Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager\Sam Harris

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Once again Sam Harris runs circles around his opponent in this debate and of course his opponent doesn't even know it has happened. Every argument I have ever heard or read the theist allways claim victory even when they get their head handed to them. Perhaps this is why the alternative universe of George Bush works so well for him because to his core constituancy defeat is victory, a loss is a win, mission accomplished can be claimed even before the fight has actually begun.

Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

This Debate was conducted by email for the website Jewcy.com

Author of the thundering anti-theist polemics The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris may just be the Thomas Paine of an emerging movement to wrench religion out of American life. Prager is a nationally syndicated talk radio host who trumpets the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition… (www.jewcy.com)

From: Sam Harris
To: Dennis Prager
Subject: Yahweh Belongs on the Scrapheap of Mythology

I’d like to begin this exchange by making the observation that “atheist” is a term that should not even exist. We do not, after all, have a name for a person who does not believe in Zeus or Thor. In fact, we are all “atheists” with respect to Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other dead gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology.

A politician who seriously invokes Poseidon in a campaign speech will have thereby announced the end of his political career. Why is this so? Did someone around the time of Constantine discover that the pagan gods do not actually exist, while the biblical God does? Of course not. There are thousands of gods that were once worshipped with absolute conviction by men and women like ourselves, and yet we all now agree that they are rightly dead. An “atheist” is simply someone who thinks that the God of Abraham should be buried with the rest of these imaginary friends. I am quite sure that we need only use words like “reason,” “common sense,” “evidence,” and “intellectual honesty” to do the job.

So many gods have passed into oblivion, and yet the sky-god of Abraham demands fresh sacrifices. Wars are still waged, crimes committed, and science undone out of deference to an invisible being who is believed to have created the entire cosmos, fine-tuned the constants of nature, blanketed the earth with 20,000 distinct species of grasshopper, and yet still remains so provincial a creature as to concern himself with what consenting adults do for pleasure in the privacy of their bedrooms. Incompatible beliefs about this God long ago shattered our world into separate moral communities—Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.—and these divisions remain a continuous source of human violence.

And yet, while the religious divisions in our world are self-evident, many people still imagine that religious conflict is always caused by a lack of education, by poverty, or by politics. Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise.

How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don’t know what it is like to really believe in God.

The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

(con't) http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/debate-with-dennis-prager/

[Christa]

1. Sam is the man!

Pager used the same tired old theistic arguments that sound convincing to believers and the uneducated, but collaspe under closer inspection.

[kstewart33]

2. There's something to it.

As a long-ago member of a UU church, my experience was that atheists within the church were much more easily upset by any supposition that a god exists, than God-believers were by the supposition that a God does not exist. Given that the UU church is supposed to respect all beliefs, it got awfully uncomfortable at times. I don't want to press my religious beliefs on anyone. That's why I joined the church. But I also don't want anyone pressing their beliefs on me, whether they're believers in God or not.

Why be angry? The fact that 90% disagree with you if you're an atheist? Heck, I belong to no religion and about 90% disagree with me. But what's to be angry about? One's religion or lack thereof is one's own private business. If almost all other people disagee, that's fine. It doesn't affect me and why should it affect anyone else in the minority?

[beam me up scottie]

10. Gee, I wonder...

:eyes:

[pscot]

3. I've never heard of an aetheist

blowing up a clinic, or murdering a doctor, or beating a kid senseless and tieing him to a barbed wire fence. Nor are aetheists advocating all-out war with Islam or Christianity. There seems to be some confusion here about who is angry.

[Warpy]

5. Oppression does tend to make us cranky

but for real rage plus vicious acting out, look to the true believers.

[irislake]

4. I refuse to believe

that 83% of Americans are Biblical fundamentalists or literalists. Sez who? A recent poll taken in Canada showed that religious belief -- or at least attachment to a church is declining in the U.S. as it has done in Europe and Canada. The trend is running behind Canada and Europe but it is there. Perhaps the fundamentalists are so loud and intolerant that they cause non-believers to keep a low profile. But 83%. Get real. You are not THAT stupid! (Scuse my bias against literalists, I can't help thinking they aren't the brightest people on the block.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Yes, 83% is way too high

I live in Minnesota, where most people have traditionally been either Lutheran or Catholic, although that is changing rapidly. The point is that even forty years ago, evolution was non-controversial in my high school, where I'd say that 90% of the students attended some sort of church.

[charlie]

42. Actually, though

the figure was for those who believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, not for fundamentalism. It might be different in Canada, but down here, belief in a physical resurrection isn't the mark of a fundamentalist or literalist. 83% sounds a mite high to me too, but it's plausible.

