Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sam Harris on Real Time with Bill Maher

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
ProfessorPlum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:06 PM
Original message
Sam Harris on Real Time with Bill Maher
 
Run time: 08:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVES4a9Zq4M
 
Posted on YouTube: August 22, 2009
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: August 23, 2009
By DU Member: ProfessorPlum
Views on DU: 3835
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here's a link to New Rules below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Don't be fooled by this guy.

He pays lip service to criticizing all religions, but if you look closer you'll find he's got a hawkish agenda that's really all about stirring up Islamophobia. He's an apologist for the use of torture in rooting out the supposed Muslim threat. Never mind the body count totals that scream otherwise, never mind the horrors that the U.S. and Israel visit upon Muslim civilians daily - those are apparently acceptable because Muslims are, according to him, a "unique threat". He's got strong ties to ultra right-wing conservative think tanks (i.e. the presence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the advisory board of this bullshit "Reason Project"). He's just an all-around hypocritical asshole.

Bill Maher leans that way too, btw. When Netanyahu was on his show awhile back Maher couldn't get done kissing his ass. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I don't know where you draw all of this from
The interview itself was objective and grounded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You'd never know it from the interview
Which is why I felt the need to point it out. I hate it when guys like Harris are allowed to put on a good public face while working their more pernicious agenda below the radar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. You also accuse Maher of leaning
Whether it was leaning right or toward islamophobia, I have to say I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I'm very sensitive to the public perceptions of Islam in the last few years. Still.. Maher's been on my good side since the good old days of Politically Incorrect, his objective disdain for anything religious is consistent and sincere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debannbull Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Have you even read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's bio? Good grief!
and yeah, ultra right wingers just flock to Bill's show. This man is trying to take the heat out of that exact kind of knee-jerk religious extremism you just perpetuated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Excuse me?
I'm perpetuating knee-jerk religious extremism? WTF?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute - a darling of the neo-cons. That's a stone cold fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. you are quite correct Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute - a far right
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 02:26 AM by Douglas Carpenter
foreign neoconservative organization that supports military intervention and dominance in the Middle East through force.

http://www.aei.org/scholar/117

As far as Dr. Harris is concerned, I am relieved that he speaks about the dangerous side of the dominant wing of American fundamentalist-Protestant eschatology which practically encourages is followers to want to provoke war with the Arab and Islamic world for the purpose of bringing on the "Battle of Armageddon" to herald in the second coming of Christ.

My concern is that there are those who want to, for different reasons, provoke military confrontation and seek total dominance over the Arab and Islamic world. I fear the possibility that if the opportunity arises, this coalition of demagogues will utilize both the support of deeply misguided fundamentalist-Protestants and secular minded people who have been whooped up into an anti-Islamic frenzy. It is entirely plausible that both forces could be politically manipulated into an odd alliance that would support a dangerous military confrontation that would undoubtedly bring utter catastrophe on the Middle East, the United States and perhaps the whole world.

In the history of the world, no good has ever come out of demonizing a people. Nothing but evil can arise from any efforts - be they from fundamentalist-Christians or secularist idealist - from convincing the Western world that the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are an enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. Hirsi Ali is a liar, a hypocrite and an opportunist.
Trust me, I've followed her career in Dutch politics.

She lied her way into the country, making up bullshit stories about surviving a civil war in Somalia (when she was actually living in relative luxury in Kenya). She became a member of the social-democratic party PvdA, but after a while made a 160 degree move and then became a member of the conservative right-wing party VVD and a strong advocate of tighter asylum laws and no mercy for immigrants who fabricate stories to come into the country(!). She said she, with her experience of radical Islam (which I will admit she has) wanted to fight for Dutch muslim women who were being oppressed. She did so by insulting the faith of said women by calling Muhammed the prophet a pedophile and a barbaric man. Hmm...

Anyway, anyone who works at the AEI can't be trusted. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Know anything about Geert Wilders?
I know Sam Harris has been championing his cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Geert Wilders is the most despicable man in The Netherlands.
He's known for his anti-Islam stanch. That would be fine with me, if he wasn't being a total hypocrite by 'warning' for the danger of Islam and at the same time holding fund-raisers among radical extreme-right jewish circles.

Wilders was an avid supporter of Bush's policies; he supported McCain/Palin in the American elections; he has argued for a "Dutch Guántanamo" to detain illegal immigrants; he turned in a resolution in the Dutch parliament that called for war with Iran; and he wants to legally punish ethnic Moroccan criminals different (that means more harsh) than 'native' Dutch criminals; he has even proposed throwing out entire families out of the country when one relative commits a crime!

