Discussion between a Christians and an athiest

**Grace Seeker** · 02-12-2007

I came across this interesting debate, and thought that maybe a few more might like to join it, and we could also include people of other faiths in the mix.

Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'?
Best-selling atheist Sam Harris and pro-religion blogger Andrew Sullivan debate God, faith, and fundamentalism.

I have one request of all the various theists, that our arguments be a little more thought out than simply, "Because it says right here in my Holy Book...." Remember atheists aren't likely to accept the veracity of anyone's Holy Scriptures, so an appeal to them won't carry any weight."

And of those who do not believe in God, if you initiate a reference to anyone's Holy Book that you do so respectfully and be willing to accept refutations to your point from them as well as make them yourself.

**AvarAllahNoor** · 02-13-2007

Are we to have the debate here, or do we have to join up to the site you linked to?

**wilberhum** · 02-13-2007

I started the read but it got long and boring. The beginning I found some statements that I am fully in agreement with.
we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science),

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious.

We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The reason I find fundamentalism so troubling - whether it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim - is not just its willingness to use violence (in the Islamist manifestation). It is its inability to integrate doubt into faith, its resistance to human reason, its tendency to pride and exclusion, and its inability to accept mystery as the core reality of any religious life.

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

**Grace Seeker** · 02-13-2007

Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor

Are we to have the debate here, or do we have to join up to the site you linked to?

Howabout, discuss here? I find that debates often turn into arguments which I find contribute little to better understanding, and convince no one of anything.

I don't think you have to join the site I linked to in order to read the discussion taking place there.

**AvarAllahNoor** · 02-13-2007

oooooooh okies who wanna start eh....?

**Malaikah** · 02-13-2007

Sounds like Islam-bashing from someone who probably hasn't got a clue what Islam is about.

**cihad** · 02-13-2007

yeah and i thought it was sposed to be about christianity and atheism

**Keltoi** · 02-13-2007

It goes back to that old conflict between faith and reason. Both Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan make good points in the discussion. Personally I'm not against introducing the element of doubt into religious faith. There will always be things we don't understand, and I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know everything that needs to be known because I read the Bible.

The side topic of religious fundamentalism was interesting, and I agree that Christianity has been somewhat sidetracked into the political realm of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. I believe the Christian faith would be better served to separate itself from the politics and focus on the human soul. I too find abortion morally repugnant, but there is so much more to the Word of Christ than preventing abortion.

**Grace Seeker** · 02-13-2007

Originally Posted by wilberhum

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

So, Wilberhum, in order to keep this from being pointless, what do you define as truth?

**Eric H** · 02-13-2007

Greetings and peace be with you wilberhum;

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason

if and only if God exists then faith is justified.

and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science

,
If and only if God exists then science is in conflict with truth?

Just minor points to ponder.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

**Pygoscelis** · 02-13-2007

Whaaaaat?

We resident atheists aren't good enough for you?

(just teasin)

**syilla** · 02-14-2007

Originally Posted by cihad

yeah and i thought it was sposed to be about christianity and atheism

yeah...i thought of that too...:rant:

i went into this thread thinking that there will be interesting debate between the christians and atheist. :rolleyes:

but i was wrong :eek:

**Umar001** · 02-14-2007

From my humble understanding both speakers are some what confused or confusing on purpose.

I read partially the opening statements, I find for example:

I think, for instance, that we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

First, even if we think of Jihad as being a person dying for what they believe to be true and martyrdom being the same then this concept is inbred in the whole of mankind. But I do wonder whether the terminology being thrown about here has any solid base of knowledge for being used.

Also the definition of faith used does not cover all angles, for example just because one MIGHT not have evidence for something they place faith on is no way indicative of why they place faith on such a matter, I might say I have faith the bus will arrive at the bus stop at such and such a time, but I have no evidence as such but rather put faith in my belief because of other research I might have done which concludes me to believe my source was right and will be right on this matter.

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious. We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The second speaker then claims something which is astonishing in my view, he claims that the Sunni Shia battles are not a result of political differences but rather religious, rather their differences come from partial political stances, which then lead to seperation. Wars we have seen over the years are less than religious, for if they were religiously motivated then we would not find them contradicting the morals and bases of that religion by which it is motivated by.

Am guessing I have misunderstood things, lol.

**Grace Seeker** · 02-14-2007

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

From my humble understanding both speakers are some what confused or confusing on purpose.

I read partially the opening statements, I find for example:

I think, for instance, that we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I can see why you would take offense at those statements. I noticed them as well, but didn't dwell on them, looking instead to other points. BeliefNet is a place where you can post your disagreements, and if I was in your shoes, I think I would. Perhaps I still will myself even, as they do get the discussion off center with such a start.

