Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#1  Edited By Anund

Just a word of advice first: if you are a die-hard Christian (or Jew, or Muslim for that matter), this may be offensive to you. However, I still recommend you watch it. Sam Harris is a graduate of philosophy from Stanford and the purpose of what he says is not to offend, but to inspire critical thought. The whole speech is about an hour long, but it is divided into 10 minute chunks and I think what he says makes a lot of sense.

If you are religious and actually watched this, I would be very curious to hear your opinion!

Anyway, I really enjoyed the speech and I figured I would share.

Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World

Avatar image for wraxend
Wraxend

616

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#2  Edited By Wraxend

Right where did I put my Shit-Storm Umbrella?

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#3  Edited By MikkaQ

@Wraxend said:

Right where did I put my Shit-Storm Umbrella?

Oh, no! I left mine at work, I'm gonna get covered in shit.

Avatar image for bisonhero
BisonHero

12787

Forum Posts

625

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#4  Edited By BisonHero

My time is precious, so how different is this lecture from The End of Faith?

Because after an initially interesting section discussing the Inquisition and witchburnings in Europe and relating that to a lack of reason and critical thought, he sorta lost me. First with his claim of "The Quran is more warmongering than other religious texts, and there aren't moderate Muslims anywhere, and that's why Islam inherently produces a bunch of terrorists", a claim which I thought he backed up really poorly. Maybe that's a bit of straw man, but that's genuinely what I remember from that section of the book and thought he was really overreaching. Then the end of the book amounts to "Naw, man, everybody should find personal peace through Eastern meditation/philosophy/spritualism", which like, OK, fine, but that's not for everybody, and that section bored me to tears, and then the book was over.

I'm an atheist, but that book and a handful of other interviews I've seen with Sam Harris haven't made me interested in seeking out more of his writing or lectures.

Avatar image for scooper
Scooper

7920

Forum Posts

1107

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#5  Edited By Scooper

I'm all about Dawkins' lectures, dawg.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#6  Edited By Anund

@BisonHero said:

My time is precious, so how different is this lecture from The End of Faith?

Because after an initially interesting section discussing the Inquisition and witchburnings in Europe and relating that to a lack of reason and critical thought, he sorta lost me. First with his claim of "The Quran is more warmongering than other religious texts, and there aren't moderate Muslims anywhere, and that's why Islam inherently produces a bunch of terrorists", a claim which I thought he backed up really poorly. Maybe that's a bit of straw man, but that's genuinely what I remember from that section of the book and thought he was really overreaching. Then the end of the book amounts to "Naw, man, everybody should find personal peace through Eastern meditation/philosophy/spritualism", which like, OK, fine, but that's not for everybody, and that section bored me to tears, and then the book was over.

I'm an atheist, but that book and a handful of other interviews I've seen with Sam Harris haven't made me interested in seeking out more of his writing or lectures.

That seems like a rather unfounded claim on his part. He does have a bit about the view on women in religion towards the end, which focuses more on Islam. Aside from that he doesn't seem like he's picking on any religion in particular, rather the concept of dogmatism: belief without proof.

Avatar image for meowshi
Meowshi

2917

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By Meowshi

I'll pass, thank you.

Avatar image for manmadegod
ManMadeGod

1625

Forum Posts

5698

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 21

#8  Edited By ManMadeGod

@Scooper said:

I'm all about Dawkins' lectures, dawg.

Mr. ad hominem himself.............

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#9  Edited By Anund

@Meowshi said:

I'll pass, thank you.

Too bad :) Would have been interesting to hear your opinion.

Avatar image for bisonhero
BisonHero

12787

Forum Posts

625

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#10  Edited By BisonHero

@Anund: Well, that sounds like an improvement, and basically what I was hoping The End of Faith would be in the first place, instead of playing favourites and spending undue amounts of time criticising Islam specifically.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#11  Edited By Still_I_Cry

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

Avatar image for wraxend
Wraxend

616

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

#12  Edited By Wraxend

@Anund: I got through about 2 parts then got bored. While I agree with everything he's saying it just wasn't intresting to me... probably cause he was preaching to the choir here.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#13  Edited By Anund

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

Avatar image for witzig
Witzig

364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By Witzig

@Wraxend said:

Right where did I put my Shit-Storm Umbrella?