Wilders has become more extreme over the years. He claims to be the protector of free speech, yet he wants to banish the Qu'ran by law. On Danish tv, he made up a bogus number of "tens of millions of criminal muslims" that need to be "deported". Millions of people who don't exist. If you take the word "muslim" in all of Wilders' remarks, and replace it with the word "jew", you would think of Germany, 1933.

But since the murder of right-wing populist politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002, who could have become prime-minister and who was also a critic of Islam (although much more moderate), criticizing the extreme-right has become 'politically incorrect'. Anytime Wilders gets criticized, he says he's being "demonized" (a word invented after the Fortuyn murder) and it gets him more seats in the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Harris, true to form, has taken up his cause
As seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

Thanks for the info on Wilders - can't say as I'm surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. No, thank you for the info on Harris.
He sounded so reasonable on the show, and I figured a friend of Maher would be 'good news', but this just shows how careful we have to be about judging prematurely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Sincerely would like to see some links to support your claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorPlum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Harris definitely doesn't have anything good to say for Islam
and he's not much kinder to Christianity or any other religion, either. I have heard other people accuse him of being severely anti-Islam before - but I have never heard him advocate torture. If you can pull that reference, I'd be interested to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seraphicx Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sam Harris hates all religions equally
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 10:23 PM by seraphicx
I don't know where the original poster on the second thread is talking about -- but Harris has NO kind words for Christianity (he reserves some rather strong criticism for it in his book).

It's just less of an issue because the premise of "The End of Faith" questions whether atrocities like 9/11 and the Holocaust would have happened were it not for uncritical acceptance (or, lack of reason) of religion or religious-like dogma.

EDIT: I should add that Harris is the most diplomatic of the "New Atheists" and employs the technical language of philosophy and psychology to show the strength of his arguments. Hitchens is a bloodthirsty literary man. Dawkins is a scientist. Harris is most certainly the most conciliatory figure of the atheist movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Not equally
Some Harris quotes from this - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html - one of many similar articles he has written:

"While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world."

"(Muslims) must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. 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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. I see nothing there that supports your point
I think you're full of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. You require more simple language?
He's saying that while all religions are bad, Islam is way worse than the others, and if we don't persecute Muslims into submission, they'll not rest till they kill us all! Ooga booga!

This type of rhetoric is extremely useful to those who support wars of conquest in the Middle East, especially coming from a supposedly "rational" atheist at a time when the world is so weary of Bush-style Christian fundamentalism influencing foreign policy. Harris helps facilitate warmongering without 'teh Jesus'. And Harris supports pre-emptive war against the Muslim world - basically the whole neo-con agenda.

Is that the way you think too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Here you go
Just one example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

Check out his other writings too. While he does a perfunctory job on religion as a whole, his clear focus is on whipping up fear of the Muslim world -- like we haven't killed enough Muslims as it is.

Btw, just to clarify, I am religion-free heathen myself. That's not my beef with Sam Harris.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I'm afraid you are quite correct - from reading you article Sam Harris does support torture - albeit
with some nuances. I'm reminded however of Alfred W. McCoy's work, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror - link: http://books.google.com/books?id=o0dRJD8TpY0C&dq=the+cia+torture&lr=&hl=En

Dr. McCoy argues that there is no such thing as a little bit of torture. That whenever that genie is let out of the bottle, it always, always, always gets out of control. The psycho-dynamics that operate when any interrogator utilizes torture are simply uncontrollable and always produces the most unreliable results.

I would have to also agree that Sam Harris is most definitely on the right-wing end of the spectrum and is anti-Muslim to rather disturbing levels that do indeed demonize 1.3 billion people. Until reading these works of his that you have cited, I did not know this. I had assumed he was just an academic version of Bill Maher who was simply against all religions equally. From reading his own words, I have only now concluded that is clearly not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seraphicx Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Just a question...
Harris' criticism focuses on the illogical doctrine of Islam. But he isn't targeting Muslims. There's a difference.

And if what Harris says is the truth (I think it is), then it's the truth. What people do with the facts is their own problem.

Because Harris has no kind words for Islam, does that mean Harris says we need to go indiscriminately kill a lot of brown people in the Middle East? Say what you will, but I find no evidence that Harris advocates the use of military force alone to remedy the problem of extreme Islam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. what Harris is saying is simply very misleading - it is hateful and bigoted and is the kind of
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 12:02 PM by Douglas Carpenter
language that could very well be used to justify endless violence against the Islamic world.



