“If you interpret the entire Koran in such a peace-loving-Buddha-like manner, then I support your interpretation.” - BFSP

“Still, if even half of the Muslims share your views, you’d think that they would be joining armies of rebellion against the Muslims that are misrepresenting your views every day… and remember, these Muslims are quoting the Koran and Hadith openly as reasons for their violence against fellow Muslims.” – BFSP

BFSP, the peace-loving-Buddha-likes will not rise and rebel. It’s not in their nature and so the thugs rule. The threat of Muslim on Muslim violence keep the pacifists in their place or force them to emigrate.

barry wrote:

“Iraqis know who put Saddam into power and who was his best ally!”

and yet his army was filled with soviet tanks and the airforce was equiped with MIGs, we are Amazing!

good grief.

Nahida,
If you interpret the entire Koran in such a peace-loving-Buddha-like manner, then I support your interpretation.  Although, even you must admit that you have a lot of work ahead of you! 
The Old Testament and Koran compete with each other in suggesting extreme violence. 

They are so repulsively violent, that I strongly recommend that young children be protected from the content. 

Still, if even half of the Muslims share your views, you’d think that they would be joining armies of rebellion against the Muslims that are misrepresenting your views every day… and remember, these Muslims are quoting the Koran and Hadith openly as reasons for their violence against fellow Muslims.

Not only are these vicious practices harming fellow Muslims, but they are alienating Islam from the rest of the world.

You’d think that the “true” Muslims would be fleshing out the brutal and fanatical Muslims as heretics (if we must resort to religious reasons).

So OK… if westerners are misinterpreting the kind and gentle Koran, then you must admit that a large segment of your population is misinterpreting it in the exact same that we are!

The violence against innocent infidels (journalists) and fellow Muslims of differing sects only serves to confirm our “out of context” interpretations of the Koran.  The stoning/beatings/beheadings of those who commit minor infractions, doesn’t help your cause either.

by nahida on 6/25 at 6:11 am
(112 comments total)

quoter, part-1:

Nice to see you doing some research and quoting some verses; however, academic honesty requires the following:

Firstly: When you quote something you must have a minimum level of understanding and some background knowledge of what you are quoting, otherwise your throwing of quotes haphazardly will become utterly meaningless at best and extremely dishonest at worst.

Secondly: Academic integrity also entails not to half-quote and not to quote things out of context in order to suite your agenda, as by doing so a total misrepresentation of facts will occur, and that is simply called lying by omission.

Thirdly, you must never miss-translate, when quoting from a language that you don’t know, that again is a truth killer.

Unfortunately, in your post of quotes you have violated all the above!

My advice is that; if you want to TRULY criticise Islam, which you entitled to, you ought to STUDY it academically, and that entails, proper research of original text of the Quran in its native language, which requires that you should study Arabic, otherwise your knowledge will not be sufficient to entitle you to criticise.

Many translations are available now, some are good and some are not that good, and unfortunately most are translated by non-Arab speakers which is not a positive when accurate translation is the goal.

Thanks for reminding us of the racist beginnings of Islam.  Mohammed was an Arabic Merchant, Giggilo and Warlord, and forbade his writings to be translated into any other language.  And as long as Saudi Arabia has Mecca, they are the center of Islam.  Mohammed looked after his tribe first, then offers up consolation prizes to the rest of the world.

Less than 30% of muslims read or speak Arabic.  All they have to go on is the ‘poor translations’, or the word of the ‘learned priesthood’.  Just like Catholism fordade translation of the Bible from the latin… to keep the priesthood the only interpreter of the divine word.

Speaking of Racism.  When will the apologist for Islam realize that the genocidal massacres occuring in the Sudan, and all over Africa, are Saudi funded Muslims slaughtering the native animist and Christians? Slaughtering millions isn’t a done by a radical fringe.  It takes money, will power and determination and ‘feet on the ground’ equal to Hitlers SS to wipe out nations on this scale.  We have B52s and can’t approach that scale of murder.  And our dumbarses are in bed with the most fundamentalist exporter of radical Islam in the World… Saudi Arabia.

The various men who have debated Sam Harris all have gone in with the thought “win at all costs”. That’s the mind set of the religious, this is good guys against the bad guys. These highly educated people know they have lost the debate but still they hold on. Why? Remember that at least for the Christians, they believe they will be persecuted as a test of their faith. There is a built in “kamikaze” clause. Going down with the ship is a noble thing. For the others, well nobody relishes defeat.

How many of us have religious upbringings and have not participated in this same debate? For most of us Sam was not our opponent. We have mostly debated ourselves. Our debates were not made public but held within our own hearts and minds. We were not exposed to public ridicule for having been brainwashed. It’s a tough thing to watch and it must be tougher to live through. These clips are like watching a boxer with an already bloodied face taking shot after shot. It makes me flinch. There is no graceful out for Chris Hedges.

I hope I live long enough to see someone of note with the chutzpah to cross over publicly. We have seen many enlightened minds but few that are “born again” for all to see. I guess I still dream of the miraculous.

“It’s better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period.” - Chinese proverb

quoter, part-1:

Nice to see you doing some research and quoting some verses; however, academic honesty requires the following:

Firstly: When you quote something you must have a minimum level of understanding and some background knowledge of what you are quoting, otherwise your throwing of quotes haphazardly will become utterly meaningless at best and extremely dishonest at worst.

Secondly: Academic integrity also entails not to half-quote and not to quote things out of context in order to suite your agenda, as by doing so a total misrepresentation of facts will occur, and that is simply called lying by omission.

Thirdly, you must never miss-translate, when quoting from a language that you don’t know, that again is a truth killer.

Unfortunately, in your post of quotes you have violated all the above!

My advice is that; if you want to TRULY criticise Islam, which you entitled to, you ought to STUDY it academically, and that entails, proper research of original text of the Quran in its native language, which requires that you should study Arabic, otherwise your knowledge will not be sufficient to entitle you to criticise.

Many translations are available now, some are good and some are not that good, and unfortunately most are translated by non-Arab speakers which is not a positive when accurate translation is the goal.

So in order to get a good understanding and comprehension of the book you are attempting to quote, you need to acquire at least a significant number of these translations, and study the whole book before attempting to put a case against it.

Surfing the net and collecting random inaccurate quotes from hate-websites is not dignified to say the least, it is an act against academic integrity, and it can amount to being a real crime if the intention behind it is to slander, incite, and install hatred against a group of people.

The quotes that you presented, apart from the erroneous translations, are taken completely out of context.

To put things into context, here is some historical background:

Chapter 9 from which you quoted talks about a historical event in which there was a peace treaty between the Muslims (living in exile after many years of persecution and after been made refugees by the people of Mecca)

The Meccan violated the peace treaty and gathered tens of thousands of allies to attach the small exiled Muslim community that was under the asylum of people in the city of Medina.

The permission was then given to Muslims to fight back, after many years of persecution and perseverance.

The translation errors:

The Arabic word “kafir” that appears in your translation as “disbeliever” refers actually to the people of Mecca, who persecuted, victimized, killed and finally caused the expulsion of all Muslims from their homeland.

The root of the word is “kafara”, which means “cover up”.

The literal meaning of the word “kafir” is “those who cover up”, but figurative meaning is “those who cover the truth, by means of deception and persecution”.

And in all the verses you quoted it refers specifically to the persecutors and oppressors of Mecca, who violated the treaty.

Translating the word “kafir” as “disbeliever” is not accurate, and to generalize it –still- to make appear to include all non-Muslims is fraudulent and deceitful, as it gives an entirely different meaning to the quotes.

In your attempts to present a case against Muslims accusing them of wanting to kill all disbelieves because they are not Muslims surpasses dishonesty, and supersedes hate-incitement.

quoter, part-2

Now the other word that you misinterpreted is “fitnah”,

You quoted: Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelieving [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

And this is what the proper translation says:
“So fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God is allowed altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.” 8:39

Again where is your academic integrity? When you translate the word “fitnah” as disbelieving/ non Muslims, what more twisting of truth could you do? What more deception?

Fitnah in Arabic means persecution for your beliefs/oppression.

How on earth do you come to present it as disbelievers? Unless of course you desire to indoctrinate people’s mind’s into believing that Muslims want to mass murder all those who disagree with them, and to cover up the truth that Islam teaches clearly:

“there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

“Say: O you that reject Faith!  I worship not that which you worship, and you do not worship that which I worship… To you be your Way, and to me mine”. (109:1-6)

“If any one does a righteous deed, it ensures to the benefit of his own soul; if he does evil, it works against (his own soul). In the end will you (all) be brought back to your Lord”. (45; 15)

“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colours: verily in that are Signs for those who know”.(30-22)

Now the quotes by Ishaq, what is this may I ask? Are you quoting the Quran here? You can’t just quote anyone from anywhere and present what they say as the teaching of the Quran. No … that is not good.

Calling yourself quoter does not give the right to insert arbitrary quotes and pretend that people will not notice that they are not from the Quran.

Whatever you quoted is NOT from the Quran, therefore it can only be representing the person or the book of whom or which you quoted, nothing more, nothing less.

Finally:

We do not shy away from the fact that we have the right to defend ourselves and fight back against aggression, oppression, and persecution.

And the general rule is:
Fighting is only allowed against Aggression (odwan) or Persecution (fitnah).

“You may fight in the cause of GOD those who fight you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. (2:190)

To lindadugan:
For a “first time blogger,” it was a pleasure to read your comments and impressions on the Truthdig debate.  Your thoughts were clear and well thought out.  Your abilities to articulate your points were exceptional and welcomed, and you reflected many of my own feelings.  I must add that writers like BFskinner, wavelength, and now yourself have made this thread an ongoing gratifying and compelling experience for me. 

Moreover, it is not simply how you express yourselves, it is with such insights that are expressed that make the difference.  You guys “get it.”

Thanks also for adding the message to Sam.  I couldn’t agree more that we are “most fortunate” to have him.

