This article is trying to throw the baby with the bathwater:

• bathwater: Blues Brothers 'Illinois Nazis' & Waco nutjobs have been around for a while.

• baby: the doctrine of Islam is an enemy of Democracy.

Some Western Muslim preachers have said so on Youtube (Greene, Estes)

Why should we not believe the preachers of the faith when they tell us they hate democracy?

Oh, and they also are on record as saying homophobia is a joke and that being gay is a sin.

Progressives allying themselves with political Islam are suicidal.

Provide proof, not opinion.

How many were killed.

Since you're here, name one of these:

Is Harris a "progressive"?

No, he's not, but it's surprising how many admirers he has here.

He does say things which are right, and some which are wrong.

He's obviously wrong when he condones waterboarding or torture.

He's dead on money when warning about Islam.

That you agree with him doesn't change it.

They even feel compelled to defend the Church from the criticism of its victims.

Harris isn't the head of the largest misogynistic homophobic institution in the world but if you listen to someone around here you'd think he was.

Funny how they only oppose certain kinds of religious bigotry while supporting others.

Don't be surprised when anti-Catholic bigotry is challenged.

Deal with it.

Anyone claiming he did ought to be able to provide the quotes from Harris indicating support for the war.

Though I'm sure he'd be tickled to know that he is so often compared to the pope, 90% of what is said about him is a lie, and the rest just gets ignored in favor of the juicer falsehoods they can spin.

Then it's "oh, still going on about the pedophilia thing? " and, well... yes. It's kinda a big deal that is still being fought tooth and nail by the church.

But hey, people pointing out that Muslim preachers themselves say Islam and Democracy are antinomic means nothing, right?

Are you scared?

Today, in the name of Islam, hundreds of millions of Muslims believe apostates should be killed.

Your preachiness cum moral relativity make you voluntarily blind to the fact the DOCTRINE of Islam is hateful

Or to be perfectly precise, what is written in the Quran preaches violent act.

Only by motigating the words with human goodwill is it possible to turn the doctrine into something harmless.

The words itelf preach violence and hatred. Do you want excerpts?


(and again, spare me your 'islamophobia' shtick. The letter of the Quran is awful because it is a parody, a copy and paste of the Torah which itself is also an insane book)

I know you have his books on Islam because you said you agree with him.

Let's even paint Sam Harris as a hateful imperialist (a gross misrepresentation, but nvm),

it does not change the fact the letter of the Quran is hateful and violent.

(Ask me for data backing that up). And it is a point you very carefully refuse to address.


So when you mention hundreds of millions of Muslims being peaceful, you are totally besides the point.

Those hundred millions are good because of their human nature, and in spite of what is ascribed to them by their book.

IF they followed what is in the book, they would all drop whatever civilian activity and engage in armed warfare to subdue the unbeievers because that is what the book asks of them.

The main prize is paradise, and the fast track to paradise is dying while trying to submit the kuffars.


Again, the problem is not the Muslims but the doctrine of Islam.

Just like the Torah is the mad doctrine which convinces settlers they 'own' Israel.

God is not great and religions are harmful opiates.

Anyway, your reasoning is completely outdated.

Western Imperialism is ending. Chinese imperialism won't be more lenient.

But projections show 1/3rd of the planet to be Muslim by end of this century

(assuming it has not been ideologically defeated before)

Muslim imperialism would certainly be the mother of all imperialisms (Saddam formula™)

If you think western imperialism is ending you've haven't been watching the republican campaign.

Repeating dubious memes on the internet is so much more urgent. Not to mention dovetailing nicely with that self-same campaign.

1- Western imperialism is dying. No amount of Republican posturing will change that.

By 2050, the Chinese economy is projected at the total of the USA + EU.

2- the 1400 year old book will be leading 1/4th of the planet to jihad by that time

(assuming it has not been defeated ideologically before)


You are fighting the indignation crusades of 1990.

Your point I demonstrates that clearly.

