The real romance in the stars - Richard Dawkins

[Bandito]

Name any year in history and there will be a star up there whose light gives you a glimpse of something happening that very year. Whatever the year of your birth, somewhere up in the night sky you could find your birth star (or stars, for the number is proportional to the third power of your age). Its light enables you to look back and see a thermonuclear glow that heralds your birth. A pleasing conceit, but that is all. Your birth star will not deign to tell anything about your personality, your future or your sexual compatibilities. The stars have larger agendas, in which the preoccupations of human pettiness do not figure.
Your birth star, of course, is yours for only this year. Next year you must look to another shell of stars, one light year more distant. Think of this expanding bubble as a radius of good news, the news of your birth, broadcast steadily outwards. In the Einsteinian universe in which most physicists now think we live, nothing can in principle travel faster than light. So, if you are 50 years old, you have a personal news sphere of 50 light years radius. Within that sphere it is in principle possible (obviously not in practice) for news of your existence to have permeated. Outside that sphere you might as well not exist - in an Einsteinian sense you do not exist. Older people have larger existence spheres than younger people, but nobody's existence sphere extends to more than a tiny fraction of the universe. The birth of Jesus may seem an ancient and momentous event to us. But the news of it is actually so recent that, even in the most theoretically ideal circumstances, it could in principle have been proclaimed to less than one 200-million-millionth of the stars in the universe. Many, if not most, of the stars out there will be orbited by planets. The numbers are so vast that probably some of them have life forms, some have evolved intelligence and technology. Yet the distances and times that separate us are so great that thousands of life forms could independently evolve and go extinct without it being possible for any to know of the existence of any other. The real universe has mystery enough to need no help from obscurantist hucksters.


What a wonderful thought, Mr Dawkins!

Read the rest of the article here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-real-romance-in-the-stars-1527970.html), folks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why is this so 'wonderful'? Big deal if there's life out there. What is it/are they going to do? Hold our hands?

[Blackscare]

Why is this so 'wonderful'? Big deal if there's life out there. What is it/are they going to do? Hold our hands?

Do you literally have to be a prick in every single thread that you open?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why is this so 'wonderful'? Big deal if there's life out there. What is it/are they going to do? Hold our hands?

Sure as hell sounds a lot more wonderful than hearing your bullshit. So piss off!

[Tablo]

That's Rosa's job.

[Diello]

That sense of joy of science, that rhapsodic quality that good popular science writers tend to display, seems strangely absent in the region I live in. I don't know if this is something that can be observed in most parts of the U.S. or the world, or if it's just here and other similar places.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That sense of joy of science, that rhapsodic quality that good popular science writers tend to display, seems strangely absent in the region I live in. I don't know if this is something that can be observed in most parts of the U.S. or the world, or if it's just here and other similar places.

Sam Harris is becoming pretty big in the US. So hopefully he helps reemerge atheism and scientific thought for those residing in the US.

[Black Sheep]

Naively romantic, but poetically beautiful nevertheless..:)

[Diello]

Sam Harris is becoming pretty big in the US. So hopefully he helps reemerge atheism and scientific thought for those residing in the US.

Is he? Honestly, I'm less crazy about him than I am about most of the so-called new atheists, but it is nice to see pro-science, antitheistic individuals get a little positive press in America from time to time.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Is he? Honestly, I'm less crazy about him than I am about most of the so-called new atheists, but it is nice to see pro-science, antitheistic individuals get a little positive press in America from time to time.

I would argue he is. He's obviously caught Richard Dawkins' eyes. His latest book, "The Moral Landscape", which I'm currently reading now, got Dawkins to change his view on the correlation between science and morality. So far it's a great read. I think Sam's on a great start of becoming a popular leader in the atheist movement here in the US. Or at least I hope.

[Diello]

I would argue he is. He's obviously caught Richard Dawkins' eyes. His latest book, "The Moral Landscape", which I'm currently reading now, got Dawkins to change his view on the correlation between science and morality. So far it's a great read. I think Sam's on a great start of becoming a popular leader in the atheist movement here in the US. Or at least I hope.

I'll have to check it out; the only long work of his I've read is The End of Faith.

[CynicalIdealist]

Doesn't Sam Harris believe in all of the Clash of Civilizations garbage and advocate possibly nuking the Arab/Muslim world? Yeah, I'd rather a different atheist lead people in the right direction. Thanks but no thanks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Doesn't Sam Harris believe in all of the Clash of Civilizations garbage and advocate possibly nuking the Arab/Muslim world? Yeah, I'd rather a different atheist lead people in the right direction. Thanks but no thanks.

lol, he's never advocated nuking muslim countries whatsoever. This sounds like the same propaganda garbage people try spewing on others like Richard Dawkins.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dawkins is often accused of being "shrill" or "strident", yet I've never personally come across anything written or said by him that reasonably fits those labels. Not to mention I've read far more cutting language by more outspoken atheists/anti-theists on the internet, in which Dawkins seems positively obsequieous by comparison.

Personally I think the "shrill"-type accusations come from either butthurt believers or spineless faitheists (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/we-have-a-winner/).