Very well said BF
“Where are the anti-honor-killing marches?”
It says a lot. A lot.
Not about the muslim peoples unwillingness to stand-up. But about their inability to stand-up to religious extremism. And it goes far beyond the repercussions of standing up. It speaks to the brainwashing from childhood that makes them completely unaware that the option of standing up even exists.
Stand up to what? God’s will? Why? Who would want to do that?
I think that the most important thing that Sam Harris has brought to the atheist argument is calling out the religious moderates for providing aid cover to extremist megalomaniacs. The current discussion on this thread illuminates that point well.

Bloggers:
I would like to premise my first attempt ever at blogging by stating that I did not attend the LA debate between Sam and Chris.  And unfortunately, I was also unable to access the Truthdigs video/audio that recently appeared on its website.  While I have only a negligible degree of computer literacy, it is obvious there is a serious technical dysfunction on its part.  As others have mentioned on this blog, the audio/video tracts continuously cut out and pause, making it virtually impossible to comprehend the jest of conversations.  It is most unfortunate, because it leaves a large gap in my perspective as to what actually transpired on the eve of May 22 between the two, or perhaps I should say, three men.  I contacted Truthdigs to inquire about transcripts, but have heard nothing back at this time. Not owning an IPOD leaves that alternative unavailable as well.  But I did have the opportunity to read Chris’ essay “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” and Sam’s rebuttal and I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reading through the numerous blogs that were posted since the Trughdigs audio/video appeared on the website last week.  So for what it may be worth, here are some of my thoughts:

Whether Sam is debating Hedges, Aslan, Warren, Pratter (all on Sam’s website) or the slew of other knights in shining armor defending the chastity of religion so fervently, there is one overriding theme that continuously and consistently unfolds onto the stage: all of those contending that religion has merit are incapable of carrying on an intelligent and rational discourse with Sam, and inevitably they resort to hurling personal insults and diatribes at him or, perhaps just as annoying, they completely dismiss what he says by changing the subject.

Whatever foundation of belief they covet and cloister to their bosoms, whatever virtues they believe their religion has a monopoly on, whatever string of dogma they spew forth to defend their beliefs, these models for the faithful are completely and unabashedly guilty of mudslinging and personally assailing Sam because they have sparse, if any, ammunition to defend their principles.

This in part is due to deep, dark-secreted taboos that Sam has exposed by dispelling their myths about faith and reason.  Instead, of hiding these taboos under the mattress, they must awaken one morning to face the human discovery that faith and reason long ago went their separate ways, an amicable divorce one might say; and that rational, reasonable, justifiable, credible, legitimate, sane, plausible and well-grounded discourse is an antithesis to religious beliefs.

Like cornered hungry and frightened jackals, these seekers of faith appear confined between a rock and a hard spot. Their backs, up against a wall, and their teeth bared and snarling, they fight for every tainted morsel of carnage left in the wake of a kill.  (The only exception to this drama is Andrew Sullivan who is a civilized and thoughtful debater with Sam, albeit lacking in persuasion.)  Sam attempts to tame the savage beasts with his intellect and reasonableness, but it only aggravates their demeanor even more.  Distressingly, I am actually embarrassed for all of them. Ironically, Sam’s discourse is humanistic and even transcendental by comparison.

In spite of all this mayhem, I do not worry about Sam.  For his clear, concise, calm, composed and reflective nature will see him through any pending storm.  His perseverance, diligence and consistency continually keeps him above the fray.  And his occasional enigmatic streak only enhances my intrigue and interest in his perspective.

So therefore, I will end by addressing Sam personally:

We are most fortunate to have you as the perennial “truth digger” and beacon in our world today.  Please continue enlightening us as we all venture forth, some more judiciously than others, into our highly fragile and volatile 21st century.

Nahida,

Other than acting outraged by our comments, you don’t appear to be actually responding to them with anything other emotional ploys (“You tear my veil to free me”), shouts, and references to articles.

By the way, the last argument gives no details about the actual questions given to the individuals.  I would have loved to see the actual poll.  Why wouldn’t he post even examples of the questions.

Finally, I don’t know how “most” Muslims feel about any individual act of violence.  That isn’t the point of the current debate.

You have not addressed a single one of my points.  You certainly don’t have to, but shouting and printing touching (but entirely inaccurate) Muslim poems doesn’t illuminate anything.

It’s seductive to characterize the Iraq situation has a battle against anti-Muslims… but it just ain’t so. 

Although I’d love to see Muslims treat their fellow Muslims a bit nicer when they transgress (ex: don’t harm non-virgins, or daughters who visit a boyfriend unescorted).  And I’d love to see the moderates STAND UP against Muslims who do those things… as well as STAND UP against terrorism.  Not only are they not “standing up”, but it is incredibly rare to see them even minimally speaking out against it.  Where are the anti-honor-killing marches????

If they did physical fight terrorism, American soldiers could remove themselves from the dark ages and get back to their military bases.

In the mean time, a literal belief in religion is now the biggest problem in the region.  I can not, at this point, imagine a way to resolve that problem.

Remove the religion, and we can have a REAL dialog instead of one that involves tippy toeing around a minefield of religious sensitivities.

I am certain that in private discussion with moderate leaders of various Muslim nations, Western diplomats are instructed that many of the existing decisions are not made because they are actually believed to be “good ideas”, but rather, to avoid upsetting the fundamentalists.

A literal belief in one of the three big religions is a serious problem.  You don’t agree?

Well… it’s the point of the video debate, and this is what you should be discussing in this particular forum.

The myth of Muslim support for terror:

Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

Now if you don’t like to hear the disturbing truth ... do not read my posts

Furthermore, the Quran gives us the right to defend ourselves, NEVER TO BE AGGRESSORS:

“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight back), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,-(for no cause) except that they say, our Lord is God”. (22:39-40)

‘Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not initiate aggression. God does not love transgressors.’ (2.190)

“God commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and antagonism: He advices you, that ye may be reminded.” (16-90)

“O believers, be you guardians of justice, witness for God. Let not your dislike for a people move you away from being equitable; be equitable - that is nearer to being God-conscious.” (5:8)

“No soul shall be made to bear the burden (liability) of another.” (35:18)

“But show them forgiveness, and say “Peace!” and soon shall they know!” (43; 89)

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God; for (God) loveth not those who are wrong-doers”. (42:40)

‘If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things.’ (8.61)

“But God does call to the Home of Peace” (10-25)

“Ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Thus, have We made of you a nation justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves” (2-143)

“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

“It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)

“Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel evil with what is best: if you do so, he who is your enemy will become a close friend.” (41.34)

they came to teach us civilization

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74f_1182324385

wavelength
No one is forcing you to read my comments
If you are so very irritated by my posts, simple:

DO NOT READ THEM

Burning Conscience: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo&eurl;=

The Iron Wall

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2007/02/15/the-iron-wall/

a selection of videos:

http://sabbah.biz/mt/featuredvideo/

Nahida,

Your poetry is aggressive and unbalanced.

If you’re trying to convince the reader that you are globally unreasonable and seething with rage, you did a great job.

Your posts here at Truthdig are unified in how blatantly manipulative they are.  Instead of furthering the debate in various threads, you engage in self-indulgent tangents in which the reader is invited to feel sorry for you.  In my view, this is off-putting and detracts from the larger conversation taking place.

I am open to any reasoned arguments you might present.  I love a good argument, I just don’t like being propagandized.

Your posts have an oppressive, almost dictatorial tone to them.  This is ironic, given that the charge against Islam is that it is frequently oppressive, authoritarian, and intolerant.  Your writing mirrors these qualities in an eerie way.

Your strategy varies in different posts.  Sometimes you attempt to overwhelm by sheer bulk of prose.  Screen after screen of dithering Islam apologetics.  Lists of indignities.  Read this quote here, look at that website there, sentences in bold-face, quotes from the Koran.  Other times you inject such vehement anger into the conversation that you clearly expect to win by sheer force of rage.

You certainly have passion.  However, a lack of reason does not enhance your work, it diminishes it.

Barry,

You are not seeking out credible, balanced sources of information.

Consequently, your thinking suffers.  Your knowledge base is skewed and your thoughts are biased.  This is clear from the overall tone of paranoia and ideological bent to all of your writings.  On a basic level, you are simply not open to contradictory evidence.  When such evidence is produced, you forego rational debate in favor of simply referring the reader to some tainted bit of left-wing journalism.  You then expect us to be impressed by your scrupulous research and wonder why so few find your arguments compelling.

For example, you’ve quoted Noam Chomsky in previous posts as though he is a mainstream journalist who is simply reporting the facts.  In reality, Chomsky is a Rosie O’Donnell-like figure.  He is a left-wing ideologue of the fringe, whose work you appear to have slurped down rather uncritically.  You are thinking logically within the framework he lays out, the problem is that this is the wrong framework.  While there is much to agree with in his analysis of the Bush administration, there is no doubt that on the more general topics of religion and politics he systematically distorts the facts in a particular direction to fit his deeply held notions.  The links you posted to critiques of Ms. Ali suffer from this same problem.  I found them unsatisfying and unconvincing.

Nahida,

Pre-battle, I was convinced that Saddam was loading up to arm the extemists with WMD.  Given that Saddam made things very difficult for the UN to inspect, it was hard to believe otherwise.  That’s pretty difficult to ignore.

Even without WMD, Saddam was a very, very bad guy and his own people (and the Kurds) were taking the brunt of it.  You suggest that Iraqi’s be left to handle your own affairs?  That’s always best, but there didn’t appear to be any movements to remove Saddam.  It appeared that his strong arm tactics left his people helpless to even think of rebellion.

I support the overthrow of dictators.  We have seen too much death by sitting still (remember Bosnia?).  The US is well equipped to remove a dictator, while Saddam’s people were helpless.  It’s difficult to imagine how this could be deemed arrogant.  It could be better said that it is immmoral to have the ability, but just sit back and let a people suffer.

This thing ended up being a tragic train wreck.  Maybe some good will come of it… the story isn’t over…but I agree with your assessment of the present level of sad outcome.

Like Hedges/Sheers, you are trying to paint me to fit your favorite view of Americans.  I do not support carpet bombings… nor did I say I support any particular military tactic.  This is getting away from the point of the Harris/Hedges debate.

I also beleive that North Korea’s leader needs to go.  His people starve.  Is this arrogance as well?  If so, then I suspect we have differing opinions about the meaning of “arrogance”.

