contradicting thoughts.

my exhusband was/is severely mentally ill. when all else failed, one of his doctors recommended going to church. at that point we would have done anything . she recommended a church that catered to punk rockish young adults, which i suppose we were. so..... we went. they were all very nice of course, the church was called "deliverance" and we had to make jokes about how fucking creepy that is. it was in a dead, run down shopping center from the early 80s. it looked like a tattoo studio from the outside, with tattoo'd up skateboarding young punks seemingly loitering outside. at 21 and 29 we were probably the oldest people there.

sooo.... the pastor comes out. the sermon that day is about raising the dead. and how if jesus could do it and he was a man, then we could do it too!!! everyones homework was to heal the sick and raise the dead. FOCUS ALL YOUR ENERGY ON RAISING THE DEAD!!!!!!! then he played a 45 minute long guitar solo which made all the kids raise their arms or rock back and forth on the floor. also everyone HAD to give all their money, if they didnt raise $10,000 that week the church would be shut down, so give all your money then go home and get money from your parents.

soooooo we were of course highly fucking offended by everything that went on there. and besides that, a medical doctor prescribed a church sermon about raising the dead to mental patient with psychotic features. WTF?!?! i wont even get into all the hundreds of ways that could have gone terribly wrong.
luckily my husband hated religion even more than i do and knew damn well that was 100% bullshit and not license to go on a fucking zombie hunt with his machete or something.

something is terribly wrong.

I have to make an addendum to my last reply to Enoch.

All people who make the claim "god does not exist" are atheists technically
All people who make the claim "we cant know if god exists but I doubt all of it", are also atheists.
All people who make the claim "we can't know if god exists but I believe this one" are either theists or deists (depending on the claim).
All people who simply say "I don't believe" are also atheists.

This is to say that the claim "there are no gods", and the statement "I don't believe in any gods" are not the same yet both people, due to their lack of belief in gods are both technically atheists.

I say this because it's important to note that being atheistic in your beliefs doesn't require anyone to make the claim that there are no gods. Atheism is not a belief structure because it does not define what is or is not, it's simply a position taken to a presented claim.

ps. i really wish atheism would just go fucking define itself already so all you pretentious jerk offs would quit over analyzing and arguing its position or lack of position.

I would like to add to and refine IAmTheBlurr's comments.

I haven't thought about this specific point much, but it does seem reasonable to say that atheism is not a belief system. This would mean that, in addition to the possible atheistic comments Blurr listed above, we could add "Huh? A god? What's that?". That is, a person who had never been exposed to any supernatural idea would also be an atheist. This is the point that Sam Harris is trying to make--that atheism is the default state of a mind. I suppose this means that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, although agnosticism has the additional connotation of "and I don't care".

Incidentally, it is not the case that nothing can be said about god's existence. When it comes to considering the veracity of claims, the notion that we can only say "true", "false", or "I don't know" is an oversimplification. Instead, every claim exists on scale from 0% to 100% probability of being true. The only things that exist at 0% are those that are logically impossible, and the only things that exist at 100% are those which are a logical necessity; any claim which depends on "facts" is somewhere between, but not including, 0% and 100%. A 0% claim would be "I am standing 15 feet to my right"--a self contradiction; a 100% claim would be "I am right here". "I am on Pluto having tea with green Martians" depends on facts--observations, measurements, etc--so it can not be 0% or 100%, but we can easily imagine it's so close to 0% that in a casual conversation we would say it's impossible.

There are various definitions for "god". People learn the meanings of words not by some Matrix-like scenario where a perfect copy of the information is transferred into their brains, but by how they see the words used and not used in their everyday experiences. Every individual has a unique set of experiences, so everybody has unique definitions for every word they know. This, by the way, means it is important to define relevant words when having a serious conversation; this is done in both science and law. Any definition that is self contradictory has a 0% probability of being true. We all have contradictory beliefs; it's impossible to review every idea you've ever had every time you form a new idea. A difference between a rational person and an irrational one is that the rational person is willing to reevaluate his ideas when the contradictions are brought to his conscious attention. Any god whose entire definition is "all loving, all knowing, all powerful" is arguably self contradictory if you accept disease/war/etc as true facts.