[CynicalIdealist]

lol, he's never advocated nuking muslim countries whatsoever. This sounds like the same propaganda garbage people try spewing on others like Richard Dawkins.

From wikipedia:

"Instead, he demands we recognize that Western civilization is at war with Islam--a religion that preaches a doctrine of religious violence and political subjugation, not a message of peace. He observes that the Koran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) and the hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) contain incitements to kill infidels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir) or subjugate them and reward such actions with Paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah) (including 72 virgins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins)). Harris considers jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), which he calls "metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) of martyrdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr)", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril. He rejects arguments that suggest such behavior is a result of extremist Muslims, not mainstream ones. He argues that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) erupted not because the cartoons were derogatory but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-26) Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-eof-12)pp. 109–110.
Harris acknowledges that religions other than Islam can inspire, and have inspired, atrocities. In The End of Faith, he discusses examples such as the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) and witch hunts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunts). However, Harris believes that Islam is the most evil. He summed up this argument in a 2005 blog post:

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Why are there no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
Harris has called upon Muslim communities to criticize their faith, assist Western governments in incarcerating any religious extremists among them; he advocates ethnic profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling) as a tool in the fight against terrorism.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
He has even gone so far as to claim that the best empirical predictor of violent, terrorist tendencies is being Muslim:

It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.[24]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)

[Diello]

Dawkins is often accused of being "shrill" or "strident", yet I've never personally come across anything written or said by him that reasonably fits those labels. Not to mention I've read far more cutting language by more outspoken atheists/anti-theists on the internet, in which Dawkins seems positively obsequieous by comparison.

I think it's just a matter of what people are used to. If you live in an area like rural Oklahoma where you never, ever hear strong criticism of religion (other than Islam, of course), and then, suddenly, you've got this guy saying, "The Biblical god is a monster; he's worse than Hitler," it's no surprise that people go absolutely berserk about it, that they perceive it as being "shrill," given what they've been acclimated to hearing.

I saw Dawkins speak at the University of Oklahoma once, and a few minutes into the lecture (which was, of course, about biology, not religion) some guy jumped up and started screaming at him about how he was going to Hell and so forth; Dawkins was, of course, ever unruffled. The state legislature actually ordered the university not to allow him to speak, but the university refused to comply. Ah, Oklahoma.

[The Vegan Marxist]

From wikipedia:

"Instead, he demands we recognize that Western civilization is at war with Islam--a religion that preaches a doctrine of religious violence and political subjugation, not a message of peace. He observes that the Koran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) and the hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) contain incitements to kill infidels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir) or subjugate them and reward such actions with Paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah) (including 72 virgins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins)). Harris considers jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), which he calls "metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) of martyrdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr)", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril. He rejects arguments that suggest such behavior is a result of extremist Muslims, not mainstream ones. He argues that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) erupted not because the cartoons were derogatory but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-26) Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-eof-12)pp. 109–110.
Harris acknowledges that religions other than Islam can inspire, and have inspired, atrocities. In The End of Faith, he discusses examples such as the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) and witch hunts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunts). However, Harris believes that Islam is the most evil. He summed up this argument in a 2005 blog post:

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Why are there no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
Harris has called upon Muslim communities to criticize their faith, assist Western governments in incarcerating any religious extremists among them; he advocates ethnic profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling) as a tool in the fight against terrorism.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
He has even gone so far as to claim that the best empirical predictor of violent, terrorist tendencies is being Muslim:

It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.[24]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)


Wow, so he critiques Islam of being the most violent and terroristic religion in comparison to others. Is he technically wrong? Not here to blame every Muslim, or call them all terrorists, but Harris clearly didn't support nuking countries. Countries, I might add, that were specifically Islamic.

[NGNM85]

From wikipedia:


"Instead, he demands we recognize that Western civilization is at war with Islam--a religion that preaches a doctrine of religious violence and political subjugation, not a message of peace. He observes that the Koran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) and the hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) contain incitements to kill infidels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir) or subjugate them and reward such actions with Paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah) (including 72 virgins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins)). Harris considers jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), which he calls "metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) of martyrdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr)", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril. He rejects arguments that suggest such behavior is a result of extremist Muslims, not mainstream ones. He argues that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) erupted not because the cartoons were derogatory but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-26) Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-eof-12)pp. 109–110.
Harris acknowledges that religions other than Islam can inspire, and have inspired, atrocities. In The End of Faith, he discusses examples such as the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) and witch hunts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunts). However, Harris believes that Islam is the most evil. He summed up this argument in a 2005 blog post:
Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Why are there no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
Harris has called upon Muslim communities to criticize their faith, assist Western governments in incarcerating any religious extremists among them; he advocates ethnic profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling) as a tool in the fight against terrorism.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)
He has even gone so far as to claim that the best empirical predictor of violent, terrorist tendencies is being Muslim:
It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.[24]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)


Before I get started, if you’re going to seriously criticize someone’s ideas it’s generally best to quote them directly, and not a (Highly dubious.) summary of what they supposedly said. Like this;


"Instead, he demands we recognize that Western civilization is at war with Islam--a religion that preaches a doctrine of religious violence and political subjugation, not a message of peace.

