Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_Chap]

So the point of debate is narrowed for now to this
"What exactly is this mysterious thing that religion reveals that I cannot know of without religion"
Is it within your rhetorical power to make this clear at all (to anyone here)?

It will be interesting to see whether dartagnan can outline an answer this question in a few paragraphs, in his own words, and without silly abuse of the people he is addressing.

I wish I could think of a less clichéd way to end up than saying "I'm not holding my breath", but for the moment I can't.

[_EAllusion]

So the Encyclopedia categorized religious wars using the wrong criteria? Who should decide what counts as a religiously motivated war? Oh, I know. How about some atheist biologists, an atheist journalists, and an atheist philosopher. Oh, and another guy who is just an atheist but is really cool because he talks while he's sleeping and looks like Ben Stiller. Yeah, that seems like the best way to get to the truth of the matter. These guys wouldn't hold anything from us.

What are you talking about Kevin? How about I put it another way? It does not follow that a war not categorized is religious had nothing to do with religion. Let's say we could break down the motivations for war by % for argument's sake. They might require, say, a 75% religious motivation for the war to be declared religious. That would leave lots of wars with potential religious motivation not qualifying. Religious belief and practice is so entwined with culture that it's hard for any war not to be tangentially related to it in some way.

I wouldn't call the Iraq war a religious war myself, but I think Christian/Islamic tensions play a part in what occurred, more specifically in making it easier to the US populace to support the invasion. While I wouldn't call it a religious war, I would say it had something to do with religion. See how that works?

I also would be interested in your source for this argument. I don't think you did the legwork of breaking down the percentage yourself. So where did you get this information?

I've seached for it and all I've ever been able to find is this yahoo answers page:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 407AAvVAX9

While it would be awesome if this was your source, the more likely case is you both have some mutual source I can't hunt down in the brief amount of time I've devoted to it.

[_EAllusion]

Found it. Your source is Vox Day's "The Irrational Atheist" or someone reading that source.

If one really was interested in breaking you down on the topic of atheism, one would do well to just read Vox Day. You seem to be routinely derivative of him. In the future, I should know to guess there first.

[_antishock8]

Ok. So sifting through all the words I have this:

1) Dart agrees with Sam Harris that if someone's religiouis belief is going to cause deadly harm to others, and he can't be talked out of it, then it's ok to kill him.

2) Jesus Christ isn't a historical figure.

3) Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is a fraud.

See? We all have common ground!

[_antishock8]

Found it. Your source is Vox Day's "The Irrational Atheist" or someone reading that source.

If one really was interested in breaking you down on the topic of atheism, one would do well to just read Vox Day. You seem to be routinely derivative of him. In the future, I should know to guess there first.

We've already been over the Vox Day thing with Dart. That's how he inadvertently outed himself as a stealth Christian.

[_dartagnan]

OK, this might be messy. I'm sitting in a parking lot actually responding to these posts. I must be out of my mind...

OK, you really are full of it. Almost everything you said if off the mark.

Dude! You initially asked me a question, and I responded with a backing reference. You ignored my answer and then broke out into this convoluted monologue where you responded to my questions with questions, began answering your own questions, and then proceeded to ridicule those answers as if you were somehow responding to something I actually said or believe. You seemed content to just carry on talking to yourself. So yes, I sincerely thought you were "on" something, and that wasn't meant as an insult - after all you've proudly admitted to taking mind altering drugs.

So much so that there seems little chance of having a reasonable discussion. Where would I start? Get a brain indeed! LOL

Well I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. Some people here seem to check their sense of humor at the door before posting.

Wake the hell up! No apocalyptic thinking among Christian or Islamic world leaders? You are in serious denial.

No, I simply understand what that "apocalyptic thinking" generally entails, and you don't. Atheists today use this as an excuse for thier bigotry, by pretending Christians in America present a national threat, as if they're planning to take over the government in a theocratic fashion. This is utter nonsense. The essence of what Christianity is prevents this from ever happening. Christians generally accept some kind of endgame when the earth will be baptized in fire, and Jesus will return, etc. But to suggest this is something atheists should fear demonstrates a tremendous amount of ignorance, which is to be expected given your failure to take the Bible seriously as an ancient document written for an ancient peoples.

