This is why I find it SO important to donate to the Secular Student Alliance.  College is a great time for people to be exposed to a group of free-thinkers.  (Secular Student Alliance has some high school groups too.)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

yes please donate i am actually the guy in the picture

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Congrats, zach. Sounds like an interesting group.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Donate by becoming a member (Anyone, student or non-student, is welcome and encouraged to join.)...
https://www.secularstudents.org/join

Donate without becoming a member…
https://www.secularstudents.org/node/8

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 slavish adherence to these isms. They’re not really the critical thinkers that they pride themselves to be.

With Harris, Dawkins etc pontificating on materialism and an atheistic universe who needs a religious dogmatist? They’re as dogmatic as any religious person can get!

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, Os Guinness’ Long Journey Home and Phillip Wiebe’s God and Other Spirits. There is enough sound REASON in these books than your materialism enslaved mind can chew on. Reason Project? Go for it, read these books and don’t let Harris and co. do the reasoning for you.

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.

Wow, so RP is getting “infiltrators” now?  And did i just see a reference to a Dinesh D’Souza text?  What in the…?  I would strongly recommend that you just say what you feel personally, E. R., because referencing a circular-argument prolonging, logical fallacy spewing, irrelevant-analogy reciting individual whose points are consistently destroyed during debates doesn’t help or make your point.  Your “give me a break” statements and accusations of bigotry leave me wondering if you even have a point or just enjoy posting comments on your free time.

For a while there I could sift through the comments sections of this site without seeing any nonsense, but I guess that time has passed.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

E. R Nartatez, we just want to see evidence.  I, for one, am open to evidence.  It’s been 40 years of living.  Still nothing, and this having grown up in a peacefully religious household.

If D’souza’s book is anything like his public speaking, there are only word games and wishful thinking.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Furthermore, Harris has publicly bristled at the notion of anyone letting him doing his reasoning for them.  He simply puts out ideas to be considered.  From my perspective, they are mostly great ideas.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Manmad, Mikey nails, your comments really only proves what i’ve posted. Why don’t you just try to look at the evidence yourselves and really follow where it leads, and not just parrot what you’ve heard from your favorite atheists. We are all prejudiced one way or the other, and the problem is that when we listen or read something that, from our gut reaction, we don’t agree with or even thoroughly despise, like GOD…perish the thought! ... we tend to miss the truth that’s right in front of us.

As for myself, i’ve been trying to read Carl Sagan’s book The Demon Haunted World to try to grasp what this outstanding atheist evangelist is really saying and evaluate it as openly as i can. I find a lot of good points that i fully follow. However, i also find problems with the way he handles some critical issues. His philosophic materialistic presuppositions keeps him from considering other more plausible explanations. Thus he commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. The options are not just A and C, there is a possible, in fact more plausible, B explanation.

I challenge both of you to get out of your atheistic comfort zone and grab Overman’s book, A Case for the Existence of God. Try to HONESTLY follow the scientific and philosophic evidence and see where it leads. Surely you’re not afraid to do that are you? It’s just a book.

By the way, don’t give that bigoted reaction to Dinesh D’Souza, even your own living saint Christopher Hitchens has this to say to concerning his book Life after Death,

“Dinesh D’Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent.”

Please live what you preach and stop being bigoted.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Manmad, i would like to offer you my sincere gratitude for providing unmistakable evidence for my piece.

“Wow, so RP is getting “infiltrators” now?”

With this mentality who needs religious bigots?!

Next time please actually engage me in what i’m actually saying and not throw a tantrum. Can you do that? I do believe you have a REASONABLE mind right? I’d appreciate that.

Civility is important in this debate. We’re no longer just brute beasts, you know, we’ve evolved to being civilized homo sapiens right? Even the moderators of this site i think agrees with me on this point. So let’s act like we truly are. Thank you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Manmad, Mikey nails, your comments really only proves[sic] what i’ve posted. Why don’t you just try to look at the evidence yourselves and really follow where it leads,”

Yep.  That’s what I said I do.  That conversation was kind of like me saying I like to go bowling, and you saying, “Mikey Nails, you should tries bowlings.”

Pretty sure you do not know what I have read and what evidence I have experienced.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Yep.  That’s what I said I do.”

Seek for evidence… for truth. To live means to continue to seek. But here’s a problem; some people seek to get a taste of really good wine but they only go to places that serve soft drinks.

