Sam Harris

waltercat - 12 April 2007 06:59 PM

Of course then there was o’reilly’s famous 2001 quote “The arrogance of a person who dismisses the thought of a higher power offends me.”

Rational atheists freely acknowledge that there are things greater than themselves. My idea of “something greater” is nature and the universe, but not as conscious entities.

waltercat - 12 April 2007 06:59 PM

The arrogance of a person who believes that God would decide to help out just because he asked Him to . . .

Yes, that’s the true arrogance. It presumes that people like Snow are more deserving of God’s help.

Carstonio - 31 October 2007 04:11 PM

Rational atheists freely acknowledge that there are things greater than themselves. My idea of “something greater” is nature and the universe, but not as conscious entities.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as neither can be disproved right?

Carstonio - 31 October 2007 04:11 PM

Yes, that’s the true arrogance. It presumes that people like Snow are more deserving of God’s help.

You’ve hit right on the head one of the main reasons why religion rubs me the wrong way. I remember as a little kid thinking about people in remote areas of Papua New Guinea, for example, who because they had no exposure to the Bible were not entitled to God’s “assistance” or “forgiveness” for their “original sin” purely as a result of their geographic location of birth.

Even if we were to take these holy books as the truth, isn’t it twisted that an omnipotent being would intentionally and literally make it impossible for some of his created subjects to reach salvation?

I could rant on about how this is yet another sign that religions were concocted by power hungry fallible humans and not by infallible invisible men, but that could take another 20 paragraphs!

RationalRuben - 31 October 2007 04:22 PM

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as neither can be disproved right?

I don’t understand your point. I’m saying that nature and the universe are greater in importance than humans as individuals and as a species. The universe will still be around long after you and I have turned into dust. That is not a religious belief, that is simply my perspective on the reality of the universe. A religious belief would anthropomorphize nature and the universe into conscious entites. There is no valid reason to do that since there’s no evidence that either has consciousness.

Carstonio - 31 October 2007 05:00 PM

RationalRuben - 31 October 2007 04:22 PM

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as neither can be disproved right?

I don’t understand your point.

I was being sarcastic. I was comparing flawed religious logic with similar and I hoped humorous flawed logic.

I agree with you, I am the last person you need to convince that nature and the universe are indeed far more important than us and will definitely continue to exist no matter what we do to ourselves, and I also agree with you that there is no evidence that either of the former have a conscience.

My point was that implying there is a conscience in something higher than us (aka: God) is an assertion that religious people must prove, it is not our duty to disprove it.

I was trying to be funny, I’m sorry if I offended or confused you.

RationalRuben - 31 October 2007 05:17 PM

My point was that implying there is a conscience in something higher than us (aka: God) is an assertion that religious people must prove, it is not our duty to disprove it.

I was trying to be funny, I’m sorry if I offended or confused you.

No offense taken. I wondered if I was unintentionally implying that there was a conscience. I absolutely agree with your point.