[Zhade]

96. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on a second.

Isn't the literal belief in the resurrection of Jesus - something which, incidentally, has never been proven to have happened to anyone, anywhere, ever, in all of recorded history - kind of necessary to be a Christian? (I'm not speaking of 'philosophical Christians', who like his purported words but don't believe in the myths themselves.)

Isn't that kind of a fundamental belief of Christianity?

Isn't is worrying that 83% of U.S. citizens believe in a literally impossible (except in an ancient religion's book) return from the dead?

[charlie]

103. Certainly

But fundamentalist and literalist are terms used for the implacable devotees of Biblical text, not those who profess a tenet of mainstream Christianity. By definition all non-esoteric Christians could be regarded as fundamentalists, but it's sort of like saying a guy with a lucky bowling shirt is a supernaturalist.

TORONTO, April 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A poll released Sunday has revealed that an overwhelming majority of Canadians and Americans believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Ipsos Reid survey, commissioned by CanWest and Global News, found that a strong majority in both Canada (73%) and the United States (78%) indicated they believed Jesus Christ “died on the cross and was resurrected to eternal life”.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06041905.html

This illustrates what I'm trying to say. Irislake is gobsmacked by the US numbers, but it appears she lives in a comparably sized sea of believers. Canada just isn't vexed with the problem of hyperactive fundamentalists to the degree we are down here.

Yes, the tenacity of Biblical dogma has always worried me. But professed belief in the resurrection has been more or less constant in this country, through better times and worse. These numbers aren't a new development (every Christian kid eventually learns Easter isn't about chocolate eggs). It's the number and strength of authoritarian theocrats that's new and truly worrisome.

[Zhade]

108. Personally, I find any believers' ability to believe in one unproven myth...

...like the resurrection, while rejecting others in the bible using nothing but their own mind to decide which to believe, rather frightening, as there's no more evidence for what they decide to believe than what they reject.

There's no telling if, or when, they might slide toward believing even more unproven myths, and darker ones.

Most will not, thanks to being good people regardless of (or sometimes in spite of) their religious choices. But some will, and the lack of a bulwark against believing in stories which have never been shown to be true allows that slide.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. That's 83% who believe Jesus rose from the dead

not who think the whole Bible is true.

It probably comes from this survey (which largely agrees with a previous survey):

The Pew Research Center national survey of 1,703 Americans, conducted March 17-21, finds that, aside from attitudes regarding responsibility for Christ's death, opinion on other issues relating to Jesus Christ and the Bible have remained largely stable since the late 1990s. About nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross, and 83% believe that Christ rose from the dead. Both measures are virtually unchanged from the 1997 ABC News survey (91% and 84%, respectively).

As in previous surveys, the public remains divided over whether the Bible is actually the word of God and should be taken literally. Currently, four-in-ten Americans express that opinion, while about as many (42%) say the Bible is the word of God, but that not everything in it should be taken literally. Just 13% think the Bible is a book written by men and is not the word of God.

A solid majority of white and black evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible is literally the world of God (70% and 71%, respectively). Only about a quarter of white non-evangelical Protestants (24%) and white Catholics (25%) share this belief.

Survey, March 2004

That doesn't make them literalists; but it is a basic belief of 'standard' Christianity, so you should expect the numbers to be very close to those who describe themselves as 'Christian'.

[Zhade]

97. So...many don't think it should all be taken literally...

...yet they believe in - a literally impossible return from the dead.

:crazy:

How can they not see that they're making up their own mind as to what is 'true' and what isn't? How can they not see that they're cherry-picking in exactly the same way fundamentalists do?

It's truly bizarre. Why do they think one line of text from an ancient book is literally true, but another line of text isn't?

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. I think they'd cheerfully admit they're making their own mind up

just as we, faced with pronouncements from the Bush administration, decide what is real, and what was made up for propaganda purposes. And that's also the official position of the Catholic church - the Bible isn't to be taken as accurate for historical or scientific questions, but is for spiritual questions - so you can ignore the historical reality of the creation story, but have to take on board the idea of humans having 'original sin'. And for the resurrection, they have to believe it was an actual event.

[Zhade]

107. That's my point - they believe in one impossibility, but disregard others.

They're just making it up as they go along, essentially, since there's no more evidence for what they believe than what they disregard.