Your ***current*** tragic circumstance is in the hands of the citizens of the middle east.  *CLEARLY* the U.S. is fully prepared to lay their weapons down and support rebuilding efforts.  It seems now that any claims of U.S. aggression in Iraq can only be used in the past tense. 

The U.S. has been humbled by the predicament, and is obviously willing to compromise their way out of it.  Part of the problem is that no one is making a clear stand against the religious extremist.  The U.S. “arrogance” is ill prepared to understand this…and so now we find ourselves looking confused because we are confused. 

Angered about past misdeeds and manipulations?  Fine…understood…I agree with some of them.  Superpowers all seem to suffer those fatal flaws… but OK.  The question is: What now? 

Where’s the overwhelming outcry about the *current* situation? 
These wild clerics and their followers are your immediate real enemy now (right???).  If you don’t agree with this, please explain. 

The destabilizing efforts of the ultra-religious folks are creating the misery that we hear about daily *today*.

So there are some legit complaints about the U.S., all are welcome to submit these complaints about the U.S…. free speech without fear of getting your head lopped off.  I like that. 

I would say that the U.S. is thoroughly embarrassed by the current circumstances and is looking for a reason to leave.  The religious fanatics…and sheer numbers of them… I think, have caught all westerners by surprise.

So *now* what?  Complain about past U.S mistakes?  Doesn’t seem like much of a solution.

Just pull out now?  Is that what you are suggesting Nahida?  If so, I question your true concern about the moderate citizens of Iraq.  I suppose I haven’t quite detected where you stand on fundamentalism as opposed to the more poetic interpretations of Islam by the moderates.

Apparently, the Iraqi moderates knew about the religious nuts before we did and made plans to move from Iraq shortly after Saddam fell…(interestingly, they seem to want to go to the U.S!!!  Can you explain that?)

It appears that literal views of holy lands, magic books, and a lack-of-reformation are your *current* biggest problem… but it seems that these are very unpopular topics in the region!

[I don’t necessarily write"you” or “your” meaning you Nahida.]

The following sentence was accidentally excised from the end of the first paragraph of my latest comment:

“...he was using a philosophical tool to claim that one can’t rely on philosophy.”

—————————————————————-
Originally posted by wavelength:

Let’s not get too caught up with conceited words like “epistemological” and “reductio ad absurdum”.  You seem preoccupied with hairsplitting over academic jargon.  Though your stance regarding science is not really clear from your last post, there is a general trend on this board toward undervaluing the scientific enterprise….

...Mainstream science entails an intellectual standard that is unheard of in nearly all other areas of study, including the humanities.
—————————————————————-

Terms like “epistemological” and “reductio ad absurdum” may be jargon, but they’re the best terms to describe what I was talking about.  It’s practicality, not conceit, that led me to use them.  In the case of the former term, SkinnerPunk was the one that raised the subject albeit in a less direct fashion - the introduction of the phrase “epistemological relativism” hits precisely what he was getting at.  The latter term is the actual name for the argumentative strategy that he employed, and I was discussing his argumentative strategy to show that

I don’t know what your training is, but I was taken aback by your claim that the intellectual standard of science is unheard of in the humanities.  How do you know this?  What precisely is the intellectual standard of science?  Do you have in mind the intellectual standards of logicians?  Are you familiar with the intellectual standards of philosophers like Railton, whose ethics and metaethics are bound to accurate representations of the world - representations informed by scientific progress - and thus supervene upon the intellectual standards of science?

My opinions regarding the place of science in relation to alternative epistemological (or knowledge/data acquisitional/analytical if you prefer) methods should have been made clear by the following excerpt from my post: “any alternative method [to science] for obtaining knowledge about the same domain that I’ve ever heard of strikes me as inferior.”  Fyi, I’m not scientifically illiterate.

I’m not intensely preoccupied with “hairsplitting over academic jargon.”  As you can see, my first post on this subject was quite brief, commending SkinnerPunk for a well-formed response and a simple request to use the word “philosophy” appropriately.  The terms and length that you seem to have an issue with are just the natural results of further requests for elaboration and misrepresentations of my position.

BFskinnerPunk

You said: “I thought Iraqi’s would pour into the streets celebrating the demise of Saddam…I was proud that we would help the oppressed”

I can only shake my head in astonishment and dismay, for how can any person with the least amount of commonsensical ability, and minimum emotional capacity imagine that when you carpet bomb someone’s country, occupy their land and kill almost a million of them- how could you possibly think that they would pour to the streets celebrating??? Which planet do you live on? What kind of morality influences you? Do you really belong to the human race??

And HOW DARE YOU feel proud at the destruction of another nation while deceiving yourself with the myth {I was proud that we would help the oppressed} with this abhorrent repulsive feeling of moral supremacy by appointing yourself as the world policeman, and the imposer of ethics and the manifestation of morality.

Is there an end to this arrogance??

In simple words and in plain English:
GET OFF OUR BACKS, for God’s sake, leave us alone and get out of our lands; get out, for humanity’s sake!

End your criminal occupation of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and leave us to sort our own problems out.

Instead of wasting your time, wealth, and energy on us, you aught to start worrying about the millions of your people who live in the streets, who cannot get proper health care or decent education…

Why don’t you spend your money at making your lives better than at destroying our lives?

Excuse my typos… shucks.  I will try to proof read in the future.

So another bomb killed 6 U.S. soldiers today. 
1.  Did the suicide bomber do so because he/she was extremely *moderate*??? 
2.  Would a moderate Muslim wish to be ruled by the likes of the person who did the bombing?
3.  Is there any doubt about the level of religious fundamentalism that exists within these bombers?  any at all??? 
4.  So are you finding poor, “socio-politically oppressed”, moderates in the middle east blowing themselves up?  No?  Any complete non-believers?  No?
This interesting bit of data analysis leads us to a conclusion about the common theme running through all of these vicious clerics and bombers: a literal belief in a kind of magic. 

I’d be willing to bet that every single one of these individuals does indeed have that one thing in common.  Not poverty, not politics, or any other sort of suppressive detail… it seems that the primary *necessary* ingredient is a religion that condones it.

So THAT is what Sam’s point is. In spite of how Hedges/Sheers were trying to re-design the debate topic (when they found that they were caught by Sam’s logical mind), Sam managed them like school girls without resorting to insults, without calling them out on their cheap attempt at modifying the topic, and without nailing the moderator for not moderating.

On the other hand, Hedges and Sheers both resorted to insults and cheap remarks.  It’s what one does when one is senses defeat.
  These two men seemed to be encountering, for the first time, someone who didn’t play their silly game…they were hoping for Rush Limbaugh I guess.

Nahida,

You are attempting to do what Hedges/Sheers attempted to do to Sam.  They say that he single handedly “caught” them in their ill formed views, so they attempted twist their argument such that Sam appeared to be arguing for the Bush administration’s policy.

You have the misfortune of having some shockingly severe believers among the Muslim population.  Most religiously defined groups do.  However, we’re talking sheer numbers here.  One must wonder if, even in the dark ages, any other religion can claim such a large population of extremists.

I am sure that if the Koran never exsits, and the middle east was full of the same percentage of dark-ages style Christians who were creating an equal amount of frightening mayhem (and, the biggest problem, gaining greater access to more terrific bombs)....I am sure that an attack by outside nations would occur (and perhaps more aggressively, because there wouldn’t be the worry over imposing on another religious “view”).

Clearly, the US made a strategic error.  They have made many.  WMD or not, I thought Iraqi’s would pour into the streets celebrating the demise of Saddam…I was proud that we would help the oppressed.  I assumed Iraqi’s would immediately begin happily helping the US rebuild….and theat they would quickly reject/squash any neighbor or fanatical cleric that attempted to reimpose a Saddam style of rule.

I think, what truly took everyone by surprise was the extent at which the hard core, religious fanaticism existed.  Early on, I would hear anti-war speakers warn of the existence of these types of people, but I assumed they were exagerating to make a point.

These fanatics prevent moderates such as yourself from speaking up.

These are the bad guys.  Clearly, the U.S. would happily put their darn weapons down and begin rebuilding Iraq if these fanatics weren’t present in such large numbers. 

Past mistakes were made, but we should talk about what is happening now.  You have a rich country that is now clearly willing to remove it’s Army and begin helping to rebuild.  Does anyone doubt this?  I don’t think so.  It’s disingenuous to suggest that the U.S. is currently there to impose a crusade or “keep Iraq under their thumb”.

It is purely the actions of religious nuts that is causing all of the mayhem at this point.  The U.S. clearly wants to make nice and leave. 

If you truly do concern yourself with the welfare of Iraqi’s, what would you prefer?  For the U.S. to simply leave right now?  No?  Why?  It’s because you fear the very same thing that the U.S. is trying to fight right now. 

It is possible we could see a Pol Pot (Cambodia/Vietnam) style of slaughter should we leave.  Leave now, and those frightened moderates who appear to be silenced and huddling in their homes could be introduced to a tragic ending.

As it stands *today*, it is clear that non-fanatic Muslims need to take a stand.  If they exist in such large numbers as many claim, there seems to be very little outcry against the violent clerics.  There appears to be no true offers to support the development of a democracy.

I doubt the U.S. every expected to be so lonely in it’s efforts in Iraq.  If the moderates truly care, why aren’t they flooding Iraq in the style of these vicious insurgents?  Again, it is suggested that there are more moderates than extremist…so this should be a simple matter of overwhelming the kooks.

Your poem was good, but conveniently inaccurate.

You can tell by the reaction of the U.S. news, that suicide killings in our country are rare and quickly squashed… it’s is quite intellectually dishonest to try and make a comparison.

Thank you

So, let me get this straight:

You tear my veil to free me

You jail me to rid me of my terror

You kill my beloved to liberate me

You shoot my baby to erase my misery

You starve me to show me how to vote

You threaten me to bring me to my senses

You wage war on me to help me find peace

You slay my people to teach me compassion

You humiliate me to aid me live with dignity

You insult me to illustrate freedom of speech

You crush my bones to save me from my evil

You demolish my home to elevate my morality

You uproot my tree to raise my ethical standard

You steal my resources to bring me social justice

You assassinate my leaders to bring me security

You bomb my town to train me into democracy

You destroy my history to educate me about progress

You dehumanise me to coach me into humanity

You wipe me out to push me to civilisation

You scorn my faith to bring me salvation

Thank you sir

How can I -ever- pay you back?