I always wear my shit storm poncho on outings across the internet forum netherealm. You should pick one up too, and that goes for all of you.

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

#15  Edited By Dagbiker

Religion is good, people need something to believe in. I, as a person have just as much right to force them to not believe as they have to force me to believe.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#16  Edited By Anund

@Wraxend said:

@Anund: I got through about 2 parts then got bored. While I agree with everything he's saying it just wasn't intresting to me... probably cause he was preaching to the choir here.

Yeah, I'm the choir as well, hehe, I guess I am just really interested in the topic and interested to hear the arguments he brings up. I feel he manages to put things in a very clear and easy to understand way.

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#17  Edited By awe_stuck

This guy isnt as smart as Dawkins. I dont like his arguments about how the person who saved the Jews was a pyschopath. His arguments wouldnt stand up in an university lecture. anyone, with half a brain could argue half of what he says. He uses the first 2 videos to cement hes correct, and then in the 3rd video opens up a big pile of BS. Seriously, skip to the 3rd video. You wanna compare Jews to Muslims thats fine. You wanna compare Jews and Muslims to Christians thats nice. Only telling half the facts all the time, isnt gonna get you any brownie points in my books. (Sweden was one of the most christian countries in Europe a while back, and still uphold christian values). If he was in Iran they would shoot him on the spot.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#18  Edited By Anund

@Dagbiker said:

Religion is good, people need something to believe in. I, as a person have just as much right to force them to not believe as they have to force me to believe.

I guess the point of the thread was to discuss the speech, not really religion in general. I suspect there are other threads for that! :) And it's not about forcing anyone.

Avatar image for blinkytm
BlinkyTM

1057

Forum Posts

13

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#19  Edited By BlinkyTM

Nope.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#20  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

Avatar image for aegon
Aegon

7345

Forum Posts

104

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#21  Edited By Aegon

Where did ribosomes come from?

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#22  Edited By Anund

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#23  Edited By awe_stuck

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

Religion isnt bad, however during times where the poor and stupid people werent in their proper place, they used religion to kill our smart, educated people in large numbers - Inquisitions, Romans vs Jews. The fact is beyond the suppression of science, most of what we have today is due to religion. Some of the smartest people in the World believed in God and still do - Einstein, etc etc. Thing is science supports that God can exist, it just doesnt prove he does. And, honestly God is an idea. The reason they tell you about God is because they want the idea to change how you think and act. Morales are based on the bible. If someone is trying to starve you, rape your women, and kill you - you arent a pyschopath for killing them. This guy is half a nut and half an analyst. He is clearly angry at someone and something. I could cut him a new one with half of what he says, I would send this to a friend who is Jewish, but in five minutes he would turn him off because half of what he says is criticising religion, and people that said they were of a faith. Why say a faith is against murder and then try to prove it makes people who were genetically born murderers into murderers. Because your arguments are weak, and your obviously not as smart as you claim to be.

Avatar image for aegon
Aegon

7345

Forum Posts

104

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#24  Edited By Aegon
@Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

How is "God is cruel" an objective truth?  
 
That's an opinion. End of story. 
Avatar image for shhetghost
shhetghost

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By shhetghost

I'm too lazy to watch this can anyone that watched it tell me, does it turn out there is a god or no?

Avatar image for the_tolman
The_Tolman

460

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#26  Edited By The_Tolman

I really enjoy Sam Harris' work.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#27  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

I disagree. Religion is discussed objectively in plenty of places, such as credible history courses, as a means of education. God is defined by Christians as a benevolent being. To state he is cruel requires support, seeing as such, it is not an objective truth because you have to try and prove it.