Well, if you want to get a taste of really “good wine” let me invite you again to read the following,

In terms of human experience, THE GOOD LIFE by Chuck Colson; LONG JOURNEY HOME by Os Guinness

On the technical issues on God’s existence Overman’s book would suffice.

The change of Anthony Flew’s position, the re conversion of A. N. Wilson, the conversion of Francis Collins [Harris’ critique on Collins’ book notwithstanding] should at least encourage some degree of humility among the arrogant posturing of some atheists to acknowledge that perhaps their dogmatic atheism is not as certain as they promote it to be.

<That conversation was kind of like me saying I like to go bowling, and you saying, “Mikey Nails, you should tries bowlings.”>

Going sarcastic on my grammar now? That’s ok. I’m an Asian that just learned how to speak and write English by experience and not by formal training. So i have no illusions of displaying grammatical exactness. Let’s just stick to the issues.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

E.R., I’ve been a member of this site for a few months now, and I’ve never seen any comments from apparent theists asking for members here to use sound reason.  It’s what this entire site is about, if you haven’t noticed.  It was quite obvious that you were new here and didn’t really fit in to the normal comments that I’ve read previously (hence the use of the word infiltrators in quotations).  I meant that in a joking manner.  Plus, you didn’t even respond to the article - which can be expected from people like you just looking to pick a fight on a website you don’t agree with.

I am a member of this site because I am atheist and am looking for interesting articles on the inappropriate and unnecessary uses of theism.  On the other hand, you seem to want to proselytize on…wait, I’m not even sure if you describe yourself as a theist or not.  I have not read any of the books that you are, poorly, attempting to encourage me to read, and if its going to make my argumentative style even vaguely similar to yours or Dinesh’s…I’ll pass.

And I think it’s safe to assume “our living saint”, as you likely have never heard any atheist refer to him as, Christopher Hitchens thinks D’Souza is a formidable debate opponent because he gives believers in the audience the circular argument they require to keep them from thinking openly about Mr. Hitchen’s powerful points.

Which god do you believe in anyway?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To E. R Nartatez
“<That conversation was kind of like me saying I like to go bowling, and you saying, “Mikey Nails, you should tries bowlings.”>

Going sarcastic on my grammar now? That’s ok. I’m an Asian that just learned how to speak and write English by experience and not by formal training. So i have no illusions of displaying grammatical exactness. Let’s just stick to the issues.”

You’re right about that.  Sorry.  As they say, “Sarcasm:  Just one of the many services I offer.”

Amazing that we can even carry on this conversation from such a distance!

As far as arrogance, isn’t it arrogant to believe that the universe was created by a god just for you, a member of his favorite species?  Seems so to me.  I am both humbled and awestruck to simply be a part of this universe.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

manmade…

You’re correct; i’m new in this site. I’m not trying to pick a fight though. However, I’m sick and tired of all the subtle and not so subtle attacks on theists <yes i am one> as equal to people who believe in a flat earth. I think this has become so pervasive in the West that it is now a knee-jerk reaction of many when they hear the word “God” or Christianity. Sometimes i visit the site of Richard Dawkins and i am aghast at the comments of people. What i find is more a cheering, mocking crowd shouting “Hooray for Dawkins!!! Boo to all the lunatic theists who disagree with him!!!” I compare this to Uncommon Descent and what i see there is serious in depth discussion on contemporary philosophical and scientific issues by theists, atheists and agnostics.

I guess my motive is to challenge you atheists to not just be so smug about your atheism on one hand while pointing out the “ugly” side of theism on the other. If this is proselytizing then so be it. I challenge you to honestly and carefully look at the strength of theism, historically, socially, philosophically, morally, and scientifically. The books i listed will give you that opportunity to, if you have an open mind. Grab Os Guinness’ Long Journey Home or Charles Colson’s The Good Life for a start and you’ll see what I mean. When A. N. Wilson was asked the question “What’s the worst thing about being faithless?” His response is of interest to this issue.

“The worst thing about being faithless? When I thought I was an atheist I would listen to the music of Bach and realize that his perception of life was deeper, wiser, more rounded than my own. Ditto when I read the lives of great men and women who were religious.”

I’m new with Dinesh, just saw him on youtube debating Hitchens. Previous to his book on life after death i have read some articles on it and the evidence is strong that flat materialism cannot account for the evidence and the corroborative evidences for life after death. And if there is indeed evidence for life after death then it completely destroys atheism. We’re not just dust after all!

