They each had ONE untruth? They have a long way to go.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I just read an article on the net written by two popular atheists as to the proof of the nonexistence of a soul. It was going along pretty good with the brain stuff and the accusations of all that religious nonsense stuff and then kaboom. They got to consciousness, subjective consciousness.

Well then they decided that the day would come through science probably in the 21 century that the scientists would figure out this subjective consciousness problem. Many call this the hard problem, hard problem indeed.

Not only do the atheists not look at the evidence for consciousness being able to reside outside the brain and if they do find something they cannot explain they cite fraud or give some ridiculous explanation. Then in an act of faith they feel comfortable with their proofs to be proved maybe in this century.

Please is there one atheist out there that deals with probabilities and not absolutes. The scientific method is about dealing with probabilities not absolutes. Example the research done on the girl from Russia and her abilities to detect physical disease from a debunker organization, the findings were stated as an absolute not a probability. Ouch the ignorance in that was an astronomical ignorance of the scientific method.

As a side note the design of experiments utilized with that research was beyond mere ignorance it could be labeled as fraud or maybe just total incompetence. Maybe it was a pr stunt and not intended to be a valid research project.

The atheist claiming there is no soul and the proof will come sometime is the 21st century is like the preacher asking his or her congregation to have faith in his words based on ancient authority. Cannot the atheist see they are both dealing in faith? It is so obvious. No I know they cannot that is the power of paradigms.

As always there is little difference between the atheist and their religion of scientism and the religious with their beliefs in ancient authority. One must stand in the middle of both to see this play out on a daily basis. Maybe the Buddha was on to something with his middle path idea. Or maybe not.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi Researcher,

There is no serious evidence for consciousness outside the brain, so why would anyone want to spend time considering it?

Cheers,
Graham

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Researcher:

“The atheist claiming there is no soul and the proof will come sometime is the 21st century is like the preacher asking his or her congregation to have faith in his words based on ancient authority.”

The arguments for the non-existence of the soul are not based on authority, but on scientific observations. The skeptic is free to examine and reject these observations if she feels they are inadequate, and there are no dire consequences for her doing so (i.e., she will not be threatened with an afterlife of suffering).

As to claims about future scientific advances: in many cases your analogy is correct. Like religious claims, they can easily be rejected.  Predictions are generally too uncertain to have any great credibility, while religious claims have little or no evidential support.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I do not think that they are real sheiks, rabbis and ministers. They are either retired or super liberal and certainly do not speak for their respective faiths.

I thought was very interesting that all the contradictions contained in their various holy books were not nearly as contentious as the subject of Israel.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Sounds like the start of a good joke…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The Reason Project’s goal is “to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.”

Where is critical thinking in terms of critiquing philosophic materialism and methodological materialism? With Harris and co. I only see a slavish adherence to these isms. No they’re not critical thinkers as they claim to be. 

When Harris, Dawkins etc pontificate on materialism and an atheistic universe, they sure do appear as dogmatic as the religious person they’re trying to “erode”!

When Christians can’t even pray in schools, or when people who come out and present a philosophic and scientific case for an open universe with the very plausible God hypothesis are being attacked as nut jobs without hearing their case, what bigotry are you talking about??? Will you please also erode this kind of bigotry?

Do i hear a dismissive hubristic response, ‘What case are you talking about?’ Well, for a good start, deal with Dean Overman’s A Case for the Existence of God. Add also Dinesh DSouza’a Life After Death…The Evidence.

And please don’t give me that typical cavalier dismissal type of response e.g. ‘These guys and their tired arguments have been debunked long ago. You can’t take them seriously.’ Give me a break.

Please look at the plank in your own eye first before you go on “eroding” the “errors” you see in the other camp.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ER, you are free to believe what you want to believe. And, you are free to look at the world with a plank in your eye. I feel like I removed the plank when I was 8 years old, when I didn’t just follow along with what my xtian parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. were telling was the truth. You may believe in the existence of god. Good for you. I do not. Simple. No dogma. No rules. No cases for the existence or non existence. Just my own thoughts and feelings.

I like what these religious guys had to say along the lines of everyone getting along. That there are offensive things that are in each of them’s holy books. This should cause them to wonder, however, as to how such things made it in to a book “authored by god” to be his “inerrent word.” It has always caused me to wonder and gave me pause as a child as to how this stuff was believed in and how it could possibly be true.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

if we can find an ‘untruth’ in a supposed to be holy book, then it is not a holy book at all! why not just discard it and be totally free?
if anyone can decide which is holy and which is not in a holy book, than HE is holier than the book!
isn’t this only a simple logic?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

imagine the minister praying:
dear God, thank you for granting me your wisdom to discern the truth and untruth in your holy book, for thy word is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword(KJV). thank you for revealing that you are not the only way to God, and that John 14:6 ‘no man comes to the Father, but by me’ is bogus. for thy word is the lamp unto my feet and the light unto my path. i pray that You will continue to use me as a faithful servant to deliver your holy word. Amen.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

May, I completely agree. Inconsistencies like that helped to lead me to entirely reject the Bible and the god of the Abrahamic religions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.