The founding fathers of the United States used Judeo-Christian teachings (spawned from biblical teachings) as a basis for formulating the Constitution. God-given rights from birth for all men is bad according to what you stated.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#28  Edited By Anund

@awe_stuck said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

Religion isnt bad, however during times where the poor and stupid people werent in their proper place, they used religion to kill our smart, educated people in large numbers - Inquisitions, Romans vs Jews. The fact is beyond the suppression of science, most of what we have today is due to religion. Some of the smartest people in the World believed in God and still do - Einstein, etc etc. Thing is science supports that God can exist, it just doesnt prove he does. And, honestly God is an idea. The reason they tell you about God is because they want the idea to change how you think and act. Morales are based on the bible. If someone is trying to starve you, rape your women, and kill you - you arent a pyschopath for killing them. This guy is half a nut and half an analyst. He is clearly angry at someone and something. I could cut him a new one with half of what he says, I would send this to a friend who is Jewish, but in five minutes he would turn him off because half of what he says is criticising religion, and people that said they were of a faith. Why say a faith is against murder and then try to prove it makes people who were genetically born murderers into murderers. Because your arguments are weak, and your obviously not as smart as you claim to be.

Two points:

"Morales are based on the Bible." - This is a point elegantly discussed in the speech, but nevertheless, I will repeat it here. Morales are not based on the Bible, because the rules of morality in the Bible are flawed. Morality comes from our brains. We know what is right or wrong. This is why we don't stone our daughters if they aren't virgins on their wedding nights. This is why we don't kill our neighbours for taking the lord's name in vain. We know doing so would be wrong, in spite of the source of our morality being the Bible. The abolishment of slavery certainly wasn't because the good book said it should be so: EX 21:20-21 This is not even taking into account signs of morality among animals or indeed the non-biblical religions. Are all non-christians amoral? It's an absurd claim.

"If someone is trying to starve you, rape your women, and kill you - you arent a pyschopath for killing them." - This is true(ish), however, speaking of for example Moses, the atrocities he commited were not against people who were trying to starve him or his people. Check out the History Channel's series on Historic Battlefields. Even the Bible describes the invasion of the caananites and all the other tribes in the Israel-area as an invasion where the Israelites are the aggressors.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#29  Edited By Anund

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

I disagree. Religion is discussed objectively in plenty of places, such as credible history courses, as a means of education. God is defined by Christians as a benevolent being. To state he is cruel requires support, seeing as such, it is not an objective truth because you have to try and prove it.

The founding fathers of the United States used Judeo-Christian teachings (spawned from biblical teachings) as a basis for formulating the Constitution. God-given rights from birth for all men is bad according to what you stated.

I'm sorry, but have you read the Old Testament? Or indeed the new one. Whether he is defined as loving God or not is kind of irrelevant when his own book paints an entirely different picture. The Bible is literally full of proof that God is not benevolent at all, or at least very undecided on the matter.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#30  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@Anund: Way to ignore pretty much everything I stated except for one sentence.

I'd like to see examples :)

The one you posed about the beating of servants was relevant to the time period and did not condone murder, rather it condoned the punishment of servants who had done something wrong. In the time the Bible was written, 2000+ years ago, this may be hard to believe but bear with me..people actually had servants if they were wealthy and those servants required reprimanding if they did something wrong otherwise they would be inefficient and a waste of money. Try and be open-minded :)?

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#31  Edited By awe_stuck

@Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

I disagree. Religion is discussed objectively in plenty of places, such as credible history courses, as a means of education. God is defined by Christians as a benevolent being. To state he is cruel requires support, seeing as such, it is not an objective truth because you have to try and prove it.

The founding fathers of the United States used Judeo-Christian teachings (spawned from biblical teachings) as a basis for formulating the Constitution. God-given rights from birth for all men is bad according to what you stated.

I'm sorry, but have you read the Old Testament? Or indeed the new one. Whether he is defined as loving God or not is kind of irrelevant when his own book paints an entirely different picture. The Bible is literally full of proof that God is not benevolent at all, or at least very undecided on the matter.