“And I think it’s safe to assume “our living saint”, as you likely have never heard any atheist refer to him as, Christopher Hitchens thinks D’Souza is a formidable debate opponent because he gives believers in the audience the circular argument they require to keep them from thinking openly about Mr. Hitchen’s powerful points.”

I don’t think this is a “safe” assumption. I believe Hitchens is intellectually mature and honest enough to sincerely give credit to someone who deserves it. If you can point out to me that Hitchens indeed is saying what you assume him to say then i’ll be happy to correct myself.

”... to keep them from thinking openly about Mr. Hitchen’s powerful points.”

This is the problem i’m trying to point out in the dialogue between theists and atheists. Just replace the name Hitchens with the name of a known theist e.g. C.S Lewis or William Lane Craig and you will see my point.

Blaise Pascal said, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”  All of us have the tendency to grab hold of a belief not because of the evidence but because we personally like it. It becomes a matter of taste. But this is a dangerous game. Truth is not a matter of taste. If atheism is true then we theists are under a bad delusion, and we miss out on a few things you atheists can enjoy with impunity. Basically that’s it. If classical theism is true then you atheists fall under a worse fate than us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hello, E. R Nartatez.

I do not believe in the existence of any god. In which god do you believe? 

One can be considered a ‘formidable debate opponent’, but it does not make that individual’s argument or standpoint true, nor worthy of praise or respect.  D’Souza makes great points that make sense at times.  He is an intelligent, thoughtful person.  He believes in the Roman Catholic god and afterlife - Hitchens does not.  My point is that, though, Hitchens may have stated that D’Souza is a formidable opponent during debates, Hitchens disagrees with D’Souza’s argument.  As you know a debate is a competition where the audience serves as the judge.  D’Souza vs Hitchens in a room full of atheists is a loss for D’Souza.  The same matchup in a room full of theists, and D’Souza becomes a formidable opponent.

Not surprisingly, Hitchens’ “intellectual maturity and honesty to sincerely give credit to someone who deserves it” would seem to have resulted in his anti-theism.  Does that reduce the credibility of these characteristics you’ve ascribed him?

Blaise Pascal?  He has the most cowardice approach to theism that I’ve ever read.  I’ll summarize his Wager: “It would be wise to, at least, pretend that there is an imaginary being, just in case it actually exists somewhere…and then when one dies one will go to its heaven forever…probably”.  Is this the open-mindedness and thoughtful approach you respect and expect from atheists?

E. R. I also think that you are confused about the overall ‘perspective’ of an atheist.  The thing is, there is no overall perspective.  It would seem that many atheists would not see a “strength of theism, historically, socially, philosophically, morally, and scientifically”. If so, they might feel that that strength is misused and misdirected.  Some flat-out deny the slightest possibility of the existence of a god, while others may not think it likely, but are open to proof of the existence of such a being.  If Hitchens were to profess his new found religiosity and love for any god (right now) it would not sway me in the slightest.  I do not idolize the human.  He is but a human, like me, of this universe, like everything that we are aware of.  It would seem quite hypocritical to the arguments that he has displayed in the past, but people change.  Can anyone reading this imagine Hitchens FOR the existence of a god?  I wonder which god he would choose… lol (I strongly doubt we will ever know).

On afterlife, I don’t have time right now to read the books you recommended on that (I’m currently preoccupied with Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species), but you mentioned that there is evidence and corroborative evidence for life after death.  Please show me the strong evidence that “we’re not just” wonderful “star dust after all!”  That would be amazing!

Oh, and I absolutely love (a sensation that an atheist can experience, too) Johann Sebastian Bach!!  Suite No. 3 in D Major soothes my, dare I say, “soul” (I enjoy it deeply).  Let’s credit Mr. Bach for creating these melodies - and not god - because god probably does not exist.

This is a fun discussion, E. R. Nartatez.  I normally do not go back and forth on a comments section or message board, but you have made this new experience quite enjoyable and interesting for me, and other readers I hope.  For that, I thank you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Manmade, Mikey nails…

Enjoying our dialogue. Pressed with time for the moment. I will submit my responses asap, i hope. As the Terminator says, “I’ll be back!”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The problem with reading theists arguments is I end up rolling my eyes, yelling at the book, throwing a little bit up in my throat… then I turn to page two.  I just can’t stand it, the lack of logic.  Instead of observing, then coming up with ideas from observances, they feel strongly that there is a god, then try to justify it.