80550 by BFskinnerPunk on 6/22 at 3:31 pm

Suicide bombings, flying planes into buildings, and stonings all become far less probable if you can take the “magic book” variable out of the picture.  No matter how poor or oppressed you are, you just don’t kill your non-virgin kids without a bit-’o-God.

BFskinner, you’re making the same mistake you’re accusing the religio-fanatics of doing, when you start comparing things like this. Suicide bombings (which include flying planes into buildings) and stonings cannot be compared under an umbrella of “god or beliefs” because there are multiple reasons for this stuff.

Suicide bombings have been utilized as a tactic of asymmetric warfare, (for decades) and they were NOT motivated by “god” to do it. Sheer mentioned this in the debate. The Tamil Tigers in Indonesia, a group of secular inhabitants in a Muslim region, have engaged in this for at least 20 years. And, it’s not about god, but rather about the multiple factors that govern human behavior, in groups and individuals.

STONING, (whether it’s one’s own kids, or somebody else’s) goes in the same category as witchcraft, and whatever flamed the earlier century desires of people to “burn witches at the stake”.  That is not “religion” in my opinion, even if there are considerable numbers of people who like to claim it as such. It’s insanity and/or ignorance. Stoning is NOT embraced by the larger Muslim society, anymore than female genital mutilation is embraced by the LARGER Muslim society, in these times. As a matter of fact, STONING (by individuals members of a sect/family against their children) is no more “accepted” by the larger Muslim community than WE accept the same actions here.

When Andrea Yates drowned all 5 or 6 of her kids, because she thought she was giving them a “better life”, based on the fact that she was/is afflicted with serious mental illness. And, no person with such severe dysfunctions actually chooses to be mentally ill. Still, our own society obviously does not “allow” such behavior, because in her trial, the jury of her peers (Bible + gun-totin’ Texans) convicted her of first degree murder, when they could have chosen to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, since she obviously was. (she has since been “re-assessed” and the paperwork overturned, and hopefully she’s getting whatever care REAL science can provide).

Now, the most recent suicide bombing that we have experienced here on our own turf, (at least the one that most of us are aware of) was that horrific massacre of innocents at Virginia Tech, when one very disturbed young man, did pretty much the same thing as any other suicide bomber, except that he used guns instead of an explosives vest. In his “testimony” or “manifesto”, he didn’t draw from any religious sources for his actions. The end result of course, was the same.

People do horrific things to their children, and their neighbors, every day. I chalk it up to severe psychological disorder, made up of jillions of variables. But we could, easily enough remove ALL of the “religiously inspired” acts of destruction, and still be left with trying to understand these “other” suicide bombings, or lynchings, or genocides, or whatever. If god didn’t tell them to do it, then there must be some other reason.

Might any of those same reasons apply to the people who claim some religious text interpretation makes it OK? I ask because I find these other instances of suicide bombings/killings, to be far more prevalent than the others.

Wavelength,

You are a *good* writer!... very succinct

(of course, I agree with the content, too)

Barry,

Your arguments are so thin and poorly argued that I hesitate to respond.  I think you discredit yourself.  No outside commentary is necessary.

However, I find your disparaging comments about Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be particularly offensive.  Ms. Ali is an eloquent, dignified woman.  This is plain to anyone who has heard her various lectures and appearances across the country.  You dismiss her in the silliest manner possible—someone in Iran once said something bad about her—to avoid engaging the real issues. 

She is certainly not a fraud.  Her knowledge of Islam is unimpeachable.  She is not speaking as a visiting foreign correspondent.  Her first-hand experience with the explicitly religious horrors of Islam such as genitial mutilation and honor killing are devastating to your contention that everything springs from the ‘sociopolitical’ realm.  It is therefore easy to see why you avoid her.  She is the counter-example you don’t want to recognize.  You are an ideologue who has chosen an ideological worldview, rather than a view of the world based on evidence and rational argument.

Jason,

Let’s not get too caught up with conceited words like “epistemological” and “reductio ad absurdum”.  You seem preoccupied with hairsplitting over academic jargon.  Though your stance regarding science is not really clear from your last post, there is a general trend on this board toward undervaluing the scientific enterprise.  My response is a quick defense of science for those who attempt the equivalency argument.

I find that scientifically illiterate people consistently try to brand science as essentially equivalent to all other human pursuits.  This might appeal to their sense of fairness, but it simply isn’t true.  Mainstream science entails an intellectual standard that is unheard of in nearly all other areas of study, including the humanities.

Science has made tangible progress that is in evidence everywhere you look, from electronics to architecture to medical therapies.  Most people lose sight of this.  Science is not just another philosophy.  It is appalling to hear people discount science, all the while making use of products in every second of every day that would only be possible by virtue of scientific advances.

Let’s not forget – even a hundred years ago a broken leg was a fatal injury.  A human being could literally die just by tripping and hitting his leg.  Why don’t people die of simple fractures anymore?  Answer:  medical science.  We now have orthopedic surgeons who have detailed knowledge of radiology, musculoskeletal anatomy, and surgical techniques.  They can readily identify and repair any injury.  They have an arsenal of antibiotics to treat potential post-operative infections and have the detailed knowledge to predict when infections are most likely to occur. In modern times, all of this is hidden from view and completely taken for granted.  Science therefore allows for activities that would be too risky otherwise – skiing, snowboarding, etc…  This is just an isolated example.  There are hundreds more.

You are literally bathed in the fruits of scientific progress.  It has transformed the entire landscape of your life.  In this context, the labeling of science as just another activity is an egregious mistake.

I’m not defending Barry or Scheer/Hedges, fyi.  Nor am I advocating some sort of epistemological relativism.  To address the point of those with whom you are acquainted, I suppose that science can be construed as a type of philosophy under some vague conceptions of the latter, but it doesn’t follow that the scientific method is equally valuable to alternative epistemological methods (any alternative method for obtaining knowledge about the same domain that I’ve ever heard of strikes me as inferior).  I agree that religious beliefs have consequences, and I don’t think that Hedges/Scheer came close to showing that they don’t.

Just to note, Harris is the only one of those three that has a philosophy degree if I recall correctly.

Jason,

In my experience, folks who fancy “philosophy” like to nit philosophy in closely with science.  Then, once that is established (and the idea is not too far afield…yet), they attempt to demote the field of science to just yet another field of “thought”...as if to imply that all of the various views are valid.  they aren’t. 

So forget all of that for a moment.

Sam can’t speak to the effects of socio-political problems and their effects on religious fanatic behavior.  Why?  Because no one can be sure.  So it’s perfectly reasonable to not-answer such arguments.

On the other hand, his Sheers/Hedges *DO* feel that they possess some sort of deep “vibe” that tells them how these loosely defined situations push fanatic behavior.  There, my friend, is where we find arrogance.  This stuff is pure speculation on their part… and it’s this sort of squishy sociology stuff that can be molded to fit one’s theory ever so perfectly.

They are dogmatically stating that they know something that simply isn’t known!  Arrogance and dogma isn’t any good (and sounds a wee bit like religion!). 

What we *can* say is that there is, indeed, a common situation which runs through all of the given examples:  A literal belief in one’s magic book.  Remove the magic belief, and parents don’t stone their own kids. 

Poverty doesn’t do it, or we’d have seen it in Appalachia.  There are kids/families who are so poor that they have to pick through trash piles for food, and we don’t see communities stoning non-virgin brides in their locale.

Convince these people that they are especially blessed to be in possession of the one-true-word, and we are FAR more likely to watch the disturbing behaviors of the believer.

So, by introducing and removing each of the suggested variables (poverty, oppression, old testament style religion, disenfranchisement), you will find your culprit.

Suicide bombings, flying planes into buildings, and stonings all become far less probable if you can take the “magic book” variable out of the picture.  No matter how poor or oppressed you are, you just don’t kill your non-virgin kids without a bit-‘o-God.

—————————————————
Originally posted by SkinnerPunk:

I’m trying to distinguish well validated scientific principles from those (non-scientific) theories about the way the world works
—————————————————

It depends on the context I guess, so I’ll just look at your use of the term.  You used the term “philosophy” in your post to refer to theories that “are easily contrived to fit any given opinion.”  This appears to be a stab at a reductio ad absurdum on your part.  The reductio is a tool of logic.  Logic is a branch of what discipline?  Philosophy.  However, if philosophy is, as you say, “easily contrived to fit any given opinion” then your objection to Barry’s comment is equally problematic.  I would just stick with “easily contrived to fit any given opinion,” although upon inspection of this phrase you might want to reject it also.

You described Barry’s non-scientific approach (in your opinion) as dependent upon a “profoundly philosophical opinion.”  The scientific method is dependent upon a profoundly philosophical opinion.

You referred to “philosophical activists” who rarely have the integrity to say “I don’t know.”  I don’t know what you think a “philosophical activist” is, but philosophers have *always* been the first ones to say that they don’t know.

Terrance,

Phillip here.

Still roflmao after all those brain farts you had with your last post.  That had to be aboot the funniest thing I’v read, ay.

Jason,
What would be a better term?
I’m trying to distinguish well validated scientific principles from those (non-scientific) theories about the way the world works.

Good reply overall SkinnerPunk, but please stop misusing the term “philosophy.”

response to Barry part 2:
response to Barry,
“...who won (Hedges)”

SkinnerPunk responds:
This should be good. 
Again, I was hoping that Hedges would make at least some sort of good point just so that he could save face.  I was squirming uncomfortably (for him *and* Sheers) for their embarrassment. Once they began working hard to untie themselves from the original religious point of the argument (“racism”, “atom bombs”, “Iraq Invasion”).

Barry writes: “... but end the circumstances which can lead to religious fundamentalism”

SkinnerPunk responds:
I’m not certain about those conditions.  In fact, anyone who *does* claim to know the “science” of “what leads to religious fundamentalism” is a quack.