Were arguing about Sam Harris. Please stop arguing with what we are saying about that guy.

Two points:

"Morales are based on the Bible." - This is a point elegantly discussed in the speech, but nevertheless, I will repeat it here. Morales are not based on the Bible, because the rules of morality in the Bible are flawed. Morality comes from our brains. We know what is right or wrong. This is why we don't stone our daughters if they aren't virgins on their wedding nights. This is why we don't kill our neighbours for taking the lord's name in vain. We know doing so would be wrong, in spite of the source of our morality being the Bible. The abolishment of slavery certainly wasn't because the good book said it should be so: EX 21:20-21 This is not even taking into account signs of morality among animals or indeed the non-biblical religions. Are all non-christians amoral? It's an absurd claim.

Socialism was wide spread due to Christianity.

"If someone is trying to starve you, rape your women, and kill you - you arent a pyschopath for killing them." - This is true(ish), however, speaking of for example Moses, the atrocities he commited were not against people who were trying to starve him or his people. Check out the History Channel's series on Historic Battlefields. Even the Bible describes the invasion of the caananites and all the other tribes in the Israel-area as an invasion where the Israelites are the aggressors.

He named off tons of people (not just Moses). I will if I get time. Thing is religion created universities. It was the epicenter for critical thinking and thought before and after the middle ages. The Dark Ages werent just about religion. Much of philosophy comes from religion, much of religion comes from monks and priests who devoted their lives to what men who could think used as tools to control and ultimately help people push themselves up to explain and better understand. The idea of God is easy to explain to a physicist. Just as the definition of God is easy to explain to a doctor. Either way we are creating arguments against Sam Harris not you. The guy should talk in university lecture halls in Canada, they would tear him a new one.

You dont say Sweden is mostly atheist and they had the most Iraqi immigrants, when the foundation of their government was based on Christianity. Say the whole truth, or get off the bus. Seriously.

There is more interesting stuff about God I like to talk about - like did Jesus's disciples survive? Were Vikings immigrating from Northern Europe to mess with the Jews? Theres lots of debate about this. Largely due to the fact large areas of Europe have been screwing with the rest of the World. Globalization was around when the Vikings were. Its not new, neither is racism, or eugenics, currency, and markets. When a whole people centralize their abilities they create new civilizations (the Jews). Saying God was there to lead them, maybe he was. You can say he was a pyschopath, normal people kill people everyday. At least Dawkins is clever about how he tries to throw God off his pedestal, this guy is just not educated enough in specifics of history for me to care.

Avatar image for triple07
triple07

1268

Forum Posts

208

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#32  Edited By triple07

I am a Christian which obviously makes me a target of Sam Harris, so take this statement as you will but I think Sam Harris is a bigot. Straight up bigotry.

I, for one, am for freedom of belief which Mr. Harris is clearly against I simply can't seriously listen to anything he says. That being said I don't have anything against atheists or atheism and in fact respect people like Richard Dawkins even if I don't necessarily agree with him on everything.

Avatar image for soldierg654342
soldierg654342

1900

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By soldierg654342

@triple07 said:

That being said I don't have anything against atheists or atheism and in fact respect people like Richard Dawkins even if I don't necessarily agree with him on everything.

Really? I'm an apathiest and I think Dawkins is an insufferable twat.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#34  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@awe_stuck: Also to add to this:

Christianity is the reason many ancient texts have survived the test of time. In early civilization Christian monks were many times the only literate people in a society and they copied texts and preserved them in libraries. Many philosophies and teaching from the East (Byzantium at that time) that have survived are also a result of Christian monks copying them and so forth.

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By awe_stuck

@triple07 said:

I am a Christian which obviously makes me a target of Sam Harris, so take this statement as you will but I think Sam Harris is a bigot. Straight up bigotry.