I’m sort of approaching it differently (I grew up in a religious home, so I originally believed in the *not fundamental* christian god):  I am observing to the best of my ability.  I don’t see it.  If the god is there, it’s doing a good job of hiding.  I have no time for games.  There is grandeur in this Universe.

And just because a former atheist says he thought a theist had a deeper, wiser view of life than his own, doesn’t mean they do.  I feel quite the contrary.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Just a quick response <we’re in the midst of moving and transferring office and all that goes along with that!>

Mikey Nails
“The problem with reading theists arguments is I end up rolling my eyes, yelling at the book, throwing a little bit up in my throat… then I turn to page two.  I just can’t stand it, the lack of logic…”

WHAT KIND OF BOOKS ARE YOU READING?!?!?!

Grab Dean Overman’s A Case for the Existence of God and i guarantee you it will more than meet your demand for “logic”! Please don’t hide behind such excuses. I can tell you the same thing, reading elementary atheists arguing for atheism. But i’m not doing that. As i’ve said i’ve been going thru Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World, his apologetic case against the supernatural <also against the UFO stuff>. At least i will not be accused of reading elementary level, or the lunatic fringe category, materials by atheists.

Pick up the challenge and grab Overman’s book.

You’re right, when it comes to the “God” question, to the question of whether life has meaning and purpose, it’s not a game. Too much is at stake!

God hiding? Have you heard of the skeptic ant living on top of mount Vesuvious? This ant was last heard proudly declaring the non existense of this famous mountain; he said that he has searched far and wide, to and fro, here and there, back and forth, but he has never ever seen this mountain called Vesuvius. He said that he has climbed the biggest rocks, the tallest trees but still no site of this mount Vesuvius. No evidence! “If it’s so big how come there is not an iota of evidence for it? It’s all a stupid myth. My fellow ants, stop believing this nonsense!”

You get my point.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ManMade

Let me just comment on you response to my quote from Pascal, for the moment.

“Blaise Pascal?  He has the most cowardice approach to theism that I’ve ever read.  I’ll summarize his Wager…”

1.  My goodness, it appears that you did not even notice the quote, the moment you read the name Pascal your bias and prejudice automatically kicked in and completely overcomes your rationality.

Here’s the Pascal quote again, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

Do you agree with this statement? Any problems?

2.  Pascal’s wager is not his only “approach” to theism. The wager is simply a logical way of putting a point he is making. And I dare say the point indeed is very valid! Let me ask you this, say a scenario:

You’re in a sinking ship; the ship though badly battered by winds and waves, still has some facade of order inside. The band is still playing, people choosing to stay drinking and dancing their last night away. Life boats are released and the captain gives the grim announcement, “Abandon ship!” You look at the situation; you’re soaking wet with rain, the sinking ship, the winds and the waves, and the little lifeboat, people ready to jump in. You ask a very experienced ship officer, “What’s the chance of surviving in the lifeboat in this storm?” He responds, “Well, in my estimate sir as a seasoned sailor, in this weather and with this lifeboat I guess you have a 30 percent chance of surviving, or even less. With this weather and at this particular location the odds are really really tough sir. I’m sorry. But hey, there is still a real possibility of survival, who knows?” You stop to think. The officer, thru the wind and the rain, calls out to you, “Sir, are you in or out? Not much time.”

So there you have it. In the ship is certain death. In the lifeboat 30 or less percent chance of survival, 70 percent is sure death either by drowning or hypothermia. Or, you can choose to drink and dance your last night away. Pascal says one way or the other you have to make a choice. So what’s your decision? Will you choose to stay or take your chances in the lifeboat?

3.  You say Pascal’s wager is “the most cowardice” approach. Interesting. As an atheist living in your atheistic world, how do you judge something as cowardly or courageous? One atheist may deem something cowardly, but another atheist will look at that same thing and think it’s just practical wisdom and to do otherwise will not be personally advantageous therefore foolish. And NOBODY in the atheistic universe can make absolute judgment on the morality or the immorality of either position simply because of the fact that your atheistic world does not give you a standard, a reference point, an anchor, a ruler by which to measure something as cowardly or courageous. The best you can have is an ad hoc opinion that anybody can reject because he has his own ad hoc opinion about the matter.  All the moral erudition that some atheists have put out simply vanishes when another atheist says, ‘Says who? I ain’t buyin that, and there’s no way you’re gonna make me buy that! I have my own thoughts about the matter. You have yours, I have mine. I like my chicken roasted, you want yours deep fried. Who are you by the way? God?”  If you have the money, the power, and the muscle you might just simply intimidate him to submit to your ad hoc opinion, but it still does not take away the fact that yours is still an ad hoc opinion.