Any god definition which contradicts facts that are sufficiently close to 100%, and which has no other facts in its favor(I happen to know of no supernatural god definition with facts in its favor) will be comparatively close to 0%. So, a god that depends on creationism is so close to 0% that in casual conversation we would say such a god is "batshit lunacy". This is the case for the god defined by the Bible, as a whole, as well as those of the Torah, Koran, and most other religions.

Even if you have a god definition that is not self contradictory, and has no facts for or against it, its probability of being true will be closer to 0% than 100%. One line of reasoning works like the following. The number of possible propositions a person could make, alternatively the sea of ideas that are either true or false, is infinite. But the number of things that are true is finite(if you don't want to buy that, then "there are an infinite number of false variations of each true statement" works as well). Thus, a proposition with no facts for or against it is essentially just a random item on this list of all possible propositions, which contains more falsehoods than truths, and so the proposition is most likely false. People have intuited this on their own and it shows up in all sorts of contexts, such as the legal system's presumption of innocence.

Based on all the above, most people's idea of god is so close to 0% it's as false as the idea that the moon is made of cheese.

Full disclosure: I consider myself an atheist. I think that religion is untrue, inherently dangerous, actively harmful to individuals and society, is child abuse, and needs to be eradicated.

About two thirds of cats have a fondness for catnip. While they generally don't consume it, they will often roll in it, paw at it, and occasionally chew on it. The effect is usually relatively short, lasting for only a few minutes. After two hours, susceptible cats gain interest again.

Same goes for theism. Atheism is "lack of belief in a intervening God". Nothing more.

>> ^peggedbea:
ps. i really wish atheism would just go fucking define itself already so all you pretentious jerk offs would quit over analyzing and arguing its position or lack of position.

Define god. Then you'll have the definition of the thing I don't believe in.

http://i25.tinypic.com/jq0ozn.jpg
http://i25.tinypic.com/2ypm51u.jpg

would the fact i am a man a faith color or cloud my theories and conclusions in your eyes?
could you still be objective about my work knowing i had a belief system entirely different from your own?
or would you villify my work as false and unreasonable due to the fact i was a man of faith?
make it your mission to help me see reason,see the light of logic and abandon my silly,childish ways?

I think I'll let Sam Harris speak for himself, and link you this massive humiliation of Francis Collins, which he wrote a few weeks ago: http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/

I don't have a problem with Collins (or Miller, or any other religious scientists) being religious, or Christians, the problem only comes when the religion so clearly clouds peoples judgments on scientific or political issues. You could be the best scientist in the world AND wear magic Mormon underpants and a tinfoil hat while using all your money on dianetics counseling for all I care, as long as you somehow manage to maintain full scientific rigor and attitude in lectures, books and papers you do in your science. Its just that when you get down to it, neither this clownish behaviour or just regular christianity is REALLY compatible with a scientific approach. As much as I admire Miller and his butchering of creationism, he gets really dizzy when he actually tries to defend his god. In short: Yes, you can be both a great scientist and religious, but its sort of like being a great husband and occasionally cheat on your wife.

I just want to know what Zeus has to say about all of this.

Responding to 3 people here

>> ^gwiz665:
Same goes for theism. Atheism is "lack of belief in a intervening God". Nothing more.

I don't believe that "Intervening" is a specific prerequisite.


>> ^peggedbea:
ps. i really wish atheism would just go fucking define itself already so all you pretentious jerk offs would quit over analyzing and arguing its position or lack of position.

It has been defined, the problem is that non-atheists (and some atheists) people keep adding shit to it that isn't there. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] (Stolen from Wikipedia)

>> ^sineral:
...Incidentally, it is not the case that nothing can be said about god's existence. When it comes to considering the veracity of claims, the notion that we can only say "true", "false", or "I don't know" is an oversimplification. Instead, every claim exists on scale from 0% to 100% probability of being true. The only things that exist at 0% are those that are logically impossible, and the only things that exist at 100% are those which are a logical necessity; any claim which depends on "facts" is somewhere between, but not including, 0% and 100%. A 0% claim would be "I am standing 15 feet to my right"--a self contradiction; a 100% claim would be "I am right here". "I am on Pluto having tea with green Martians" depends on facts--observations, measurements, etc--so it can not be 0% or 100%, but we can easily imagine it's so close to 0% that in a casual conversation we would say it's impossible.

I'm very glad that you put it into those words using percentages (they're so damn effective!) I use them all the time normally so good on ya for using them.

It really is about the believability of the claim.

"I think I'll let Sam Harris speak for himself, and link you this massive humiliation of Francis Collins, which he wrote a few weeks ago: http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/"

That's astounding that Francis Collins can make those magical fairy-land statements listed in that article and be as successful as he is. From those quotes, it's clear he doesn't even understand the basic concepts underlying science, such as evidence and the 'burden of proof.'

We live in a big world, but it's not big enough. There apparently weren't any scientists who were charismatic enough and talented enough at administration to outcompete a fairy-believer like him for his new job as the head of the National Institutes of Health.

If politicians want someone who's religion-friendly for that position, then potential candidates must, as a matter of good PR and marketing, make themselves religion-friendly.

>> ^thinker247:
I just want to know what Zeus has to say about all of this.


Eh, he doesn't give a crap, him and Odin are too busy trying to get the Virgin Mary in a 3 way.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
Responding to 3 people here
>> ^gwiz665:
Same goes for theism. Atheism is "lack of belief in a intervening God". Nothing more.

I don't believe that "Intervening" is a specific prerequisite.

I can sort of agree on that. I saw it as a a-theism, theism meaning the belief in an intervening god. I suppose a-deism would be broader.

Atheism is just a small part in a much larger anti-supernaturalism, for me.

^That sounds right... in practice, it's not so much that "atheists" are against any one of the thousands of gods/religious doctrines (such as theism), but that they're just proponents of evidenced thought with minimized reliance on cognitive biases.

"Rationalists" or "nonsupernaturalists" seems to me to be a much more accurate term than "atheists."

I think his most important point is about reason: There are good ideas, and bad ideas. And the bad ideas with a certain religious basis are given a good measure of immunity.

I hope someone starts the "Church of Rationality" soon, so we Atheists can Martyr ourselves against the heretic Theists.

What chills me as I watch the video is Bill Maher's comments about what is to be done with these people. I'm not one to rush to Nazism or any other group that saw a purge as necessary to ensure purity of ideology, but the logical consequence of what he's asking is that we remove from positions of responsibility those people who show such 'mental defects'. An exemplar of the atheistic ideal is Michael Shermer who, in Why People Believe Weird Things, states that any atheist who doesn't embrace Spinoza's Dictum with both hands isn't worth a mote of intellectual salt. Harris and Dawkins both exhibit extreme exasperation at having to prove the same things over and over and over in debate after debate. Their result, thus, is to mock those who could believe such things. Harris goes so far as to accuse more liberal-minded believers of allowing fertile ground for the more dangerous ideologies to take root. When it comes to his arguments about a modern Christian not believing in Zeus or Vishnu, I think he's missing a bigger picture. I don't think a modern Christian would 'believe' in the G-d of the disciples, or the God of Abraham. He might see the clear chain, and assume that he does, but to worship that God was very different from the one he goes to every Sunday (or not). The idea of God has evolved with human culture. At times I fear that the two are inseparable. Had we the capacity to wipe out all religious thought, we would not find ourselves in a Dawkinsian utopia, but in a world oddly devoid of certain stabilizing influences. I do not think we get our moral sense entirely from religion, but it certainly helps.

Put another way--it is often said that over 50% of Americans believe in a 6,000 year old earth. This doesn't trouble me as much as it probably should, but I take great comfort in knowing that if I were to take one of these 50% of Americans to the top of a skyscraper and tell them, "Jump off. The God of Abraham will _totally_ catch you," he'll look at me as if I were insane, ESPECIALLY if I said, "No, seriously. He just told me.*" The great revolution in human culture occurred when we swapped learning things through revelation for learning things through deduction. If something is difficult to deduce, then people will fall back on the 'revealed' which is pretty much anything anecdotal. Put another way, tell someone that there are a billion billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell the same person that the paint on a park bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure. Evolution as a metaconcept is hard to deduce, but people get that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Why can't they bridge the distance? If I knew the answer to that, then there wouldn't be a distance.

* And yes, it is possible with the right listener and the right speaker to find someone willing to jump...but we don't want them breeding anyways, do we? Evolution cleans up its own messes.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gwiz665.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chtierna.

Awarding rasch187 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead dead deadski

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by spoco2.

Awarding BoneRemake with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.