Armageddon is generally accepted by most religios people, sure. But believing something will happen and wanting it to happen in your own lifetime are two different things. Why wold anyone try to make something happen they believe to be a matter of God's will? I've heard scientists predict that eventually the earth will be obliterated by an asteroid. It is just an inevitable fact because these things are hurling through space all the time and it is just a matter of time before one crosses or path. But that doesn't mean they want it to happen. Relgious people understand Armageddon to be an inevitable event but most recognize that it is something entirely out of their hands. It will be something initiated by corrupt governments and finished by God himself. How will God finish it? By making himself manifest in the sky. How is believing this somehow proof that these people are a danger to society? So there is no accepted understanding that involves Christians taking up arms and marching the streets to start it themselves. That simply isn't how their "apocalyptic thinking" goes. The only thing even close to a theocracy could only happen after Armageddon has ended, when it is expected that the messiah will rule over the earth, in which case you have nothing to be afraid of.

Dominionism is a thing I made up?

No, but it is something I doubt you understand well, and probably something you wouldn't even be aware of without left-wing alarmist journalists like Hedges, just itching for a juicy conspiracy.

Maybe you should come back when you can tell me what this thing is that religion reveals to us.

Excuse me, but I was demonstrating the nonsense of Sam Harris just fine without you. You stayed on topic until you realized you couldn't respond to any of the points I made against him, so you derailed and now think you can just demand that I answer a question to your satisfcation, or else I should just leave? Come on. I have said plenty on this thread covering quite a bit, but you take issue with a single statement I made that is essentially what Stephen Jay Gould, Einstein, and many other resonable scientists have said. Science covers one thing, religon covers another. Why is this such a difficult axiom to accept?

It might also help if you for once lay your freaking cards on the table and tell us your beliefs clearly concernig the nature and reality of God, the reality of angels, the truthfulness or literalness of Bible stories etc.
Its not too much to ask is it. Where are you coming from?

But you weren't asking me, you were essentially telling me. And I've laid out my positions several times on this forum. Is it my fault you weren't around?
So let's do this. Since this thread deals with Sam Harris and his errors, why don't you start another thread discussing these things and I promise to respond in the same spirit your questions are presented. That means if you start answering the questions before I can answer, and start comparing me to some family member who believes in magic or whatever, then don't be surprised with sarcasm in response.

Chap,
I'm amused that you think this basic question somehow stumps me.

EA,
I took notes a while back while spending the day at a local borders. I can't be sure, but I think the book I was reading was by Vox Day. We talked about him before I think. He devoted a lot of time dissecting Sam Harris.

I wouldn't call the Iraq war a religious war myself, but I think Christian/Islamic tensions play a part in what occurred, more specifically in making it easier to the US populace to support the invasion. While I wouldn't call it a religious war, I would say it had something to do with religion. See how that works?

Yes, but the only reason we are discussing this is because atheists have made the repeated argument that religions cause wars. Let's not forget this argument. Religions not only cause them, but they are a primary and most frequent cause. So I have no problem with what you just said about teh difficulty in categorizaton, but the difficulty presents more problems for atheists. They think they can simply point out that some people in a war were religious, therefore religion is the cause. It is amazing how this illogical thinking goes. There is a disconnect between correlation and causation but Harris doesn't understand any of this. For him it is simply enough to assert, and he expects his readers to just buy into it. Sadly, they seem to be doing just that.

No, religion didn't cause the Iraq war, and I would argue that it didn't "cause" most wars that are designated "religious" by atheists. And yes, this Encyclopedia was written by several historians. Historians have a tendency to know more things about the cause and effect of various historical events. So if they categorize something as religion caused, who are we to say they are wrong? They could be wrong, but then again, if we can't trust historians on historical matters, why trust a biologist with an atheist agenda?

[_EAllusion]

No, religion didn't cause the Iraq war, and I would argue that it didn't "cause" most wars that are designated "religious" by atheists.

