@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.
Log in to comment