Your point 2 is a republican's wet dream.

1- it is a fact the Chinese economy is on a trend to equal those of the US + EU by 2050

(based on population and devlopment rates, barring asteroids or revolutions)

2- it is a fact the text of the Quran is hateful, violent and imperialistic.

An issue you take extreme care to avoid.

You said:

The way you argue is either illogical or plain dishonest.

1- I am in no way backtracking. Suggesting so is dishonest or a non sequitur.

I stated from the start the Chinese economy was due to equal that of the US + EU by 2050 (obviously, barring catastrophic events)

When that happens, fully expect to see Chinese imperialism:
- it's the track record of dominant powers
- it's congruent with Chinese millenial nationalistic sense of superiority
- it would serve as a convenient outlet for the Party to stay in power if it's still around

2- I won't bother to try to decipher to what mysterious Republican wet dream you are alluding.

I will just note that once again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact the letter of the Quran is hateful, violent and imperialistic.

Which is a way to argue dishonestly by omission (voluntarily skipping unpleasant truths)

You are dancing around my positions, while refusing to answer the facts I present.

You raised the specter of western imperialism, you refuse to acknowledge it's on the way out.

You mentioned the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims, you refuse to acknowledge it is their sacred book which teaches them that apostates should be executed (a view faithfully held by half of them worldwide {Pew Research findings}, which represents literal hundreds of millions holding a not so peaceful view)

In short, you cling on to your cosy XXth Century worldview while steadfastly refusing to address facts and figures of this century.

It does, however, give me pause as to what else you consider to be fact.

The trends of share of world GDP by country show without doubt western imperialism is on its way out.

You have nothing to oppose to that fact, just incantations.

I give your opinion (sic) about as much credence as you give to the Book of Daniel.

For once, you are right, I do not care about the book of Daniel.
Nor, to be frank, do I care about your opinion of me.

However, on a discussion forum, I do try to have the minimum courtesy to present facts.
You, on the other side, appear to have granted yourself the right to argue from opinion.

It is not important to know if you give some or no credence to my position (not opinion),

just try to come up with a relevant fact which could counter my analytical contention, i.e.
the curves of world shares of GDP point to a fading out of western imperialism:

Your method is becoming old and running low on fuel:

you made an assertion which flies in the face of facts.

Keep telling yourself it works.

Tsk.

You too easily take offense.

Calling my headlne apt about me when it is "Again, incantations, ad hominem, quotes, but no facts" can be summarized by a famous primary school method of rethoric

"you said it, you are it"

Congratulations on having mastered that tricky technique.

Tsk, tsk.

Thankfully you've saved your incantations for the flying spaghetti monster.

I already told you: I am not interested in Philosophy.

Especially your brand which consist in reasoning without facts.

Come back when you have an answer to my chart.

You claim an unsubstantiated opinion western Imperialism will last long.

I present facts indicating the contrary.

In the absence of facts contradicting my point, please leave me alone with your empty words.

Burden of proof and all.

If you don't want a reply, stop posting to me.

Then you can go somewhere else and complain.

I guarantee you'll feel much better that way.

I am not interested in your empty rethoric.

Don't bother answering without facts.

The only thing your chart demonstrated was your confusion about economic growth and imperialism.

imperialism
ɪmˈpɪərɪəlɪz ( ə ) m/Submit
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.

GDP is one necessary component of effective imperialism.

Without GDP, it is possible to be wannabe imperialists (like Islam at its beginning) but it becomes imperialism when it has become successful (like Islam after 100 years).

When you find it you'll find imperialism.

Thanks for having finally apparently understood my point.

Japan could be imperialistic, not Singapore. Numbers talk.

This now explains to you why my GDP graph proved western imperialism is fading.

Good job. It took you about 20 posts to finally realize I was right.

But you still won't say it because you are very proud of yourself. Aren't you?

By your chart, there will be an imperialist war of expansion by India any minute now.

Maybe you should worry about Hindu terrorists and the evils contained within the Upanishads.