Barry Writes:
1) Nazism is so focused and specific that it was ridiculous of Sam to use it as an analogy to religion.

SkinnerPunk responds:
It’s just an example of dogmatic beliefs.  Islam is so specific that it is all contained within one single book (as are other religions).  The “Nazi” example was excellent.  There were undoubtedly moderate Nazi’s… but with Nazism, there were no taboos that prevented us from openly noticing that it was truly a bad culture.  He was explaining that there *is* a taboo against this if religion is involved. 
It was a good analogy.  With Nazism:  Jews were the “infidels”, the Nazi world view was to be spread (with violence if necessary), and dogmatic/faith based principles were the source of this world view.
There were, in fact, probably a large number of moderate Nazi’s with whom we would all find delightful and workable in civilized society.
So I think the analogy works quite well.

Barry Writes:
2) A. Hirsi Ali is a fraud and right-wing beloved opportunist and not one Harris ought to be championing.

Skinnerpunk responds:
Fraud?  I quickly read your link from the Iranian woman and I find nothing to indicate fraud.  Her view of things may differ from that of others, but this is not the meaning of “fraud”.
I have seen Ali speak.  She speaks only of the terror of being a woman under Islam, and freedom.  It’s hard to take issue with that sort of thing. right?
Your article is wrought with sociological theory about the reasons people act as they do and the argument. 
Those theories are easily contrived to fit any given opinion.  They are not, in any sense of the word, scientific.  Those theories are pure philosophy. I understand that they are the meat and potatoes of 60’s style American liberalism.

Barry writes:
3) People in Muslim countries who support suicide terrorism - as Harris mentioned - do so not for Islam the religion (as Harris thinks), but for Islam the sociopolitical identity (which is seen as under attack by the West).

SkinnerPunk responds:
Yes, I’m so sure that if you were to ask the folks who kicked their own daughter to death last week (for seeing a man outside of their religious sect) if their religion influenced their behavior, they’d say, “To heck with Islam!  We’re pissed about our suppressed sociopolitical identity!!!”

Your understanding of people depends a bit too heavily on a profoundly philosophical opinion.

Surely, Sam (who DOES appreciate science) would say something like, “the variables are surely complex and I do not know how they work, but it is of NO help that these people believe that they possess the most important magic book every written”.  Surely you can agree to that.

Science minded people have the integrity to say “I don’t know”.  Philosophical activists rarely do (interestingly, religious folks rarely do either!).

Barry writes:
4) And Harris is wrong to think we were not part of the horrors of the Iran/Iraq war because we backed each country against the other in ways to see both fail and become weakened for American corporate and imperialistic interests!

Skinner writes:
I think Sam made it clear that our meddling in the middle east has been wrought with mistakes.  This is not quite the point of the argument, though.
Still, let’s say that the US supports a dictator.  For example, the Shah of Iran in the 70’s:  Bad idea. Fine. 
Why did the religious fundamentalist kill him and rise to power?  Was it his suppressive tactics…not quite.  The final straw was that he was initiating legislation to increase the liberties of women and it was this that finally fueled the energies of the rebellion that overthrew him.
His attempt at liberalizing the laws was simply too much!  Clerics went hog wild over this!
Was it their sociopolitical world view that did him in?... or is it just possible that something in that magic book influenced the rise of the Ayatollah?

I think you missed Sam’s point.

History of Abrahamic Religion101.

A/Ibrahim(not his name yet) was a priest of the Sumerian deity EL.  His tribe was small and had maintained a separate culture from many of the other followers of the Sumerian Trinity of Gods, so as a tribal leader, he declared a revel elation from El(as in Israel -chosen of God, and Daniel - beloved of God) that the tribe could take no other God before HIM, El, and by the way, never say or writeMY NAME again, except in a code understood only by the priesthood, so we can forget about that whole EL/Triumvirate thing.  Abraham was a capable leader and warlord, and his tribe prospered. The priesthood he founded included much of the Sumerian religions myths of creation and the flood into their repertoire and maintained their ‘secret’ knowledge of the Sumerian calendar and astrological systems to keep themselves in position of power. They taught their tribe cultural racism and apartheid, but allowed enslaved and captured women to bare legitimate children, to avoid the inbreeding that even prehistoric humans knew, led to birth defects.  So….slavery was ok, but not of your close neighbors, because that might defeat the purpose – diversity of the gene pool.

This tribe maintained its genetic and cultural uniqueness very successfully.  The shared religion allowed leaders to exhort them to martial ferocity, when wronged, or to take some other tribes property and land.  Remember the time they were supposed to kill every living thing in Canaan and make the land theirs?  It took uncommon will, devotion, and brutality for such a small tribe to conquer a larger more technologically advanced civilization such as the Canaanites.  This cultural bigotry served them well for over a thousand years.  It also made them a universally hated tribe.

So, after they have been defeated and displaced several times, and finally completely conquered by the Romans, a group of radical Jewish rabbis,  Zoroastrian priest, and Roman Freethinkers, used the local stories about a Jewish Rabbi/carpenter, embellished them borrowing heavily from the messianic traditions of Judaism which were stolen from the Sumerian religion, created the Christ myth.  It took them quite a while, and they didn’t get around to recording all of this until decades after the events supposedly had taken place.  But…it is much easier to make up events after the fact, when the people who were there/then aren’t around to dispute the ‘facts.’ 

A few hundred years after that, a learned merchant that lives a life of leisure due to marrying a much older but wealthy widow, studies the Jewish religion, and realizes its real problem is its exclusivity.  So he copies large parts of it, and creates a religion that invites everyone to join.  In fact it often insists.  He keeps the most holy spot in his homeland though, and discourages translations from the Arabic, so his tribe maintains Top Dog First of the First status.  The End of Time myth involves a leader, or Great Caliph, that can really only come from his tribe.  So, in typical tribal fashion, members of the other powerful and rival tribe in the region, the Persians, claim the Arabic descendants have gotten it wrong, and they are the true carriers of the flame.

So, Christians begin loosing ground to Islam and begin the Crusades and the Inquisition.  Islam gets pizzed and begins taking parts of Europe in order give the Infidels a chance to convert.  That only gets so far as the Shia/Sunni/Persian/Arabic infighting keep them too occupied with each other to maintain their triumphs over the Christians.

It ain’t over yet folks.

Men create religions to consolidate tribal power and control other tribes of men. 

So Sam and Chris are both right.  It is about greed, power and racism driven by powerful men that use religions that support the powerful, subjugate the poor, maintain the status quo through wars and upheaval, and keep humanity from imagining it can ever be any different.

History of Abrahamic Religion101.

A/Ibrahim(not his name yet) was a priest of the Sumerian deity EL.  His tribe was small and had maintained a separate culture from many of the other followers of the Sumerian Trinity of Gods, so as a tribal leader, he declared a revel elation from El(as in Israel -chosen of God, and Daniel - beloved of God) that the tribe could take no other God before HIM, El, and by the way, never say or writeMY NAME again, except in a code understood only by the priesthood, so we can forget about that whole EL/Triumvirate thing.  Abraham was a capable leader and warlord, and his tribe prospered. The priesthood he founded included much of the Sumerian religions myths of creation and the flood into their repertoire and maintained their ‘secret’ knowledge of the Sumerian calendar and astrological systems to keep themselves in position of power. They taught their tribe cultural racism and apartheid, but allowed enslaved and captured women to bare legitimate children, to avoid the inbreeding that even prehistoric humans knew, led to birth defects.  So….slavery was ok, but not of your close neighbors, because that might defeat the purpose – diversity of the gene pool.

This tribe maintained its genetic and cultural uniqueness very successfully.  The shared religion allowed leaders to exhort them to martial ferocity, when wronged, or to take some other tribes property and land.  Remember the time they were supposed to kill every living thing in Canaan and make the land theirs?  It took uncommon will, devotion, and brutality for such a small tribe to conquer a larger more technologically advanced civilization such as the Canaanites.  This cultural bigotry served them well for over a thousand years.  It also made them a universally hated tribe.

So, after they have been defeated and displaced several times, and finally completely conquered by the Romans, a group of radical Jewish rabbis,  Zoroastrian priest, and Roman Freethinkers, used the local stories about a Jewish Rabbi/carpenter, embellished them borrowing heavily from the messianic traditions of Judaism which were stolen from the Sumerian religion, created the Christ myth.  It took them quite a while, and they didn’t get around to recording all of this until decades after the events supposedly had taken place.  But…it is much easier to make up events after the fact, when the people who were there/then aren’t around to dispute the ‘facts.’ 

A few hundred years after that, a learned merchant that lives a life of leisure due to marrying a much older but wealthy widow, studies the Jewish religion, and realizes its real problem is its exclusivity.  So he copies large parts of it, and creates a religion that invites everyone to join.  In fact it often insists.  He keeps the most holy spot in his homeland though, and discourages translations from the Arabic, so his tribe maintains Top Dog First of the First status.  The End of Time myth involves a leader, or Great Caliph, that can really only come from his tribe.  So, in typical tribal fashion, members of the other powerful and rival tribe in the region, the Persians, claim the Arabic descendants have gotten it wrong, and they are the true carriers of the flame.

So, Christians begin loosing ground to Islam and begin the Crusades and the Inquisition.  Islam gets pissed and begins taking parts of Europe in order give the Infidels a chance to convert.  That only gets so far as the Shia/Sunni/Persian/Arabic infighting keep them too occupied with each other to maintain their triumphs over the Christians.

It ain’t over yet folks.

Men create religions to consolidate tribal power and control other tribes of men. 

So Sam and Chris are both right.  It is about greed, power and racism driven by powerful men that use religions that support the powerful, subjugate the poor, maintain the status quo through wars and upheaval, and keep humanity from imagining it can ever be any different.

Nahida,

I suppose we’re talking about something different than the actual debate: israel and palestine

I know very VERY little about the history of Israel.  Getting past the “who did who wrong first” argument, it appears that both groups have themselves in a bit of a pickle.  Here are some guesses…
1. Israel is surrounded by nations that would like to see them vaporized.  This is why they insist that their own citizen serve in the military.
2. The renegade extremists living in Palestine are making matters very difficult on both sides.