Incidentally, that’s true. (It’s also true of Christianity, and a number of other religions as well, BTW.) This is what I’m talking about, it’s all; “He says “x””, if you want to know what he thinks I suggest you pick up a copy of End of Faith at your local library. It’s definitely worth reading. At the very least you will be, supposedly, qualified to make an informed judgement on the matter at hand.


He observes that the Koran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) and the hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) contain incitements to kill infidels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir) or subjugate them and reward such actions with Paradise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannah) (including 72 virgins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_virgins)).

Incidentally, this is also true.

Harris considers jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), which he calls "metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) of martyrdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr)", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril. He rejects arguments that suggest such behavior is a result of extremist Muslims, not mainstream ones.

He does say this, because it’s true. He cites reliable statistics that, unfortunately, show substantial support for terrorist martyrs. Such beliefs may be ‘extreme’ in that they are so horribly irrational and destructive, but they aren’t extreme in the sense of belonging to a marginal fringe. Consider nearly half of the US population either completely dismisses evolution and the big bang, or are extremely skeptical. Between a quarter and one-third believe Satan exists as an actual entity. Living in the atomic age, heading into the 21st century, these numbers should be frightening.



He argues that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) erupted not because the cartoons were derogatory but because "most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-26) Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-eof-12)pp. 109–110.

The kind of life that is prescribed by the Abrahamic religions is, quite literally, the opposite of civilization.


Harris acknowledges that religions other than Islam can inspire, and have inspired, atrocities. In The End of Faith, he discusses examples such as the Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) and witch hunts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunts). However, Harris believes that Islam is the most evil.

He never has, nor ever would, characterize Islam, or any religion as ‘most evil.’ This is the problem with getting all of this stuff second-hand. Things get lost or distorted in the translation. This is pure bullshit.


He summed up this argument in a 2005 blog post:

Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Why are there no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)

That’s an excellent point.


Harris has called upon Muslim communities to criticize their faith, assist Western governments in incarcerating any religious extremists among them; he advocates ethnic profiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling) as a tool in the fight against terrorism.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)

This, again, is a gross distortion of what he has said.


He has even gone so far as to claim that the best empirical predictor of violent, terrorist tendencies is being Muslim:

It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.[24]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#cite_note-ill-23)


Here, we can contrast the summary, with the quotation, giving us a clear representation of what is being lost in translation.


Doesn't Sam Harris believe in all of the Clash of Civilizations garbage

I was going to address this gross reductionism, but, again, the bottom line is that you are completely out of your element.


and advocate possibly nuking the Arab/Muslim world? Yeah, I'd rather a different atheist lead people in the right direction. Thanks but no thanks.

That’s totally bogus. From “Response to Controversy”;
“My position on preemptive nuclear war:

Chris Hedges has repeatedly claimed (in print, in public lectures, on the radio, and on television) that I advocate a nuclear first-strike on the Muslim world. His remarks, which have been recycled continuously in interviews and blog-posts, generally take the following form:

I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world.
(Q&A at Harvard Divinity School, March 20, 2008 (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/))

Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world.
(The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, Alternet, March 22, 2008 (http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/))

And you have in Sam Harris’ book, “The End of Faith,” a call for us to consider a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. This isn’t rational. This is insane.
(The Tavis Smiley Show, April 15, 2008 (http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200804/20080415_hedges.html))

Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first-strike on the Arab world. That’s not a rational option—that’s insanity.
(A Conversation with Chris Hedges, Free Inquiry, August/September 2008)

Wherever they appear, Hedges’ comments seem calculated to leave the impression that I want the U.S. government to start killing Muslims by the millions. I will let the reader judge whether this award-winning journalist has represented my views fairly. Below I present the only passage I have ever written on the subject of preventative nuclear war and the only passage that Hedges could be referring to in my work (The End of Faith pp. 128-129). I have taken the liberty of emphasizing some of the words that Hedges chose to ignore:

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.”

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

[CynicalIdealist]

To address a part of your reply:

"That’s an excellent point."

How so? Any revleftist knows that claims to Tibet being under a more brutal occupation than Middle Eastern countries is complete BS. Tibet is, under international law, a legal part of China. Palestine is not, under international law, a legal part of Israel. I shouldn't have to detail the many aspects of Palestinian civilian life which are utterly, profoundly much worse than that of the Tibetans. Tibetans have also used violent resistance, which rarely finds headlines in the western press, although they haven't been prone to using suicide bombing as a tactic as some Palestinians have.

This, on top of his desire that we consider our wars in the Middle East to be "wars against Islam" make me lose all respect for him that I may have had otherwise. There's also no evidence suggesting that Islam is violent specifically due to its doctrines (except for passages pertaining to Jihad, but oppressed people have always fought back), while there's a lot of evidence suggesting a shift to fundamentalism due to U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Israel/the Shah until 1979/Iraq until the Gulf War, on top of subsequent bombings, wars and sanctions directed against Iraq and Afghanistan. Suicide bombing is also a phenomenon most found among Sri Lankan Hindus, as he hinted in his book.

