NationStates Jolt Archive

A few weeks ago I linked to (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507257) a great religious debate between Drs. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, which in turn led to an equally great discussion here.

Well, the other day I came across another excellent debate (http://jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris). This one came in the form of a series of letters between avowed atheist Sam Harris and Christian radio host Dennis Prager. Their articulate, in-depth correspondence is a great distillation of the issues at hand, and covers the most powerful arguments from both sides.

Their debate ends unsettled, as one might guess, but it's still a good intellectual exercise and a perfect introduction to the positions held by both sides of the argument.

It may be a bit too long to pick apart here (eight lengthy letters over the course of four days, plus commentary at the bottom), but I figured it would be good to share here nonetheless.

http://users.telenet.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Harris came across as very condescending and elitist in his responses, repeatedly emphasizing his "superior" intellectual capabilities and dismissing the beliefs of men like Francis Collins simply because they don't agree with his worldview. Just like Dawkins, he keeps choosing the worst and most violent excesses of the world's religions and associating religious people with them while simultaneously distancing atheism from its own murderers, tyrants and warmongers. It's disingenuous and logically flawed to do that and represents a big weakness in their argument.

He also keeps trying to hammer in the idea that religion is some kind of useful "delusion", which is completely and utterly untrue and represents another condescending view of theism from the militant atheist camp. And, for that matter, he solely attacks the Abrahamic religions and does not criticize any other beliefs (not to mention insulting pagans with his condescending "trash-heap of history" remark). The only real decent argument he made was that morality is not really dependent on belief in God, and that's hardly a damning indictment of theism. Hell, I could've told you that's correct and I'm moving theist as is.

Atheism is going to die out, or at least decline dramatically, if this is the best they can bring to the table. Harris' arguments were weak and most of them are centuries-old as is just like the theists' arguments. The difference is, the theists don't need to rely on those arguments to have belief, and that's a very powerful advantage especialyl considering that personal experience is not objectively logically valid but is valid for an individual's own beliefs.

Just like Dawkins, he keeps choosing the worst and most violent excesses of the world's religions and associating religious people with them while simultaneously distancing atheism from its own murderers, tyrants and warmongers.

Atheism is going to die out, or at least decline dramatically, if this is the best they can bring to the table.

Please name atheism's murderers and tyrants, I want to see any list you compile to compare with a list of theist murderers and tyrants.

Atheism die out? I don't think so, now that is no longer acceptable to persecute imprison, torture and execute atheists they are more and more coming out into the open. Europe is fast becoming an atheist majority (China long ago) another 20 years and it will be done. Theists are declining in numbers at a rate of 1% per year in the USA, it can't be stopped, education will be the end of ignorance and theism. Any claim you make to the contrary just goes against reality and is in error.

http://users.telenet.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Get used to it. It has been going on for milleniums.

Just like Dawkins, he keeps choosing the worst and most violent excesses of the world's religions and associating religious people with them while simultaneously distancing atheism from its own murderers, tyrants and warmongers. It's disingenuous and logically flawed to do that and represents a big weakness in their argument.

It is not as logically flawed as you think. True there are violent atheists as much as their are violent theists. The difference though, the very very big difference, is that very few people have ever murdered in the name of atheism.

It is not as logically flawed as you think. True there are violent atheists as much as their are violent theists. The difference though, the very very big difference, is that very few people have ever murdered in the name of atheism.

That is a weird point because I would imagine that many theists would believe that people who have murdered other people (without their sense of a justified reason) would be people who did not have God in their heart and in that sense, did not believe in God. I don't disagree with you. I just think that that is what many theists would believe.

Please name atheism's murderers and tyrants, I want to see any list you compile to compare with a list of theist murderers and tyrants.

Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Alexander Lukashenko, and

That's hundreds of millions of people killed, millions inprisoned, and over a billion enslaved under repressive and brutal regimes. And all that in one century...religion's been around for 10,000.

Atheism die out? I don't think so, now that is no longer acceptable to persecute imprison, torture and execute atheists they are more and more coming out into the open. Europe is fast becoming an atheist majority (China long ago) another 20 years and it will be done. Theists are declining in numbers at a rate of 1% per year in the USA, it can't be stopped, education will be the end of ignorance and theism. Any claim you make to the contrary just goes against reality and is in error.

Theism isn't dying, to the least of my knowledge. Organized religion in the US may be fading, but belief in general isn't. Most people are simply following a more personal spirituality rather than rejecting belief outright.

And atheism is fading in a lot of places. The former Soviet and Eastern blocs have seen a revival of religious belief and practice since the collapse of Communism, and nations like China have seen similar growth since restrictions have been relaxed. Agnosticism and nontheism are growing in Europe and the US, but actual explicit atheism is dying out or at least stagnating.

Religious folks and secular folks have their ups and downs. I just figure that being decent towards people on an individual basis is a good policy. It's not perfect, but it's better than lumping people together.

It is not as logically flawed as you think. True there are violent atheists as much as their are violent theists. The difference though, the very very big difference, is that very few people have ever murdered in the name of atheism.

All of the purges committed by the atheist dictators were done because they saw religion as a threat to the stability and dominance of the party. A crime committed against religion by an atheist regime is still attributable to atheism, if we use Harris' logic. They evangelized atheism in their countries with the direct intent of redirecting people towards the party, and the religious people they murdered were killed for the purpose both of eliminating opponents to the party but to make sure atheism was the sole, or at least dominant, belief in the country.

It's not coincidental that militantly atheist leaders like Stalin, Kim-Jong Il, or Mao Zedong crafted personality cults to raise themselves to god-like status. They wanted to kill religious belief to ensure that they remained in power.

Harris came across as very condescending and elitist in his responses, repeatedly emphasizing his "superior" intellectual capabilities and dismissing the beliefs of men like Francis Collins simply because they don't agree with his worldview.

Only as much as Prager used Collins' academic credentials as proof that he must have good reason to believe in God. And you'll find christians (especially in the US) are far more intolerant of athiests than the other way round.

Just like Dawkins, he keeps choosing the worst and most violent excesses of the world's religions and associating religious people with them while simultaneously distancing atheism from its own murderers, tyrants and warmongers. It's disingenuous and logically flawed to do that and represents a big weakness in their argument.

Only as much as Prager refers to Mao and Stalin as examples of what athiesm causes. Again much violence (i wont go as far as to say 'most') is caused because of religion while athiest murderers/tyrants do not do it because they are athiests and do not declare crusades or jihads in the name of athiesm.

He also keeps trying to hammer in the idea that religion is some kind of useful "delusion", which is completely and utterly untrue and represents another condescending view of theism from the militant atheist camp. And, for that matter, he solely attacks the Abrahamic religions and does not criticize any other beliefs (not to mention insulting pagans with his condescending "trash-heap of history" remark).

No, he dismisses religion as "both false and dangerous".
Yes he solely attacks the Abrahamic religions because they are the only ones relevant, Prager already dismissed others as rubbish.

"But I will respond to one now—your argument that Prager’s or Collins’s God is in the same intellectual league as belief in Zeus. Did anyone studying the human genome ever argue for Zeus? What are you talking about?"

The only real decent argument he made was that morality is not really dependent on belief in God, and that's hardly a damning indictment of theism. Hell, I could've told you that's correct and I'm moving theist as is.

Atheism is going to die out, or at least decline dramatically, if this is the best they can bring to the table. Harris' arguments were weak and most of them are centuries-old as is just like the theists' arguments. The difference is, the theists don't need to rely on those arguments to have belief, and that's a very powerful advantage especialyl considering that personal experience is not objectively logically valid but is valid for an individual's own beliefs.

First we all believed in many gods (Polytheism) then most of us started to believe in one god (Monotheism), so tell me, what is the next step?

Socialist Pyrates more-a-less sums up my answers to your last points

Please name atheism's murderers and tyrants, I want to see any list you compile to compare with a list of theist murderers and tyrants.

Atheism die out? I don't think so, now that is no longer acceptable to persecute imprison, torture and execute atheists they are more and more coming out into the open. Europe is fast becoming an atheist majority (China long ago) another 20 years and it will be done. Theists are declining in numbers at a rate of 1% per year in the USA, it can't be stopped, education will be the end of ignorance and theism. Any claim you make to the contrary just goes against reality and is in error.

First we all believed in many gods (Polytheism) then most of us started to believe in one god (Monotheism), so tell me, what is the next step?

The number of gods is irrelevant, the belief is still there and is unchanged.

No religious debate is excellent.

