Sam Harris Talks about the Defence of Religion

[_dartagnan]

Well consider the gauntlet thrown.

I challenge you to present a single "straw man" from Harris that exists in any of my posts.

Just one will suffice. When you guys cannot present any reason to defend Harris other than the fact tht he thinks like you do, and hates religion and calls it irrational, bla bla bla, then you are essentially proving my point that you're just blindly defending one in your flock.

In the meantime I will have at my disposal the only arguments I have made with respect to Harris, which respond to points he made in his ridiculous book, The End of Faith. I'd love to see how you wold describe these as "straw men."

I've discussed his laughably unscientific usage of "statistics" from "red-blue" states, in which he tried to show how religious aren't really moral after all. I've discussed his laughable myth propagation that most wars are religiously based. I'm sure I can think of a few more later on, but those are two specific points I addressed in the past which none of you here were able to defend.

Your post consists of little more than a hand waving exercise.

[_antishock8]

I find it a little more than ironic that you, a confessed disliker of Muslims (me, too), would use a quote in which SH is using Islamic ideology as a focal point of your sig line. It is, in fact, very ethical to kill some because to NOT kill them will eventually lead to greater suffering for everyone involved. A good example is the Guantanamo catch and release program. 60+ prisoners that have been released from Guantanamo went right back to the battlefield and have, in fact, killed more people. We're guilty for having loosed them back into the world. They should have been executed for the greater good. Instead we've aided and abetted the misery they continue to unleash.

Anyway. It's unfortunate you're a deliberate deceiver. That bothers me. I like you, but I find your moral compass to be f**ked up at times. That being said, do you have any other examples of SH's "immorality" you would like to offer? Oh, and if you do offer something, please let me know what it is, exactly, that defines morality for you.

Explain to us how it logically follows that I should support Harris' comment that people should be killed according to their beliefs.

If a jihadist is going to detonate a bomb in a crowded daycare because he believes he is doing God's will, would you support his execution before he can carry out his mission? Nothing you say can change his mind.

[_marg]

Well consider the gauntlet thrown.

I challenge you to present a single "straw man" from Harris that exists in any of my posts.

Just one will suffice. When you guys cannot present any reason to defend Harris other than the fact tht he thinks like you do, and hates religion and calls it irrational, bla bla bla, then you are essentially proving my point that you're just blindly defending one in your flock.

From your previous post, your first line:

"Explain to us how it logically follows that I should support Harris' comment that people should be killed according to their beliefs."

This isn't what Harris said. He said " Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

Did you read his book Dart? And if so the context in which that line appears? In that context did he suggest that that people should be killed because of their Muslim beliefs, or their Christian beliefs or whatever other religion you wish to use?

I've discussed his laughably unscientific usage of "statistics" from "red-blue" states, in which he tried to show how religious aren't really moral after all.

First I'd like to know if you read the book and then if you have and you have any criticisms of what he said, then cite the page or pages, so that I can read the context.

I've discussed his laughable myth propagation that most wars are religiously based.

Once again cite the page or quote or link to a video or quote.

sure I can think of a few more later on, but those are two specific points I addressed in the past which none of you here were able to defend.

Your post consists of little more than a hand waving exercise.

:)

[_Some Schmo]

But this new atheism is just a fad that will eventually die like bell-bottom jeans.

This is the epitome of a dart post: completely wishful thinking with no substance or basis in reality.

Yeah, all the atheists are suddenly going to lose their common sense and start believing in a god again and other irrational crap (after already realizing how silly it all was in the first place). Riiiiiiight... not when they have morons like dart making the case for god.

LOL

[_antishock8]

But this new atheism is just a fad that will eventually die like bell-bottom jeans.

This is the epitome of a dart post: completely wishful thinking with no substance or basis in reality.

Yeah, all the atheists are suddenly going to lose their common sense and start believing in a god again and other irrational crap (after already realizing how silly it all was in the first place). Riiiiiiight... not when they have morons like dart making the case for god.

LOL

Dart never tires of being ironical. Bell bottoms are back in style in a huge way. I just bought my kid a few pairs.

Har. Har.

[_dartagnan]

real quick

If a jihadist is going to detonate a bomb in a crowded daycare because he believes he is doing God's will, would you support his execution before he can carry out his mission? Nothing you say can change his mind.

Absolutely I would. But this isn't what Harris is saying. You're talking about intent, he is talking about belief. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims who really do believe God would reward them if they killed infidels, but they have no intention of acting on those beliefs, the same way many theists have beliefs that God would reward them for doing good works, and yet refrain from acting on them. So Muslims who believe the same things, and yet refuse to act on them, should these people be killed anyway? If Harris had his way, I believe he would. Clearly anyone with the intent to kill should be stopped beforehand, no matter what their reasons. The problem is determining who has that intent. An atheist bigot who thinks he can read someone else's scripture and dictate what it must mean to them, for the sole purpose of categorizing billions of people a "dangerous threat," isn't someone I trust to make those decisions.

