I found this web site because I was looking for response to the Sam Harris’ book from “the other side.” I happen to agree with much of what he says but I think people spent too much time reading and engaging in conversation with people they already agree with. What’s the point of that? You never learn anything by listening to what you already know. Yet that’s what most people do, we humans have a confirmation bias, we attend to things that confirm our beliefs and discount or ignore those that contradict our ideas. If you believe men wearing hats are bad drivers every time you see a bad driver with a hat you are going to think “see I know it” and you won’t even notice all the good drivers wearing hats.
It would be nice if I had the time to provide this loving forum with another point view and respond to many of the post here but I only have time to respond to one.
Zionist Conspirator wrote ….
“It is illogical to denounce religion for killing people when in the absence of G-d neither mass murder, the extermination of the entire human race, nor anything else, can be objectively morally wrong. “
It is illogical to denounce the non-religious when revelations from god have been used to justify mass murder and attempted exterminations of entire races of humans as morally right. That what the 911 hijackers did. On the other hand mass murder has never been justified on purely rational grounds, there’s always some dogma involved.
“Materialists insist that only physical phenomena exist and that human thoughts are mere nerve impulses, then promptly criticize others for having different nerve impulses than themselves.”
They are not objecting to your nervous impulses it is the irrational and whimsical they object to. Not all materialists are reductionists. Nerve impulses do not equal thought but show me thought without nerve impulses.
“One of the dogmas of "anti-dogmatists" is that reality is purely physical and ultimately meaningless and that human beings have no more purpose than cockroaches. …Why would a cockroach wish to do such a thing? “
As far as anyone knows cockroaches don’t wish. Whether apes or chimps do is subject to reasonable debate. But humans do wish and humans create meaning, I don’t know any reasonable secularist that would argue otherwise. Spiritual explanations for spiritual things is perfectly reasonable but when the spiritual tries to explain the physical that it runs in to problems (such as violating the laws of physics). Would you allow physical explanations of purely spiritual things? Or want bridges built by spiritualist? Hospitals staffed with witch doctors? Public policy based on ancient poem?
It is illogical to denounce the non-religious when revelations from god have been used to justify mass murder and attempted exterminations of entire races of humans as morally right. That what the 911 hijackers did. On the other hand mass murder has never been justified on purely rational grounds, there’s always some dogma involved.
Notice that our happy little guest completely ignored the fact that in the absence of G-d the extermination of entire races of humans is not, and can never be, objectively immoral.
They are not objecting to your nervous impulses it is the irrational and whimsical they object to. Not all materialists are reductionists. Nerve impulses do not equal thought but show me thought without nerve impulses.
Since all thoughts, however irrational or whimsical, are mere biochemical reations in the brain, what difference does it make? According to you, I can't help but think what I do. Be happy.
As far as anyone knows cockroaches don’t wish. Whether apes or chimps do is subject to reasonable debate. But humans do wish and humans create meaning, I don’t know any reasonable secularist that would argue otherwise.
Hmmm. "Humans create meaning." The only problem is that no human being can create an objective meaning for anyone but himself (and I would maintain even the meaning he creates for himself is subjective). Yet secularists (since they reject the Ultimate Reality of G-d) must base society on an "objective meaning" which some humans create and then force on the rest of the population. Secularists are always complaining that religious people want to "impose their values" on other people, but at least religious people have an excuse for doing so. Secularists want to impose their values on other people but must somehow talk themselves into believing that their values represent some sort of objective moral/ethical reality. Sorry. G-d can impose an objective moral system on the entire human race, but no human being or group of human beings can.
Spiritual explanations for spiritual things is perfectly reasonable but when the spiritual tries to explain the physical that it runs in to problems (such as violating the laws of physics). Would you allow physical explanations of purely spiritual things? Or want bridges built by spiritualist? Hospitals staffed with witch doctors? Public policy based on ancient poem?
You forgot to attack Western Civilization for defiling the beautiful and immeasurably wise beliefs of indigenous pipples with alien European science and rationalism. You know, like how science is basically a "male" rape of nature? Remember, secularists aren't against all religions equally.
Why don't you go back and rejoin the Indians who were invoking their ancestral spirits against Thanksgiving?