Vetalia, ole' sport, it depends. Were they killed because Stalin etc. were atheists? Or were they just killed by atheists?

That makes all the difference in the

Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Alexander Lukashenko, and

That's hundreds of millions of people killed, millions inprisoned, and over a billion enslaved under repressive and brutal regimes. And all that in one century...religion's been around for 10,000.

And? What about Hitler? Hussein? Bush? Go to Baghdad and tell me that religion doesnt cause wide-spread death.
Theists have killed millions too, and lets not forget the billions of people dying because the fundies think its wrong to tax the rich and give to the starving.

Theism isn't dying, to the least of my knowledge. Organized religion in the US may be fading, but belief in general isn't. Most people are simply following a more personal spirituality rather than rejecting belief outright.

Hey, as organised religion dies, so does the means to indoctrinate the young into believing something they might otherwise not.

And atheism is fading in a lot of places. The former Soviet and Eastern blocs have seen a revival of religious belief and practice since the collapse of Communism, and nations like China have seen similar growth since restrictions have been relaxed. Agnosticism and nontheism are growing in Europe and the US, but actual explicit atheism is dying out or at least stagnating.

So, thiesm is dying, but so is atheism? I'd be very suprised if that was true, care to pull out some statistics on this?

All of the purges committed by the atheist dictators were done because they saw religion as a threat to the stability and dominance of the party. A crime committed against religion by an atheist regime is still attributable to atheism, if we use Harris' logic. They evangelized atheism in their countries with the direct intent of redirecting people towards the party, and the religious people they murdered were killed for the purpose both of eliminating opponents to the party but to make sure atheism was the sole, or at least dominant, belief in the country.

It's not coincidental that militantly atheist leaders like Stalin, Kim-Jong Il, or Mao Zedong crafted personality cults to raise themselves to god-like status. They wanted to kill religious belief to ensure that they remained in power.

Stalin could easily be substituted with a theist leader, Hitler for example, he created a personality cult, but he also supported religion, they're not mutually exclusive

Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Alexander Lukashenko, and


partial list of theists dictators and war criminals... Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, GWB Jr, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Pinochet, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Jorge Rafael Videla , Milosevic, Idi Amin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein,Ferdinand Marcos I could go but the list is endless, I won't even begin trying to back the 10,000 yrs you suggest


hundreds of millions of people killed, millions inprisoned, and over a billion enslaved under repressive and brutal regimes.

-100's of millions killed:rolleyes: if you get 2-30million out of that bunch I'd be surprised.

Theism isn't dying, to the least of my knowledge. Organized religion in the US may be fading, but belief in general isn't. Most people are simply following a more personal spirituality rather than rejecting belief outright.

organized religion goes first, 2nd non practicing fallout, 3rd agnostics... final step atheists, it's the normal pattern

And atheism is fading in a lot of places. The former Soviet and Eastern blocs have seen a revival of religious belief and practice since the collapse of Communism, and nations like China have seen similar growth since restrictions have been relaxed.

revival? just those who were theists already..fact is most Russians have never attended a church service

China, no China has been atheist for centuries Buddhism is a way of life not a belief in a deity, Christians and Muslims make up a very tiny percentage of china's population.

Agnosticism and nontheism are growing in Europe and the US, but actual explicit atheism is dying out or at least stagnating.

I suggest you do a search, atheism is the dominant belief in more than few Euro countries(as much as 80%) and the single largest group in many others. I could give you links but if you want to learn you'll do it yourself....but I sense that you're not interested in knowing the facts.

The number of gods is irrelevant, the belief is still there and is unchanged.

Sorry, but its not, 500 years ago virtually everyone in europe was a theist, be it catholic, pagan or possibly norse, and now a lot of europe is athiest.

And lets not even go into "unchanged", whatever Jesus actually preached has been corrupted many times over, as Harris said:

"Who decides what is good in the Good Book? Answer: We do. Our moral intuitions are still primary. It makes absolutely no sense, therefore, to think that we get our basic sense of right and wrong out of scripture"

-100's of millions killed:rolleyes: if you get 2-30million out of that bunch I'd be surprised.


Mao could have killed up to 72 million in the Great Leap Forward alone:


- Whatever the case, the Great Leap Forward led to millions of deaths in China.

the figure was around 30 million. Various other sources have put the figure between 20 and 72 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao#Great_Leap_Forward

Stalin killed up to 30 million:

a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million. Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a figure of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest,[25] meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million. Others, however

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#The_purges

Pol-Pot & the Khmer Rouge are estimated to have killed 3-7 million.

Estimates of the number of dead range from 1.5 to 3 million out of a population of around 7 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

All of the purges committed by the atheist dictators were done because they saw religion as a threat to the stability and dominance of the party. A crime committed against religion by an atheist regime is still attributable to atheism, if we use Harris' logic. They evangelized atheism in their countries with the direct intent of redirecting people towards the party, and the religious people they murdered were killed for the purpose both of eliminating opponents to the party but to make sure atheism was the sole, or at least dominant, belief in the country.

It's not coincidental that militantly atheist leaders like Stalin, Kim-Jong Il, or Mao Zedong crafted personality cults to raise themselves to god-like status. They wanted to kill religious belief to ensure that they remained in power.

In the day(late 19th early 20th century) religion was seen as the opiate of the masses as the church was very much aligned with the dictators, ruling class hierarchy and Royalty....early communists saw the church as the enemy keeping the working class enslaved, which in many cases was correct....for early communists it was a life and death struggle with the ruling class, it was either liberation or death for them.....they had been oppressed for centuries and the church assisted in that......

as for personality cults...I can't help but notice that the USA lifts every President to near Godlike status, like totalitarian regimes everywhere the leaders face smiles down on you in every public office.....recently I heard a Fox news reporter calling Hugo Chavez's UN speech critical of GWB as "Blasphemous"...only one incident but it shows how ridiculous some Americans are in their worship of an elected official......our elected officials get no such respect here, they're men and we kick their arses out when we get tired of them......

as for personality cults...I can't help but notice that the USA lifts every President to near Godlike status, like totalitarian regimes everywhere the leaders face smiles down on you in every public office.....recently I heard a Fox news reporter calling Hugo Chavez's UN speech critical of GWB as "Blasphemous"...only one incident but it shows how ridiculous some Americans are in their worship of an elected official......our elected officials get no such respect here, they're men and we kick their arses out when we get tired of them......

What are you smoking? The United States, far from treating elected officials like deities, ridicules and mocks our elected officials ad infinitum. I might refer you to The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, Political Cartoons, South Park, Family Guy...I mean, Christ dude. you've missed the mark by a mile. Fine, cite Fox News all you want, but you're not citing the mainstream, not by a mile.

All the same, Hugo Chavez made a speech that wasn't just "critical", it was rabid and psychotic, and he made a mockery of the institution of the United Nations by going on a raging tirade. Not since Khruschev's shoe banging has the United Nations been witness to such a temper tantrum. I don't know about you, but to us adults, it seemed like he was a raging ten year old on the playground, bitter that someone put a pebble in his shoe.

All this debate about whether mass-murderers were theists or atheists ignores the reasons for their purges. I think that Hitler's beliefs about a deity had as much to do with the Holocaust as Stalin's lack of belief in a deity had to do with Communist purges under his guidance. Their beliefs about gods and demons were ultimately irrelevant compared to their beliefs about race or loyalty to the state.

I don't really know exactly why people keep bringing up those specific examples, anyway. Religion produces saints and psychos, as does atheism. Why not just agree that neither theism or atheism is perfect and go on to issues more pertinent to the existence of gods?

Mao could have killed up to 72 million in the Great Leap Forward alone:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao#Great_Leap_Forward

Stalin killed up to 30 million:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#The_purges

Pol-Pot & the Khmer Rouge are estimated to have killed 3-7 million.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields


You get 109 million even using the highest estimates, but conservative estimates would put the number under 50 million
Also i notice that most of these "killings" were due to starvation, and lets not blame athiesm for that:rolleyes:

You get 109 million even using the highest estimates, but conservative estimates would put the number under 50 million
Also i notice that most of these "killings" were due to starvation, and lets not blame athiesm for that:rolleyes:

I wasn't blaming Atheism for that.

Also bear in mind that the numbers I posted are still above his "2-30 million" estimate, also take note that I only mentioned a few parts of Mao's and Stalin's Murderous regimes, I also have not mentioned the others that Vetalia originally posted. Also note Andaluciae's post below.