My solution is this:
Given that many Israelis are more-or-less secular minded, I would like them to be moved into their own land in the U.S.  Let them have, say, a third of Georgia. : )  We can dig up their holiest of shrines, and rebuild them over here.  Israel would not be happy with the deal, but I would suggest that the U.S. cease to support them unless they make the move.

Hopefully, the middle east would have a nice celebration followed by the development of a free society, but I would bet that the region would sink into another Taliban style of dark ages.  Any civilized moderate who appears to be rising to power would be met with the sword. 

Who knows?  At least, the violence could be blamed on fellow believers rather than directing blame elsewhere.

My personal interest is in the sorts of things that Sam discusses.  Opening up the dialog about the very real and violent problems with faith.

You quote the Koran very conveniently just as many Christians quote the Bible.  It’s called Cherry Picking.  Although your selected passages were charming, you are fully aware that they do not fully characterize Islamic teachings, the Koran, or Hadith. The Old Testament in the Bible can be cherry picked in the same way.

As you know, the Koran and the Bible contain passages that are so violent and disturbing that we would do well to keep them in the “adult section” of book stores. 

Frankly, I have never met a Jew or Palestinian that I didn’t like… so watching the mess in the middle east is like watching two dear friends brutalizing each other.  It’s confusing, but in each case, it appears that religion is absolutely the key element in all of this.

It seems no one else has noted who was wrong when it was evident one of them had their facts mixed up about the PEW poll in question. So, I’ll just point out that Hedges, even with his stack of notes, couldn’t get it right.

Actually, Sheer messed up too, saying Harris ever supported the war in Iraq.

Doesn’t this all but doom one side of the debate from the start?

I enjoyed the debate: Sam Harris vs Robert Scheer and Chris Hedges. Seems unfair (two against one), but Sam handled it well.

To JM:

No, I still don’t see how you could not notice my point. For a few years, I did not know I was an atheist. I stopped searching for a religion, and I started ignoring the nasty religious folks. I thought I was completely alone in those thought.

I didn’t realize I was an atheist because I had stopped searching. I didn’t realize that disliking something made me something else. I don’t ‘believe in no God’, I just ‘don’t believe in God’.

When I did realize, it’s not as though I started praying jubilantly to the atheist Gods. I started reading atheist things because they addressed the problems in ways I could never do it. I’d had a problem with how dated the methods of justice were in the bible, but I had no way of finding the individual verses that describe quite clearly how to beat your slaves and whatnot.

Your idea that atheism requires faith is like saying that since you aren’t a Sunni, you must be a Shiite. Just because you don’t know what it’s like to have no faith, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible.

I actually read through books and found all faith to be useless and confusing. Did I need faith? No. I just needed to read the whole book, front to back. I didn’t skip the nasty parts. The nasty parts outweighed the good stuff, and if religion wanted to be good, it could cut out the bad stuff altogether and keep the good. Imagine the wars that would end if those parts had never demanded it.

At any rate, atheist is a name given to me by society. I didn’t ask for it. It was given to me because ‘nothing’ wasn’t an option. I was given no choice-I was either atheist or agnostic. For a time, I was agnostic; I was studying and didn’t know if God was there or not. I became an atheist when I determined God was not there-at least not the God’s in circulation. When three Christian kids died in a fire, I asked where God was. When my friend’s father died, I asked why God had taken him. And when my friend’s mother died one week later, I asked why God felt the need to take a child’s parents away. There was no good reason, and to this day religious people still blame the devil before they blame their God for that evil. Actually, one religious person laughed at me for crying about it…so, again, I find religion to do nothing for me. It provides no higher moral ground. It provides no insightful laws. It provides no proof of heaven or hell. Hence, I don’t see it as real. It takes no faith to think that an invisible, all powerful entity created man by blowing on dust, and woman by ripping a rib from man. It takes no faith to think that heaven seems ridiculous, and hell seems twice as ridiculous. 70+ years of living…and that’s good enough to determine what you do for eternity? Think of the time it takes you to blink. In that time, somebody judges you as either good or evil, and you are placed in the proper place for the rest of your life. If you were good, you get to sing in a choir and frolic naked with little naked winged babies. If you were bad, you get tortured for the rest of your life by a jumpy horned red man that laughs like the wicked witch of the west. Yes, it is fair.

BFskinnerPunk #79824
Part-1

You said: {Again, Mr. Hedges just can’t let them speak for themselves.  When they say they do it for Allah, they don’t need his arrogant attempt at telling us what they really mean to say.  I don’t care if he lived in Palestine for a day or four decades, people can speak for themselves.  He insults them with his attempt to speak for them (he must believe that they lack the capacity to speak for themselves)}

Thank you for your comment; and as a Muslim, a Palestinian, and a woman too; I am delighted to hear that you want us to speak for ourselves

FINALLY some people want to hear us speaking for ourselves

Now, let me tell you -and others- dear, that as Palestinians we have been subjugated to one of the most ruthless occupation, large scale theft, destruction and ethnically cleansing of our people.
We have been subjugated to the most glaring injustice in modern history.

We have been made the sacrificial lambs of Europe, and we have been made to pay for Hitler’s crimes; for no reason other than being Palestinians and living in our homeland that the Zionists wanted to claim for themselves.

Now, when many Muslim lands are occupied, when they are subjugated to oppression, when they are carpet-bomb, cluster-bombed, depleted-uranium shelled, when their and their resources are stolen, when their heritage and history is destroyed and vandalized, when their girls and women are raped and murdered before their eyes, it’s criminal to ask them to lie down and take the beating.

Self-defence is a basic human right guaranteed by all ethical values and by all laws human or Divine.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Bishop Desmond Tutu

BFskinnerPunk
Part-2

Now we believe in our right to defend ourselves, and this is what the Quran says about that right:

“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight back), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,-(for no cause) except that they say, our Lord is God”. (22:39-40)

‘Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not initiate aggression. God does not love transgressors.’ (2.190)

“God commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and antagonism: He advices you, that ye may be reminded.” (16-90)

“O believers, be you guardians of justice, witness for God. Let not your dislike for a people move you away from being equitable; be equitable - that is nearer to being God-conscious.” (5:8)

“No soul shall be made to bear the burden (liability) of another.” (35:18)

“But show them forgiveness, and say “Peace!” and soon shall they know!” (43; 89)

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God; for (God) loveth not those who are wrong-doers”. (42:40)

‘If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things.’ (8.61)

“But God does call to the Home of Peace” (10-25)

“Ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Thus, have We made of you a nation justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves” (2-143)

“Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199)

“It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds.” (60:7)

“Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel evil with what is best: if you do so, he who is your enemy will become a close friend.” (41.34)

BFskinnerPunk

Part-3
I think it would be very helpful to compare the “violence” committed by those SECULAR ATHEISTS Israeli Jews and the “violence” by those non-secular Palestinians.

Let figures speak:

-There are no civilians in “Israel” (except children), every man and woman over the age of 18 MUST serve in the army for 2-3 years, and they serve as “reserve soldiers” until they retire.

Israel is not a state with an army; it is an army with a state.

-Since September 2000; Israeli killed 943 Palestinian children, and at least 4,160 Palestinian civilians, and injured 31,403.

-Over a period of 60 years of brutal barbaric racist occupation of Palestine by Israel; Palestinians (regrettably) killed 118 Israeli children,

-1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel

-0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000. And over 18,000 homes have been demolished since 1967.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ 

-Since its creation Israel killed hundred of thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians…etc. and it ethnically cleansed millions (there are 7 millions Palestinian refugees today) destroying 531 villages in Palestine.
http://71.18.226.238/final/en/journals/printer.php?aid=7175 

Remember that the violence perpetrated by SECULAR Israeli Jews is one of “aggression”; as:

-They are the ones who are occupying someone else’s land.

-They are the ones who destroyed 531 villages in 1948.

-they are the ones who still defying 65 UN resolutions (forget the resolutions that are vetoed by USA) while the Palestinians had NONE against them.

- They are the ones who committed televised multi-massacres and mass murder.

-they are the ones who killed NINE times more Palestinian children against every Israeli child.

-They are the ones who watched 68 women giving birth at checkpoints while 34 of their infants and 4 of them dying.     

-they are the ones who are denying almost 7 million Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes, and giving that right to any Jew, just because of his “Jewishness”.

-They are the ones who gave themselves the right to steal our homeland, just because they claim that God (whom they don’t believe in, as seculars) gave them that land!

Now if all that is not insane, what is?

If all that is not inhumane, what is?

on the other hand; Palestinians are defending their occupied land Palestine and they are fighting to regain their freedom and equality as human beings

Living under occupation and being subjugated to someone else’s brutality, who sees you as subhuman, is not a pleasant experience I tell you.

Would you kindly visit this site and study the information in it:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

And would you please be a witness to what Israel is doing to the children of Palestine by watching the photos and the videos in my blog:

http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/

Has anyone seen Mr. Skinner? I think he has my monkey.

JM,

Your belief in God is pure faith.  No evidence.  You (sort of) admit that.

A non-theist is doing something entirely different and has no “belief” that is analogous to your God faith.

You can’t call every lack-of-belief a kind of faith.

I don’t believe that there is an undetectable monkey flying behind my head.  There simply is no reason for it.  Regardless of the numbers of folks who *do* believe in such a thing, there is no reason for it.

It would be a mistake to call me dogmatic, or to tell me that I am practicing a kind of faith because of my refusal to respect a belief in invisible monkeys.

There are many things for which is no evidence (dragons, angels, Zeus, devils, vampires etc.)... but to suggest my lack of belief in these things is similar to your faith in a god is to stretch the meaning of “faith” to unrecognizable extremes.

Just remembered another thing about the debate:
It seemed that the TruthDig guys **attempted** (repeatedly) to twist the argument such that Sam appeared to look like a supporter of the Iraq war strategy.  Those guys were drowning in desperation.

My suggestion to them?  Stick to giving speeches to college freshman…you’ll stay out of trouble that way.  I wanted Sam to do well, but that was painful.

I realize that the KKK is not a mass murdering organization. I merely addressed the ‘there aren’t any people in America that would rejoice over the death of mom and her child’ comment.