I, for one, am for freedom of belief which Mr. Harris is clearly against I simply can't seriously listen to anything he says. That being said I don't have anything against atheists or atheism and in fact respect people like Richard Dawkins even if I don't necessarily agree with him on everything.

I liked the first 2 videos, but I noticed how he was trying to make himself an authority in what he believed. The fact the guy in the beginning rambles off his lack of achievements in his accomplishments. Literally Sam Harris is paid to liberalize people about the negative effects of religion. unfortunately the same issues with how he talks to you, are the same with how a priest does. He failed brainwashing 101 when he took out a persons objectivity, priests do that by quoting the bible, he does it by quoting facts he didnt research.

Some of it is good, but its not worth watchin past the 2nd video. The 3rd video made me sick.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#36  Edited By Anund

Well, I won't be arguing any more religion, it's a futile effort and I knew that going in. Sometimes I just can't help myself, specially when things which are downright inaccurate are said. I realize religion is important to some people.

I can say this though, regarding Sweden: Hardly anyone here is religious. Out of the hundreds of people I know, I can say for sure two are Christians. What Sam Harris is talking about is that a religious faith is not required to act morally. You can argue that the basic moral values we (Swedes) hold have been ingrained in us by previous generations who did have faith. I argue morality is a key component in any pack animal, otherwise the species would destroy itself long before it managed to develop the power to write down "the word of God". Neither of us can prove our points. I could point to experiments with different species where signs of morality is displayed. I could point to the fact that children understand basic concepts of morality before they can read, or that societies who are not Christian are moral as well.

Then you will dismiss it using some argument I will be baffled by reading and we'll be back to square one. In my eyes, Sam Harris is very much on the bus with that argument. To a vast majority of Swedes, the Bible is just another historical curiosity, we don't need a man in the sky to watch over us so we do the right thing.

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#37  Edited By awe_stuck

Most people who go to church are moral. Want a more moral gf go to church. Einstein has a book think its about god or something. You could read that. I read Dawkins Selfish Gene, and skimmed God Delusion. Some of his arguments are innane. Starting to wonder if he just wrote it to help get rid of religious people.

Avatar image for vinny_says
Vinny_Says

5913

Forum Posts

3345

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#38  Edited By Vinny_Says

People who scold others for believing are just as bad as people who scold others for not. Both are trying to take away a form of freedom that every person should be allowed to have.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#39  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@Anund: I was looking forward to the examples too :(

*crawls back into hole*

Avatar image for washingmachine
washingmachine

152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By washingmachine

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#41  Edited By awe_stuck

@Anund said:

Well, I won't be arguing any more religion, it's a futile effort and I knew that going in. Sometimes I just can't help myself, specially when things which are downright inaccurate are said. I realize religion is important to some people.

I can say this though, regarding Sweden: Hardly anyone here is religious. Out of the hundreds of people I know, I can say for sure two are Christians. What Sam Harris is talking about is that a religious faith is not required to act morally. You can argue that the basic moral values we (Swedes) hold have been ingrained in us by previous generations who did have faith. I argue morality is a key component in any pack animal, otherwise the species would destroy itself long before it managed to develop the power to write down "the word of God". Neither of us can prove our points. I could point to experiments with different species where signs of morality is displayed. I could point to the fact that children understand basic concepts of morality before they can read, or that societies who are not Christian are moral as well.

Then you will dismiss it using some argument I will be baffled by reading and we'll be back to square one. In my eyes, Sam Harris is very much on the bus with that argument. To a vast majority of Swedes, the Bible is just another historical curiosity, we don't need a man in the sky to watch over us so we do the right thing.

I'm talking about Sweden more then 50 years ago and all the way back to the Vikings. Nonetheless your government is based on Christian teachings. Whether you realize it or not is irrevelant. Did people choose to immigrant stupid people by choice? You guys have a vote?

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#42  Edited By Anund

@H2Oyea said:

@Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: @Anund said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

"He is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and a member of the New Atheism movement."

Sounds like he's sporting some bias.