You get 109 million even using the highest estimates, but conservative estimates would put the number under 50 million
Also i notice that most of these "killings" were due to starvation, and lets not blame athiesm for that:rolleyes:

I think the use of these numbers are not to say atheism is evil, but to provide a counterpoint to atheists who say that religious types are evil and cite similar numbers.

I may be wrong on this, but I seriously doubt it.

Mao could have killed up to 72 million in the Great Leap Forward alone:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao#Great_Leap_Forward

Stalin killed up to 30 million:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#The_purges

Pol-Pot & the Khmer Rouge are estimated to have killed 3-7 million.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

72million in the Great leap forward? I could show another anti communist web site that gives a figure of 7.4 mill.....and many if not most of those were not murdered but starved to death...famine in China was common no matter who was in charge deaths in the millions was not uncommon....

30 million Stalin? -I've seen estimates from 16 to 60 million the most commonly accepted is 20mill again its an estimate and we'll never know the exact figure

Pol Pot and the "Decade of Genocide"1969-79. For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000 deaths. The Yale Genocide project gives higher estimates, about 1.5 million.In fact, no one knows.

Using Wikipedia for evidence is weak, it is considered an unacceptable source of info at university level because the info is edited by anyone with an a political axe to grind.

regardless a claim of 100's of millions is just silly, these were bad people but there is no need to exaggerate their crimes.

Total WW2 death toll is also in doubt, 30-60million, no way to know.......

72million in the Great leap forward? I could show another anti communist web site that gives a figure of 7.4 mill.....and many if not most of those were not murdered but starved to death...famine in China was common no matter who was in charge deaths in the millions was not uncommon....

30 million Stalin? -I've seen estimates from 16 to 60 million the most commonly accepted is 20mill again its an estimate and we'll never know the exact figure

Pol Pot and the "Decade of Genocide"1969-79. For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000 deaths. The Yale Genocide project gives higher estimates, about 1.5 million.In fact, no one knows.

Using Wikipedia for evidence is weak, it is considered an unacceptable source of info at university level because the info is edited by anyone with an a political axe to grind.

regardless a claim of 100's of millions is just silly, these were bad people but there is no need to exaggerate their crimes.

Total WW2 death toll is also in doubt, 30-60million, no way to know.......

Is it any small wonder that high death tolls and closed societies seem to go hand in hand?

Sorry, but its not, 500 years ago virtually everyone in europe was a theist, be it catholic, pagan or possibly norse, and now a lot of europe is athiest. Yes; that's called "revisionist history."

I wasn't blaming Atheism for that.

Also bear in mind that the numbers I posted are still above his "2-30 million" estimate, also take note that I only mentioned a few parts of Mao's and Stalin's Murderous regimes, I also have not mentioned the others that Vetalia originally posted. Also note Andaluciae's post below.

Yes, but if we dont call starvation a genocide delibrately committed by an immoral athiest regime, then i think we could probably put it at 25 million if that.

72million in the Great leap forward? I could show another anti communist web site that gives a figure of 7.4 mill.....and many if not most of those were not murdered but starved to death...famine in China was common no matter who was in charge deaths in the millions was not uncommon....

30 million Stalin? -I've seen estimates from 16 to 60 million the most commonly accepted is 20mill again its an estimate and we'll never know the exact figure

Pol Pot and the "Decade of Genocide"1969-79. For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000 deaths. The Yale Genocide project gives higher estimates, about 1.5 million.In fact, no one knows.

Using Wikipedia for evidence is weak, it is considered an unacceptable source of info at university level because the info is edited by anyone with an a political axe to grind.

regardless a claim of 100's of millions is just silly, these were bad people but there is no need to exaggerate their crimes.

Total WW2 death toll is also in doubt, 30-60million, no way to know.......

I think the 7.4 million is probably a bit low, but i think even the anti-communists here will agree that 72 million is a joke. And yes Mao and Stalin were bad, but lets not blow this out of proportion, you cant say athiesm convinced these people to kill millions, however you can very easily point out many massacres that religion was a driving force for.

It's amazing that we can have two pages of discussion and have no valid points made about the topic we're discussing. The number of people killed because of atheism or theism has nothing to do with whether either of them are correct beliefs or not. The number of people converting to either belief has nothing to do with the truth of the beliefs either. If we're going to have a discussion about beliefs let's talk about the beliefs and not the actions or numbers of their adherents.

It's amazing that we can have two pages of discussion and have no valid points made about the topic we're discussing. The number of people killed because of atheism or theism has nothing to do with whether either of them are correct beliefs or not. The number of people converting to either belief has nothing to do with the truth of the beliefs either. If we're going to have a discussion about beliefs let's talk about the beliefs and not the actions or numbers of their adherents.

88% of all violent criminals in NYC have eaten a McDonald's Cheeseburger at least once in their lifetime.

What are you smoking? The United States, far from treating elected officials like deities, ridicules and mocks our elected officials ad infinitum. I might refer you to The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, Political Cartoons, South Park, Family Guy...I mean, Christ dude. you've missed the mark by a mile. Fine, cite Fox News all you want, but you're not citing the mainstream, not by a mile.
Yeah; but how much change do those affect? What real impact do they have on the system? What difference do they make? (Hint: the answer is "nada.") No real believer takes criticism of god seriously.

All the same, Hugo Chavez made a speech that wasn't just "critical", it was rabid and psychotic, and he made a mockery of the institution of the United Nations by going on a raging tirade. Not since Khruschev's shoe banging has the United Nations been witness to such a temper tantrum. I don't know about you, but to us adults, it seemed like he was a raging ten year old on the playground, bitter that someone put a pebble in his shoe.
So... no different from the House of Commons.

Dennis Prager is an idiot who is apparently incapable of both addressing and understanding the points made by Harris. I found his comments about the morality of atheists to be personally insulting; though they are no worse than other socially acceptable comments that I am forced to endure.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with religious people at all, as long as they aren’t of the evangelical or radical flavors, which are to me defined by their actions not their beliefs. I find out someone’s religion and I think nothing of it. They find out I’m an atheist and they think something’s wrong with me. That's why atheists are angry.

partial list of theists dictators and war criminals... Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, GWB Jr, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Pinochet, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Jorge Rafael Videla , Milosevic, Idi Amin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein,Ferdinand Marcos I could go but the list is endless, I won't even begin trying to back the 10,000 yrs you suggest

How many of them killed because of religion? I'm talking specifically about leaders who targeted and repressed or killed people because of their religious beliefs.

Even so, it's true that many of them did have religious beliefs that did influence their policies.

-100's of millions killed:rolleyes: if you get 2-30million out of that bunch I'd be surprised.

Stalin killed 30 million, China around 35 million, the Khemer Rouge about 2.3 million, North Vietnam 1.7 million, North Korea 1.6 million, Yugoslavia about 1 million, Romania 735,000, and so on. That's at least 72 million people with mid-range estimates, to say nothing of high-end estimates and not including deaths due to war.

organized religion goes first, 2nd non practicing fallout, 3rd agnostics... final step atheists, it's the normal pattern

More people in the US believe in God today than in 1947.

revival? just those who were theists already..fact is most Russians have never attended a church service

Russians weren't the only people in the former USSR. In the Central Asian republics and Eastern bloc allies, religious belief has recovered and is growing as restrictions on freedom have been lifted. Islam and Catholicism in particular are recovering in those countries after being suppressed.

China, no China has been atheist for centuries Buddhism is a way of life not a belief in a deity, Christians and Muslims make up a very tiny percentage of china's population.

Not really. Many Chinese practiced and continue to practice a religious form of Taoism or Buddhism along with ancestor-worship and traditional beliefs. The common versions of these systems are generally polytheist.

I suggest you do a search, atheism is the dominant belief in more than few Euro countries(as much as 80%) and the single largest group in many others. I could give you links but if you want to learn you'll do it yourself....but I sense that you're not interested in knowing the facts.

How many are explicit atheists and not implicit ones? There's a huge difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "God does not exist". Explicit atheism has never been big and it has declined relative to implicit atheism.

and covers the most powerful arguments from both sides.

were there any from prager? i must've missed them.

What are you smoking? The United States, far from treating elected officials like deities, ridicules and mocks our elected officials ad infinitum. I might refer you to The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, Saturday Night Live, Political Cartoons, South Park, Family Guy...I mean, Christ dude. you've missed the mark by a mile. Fine, cite Fox News all you want, but you're not citing the mainstream, not by a mile.