[bananas]

6. Whiny Harris blames liberals again

This is a great example of the screwy "reasoning" that some atheists use to justify their beliefs. First he parrots the RW propoganda about suicide bombers - that they do it because they expect 72 virgins. That's his first logical error - swallowing the RW bullshit. Then he calls liberals stupid, using the euphemism "very slow to understand". Then he comes to the startling conclusion that secularists,liberals and moderates don't understand what it's like to believe in God - even though lots of them do believe in God. What an idiot.

"How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don’t know what it is like to really believe in God."

[beam me up scottie]

11. Yeah! And besides being screwy, we're all just a bunch of uncultured lowlifes too.

[bananas]

92. A noose? You want to lynch me?

I never expected THAT on DU.
There's a real lesson in tolerance.
:sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

95. Actually, that smilie is usually indicative of how I feel when I come late to the discussion..

I often wonder why I have to dig the knives out of my back when I wasn't even here for the fight.

[Stargazer99]

7. When it comes to having religion shoved down the secular

throat through government I can understand the agnostic and the atheist. There is power in the various organized religions and that is what attracts many of the "leaders" of various religious systems. The problem is the followers can't see it.

[Rageneau]

8. As an atheist, I believe God gave man free will to believe or not.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Oh, please.

Sam didn't didn't win the debate, Dennis the bigot did himself in by revealing his true colours:

I am, however, grateful for your bringing Bertrand Russell into the discussion. Russell is a fine example of one major reason I reject atheism. In the West, people and societies who reject the God of Judeo-Christian religions are more likely to become morally confused and foolish than believing Jews and Christians are.

Secularism usually produces moral and intellectual foolishness in people and institutions. My prime evidence is the contemporary American university, which is a place of intellectual and moral confusion so deep that one must look very hard to find religious Christian or Jewish equivalents.

That is why I wrote a column years ago titled “How I found God at Columbia University.” Professors where I did my graduate work, at the Columbia University School of International Affairs, were wrong on virtually every important issue.

To give but one example of the foolishness that pervades your godless, religionless, secular world, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, was forced from office by the Harvard faculty largely because he had the audacity to say that brain differences between men and women might help account for their different predilections for the sciences and math. As the Psalms put it thousands of years ago, “Wisdom begins with awe of God.” The lack of wisdom at the secular temple, the university—where America is the world’s villain, where women and men are regarded as essentially the same, and where Marxism was taken seriously for generations—verifies the Psalmist’s view.

To which Sam replied:

As you are well aware, the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence. It is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen-pregnancy, STD infection, and infant mortality. Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above miseries, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Clearly, strong religious commitment does little to guarantee moral behavior or societal health.

But there is a far more important point for you and our readers to understand. Even if your claim about the link between faith and morality were true, it would offer no support whatsoever for your religious beliefs. Even if atheism led straight to moral chaos, this would not suggest that the doctrine of Judaism is true. Islam might be true in that case. Or all religions might function like placebos. As descriptions of the universe, they could be utterly false but extraordinarily useful. Contrary to your opinion, however, the evidence suggests that they are both false and dangerous.

Gee, Dennis sounds a lot like some of the believers on DU.

And they scratch their pointy little heads and wonder why we're angry.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

12. You're right, win is such a subjective term

considering how it wasn't really a contest to begin with.

[davidinalameda]

13. Dennis Prager is a moran

I can't imagine anyone with half a brain losing a debate to him about anything

[Mythsaje]

14. i know plenty of people who believe in Zeus...

So, as far as THAT argument goes, it's toilet water.

On the other hand, I find certainty regarding the existence of any deity, other than the "deities" revered by myself and other pantheist types, being the Earth and the universe itself, to be an exercise in futility. I grant science slightly more credibility than any "divinely-inspired" book of questionable history and hyperbole.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Uh huh, and how many of them ran for office?

And won, no less, thanks to the millions of other Zeusians who supported him/her based on his/her religion?

[Mythsaje]

17. Not really the point...

His contention was that no one believed in Zeus these days and that's just not true.

[beam me up scottie]

19. You obviously missed the point if that's what you think he meant.

No one would elect a politician who thanked Zeus at the end of every speech, prayed to Thor for guidance or proposed legislation based on H.P. Lovecraft's The Call of Cthuhlu.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than he did:

So many gods have passed into oblivion, and yet the sky-god of Abraham demands fresh sacrifices. Wars are still waged, crimes committed, and science undone out of deference to an invisible being who is believed to have created the entire cosmos, fine-tuned the constants of nature, blanketed the earth with 20,000 distinct species of grasshopper, and yet still remains so provincial a creature as to concern himself with what consenting adults do for pleasure in the privacy of their bedrooms.

[Mythsaje]

22. Except they haven't passed into oblivion...that's my point.

They still have worshippers even now.