"Harris specifically attacks Islam and Christianity, characterizing them as much more dangerous than Jainism"

Sure, teaching people to love their neighbor and do unto others as you would have them do unto you is threatening. Forgiveness? Pshh, that's a dangerous concept right there. Sanctity of marriage and virginity? Hell no, those are harmful as well.

"He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised.""

"Harris suggests that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance"

Yeah, he's not objective at all.

He's obviously not objective, he has a very subjective opinion: Religion is a bad thing. Figuring that out would not have required more research than listening to the first minute of the first clip, but I appreciate the effort. However, pretty much every point you make is something he addresses in the speech. I can understand you not wanting to listen to it, but if you did he could explain his points much better than I could here!

I apologize for researching sources before actually listening to what they have to say.

I'm open to new ideas but I don't really feel that it is necessary to listen to critiques that are coming from a source that is not objective nor is the source independent.

I guess I question the possibility of discussing religion in an objective fashion: Religion is all about subjectivity. I think many of the arguments brought forth in the video are objective truths: God is cruel, the Bible is not a good guide for morality etc. But with religion, you are either religious or you are not, in which case anyone who is religious will see you as an opponent of religion, thereby not objective.

How is "God is cruel" an objective truth? That's an opinion. End of story.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html I'm surprised at the objections to be honest, I thought even Christians knew and accepted this as fact.

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#43  Edited By Anund

@washingmachine said:

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

I know I shouldn't be but I always get surprised when people actually watch something like that speech and aren't just blown away by the simple and yes, obvious, truth of what the man says. It says something about the strength of people's belief that they can listen to this and then just dismiss it and go on with their lives as if nothing happened.

@awe_stuck said:

@Anund said:

Well, I won't be arguing any more religion, it's a futile effort and I knew that going in. Sometimes I just can't help myself, specially when things which are downright inaccurate are said. I realize religion is important to some people.

I can say this though, regarding Sweden: Hardly anyone here is religious. Out of the hundreds of people I know, I can say for sure two are Christians. What Sam Harris is talking about is that a religious faith is not required to act morally. You can argue that the basic moral values we (Swedes) hold have been ingrained in us by previous generations who did have faith. I argue morality is a key component in any pack animal, otherwise the species would destroy itself long before it managed to develop the power to write down "the word of God". Neither of us can prove our points. I could point to experiments with different species where signs of morality is displayed. I could point to the fact that children understand basic concepts of morality before they can read, or that societies who are not Christian are moral as well.

Then you will dismiss it using some argument I will be baffled by reading and we'll be back to square one. In my eyes, Sam Harris is very much on the bus with that argument. To a vast majority of Swedes, the Bible is just another historical curiosity, we don't need a man in the sky to watch over us so we do the right thing.

I'm talking about Sweden more then 50 years ago and all the way back to the Vikings. Nonetheless your government is based on Christian teachings. Whether you realize it or not is irrevelant. Did people choose to immigrant stupid people by choice? You guys have a vote?

And this is why I am out of the discussion after this. I just explained why I don't believe Christian morals have anything to do with it. Christianity didn't invent morality. The claim is absurd. Yet your counterpoint is that my opinion is irrelevant. How do I argue with that? The bottom line is, your belief is dogmatic. In a normal argument the other person supports their claims with evidence. This evidence can then be shown to be flawed or otherwise invalid and the argument can be won. One person can be proven right and "win".

You have no proof, nor do you need any to support your beliefs, therefore there are no arguments which can persuade you and the discussion is entirely pointless.

