Why do Atheists Bother?

[1joseph]

Though I have spent countless hours watching the night sky I am not going to suggest I know what you saw. I don't. But I would not be surprised that there is actually a profoundly mundane explanation -- if only we knew what it was.



This is where I must object. You saw, you know not what (a UFO). Then you jump to the conclusion it must have been a "spiritual being." If you are an intelligent man, and I believe you are, you must admit there is no real justification for this claim. A UFO is simply an unidentified object.

As I said, "I do believe it was a spiritual being." And, "from all I have read in God's Word over the years," I would not be surprised that there is actually a profound supernatural explanation. You know, kind of like the immaculate conception.

 

[nl]

Huxley was born in 1887 and had finished his illustrious career long before Jane Goodall started her groundbreaking work on chimpanzees in 1960. Huxley can be forgiven for not getting it all right, but Josh McDowell needs to be questioned on why he choose to use such an outdated source. Perhaps contemporary primatologists were not promulgating the message he wanted to convey?

I never found the quote myself but a former contact in California once attributed this quote to the well-known Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892): "If it's true, it isn't new. If it's new, it isn't true."

I like Charles Spurgeon but I was never sure that I fully endorsed this quote. But, I remembered it and never saw it in writing until now. .

The message being conveyed was that God never changes. Theology in its purest meaning is the study of God. The truth about God never evolves or changes but is established and firm.

Personally, I think that theologians can still discover new insights even though God doesn't change.

Personally, I think the statement is fully accurate that: "only humans possess true language and conceptual thought, art, humor, science, and religion."

The modifying word "true" is there as in "true language and conceptual, art, humor, science and religion."

Jane Goodall has spent significant time around chimpanzees and I'm sure has observed much. I'd be glad to have contributions from chimpanzees in the areas of language, conceptual thought, art, humor, science and religion but I won't expect too much.

I'm not sure why you would find it necessary to do what I would describe as "dissing" Josh McDowell over using an older source (Julian Huxley) who was a prominent evolutionist.

If they are true, foundational principles will not change over time. If they are not true, then they need to change.

A web search just now turned up this link: Interview: Why Jane Goodall Thinks Chimps May Have Souls | Christianity Today

My working definition of core elements of soul has been: mind, will and emotion. Yes, chimpanzees have souls by that definition.

Human beings also have a spirit that will live forever. I do not believe that chimpanzees have that element.

 

[nl]

We have the greatest intellect of all life forms on the planet. Agreed.

Agreed.

On the matter of angels I am not sure we have very much to go upon. They may simply be humans with wings. Are you sure they have higher intellects?

In song and story angels fly down from Heaven. Are they dropped off by flying saucer? My suggestion may seem a little outrageous, but I am not sure it is anymore outlandish than the proposition that they are flying from somewhere up there? This notion may have seemed reasonable 2000 years ago when Heaven was thought to be located immediately above the sky, but today it creates something of a problem. Have you ever thought to try and rationalize the difficulty?

Angels are warriors. They are God's army and messengers and servants. All angels mentioned in the Bible are men. Despite all the images of artists to the contrary, none of the angels described in the Bible are women or children. One of the Names of God is "Lord of Hosts" which signifies that He is Lord of Angel Armies.

Satan has been described as a rebel and an angel. In Job 1:7, the travel time between heaven and earth is not a hindrance. Satan reports that he had come from earth and not from a long journey.

And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” - Job 1:7

Angels are spirits. They travel at the "speed of spirits" and do not appear to be limited by the speed of light.

Merry Christmas. .

 

[Cycel]

Merry Christmas. .

Merry Christmas, Nl. Enjoy the day with your family, and see you on-line soon.

 

[Dan_473]

Anyone who can't see Hitler was a madman has something wrong with them. My son has been reading Hitler's Table Talk. What's interesting is that Hitler often showed lucid, deep insight one moment, then in the next instance came across as a total lunatic.

Something you might find interesting is that in private Hitler showed only contempt for Christianity. His public demonstrations were quite different. On the other hand he had no liking of atheists and believed them all fools. Hitler had his own version of God, he was no atheist.


Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler provided a valid moralistic society (at least for part of the population) is probably spoiling for a fight. If you listened to Harris' talk, or read his book, you'd recognize that in no way could Nazi Germany quality as anything desirable in Harris' envisioned moral landscape.