There’s plenty of twisted people. Faith has nothing to do with who is twisted; it just gives the twisted an excuse to herd the masses into doing their bidding.

The KKK is a herd without a leader. They don’t know what they are doing. Still, they have enough brains to realize that a murder can cause them to be punished. They can spew as much racism as they desire so long as they don’t actually kill anybody.

Muslim extremists aren’t racist. Their plans involve destroying innocent lives to get their idea to be widely accepted. Consider the KKK to be their whiny cousin-trying to make everyone accept their ideas, but all they do is organize and talk.

There was a KKK rally in my community…I think about year ago. Trust me, they were rejoicing about all of the desert people dying, not just the terrorists, but the civilians as well. It’s not proof for rejoicing over blacks dying…but they undoubtedly do.

Which makes me wonder…some of the religious people that wanted me to suffer so much…would they do the same if I was dead? Would they celebrate the death of an atheist?

Anywho…I’m not saying that the KKK is murdering daily. If they were, we’d be doing something about it. But that doesn’t mean that they are an okay, stand up group of citizens. The Muslim killers are definitely a serious threat, but that doesn’t mean that the United States is a 100% good nation. We’ve got skeletons just dancing away in our closets over here…

The only thing I dislike about 24 hour news networks is this: 24 hour news networks. It’s a waste. All of them say the same thing, usually almost word for word. They report once, maybe twice about something in Iraq, then they go to either Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton for hours on end. They aren’t much better than E! at getting real news out there. I won’t argue that bad things happen in Iraq. That’s a given. But we don’t need 24 hour news coverage to tell us that. We don’t need the information instantly handed to us. We don’t need a camera crew taping the bomb as it kills civilians. Notice that the news covered the 9/11 attacks perfectly. We don’t need to be reminded every three minutes that bombs do go off in Iraq. It would be much easier to put it at the end of the day. A 24 hour news network does nothing more than tell you what happened, then say for the next hour or so that they don’t know the details, then finally give the details. And if I see another >>TERROR ALERTELEVATED<< on their tickers I might just scream. Considering that I’ve never seen it get >>LOWERED<<, we must be at some deep crimson color by now. It’s all sensationalism in the end. “If you can’t handle thirty minutes of news summing up what happened in Iraq, then we can make it 24-hours of cut up slaughter!” That should be their slogan.

In the end, I get more info from the Daily Show than from any 24 hour news network. When a fake news show can cover the news better than 24 hours worth of real news reporters, you’ve got a serious problem. And yes, I guess I’ve made it clear that I strongly dislike the KKK, the Muslim extremists, the war, and 24 hour news networks.

Interesting side note: I think this is one of the few times where I’ve had to stop myself from writing “Well, the KKK isn’t that bad.” I would never writethat…it’s just too disgusting. We have other issues, but I figured the KKK was a pretty negative group that people would readily see as a problem. Huh.

The KKK is certainly a Christian group, and there are probably members who are pleased to learn of black deaths.  There are probably equal numbers of Americans (and Indians, Japanese, Europeans, etc.) that get various forms of sick pleasure from violence.  I’ll grant you that. 

If you do find an example of violence committed in the name of their beliefs, you’ll find that it is so rare that it makes the news every time.  Conversely, I’d bet we’d need a few fast paced, 24 hour news channels just to keep up with the various Islam based killings alone.  (That is: killings that are based on religious notions… not poverty and not oppression).

Nevertheless, there are no current complaints about these non-muslim groups engaging regularly in joyous (or otherwise religious) violence against hapless citizens. 

Nope.

We find Muslims slaughtering one another in all sorts of ways, and they are quite clear in their reasonings. 

Again, Mr. Hedges just can’t let them speak for themselves.  When they say they do it for Allah, they don’t need his arrogant attempt at telling us what they really mean to say.  I don’t care if he lived in Palestine for a day or four decades, people can speak for themselves.  He insults them with his attempt to speak for them (he must believe that they lack the capacity to speak for themselves).  This is a classic left-wing mistake.

Bush totally grosses me out, and I’m embarrassed just about every time he opens his mouth.  However, I am certain that he takes it hard when he learns of ANY unintended civilian deaths.

Akira_Maritias on 6/20 at 6:17 pm
You said:

“Actually, KKK members rejoice whenever a black is killed. And when it comes down to the gays, they are joined by the very far religious right.”

Please provide any proof that you have that the kkk rejoices whenever a black is killed. That seems like an easy target, that in reality barely even exists. By the way, even if they rejoice when a black dies, they aren’t out there killing blacks. If it does happen, it’s a rarity.

And there is a world of difference between people who think god is killing gays with aids and approve of it, and people killing gays, which rarely happens.

Muslims on the other hand, have honor killings, which aren’t rare, and suicide bombings which aren’t rare, and they kill and slaughter each other’s sects, once again not rarely.

No comparison.

To BFskinnerPunk:

“No American nor even the sickest American Christian would rejoice over the death of mom’s and kids as they shop in the market.”

Actually, KKK members rejoice whenever a black is killed. And when it comes down to the gays, they are joined by the very far religious right. Christians that are extreme in this country consider gay to be a disease-a deadly disease at that. Falwell said God allowed the deaths because of pagans and feminists…

So, there are some crazy Americans that are pretty foul. They just don’t get daily coverage.

Not that I’m condoning terrorism…although I hate that I have to add that just to keep people from asking about it. I’m just saying that murder shouldn’t be classified as being done by a specific group.

It’s like the book “Everybody poops”. We should have a book that’s called “Every country kills for God”. Just look at Bush: he’s playing chess with our troops as pawns to do “God’s work”.

Response to Oliver:

You say:
“There is a wide gap between ‘anecdotal evidence’ and being a reporter somewhere for seven years. I thought it was a snide and disgraceful remark by Harris…”

My response:  First, you have to notice that Hedges and Sheer repeated ad nauseum that Hedges lived in the middle east as a way to discount Sam and support Hedges.  They seemed to be singularly dependent upon this detail for the arguments to work.  This forced Sam to point to the weakness of anecdotes.  I thought he was being VERY polite in NOT pointing out that the anecdotes of an *activitist* are even weaker still!!!
Sam showed restraint my friend.

You write:
“Second, and building on my first point, since so many posters on this forum go all giddy over the PEW poll…
I remember opinion polls taken after 9/11, where a large proportion of Americans was in favor of dropping atomic bombs on Afghanistan.”

I respond:
You miss the point….and this was made clear in the debate…. the pew question was “would you support suicide bombings IN SUPPORT OF ISLAM”.  Asking people about Nukes shortly after 2,500 of their non-combatant neighbors were killed is not the same.  To be the same, you would have to ask “would you support dropping a nuke in defense of christianity?”.

You write:
“(Quick reminder: Atomic bombs kill both fundamentalists and innocent people.)”

I respond:  All bombs do that.

You write: “But following Harris’ reasoning, since Muslims go “we approve of suicide attacks” BECAUSE they’re muslim, then these Americans must have went “lets’ nuke’em” BECAUSE they are Christians. Sounds ridiculous, not? That’s because it is.”

I respond:  Again, you’d have to have asked the appropriate “...in defense of Islam (or Christianity”.  Your example is, indeed, ridiculous.

To finish some of your other points.  Most of the innocents these days are being killed by fellow Muslims… in as a way of improving the chances that their own version of Islam will get a strong hold.  These suicide attacks *intentionally* kills innocent folks (children, nice old ladies, etc.).  No American nor even the sickest American Christian would rejoice over the death of mom’s and kids as they shop in the market.
Is poverty/oppression creating people who pray as they pull the cord on the chest-bomb???  Then why aren’t poor Christians, Buddists, and Jews regularly do this???? When was the last poor/oppressed atheist suicide bomber?
The US goes to extreme measures to avoid harming innocent civilians… they drop *very* expensive precision bombs instead of crude&cheap; bombs to save as many innocents as possible.  The is the utter opposite of the Islamic extremist who joyously chant as they remove the heads of journalists (for crying out loud).
Nice try…. there is no comparing US tactics to Islamic militants….and god knows we have made mistakes in the past.

I recognize that you don’t support the Islamic extremists. 

But the logic is simple.  Given that there are *all kinds* of poor and oppressed people on this planet, we can see that they don’t do a heck of a lot of *intentional* killings of innocents.  Nor do they take the time to set up video cameras as they decapitate construction workers and journalists.

Naw, there seems to be a missing variable that might explain this extreme in violent behavior.  Hmmmm, what might that be? 
Could it be that these violent SOBs share certain beliefs about the supernatural?  Yup!

As Sam indicates, these vicious militants *are telling us* why they are doing what they do.  We don’t need Hedge’s activist arrogance to help the militants explain themselves!

Dear JM:

I am an atheist, and as such, I would be willing to attempt to explain why atheism is not a religion.

I was born in a Christian family. However, my parents didn’t force religion on me. I was baptized, and after that, we went to church only twice more. Once, we went for a free meal (we weren’t very rich when I was little), and the second time my mother thought they had free Christmas trees and took one by mistake.

We celebrated Christmas and Easter…we still do, actually. I liked the ‘little drummer boy’ song as a kid. However, I didn’t know that these holidays had religious purposes. In fact, I learned that they were pagan holidays before I even heard that they were Christian ones.

We moved to a new place, and I was in a new school. This new school was in a typical redneck town. It was a strong Christian town, and as I got older, I became aware that other kids had to go to church. I went with a friend once, and did not like it. It was hot, boring, and it didn’t make a lot of sense to me. No, I’d watched things like ‘Jurassic Park’ and grasped the concept better.

Well, as I grew older, I started to feel a little alienated. Everyone started saying that I needed God, any God, just so long as I had faith all would be good. So, I studied religion. A lot of it. Judaism seemed bizarre and terrifying to me. Christianity made no sense to me. Islam wasn’t much better. Buddhism wasn’t nearly as bad-it didn’t celebrate drinking ‘blood’, wine, nor did it adore violence. However, that did not satisfy me. I settled on an ancient, dead religion-the Egyptian one. It interested me the most. It made more sense to me, too, since it had Gods that could actually be seen in the world: the sun obviously gave life because it would help crops grow and thus keep everything fed, and the jackal represented death well.