All the same, Hugo Chavez made a speech that wasn't just "critical", it was rabid and psychotic, and he made a mockery of the institution of the United Nations by going on a raging tirade. Not since Khruschev's shoe banging has the United Nations been witness to such a temper tantrum. I don't know about you, but to us adults, it seemed like he was a raging ten year old on the playground, bitter that someone put a pebble in his shoe.

no I haven't, look at my post I stated "some Americans".....I'm also aware there is a great deal of ridicule of the President, but overall Americans give far more respect than we do our PM, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of a PM in a government office or school here in my entire life, that's what countries with personality cults do..........

Hugo Chavez's speech was no rabid and psychotic than GWB and the "Axis of Evil", "either your with us, or you're with the terrorists".....and calling Kim Jong Il a dwarf was really smart diplomatic move when you're trying to get someone to give up nukes........and I wouldn't call define Chavez's speech a temper tantrum, Chavez was very calm and composed, and considering that the CIA was suspected as behind an earlier coup attempt against him I can't really blame him....

no I haven't, look at my post I stated "some Americans".....I'm also aware there is a great deal of ridicule of the President, but overall Americans give far more respect than we do our PM, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of a PM in a government office or school here in my entire life, that's what countries with personality cults do.

There's nothing wrong with respecting the office of the Presidency; it's not like that picture is the only one that is ever up, just the picture of the man in power. And I seriously doubt that there is anyone in this country that respects Bush enough to construct a personality cult around him...he's got about as much respect as Brezhnev did in the late 70's.

There's nothing wrong with respecting the office of the Presidency; it's not like that picture is the only one that is ever up, just the picture of the man in power. And I seriously doubt that there is anyone in this country that respects Bush enough to construct a personality cult around him...he's got about as much respect as Brezhnev did in the late 70's. Evidently you don't live in the south-east U.S.

Evidently you don't live in the south-east U.S.

Imagine how bad it is in his home state.:(

I can't recall ever seeing a picture of a PM in a government office or school here in my entire life, that's what countries with personality cults do..........

I've never seen a picture of the President in any school or government building, outside of the big Chain of Command thing we had in our Regimental Headquarters when I was in the Army. In fact, the only civilian governmental building I've seen a picture of a politician in was the Secretary of State's office (Michigan's equivalent to the DMV) and there was a pic of the Governor and the Sec of State.

How many of them killed because of religion? I'm talking specifically about leaders who targeted and repressed or killed people because of their religious beliefs.


How many of those killed by your list of dictators killed their victims because of religion??? The truth is whatever the number atheists didn't normally kill for religious beliefs but political, if a religious group opposed them directly yes they made themselves a target but generally it did not.

Stalin killed 30 million, China around 35 million, the Khemer Rouge about 2.3 million, North Vietnam 1.7 million, North Korea 1.6 million, Yugoslavia about 1 million, Romania 735,000, and so on. That's at least 72 million people with mid-range estimates, to say nothing of high-end estimates and not including deaths due to war.

far cry from your earlier post that claimed 100's of millions killed....and again China's numbers way out, my in laws are chinese, most deaths were due to famine not murder, cut that nmuber to 10-15mill and you will be closer to the truth

More people in the US believe in God today than in 1947.

I would think that is because you have twice as many people now.

Not really. Many Chinese practiced and continue to practice a religious form of Taoism or Buddhism along with ancestor-worship and traditional beliefs. The common versions of these systems are generally polytheist.

again my in laws are Buddhists, they do not believe a god nor do Taoists, a way of life not a theism, they are atheists with a moral code they make up about 6% of China, another 6% are other religions and the remaining 1.275 billion are atheists(non buddhists)....

There's a huge difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "God does not exist".

there is no absolutely difference.....

many people fear publicly admitting to being an atheist so they choose to say, "I'm a non practicing Christian", "I practice privately", "I'm an agnostic".....and all with good reason, they fear persecution for their belief......do a search on how people feel toward atheists in the USA and it's not surprising atheist are keeping a low profile....

I suggest you do a search, atheism is the dominant belief in more than few Euro countries(as much as 80%) and the single largest group in many others. I could give you links but if you want to learn you'll do it yourself....but I sense that you're not interested in knowing the facts.
Learning is highly overrated. I suggest you give links to that, because I'd be interested to see them. That's utter bollocks, see.

"as much as 80%"
*tee-hee*

Learning is highly overrated. I suggest you give links to that, because I'd be interested to see them. That's utter bollocks, see.

"as much as 80%"
*tee-hee*

*tee hee, tee hee* you have no intention of believe any link I post, so find it yourself or haven't you "learned" to do an intelligent web search(maybe learning is not so overrated)."tee hee, tee hee*

China 80%+, Vietnam 80%+, Sweden80%+, Norway 40-75%, Estonia,80%+, Czech Republic 60%, GB, France, Netherlands, Belgium & France 40%+, Former East Germany 80%+......*tee hee*:rolleyes:

*tee hee, tee hee* you have no intention of believe any link I post, so find it yourself or haven't you "learned" to do an intelligent web search(maybe learning is not so overrated)."tee hee, tee hee*

China 80%+, Vietnam 80%+, Sweden80%+, Norway 40-75%, Estonia,80%+, Czech Republic 60%, GB, France, Netherlands, Belgium & France 40%+, Former East Germany 80%+......*tee hee*:rolleyes:
You are right. Sweden 87% Lutheran, France ~85% Catholic and only approximately 4% unaffiliated, GB... oh, why bother... Just show me your links. All I can find suggests you pulled that 80% (or Europe being mostly atheist) figure out of your ass.

Harris came across as very condescending and elitist in his responses, repeatedly emphasizing his "superior" intellectual capabilities and dismissing the beliefs of men like Francis Collins simply because they don't agree with his worldview.

This is untrue.

He repeatedly (dispite Prager repeated misrepresentations) stated that Collins is a very accomplished and qualified scientist. According to Harris:

I certainly did not claim that I possessed Collins’s level of expertise. I am, however, sufficiently conversant with the relevant science to know that Collins does not hold his beliefs about God for compelling, scientific reasons. You appear rather over-awed by the man’s academic credentials. Let me assure you that even very accomplished scientists can be terrible philosophers.

He then went on to dismiss the argument that Collins arrived at his belief through scientific matters to point out that it was an emotional awaking that Collins tests against science.

Just like Dawkins, he keeps choosing the worst and most violent excesses of the world's religions and associating religious people with them while simultaneously distancing atheism from its own murderers, tyrants and warmongers. It's disingenuous and logically flawed to do that and represents a big weakness in their argument.

It was only a response to Pragers attempt to characterize atheists and secular societies as being "morally confused."

What better way to destroy that argument than to show that christianity has fared no better?

He also keeps trying to hammer in the idea that religion is some kind of useful "delusion", which is completely and utterly untrue and represents another condescending view of theism from the militant atheist camp.

It is very likely religious prediliction is a useful self-deception hard-wired into our nature.

And, for that matter, he solely attacks the Abrahamic religions and does not criticize any other beliefs (not to mention insulting pagans with his condescending "trash-heap of history" remark).

Anyone who keeps up with science (especially a neuroscientist) should be keenly aware of the ability of science to relegate individual religious beliefs to the "scrapheap of mythology".

were there any from prager? i must've missed them.

There were about 100 representatives from NS that could have poked holes in all four of Prager's posts.

Harris wasn't all that impressive, but Prager looked like a buffoon.

You are right. Sweden 87% Lutheran, France ~85% Catholic and only approximately 4% unaffiliated, GB... oh, why bother... Just show me your links. All I can find suggests you pulled that 80% (or Europe being mostly atheist) figure out of your ass.

you source must be come from the www.totallyselfdeludedgodlovers.com....many estimates for theists are flawed...in Norway and Sweden many people are listed as Lutheran only because they were christened in Lutherean church or their parents were Lutheran, or they had a cultural wedding in a church....the truth is many millions never set foot in a church and are surprised when they see themselves classified as theists......church attendance and the number of theists is europe is greatly exaggerated....even I was staggered at the number of non theists in France at 40%+ (and it must be noted that any survey estimates of atheists numbers due to discrimination and persecution is usually on the modest side).....being a northern euro citizen I can assure that people who are theists are a minority, not you will never believe that,as theists prefer to live in fantasy world.......

True atheists dont need to discuss about god. I stoped way far ago. And I stoped when I was 100% sure I was right.

So, if you are an atheist and you feel the need to prove to people you are right, that is because you´re not sure yourself.

Talking about religion is so stupid. It doesnt mean shit anyway. Being cristian, muslim, jew or anything of the like doesnt change anything, unless you´re a fanatic. ANd if you´re a fanatic, its because something is VERY wrong in your life, or you´re a complete idiot.