[beam me up scottie]

24. ROFLMAO !!!

You really expect me to believe that Zeus and every other god that was ever invented still competes with the Big G?

Or that none of them died out before their names were translated to English or even written down?

:rofl:

[Mythsaje]

29. Since when was it a competition?

I KNOW people that still worship the Greek, Norse, and Egyptian Gods. We're not talking about competing, we're talking about oblivion. If they still have worshippers, however small their congregation, they've not passed into oblivion at all.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Didn't you wonder what that whooshing sound was?

Can you prove that all gods ever invented still have worshipers?

That none of them ever "passed into oblivion"?

[Mythsaje]

37. How did this go from me saying that Zeus still has worshippers

to you expecting me to prove that NO God has ever gone into oblivion?

I'm sure some have. The most notable Greek, Norse, Celtic, and Egyptian deities most certainly have not. I don't know any Hades worshippers, per se, but I imagine some of the neo-pagans I know give him at least some measure of reverence.

I don't know any modern-day Baal worshippers, but who knows. I DO know some that have at least some respect for Loki.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Oh you're SO close...

but his point still eludes you.

[Mythsaje]

45. Oh, I understand his point...

But he's basing his reasoning on a false premise.

[beam me up scottie]

47. The false premise being, according to you, that there are no extinct gods.

Magical thinking must be wonderful.

[Mythsaje]

50. No, that the example he uses isn't valid...

Zeus, himself, isn't "extinct."

And how is that magical thinking?

You are making NO sense here at all.

[beam me up scottie]

53. That's quite the straw man. It would work except for this: "So many gods have passed into oblivion":

"So many" means more than one.

Talk about making no sense, I still can't believe you are trying to prove Harris is wrong by claiming to know people who worship Zeus.

[Mythsaje]

56. I'm not trying to prove him wrong, man...

I'm just saying that his example sucks.

I don't know if he's wrong or right, personally. I'm just saying that I'm not sure of the validity of his example, not that his whole argument is flawed.

And I DO know people that worship Zeus. Or, at least, gods from his pantheon. They're called neo-pagans, or, sometimes, Wiccans. I know a shitload of them, actually.

I personally lend no more credence to Zeus than I do to Yewah. None of it really makes any sense to me.

What the hell is your problem?

[beam me up scottie]

68. No problem. I'm an atheist, one religious belief is the same as any other.

It's all based on the belief that you've got the right dog in the fight and that everyone else has the wrong one.

[kiahzero]

74. Not really

In the gamut of religious beliefs, only a few - not surprisingly, the monotheistic ones - match that pattern. The fact that those beliefs are now held by a majority of people worldwide is not altogether surprising either; people who believe that everyone else has the wrong "dog in the fight" are going to be much more likely to proselytize.

[beam me up scottie]

76. If you don't believe you have the right god, why do you believe in it?

You'd all be something else, or atheists for that matter, if you didn't think you were backing the right one.

[kiahzero]

77. "Right god"

You're still thinking in the framework of universal Truth.

[beam me up scottie]

78. No, I'm thinking of monotheism, actually.

As well as any other belief system that claims to be "the way".

[kiahzero]

80. OK

I was just pointing out that's not exhaustive of all religious ideas.

[beam me up scottie]

82. I understand that many liberal believers don't make a point of telling

others that they think their belief system is wrong because it's illiberal, but if they didn't think that they were on the right path, they would have given up their present belief system, right?

[kiahzero]

83. It depends

Only if they think that disagreement with someone indicates that they are "on the wrong path."

[beam me up scottie]

84. In the most common monotheism, a christian must believe that other gods aren't legit.

Or else they wouldn't be a christian.

I understand that some belief systems teach that there are many ways to the truth, but how many of them include non-belief?

[kiahzero]

85. I think it's about what you believe, not what you don't believe

I don't know of too many systems that are all that accepting of people who believe in nothing, but such people are exceedingly rare, if they exist at all. This isn't a "Everyone has a religion" type of argument, simply an observation that people have beliefs, most of which are decidedly non-religious.

[beam me up scottie]

87. I know very few liberal christians who believe I'm going to Hell.

But there are some.

[bananas]

93. I believe you're in hell now

some kind of fundie hell-hole.

Am I wrong?

Is there nothing we can agree upon?

[beam me up scottie]

94. Actually, we agree on a lot of things.

And, yes, I live and work in hell. Sometimes, DU is the only thing that keeps me sane.

Of course, we have our share of intolerance too, from all sides: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=98463&mesg_id=98682

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. He was using Zeus as a specific example of a god with no believers

We do not, after all, have a name for a person who does not believe in Zeus or Thor. In fact, we are all “atheists” with respect to Zeus and Thor and the thousands of other dead gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology.