BTW, feigning scholarship while using rofl smileys only makes you look ridiculous.

Better to fight strawmen than to tackle real questions. It's gotten so predictable, so boring really.

it just makes you look foolish. And pompous.

I'm waiting for the eruption of 'u' key failures.

I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Better to look pompous than to be, in fact, pompous, blur.

I repeated, with justification, rug argued from opinion, not from fact.

He's now using the sentence on me (regrettably, without justification)

Kids. So cute.

That, or you're grammatically, as well as factually, challenged.

like cheerleading a racist and genocidal war against the middle east. He's one man, with his worldview, his perceptions, his ideas and his reason. For that, he can be wrong.

I can accept that. I can stand up to him, and he has to justify his ideas on their merits, no appeals to a greater authority he can claim to serve.

So, explain this shit:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/14/jeb-bush-iran-nuclear-deal-appeasement
A Catholic, Jeb Bush, cheerleading for the sort of confrontation that leads to war. Handwaving and defending his brother's attack on Iraq.

If the 'new atheists' are so wrong, how can your catholic compadres be so wrong too?

Harris did cheerlead in favor of a war in Iraq, but he's at least honest enough to admit the war was completely bungled by the Bush Admin. Jeb bush isn't. https://web.archive.org/web/20061101084519/http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris18sep18,0,1897169.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail


Harris does believe he's right. But he believes in himself, in his own position on the merits as he sees them, not on the mystical desires of his imaginary friend.

Face it, you're just as lost and blind in the dark as everyone else, your imaginary friend can't help you. Can't help Jeb. Can't help any of us if a Catholic with the surname Bush gets back into the white house.

The 'New Atheists' however this article of yours defines them, can be taken to task on an issue like this. Your religious fellow travelers can always defer and deflect to their imaginary friend.

I know which I'd rather debate and oppose.

Harris is an asshole who believes the war he aggressively promoted had any other purpose than that. To say this war was "bungled" is like saying Hitler should not have invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Maybe if he waited until 1942 it would not have been bungled.

Amazing that Jeb is no better, eh?

maybe Harris's problem isn't his atheism.
I'm sure you feel Catholicism is irrelevant to Jeb's warmongering.

The blood on his hands is not from that.

The 'new atheists', and Dawkins/Harris by name.

That's like, practically all of them, man.

Much less, the willfully misinterpreted characterization of Harris you foment.

Trust me, it's cathartic.

Perhaps he has blended into Hitchens, who did support the war?

With its misogyny and opposition to birth control and homophobia and naked greed and rampant pedophilia? Were the Catholic church not a billion dollar corporation, it would be listed by the SPLC as a hate group and the FBI as a child-porn ring.

But atheism is the real problem, right?

Does it sting you to read a criticism by another atheist of self-proclaimed rational, enlightened, progressive atheists who are hopping on the rightwing Islamophobia train?

Since you have no response to the criticism other thnt "pedophila!?!?1!, the answer is obvious.

The problem is not atheism at all. It's assholes wrapped in the mantle of atheism peddling all sorts of bigotry to the benefit of the right.

Not a great batting average for posts. At least this one isn't a right wing rag?

Eventually he'll run out of hit pieces from what DU considers acceptable sources and revert back to the old ways.

It's a real shame there's not enough anti-atheist bigots writing for respectable papers these days...

I don't think anyone has to try to make you (unspecified plural again) look bad.

.... and follow some "book" or "dogma' or something like that.

Or...actually we don't. There's really nothing to connect Atheists but a lack of belief in gods. There's no organizations with rules or regulations, there's no single leader, infallible or fallible, to turn to for platitudes or any body of old men to decide how to interpret ancient gobbledygook for us.

But there will always be more religious bigots who rather than think for themselves, will champion such organized baloney fed to them than those who think for themselves and point out the dangers and behavior of such controlling organizations.

