Not that I particularly like it, just that I don’t see it as anything particularly frigthening. It is when you start justifying your behavior as divinely inspired, especially in public, that you transcended the line between private prayer and zealotry.

Not that I particularly like it, just that I don’t see it as anything particularly frigthening. It is when you start justifying your behavior as divinely inspired, especially in public, that you transcended the line between private prayer and zealotry.

But not much can compete with the effect of somehow getting into your head the idea that you’re acting out the will of a god. Self-criticism applies in every case except when you’re encouraged to believe that your ideas aren’t your own. That they’re telepathically transduced from an omniscient supernatural consciousness to you and that you should not question them.

Agnosticism just says “maybe, maybe not – I dunno” with its hands in its pockets and lets the show go on. It means to avoid taking a practical point of view on the question of the existence of gods. Pascal’s Wager often accompanies it, so it’s practically on the theist side of the fence.

The observed and conceptually necessary evolution of consciousness, as well as the observed and conceptually necessary complexity of the same phenomenon, means that any idea about a physically detached consciousness floating around in the universe should be assigned an incredibly small probability. This is maybe one of the strongest arguments to make when skeptically examining the claims of any religion, in my mind.

“Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead.”
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/sam-harris-sexist-pig-and-liberal-shill/

Related: http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-studio/ has a very nice and long video interview with Dan Dennett on his book “Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon” that should interest anyone with a fascination for the workings of religion in today’s society and how it came to be.

But not much can compete with the effect of somehow getting into your head the idea that you’re acting out the will of a god. Self-criticism applies in every case except when you’re encouraged to believe that your ideas aren’t your own. That they’re telepathically transduced from an omniscient supernatural consciousness to you and that you should not question them.

Agnosticism just says “maybe, maybe not – I dunno” with its hands in its pockets and lets the show go on. It means to avoid taking a practical point of view on the question of the existence of gods. Pascal’s Wager often accompanies it, so it’s practically on the theist side of the fence.

The observed and conceptually necessary evolution of consciousness, as well as the observed and conceptually necessary complexity of the same phenomenon, means that any idea about a physically detached consciousness floating around in the universe should be assigned an incredibly small probability. This is maybe one of the strongest arguments to make when skeptically examining the claims of any religion, in my mind.

“Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead.”
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/sam-harris-sexist-pig-and-liberal-shill/

Related: http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-studio/ has a very nice and long video interview with Dan Dennett on his book “Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon” that should interest anyone with a fascination for the workings of religion in today’s society and how it came to be.

Specifically, you are concerned that “he genuinely believes what he wrote”. Notwithstanding that belief in “what he wrote” is nonsensical, as he wrote a request; What if the words were in fact offered in a agnostic frame of reference? Offered without knowing if there is a god? If the prayer were offered , and there were a god, and the prayer is answered, then he is given wisdom and made an instrument of (at the very least) an omniscient being. If there is no god, and thus the prayer is not answered, then he is no worse off than he was before (same goes for god exists but prayer goes unanswered).

Your concern is that he might interpret something that he thinks as having come from god, and believe it so strongly that he would be unable to listen to reason, seems rather contrived, as there are a multitude of reasons that one might act in this manner (not the least of which is the possibility that one might decide that they are simply smarter, and more knowledgeable than the rest of society).

Specifically, you are concerned that “he genuinely believes what he wrote”. Notwithstanding that belief in “what he wrote” is nonsensical, as he wrote a request; What if the words were in fact offered in a agnostic frame of reference? Offered without knowing if there is a god? If the prayer were offered , and there were a god, and the prayer is answered, then he is given wisdom and made an instrument of (at the very least) an omniscient being. If there is no god, and thus the prayer is not answered, then he is no worse off than he was before (same goes for god exists but prayer goes unanswered).

Your concern is that he might interpret something that he thinks as having come from god, and believe it so strongly that he would be unable to listen to reason, seems rather contrived, as there are a multitude of reasons that one might act in this manner (not the least of which is the possibility that one might decide that they are simply smarter, and more knowledgeable than the rest of society).

Btw, “diety” => “deity”… (I figure you could at least spare yourself of any badwill that might register in the minds of your readers by stupid spelling mistakes, and let it be limited to the actual content of your immoral, God-hating ramblings