Now, the first place I saw it claimed that people still worship Zeus was on DU, so I think it's a pretty rare belief, but there are apparently some - https://www.nationalfilmnetwork.com/store/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=182 .

[Realityhack]

91. thats a prity slim overstatement.

And it in no way invalidates the point Harris is making so I think its rather silly to even make that point.

I don't know about the 'I know plenty of people who warship Zeus' part either. I think BMUS has it right. It's setting up a straw man by claiming that 100% non-beleif in Zeus is in any way intregal to the argument being made.

[cosmik debris]

16. All gods are uncertain except yours. ???

That sounds like what you are saying. Where have I heard that before? Oh Yeah, EVERYWHERE!

[Mythsaje]

18. Ah, but I can point to them and say "see, they exist."

Or are you under the impression that the Earth and the universe don't exist?

They're the ONLY things, in my view, that MIGHT (if you were inclined to think of them that way) have a valid claim to the title of deity.

They are things greater than ourselves.

Close enough for me.

[beam me up scottie]

20. So can any other believer.

Try to prove them wrong.

[Mythsaje]

23. Do you really think that's the same thing?

I'd like to see them show physical evidence of their deity.

Fat chance.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Prove them wrong then.

Go ahead.

Prove their deities don't exist.

I'll go make popcorn.

[Mythsaje]

27. Why should I?

They can either bring me evidence or shut the fuck up.

If I were a Gaia worshipper, I could walk outside and break their glass house with a single throw of one of the bones of the Earth.

I don't even have to work to prove the existence of the Earth. It's impossible to deny.

No one but the insane could deny the existence of the Earth OR the universe as a whole. They're observable and the Earth, at least, surrounds us and supports us. Gaia worshippers, in my view, have a LOT better case than any Christian could ever hope to have.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Nice dodge, but too late.

You claimed your object of worship was real and that their objects aren't.

Sounds like you're a strong atheist when it comes to other people's gods.

[Mythsaje]

32. I don't think the reality of the Earth and the universe

is even debatable.

Everything else is open to interpretation.

[beam me up scottie]

34. You declared your object of worship was valid and inferred that others weren't

Can you back that up or not?

[Mythsaje]

38. This is probably the stupidest debate I've ever had...

A person who claims that the universe, or the Earth, is a deity, has a hell of a lot more to stand on than someone who claims that some anthropomorphic being separate from the universe, actually having CREATED the universe, actually exists.

A Gaia worshipper, for example, does not have to prove that his or her deity exists. The proof, such as it is, is in the very air we breathe. The difference between a Gaia worshipper and, say, a fundie Christian, is that the Gaia worshipper doesn't give a SHIT whether you accept his or her interpretation of deity. It takes nothing away from his or her belief that you do not believe as he or she does.

And I dare say most pantheists would feel the same way.

[beam me up scottie]

43. I don't doubt it. That's why implicit atheists never argue absolutes.

You guys, on the other hand, have faith.

[Mythsaje]

46. I don't need faith...

My reverence for the "miracle" of nature itself supplants the need for any belief in a "supernatural" being. I don't need faith for that.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You need faith to believe that other gods don't exist.

Lots of it.

[Mythsaje]

51. Oh, wait...on one sub-thread

you're accusing me of "magical thinking" and here, on this one, you're suggesting that disbelief in anthropomorphic deities requires "faith?"

Are you suffering from MPD?

I personally find the idea of an anthropomorphic deity a stretch. I don't believe we can KNOW anything of the kind. We can extrapolate, or imagine, but, in the end, that's what it ALL is. My reverence for the NATURAL world, for what is observable and quantifiable, at least to some limited extent, is enough for me. Why should I need anything more?

[beam me up scottie]

54. Your words: "I'd like to see them show physical evidence of their deity."

All that's missing is your saying your deity can beat up their deity.

[Mythsaje]

57. If someone worships the Earth

and says it's a deity, specifically, then that person can SHOW physical evidence of his or her deity's existence. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty big bonus in the whole "God" debate. And I, personally, consider the argument of the Earth as a sort of deity to be fairly compelling, as such things go.

Why does that bother you so much? What do you have personally invested in the debate that it's got your knickers in a knot?

[beam me up scottie]

58. Again, why are you taking this personally?

To an implicit atheist, none of your religious beliefs are any more valid than any other.

[Zhade]

100. That's not accurate in the slightest.

A person who claims the Earth is a deity of some kind can only show evidence that the Earth itself exists, not that it's a deity.