Obviously the biggest perpetrators of terrorism are Western states with Protestant majorities. While he has some argument on the civilian front, it's also true that the IRA were among the first to employ terrorism in their tactics. Clearly this isn't a phenomenon specific to Muslims.

Religion is a problem, but singling out Islam in a time when most Muslims are fighting back against imperialism is dangerous.

[NGNM85]

To address a part of your reply:


"That’s an excellent point."

How so? Any revleftist knows that claims to Tibet being under a more brutal occupation than Middle Eastern countries is complete BS. Tibet is, under international law, a legal part of China. Palestine is not, under international law, a legal part of Israel. I shouldn't have to detail the many aspects of Palestinian civilian life which are utterly, profoundly much worse than that of the Tibetans. Tibetans have also used violent resistance, which rarely finds headlines in the western press, although they haven't been prone to using suicide bombing as a tactic as some Palestinians have.

I don’t see any value in trying to create an oppression scorecard. I would say, by any reasonable metric, Tibetans are sufficiently oppressed.

Your history is not entirely correct. Tibet has had a complex historical relationship with China. In the early 1900’s the Tibetan government officially broke away as an independent entity, and essentially existed as such for around forty years. There has been a push and pull, with Tibet being granted some degree of autonomy, more recently, there’s been a crackdown and increased repression. You are correct that Tibetan resistance has not been entirely nonviolent, but that is generally a minor exception. This reflects attitudes and beliefs about violence. This was the point, that beliefs inform actions, and we see, predictably, different behaviors in different groups with different belief systems.


This, on top of his desire that we consider our wars in the Middle East to be "wars against Islam" make me lose all respect for him that I may have had otherwise.

First, that isn’t a fair characterization of his views, second, more importantly, you don’t know what his views are.



There's also no evidence suggesting that Islam is violent specifically due to its doctrines (except for passages pertaining to Jihad, but oppressed people have always fought back),

“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.”

“Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.”

“As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God’s judgment. They shall become fuel for the fire.”

I could go on and on. There are pages and pages of this crap. If there’s one thing that each of the Abrahamic faiths are abundantly clear on, is the price for heretics and apostates. Violent Islam, like violent Christianity, goes back to ancient times. The abortion clinic bombers and airplane hijackers are just the latest manifestations. These faiths have always been violent. They exemplify the time from which they arose, where human beings spent short, unpleasant lives foraging for food and slaughtering neighboring tribes.
Also, again this rationale fails to explain why we have seen a substantial amount of Jihadists from upper-class, even wealthy backgrounds.


while there's a lot of evidence suggesting a shift to fundamentalism due to U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Israel/the Shah until 1979/Iraq until the Gulf War, on top of subsequent bombings, wars and sanctions directed against Iraq and Afghanistan.

This merely exacerbated a preexisting tendency.


Suicide bombing is also a phenomenon most found among Sri Lankan Hindus, as he hinted in his book.

He didn’t just hint at it, he discussed it. Yes, but the Tamils are, as you point out, Hindus, and thus, have certain ideas about reincarnation that inform their attitude about death.


Obviously the biggest perpetrators of terrorism are Western states with Protestant majorities.

States are the most prolific perpetrators of terrorism, among which the United States is without peer.


While he has some argument on the civilian front, it's also true that the IRA were among the first to employ terrorism in their tactics. Clearly this isn't a phenomenon specific to Muslims.

Terrorism significantly precedes the struggle for an independent Ireland.

I think he meant Terrorism by non-state actors, in which case, it is correct that Islam is disproportionately represented.


Religion is a problem, but singling out Islam in a time when most Muslims are fighting back against imperialism is dangerous.



First of all I really try not to use the word ‘imperialism’ or other such jargon in that context. It implies a crude, dogmatic, reductionist worldview that I don’t subscribe to. It only has currency in a subculture or in-group like this, to the wider world such language generally signifies that you aren’t to be taken seriously.

I’m not singling out anything. In fact, I used to have this kneejerk lefty anxiety over criticizing Islam in the climate of virulent racism after 9/11. That all cleared up when I had an epiphany, I asked myself; ‘Do I blame Christianity for the failings of Christendom? I absolutely do. I don’t give Christianity a pass on anything. Ever. Nor, should I. The racism that is directed against Arabs in the West, particularly the United States, is horrible, but that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is every inch as backward and hateful as it’s older siblings. Nor does my objection to Western support of various regimes, or to unfair and exploitive economic relationships provide the entire region with a moral blank check for all of eternity. I can, simultaneously, condemn US gunboat diplomacy, and Sharia Law. In fact, I would be remiss if I didn’t. Now, admittedly, it doesn’t take any courage to criticize other countries that I can’t do anything about, the real test is how I look at my own government, and I assure, you I have a substantial list of grievances on that front, and I’m not shy about sharing. However, again, this does not incapacitate me to the point that I can’t call a spade a spade.

[CynicalIdealist]

You seem insistent in defending Sam Harris, essentially calling any claim that he refers to our actions in the Middle East as a "war against Islam" a bad characterization. Very well.

"We are at war with Islam. [...] It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet. A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do."