Pygoscelis, I was actually hoping to get you engaged, in a directed discussion, not to cast you aside by this post.

**wilberhum** · 02-14-2007

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

So, Wilberhum, in order to keep this from being pointless, what do you define as truth?

You can't define any anything about god as "The Truth". One can not ever prove god exist let alone what is "TheTruth" about what he wants or expects. There is only faith and belief.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-15-2007

Originally Posted by Eric H

if and only if God exists then faith is justified.

It may be correct, but that is by chance. It is still in conflict with reason. You may have faith that a 747 will drop out of the sky and land on Niagara Falls, with no actual reason to believe this or logic to derive it, just blind faith that it will happen. If a 747 then actually DOES drop onto the falls, that doesn't make your faith justified. It just makes it freakishly coincidental.

If and only if God exists then science is in conflict with truth?

If God exists then Science is still in conflict with Religion. It changes nothing.

When religion makes claims that science proves untrue. This is conflict, whether an actual God exists or not. Religion sometimes adjusts to the conflict to incorporate the new information and other times remains staunch in the face of it. But it is always there to slow science down. As soon as something is enshrined in scripture or announced as cannon or dogma, that makes it incredibly difficult to dislodge when it is found to be untrue.

**Pygoscelis** · 02-15-2007

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

I might say I have faith the bus will arrive at the bus stop at such and such a time, but I have no evidence as such but rather put faith in my belief because of other research I might have done which concludes me to believe my source was right and will be right on this matter.

I somewhat disagree here.

You do have some evidence regarding the bus.

First, you may have taken that bus before, and it showed up at that time.

Second, if you have never taken that bus before, you have no doubt used the guide before or one like it and it has proven to be true. You have direct experience with bus schedules and they have shown you tha the bus usually arrives at the time listed. You have heard from dozens of other people that they have taken busses and that busses run according to schedules too - and that the busses followed those schedules (nobody has ever come back post-death to confirm heavan or hell exist). Moreover, the schedule was issued by people that have steered you right in the past (the city) so you have trust in them based on experience (evidence).

And even then, I doubt that you'd have the kind of faith that people have in Gods. You'd doubt the schedule if you saw no evidence of a bus stop where it says there is one. You'd doubt the schedule if you have never seen a bus or if mass transportation didn't exist as far as you knew. You'd doubt the schedule if you saw nobody else there waiting for the bus and then doubly doubt it when the bus didn't arrive on time. You'd certainly doubt the schedule if it described the bus as a fantastic magical bus that did things you had no evidence were even possible.

Moreover, the faith you do have in the bus being there on time really isn't that important. If it was a matter of life and death or eternal etc, you'd likely not be taking a bus at all. You'd drive yourself or take a cab, and you'd make sure you were early just in case something went wrong (again, lack of faith).

The analogy just doesn't fit.

**Eric H** · 02-15-2007

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

The 747 dropping out the sky onto the Niagara Falls is pure speculation about a possible future event that may or may not happen.

The creation of the universe has already happened; the only thing is we have no proof of how it came to be. But one of the following statements has to be based on truth and the other fiction.

There a God who was fully responsible for the creation of the universe?

Or is there no God and the universe came into existence through natural means?

Whatever we choose to believe cannot alter something that has already happened.

If and only if God exists then he has to be the most important part of our lives because our future depends on him. That is were faith comes in I just trust that God exists fully and he is as real as the tree in my Garden, but I have no proof that I can show you.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

**zaki.aumeerudy** · 02-15-2007

Originally Posted by wilberhum

I started the read but it got long and boring. The beginning I found some statements that I am fully in agreement with.
we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science),

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious.

We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The reason I find fundamentalism so troubling - whether it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim - is not just its willingness to use violence (in the Islamist manifestation). It is its inability to integrate doubt into faith, its resistance to human reason, its tendency to pride and exclusion, and its inability to accept mystery as the core reality of any religious life.

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

noone can prove that what happened on september 11 is due islamic threat except the greatest harmer to human civilisation `AMERICA`.They are still proving their weapons of massive destruction in Iraq
KNOW THAT MORE 700,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED UP TO NOW

**Grace Seeker** · 02-15-2007

Originally Posted by wilberhum

You can't define any anything about god as "The Truth". One can not ever prove god exist let alone what is "TheTruth" about what he wants or expects. There is only faith and belief.

You didn't even attempt to answer my question. I didn't ask anything with respect to God at all. I simply asked you, "what do you define as truth?".

Perhaps you don't believe that even the concept of truth exists (irrespective of the presence or absence of any belief system), is so then just say so. But if you do believe in some abstract concept called "truth", then are you able to define it for us, please?