Maybe Harris is living in a science fiction scenario, something similar to the movie Minority Report, where criminals could be stopped before they commited crimes. That is fantasy but we lie in reality, so, his comments are totally out of place and deserve every once of scorn he receives.

This is the epitome of a dart post: completely wishful thinking with no substance or basis in reality.

Oh there is plenty to base it on.

Yeah, all the atheists are suddenly going to lose their common sense and start believing in a god again and other irrational crap (after already realizing how silly it all was in the first place). Riiiiiiight... not when they have morons like dart making the case for god.

You think most people begin as atheist when most people become atheist after a conversion process. Atheists don't have enough sense to reproduce themselves for crying out loud, so yes, they have no real of becoming anything more than an extremely minority view. So enjoy your moment of fame while it lasts. The four horsemen got away with publishing several misleading pieces of propaganda they passed off as scholarship. But people are beginning to catch on now. They are being used as mop water in debates. Their stupdty is being widely advertised. Their arguments are shown to be fallacious. Their bigotry is oozing from every crack and more and more are beginning to see. Their books are being torn apart and exposed as the hate propaganda they represent. So no, they present no real threat in my view, and their conversion numbers are moderate at best.

You're mainly relying on converts by a bunch of impressionable student kids in academia who think its hip to follow their professors, the same way it was cool to be a hippy during the sixties, protest wars, hate Israel, do drugs, worship the beatles, hate religion like John Lenon did, etc. Nowadays its cool to be a nonbeliever, especially for kids who want to lash out at an overly religious upbringing. Other internet punks and amateur blowhards feel a sense of identity by jumping on the atheist bandwagon. Any why not, I mean Bill Maher and John Stewart are atheists and those guys are the epitome COOLNESS! And they all are on drugs and damn proud of it! Awesome.

Yes, I believe it will eventually get old as a fashionable ideology, the recent atheistic spurt will soon level off and their exceptionally low birth rates will only add to its descent. The ridiculously low birth rates alone seems to guarantee that end. The only thing keeping Europe from dying out is the Muslim migrations. Otherwise secular Europe and Russia would wither away and die on the vine.

[_EAllusion]

1) SH is clearly an intelligent man, and in fact, very clever. He has sold a lot of books, done of lot of speaking engagements, gathered a following, and has made a lot of money doing it. That's clever. That's intelligent. Stupid people generally don't have the skills and composure to do something like that unless they own a pair of tits.

Misogyny and questionable argument all in the same post. No, one does not need to be very clever to sell books, make money, and have a following. Or put another way, you seem to have a pretty low bar for calling someone "very clever" compared to how I'd use the term if merely doing this qualifies.

2) Your sig line says:

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. (The End of Faith, p52-53.)

That quote is quite bad in context.

I find it a little more than ironic that you, a confessed disliker of Muslims (me, too), would use a quote in which SH is using Islamic ideology as a focal point of your sig line. It is, in fact, very ethical to kill some because to NOT kill them will eventually lead to greater suffering for everyone involved. A good example is the Guantanamo catch and release program. 60+ prisoners that have been released from Guantanamo went right back to the battlefield and have, in fact, killed more people. We're guilty for having loosed them back into the world. They should have been executed for the greater good. Instead we've aided and abetted the misery they continue to unleash.

See. That's "morally sketchy." I recall some of the opinions you shared during the last presidential election that probably would put you alongside Harris, probably to the right of him really, when it comes to issues involving the so-called war on terror, violence, and Islam. Of course, it's no coincidence that I specifically mentioned your name when making an analogy to critics of Mormons on this board and Sam Harris.

[_marg]

So Muslims who believe the same things, and yet refuse to act on them, should these people be killed anyway? If Harris had his way, I believe he would.

You haven't read his book, nor the context of the quote he made, have you Dart? He's not that stupid as you seem to think.

This is what I mean by strawmen arguments that you argue against, Dart. You are arguing against Harris on a position he doesn't hold. And it is so extreme, you'd have to think he's a lunatic if you think that's his position.

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, I'm so surprised that dart would follow up one post full of wishful thinking and ridiculous conclusions with another. Words can't express how shocked I am by this.

Of course, I'm sure he visits all kinds of web sites that support his particular brand of wishful thinking (the sites that ultimately do his thinking for him), so in his tiny perception, he probably does think it's based on reality. More's the pity.

[_Calculus Crusader]

But this new atheism is just a fad that will eventually die like bell-bottom jeans.

This is the epitome of a dart post: completely wishful thinking with no substance or basis in reality.

Yeah, all the atheists are suddenly going to lose their common sense and start believing in a god again and other irrational crap (after already realizing how silly it all was in the first place). Riiiiiiight... not when they have morons like dart making the case for god.

LOL

You are far too mentally deficient to apprehend the arguments for the existence of God.