Sam Harris on Mormonism

[_amantha]

I have been watching a lot of Sam Harris videos on YouTube lately and I found this bit on Mormonism (only the first 30 seconds or so is on Mormonism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55raoECDz4A

[_skippy the dead]

And. . . ?

[_Moniker]

"Christianity plus some very stupid ideas". That was received with applause and laughter. The problem really with insulting those that are religious (even when you break them down within the different sects) is that they instinctively become defensive and will tune you out. I think he's right that if you want to take on religion that it's wise to do so individually, yet the way he goes about it is not very compelling to those that he wishes to reach . Unless, of course, his only intent is to rally his troops to go out and insult those with faith. Not such a good tactic, I think.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sorry but who is Sam Harris?

[_Moniker]

Sorry but who is Sam Harris?

Have you been introduced to google? :)

http://www.google.com

Sam Harris wrote The End of Faith and he views religion as harmful to our culture and future.

[_guy sajer]

"Christianity plus some very stupid ideas". That was received with applause and laughter. The problem really with insulting those that are religious (even when you break them down within the different sects) is that they instinctively become defensive and will tune you out. I think he's right that if you want to take on religion that it's wise to do so individually, yet the way he goes about it is not very compelling to those that he wishes to reach . Unless, of course, his only intent is to rally his troops to go out and insult those with faith. Not such a good tactic, I think.

Why is it his responsibility to be nice? I think there's an important role for persons such as Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. They may not win over too many conversts (though I bet they have more impact than many imagine), but it's important for someone to take a more aggressive approach and point out the idiocies of dogmatic religion. Pound away at the message, and over time, it will begin to have some effect. One effect might be to begin to make people feel a wee bit embarrased for holding such dumb-ass ideas. They should be embarrased too. Why go around pussyfooting all the time towards people who based their lives, and want to compel other people to base their lives, on iron age fantasies?

[_Moniker]

"Christianity plus some very stupid ideas". That was received with applause and laughter. The problem really with insulting those that are religious (even when you break them down within the different sects) is that they instinctively become defensive and will tune you out. I think he's right that if you want to take on religion that it's wise to do so individually, yet the way he goes about it is not very compelling to those that he wishes to reach . Unless, of course, his only intent is to rally his troops to go out and insult those with faith. Not such a good tactic, I think.

Why is it his responsibility to be nice?

Did I imply that I thought he had a responsibility to be nice? That certainly wasn't my intention. I was merely pointing out that he loses audience (those that are religious, sympathetic to religion, or on the fence) when he ridicules religion.

I think there's an important role for persons such as Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. They may not win over too many conversts (though I bet they have more impact than many imagine), but it's important for someone to take a more aggressive approach and point out the idiocies of dogmatic religion. Pound away at the message, and over time, it will begin to have some effect. One effect might be to begin to make people feel a wee bit embarrased for holding such dumb-ass ideas. They should be embarrased too. Why go around pussyfooting all the time towards people who based their lives, and want to compel other people to base their lives, on iron age fantasies?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you state above. I'm someone that has never been religious and does not care that much about religion and he just is not very compelling to me. I read Dennett a while back and he did more to convince me to seriously look at religion as a threat than any of the men you mentioned above. I am not a defender of religion, yet, the harshness turns me off. I was pointing this out with my prior statements. I don't believe I'm alone in the view that those that ridicule others for their beliefs (whatever they may be -- politically too) usually aren't going to do much more than speak to those that already share their beliefs.

[_Sethbag]

Did I imply that I thought he had a responsibility to be nice? That certainly wasn't my intention. I was merely pointing out that he loses audience (those that are religious, sympathetic to religion, or on the fence) when he ridicules religion.

And how much audience do you suppose he has among the truly faithful even when he's being nice?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you state above. I'm someone that has never been religious and does not care that much about religion and he just is not very compelling to me. I read Dennett a while back and he did more to convince me to seriously look at religion as a threat than any of the men you mentioned above. I am not a defender of religion, yet, the harshness turns me off.

Which is OK, in a way, because as a non-believer, you're not one he needs to convert anyway.

I'm going to tell you what I recently told my sister when she said it was very off-putting when I told her the church wasn't true as if it that were a fact, and that I should instead couch everything I say with "I think". Not everyone is ready for the message, yet that doesn't mean the message shouldn't be given. It's just like on our missions. We went out into the world and proclaimed that we knew our church was true, and yet how many people were ready to drop what they were believing already and accept our message? In my case, in Switzerland, the answer was a big goose egg.