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#44  Edited By awe_stuck

@washingmachine said:

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

Faith is needed for people that care about it. To say you should burn all the books about God. God wouldnt disappear. To remove genes in our brains so we wouldnt believe in God. The idea of God would still be there. The fact is people have the right to believe. The difference is there are people who are spiritual who really believe in God and will kill for that right to believe in their God. Muslims just care about land. But christians care about equality - our faith is just as political as it is spiritual. We want Christian countries and Christian people as much as atheist, we just dont want Muslim countries and Muslims. Just like you wouldnt want to be stoned for sayin you believe in Christ, we too dont want the reverse, but nonetheless we would do the same. Why? Has nothing to do with the bible its what War is essentially- ideology. I am better then you and deserve more. Thats why the US was soo powerful thanks to Obamie and his illegal bills he keeps passing, soon the US will be just a caricture of Europe (though with a much bigger military)

Guns win wars, but unless you win the hearts and minds of the conquerors and thus those they conquer you are but a man holding to something he cannot hold.

Avatar image for triple07
triple07

1268

Forum Posts

208

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#45  Edited By triple07

@Anund: Its a very difficult thing to talk about religion because it is a very sensitive subject and honestly I don't think you will ever change most peoples mind. I believe one thing and you believe another and there's nothing either of us can do that will change the others mind. However, that doesn't mean I can't talk about it in a friendly manner. In fact I agree that morality exists outside religion, but I choose to follow my specific beliefs on moral actions and I think there are a number of people who share a majority of my moral beliefs regardless of where they came from.

@SoldierG654342: I mostly respect him for his work with genetics and not necessarily his views on religion.

@awe_stuck: I watched a bit of the first video and found some of it interesting while most of it was just him spouting his own opinion as fact.

Avatar image for still_i_cry
Still_I_Cry

2521

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#46  Edited By Still_I_Cry

@Anund: "NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalistinterpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions."

"may exist" "given certain assumptions". These words are not generally used when discussing objective truths.

Also, not all Christians follow the King James model of the Bible.

And I don't feel like going through all those and explaining the historical context and wading through the semantics of the time in order to explain what was actually going on.

If you want to present me with one or two strikingly brutal and merciless examples I'll look into them.

Avatar image for washingmachine
washingmachine

152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By washingmachine

@Anund said:

@washingmachine said:

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

I know I shouldn't be but I always get surprised when people actually watch something like that speech and aren't just blown away by the simple and yes, obvious, truth of what the man says. It says something about the strength of people's belief that they can listen to this and then just dismiss it and go on with their lives as if nothing happened.

It's so true when Dawkins says how merely mentioning an opposition to faith makes people act so defensive. Obviously it's a major part of peoples' lives, so it's not surprising that they would take issue with it, but religion in general is just so incredibly facile to me. As much as guys like William Lane Craig are clearly smart and great debaters, I find it very hard to take him seriously when his belief is just as narrow and arbitrary as any other believer's the world over. Plus, in lecture debates when he posits the question to the opposition of "Tell me: how did the universe truly come to be if not for a designer?" -- and if they can't give some incredibly insightful and complicated theory (which he still probably reject anyway), he just laughs them off and says "Well, GOD!" in reply. It's such a lazy crutch; I can't believe anyone still thinks with such small-mindedness.

Avatar image for washingmachine
washingmachine

152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By washingmachine

@awe_stuck said:

@washingmachine said:

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

Faith is needed for people that care about it. To say you should burn all the books about God. God wouldnt disappear. To remove genes in our brains so we wouldnt believe in God. The idea of God would still be there. The fact is people have the right to believe. The difference is there are people who are spiritual who really believe in God and will kill for that right to believe in their God. Muslims just care about land. But christians care about equality - our faith is just as political as it is spiritual. We want Christian countries and Christian people as much as atheist, we just dont want Muslim countries and Muslims. Just like you wouldnt want to be stoned for sayin you believe in Christ, we too dont want the reverse, but nonetheless we would do the same. Why? Has nothing to do with the bible its what War is essentially- ideology. I am better then you and deserve more. Thats why the US was soo powerful thanks to Obamie and his illegal bills he keeps passing, soon the US will be just a caricture of Europe (though with a much bigger military)

Guns win wars, but unless you win the hearts and minds of the conquerors and thus those they conquer you are but a man holding to something he cannot hold.