"While Muslims are quick to observe that there is an inner (or “greater”) jihad, which involves waging war against one’s own sinfulness, no amount of casuistry can disguise the fact that the outer (or “lesser”) jihad—war against infidels and apostates—is a central feature of the faith. Armed conflict in “defense of Islam” is a religious obligation for every Muslim man. We are misled if we believe that the phrase “in defense of Islam” suggests that all Muslim fighting must be done in “self-defense.” On the contrary, the duty of jihad is an unambiguous call to world conquest."


http://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/endfait3.htm

Now that's just silly, and it also disregards the imperial motive of states (with religion as the propaganda tool, not as the focal point). It also goes without saying that the U.S. gladly supports the most religiously fundamentalist regime in the Middle East, and gave support to the mujahadeen in the 1980's.

The majority of jihad has been committed against American and Israeli occupiers in Arab/Muslim states, which I have little problem with. I'm not saying that fundamentalist Islam isn't a problem in any context--and this can be seen in the post-revolutionary Iran--but Sam Harris takes his paranoid Clash of Civilizations argument way too far.

As an atheist, I'd rather a better American represent our lack of faith than this dolt. Singling out one religion of 2 billion people to declare war on is absurd. I don't care if he really means the religion's doctrines rather than the religion's people; he's still incredibly shortsighted nonetheless.

[Luís Henrique]

When I was a kid, Islam was "known" to be a religion of passivity, submission, and fatalism. It was said that they were the best to colonise and imperialise, because their religion prevented any reaction, because it preached bovine obedience to the powers to be.

Ah, the good times...

In another thread here in revleft, another of these scientists with no sence of history is reported as praising the Japanese as a paramount of civility. Sixty years ago the Japanese were considered sadistic monsters. A century ago, as effeminate cultuators of nonsecical traditions. The French, Bertrand Russel remarks, stopped eating frogs when they became allies against Germany.

There are no Buddhist suicide bombers? Well, I have seen the shocking images of self-imolating Buddhist monks, so it cannot be exactly out of the deterrant qualities of fear from death.

These people are unable to put into their equations the fact that the cultures they are "on war" with are what they are mostly because of systematic repression of any "pro-Western" tendencies among them by... the "West". The history of Muslism countries is full of Western-supported religious dictatorships suppressing secular oppositionists. They know no history, and think it is a field that requires no knowledge or understanding, so that anyone, no matter how ignorant, can spew stupidity and ignorance that they would never allow in their own specialities.

*************************

And the best thing about the OP is to see Dawkins talking about something interesting, nice, and beautiful, instead of about bogus theories about the reproduction of universes or on how ideas make use of people and not the other way round - or of apologising and backpedalling infinitely because his reactionary stupidities were understood as reactionary and stupid.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Ahhh, space...

buqtdpuZxvk

[Luís Henrique]

And this unholy alliance of pseudo-atheists with religious crusaders against Islam - NOT IN MY NAME!

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

You seem insistent in defending Sam Harris, essentially calling any claim that he refers to our actions in the Middle East as a "war against Islam" a bad characterization. Very well.

Let’s get it straight, here. You made a number of sweeping assertions about Sam Harris and his work that appear to be entirely based on one incredibly biased Wikipedia article. Said article contained several errors and mischaracterizations, picking quotations out of context, etc. Notably, you, also, repeated the baseless slander that Harris, in any way, suggested or endorsed nuking the Middle East. My problem, really, is not so much that you’re reducing his career and his ideas into this extremely simple caricature, but that you are, apparently, completely unfamiliar with his work. If you had actually read End of Faith, then we could have a meaningful discussion about it, but you seem to be uniquely unqualified to make the assertions you are making.

In answer to your query, you are misunderstanding his use of that phrase. He is using ‘war’ as a metaphor, like ‘class war.’ He is against the US invasion of Iraq, I haven’t been able to find anything substantive on Afghanistan, but, suffice to say, Harris, while not a radical, is pretty far to the left by almost every metric.



"We are at war with Islam. [...] It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been “hijacked” by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith, which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet. A future in which Islam and the West do not stand on the brink of mutual annihilation is a future in which most Muslims have learned to ignore most of their canon, just as most Christians have learned to do."




"While Muslims are quick to observe that there is an inner (or “greater”) jihad, which involves waging war against one’s own sinfulness, no amount of casuistry can disguise the fact that the outer (or “lesser”) jihad—war against infidels and apostates—is a central feature of the faith. Armed conflict in “defense of Islam” is a religious obligation for every Muslim man. We are misled if we believe that the phrase “in defense of Islam” suggests that all Muslim fighting must be done in “self-defense.” On the contrary, the duty of jihad is an unambiguous call to world conquest."


http://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/endfait3.htm (http://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/endfait3.htm)

Now that's just silly,

No, that’s fairly accurate.


and it also disregards the imperial motive of states (with religion as the propaganda tool, not as the focal point).

Jihadists, or ‘radicalized’ Muslims, despite some claims to the contrary, are not nationalists. They define their identity and community by their religion.



It also goes without saying that the U.S. gladly supports the most religiously fundamentalist regime in the Middle East, and gave support to the mujahadeen in the 1980's.

Both of those things are true. I also don’t think Sam Harris would contest either of those facts.