Harris spends a great deal of time talking about this and I suspect you’d probably agree with much of what he says. He explains in the talk that the irony of it all is that the Christian right is well aware of the dilemma we face in the world today, while the liberal left, with its moral relativism, appears oblivious to the danger. This is not to say Harris is sympathetic to the Christian right, he is not, but he recognizes that the real threat to Western society is Islam, and he spends a good deal of time hammering the sons of Mohammad. I suspect his real hope, in writing The Moral Landscape, is that he might wake up the moral relativists to the danger we are all facing.

Does Harris think science can answer moral issues? Yes. Does he think we possess that ability now? No.

If you listen to Harris he says we are not even close. He believes “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know. He doesn't think the Bible is the answer, and explains why in his talk. He is well placed to make these kinds of investigations as he is a neuroscientist, and he outlines some of the research being done, but admits that new techniques need to be developed and a lot more work needs to follow. He says the surface of this field has barely been scratched. His other intent then is to open the eyes of researchers and help them see that this line of inquiry is worth pursuing.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...:s,v:v,m:sa&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

"Anyone who can't see Hitler was a madman has something wrong with them."

I think that's a belief statement, similar to 'anyone who can't see that God exists is just denying the obvious'.






"Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler provided a valid moralistic society is probably spoiling for a fight."

Again, we could also say something similar, 'anyone who says there aren't spirits is looking just to argue'.







"If you listened to Harris' talk, or read his book, you'd recognize that in no way could Nazi Germany quality as anything desirable in Harris' envisioned moral landscape."

Does Harris present evidence, or is he just talking about his opinion?

Harris probably doesn't agree with Christian morality on issues like, 'it's right to worship the one, true God, wrong to worship other gods'. He probably does agree with Christians about most human-to-human morals.

The question is not does Harris have morals, it's how he arrived at them. I don't doubt that Harris has ideas about right and wrong, just as Hitler had ideas, too.





"He believes “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know."

Yes, he believes. He is a believer. When a Christian recites a creed, it usually begins with, 'I believe'... in Latin, that's 'credo'. Most atheists have a creed, they are believers... they may believe that human life has value, or that we have free will, or that Hitler was wrong, etc.

Is it a good idea to believe in the scientific method? Sure, in the sense of acknowledging it's impressive track record in exploring the physical world. Are Right and Wrong part of the physical world? To believe that science will find right and wrong is, I think, similar to believing that science will one day find the spirit energies that surround us...

 

[Human]

"Anyone who can't see Hitler was a madman has something wrong with them."

I think that's a belief statement, similar to 'anyone who can't see that God exists is just denying the obvious'.






"Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler provided a valid moralistic society is probably spoiling for a fight."

Again, we could also say something similar, 'anyone who says there aren't spirits is looking just to argue'.







"If you listened to Harris' talk, or read his book, you'd recognize that in no way could Nazi Germany quality as anything desirable in Harris' envisioned moral landscape."

Does Harris present evidence, or is he just talking about his opinion?

Harris probably doesn't agree with Christian morality on issues like, 'it's right to worship the one, true God, wrong to worship other gods'. He probably does agree with Christians about most human-to-human morals.

The question is not does Harris have morals, it's how he arrived at them. I don't doubt that Harris has ideas about right and wrong, just as Hitler had ideas, too.





"He believes “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know."

Yes, he believes. He is a believer. When a Christian recites a creed, it usually begins with, 'I believe'... in Latin, that's 'credo'. Most atheists have a creed, they are believers... they may believe that human life has value, or that we have free will, or that Hitler was wrong, etc.

Is it a good idea to believe in the scientific method? Sure, in the sense of acknowledging it's impressive track record in exploring the physical world. Are Right and Wrong part of the physical world? To believe that science will find right and wrong is, I think, similar to believing that science will one day find the spirit energies that surround us...

So morality is metaphysical? lol.

The big difference between religious standards of morality, apart from the deontological nature of biblical moral codes vs the cause-consequential relative nature of other codes, is that scientific study provides us verifiable psychological and sociological trends and physical evidence upon which to base our moral decisions, rather than superstitions. For instance, the universal agreement that tranquility is a better state of mind than discontent, anger, hatred, jealousy, envy or being in physical pain -- all of which constitute forms of suffering, negative emotions that people do not enjoy -- is a verifiable indicator of the direction our moral framework should be pointed.