True atheists dont need to discuss about god. I stoped way far ago. And I stoped when I was 100% sure I was right.

So, if you are an atheist and you feel the need to prove to people you are right, that is because you´re not sure yourself.

Talking about religion is so stupid. It doesnt mean shit anyway. Being cristian, muslim, jew or anything of the like doesnt change anything, unless you´re a fanatic. ANd if you´re a fanatic, its because something is VERY wrong in your life, or you´re a complete idiot.

I used to have the same attitude but no more.....theists are fuckin' up the world and have done for centuries.....now they can no longer burn us at the stake I'm coming out of hiding and fighting back....I'm no longer hiding my beliefs for fear of being ridiculed.....even gay people are treated with more respect than we get......

True atheists dont need to discuss about god.

unless, you know, they care about the state of the world

Josef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, Erich Honecker, Alexander Lukashenko, and

Adolf Hitler.

Again much violence (i wont go as far as to say 'most') is caused because of religion while athiest murderers/tyrants do not do it because they are athiests and do not declare crusades or jihads in the name of athiesm.
True, most have killed people in the name of secular ideologies or just pure self-interest. But the same is true for most theistic leaders. The only difference is that the individual murderers were either atheists, or theists.

And? What about Hitler? Hussein? Bush? Go to Baghdad and tell me that religion doesnt cause wide-spread death.
Hitler was an atheist.
Once can be either Christian, or German.
Which was pretty much Stalin's attitude as well.

Hussein may have been a Muslim, but he didn't rule in the name of Allah, rather his ideology was Pan-Arab nationalism.

Bush, same again, a guy who uses religion to get votes, but he doesn't do anything in the name of God.

Theists have killed millions too, and lets not forget the billions of people dying because the fundies think its wrong to tax the rich and give to the starving.
This is the type of idiocy we Christians are up against. You're probably an American who thinks that all Christians are conservatives, and WASPs. WASPs make up 3.5% of Christians in the world. The fundies make up a small percentage within that group. The majority of Christians in the world are no less generous than atheists. As a whole, atheists do not necessarily think it's good to tax the rich and give to the starving.

Do you know that Christianity inspired many socialist movements, both pre-and post-Marx? Take the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"; it is derived from the Bible:

Acts 2:44-45 All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-35 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Don't get me started on Dawkins again :D

unless, you know, they care about the state of the world

then you discuss about fundamentalism and uneeded religious influences in politics. Basic discussions about God should be irellivent to a true athiest.

I find out someone’s religion and I think nothing of it. They find out I’m an atheist and they think something’s wrong with me. That's why atheists are angry.
Your problem is not that you live near Christians; it's that you live in Texas. You have no right to judge us all by Texan (what I presume are) neo-Pharisees.

no I haven't, look at my post I stated "some Americans".....I'm also aware there is a great deal of ridicule of the President, but overall Americans give far more respect than we do our PM, I can't recall ever seeing a picture of a PM in a government office or school here in my entire life, that's what countries with personality cults do.
I agree, when are oyu ever going to see Bush grilled on US television the way Blair is almost every fortnight in the UK?

Hugo Chavez
...Is probably a Christian.

How many of those killed by your list of dictators killed their victims because of religion??? The truth is whatever the number atheists didn't normally kill for religious beliefs but political, if a religious group opposed them directly yes they made themselves a target but generally it did not.
Even if Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, GWB Jr, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Pinochet, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Jorge Rafael Videla , Milosevic, Idi Amin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein,Ferdinand Marcos were all theists, none of them killed people in the name of their religion. They killed for ideology, or just plain self-interest.

far cry from your earlier post that claimed 100's of millions killed....and again China's numbers way out, my in laws are chinese, most deaths were due to famine not murder, cut that nmuber to 10-15mill and you will be closer to the truth
Famines, due to Mao Tse-Tung's stubborn ideological rigidity.

again my in laws are Buddhists, they do not believe a god nor do Taoists, a way of life not a theism, they are atheists with a moral code they make up about 6% of China, another 6% are other religions and the remaining 1.275 billion are atheists(non buddhists)....
If Buddhism is atheistic, then who runs the bardo?

No, the other 1.275 billion are not all atheists. They are probably afraid to reveal their religion. Look at how many religious people are persecuted in China (Falun Gong, Muslims, Christians, etc) and I doubt people are going to be open about their beliefs.

*tee hee, tee hee* you have no intention of believe any link I post, so find it yourself or haven't you "learned" to do an intelligent web search(maybe learning is not so overrated).
Demanding that other people present evidence for your arguments is bad form. Don't expect us to take you seriously.

being a northern euro citizen I can assure that people who are theists are a minority, not you will never believe that,as theists prefer to live in fantasy world.......
This is entering "trolling" territory.

I used to have the same attitude but no more.....theists are fuckin' up the world and have done for centuries.....now they can no longer burn us at the stake I'm coming out of hiding and fighting back....I'm no longer hiding my beliefs for fear of being ridiculed.....even gay people are treated with more respect than we get......
So most people in Europe are atheists, yet atheists are also ridiculed and persecuted?

Fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with politics.

Islam fundamentalists are nothing but ignorant brain washed idiots who never had a choice, because their schools were bombed by american fighters and bombers. When your family has died because an american has droped a bomb in your daughter´s wedding, and when another bomb has fell on the place you used to work, you start wondering about the justice in the world, and how can you do something to change it. And the fanatics have the bombs.

then you discuss about fundamentalism and uneeded religious influences in politics. Basic discussions about God should be irellivent to a true athiest.

imagine if millions and millions of people were adamant that the world was banana shaped. even if this belief affected nothing, it would be the duty of the rest of us to point out that that's fucking stupid as hell.

Your problem is not that you live near Christians; it's that you live in Texas. You have no right to judge us all by Texan (what I presume are) neo-Pharisees.
Did you miss the part where is said I don’t care what someone’s religion is and that I judge people based on their actions? I’m not making a statement about religious people; I’m making a statement about a society where it’s politically incorrect to insult Christianity but not atheism. All I want is mutual respect.
then you discuss about fundamentalism and uneeded religious influences in politics. Basic discussions about God should be irellivent to a true athiest.
Indeed.
imagine if millions and millions of people were adamant that the world was banana shaped. even if this belief affected nothing, it would be the duty of the rest of us to point out that that's fucking stupid as hell.
Even if it makes them happy? Is being a self-righteous prick really that important to you?
Insulting the beliefs of other gets you nowhere. I learned that the hard way.

Even if it makes them happy?

yes

Did you miss the part where is said I don’t care what someone’s religion is and that I judge people based on their actions? I’m not making a statement about religious people; I’m making a statement about a society where it’s politically incorrect to insult Christianity but not atheism. All I want is mutual respect.
And yet you will persist in thinking that most Christians in the world are as intolerant of atheists as Texan WASPs are?

yes
That's just mean.
And yet you will persist in thinking that most Christians in the world are as intolerant of atheists as Texan WASPs are?
No, I don’t. In fact, I don’t even know how you could possibly be deducing that.
Also, to be fair, it’s not just WASPs. A lot of the intolerant ones are Catholic, and some are just non-Christians who believe in God, but who still feel it is acceptable to criticize atheism but not established religions.

I agree, when are oyu ever going to see Bush grilled on US television the way Blair is almost every fortnight in the UK?



I find it hard to believe that American journalist are such cowards they seem terrified to ask the tough questions of the President, no such politeness here with our journalists and the PM.

Even if Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, GWB Jr, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Pinochet, Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Jorge Rafael Videla , Milosevic, Idi Amin, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein,Ferdinand Marcos were all theists, none of them killed people in the name of their religion. They killed for ideology, or just plain self-interest.

Hitler never killed in the name of religion? Milosevic? Idi Amin? Saddam Hussein, Marcos(killed muslims).

Famines, due to Mao Tse-Tung's stubborn ideological rigidity.

a number of factors, agrarian reform, soviets withdrawing technological assistance at a crucial time and weather, overall Mao's policies benefited the poorest(still bad by our standards)but an improvement over their past....

No, the other 1.275 billion are not all atheists. They are probably afraid to reveal their religion. Look at how many religious people are persecuted in China (Falun Gong, Muslims, Christians, etc) and I doubt people are going to be open about their beliefs.

:rolleyes: 1,306,313,812 of which 6% are theists or about 68 million a lot for us, insignificant in China......believe what you want but I'll believe my in-laws who living in the west are under no fear of persecution from China....China is atheist 94% of them.