I would say it was a cause. I don't think you could understand the Iraq war without understanding how different American Christians relate to Islam, for instance. Nor could you understand it outside the context of the "war on terror" which was in part provoked by religious hostility to the US. However, it was a minor cause. I don't think it was determinative. At the same time, the war doesn't happen without the present religious tension.

Wars are caused by a many different factors. Some of those factors are more important than others in any given war. It's not easy to say when we should call a war a religious war. When religion is the principle cause? When the war would not have happened if not for the religious causes in play? When the principles involved in the war believe it to be a religious cause? These all can give different answers. The point here is we can't conclude that a group of wars had nothing to do with religion because a group of scholars did not classify them as religious.

[_Chap]

You ignored my answer and then broke out into this convoluted monologue where you responded to my questions with questions, began answering your own questions, and then proceeded to ridicule those answers as if you were somehow responding to something I actually said or believe. You seemed content to just carry on talking to yourself.

QFASAOI (="Quoted For A Significant Amount Of Irony")

So the point of debate is narrowed for now to this
"What exactly is this mysterious thing that religion reveals that I cannot know of without religion"
Is it within your rhetorical power to make this clear at all (to anyone here)?

It will be interesting to see whether dartagnan can outline an answer this question in a few paragraphs, in his own words, and without silly abuse of the people he is addressing.

I wish I could think of a less clichéd way to end up than saying "I'm not holding my breath", but for the moment I can't.

Chap,
I'm amused that you think this basic question somehow stumps me.

It's not so much a matter of being stumped, more a matter of having little discernible interest in actual communication, as opposed to writing huge splurging and barely readable posts full of quotations and interjections, and liberally sprinkled with abuse and condescension. Dartagnan is not to only one to show this tendency, but he is one of the prime examples on this board.

Of course the way he posts is up to him; but as has been remarked on another occasion (and not just by me) his style probably ensures that few people feel like reading his posts. But perhaps he doesn't mind that - it may be that dartagnan's most devoted reader is dartagnan, and he is happy for it to stay that way.

[_Some Schmo]

It's not so much a matter of being stumped, more a matter of having little discernible interest in actual communication, as opposed to writing huge splurging and barely readable posts full of quotations and interjections, and liberally sprinkled with abuse and condescension. Dartagnan is not to only one to show this tendency, but he is one of the prime examples on this board.

This is the primary reason I respond to him the way I do. I observed this behavior in him a long time ago and quickly realized that trying to have a discussion with him was like talking to a television set: completely oblivious to your presence, sometimes incredibly offensive, and only willing to talk about what he is programmed to talk about. I think it's incredibly funny that I mimic his posting style back to him and he seems to take offense to it, calls me an idiot based on what I post, yet doesn't seem to get that the flavor of my posts to him is the exact reason so few people take him seriously.

The most amusing thing about his posting style is that when people decide he's not worth talking to, he takes that as a sign that they can't keep up with him in a debate. It's like assuming there's only one reason people don't watch basketball: they don't understand the rules. He never for a moment considers the fact that many people couldn't care less, or even better, think the game is just silly. Of course, we know that people will tell themselves whatever they need to in order to maintain their fantasy about themselves.

While I admire some of the folks that actually try to reason with him, I also wonder why they bother. It's a no-win situation. For me, it's more fun to just mock the guy, given that's all he's worth.

[_dartagnan]

We've already been over the Vox Day thing with Dart. That's how he inadvertently outed himself as a stealth Christian.

And I guess you're a Catholic for previously referencing Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.org? Do you understand the implications of what you say? That one is only allowed to agree with those who share the same religious beliefs, and only allowed to disagree with those who don't. It really boggles the mind.

I would say it was a cause.

I used to think that, but no longer do. It was no more a cause than language. Arabs hate English spoken in their countries and they want things as they are. So I guess language barrier is the cause of most wars? Of course not.

I don't think you could understand the Iraq war without understanding how different American Christians relate to Islam, for instance.

I think that's irrelevant since American sentiment towards Islam had nothing to do with our reasons for going to war. I'm not even sure where you could begin to make that case.

