Ha! Typical religiose clap trap. Sorry, I could barely stomach the rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies in this post. Words like relativistic are run of the mill apologist dog whistles. While these ploys played well with the three previous comments, any honest reader would see this for what it is: propaganda. It is very telling that your first volley was with that failed science fiction writer C.S. Lewis.
I will however take a jab at your more ridiculous assertions. First, science is where answers concerning moral behavior have come from for more than a century; it's called psychology, if we are talking about human behavior or evolutionary behavior when we are concerned with the entirety of life on this planet and the origins of morality. Although, I will give you evil is a religious construct like gods, cherubs, demons, and angels.

You write,"Harris is upset because believers are not willing to change their minds on fundamental truth claims that would let the world off of the moral hook."

Now, this is true for most religions in general, but I will comment on Christianity specifically; in its entire history it has done nothing on a grander scale than imbue misery, inhibit freedom of thought, restrict even retard human progress, inculcate dogma, instill bigotry, and segregate humanity. If there is a natural occurrence of evil, religion is it. And don't give me that garbage about how religion makes people feel better—so does getting stoned, as it also perverts ones view of reality.

Then there is the typical claim that atheists, or in this case Sam, don't understand Christianity. This blogger seems to neglect the fact that many atheists were once religious (not me, I was born an atheist). Additionally, Mr. Ling, your characterization of Mr. Harris' view of philanthropy is also telling because it avoided the actual content of the comment by Sam. Sam said, " The problem is that religion tends to give people bad reasons to be good." This is obviously speaking to the reward vs. punishment construct of all to human agencies claiming divine authority through an irreproachable, irreconcilable, supernatural dictator. The very "problem" that created every despot in human history. Not to mention the Protestant schism—you know, works vs. faith. Most of us understand religions, including Christianity, much better than Christians. We're just not brainwashed.

Moral absolutes: you mean like slavery, misogynistic servitude, capital punishment for the crime of descent? There are no such things as moral absolutes; only those who claim there are, such as, theocratic oligarchies etc. Morality is subjective and substantial. This is why; as humanity progresses intellectually, the power of your imaginary friend is inversely affected. That is, god is ignorance; for instance, in the ancient days of infantile humanity gods had great power because there was great ignorance, now that ignorance is subdued considerably, so is the power wielded by gods. Morality is directly affected by human intellect. As we garner more understanding with reference to things like suffering, our commonalities with other species and cultures, how we are actually built, our evolutionary history, DNA and our relationships to all other life forms on this planet, morality becomes better understood, more refined—more moral. It cannot be, therefore, in any way absolute. Which is a ridiculous idea to begin with.

Ah, the old canard with regard to Social Darwinism. This is a misnomer by the way; it should be called Herbert Spencer's Elitism, 'survival of the fittest' is Spencer's line. In the first place, your argument here is a naturalistic fallacy that no one, especially Sam, holds to—an ought from an is. Competition in the gene pool of adaptive traits, evolution by natural selection, does not dictate morality. But, our morality does come from our evolutionary history which is more in tune with cooperation and concern for extended family groups, which is why those groups survived. I would like to make one more point here: Herbert Spencer's Social Elitism is derived from Lamarckian evolution by acquired traits; the great granddad of creationism, aka Intelligent Design. Lastly, science, as well, does not dictate morality any more than evolution does, but through science we can understand what motivates our emotional drives, from where come our particular feelings, or what traits are inherited from darker parts of our evolutionary history.

So, in the end, this is just another case of a bigoted blogger trying to suppress literature that flies in the face of the claims his superstition holds dear. On the brighter side, you're in good company, Mr. Ling, as suppression of descent has been a Christian tradition for almost two thousand years, or at least since the days of Eusebius and Constantine. It's actually a very good book.

I often tell theists that I was born an atheist, and because of that simple fact, I have difficulty sympathizing with their concept of revelation. Mr. Ingersoll's thoughts describe me very well with regard to the 3G's (gods, ghosts, ghouls), so well in fact that; I have used those words in many, many conversations. My atheism is not a freedom from responsibility, as the apologists of the Abrahamic faiths would have one believe, more like a freedom in responsibility - I know my actions have direct affects on the outcomes of my endeavors. In other words, to live by Mr. Ingersoll's thought, is to know freedom - especially the freedom from fear, of thought and mostly, the freedom to believe in ones self. Thank you, Robert G. Ingersoll. Oh and you too, RB.

Ok, this brings up a question I've had for along time, when the perpetrators of crimes like this are using the bathroom and the door bell rings, do they just lockup then need to be rebooted like Windows IE or does the other brain cell forget about its responsibility with flatulence to maintain control.

Pascal's Wager is, if one thinks about it, which they never seem to do, the 'inverse of a good argument' for believing in god(s), that is to say, the strength with which one feels that "Pascal's Wager" is in fact, a good argument for believing, is inversely proportional to the viability, effectiveness, or the benefit of believing. Allow me to reiterate, would god(s) worth the trouble be more respectful of honest skepticism, or maybe moderate belief? Or, would 'they' appreciate the hypocrisy? Easy one, hypocrisy only exists in human constructs. Now, the inversion, if god(s) do appreciate the hypocritical worship, adherence amounts to servitude or slavery. If, they are not omniscient and don't know of the hypocrisy, how can they be the god(s) of biblical mythology, hearing prayers and all? So, from my point of view, proportional to the conviction with which one holds "Pascal's Wager" as an argument for believing, the weaker the case for god(s) of biblical lore. In fact, the death bell for theism tolls as this argument becomes the last stand of the apologist.

My point was not to 'blame' religion (or its mythical hero) for the atrocities or to say it was the cause of them, but in as much as parents are responsible for the care and security of their children, the multitude of human catastrophes has marched through history unimpeded. It is more a statement in regard to the ineffectualness of having a "skydaddy", or in the same light, the ineffectiveness of prayer. Therefore, the history of life on this planet has progressed in exactly the manner one would expect, if, there were no god(s), except for the atrocities perpetrated as a direct result of religious fever, bigotry, fear, superstition, ignorance and the arrogance of ignorance. Also, when I wrote ALL, I meant to include cataclysms of non-human origin as well. I mean, their invisible friend created the universe, right, what would be the big deal in diverting a hurricane or two, or maybe plopping down a couple of signs in an earthquake zone?

Isn't Mr. Colson's whole argument an "appeal to" Fallacy in the first place and laughably delusional in the second, if and only if, one leaves (which I never do) out the whole, 'laudable aspects of life in the 21st century have so much in common with those orally transmitted, bronze age, desert goat herder myths' canard, please! Also, it was Martin Luther that said, and I quote,"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." This mad man knew the absolute danger, thinking afforded his faith. The whole of the Dark Ages is an exercise in subjugating through limiting the reasoning power of the masses. Mr.Colson, a full blown liar in my opinion, knows that their isn't enough reason in the bible to spread on a cheez-it. The little bit of rationale in that monolith of patriarchal deterministic monarchy was garnered from our sensible understanding from the evolution of a society surviving cohabitation in the neolithic era. Too, for a full understanding of just how unfathomably wrong Wilson and Colson are, consider this, ALL of the atrocities that have happened to ALL living things on this planet, for the history of this planet - happened under the direct parentage of their omni-this, that, and the other thing, skydaddy! This is their belief, so, why again is it rational to believe that their skydaddy has my best interest at heart. But, the part of their diatribe that troubles me the most is the, as you called it, "atheist are missing out?" propaganda. I will refer all to my twitter wall for a sample of my poetry, <a href="http://twitwall.com/Beechbum" target="_blank">http://twitwall.com/Beechbum or the blog connected to it. The girl I wrote this poem for, my fiancée, is an interviewer of some very famous rock stars and a bit of a star herself. We are both giddy happy atheist types that drive most of our friends, nuts. Thanks for the post. But, does anyone foresee a change in that arrogant apologist mentality - any time soon?

It is politics, so the best strategy is to get the most important fights pounded out first. Then a good idea would be to keep the greatest number of friends the longest. Another point to keep in mind, is the sway of the enemy during political discourse over a four year period. Obama is a sharp Pres. with an eye on the ball. Let's back him up 100% or we may be complaining about a Repugnant or worse yet - Ron Paul. The Republicans would have us in a Nazi state with a religious mantra to fuel the fears. Don't let up on him, that's not my stance, just remember we didn't just elect him we chose to stand with this President. Contact the White House, Congress, stay on them - I do. Just remember it is a long game and we are still in the first quarter. Political Chess is all about strategy and placement of the most powerful players. Why else would the Republicans block every move? I am an avid atheist and can see that religion will be powerless without the Republicans, which means this is a chance to take them both down at once, but we all need to pull in the same direction for the next 8 years, at least.

This is interesting, but the one I'm always looking for is their definition of 'truth', it continues to allude me what they could possibly mean in context when they use that word. They also seem to have a lose grip on the meaning 'lie' as in "thou shalt not lie." Could it mean that, anything they say in favor of god is truth and whatever they lie about for jesus isn't really a lie. Or god is a lie and jesus is the truth, or they're lie about both and selling it as truth, I'm a little confused is all.

The unscientific pleas from emotion, in an attempt to save what little security is left to be garnered from this creation myth, are a great sign in my opinion. I have this picture of a man saying, "If god had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings!" As the Wright Brother's latest invention goes aloft in the background, from our view - OUR view.