General Discussions

**joder** · 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I had the distinct feeling to convert to being an Athiest after hearing the speeches. I'm sure that's not an accident with such a skilled talker.

Come on John. Come over to the evidence based side

**serandfae** · 12-04-2007, 07:35 PM

Hmm...I was rather wondering when he was gonna pass the plate around to build Our Lady of Pure Reason. I guess I just have one of those hyper-sensitive BS meters, comes from years of having to listen to preachers, politicians and professors. This guy would be one I'd love to debate. Slick though he may be, I do believe I could wipe the floor with him.

**joder** · 12-04-2007, 07:37 PM

I don't think you would stand a chance. Harris was totally correct. The fundamentalists know their books. The religious liberals do not.

**ForrestCroce** · 12-04-2007, 08:46 PM

I'd love to see that myself, but I won't make any predictions. I will say he wiped the floor with Bill O in 2005. I saw that clip after the fact, and decided to read the guy's book. Not that out smarting a Fox anchor is much of an accomplishment, and really Bill O walked into it by just trying to be contrary. I don't see Tim making the same mistake.

I don't think Harris et al want to wipe religion from the face of the Earth. Again, I might be superimposing what I take away from this guy in particular over what he's actually crusading for ... but Harris actually has plenty of criticism for South Korea, in part that "it's run too much like a religion." Harris in particular prefaces his speeches with language like "What I'm about to say is going to offend some in the audience, and that's honestly not my intention. I'm worried about something I think is in our power to affect, and I'm going to worry out loud for the next twenty minutes."

There's nothing unreasonable about that, as far as I can see. And I don't see any reason to doubt that introduction. The guy doesn't say such and such are an evil people, to carve up humanity into 'us' and 'them.' He uses brush strokes that are a little too big, but so do people who describe the guy. I really don't think he's anywhere near as bad as people make him out to be. Harris described in a few words would be "trying to spark dispassionate, empirical public debate on important questions."

My favorite newspaper, The Economist, wrote: "Even Mr. Harris’s critics will have to concede the force of an analysis which roams so far and wide, from the persecution of the Cathars to the composition of George Bush’s cabinet."

I would recommend checking out what the man has to say first hand before forming an opinion. But if you want to debate him, that can be arranged here. Until then, here's a copy and paste job:

Quote:

While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a “well-qualified candidate” from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country. Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry.

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population.

**serandfae** · 09:03 PM

Ouch. Well, there's my vote of no-confidence.

But I thought Harris' crew had already recruited all the religious liberals, so that was why he set his gunsights on the moderates.... We moderates tend to know our books, we even (*gasp*) broaden our horizons. I can't speak for the liberals, though I won't gloss over them like Harris does. And I can tell you that a great many fundamentalists aren't as well-read as you might think. Many focus on John and Revelations, and that's it.

Edit: Forrest, we posted at the same time. Thanks for that link, I'll be checking it out in depth quite soon.

**ForrestCroce** · 12-04-2007, 09:17 PM

It's not at all a vote of no-confidence; just a warning that you're setting yourself up against a very articulate PhD who seems to enjoy debating this particular subject. I'd love to watch, whoever 'wins.' I also think Mr Harris is a lot less divisive than he comes off, if you actually give the guy's reasoning a chance.

Religious liberals are religious moderates, at least by the definition that doesn't include Russ Feingold. When people - especially in Europe - talk about liberalized trade policy, they aren't talking about voting for Obama... Liberalism, from liberty, generally meaning an extension of the Age of Enlightenment ideals. Five centuries ago, it was as absurd and illegal to think that individuals should be able to personally interpret the bible as it is today that we should be able to personally interpret the constitution. Today, most western societies give their citizens this liberty.

I don't know which American, Christian fundamentalists have read which books and skipped which others. I know Warren Jeffs read The Book of Mormon once for every book I own. I know the hijackers on 9/11 were highly educated, middle class, had no discernible history of political oppression; but they spent years in Madrassas talking about the depravity of infidels and the pleasures that await in heaven.

Sorry, man, but I have to admit that looking up where you might arrange a debate and a good quote, Sam Harris is electrifying. He's talking about things I find worrisome, too, but almost never discuss with anyone outside my closest circle of friends because it will alienate people. I wish the guy were less polemic, but I'm sure that's a calculation to sell books ... and I have to admit, I bought one.

Speaking of religious definitions, would you count yourself as an atheist or an agnostic with regard to Isis, or the gods Prometheus stole fire from...?

**joder** · 09:25 PM

First I think you would have to define Christianity and how you interpret the Bible and why you interpret it that way. Specifically why your reinterpretation/reinventing of Christianity is more accurate than the people who founded the religion.

I would really like to know. I think fundamentalists do know the books better than liberal christians or moderate christians. Whatever that means. I have to confess I know what a political moderate is but not a christian moderate. I am guessing it's someone who is mixing politics and faith or who doesn't want to be called liberal. But I could be wrong so please tell me. Fundamentalists tend not to cut out sections of the Bible like they don't exist or ignore them. I would be interested how christian "moderates" interpret the multitude of problem passages such as the LORD ordering genocide.

EDIT:

Forrest you posted while I was

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Speaking of religious definitions, would you count yourself as an atheist or an agnostic with regard to Isis, or the gods Prometheus stole fire from...?

Exactly. I know where your going with this one. I've read Dawkins

And I agree with him.

**serandfae** · 12-04-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

It's not at all a vote of no-confidence; just a warning that you're setting yourself up against a very articulate PhD who seems to enjoy debating this particular subject. I'd love to watch, whoever 'wins.' I also think Mr Harris is a lot less divisive than he comes off, if you actually give the guy's reasoning a chance.

He's definitely someone worthy of having a conversation with about a number of subjects, of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Speaking of religious definitions, would you count yourself as an atheist or an agnostic with regard to Isis, or the gods Prometheus stole fire from...?

Neither. I see them as archetypes of something quite real that no religion quite has, or will ever have, a complete grasp of. There is, to me, a type of knowing that is intuitive, but can't be communicated in that which is measurable but only approximated. Our ability to communicate it has evolved as our societies have. And our methods of doing so? Well, how well we're doing so far is debatable.