The Earth exists; its religious/spiritual nature is not proved.

I think the fact that a Gaia belief has no more evidence supporting it than, say, Christianity (after all, Bethlehem DOES exist; this doesn't prove a thing about Christianity as a religious belief system) might be what's driving BMUS, if she'll forgive me for guessing.

Your claims regarding Gaia have no more support than any other religious belief. I think that might be her point.

[Zhade]

99. Well, no, that's not even remotely accurate.

"Deity" implies consciousness. Prove the earth is self-aware.

AFAIK, you can't, because there's no more evidence for Gaia than there is for Zeus, or Mithra, or any of the countless deities created by the mind of humans.

A Gaia worshipper is not on any more solid ground than any other believer.

[cosmik debris]

21. I am under the impression that Earth and the universe ar NOT

Deities. I would like to see the evidence that they are. Can you provide that evidence. Or is your belief based on something other than fact just like the Christians and other religions.

Maybe I'm just confused. What is required to reach the status of deity? Existence? Being "greater than ourselves"? That is certainly subjective unless you are just considering physical size. I don't understand your position.

[Mythsaje]

26. If not for the Earth, or the universe itself

you wouldn't exist.

Period.

Of course it's subjective. It's all subjective. My point is that there is physical evidence of the existence of what SOME may consider a deity...

You can't even deny they exist. You can deny that they're deities, but, frankly, who gives a crap whether you do or not?

The Earth has no stake in the argument. Neither does the universe. They are what they are. The Earth, by one standard, is a complex system, very similar in many ways to a living thing. Some actually consider it (or her) to be a living thing. As we are dependent on the Earth to live, it isn't all that much of a stretch to imagine it to be some sort of deity. I can understand THAT reasoning far better than I can some distant, anthropomorphic "God."

A pantheist might say that if anything deserves to be considered a deity, it would be the universe, the most complex thing we can ever imagine, billions and billions of stars, organisms, and elements all interacting throughout time and space. Pretty damned amazing.

A Gaia worshipper would say the same thing of the Earth.

And they can prove the existence of their deities. It can't be denied that they exist. CANNOT BE DENIED.

You can say "Oh, they're not deities." But you don't know that, do you?

[cosmik debris]

28. Hmmm?

The Christians can't prove that their deity exists and you can't prove that what does exist is deity. And apparently you see some qualitative difference in those two positions. From the outside looking in, they look the same to me.

[Mythsaje]

31. Ego is amazing, isn't it?

Carl Sagan, an atheist, put forth a thought in his sci-fi book "Contact" that perhaps humanity existed to someday explain the universe to itself.

I think it's pointless to extrapolate the existence of a "supernatural" entity when that which is eminently natural is wondrous in and of itself. Some may consider it deity, some may not. But it is, in the end, as worthy of awe as anything ever was, or ever will be.

[cosmik debris]

36. In your own words

"They can either bring me evidence or shut the fuck up."

Since you decline to produce evidence, I will just assume that you intend to be silent.

[Mythsaje]

39. Tell you what...

Go walk outside and grab up a rock, and smack yourself upside the head with it.

Earth proven.

Next question?

[cosmik debris]

40. No one disputed the existence of Earth

But I do dispute the deity of Earth.

"They can either bring me evidence or shut the fuck up."

What is it going to be. Evidence or shut the fuck up???

[Mythsaje]

44. I don't CARE if you dispute the divinity of Earth...

I just happen to think it's a more believable argument than that of someone who believes in some incorporeal, anthropomorphic deity they can't even prove exists.

People can, at least, prove the existence of the Earth. Not that it's even necessary unless they're debating a raging lunatic.

Now, if you define a "deity" as something worthy of worship, or, at the minimum, reverence, based on the fact that it is something greater than oneself, and that one's own existence is dependent on ITS existence, I think the Earth could conceivably qualify. The universe too, for that matter.

I'm not sure how anyone could even dispute the reasoning, if not the ultimate result.

[cosmik debris]

48. Your evidence is your definition

And it is a pretty vague definition at that. You sure don't hold deities to a very high standard, but you do criticize those who do hold their deities to to a higher standard.

And the "evidence or shut the fuck up" standard only applies to OTHER religions. That certainly is a safe attitude. Holding them to a higher standard is a sure way to protect your yourself from embarrassment.

So, you have a double standard for deities, and a double standard for proof. And I'll bet you have this idea that it all adds up to a coherent position.

[Mythsaje]

52. It sure the hell does for me...

I don't need to assume the existence of any being or entity I cannot myself verify. If I choose myself to hold the natural world in reverence and consider it equal to a deity in some unspecified way, it has NO effect on your belief or disbelief, or on whether or not other deities exist. I see no reason, myself, to accept their existence based upon the testimony of people I myself have never met and never will.

What IS your problem, anyway? I find your nastiness in this debate to be totally inexplicable. What is it about MY belief that gets your goat?

[beam me up scottie]

55. Why are you taking this personally?

Atheists don't pick and choose which religious beliefs are more valid than others.

[Mythsaje]

60. I'm not an atheist...

And this person is just plain snotty.

I've reiterated the same point several times on this thread, and this person's responses have grown increasingly hostile. My personal belief is that someone who can show physical evidence as to the existence of his or her deity (Gaia worshippers and pantheists) have a leg up on those who cannot.

I'm not even understanding half of this person's arguments, though I certainly grasp that he (or she--never bothered to check) has an attitude about them.

[beam me up scottie]

62. I know you're not.

But we are.

Atheists are adept at noticing hypocrisy amongst believers.

[Mythsaje]

63. You calling me a hypocrite there, Scottie?

Why? Because I believe in something greater than myself but DO NOT accept the existence of the supernatural?

Astoundingly arrogant, don't you think?

[beam me up scottie]

65. Do you think your religious belief is superior to others?

[Mythsaje]

70. I'm not sure I'd call it a "religious" belief...

Spiritual, sure. But "religious" denotes some sort of dogma or creed. My belief is that, as the only sentient beings in this neighborhood, we have an obligation to act with decency and attention to cause and effect. What we do, for good or ill, causes other things to happen. If we're aware of the possible repercussions of our actions, we can sometimes refrain from doing things that cause harm, or at least alleviate whatever harm might come of it.

I've written more than one essay on it, actually.

In my own eyes, reverence for what is naturally awe inspiring is superior to reverence for something that can only be imagined or assumed to exist. And acknowledging that we, as sentient beings, have an innate responsibility toward the people and things that surround us is hardly dogmatic. Even an atheist could understand that viewpoint, I would think.

I am sure that the Earth exists, that the universe exists, and that we have a rather unique position within its cosmology--at least from where we're standing.

I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with my lack of belief in supernatural beings.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Because as an atheist, I have the same reverence and feel the same obligation.

But I don't consider it a religion.

[Mythsaje]

72. I never called it a religion...

It IS, however, a belief.

And if I happen to consider it a spiritual belief, that's my business, not yours.

Of course, all of this is a bit like explaining Taoism to someone. They say it can't be done. Either you experience the Tao, or you don't.

My perspective has arisen from my study of philosophical (not theological) Taoism. And trying to explain it to some people is a bit like trying to teach a pig to sing.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Nice.

I was actually trying to understand why it was different from what I believe, but I can fuck off.

[Mythsaje]

79. I didn't say that...

What I said was that I'm not sure how I could explain how it's different than yours. Some things aren't easily quantified.

Those who study Taoism seriously say that it can't be explained in words because it defies language. Since my belief is rather similar in a lot of ways, the same may hold true for it as well. I understand it, and I've been able to explain it to a few others, but it's hardly easy.

Not saying YOU are, but you're asking me to explain how my view is different from yours when I already more or less explained it. YOU would be better at explaining the difference than I would, wouldn't you think?

And the saw about teaching the pig to sing goes like this..."never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

How does THAT translate to "fuck off?"

[beam me up scottie]

81. Okay, start over. Maybe I'm confused because you claim to not be an atheist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it isn't a belief.

For me, there is nothing out there that is supernatural, just the material world.


I know you can be a jewish atheist and a buddhist atheist, but can you be a taoist and an atheist?

[Mythsaje]

86. It's possible...

I don't consider myself an atheist. I usually identify myself as a pantheist/humanist.

Philosophical Taoism, as I understand it, MIGHT be explained as a belief that "God" is the universe and all movement within the universe--everything that exists, has existed, or ever will exist, as well as everything that happens AS it's happening. It's a belief that the only constant is change, and that good and bad are two sides of the same coin. The yin-yang symbol is a Taoist one.

In philosophical Taoism, there is no real belief in "God," per se, though its precedent, religious Taoism, was polytheistic.

This is all just a very thin over-view. I really recommend you do a web search and see what you find.

[beam me up scottie]

88. Very interesting.

I will do that.

I think toddaa is a taoist/atheist but I don't know if he still posts here.

[cosmik debris]

59. I think it is the arrogance

That you present your superstition as being better than other superstition based entirely on the fact that you have lowered the standards for deity, proof, and belief. And even with the lower standard you still only present semantic arguments.