Demanding that other people present evidence for your arguments is bad form. Don't expect us to take you seriously.

gee I don't see you or anyone else putting up any links........

This is entering "trolling" territory.

fact-theism is a belief in spooks and fairy's, a make believe "fantasy world"

So most people in Europe are atheists, yet atheists are also ridiculed and persecuted?

most in northern Europe, 20 yrs they will be majority on the continent....ridiculed and persecuted? absolutely less so in northern Europe than elsewhere......USA one of the worst countries for discrimination against atheists, not far behind Islamic countries.....does it bother you to have it pointed out that Christians are bigots and not as loving as you like to picture yourself?

That's just mean.

truth is better than lies. falsehood should never be allowed to prosper and hold power.

Not really. Many Chinese practiced and continue to practice a religious form of Taoism or Buddhism along with ancestor-worship and traditional beliefs. The common versions of these systems are generally polytheist.


Absolutely. Anyone who tells you that the Buddhism that is practiced in the real world is athiest, and many people will tell you that, is very mistaken.

Siddartha Gautama may have preached a lergely god-ignoring creed, and some forms of Zen may become fairly atheistic, but most Buddhists are functionally polytheists.

Absolutely. Anyone who tells you that the Buddhism that is practiced in the real world is athiest, and many people will tell you that, is very mistaken.

Siddartha Gautama may have preached a lergely god-ignoring creed, and some forms of Zen may become fairly atheistic, but most Buddhists are functionally polytheists.

Meh. I’m an atheist and I see a lot of truth in Taoism.

again my in laws are Buddhists, they do not believe a god nor do Taoists, a way of life not a theism, they are atheists with a moral code they make up about 6% of China, another 6% are other religions and the remaining 1.275 billion are atheists(non buddhists)....


that's incorrect. Afilliation is never that good a measure when talking about religion in East Asia.

Did you know that more than half of people in Japan are by temple records Buddhists, and that more than half of people have visited Shinto Shrines in the past year, and that most Japanese will say they are not religious if asked.

Most people in China venerate their ancestors and other traditional Chinese gods, some of these people are also Buddhist (before Mao most were). Some of these people who worship gods are also Taoist.

Now, I am an atheist. I tend to find myself agreeing with well known atheists more often than not. I'll admit, most of them are elitist assholes, but that doesn't make them idiots. A Nazi can be just as smart as a renowned scientist if they have the education. Someones personality doesn't tell you how smart they are. Although it can play a part.

However, this Sam Harris guys does not sit well with me!

Anyone who mocks Zeus and Thor, two of the most badass deities in mythology, does not earn my respect! Zeus was a jealous, adultering pig who slept around so much it's a wonder we're not all demigods. And Thor's very existance seemed to be for the purpose of stories in which he kills somebody. They deserve more respect than that!

Shame on you Sam Harris, shame on you!

If the vikings where still alive, I'm certain they'd get very mideval on his ass. Because the vikings where awesome like that.

As for the debate... religious debates between intelligent, or just plain wordy people, bore me quickly. And religious debates between myself and religious people (usually Christians) tends to end with me getting frustrated as they continue to use the same 1,000 year old book as if it where evidence.

In other words, I bring nothing to this thread! I'm just that cool! I'll waste time typing posts that have nothing to do with a topic, and then point out that fact! YEAH!

Hitler never killed in the name of religion? Milosevic? Idi Amin? Saddam Hussein, Marcos(killed muslims).

No, they didn't. Hitler (and others) killed Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc for being who they were, but the murderer's didn't kill in the name of a religion. (Nazism is an ideology)

a number of factors, agrarian reform, soviets withdrawing technological assistance at a crucial time and weather, overall Mao's policies benefited the poorest(still bad by our standards)but an improvement over their past....
Probably true.

:rolleyes: 1,306,313,812 of which 6% are theists or about 68 million a lot for us, insignificant in China......believe what you want but I'll believe my in-laws who living in the west are under no fear of persecution from China....China is atheist 94% of them.
Why believe them? Real statistics would be nice.

gee I don't see you or anyone else putting up any links........
I'm not posting statistics.

fact-theism is a belief in spooks and fairy's, a make believe "fantasy world"
That's not a fact. You can't disprove God.

most in northern Europe, 20 yrs they will be majority on the continent....ridiculed and persecuted? absolutely less so in northern Europe than elsewhere.
So are you saying that atheists are ridiculed in Northern Europe or not? Where in Europe do you live? I live in Ireland.

does it bother you to have it pointed out that Christians are bigots and not as loving as you like to picture yourself?
Only insofar as it's a lie. Christians aren't bigots. Some are, but then some atheists are also bigots.

falsehood should never be allowed to prosper and hold power.
I thought you said that belief in banana-world affected nothing?

Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was an atheist.

Bush, same again, a guy who uses religion to get votes, but he doesn't do anything in the name of God.

Wrong, Hitler was Christian and basically said that God wanted him to kill the Jews.

Also, Bush said that God wanted him to be president and (I think) that God wanted him to invade Iraq.

Does it bother anyone but me that this debate, which I'm now reading, is terribly one sided?

Harris is an intelligent individual who has so far put up many great arguments against theism. He's a bit big headed I think, but that isn't affecting his arguments. Meanwhile, Prager seems to be entirely missing the points of some of Harris' arguments, and has in fact posted no really good arguments of his own. His strategy appears to be to mention "you can't prove anything" and "so and so believes in god". This, even AFTER he waves off that teapot bit, which brought an extremely good point to the table.

I declare that this debate sucks. While it amuses me to watch a fellow atheist tear apart a theists arguments, it's just that. Amusing. It doesn't really serve any purpose.

Find me a more intelligent theist and stick him up against this guy. I want an actual debate. Not Mike Tyson vs Steven Hawkings in the boxing match of the century.

That's actually a painful visual... Tyson against Hawkings... in boxing... that's just ouch right there. Maybe that metaphor's a bit over the top. Prager's not being twisted into a pretzel out there... but you get the picture.

Does it bother anyone but me that this debate, which I'm now reading, is terribly one sided?

Harris is an intelligent individual who has so far put up many great arguments against theism. He's a bit big headed I think, but that isn't affecting his arguments. Meanwhile, Prager seems to be entirely missing the points of some of Harris' arguments, and has in fact posted no really good arguments of his own. His strategy appears to be to mention "you can't prove anything" and "so and so believes in god". This, even AFTER he waves off that teapot bit, which brought an extremely good point to the table.

I declare that this debate sucks. While it amuses me to watch a fellow atheist tear apart a theists arguments, it's just that. Amusing. It doesn't really serve any purpose.

Find me a more intelligent theist and stick him up against this guy. I want an actual debate. Not Mike Tyson vs Steven Hawkings in the boxing match of the century.

That's actually a painful visual... Tyson against Hawkings... in boxing... that's just ouch right there. Maybe that metaphor's a bit over the top. Prager's not being twisted into a pretzel out there... but you get the picture.

I'll agree that the debate could have been better. Much better, in fact. Harris and Prager seemed to be talking past each other quite a bit. I really wasn't impressed with either of them. In particular I thought they both made some good critiques of their opponent's arguments, but failed miserably to substantiate their own positions.

But I do think it serves a purpose. It gets people thinking about the issue, about the arguments being presented. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as getting a better debate going, we could have Dempublicents or Vetalia take on Harris. Hell, I could do it.

truth is better than lies.

On what ground is truth alone "better" than falsehood alone?

Why should we prefer a useless or harmful truth over a useful lie?

Wrong, Hitler was Christian and basically said that God wanted him to kill the Jews.
There's a lot of quotation either way, but the overall pattern, as is the case with Mussolini too, is that they faked Christianity in order to gain popularity in Christian countries.

Also, Bush said that God wanted him to be president and (I think) that God wanted him to invade Iraq.
A man called General Boykin said that God wanted Bush to be president. I think Bush may have once said that God gave him the green light to invade Iraq, but does this signify a holy crusade? No, it doesn't, because it was once sentence among thousands of secular (but all shit nonetheless) reasons Bush has uttered to argue for his war.

Getting people to think is a purpose I suppose. But putting a better theist up against him would probably do a much better job of achieving that purpose. What I want to see, is a truly legendary debate. One that could be declared neck and neck until a final blow is struck. Too bad legends aren't real. Curse you Hollywood! Curse you for filling my head with thoughts of amazing events that aren't actually possible!

----------

Truth, better than lies? To me, that sounds like someones opinion, not a fact of life.