There is no other necessary basis for morality than that which is motivate to help suffering rather than create it, in my mind. That does not require the bible, and in fact, the deontological nature of biblical moral codes negates the need for humanity to study psychological trends or recognize universal patterns within our sociology. All the deontological code requires is obedience, regardless of circumstance, cause, consequence or situation, which makes its moral scope far inferior to sociological/psychological based ethical systems.

 

[Kerry]

Cause precipie can't get a grip, guess he is off celebrating Christmas like a good atheist.

 

[Kerry]

Oh well there here but want talk. Oh well I will give them what they are waiting for. Logging off and good night. Y'all can spread lies now

 

[Cycel]

Oh well there (their) here but want (won't) talk.

When you posted it was about 6:20 AM my time. Not sure what time zone you are in Kerry, but it's pretty early in the morning.

Oh well I will give them what they are waiting for. Logging off and good night. Y'all can spread lies now

Just to keep you better informed: it is not a lie when you speak, what is for you, the truth.

PS: Hope you had a great Christmas Kerry.

 

[nl]

So morality is metaphysical? lol.

The big difference between religious standards of morality, apart from the deontological nature of biblical moral codes vs the cause-consequential relative nature of other codes, is that scientific study provides us verifiable psychological and sociological trends and physical evidence upon which to base our moral decisions, rather than superstitions. For instance, the universal agreement that tranquility is a better state of mind than discontent, anger, hatred, jealousy, envy or being in physical pain -- all of which constitute forms of suffering, negative emotions that people do not enjoy -- is a verifiable indicator of the direction our moral framework should be pointed.

There is no other necessary basis for morality than that which is motivate to help suffering rather than create it, in my mind. That does not require the bible, and in fact, the deontological nature of biblical moral codes negates the need for humanity to study psychological trends or recognize universal patterns within our sociology. All the deontological code requires is obedience, regardless of circumstance, cause, consequence or situation, which makes its moral scope far inferior to sociological/psychological based ethical systems.

Jesus gave us the "Golden Rule" in the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 7:12.

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

Do you have something better?Jesus is famous among people on earth for the Golden Rule. That may be all that some people know about Jesus. A related principle was found in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:18: You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

The Golden Rule does address duty to neighbor. The Golden Rule does not address duty to God or the way of salvation from God's judgment and wrath. Those topics are discussed elsewhere.

 

[Cycel]

Jesus gave us the "Golden Rule" in the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 7:12.

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

Do you have something better?

Buddha taught the Golden Rule in the 6th century BC. There are also a number of examples of it in ancient Greece from before the time of Christ and I believe the earliest example comes from the law codes of Hammurabi in about 1780 BC. Wikipedia has a whole list of pre-Christian sources under the heading Golden Rule.

 

[nl]

Buddha taught the Golden Rule in the 6th century BC. There are also a number of examples of it in ancient Greece from before the time of Christ and I believe the earliest example comes from the law codes of Hammurabi in about 1780 BC. Wikipedia has a whole list of pre-Christian sources under the heading Golden Rule.

Many (not all) of the ancient formulations of the Golden Rule were expressed in the negative with expressions like "Do not" and "Never do". Jesus expressed the Golden Rule in the positive:

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

 

[Cycel]

"Anyone who can't see Hitler was a madman has something wrong with them." -- Cycel

I think that's a belief statement, similar to 'anyone who can't see that God exists is just denying the obvious'.

No. We can't see God, but we can see the gas chambers and crematoriums. Anyone who is reasonable will acknowledge that Hitler was a disturbed and very dangerous despot. How many millions died needlessly as a result of his actions? The answer is about 48 million people. You can look it up.

"Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler provided a valid moralistic society is probably spoiling for a fight." -- Cycel

Again, we could also say something similar, 'anyone who says there aren't spirits is looking just to argue'.

No, once again. Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler may have provided a moralistic society is either looking for an argument to prove some other point, or he is a neo-Nazi. Which are you? I am thinking, not the latter.

"If you listened to Harris' talk, or read his book, you'd recognize that in no way could Nazi Germany quality as anything desirable in Harris' envisioned moral landscape." -- Cycel

Does Harris present evidence, or is he just talking about his opinion?

The position you are taking, for the sake of argument, is unreasonable. I can't believe that, on some plain, you think Hitler built a moralist society?

Harris probably doesn't agree with Christian morality on issues like, 'it's right to worship the one, true God, wrong to worship other gods'.

