Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

science has also failed to fully demonstrate the concept of abiogenesis. and yet, i am inferior for doubting the eventuality of that proof? there is no difference between my lack of faith in abiogenesis and his lack of faith in the reducibility of consciousness; and yet, because mine suggests a higher power of some variety, mine is flawed? silly boy.

Please show where he addresses my argument then. What if technological limitations forbid that rinse cycle at present? Are you claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Ok, let's look at something else. Marriage and family relations are "founded on, and feasts on the frailties and subjectivity of humans." Should we dismiss with the family then?This is not an idle question. Atheists have tried this before. I personally visited some children's homes, of exceptional children, being raised by the State in the Soviet Union.What about marriage? Maybe marriage is unscientific and should be abolished? Maybe so, but I sure don't think Dawkins is contributing much in the theological arena. There is only one theory of gravity? Really? How about in the past? Any direct observations of gravitons, btw? And your point? Science cannot more effectively address the nature of God either, can it? It is to be expected that there are a multitude of views on something as complex as God, but there are remarkable agreements in some areas as well and more so over time.Keep in mind that science is still searching for a Grand Unified Field Theory and so concerning the universe, there are a multitude of views as well.Should we stop right there and assume that science is bunk just because scientists don't understand the universe yet?

Crash, it seems you are advocating abandoning the democratic principles that underly our republican form of government. With all due respect, it matters not a whit why or what someone believes in terms of their right to vote. We are talking about the discussion of law and policy, and law and policy are conducted in our soceity via an elected government with certain restrictions to guarantee personal liberties.To foster the idea that if someone's views are formed by religion, or any other thing for that matter, that they don't have a right to the table at the discussion of policy is severely hostile towards our basic form of government.Moreover, to foster the idea that only objective evidence to the exclusion of subjective evidence should be the basis for all policy and law is hostile towards the very concepts of individual rights that were expressed in the founding of the nation in the Declaration of Independence. The whole idea of inalienable rights does not measure up to objective, scientific rationalism, as many other things do not, because science has not advanced that far.Ruling out subjective evidence is a disaster in the making for any nation.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

i am reading it, btw. but you know full well that i do repudiate the extremism with which i am confronted. i can't tell you the fights i get into with my mother. i cannot control the actions of others, but i can control mine, and i do. absolutely, but they don't have to say that all religious people are miserable cunts to accomplish that. but then i'm crazy enough to think that my religion has DICK ALL to say about stem cells. not that i listened to the book about premarital sex anyways. your argument is different than mine. we could have had a wholly secular nation. i say they allowed for the "folly" of religion in the citizenry because intellectual censorship is directly contrary to the principles that power democratic thought. you say they strove to keep religion out of the government, i say they strove to protect it within the people. we're not disagreeing.

Even in a democracy, informed debate is crucial to decision-making. Therefore there's nothing undemocratic about limiting crucial debate to those who are informed about the issue.Somebody who substitutes religious dogma for verifiable fact is not informed, and there's nothing anti-democratic about rescinding their invitation to the debate. People whose lives are going to be affected by the results of the debate deserve to have that debate occur in good faith, and be grounded in reality - not in flights of fancy. Voting doesn't set policy, and you know that's not what I'm talking about. This reply misrepresents my position. No, it's hostile to religion, which is in the business of making things up. The vast weight of evidence - the evidence of this administration alone, even - proves that this is a very good thing for government and for our nation. Hence, the separation of church and state in the constitution.

Please note, that Harris's first essay specifically highlights Muslims. However, there are more criticisms of Christianity in our society because it is the closest in proximity and influences are legal and political systems directly.