As you said of Hitchens, “I do not idolize the human.  He is but a human, like me, of this universe, like everything that we are aware of.” Yep. Well said.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

A skeptic ant living on top of mount Vesuvius was last heard proudly declaring…?! 

I could just as easily make up a story about an ant who lived on the plains while the other ants believed they lived on a volcano.  So what.  It’s just a silly little story.

No, I get your point.  If I don’t start believing, I’ll get mine in the End.  I’ll take my chances.    Thanks for at least caring.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

My goodness, it appears that you did not even notice my question, E.R. Nartatez .  Here it is again:

In which god do you believe? 

I do not respect Pascal’s “point”, which is why I read and discarded your closing quote.  You ask if I agree with the highlighted quote and if there are any problems, so I’ll reply.  Unless you are paraphrasing, Pascal, apparently, uses the phrase “...almost invariably…”.  This makes no sense.  One cannot do something all of the time some of the time.  Semantics aside, what he is attempting to say makes sense to me.  I’ll break it down quickly using you as the example within the quote:  you have arrived at your belief in a god, not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what you find attractive.  You and others like you are believers without proof.  That’s called faith.  This is not a credible approach to a non-believer.  I happen to be the one that does not believe, E.R. Nonetheless, you still bear the burden of proof.  Playing it safe by the numbers is still no proof.  It is, as I’ve stated, cowardly.  You probably think it’s playing smart. But what are the rules to this game you play?  Are you sure you even know them?  How do you know they’re the correct ones and have not been misconstrued? I keep trying to warn you about your recommended sources, but you refuse to take heed.

And how preposterous is a god that only requires someone to think it probably exists to reward that someone with everlasting life outside of the physical realm?  For that matter, I can believe he exists right now, commit suicide, and party with you forever when you get there after me, right? (Is that how it goes?) Anyway, no, thanks. That god sounds like a immoral buffoon.  A rewarder of gambling, deceit, and dishonesty.  I, personally, disagree with such principles and wouldn’t trust such a being if it existed.  According to you and Pascal I’m doomed either way.

Hey, how do you know that you and your theist friends will go to an afterlife location without me?  If you’ve seen this place, or have evidence of it, and, I don’t know, at the entrance it reads “Theists Only - Regardless of Religion” then let me know and I tip my hat to you all for finally providing proof.  Until then I guess I look forward to my “classical” theistic fate (whatever that means).  But as you know, there are many different gods that one can believe in.  I’ll give it another try: Which one do you believe in?  I really would like to know.

Your hypothetical situation involving a boat and the percentages is hogwash in the context of this discussion.  You are using a real life (natural) event to explain an afterlife (supernatural) possibility.  You are presenting me with the likelihood of certain death.  As you know, even if I take the “30%” chance of certain death and hop on a lifeboat, survive, live to see another day, in time, I will still soon 100% die.  Play it safe, delay your death, and still die.  Quite natural.  What does that story have to do with the fact that you believe god has an awesome place for you to reside after you die, but have no proof of its existence?

I’m not surprised by your refusal to answer a simple question.  It is vital to this discussion.  Therefore, I am finished with this conversation.  Thank you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mikey Nails

No it’s not “just a silly little story.”

Einstein, Jastrow, Davies, Hoyle, Dyson et. al. <agnostics!> these authorities are truly awed by the majesty of our existing universe and they scramble to give explanations that really are explanations trying to escape the obvious i.e. there is a personal, rational, intelligent Mind behind the universe’s existence! Einstein was the first to protest the implication of his findings. He thoroughly disliked the straigtforward implications of his theory i.e. “God”? so he had to come up with a universal intelligent mind but one that is IMpersonal. C’mon Einstein, how intelligent is that? <I will elaborate on this later.>

Nope, Mikey Nails you are not awed enough by the grandeur of the universe. O you like to look at the stars and the galaxies, but dude, look deeper and ask the really hard questions and your atheistic hubris will be diminished considerably. For once look at the evidence for yourself, watch the film PRIVILEGED PLANET, and read the book. Don’t just listen to the critics, evaluate the evidence for yourself. You will truly be awed by the extraordinary majesty of the cosmos.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You have no idea if I am awed or not.  Good bye.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.