Unless I am thinking of some other lecture then, yes, he does address this.

It is interesting that you want to talk about his thesis but you don't want to listen to what he has to say. You are getting all your information 2nd hand. I revisited the lecture a second time. It is only one hour long and there is much you'd probably completely agree with. The last 45 minutes is the Q & A period.

He probably does agree with Christians about most human-to-human morals.

He says the irony is that the Christian right understands far better the dilemma the world faces than do most liberal thinkers. Yes, he agrees with you on a great deal.

The question is not does Harris have morals, it's how he arrived at them. I don't doubt that Harris has ideas about right and wrong, just as Hitler had ideas, too.

Do not equate Harris with Hitler. There is no similarity in their thinking. You, however, probably know that.

"He believes “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know."

Yes, he believes. He is a believer. When a Christian recites a creed, it usually begins with, 'I believe'... in Latin, that's 'credo'.

I am shaking my head at the way you twist things. He did not say believe. That was the word I chose. Let's change it up: Harris says “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know." In other words, he does not know at this time whether it is possible that science might some day give us answers to questions of morality. However, he thinks this is something science should explore.

Most atheists have a creed, they are believers... they may believe that human life has value, or that we have free will, or that Hitler was wrong, etc.

People have all sorts of beliefs Dan: they think there are ghosts, they think Big Foot is real, they think the Loch Ness Monster exists, they think the British monarchy had a part in Diana's death, they think the Moon landing was faked, and so on. These are not creeds. The thing about the Creed, Dan, is that it is a formal religious statement pertaining to requirements of belief that are a necessary part of calling oneself a Christian. Atheists have no such formal statement of required beliefs. We have no Creed.

Is it a good idea to believe in the scientific method? Sure, in the sense of acknowledging it's impressive track record in exploring the physical world. Are Right and Wrong part of the physical world? To believe that science will find right and wrong is, I think, similar to believing that science will one day find the spirit energies that surround us...

You need to examine Harris' hypothesis. Listen to it from the horses' mouth, so to speak.

 

[Cycel]

Many (not all) of the ancient formulations of the Golden Rule were expressed in the negative with expressions like "Do not" and "Never do". Jesus expressed the Golden Rule in the positive:

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

Jesus said it well, and its played an important part in the way I live my life, yes, but the point is the sentiment did not originate with Christianity. Jesus did not think of it first.

 

[Human]

Jesus gave us the "Golden Rule" in the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 7:12.

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

Do you have something better?Jesus is famous among people on earth for the Golden Rule. That may be all that some people know about Jesus. A related principle was found in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:18: You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

The Golden Rule does address duty to neighbor. The Golden Rule does not address duty to God or the way of salvation from God's judgment and wrath. Those topics are discussed elsewhere.

The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus. Confucious, Mozi, Laozi, Tao, Buddha, Theles, Isocrates, Epicurus, Plato, Seneca, Vidura etc etc all spoke of it. It actually existed long before Judaism, too.

The Vedas were written in the 12th century BCE. Exodus wasn't written until the 7th century BCE. The Indus Valley Civilization lived from the 25th Century BCE. By the time Judaism was in its infancy, the Hindus had been propagating the golden rule for over a thousand years.

Regardless of the religious beginnings of the phrase, empathy is an innate human trait. Nobody wants to be murdered; that alone is sufficient that most people don't murder someone. The same empathetic desire can be applied to many crimes or immoral actions.

I notice later in this thread you use the argument that because Jesus speaks the Golden Rule with a positive attribution, that he is unique. The Hindu rendition is a positive attribution predating Judaism by many hundreds of years; ''By self control and by making right-conduct your life's focus, treat others as you treat yourself''.

 

[Dan_473]

So morality is metaphysical? lol.

The big difference between religious standards of morality, apart from the deontological nature of biblical moral codes vs the cause-consequential relative nature of other codes, is that scientific study provides us verifiable psychological and sociological trends and physical evidence upon which to base our moral decisions, rather than superstitions. For instance, the universal agreement that tranquility is a better state of mind than discontent, anger, hatred, jealousy, envy or being in physical pain -- all of which constitute forms of suffering, negative emotions that people do not enjoy -- is a verifiable indicator of the direction our moral framework should be pointed.