Ok, so how about we say all atheists are not informed on any subject relating to God and by extension morality, and so are excluded from all positions where they can affect public policy, and heck, since academia is so influential and the media, we need to keep such uninformed people out of those jobs too?Is this really the path you want to go down, Crash? Maybe it will work for secularists for awhile, and maybe it'll backfire. Either way, it's fundamentally oppossed to the guiding principles of liberty that this nation was founded on. Since when has science proven right and wrong?Someone that thinks right and wrong are "verifiable facts" outside of subjective revelation is probably not informed either, and so people that want to insist only objective, scientific reasons verified by science are allowed for ethical and legal decisions are uninformed and by your rule, their opinions and statements should not be listened to. Voting does though indirectly set policy in that our elected representatives legislate the law and policy. Maybe you don't realize the implications of your position?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

They don't, though. In fact what's most interesting about Harris, Dawkins, and basically all atheists is how they specifically do not fault the average believer - merely what they believe. Any personal opprobrium is reserved for the powerbrokers who really do know better, but clearly choose to wield the manipulative power of religion for personal gain.But there's something tone-deafening about religious belief, I guess, that makes it so you guys can't help but take it personally. It's like you can't tell the difference between telling you that you believe something that is unverifiable at best and false at worst, and a personal attack on your intelligence, character, and all around goodness as a person.No no, Brenn, those attacks are reserved for atheists, and they come only from the religious. For instance, Sullivan's constant attacks on Harris for being "intolerant", even though Harris's most recent reply made it abundantly clear which of the participants was truly tolerant and motivated by a spirit of openness. And it's clear to me that the Founding Fathers intended that our nation should be as completely secular as possible. Honestly, how would we "disallow" religion? Do you really think that the framers would have been so idiotic as to try? Do you think I am?Do you think that they didn't grow up in a nation where they'd tried to do just that? Do you think I haven't learned from the example of every nation in Europe where religion, or all but one religion in particular, had been outlawed?Catholicism had been outlawed in England for centuries by the time of the framers. Do you think that meant there were no Catholics in England?Nobody's talking about outlawing religion, and nobody's calling the religious "cunts." The tone of debate you're referring to is reserved solely for atheists, from religionists.

actually, yes there is. the purpose of our form of government is that the people should rule themselves. if the intent of our government was to be an oligarchy of philosopher kings, you'd have something. but it isn't.

iceage, sure he says something about Muslims, but within a context of criticizing all.The simple fact is hate speech towards Christians and Christianity is both tolerated and at times celebrated in this nation among many in a manner that would receive severe condemnation if the same type of speech were directed towards many other groups, like homosexuals, minorities, Jewish people, etc.....

Um, Randman, in fact, atheists by definition are the only ones accurately informed on the matters you refer to.But I'm not saying that the religious can't come to the table. But, like everybody else, they need to ground their proposals in verifiable facts, not in religious fancy. You mean, the path where we make decisions based on what's real, rather than on what's make-believe?Yeah, let's go down that path. Sooner rather than later. Just look at the Bush administration. How well did all that faith-based decision-making turn out? How well did the faith-based hunt for WMD's go?

His manner may be tolerant, but his stance is not. Advocating religious people and their ideas be excluded from moral and ethical policy decisions such as stem cell research is deeply intolerant.

And proper self-governance requires that decisions be based on reality. Self-governance isn't an excuse to make whatever decisions you want, based on whatever make-believe you want.If an educated, reality-based electorate wasn't important to the framers, BK, then why did they all stress so highly the importance of education, and the media? If democracy meant that any ol' guy could make decisions based on any ol' make-believe whatsoever, why so much interest by the framers in an informed electorate?

Wrong again, Randman, and you're up to your old misrepresentations.The religious are welcome to the debate, as are their ideas. But ideas that aren't based in reality, but in nonsense, are to be excluded. Disregarded. They have no place in the debate.What I find deeply intolerant and bigoted, Randman, is your assertion that the religious are unable to reason from the facts. Why are you so intolernat against the religious?

Uh huh, I suspect when it comes to God 98% of Americans would reject that statement or some high percentage. The consensus is atheists are wrong about God. What verifiable facts do we have, crash, that show that people are endowed with their Creator with certain inalienable rights? What verifiable facts do we have that right and wrong exist as more than an extension of majority rule?If right and wrong are not real things on their own, then who is to say that the majority which are religious, should abide by your sense of right and wrong when it comes to verifiable facts?In fact, it would be absurd to abide by the opinion of small minority on what is right and wrong, wouldn't it? Please show me where right and wrong are real things, crash. Please show where science can prove what is right and wrong ethically. Please show the proof that physical facts are acceptable means of determining ethics and morality. Is there some sort of physical thing that pronounces what values we should adopt?