Interestingly, as an aside, the Saudi royalty is actually more progressive than a substantial percentage of it’s populace. As Harris points out, fairly recently the Saudi Prince suggested amending the law to allow women to drive cars, this was met with such vehement resistance that the proposed measure was abandoned.


The majority of jihad has been committed against American and Israeli occupiers in Arab/Muslim states, which I have little problem with. I'm not saying that fundamentalist Islam isn't a problem in any context--and this can be seen in the post-revolutionary Iran—

It’s a problem in every context.


but Sam Harris takes his paranoid Clash of Civilizations argument way too far.

The phrase ‘Clash of Civilizations’ was popularized by a book, of the same title, written by Samuel Huntington. In End of Faith, Harris only references this book three times, and of these rather references, which only consist of one or two sentences, each, two are criticisms, where he describes several of the book’s central thesis’ as, alternately, ‘disingenuous’, and ‘unimportant.’ Of course, you might know that, if you ever read it.



As an atheist, I'd rather a better American represent our lack of faith than this dolt. Singling out one religion of 2 billion people to declare war on is absurd. I don't care if he really means the religion's doctrines rather than the religion's people; he's still incredibly shortsighted nonetheless.

See above.

[NGNM85]

When I was a kid, Islam was "known" to be a religion of passivity, submission, and fatalism. It was said that they were the best to colonise and imperialise, because their religion prevented any reaction, because it preached bovine obedience to the powers to be.

Ah, the good times...

This is science fiction. There have, and continue to be, peaceful Muslims, but there has never been a peaceful Islam. Nor is Islamic violence a new phenomena, it is only slightly newer than Christian violence.


In another thread here in revleft, another of these scientists with no sence of history is reported as praising the Japanese as a paramount of civility.
Sixty years ago the Japanese were considered sadistic monsters. A century ago, as effeminate cultuators of nonsecical traditions. The French, Bertrand Russel remarks, stopped eating frogs when they became allies against Germany.


I don't think Richard Dawkins would defend or dispute the atrocities comitted by the Japanese during WWII.


There are no Buddhist suicide bombers? Well, I have seen the shocking images of self-imolating Buddhist monks, so it cannot be exactly out of the deterrant qualities of fear from death.

He specified Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers, that's important. Second, you are absolutely right that this suicidal behavior is absolutely linked to their religious ideas about death. Jihad is not simply the byproduct of a mastery over the natural fear of death, that's actually the smaller part of it. The larger part of it has to do with the Koran's exhortations to commit violence, that one is not only encouraged, but obligated, to commit violence in the name of the prophet.


These people are unable to put into their equations the fact that the cultures they are "on war" with are what they are mostly because of systematic repression of any "pro-Western" tendencies among them by... the "West".

Richard Dawkins is actually against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He must have been speaking metaphorically. It is not hyperbole to say that the philosophy contained in the Koran (And the Bible/Torah.) is fundamentally incompatible with civilization.


The history of Muslism countries is full of Western-supported religious dictatorships suppressing secular oppositionists. They know no history, and think it is a field that requires no knowledge or understanding, so that anyone, no matter how ignorant, can spew stupidity and ignorance that they would never allow in their own specialities.

*************************

This is just a series of baseless, sweeping pronouncements.


And the best thing about the OP is to see Dawkins talking about something interesting, nice, and beautiful, instead of about bogus theories about the reproduction of universes or on how ideas make use of people and not the other way round -

That's an absurd oversimplification.


or of apologising and backpedalling infinitely because his reactionary stupidities were understood as reactionary and stupid.

Luís Henrique

Calling Richard Dawkins 'reactionary' and 'stupid' isn't merely wrong, it's disingenuous.

[Luís Henrique]

This is science fiction. There have, and continue to be, peaceful Muslims, but there has never been a peaceful Islam. Nor is Islamic violence a new phenomena, it is only slightly newer than Christian violence.

Of course it is fiction. That was the point. All these sweeping generalisations are fictional, and they are fictions tailored to the need of those who fabricate them.

Believe what you wish, you cannot read suicide bombings in Palestine into the Kuran any more than you can read the nuking of Nagasaki into the Federalist Papers. A religion isn't magically defined by its sacred texts, but socially defined by its adherents practices.


I don't think Richard Dawkins would defend or dispute the atrocities comitted by the Japanese during WWII.

And who stated or implied otherwise?


He specified Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers, that's important.

Why?


Second, you are absolutely right that this suicidal behavior is absolutely linked to their religious ideas about death.

No, I don't think it is.


Jihad is not simply the byproduct of a mastery over the natural fear of death, that's actually the smaller part of it. The larger part of it has to do with the Koran's exhortations to commit violence, that one is not only encouraged, but obligated, to commit violence in the name of the prophet.

That's one interpretation of the Kuran; it is becoming increasingly popular these days, but this is not because people are reading the book with more attention - it is because social, economic, and political conditions make it more plausible now than it was fifty years ago.


Richard Dawkins is actually against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He must have been speaking metaphorically. It is not hyperbole to say that the philosophy contained in the Koran (And the Bible/Torah.) is fundamentally incompatible with civilization.

The philosophy derived from a literal reading of both the Bible and the kuran is of course incompatible with civilisation. So what? Is Italy a barbaric country, because most of its citizens hold the Bible a sacred text?


This is just a series of baseless, sweeping pronouncements.

That's an absurd oversimplification.

Calling Richard Dawkins 'reactionary' and 'stupid' isn't merely wrong, it's disingenuous.

Well, no. The "philosophy contained" in Dawkins books is incompatible with the liberation of the working class, because it is a-historic and refuses to understand the actual functioning of capitalist societies.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

Of course it is fiction. That was the point. All these sweeping generalisations are fictional, and they are fictions tailored to the need of those who fabricate them.

I was referring to your generalization.


Believe what you wish, you cannot read suicide bombings in Palestine into the Kuran any more than you can read the nuking of Nagasaki into the Federalist Papers.

There’s no comparison. It has been erroneously claimed that suicide bombing is actually incompatible with Islam, this bogus idea rests entirely on one vague prohibition not to ‘destroy yourselves.’ This is contrasted with dozens of exhortations to wage violence against heretics and apostates, which is often characterized as an obligation, and claims that those who do wage war against non-Muslims receive a special reward in the afterlife.


A religion isn't magically defined by its sacred texts, but socially defined by its adherents practices.

The texts set the parameters. There are exceptions, but, broadly speaking, we see a fairly narrow range of behaviors that roughly coincide with the doctrines that comprise the foundation of these faiths. There are very good reasons why we are not surprised at the lack of Hindu steakhouses, or Jain suicide bombers, etc. To say that the fundamental beliefs of these religions are irrelevant is nonsense.


And who stated or implied otherwise?

As I understood it, you did.


Why?

Because, there are variations within Buddhism. Clearly, Zen or Shinto Buddhism wasn’t any hindrance to the wanton violence perpetrated during WWII. Tibetan Buddhism, presently, places a much higher emphasis on pacifism.


No, I don't think it is.

That's one interpretation of the Kuran; it is becoming increasingly popular these days, but this is not because people are reading the book with more attention - it is because social, economic, and political conditions make it more plausible now than it was fifty years ago.


The philosophy derived from a literal reading of both the Bible and the kuran is of course incompatible with civilisation. So what? Is Italy a barbaric country, because most of its citizens hold the Bible a sacred text?

It is to the extent they try to apply it, literally.

Thankfully, since the Enlightenment religion has generally been on the retreat in the West. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, the majority of countries with large Muslim populations have not had the benefit of this process of secularization.


Well, no. The "philosophy contained" in Dawkins books is incompatible with the liberation of the working class, because it is a-historic and refuses to understand the actual functioning of capitalist societies.

Luís Henrique

I’ve only read The God delusion, which is most certainly not a-historic.

[Luís Henrique]

I was referring to your generalization.

What "my" generalisation? I was showing that generalisations of this kind are common, that they change with events, and that they are always ridiculous.


There’s no comparison. It has been erroneously claimed that suicide bombing is actually incompatible with Islam, this bogus idea rests entirely on one vague prohibition not to ‘destroy yourselves.’Of course suicide bombings are compatible with Islam. In fact, they are compatible with any religion, Islam, Christianism, Buddhism, Wicca, or Shinto. All you need is a social situation that makes them viable, and a few priests twisting the words of a sacred book around to make it fit.


This is contrasted with dozens of exhortations to wage violence against heretics and apostates, which is often characterized as an obligation, and claims that those who do wage war against non-Muslims receive a special reward in the afterlife.The same, of course, is true of the Torah. Yet Judaism has been a mostly pacific religion for centuries; it is only changing now because of a specific social and political situation, not because people are rereading its statements about the massacres of Ai or Jericho.


The texts set the parameters. There are exceptions, but, broadly speaking, we see a fairly narrow range of behaviors that roughly coincide with the doctrines that comprise the foundation of these faiths.Truly, no.

We see far right Catholics to whom republic is an abomination, and left-wing Catholics who believe the working class is the modern, collective Christ.


There are very good reasons why we are not surprised at the lack of Hindu steakhouses, or Jain suicide bombers, etc. To say that the fundamental beliefs of these religions are irrelevant is nonsense.Obviously they aren't irrelevant, but to infer that they set in stone what a group of people are or are not actually allowed to do is completely false.


As I understood it, you did.Obviously you didn't understand it, then.

Luís Henrique


Because, there are variations within Buddhism. Clearly, Zen or Shinto Buddhism wasn’t any hindrance to the wanton violence perpetrated during WWII. Tibetan Buddhism, presently, places a much higher emphasis on pacifism.

Because the political strategy of the Tibetan ruling class is one of avoiding confrontation with China - not the other wary round.


Thankfully, since the Enlightenment religion has generally been on the retreat in the West. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, the majority of countries with large Muslim populations have not had the benefit of this process of secularization.

Yes. That is the point. Catholicism or Protestantism can be, and are, if the adequate environment is provided, as barbaric as Wahabbi Islam. Their nowadays defanged state is a victory of secularism, not a merit of their sacred texts.

What is missing here is the realisation that the process of secularisation of the Middel East has been purposefully hindered by the "West".