There is no other necessary basis for morality than that which is motivate to help suffering rather than create it, in my mind. That does not require the bible, and in fact, the deontological nature of biblical moral codes negates the need for humanity to study psychological trends or recognize universal patterns within our sociology. All the deontological code requires is obedience, regardless of circumstance, cause, consequence or situation, which makes its moral scope far inferior to sociological/psychological based ethical systems.

"So morality is metaphysical? lol."

Is morality part of the physical world? If so, is it matter? energy? something else? I don't think I used the word 'metaphysical'. If it's not part of the physical world, what word would you use?





"...scientific study provides us verifiable psychological and sociological trends and physical evidence upon which to base our moral decisions..."

Hitler was building on a 'social trend'... europe has a long history of anti-semitism, I think. So, what physical evidence do you present that Hitler was wrong?






"...the universal agreement that tranquility is a better... [than] ...suffering..."

I agree that everybody tries to avoid suffering for themselves. Many people try to avoid suffering for others, but I disagree that it's universal.






"There is no other necessary basis for morality than that which is motivate to help suffering rather than create it, in my mind."

Yes, the key phrase, I think is, 'in my mind'. It's an opinion, one that not everyone shares.






"...regardless of circumstance, cause, consequence or situation..."

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that approach? If so, I disagree. I don't endorse strict interpretations of the scriptures, but even if one does, I don't think the Bible, taken as a whole, teaches that.


So, big picture... I understand you to be endorsing reduction in suffering as the best moral standard. Would this apply to human suffering only, or to other species' suffering as well? Also, Hitler was attempting to make the world a better place, by helping to build a world free of non-human pretenders.

 

[Dan_473]

When you posted it was about 6:20 AM my time. Not sure what time zone you are in Kerry, but it's pretty early in the morning.

Why waste time sleeping when you could be posting on CC?

 

[Brother_Don]

Many groups and leaders taught good morals, and things taught by Jesus Christ from the beginning, But only one name is the name above every name, it's Jesus Christ.

 

[nl]

Buddha taught the Golden Rule in the 6th century BC. There are also a number of examples of it in ancient Greece from before the time of Christ and I believe the earliest example comes from the law codes of Hammurabi in about 1780 BC. Wikipedia has a whole list of pre-Christian sources under the heading Golden Rule

The Golden Rule existed long before Jesus. Confucious, Mozi, Laozi, Tao, Buddha, Theles, Isocrates, Epicurus, Plato, Seneca, Vidura etc etc all spoke of it. It actually existed long before Judaism, too.

The Vedas were written in the 12th century BCE. Exodus wasn't written until the 7th century BCE. The Indus Valley Civilization lived from the 25th Century BCE. By the time Judaism was in its infancy, the Hindus had been propagating the golden rule for over a thousand years.

Regardless of the religious beginnings of the phrase, empathy is an innate human trait. Nobody wants to be murdered; that alone is sufficient that most people don't murder someone. The same empathetic desire can be applied to many crimes or immoral actions.

I notice later in this thread you use the argument that because Jesus speaks the Golden Rule with a positive attribution, that he is unique. The Hindu rendition is a positive attribution predating Judaism by many hundreds of years; ''By self control and by making right-conduct your life's focus, treat others as you treat yourself''.

Many (not all) of the ancient formulations of the Golden Rule were expressed in the negative with expressions like "Do not" and "Never do". Jesus expressed the Golden Rule in the positive:

Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them... - Matthew 7:12

Moral truth is fixed and unchanging and not evolving. Jesus stated well what others had previously known and declared.

 

[Dan_473]

No. We can't see God, but we can see the gas chambers and crematoriums. Anyone who is reasonable will acknowledge that Hitler was a disturbed and very dangerous despot. How many millions died needlessly as a result of his actions? The answer is about 48 million people. You can look it up.


No, once again. Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler may have provided a moralistic society is either looking for an argument to prove some other point, or he is a neo-Nazi. Which are you? I am thinking, not the latter.



The position you are taking, for the sake of argument, is unreasonable. I can't believe that, on some plain, you think Hitler built a moralist society?


Unless I am thinking of some other lecture then, yes, he does address this.

It is interesting that you want to talk about his thesis but you don't want to listen to what he has to say. You are getting all your information 2nd hand. I revisited the lecture a second time. It is only one hour long and there is much you'd probably completely agree with. The last 45 minutes is the Q & A period.


He says the irony is that the Christian right understands far better the dilemma the world faces than do most liberal thinkers. Yes, he agrees with you on a great deal.