And that "They can either bring me evidence or shut the fuck up" standard doesn't apply to you. Holding yourself to a lower standard is just plain unfair. Yet you seem to believe that you are entitled to the lower standard.

The first post to which I responded strongly implied that your deity had more credibility than other deities. Your evidence is that you hold a lower definition of deities, but you still have that blasted leap of faith that you can only conquerer with semantics. In fact your semantic(or leap of faith) argument still puts your deity in the same class as all others.

[Mythsaje]

61. Oh, please...

Talk about arrogance.

I'm saying that I believe that the Earth and the universe themselves are worthy enough of reverence that I need no belief in anything beyond them to be content. I'm not sure how that's a superstition in the first place, except in the eyes of someone who's so arrogantly sure that nothing greater than him (or her) self even exists.

I grant these entities, if entities they are, no "supernatural" abilities. The fact that they exist, and without them we would not exist, is enough to lend credence to the notion that they are greater than a mere human being.

And I don't need someone shoving THEIR notion of deity in my face because, frankly, I've already heard it all before.

Call it semantics, but I'm not splitting hairs here. If I choose to revere the NATURAL world, in all its glory, over the beliefs of some desert primitive who probably thought the sun revolved around the Earth, I think I am entirely justified in doing so.

Too bad if you don't like it.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Do you worship them like a god?

Or is it just reverence?

Because most environmentalists feel the same way but don't consider it to be a religion.

[Mythsaje]

66. No, I don't...

But I have known some who do.

I think worship is a pretty pointless exercise, myself. Something greater than ourselves would hardly need our worship, in my opinion, even if they WERE aware of it.

[beam me up scottie]

69. But you claim you're not an atheist.

Is your religious belief supernatural?

[cosmik debris]

67. I just find it amusing

especially when you say "They can either bring me evidence or shut the fuck up." and then produce only a loose definition as your own evidence. You have defined the terms so that you can't be proved wrong, but that doesn't mean that you can be proved right.

I don't take any of this personally, but you have certainly given me enough "evidence" to justify my opinion of you and your beliefs.

[Mythsaje]

73. Good for you...

Same here.

[Zhade]

102. Maybe, if you don't have a religious belief, you shouldn't use religious terms.

"Deity" is a specific term. The way you use it is not supported by any evidence.

"Entities" imply consciousness. Again, no evidence.

If you don't mean that you believe the Earth is an actual entity, a deity worthy of reverence, but is just what science shows it to be, then your use of these terms will obviously mislead people.

If you think the Earth IS conscious, is an entity or deity, again - no more evidence than Zeus.

Perhaps if you clarify which of these it is, we won't assume something you're not trying to say.

[Zhade]

101. And you don't know that they ARE deities.

There's no more evidence for that than there is for Thor.

One can easily dismiss (not deny, something has to be shown to exist to be denied) the idea that the Earth is a deity, when there's no evidence presented for it.

[Zhade]

98. They believe in Zeus? As in, that he literally exists?

Are you putting us on?

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. It seems people really do

I Still Worship Zeus (2004)

Thousands of years ago, the Ancient Greeks honored and worshipped the twelve gods of Greece. Today, ninety-eight percent of the population in Greece is Christian Orthodox. However, some natives of Greece--ranging from successful doctors and lawyers to university professors and artists--believe that the ancient Greek religion never died. Many of these believers continue the traditions of their great-great grandfathers and beyond who worshipped the twelve gods. And many try to emulate the values of the gods and, during some rituals, even dress like them. There are several organizations of these people in Greece, and their membership is estimated to be in the thousands (including some in the countryside who are supposedly too afraid to admit their beliefs). All of them are united in their plea to the Greek government to recognize their faith as an official religion. For 10 years, however, these requests have been ignored, in violation of European Union human rights laws.

This documentary focuses on individual case studies of believers, as well as the private rituals and large ceremonies they perform--such as the yearly honoring of Zeus at Mount Olympus, which attracts followers from all over the world. Also featured is a multi-step Apollo oracle performed in Delphi at the temples of Athena and Apollo. The film acknowledges the skeptics, including an ancient Greek scholar, a political scientist, a psychologist, priests, journalists, and the general public. These skeptics examine, re-evaluate and challenge the validity, philosophy and politics of the twelve gods believers. The film provides insight into the devout citizens who adore ancient Greek history and seek to express their religious beliefs in whatever way they see fit, even the right to build temples to Zeus.

https://www.nationalfilmnetwork.com/store/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=182

[Zhade]

106. I guess some people can believe anything.

Wow.