Imagine my surprise when the Christians that urged me to find faith were angry. They wanted me to be Christian, not some dead religion. So, I searched deeper, and realized that I did not believe in the faith I had chosen. Why?

I had a TV. That TV showed me something terrible. Some people had broken into a pyramid, set off all of the traps, and taken the mummy. But it was worse-they then unwrapped the mummy, took the organs from their jars, and proceeded to dissect everything. I was horrified. According to the religion I’d picked, that person had now been wrenched from their afterlife and will never return. For all of the religious equality people demand, I was stunned by the lack of equality given to a dead religion.

So, I decided that I wanted no faith. The old faiths were now considered absolutely wrong. Did I want to die believing in a paradise that would later on be considered total bull?

Well, now I was a nobody to the kindly Christians. They hated me and said that I would burn in eternal hellfire. That’s not nice at all. They told me that God hated sinners, and that I was a heretic. A heretic! Well, I didn’t know what to think of it. They said I was alone in this terrible lack of faith, and would be punished in death.

Not too long ago, I read one of Harris’ articles, “An Atheist Manifesto”. After reading it, I thought: was that the term for what I was? I read it again, surprised that I agreed with most of the points. Atheism is a word that shouldn’t really exist: it’s just of a word for ‘someone that does not believe in God’. I was a bit happier, though, knowing that I wasn’t truly alone. At the same time, I was even more convinced that faith was a scary and ugly thing. It did nothing more than attempt to bully me into believing it.

So, that’s why I’m atheist, and I hope I helped you better understand what it is: an attempt at grouping together a bunch of people that don’t believe in God.

The post by JM below is completely ridiculous.  I can’t resist commenting on it.

JM illustrates very clearly that he does not appreciate the difference between science and religion, or for that matter, ignorance and knowledge.  Most relativists who spout profundities like “…all belief is based on assumptions” do not excel at detecting these differences.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t real differences, it just means they don’t understand them very well.

What should our default position be with respect to extravagant and gratuitous claims about the metaphysics of the universe?  Should we believe in them at our baseline simply because we “prefer to” or because “it is useful”?  Even vague notions of god do not get a pass by recourse to this logic.

Atheism does not claim that god is impossible.  It is simply the absence of theistic belief and the requirement that strong claims to certainty be accompanied by equally strong evidence.  If you are uncomfortable with uncertainty, that is fine.  But don’t claim that your desire for comfort actually counts as a good reason to believe what you do.

Christopher Hitchens surgically deconstructs this sort of nonsense in his article “Bullshitting about Atheism” in the most recent edition of Free Inquiry magazine. 

Check it out.

I have to agree, Sheer was not a good moderator at all. He inserted his own beliefs and that is a major FAUT PAS. I wish this were available as one continuous stream without any interruptions. I also have to agree how Sam Harris was able to so confidently and lucidly explain his position without any notes and Hedges was the exact opposite! Hedges had to writean essay in preparation for his “debate” with Harris and didn’t end up responding to what Harris actually said. Harris is no racist! Shame on you, Hedges. I’m so impressed with Harris. He’s one of the few beacons of shining light in a world growing darker by the day…

User comment:

“hedges was right in his assertion that most of what harris finds offensive about religion is due to manipulations of religion and not the belief or systems of belief themselves”

What people do in religion’s name is not a different argument.  People make up the religion, not the other way around!

On the contrary, most religions (especially Judeo-Christian religions) not only honor violence but demands it.  To not realize this indicates that you have no knowledge of the Torah, Bible or the Koran, much less the history of these religions.

This idea that religion is hijacked by extremists is a very ignorant idea. This idea was debunked by Harris in this debate although you probably were falling asleep when he spoke.

JT said:

“The words do not exist to describe the stupidity in that comment about no atomic bombs ever being dropped by a Muslim nation.  I had to play it back more then once just to believe it was possible for someone to actually say it.  It is laughable. “

laughable, if it were not so very sad,  it must be frustrating for him to be so passionate and so limited.  40 years and still haunted by the pentagon papers, sheesh.

About the Poll:

First, many of the most extreme islamic nations wouldn’t even allow the poll to be taken.  So what we have is a poll that is biased, true… but it is biased toward the more moderate opinions!!!

I can virtually guarantee that Hedges went to live in the middle east with a particular view that he was seeking to validate.  I would bet everything I have on it!  This kind of “fact finding” is VERY bad form.  Even if we sent a variety of journalists to the middle east, we would get better information than from the pre-opinionated Hedges.

He said that Palestinians were shocked and dismayed by the 9/11 attack.  I’m sure you can find individuals who felt that way, but how does he account for the Palestinians that poured into the streets like it was New Year’s Eve!!??  We are *all* eye witnesses to that.

No, the polls seem to flesh out the truth.  The most conservative statistical analysis gives us hundreds of MILLIONS of Muslims that cheerfully support suicide bombings in defense of Islam (not poverty, not oppression).

Anyway, Ayaan Ali (“Infidel”) lived her *life* under Islam and she gets a far different perspective than Hedges managed to create for himself and his ilk.

cyrena.

The main point that interested me was that there was a poll taken of 38,000 muslims. Hedges anecdotal evidence is just that. The personal evidence gained by one man. It pales in significance, even though it may be interesting, and even though it may even be incidentally right.

Continuing to state that Hedges had been there can be offset with a simple statement. He couldn’t see the forest for the trees.  He was so deep in the area, for so long, the poverty and social injustice strikes him as the ultimate reason.

He ignores all evidence that the muslims have been slaughtering one another, infidels, honor killings, etc. He ignores the fact that many cultures are under great duress, but only the muslims seem to be producing suicide bombers.

Hedges ignores it because he has determined that he is right because he was there. Damn any evidence to the contrary.

If that is the only requirement, that you work there and talk to a tiny fraction of the population, there are many people who have their own experience, and they don’t all come to the same conclusion, so personal, anecdotal evidence isn’t to be trusted as proof.

Why do you think that in all the sciences, anecdotal evidence isn’t trusted? Because it is too easy to only see what you see, and what you come to believe is true.

That PEW poll said it all. It was the labor of many professional people, and held the opinion of a much larger sample than Hedges could have hoped to converse with.

Hedges is guessing based on personal observation.
The PEW poll is telling us what muslims actually believe and think.

Harlon57, if you actually believe this, then it means that you’ve got some incoming receptors blocked in your brain.

...“Happily, we do not assess public opinion by having New York Times’ journalists (i.e., Hedges) go out and live in the Muslim world, and make friends and get a ‘vibe”....

First, WHICH “public opinion” are we referencing? Obviously, in your mind, (and apparently Sam’s) it’s OUR public US Americans’ “public opinion” that is the issue, when it fact, the debate is focused on the MUSLIM population, in their region. (at least that large chunck of the Middle East). So, how the hell are we gonna know how varying areas of the region think, if we don’t actually have REAL people living in the area, and communicating with the population, and finding this stuff out?

He told you he’d studied Arabic for 7 years, (and he would have been far less effective in this pursuit if he DIDN’T have a knowledge of the language,)He’s communicated with the political actors in the Region, based on the critical importance of how the politics of the area are guided by culture and tradition, and so of course that includes religion. Do you not see the value of this on hand experience, for actually getting to the root of things?

If not, you’re certainly not alone, because no one in the Dick Bush Cabal ever thought that the opinions of this population much mattered either. So they sent our loved ones over there with plenty of weapons, but not a clue as to how to ask for a drink of water in an Arabic desert. Fortunately for them, there are more bilingual Arabs then there are Americans.

In short, Mr. Hedges real time experiences in the real time Middle East, bring a great deal of legitimacy to his argument, because the cruxt of his argument is that it’s not the hocus-pocus stuff of alleged “religion” that has created the disaster of the Middle East, but rather a reaction to long-term oppression and the denial of independence. The desperation that comes from such long and brutal occupations can and will manifest themselves in these ways. The “dogma” of religion, regardless of WHICHEVER “religion” we’re talking about, is obviously a whole DIFFERENT channel in collective religious beliefs, and that’s the one that should be plugged up, so the blood can be directed to the more effecient portions of the mind.

As JT said. Harris really put Hedges in his place when he said ” “Happily, we do not assess public opinion by having New York Times’ journalists (i.e., Hedges) go out and live in the Muslim world, and make friends and get a ‘vibe.’ A single well-run opinion poll would be worth a thousand years of you wandering around the Middle East.”

I was so tired of Hedges’ anecdotal evidence.

The moderator (I refuse to mention his name) was the worst I have ever encountered.  Why didn’t he just move his chair next to Hedges and announce he was joining the debate?

I found the so-called debate disappointing overall, and fascinating in what it revealed.  I had never heard of Hedges, and only have a vague recollection of Scheer’s name out of the distant past somewhere.  Harris must have been bored with the whole charade.  Scheer was too biased and completely feckless as a moderator, and Hedges was insufferable in his impassioned political defense of faith and Islam.

What struck me most was the reaction of the audience.  They chortled knowingly at Harris’ stock laugh lines, at the absurdity of religious beliefs, during his reasoned opening monologue delivered conversationally from the chair on the set, and awarded him a respectable ovation for it when finished.  I was thus certain he was playing to an audience where atheists predominated.  The depressing notion is that he probably was…

For, then the “preacher” Hedges insisted upon mounting a podium to deliver a stem-winding sermon denouncing Harris’ criticism of Islam (with the obligatory accusations of racism, naturally).  When he defended their recent atrocities as acts of mere desperation, and defiance at the interference of Western Civilization into their pathetic existence, the enthusiasm of the audience increased considerably, as they repeatedly interrupted his speech with wild applause.

I was taken aback that the moderator permitted the podium speech, but even more at the audience’s reaction.  The degree to which some Multiculturalists will go to defend an intrinsically violent, misogynist, suicidal death cult, as equal if not superior to our own culture, is just inexplicable to me.  The ease with which one of their rabblerousing prophets can whip them into a frenzy, is downright depressing.  The religious shamans have no exclusivity on shaping and dominating weak minds. -Dave