So wasn't able to read the article. I'm sure it was super awesome sauce, though, and enlightened us on how modern atheist movements are misogynistic, racist, homophobic, greedy, and full of pedophiles. Oh wait...

is always "pedophilia!!!1!"?

Oh, wait, you mentioned five things the Church should be called out for. Twice. Math (and Latin, apparently) is hard!

It MUST have been an oversight on his part...

That the RCC is fucked up?

Oh, look, over there! A chicken!

Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten how fucked up the RCC actually is.

Glad I was able to help you add the RCC to your list of fucked up things.

Here's a picture of a plant:

Here's another reminder of fucked up things.

Guess I shoulda called ya fella. Sorry, fella.

Maybe stick to the facts at least some of the time?

Go to pages 52-53 of The End of Faith. Now show me the lie.

Here's is Harris' lame apologia.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

And here's someone, "The Erstwhile Conservative", who just laps up Harris. As do you.

https://duanegraham.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/in-defense-of-sam-harris/

The man's a bigot. More, he's a man who not only condones, but urges, homiicide on ideological grounds.

Do not ever insinuate anyone is lying, especially me.

It's established that this was from a thought experiment and how all this path to war one way thinking leads to bad places.

Did you actually read what he wrote? If you did you would know that he was saying the exact opposite of what you claim.

It's thorghly debunked at this point, so really anyone still spreading that he's pro genocide because of that line is lieing.

You want to defend this bigot? Be my guest. But this is one room where bullshit has a short life.

Yes, it was nothing but a "thought experiment".

Such a pleasant phrase for advocating ideological homicide.

Go on. Keep defending that ass. You'll love every minute of it.

Well, that's a lie. For sure.

even though there is plenty of stuff he has said that is an issue.

If you read his piece without your bias you'd see it was the exact opposite of what you claim. This has been pointed out enough times here that it can no longer be ignorance on your behalf. to continue claiming it is to continue lieing.

I mean, you're gonna double down on it, again as usual.

I'm not defending him, I'm calling you out on your desperation. However, I'd rather have Harris to worry about then Francis, which is what this is all about. You want to attack atheists with lies about someone who happens to be an atheist and said something you can deliberately misconstrue, that own up to the fact that your church is lead by an actual monster.

Although you're no Sam Harris.

And, just so you're clear, let me strip away your cover.

"You want to attack atheists" is not the case. In fact the tweet quoting him was made by atheists. No, the attack is squarely on Harris. You want to jump in front of him or beside him, don't blame me.

You can have the last word.

I would have put 'not as other people' but I understand that women aren't very important in your Church.

As for you, the word I used was "anyone".

Since it was you who clumsily fabricated the quote "not as other men", look in the mirror for misogyny.

Obfuscate, deflect, misrepresent, intentionally omit...

What else can one do when facts aren't on their side but one has a compulsion to advance their (inaccurate) viewpoint?

Attack another indirectly and, with a great sigh, make up shit about what has occurred.

You're parroting Harris parroting Bush rationalizing preemptive homicide.

I thought he had encouraged genocide at one point, likely based on your enthusiastic misinterpretation of what he wrote. This is the second time I've had to correct my long-term memory/perception of Harris's position.

Pretty sure it's your hyperbolic willful misinterpretation of his claim.

The scope of the statement is right there in the paragraph. I highlighted and bolded it for you.
It doesn't even apply to people who, like much of Afghanistan, simply exist within a state that either actively or passively harbors 'terrorists', which the Bush Doctrine singled out as a fair game to bomb the everloving shit out of.

Obviously emotions were running high when Harris wrote that, and he probably wishes he'd specified the scope inside that sentence, rather than later in the paragraph, but that's not to fix his point, it's to forestall people like you trying to beat him about the head and neck with some shit you took out of context.

Pretty sure you're trying to fabricate some desperate narrative here.

Why bother?

It's good enough that any passerby reading this thread will his agenda for what it is.

You've done well, again, exposing the BS. No need to get emotional and stoop to his level.