I bring you a question that might make the line that seperates right and wrong appear a bit more gray.

An man is about to die. Before he dies, he asks you a question, a question in which the truthful answer would cause him immense grief as he passes away. You have two options (three actually, you COULD just avoid the question), you can tell him the truth, and have him die crying. Or, you could lie, and let him die in a relatively peaceful manner.

Truths and lies, their morality I think, depends completely on the situation. There are many instances where a lie would seem like the better option than the truth.

On what ground is truth alone "better" than falsehood alone?
Why should we prefer a useless or harmful truth over a useful lie?
Basic morality, I guess. Truth is just good. Pursuit of truth is a purpose in life.
Of course sometimes little lies can create good, but a huge, overall lie like religion, which changes the way people live their lives, should be avoided if possible.


does this signify a holy crusade?
Doesn't matter, it's still killing that he says his god is allowing.

Also, I think it was brought up earlier that Stalin could have just been faking atheism in order to keep power in a communist government, so now I guess we're back to square one on that issue.

Basic morality, I guess. Truth is just good. Pursuit of truth is a purpose in life.

Then whatever suits a person's purpose is what is good?

Then whatever suits a person's purpose is what is good?
I'm not following how you got to that conclusion. Seems like you were taking a fairly neutral statement and turning it against me as an attack. But hey, I tend to take things personally.

Lets see, you seem to have heard this:
"Truth is good because it is a purpose in life."
whereas I said this:
"Truth is good. It's a purpose in life."

Theres a subtle difference, can you see it? ;)

Morals in real life, are not set in stone. Even the Bible, which some will claim is a book of morals, contradicts itself hundreds of times. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and what is wrong.

That doesn't mean you need to agree with said person.

But think about this.

Many people, American or not, will commend troops for what they do. Protect freedom. I however, see it a different way. I see it as glorified murder. Required for our freedom? That's a different issue entirely. When I look at war, I see a bunch of murders. The Nazi's killed people? So did the English. You say they where fighting for the good guys? I still see them putting bullets into people. This is MY interpretation of morals. And I don't intend to force them on anyone. I'll voice my opinion, but the fact of the matter is, it's just opinion. Your morals are not my morals.

Maybe the Nazi's thought they where doing the right thing following Hitler. Maybe they didn't know any better. Hell, maybe even Hitler thought he was doing something good.

Right and wrong aren't sciences. They're not unquestionable. They're not perfect. It tends to depend on your culture, your upbringing, and your own personality.

A man called General Boykin said that God wanted Bush to be president. I think Bush may have once said that God gave him the green light to invade Iraq, but does this signify a holy crusade? No, it doesn't, because it was once sentence among thousands of secular (but all shit nonetheless) reasons Bush has uttered to argue for his war.
I don't really believe that Bush is as Christian as he claims anymore. The former head of faith-based initiatives has claimed that Bush considered fundies to be nutjobs in private, and merely used them as political pawns.

There's a lot of quotation either way, but the overall pattern, as is the case with Mussolini too, is that they faked Christianity in order to gain popularity in Christian countries.

Hmmm... Why does that sound familiar...

I'm not following how you got to that conclusion. Seems like you were taking a fairly neutral statement and turning it against me as an attack. But hey, I tend to take things personally.

Lets see, you seem to have heard this:
"Truth is good because it is a purpose in life."
whereas I said this:
"Truth is good. It's a purpose in life."

Theres a subtle difference, can you see it? ;)

I can see a difference there, but because I was asking what made truth good, by saying this:

Truth is just good. Pursuit of truth is a purpose in life.

you caused me to assume that truth is a good because it can be or can serve a purpose.

Since I jumped to a false conclusion, lets take a step back and try this again. Qualify your statement "Truth is good".

On what ground is truth alone "better" than falsehood alone?

Why should we prefer a useless or harmful truth over a useful lie?

truth is just one of the fundamental goods. truth is it's own justification - it doesn't need to be grounded in usefulness or how happy it makes people.

now if you could show that a particular truth would have consequences so ridiculously bad, then you could justify particular lies. but this is mostly going to come down to situations where the nazis ask if you know where any jews are hiding and the like.

I thought you said that belief in banana-world affected nothing?

not directly. but do you want people who believe obvious nonsense to be making other decisions that affect your life?

truth is just one of the fundamental goods. truth is it's own justification - it doesn't need to be grounded in usefulness or how happy it makes people.

Why?

now if you could show that a particular truth would have consequences so ridiculously bad, then you could justify particular lies. but this is mostly going to come down to situations where the nazis ask if you know where any jews are hiding and the like.

Doesn't this refute the above statement? How can truth be its own justification, not "grounded in usefulness or how happy it makes people" if falsehood is justified in preventing great harm?

Doesn't matter, it's still killing that he says his god is allowing.
But the point is, that it's killing that is being done for secular reasons, not in the name of God.

Also, I think it was brought up earlier that Stalin could have just been faking atheism in order to keep power in a communist government, so now I guess we're back to square one on that issue.
I don't consider Stalin to be someone who killed in the name of atheism. He killed for political ideology, and to retain power.

Why?

just is. pick any thing you think is good, and ask why. then ask why for that. eventually you'll get to a point where something just is - unless you freely accept the infinite regress, anyways

Doesn't this refute the above statement? How can truth be its own justification, not "grounded in usefulness or how happy it makes people" if falsehood is justified in preventing great harm?

not exactly, because i don't hold truth to be the only good, or even necessarily the highest one. it is one good among many, and these must be weighed against each other.

I don't really believe that Bush is as Christian as he claims anymore. The former head of faith-based initiatives has claimed that Bush considered fundies to be nutjobs in private, and merely used them as political pawns.
Probably true.

Hmmm... Why does that sound familiar...
Because Bush is doing it too.

just is. pick any thing you think is good, and ask why. then ask why for that. eventually you'll get to a point where something just is - unless you freely accept the infinite regress, anyways

Don't you need some reason to halt the regression, or is this just a line in the sand, waiting for the tides to change?

Don't you need some reason to halt the regression, or is this just a line in the sand, waiting for the tides to change?

well, the reason is that my moral intuitions say so - maximizing truth is intrinsically good, not good for the sake of other ends.

well, the reason is that my moral intuitions say so

That is actually good enough for me.

My intuitions do not suggest the same thing, but I'm happy as long as we aren't fooling ourselves.

How many of those killed by your list of dictators killed their victims because of religion??? The truth is whatever the number atheists didn't normally kill for religious beliefs but political, if a religious group opposed them directly yes they made themselves a target but generally it did not.


So is killing in the name of politics better than killing in the name of religion?

History is blood-soaked. We've always been waging war, and we always try to justify violence in terms of the language, belief and culture that we are immersed in.
Wars in medieval times were for political and dynastic reasons - yet were often framed in the context of religion, because religion was an integral part of political and social life and culture.
The violent convulsions of the religious wars in Europe after the Reformation were fought in the name of, and in defence of, 'Truth' (religious, that is) - because 'Truth' and hence eternal salvation was an integral part of political and social life and culture.
Communist insurrections, revolutions and purges have been fought in the name of and in defence of, the downtrodden proletariat - because class struggle was and is seen as an integral part of political and social life and culture.
Dictatorships are overthrown in the name of democracy, freedom and liberty - because we are in a society and culture that believes that these are good, and so we justify our wars in this context.

Religion doesn't cause war any more than atheism does. People cause war.

That is actually good enough for me.

My intuitions do not suggest the same thing, but I'm happy as long as we aren't fooling ourselves.

we could try to devise test cases for each other to see if maybe our moral intuitions are getting confused at some point and they actually would agree if we thought about it more.

what sort of things would you hold to be intrinsic goods? what stands at the base for you?

What the HELL is going on here! The atheists blame religion for the massacre of millions and the theists blame the atheists. You are both wrong. Neither religion nor atheism are responsible for the millions of people killed throughout history for their beliefs (or lack thereof) The truth is that those people were killed by the intolerance of those beliefs. Do you people realize that it is all about tolerance. Tolerance of other cultures, tolerance of other beliefs, and tolerance of other ways of viewing the world. You don't have to agree with one another, just be respectful.

I believe most of the fighting in this world would disappear if we tried to understand each other better instead of playing the "us vs. them" game. Imagine how much more efficient our governments could be if instead of bickering along ideological lines, the various groups could sit down and actually work things out together. So what if someone doesn't believe in the same deity as you, does that make them any less of a human being? So what that someone may be deluding themselves by believing in a supreme being, would you walk up to a child and tell him that there was no Santa Clause? The militant atheists like Dawkins and Harris are no better than the fundamentalists like Robertson and Abdul-Rahman.

