Proof of God

[Harris]

You are. Atheism has nothing to say about prejudices. All atheism is is that we don't think that gods exist.
Now atheists tend to be less prejudiced than theists but that is because we tend to evaluate things using evidence.

Do you have evidence on your own conscious experiences?

But there is nothing to stop an atheist being prejudiced.
Religions however, demand it.  

Study Islam before making rash statements against religion.

Harris: I'm very sad to hear that you would have no idea how to act morally without the existence of an undemonstrated celestial fascist dictator.

Morality has no meaning if it is based in god's opinion. Any definition of morality which isn't evaluated by the wellbeing of living creatures is a pointless one to begin with, concerned more with toadying than on caring about anyone or anything.

I would like to think that you would be very surprised by your own morality if you did lose your belief and find you do have an internal moral compass. I would estimate 9 out of 10 people who talk like you are mistaken about themselves.

Please check my response to Bennyboy.

Perhaps, for humans -those somewhat intelligent and social animals inhabiting the planet Earth - "fittest" means those that can best cooperate with each other and survive as a group. You ever think of that?

I cannot think of that because of the presence of Stalin, Mao, and other atheist dictators.

One person alone is weak, no matter how strong he is compared with other humans... one person alone cannot maintain his sustenance, health, home, family,... gadgets, transportation, thirst for knowledge or recreation for very long.
One person alone is so much less than a community.

True.

I was attacking your ideas about God, which are illogical, and you used the greatness of Islam, especially its growth, as evidence supporting you God idea.

If in your mind God is Illogical then does that mean that all those who believe in God are Illogical people who are much greater in number than you (atheist) are.

Do not undermine the fact that we are interested in knowledge, fiction, necessity, causation, or sensation, so we find ourselves studying about what interests us. Large number of positive views about existence of God in general inform and support philosophical positions on the real objects of philosophical interest.

Still a red herring. Are we talking about the social injustices which may or may not be faced by the Muslim community (for which I have some sympathy), or about proof of God?

Please be refrain from dragging me into politics if you are only interested in “Proof of God.”

Sure they do. I know they do, because all those words have meaning, and there is no God. Those things are good which seem to me beneficial and healthy, and those things are bad which seem to me counterproductive or destructive.

This argument is a perfect example of Argumentum Ex Culo

You: "If there were a good God, then He would not make a world that could have evil. There is evil in the world; therefore, a good God did not create it."

Me: "How do you define good without God."

You: "I just know what is good and what is not by feeling."

Humans are a social animal,

Why humans are social animals?

and have instincts that allow us to work together. These include a sense of right and wrong, the feelings of familial love and brotherhood, and so on.

From where all these instincts came into human?

Your religious texts didn't create moral feelings-- they reflect an ancient (and mostly uneducated) culture's response to those feelings.

You advocate the idea of no God blindly and by overruling all the logical facts in favour of God. For instance, I have argued that without God:

• Universe came out of nothing,
• Life appeared on earth by accident, and
• Intelligence happened by lucky mutation.

In this entire scenario what is the meaning of GOOD and what is the meaning of BAD. Nothingness, accident, and chance do not know GOOD and do not know BAD. Therefore, nonexistence of God confirms that good and bad have no meanings.

Dawkins and many other renowned atheists follow this idea:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.
- Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133.

Here Dawkins is clearly saying there is no good and no evil. Well if that is the case then there is no point in charging God or religion or anything else with evil because he has abolished the concept. Think of the twin towers, if the people who flew the planes into the twin towers were just dancing to the music of their DNA then nobody would blame them for doing it. In fact, BLAME becomes a NON-CONCEPT. So the whole thing dissolved into a non-moral universe.

Harris Wrote: I thought atheists are unprejudiced people. It seems I am mistaken.

Bennyboy Wrote: I seriously doubt you ever thought that.

If you can doubt in the existence of God without whom the existence of everything is an impossibility then who am I in comparison to God.

Summa Theological, fifth way I.e. final cause.

The fifth way is Aquinus trying to sneak intelligence into natural laws. The natural laws are a byproduct of symmetries. For example, translation invariance (this spot over here is no different than that spot over there) -> conservation of momentum. No intelligence is required for the conservation laws to exist.

The concept of quantitative conservation laws, such as those of mass and energy, is of much later origin. Even prior to the development of modern mechanics, symmetries were employed to solve some dynamical problems. The relation between conserved quantities and symmetries has come to play a central role in the physical sciences. Conservation laws may reflect as much about the way the human mind organizes the phenomena of the world as they do about physical reality itself.

In fact, there are principles of lawfulness and of causality, which reflect basic and universal characteristics of human thought and understanding. This suggests that our various conservation laws may be rooted as much in the human mind as they are in any external reality.