Do not equate Harris with Hitler. There is no similarity in their thinking. You, however, probably know that.


I am shaking my head at the way you twist things. He did not say believe. That was the word I chose. Let's change it up: Harris says “There are answers (but) whether we can get those answers or not,” he doesn’t know." In other words, he does not know at this time whether it is possible that science might some day give us answers to questions of morality. However, he thinks this is something science should explore.


People have all sorts of beliefs Dan: they think there are ghosts, they think Big Foot is real, they think the Loch Ness Monster exists, they think the British monarchy had a part in Diana's death, they think the Moon landing was faked, and so on. These are not creeds. The thing about the Creed, Dan, is that it is a formal religious statement pertaining to requirements of belief that are a necessary part of calling oneself a Christian. Atheists have no such formal statement of required beliefs. We have no Creed.


You need to examine Harris' hypothesis. Listen to it from the horses' mouth, so to speak.

"No. We can't see God, but we can see the gas chambers and crematoriums."

Gas chambers and crematoriums are not evil anymore than guns or drugs are evil. They are physical objects.

I think to make the above parallel work, we have to lay it out like this:

gas chambers are to evil

as

*blank* is to God.

What would the blank be? Could be lots of things, let's say 'stars'.

So, I think, to make the parallel work, we would say, "I can see gas chambers, so I know there's evil. I can see stars, so I know there's God." Someone might say there're other possible explanations for the stars... true, there're other possible explanations for the chambers as well.




"Anyone who is reasonable will acknowledge that Hitler was a disturbed and very dangerous despot."

How about a similar statement, 'Anyone who is reasonable will acknowledge that God exists'?




"How many millions died needlessly as a result of his actions?"

Whether it was needless or not depends on your moral framework, I think.




"Anyone who wants to argue that Hitler may have provided a moralistic society is either looking for an argument to prove some other point, or he is a neo-Nazi."

Well, I do enjoy a good rousing discussion... but really, at this point, I'm interested in trying to figure out how this works in your (or anyone else's) mind... you seem eager to look at things in the 'God' area, and say 'there's no evidence, case closed.' Yet you seem don't seem willing to use the same rigor when dealing with your other beliefs.

Imo, when an atheist and a Christian are talking, it's not 'unbeliever vs believer'... It's 'a believer in some things vs a believer in other things'. Though, many atheists don't like the idea of 'believer'... I'm not sure why...




"The position you are taking, for the sake of argument, is unreasonable."

I understand you view it as unreasonable, I think you say that because it conflicts with some part of your belief system. Really, at heart, don't you just plain believe in things that indicate Hitler was wrong?



"Unless I am thinking of some other lecture then, yes, he does address this."

Cool... and what does he say? does he say it's wrong to worship other gods?



"It is interesting that you want to talk about his thesis but you don't want to listen to what he has to say."

Harris is an interesting guy, don't get me wrong... I've listened to/watched other things of his... it's partly a matter of time, and how to spend it... in the end, he's not here, I can't discuss this one-on-one with him... the critical thing is what does Cycel understand Harris to be saying... that's why I asked for your summary.





"Yes, he agrees with you on a great deal."

Well, he is a smart guy...





"Do not equate Harris with Hitler. There is no similarity in their thinking."

They are equal in some respects... they both have ideas, values, morals...





"He did not say believe. That was the word I chose."

Exactly... and since you're the one that's here, I followed up on your word.





"In other words, he does not know at this time whether it is possible that science might some day give us answers to questions of morality. However, he thinks this is something science should explore."

I think science should try to explore everything... that's how we learn new stuff... should science explore the spirit energies around us? If not, why not?





"People have all sorts of beliefs Dan: they think there are ghosts, they think Big Foot is real... These are not creeds."

I agree... I usually use 'creed' to mean a belief that supports one's values, life-approach, worldview, etc...




"Atheists have no such formal statement of required beliefs. We have no Creed."

Of course, 'atheist' doesn't tell us what a person is, just what they are not... I said 'most atheists' (or did I say 'many'?)... In my experience, most atheists do hold beliefs that shape their worldview... they may say to themselves 'I believe that thus-and-so is right (or wrong).' If they were speaking Latin, that 'I believe' would be 'credo'...





"You need to examine Harris' hypothesis. Listen to it from the horses' mouth, so to speak. "

Is it something you understand well enough to put into your own words? that's what I'm interested in...