It may well be that a lot of TBMs and TBwhatevers will read the words of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and whoever else and turn away without accepting their words. But let's be honest here, how many of these TBs were going to give up their true belief in whatever religion they're part of anyhow? Those who are ready to change, and willing and capable of change, will hear what they say, and some people will change. And those who aren't ready, or willing, or capable of change, won't, and it doesn't matter if one pussy-foots around with them or just tells it like it is.

[_Moniker]

Did I imply that I thought he had a responsibility to be nice? That certainly wasn't my intention. I was merely pointing out that he loses audience (those that are religious, sympathetic to religion, or on the fence) when he ridicules religion.

And how much audience do you suppose he has among the truly faithful even when he's being nice?

I don't care if he's nice or not. Again! I don't care if he wears devil horns and smacks theists across the ass every once in a while. I don't care. I am merely pointing out that those seen as radicals in either direction turn off those that are in the middle. The same is true of politics. You lose those that are moderates and I disagree with you as to how important it is to sway those people as I'll go into below. But, again, I don't care if he is a big ole meanie -- I was merely pointing out his tactics and in my belief how it isn't very compelling to anyone beside those that are already in lock step with him.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you state above. I'm someone that has never been religious and does not care that much about religion and he just is not very compelling to me. I read Dennett a while back and he did more to convince me to seriously look at religion as a threat than any of the men you mentioned above. I am not a defender of religion, yet, the harshness turns me off.

Which is OK, in a way, because as a non-believer, you're not one he needs to convert anyway.

Why is that? Do I vote? Yes. Is religion and the ability to recognize it as a threat something I should consider when I think about the future of our country? Dennett convinced me I should seriously consider this -- and I am! He's not going to convert zealot believers that have their entire self wrapped about the notion of religion. He's not going to convert those that already agree with him -- duh. It's the vast majority of Americans that are sort of not too zealous in their religious beliefs that need to be tapped and convinced that the Church that they yawn through every Sunday is more than a meeting place for them to zone out but is actually a threat to our culture. It's the Americans that just don't give it that much thought or are on the fence. THESE are the people that are going to swing. I understand that you and guy disagree, and that's fine. Again, I don't care what he says or does -- I just don't see it as necessarily effective.

I'm going to tell you what I recently told my sister when she said it was very off-putting when I told her the church wasn't true as if it that were a fact, and that I should instead couch everything I say with "I think". Not everyone is ready for the message, yet that doesn't mean the message shouldn't be given. It's just like on our missions. We went out into the world and proclaimed that we knew our church was true, and yet how many people were ready to drop what they were believing already and accept our message? In my case, in Switzerland, the answer was a big goose egg.

I don't disagree that the message should be given. I just think how you approach people matters if you desire someone to actually consider your message. Some people are NEVER going to accept anything outside their own notions. That's fine. When you do approach theists I wouldn't start out with ridicule, though. It's just not going to do anything other than make them defensive. I suggest trying to reach those that are ready, are considering, are questioning. And again (so you guys get it) I don't care if you're crass or obnoxious with the ridicule of religion, it's just not going to reach those that are faltering -- it's probably going to turn them off. Think politics, moderates, and just human nature to dismiss those that are seen as zealots on either side.

It may well be that a lot of TBMs and TBwhatevers will read the words of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and whoever else and turn away without accepting their words. But let's be honest here, how many of these TBs were going to give up their true belief in whatever religion they're part of anyhow? Those who are ready to change, and willing and capable of change, will hear what they say, and some people will change. And those who aren't ready, or willing, or capable of change, won't, and it doesn't matter if one pussy-foots around with them or just tells it like it is.

I think the breakdown of communication here is that perhaps you and guy consider it imperative to sway those that are true believers. I get that. What I'm saying is that you must reach those that are actually going to change. Those that are in the middle... those that don't care one way or the other. Convince them and see what happens at the polls and in homes. Sam Harris is preaching to his choir. I don't care that he's doing it, I just question the effectiveness of his tactics. Why so defensive guys? I'm not ridiculing ya'll? Must be Harris flunkies. ;)

[_The Nehor]

After watching that, I can only hope that somewhere in the Universe there is a flying spaghetti monster. ;

He seems like a smart guy and has some good points (most of the theist's arguments against atheism are useless).

Take a stand for or against reason. Prove your point.