I’ve only read The God delusion, which is most certainly not a-historic.

Of course it is. He can't realise that religion is a product of historic circumstances.

Luís Henrique

[NGNM85]

What "my" generalisation? I was showing that generalisations of this kind are common, that they change with events, and that they are always ridiculous.

No, not really.


Of course suicide bombings are compatible with Islam. In fact, they are compatible with any religion,

Not with Jainism.


Islam, Christianism, Buddhism, Wicca, or Shinto. All you need is a social situation that makes them viable, and a few priests twisting the words of a sacred book around to make it fit.

No, this is an absurd oversimplification. You have to realize how ridiculous this actually is. First, the central texts of these religions are actually quite important. Second, these texts typically include a number of specific prescriptions regarding the behavior of adherents. However, not all religions make the same type of prescriptions. It’s much more difficult to square mass murder with Jainism, or Tibetan Buddhism, you have to work very hard. Conversely, unfortunately, the Abrahamic texts are full of very explicit exhortations to commit violence. No ‘twisting’ is necessary. All religions are bad, but some are worse than others. Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions are some of the worst examples.


The same, of course, is true of the Torah. Yet Judaism has been a mostly pacific religion for centuries; it is only changing now because of a specific social and political situation, not because people are rereading its statements about the massacres of Ai or Jericho.

However, the Torah is not a pacifist document; in fact, it has a number of exhortations to violence. They don’t really have to wrestle with dogma.


Truly, no.

We see far right Catholics to whom republic is an abomination, and left-wing Catholics who believe the working class is the modern, collective Christ.[/quotes]

You are taking two extremes and ignoring the overwhelming majority which exist in a very narrow margin. In the big picture a handful of exceptions don’t add up to much. This is like how Republicans find one flawed or contradictory study, and use that to dismiss all of the voluminous evidence of climate change. That isn’t how logic works.
For example;

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

What has been the historical position of the Church on homosexuality?

How do most Christians feel about homosexuality?

Do you honestly believe that is just an amazing coincidence? If so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you.


Obviously they aren't irrelevant, but to infer that they set in stone what a group of people are or are not actually allowed to do is completely false.

Again, if we look at a denomination; Christian, Jew, Jain, Muslim, etc., we will see a range of behavior with the vast majority in a fairly predictable range, which should generally coincide with the prescriptions of their faith. The degree to which these tenets are enforced should correlate to the extent of the faith of the devout. Beliefs can have radical effects on behavior. Imagine if I told you that you had a terminal disease? Or that a loved one was just killed? To the extent you accepted these statements, we would see a change in your attitudes and behaviors. People who firmly believe that it is the will of the almighty creator of the universe that they do something, and that this action will have ramifications for an eternity in the afterlife, will probably stick to the script.



Because the political strategy of the Tibetan ruling class is one of avoiding confrontation with China - not the other wary round.

Because they believe it is the will of the immortal, reincarnated spirits that they worship.

[QUOTE=Luís Henrique;1994906]Yes. That is the point. Catholicism or Protestantism can be, and are, if the adequate environment is provided, as barbaric as Wahabbi Islam.

They are equally barbaric.


Their nowadays defanged state is a victory of secularism, not a merit of their sacred texts.

That's exactly what I'm saying.


What is missing here is the realisation that the process of secularisation of the Middel East has been purposefully hindered by the "West".

I don’t think that was the specific goal, but that is certainly a legitimate complaint.


Of course it is. He can't realise that religion is a product of historic circumstances.

Luís Henrique

I don’t see any evidence that he doesn’t believe this. In fact, that’s the root of the problem. The Torah, Bible, and the Koran are products of their time, an Iron-age environment where written language, fire, and the wheel were high tech, and most of humanity spen their short lives scavenging for food and slaughtering (Or being slaughtered.) neighboring tribes. They are fundamentally incompatible with modernity, with civilization.

[Luís Henrique]

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

What has been the historical position of the Church on homosexuality?

How do most Christians feel about homosexuality?

Do you honestly believe that is just an amazing coincidence? If so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you.

No, I don't think it is a coincidence. Nor do I think what the Bible says about homosexuality determines what Christians think about homosexuality. Rather I believe both things (Biblic text and Christian people's beliefs) have the same causes.

Take a look for instance on what the Bible says about money. Do you know any Christians that actually live by the Bible when it comes to money? Why are there so few "amazing coincidences" in this subject?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Or, more impressively, where does a text entirely written by Jews endorse Christian antisemitism?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackscared:


Do you literally have to be a prick in every single thread that you open?

No, I should stop trying to emulate you.:)

TVM:


Sure as hell sounds a lot more wonderful than hearing your bullshit. So piss off!

Well argued, as usual! :lol:

[Yazman]

Sure as hell sounds a lot more wonderful than hearing your bullshit. So piss off!

Sure as hell sounds like you're being abusive and way out of line here! If I see you doing this again, its infraction time! You have been warned!


Do you literally have to be a prick in every single thread that you open?

Do you literally have to be abusive towards other users? Keep this shit in PM, or don't post it at all. DON'T do it again, or its infraction time.

This post should be considered a verbal warning to The Vegan Marxist and Blackscare.