No one would doubt that moderate Christians generally do well to others, but as guys like Harris always ask -- why then do you need religion to be moral?

Avatar image for awe_stuck
awe_stuck

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#49  Edited By awe_stuck

@Anund said:

@washingmachine said:

I'm an atheist and find videos like this very inspiring. regardless of their tone, I don't know how anyone can listen to the words of guys like Harris and not understand that they are speaking some very simple and obvious truths. If you're offended by it, I imagine you're religious, and I think to be offended is a great step in making people realise that the concept of faith is incredibly naive and ultimately unneeded. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to believe it...but come on..

I know I shouldn't be but I always get surprised when people actually watch something like that speech and aren't just blown away by the simple and yes, obvious, truth of what the man says. It says something about the strength of people's belief that they can listen to this and then just dismiss it and go on with their lives as if nothing happened.

@awe_stuck said:

@Anund said:

Well, I won't be arguing any more religion, it's a futile effort and I knew that going in. Sometimes I just can't help myself, specially when things which are downright inaccurate are said. I realize religion is important to some people.

I can say this though, regarding Sweden: Hardly anyone here is religious. Out of the hundreds of people I know, I can say for sure two are Christians. What Sam Harris is talking about is that a religious faith is not required to act morally. You can argue that the basic moral values we (Swedes) hold have been ingrained in us by previous generations who did have faith. I argue morality is a key component in any pack animal, otherwise the species would destroy itself long before it managed to develop the power to write down "the word of God". Neither of us can prove our points. I could point to experiments with different species where signs of morality is displayed. I could point to the fact that children understand basic concepts of morality before they can read, or that societies who are not Christian are moral as well.

Then you will dismiss it using some argument I will be baffled by reading and we'll be back to square one. In my eyes, Sam Harris is very much on the bus with that argument. To a vast majority of Swedes, the Bible is just another historical curiosity, we don't need a man in the sky to watch over us so we do the right thing.

I'm talking about Sweden more then 50 years ago and all the way back to the Vikings. Nonetheless your government is based on Christian teachings. Whether you realize it or not is irrevelant. Did people choose to immigrant stupid people by choice? You guys have a vote?

And this is why I am out of the discussion after this. I just explained why I don't believe Christian morals have anything to do with it. Christianity didn't invent morality. The claim is absurd. Yet your counterpoint is that my opinion is irrelevant. How do I argue with that? The bottom line is, your belief is dogmatic. In a normal argument the other person supports their claims with evidence. This evidence can then be shown to be flawed or otherwise invalid and the argument can be won. One person can be proven right and "win".

You have no proof, nor do you need any to support your beliefs, therefore there are no arguments which can persuade you and the discussion is entirely pointless.

I'm not arguin that. But go ahead and say I am. In college and university you learn morals by studying religion. My beliefs arent dogmatic, but your head is soo far up there. You dont understand what I'm saying. Your laws are christian therefore your government follows christian beliefs. I have lots of proof look up books about socialism. Where did it come from, what was it based on. OMG Christianity. Just cus you ignore something, doesnt mean it isnt there. 50 years ago Sweden had tons of Christians. Same thing hundreds of years ago to say this doesnt affect a choice about immigrating Iraqis. I ask you again did the Sweden population vote on immigrating Iraqis, or did they think the answer to outbreeding Swedes was simply to immigrate people who will live on welfare and pop out 5 kids year as the answer? I dont need proof. You need history books. They might help you.

http://www.thelocal.se/13060/20080715/

Avatar image for anund
Anund

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#50  Edited By Anund

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Anund: "NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalistinterpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations--after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations--but it is the reader's obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions."

"may exist" "given certain assumptions". These words are not generally used when discussing objective truths.

Also, not all Christians follow the King James model of the Bible.

And I don't feel like going through all those and explaining the historical context and wading through the semantics of the time in order to explain what was actually going on.

If you want to present me with one or two strikingly brutal and merciless examples I'll look into them.

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.