"They are out to take over the world" seems to be a central theme in his writings about Muslims. This is exactly the kind of language used to justify the horrors of anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930's and 1940's. It is dangerous to suggest an entire people pose some kind of immanent threat. Anti-Semites have in the past and still do argue that the Torah and the Talmud declare Jews to be God's chosen people. They can point to quotes that appear to support their charge. But the anti-Semite phrases these selected quotes in a way to represent Jewish people as a whole as a threat to the rest of humanity.

It is not the Islamic world after all that militarily, politically and economically dominates the West and have for a good deal of the last one hundred years. It is the other way around. There obviously are those in the West in positions of great power who for different reasons want to increase this dominance. Fear is always a reliable weapon and political pretext to build the support to do so.

I have lived in the Islamic world half of my life. Very, very few Muslims - even among the most religious have any desire whatsoever to kill or subjugate anyone. There are passages of their sacred text that can be interpreted by the extreme to support this - as in the case in Christianity. There is no doubt that in the history of both, conquest has played a role in the earlier days of rapidly spreading their respective religions. But it is fortunately a minority opinion these days in both faiths.

Both Christianity and Islam prophesy that some day all the world will follow their faith. But the implication in how Harris phrases all of this in regards to Islam, would lead one to envision wild Muslim hordes from the East conquering and converting by force.

History is full of countless examples of extremely violent conflicts inspired by population who have been worked into a frenzy of fear of the other.

I have no particular problem with Bill Maher's brand of general critique of religion. In fact, although I think he is being excessively dogmatic and don't altogether agree with him, I quite like his film, 'Religulous'. It raises a lot of very valid points.

I fear Harris is perhaps even unwittingly laying the psychological background that justifies in the minds of many - destroying someone else before they destroy them. Ironically, this is something some religionists have also done throughout history. It is wise to remember that atheist regimes have also been guilty of some of the worse atrocities in human history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. I agree with you - it's hateful and bigoted
Thanks for your insights.

You might also be interested in this related article by Chris Hedges - a journalist I greatly admire:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/

From the article:

"Many of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity in the battle against terrorism and irrational religion. They divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. They are a secular version of the religious right. They misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible, by trying to argue that we can evolve morally -- something Darwin never asserted. They are as anti-intellectual as the Christian Right."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. thank you very much for that article...I'm forwarding to a friend - an Iranian athiest-intellectual
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 12:10 AM by Douglas Carpenter
who I doubt is familiar with this particular trend among a small group of Western-American athiest - who are peddling hate and pushing for permanent global war against the world's 1.3 billion Muslims just as much as Pat Robertson and John Hagee.

Franky, until reading your references to Sam Harris's own words, I did not knows that this is where Sam Harris is coming from:



The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris


By Chris Hedges, Free Press. Posted March 22, 2008.

The New Atheists embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They propose a route to collective salvation and the moral advancement of the human species through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving towards collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil, not for evil's sake but to make a better world.

snip:"Many of these atheists, like the Christian fundamentalists, support the imperialist projects and preemptive wars of the United States as a necessity in the battle against terrorism and irrational religion. They divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. Hitchens and Harris describe the Muslim world, where I spent seven years, most of them as the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times, in language that is as racist, crude and intolerant as that used by Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell. They are a secular version of the religious right. They misuse Darwin and evolutionary biology, just as the Christian fundamentalists misuse the Bible, by trying to argue that we can evolve morally -- something Darwin never asserted. They are as anti-intellectual as the Christian Right.

And while the atheists do not have much power and are not a threat to the democratic state, they engage in the same chauvinism and call for the same violent utopianism of the radical Christian Right. They sell this under secular banners, but this does not excuse it. They believe, like the Christian Right, that we are moving forward to a paradise, a state of human perfection made possible by science and reason. They argue, like these Christian radicals, that some human beings, maybe many human beings, have to be eradicated to achieve this better world.

Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world. He defends torture as a logical form of interrogation. He, like all utopians, has reduced millions of human beings and cultures he knows nothing about to primitive impediments to his vision of a better world."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449?page=entire



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Wow. Somebody who admires Chris Hedges.
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 04:57 PM by stopbush
Who woulda thunk it?