Nor could you understand it outside the context of the "war on terror" which was in part provoked by religious hostility to the US.

I think that little piece of myth has been refuted well enough. We know for instance, that George Bush had the Iraq invasion planned before he gained office, which means it was planned before 9-11. The hostility coming from Saddam Hussein wasn't religious by any stretch of the imagination. But I agree that 9-11 played into Bush's hands perfectly. It certainly didn't hurt him when trying to convince everyone we needed to remove Hussein. But he never made it a religious issue because it never was.

However, it was a minor cause. I don't think it was determinative. At the same time, the war doesn't happen without the present religious tension.

Based on what evidence?

Wars are caused by a many different factors.

I agree that this is usually the case, but with respect to the Iraq war, what evidence is there that Bush started it for any kind of religious purpose?

Some of those factors are more important than others in any given war. It's not easy to say when we should call a war a religious war. When religion is the principle cause?

Sure. But rarely is religion ever a cause at all. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of atheists who continue to propagate this myth.

When the war would not have happened if not for the religious causes in play?

I think a safe bet is to simply take the opposing sides at their word when they give their reasons for engaging in war. Most of the planet is religious, so naturally anyone looking hard enough can find some strand of religious elements at play, but very rarely is religion a cause for war.

When the principles involved in the war believe it to be a religious cause?

I would say that is pretty weak, because naturally any side trying to energize its citizens will invoke whatever unifying mechanism it can, and few are as powerful as religion. I mean we saw Saddam Hussein pulling this same stunt in his last address, but we all know this guy was hardly a practicing Muslim. It was the same kind of lip service Hitler offered the Catholics, just before he obtained enough power to threaten their annihilation. The emperor Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion strictly for political reasons. So does that mean religion was the "cause" of his various battles throughout the 4th century? Of course not. This guy was already a murderer, but using religion became a convenient tool to unify his empire. Simply put, atheists don't seem to appreciate or understand the difference between correlation and causation.

The point here is we can't conclude that a group of wars had nothing to do with religion because a group of scholars did not classify them as religious.

Again, if we cannot rely on historians, then who can we rely on? Is the truth smply beyond our reach? I can agree with your point here is you can agree with mine. My point is that we can't conclude that a group of wars were caused by religion because a group of atheist biologists and journalists choose to classify them as religious. Can you at least admit this?

It's not so much a matter of being stumped, more a matter of having little discernible interest in actual communication, as opposed to writing huge splurging and barely readable posts full of quotations and interjections, and liberally sprinkled with abuse and condescension. Dartagnan is not to only one to show this tendency, but he is one of the prime examples on this board

Sorry, I am still trying to get used to typing on a laptop (big fingers, tiny keyboard) and I don't always go back and catch every typo. But I don't think your overall point is very compelling to anyone not already in the tank for the atheist camp here. I'm often the only person arguing for my position, while getting tag teamed from every atheist in the vicinity. Some questions require longer answers. If it were truly as annoying as you lead on, then my posts wouldn't attract so many responses. People would just ignore them. As it is, I'm probably the only person here who has to respond to a half dozen people in a given thread. Kinda strange for a guy who is constantly "ignored," huh?

Of course the way he posts is up to him; but as has been remarked on another occasion (and not just by me) his style probably ensures that few people feel like reading his posts. But perhaps he doesn't mind that - it may be that dartagnan's most devoted reader is dartagnan, and he is happy for it to stay that way.

Don't make excuses for your refusal to engage the issues, chap. Nobody cares. You act as though everyone is sitting on the sidelines wondering why you don't engage me, and you feel some strange need to constantly explain why you're not commenting. Nobody is missing you. Get over yourself already.

What is it with you guys? You and Schmo stroking each other's refusal to engage the subject matter by assuring yourselves that it is due to my "posting style." This is a crock. As I said before, I have posted the same way for years, and I don't recall any of you complaining when you thought I was a Mormon apostate who had adopted atheism. When you found out I wasn't, suddenly I became the forum's punching bag. And yes, it is pretty damn funny to hear any of you complaining about condescension on my part.