I truly, if naively, believe that if we try and find common ground instead of becoming more factionalized, we can actually achieve peace.

the best religious debates are here on NSG, even if it is only because of what they eventually become.

the best religious debates are here on NSG, even if it is only because of what they eventually become.

Spam?

Why be tolerant if they are wrong?

(Yes I am aware of how representative of the intolerant masses that makes me seem)

I truly, if naively, believe that if we try and find common ground instead of becoming more factionalized, we can actually achieve peace.

to misquote peter tosh, i don't want no peace, i need reality and empiricism

we could try to devise test cases for each other to see if maybe our moral intuitions are getting confused at some point and they actually would agree if we thought about it more.

Do you mean that we could eliminate the differences between our moral intuitions through clarity, or do you mean that we could gain more consistency in each of our moral intuitions.

what sort of things would you hold to be intrinsic goods? what stands at the base for you?

It is very hard to say, I would be very hard pressed to say that what I value as a good is an intrinsic good.

I am a bit of a nihilist, but if forced to pick one out, I would say self-actualization, or more generally self-improvement.

So is killing in the name of politics better than killing in the name of religion?

Yeah, actually.

Look at it. People killing each other because their prophet is the way to heaven, this other prophet is the only way into heaven, no you're both wrong it's this prophet... what if there is no heaven? Then all that killing was for nothing.

Now, if you're killing because someone wants to implement a way of living that you disagree with, hey, at least it's over something that you know will affect you.

Neither are *good* reasons for killing, but politics is just a sliver of a bit less horrible than religion.

Yeah, actually.

Look at it. People killing each other because their prophet is the way to heaven, this other prophet is the only way into heaven, no you're both wrong it's this prophet... what if there is no heaven? Then all that killing was for nothing.

Now, if you're killing because someone wants to implement a way of living that you disagree with, hey, at least it's over something that you know will affect you.

Neither are *good* reasons for killing, but politics is just a sliver of a bit less horrible than religion.

Hmmm.
I don't know about that. Firstly, there's the implicit assumption that religious belief doesn't really affect life, so hey, everything done in its name (in this case, violence) is a bit pointless. Now if you're religious, then obviously it matters to you, and it does affect you, because you know it will (being religious and all).
- Looking into the past... In, for example, the French Wars of Religion, it definitely did matter because eternal salvation was at risk. There was no question that the heretic must be killed in order to prevent them from dragging others down with them to Hell. And if the king was a heretic, then God have mercy on your soul...
- And nowadays with Islamism, which is a belief that today's political and social life can only be reinvigorated by a return to pure Islam, then obviously it has a big impact on your life.

Thing is, these are based on valid and reasoned beliefs that were and are held in that context and time. It's not a case of it being pointless to the people involved. But obviously, if you are anti/non-religious, then it will seem pointless.
Similarly, I'm not a communist and I feel that the Communist Party of the Philippines has long outlived its purpose and that its 37-year struggle has been all for nothing, but I'm sure the CPP would disagree with me there. Do my ideas about the pointlessness of class struggle change in any way why people partake in it and justify themselves?

So I don't think you can raise political killings above religious killings on that basis.

to misquote peter tosh, i don't want no peace, i need reality and empiricism

That's great for you, but why try to force your beliefs on others?

[QUOTE=Phantasy Encounter;12127169]So what that someone may be deluding themselves by believing in a supreme being, would you walk up to a child and tell him that there was no Santa Clause?[QUOTE]

Yes... yes I would. But only because I'm an ass like that ^_^

It's not that they're deluding THEMSELVES into believing in a supreme being. If that was it, I probably wouldn't be the jackass I am when it comes down to it. Religion annoys me in general, because it affects me, whether I want it too or not. I literally have Christian concepts forced on me, because they've become part of society.

And I don't even get the worst of it. I see other people who can't just go about their lives because of Christianity. Homosexuals for instance, can only not get married because religion can't keep to itself. My problems with religion don't stem from the fact that they exist, but the fact that they get in the way of MY life.

I will admit, my dislike of religion now extends beyond just getting it out of my face. But I'd probably attribute that to the fact that my frustration with religion only grows as it continues to poke it's nose into my, and other peoples affairs.

As for wars starting with intolerance... true. I agree one hundred percent. But religion is the cause of this intolerance. Difference is the cause of intolerance. Many people have different religions, and other religions can't handle that. Conflicts start, and some of them can be bloody. Now, there's two solutions to this. One, is to get each side to tolerate eachother. I figure this is nigh impossible, because one of the basice beliefs of most religions is "everyone who doesn't follow my religion is going to suffer in the afterlife." This is easily taken as nothing but an insult. People get pissed off. And when you're pissed off, it doesn't take much to make you enemies with people you don't even know.

The second option, is to prove that organized religion is just the fleeting hopes and dreams of people who are afraid of death.

Unlike racism, or sexism, this is an intolerance problem that COULD be solved by just removing the causes of the problem. We can't kill people for being born different. But we can kill an old ideaology. An idea isn't a physical thing, it doesn't bleed or feel pain.

As for wars starting with intolerance... true. I agree one hundred percent. But religion is the cause of this intolerance. Difference is the cause of intolerance. Many people have different religions, and other religions can't handle that. Conflicts start, and some of them can be bloody. Now, there's two solutions to this.
You are ignorant. Christianity explicitly tells its followers to tolerate other religions, and not to kill its adherents.

and most other religions say the same

Spam?

kind of.

Hmmm.
I don't know about that. Firstly, there's the implicit assumption that religious belief doesn't really affect life, so hey, everything done in its name (in this case, violence) is a bit pointless. Now if you're religious, then obviously it matters to you, and it does affect you, because you know it will (being religious and all).

True. IF you're religious.
However, even the religious such as yourself (I'm assuming) you must admit there are many good arguments about religion's validity, and that the existence of God is somewhat debatable.
On the other hand, few people (philosophers with nothing better to do) debate whether the immediate physical world exists.

True. IF you're religious.
However, even the religious such as yourself (I'm assuming) you must admit there are many good arguments about religion's validity, and that the existence of God is somewhat debatable.
On the other hand, few people (philosophers with nothing better to do) debate whether the immediate physical world exists.

Yes, I do understand that many people have arguments against religion. Similarly, many people also have arguments against the validity of political ideologies and other forms of belief and ideas in life. Doesn't make it any less real for the people taking part. That's understandable, I'm sure, without even calling into question whether those beliefs are true or wrong.
The problem I think I see in your argument is that because you presumably think religion is pointless for you, then it is equally pointless for the people involved in it. If it is, then why believe in it?
And in any case, this isn't about the opposition of a spiritual goal to a temporal one. Because religion has been and is very much a part of society for many, and influenced their lives and continues to do so. This was much more a case in the past, when religion (I'm thinking here of Christianity) was much more embedded into society, culture and politics. And even today, for some it still is.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if you're at a stage where you are willing to kill someone because of a belief, then you are probably beyond the point of doubting that belief.

imagine if millions and millions of people were adamant that the world was banana shaped. even if this belief affected nothing, it would be the duty of the rest of us to point out that that's fucking stupid as hell.

That could not compare in the slightest to belief in God, you have absolutely no idea whether it is true or not.

That could not compare in the slightest to belief in God, you have absolutely no idea whether it is true or not.Too true. The fact that the earth is round can be proved in many different ways. It's a fact of nature; we can walk/sail/fly around the earth in various directions. Some can go to space and travel around the earth. To compare religion to the belief in a God who nobody can prove does or does not exist, simply because he does not physically live on this earth or in this universe is not the same as believing in something that can be proved untrue. Faith in God may seem stupid to atheists, but they cannot prove for certain that God does not exist.

A few weeks ago I linked to (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507257) a great religious debate between Drs. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, which in turn led to an equally great discussion here.

Well, the other day I came across another excellent debate (http://jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris). This one came in the form of a series of letters between avowed atheist Sam Harris and Christian radio host Dennis Prager. Their articulate, in-depth correspondence is a great distillation of the issues at hand, and covers the most powerful arguments from both sides.

Their debate ends unsettled, as one might guess, but it's still a good intellectual exercise and a perfect introduction to the positions held by both sides of the argument.

It may be a bit too long to pick apart here (eight lengthy letters over the course of four days, plus commentary at the bottom), but I figured it would be good to share here nonetheless.

Who gives a shit?

I have nothing more to say.