Hedges statement that, "(the new atheists) divide the world into superior and inferior races, those who are enlightened by reason and knowledge and those who are governed by irrational and dangerous religious beliefs. They are as anti-intellectual as the Christian Right," is pure cornball BS and not even worthy of serious discussion. One might even wonder if Hedges is engaging in a case of simple projection with such bromides.

That said, Hedges has written some great stuff and has taken many admirable positions, like his opposition to bush's Iraq War. Perhaps we can agree that Harris, Hitchens and Hedges are all intelligent and gifted writers who disagree amongst themselves on occasion. Perhaps those divinity degrees Hedges possesses from Harvard bias him against anti-religious writers and thoughts.

BTW - I own both of Harris' books and have read them a couple of times each. You are correct that he sanctions torture in some cases, and on that point, I part company with him. But generally speaking, I agree with his views on religion and the religious.

The greatest problem I have with Harris as an advocate/speaker is that he comes of as something on a Johnny One Note. he's unable or unwilling to vary his message. If you've seen him speak on the subject once, you've seen all of him you need to see.

Hitchens, on the other hand, while operating from his own set of talking points/positions, is better able to think on his feet and to adapt himself to the situation at hand. He seems better equipped to handle specific questions and situations. But that's to be expected as he's had much more practice at this than has Harris.

BTW - just wondering if those of you who are criticizing Harris (and Hitchens) have actually read their books? A full-length book often offers nuance that a short article or opinion piece cannot.

So, what is it? Yes or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrawlingChaos Donating Member (583 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. His short articles were enough for me
Sorry, but if a writer comes off so poorly in his articles and essays, it doesn't really motivate me to plow through his book-length work in search of "nuance". Based on what I have heard and read from him, I certainly agree with Hedges' charge that Harris offers essentially facile arguments and comes off as intellectually shallow.

I can't find anything to like about Harris (Hitchens I have always loathed) when his brand of so-called "reason" is so clearly laced with such frightening intolerance. Reading most of the so-called "New Atheists" I am reminded that religious fundamentalism is not the only road to totalitarianism. Are you okay with his proclamation that Muslims should happily suffer the indignities and harrassment of racial profiling, because "their kind" are such an inherent threat? Are you not troubled by Harris' extreme right wing ties?

Just take a look at this piece of garbage by Harris: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. In the broadest sense, I am always more comfortable with people
Edited on Tue Aug-25-09 12:24 PM by stopbush
who rely on reason and logic as the underpinning for their worldview than I am with people who rely on religious fantasies as the underpinning for their worldview. Whether they are Ds, Rs or whatevers is a secondary consideration.

As far as writers "coming off poorly," that's all in the eye of the beholder, is it not? We all have our biases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowwood Donating Member (550 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
I was just about to access his "Reason Project" when you said that Ali was on the advisory board. That is disturbing. She is a tool of the extremeist right wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. People of your ilk always attack the messenger

because they can't debate the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GivePeaceAchance Donating Member (950 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. We're all born atheist and with no intervention most cases that would stay the same...
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 01:20 AM by GivePeaceAchance
Religion is man made and to boot an industry. If it gives people comfort that's fine but we can live comfortably without it. Given the case Religion does dominate so much I do try and construct some of my arguments around that fact. As has worked for President Obama in gaining the trust of the Islamic would. I liked how a radio caller said that religion is an addiction and in some respects you can give so much to it you miss out on your real life, sounds about right. Like I say if it works for an individual that's cool, but their lives would be very much the same without it and more time to dedicate to a reality based world, that really needs our undivided attention in logical linear problem solving way. But if leaving religion is hard, there is always sticking by the 10 commandants, that are a good ethical code for anyone whether believer or not, which I do as you always have to allow for even the smallest potential of being wrong, but that's not the enodorsment of them pinned to court house walls or anything like that. Certainly the zealots talk a lot about the 10 commandmants, but they don't live by them in the way of lying, cheating, stealing and even worse sometimes. Like I say I don't see tham as a message from god, just wise rules to live by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creationismsucks Donating Member (205 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. I love Sam Harris, but

it IS actually true that he makes some torture in possible support of torture, and he is definitely HARSH on Islam, and he definitely DOES believe some religions are much worse than others.

But when he's being reasonable, almost nobody speaks more clearly.

He's really great in a lot of ways. I don't know what to make of his ideas on torture, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bermudat Donating Member (985 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
26. I am in awe of people who post on DU
So many levels of understanding, dimensions of meaning of what

is ascertained, all of us watching the same thing and getting something different.


I just watched that clip and merely found it interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC