Does God Exist?

Yes, ISIS is a threat to take seriously. It is also not Islam. Indiscriminate killing of Christians and Jews, "people of the book" is explicitly contrary to the Qur'an. ISIS has been denounced as un-Islamic by The Grand Muftis of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Australia, the government of the most populous Muslim state (Indonesia), The Senior Imams of Briatain and the United States, the Islamic society of North America, The brave Moroccan, French, and British Muslims of "Not in My Name", and the majority Muslim Kurds, and Jordanians who have stood up to them on the battlefield. So what makes them prototypical of Islam? Is the Klan prototypical of Christianity? Those who say yes would be fanatics.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/middleeast/isis-video-israeli-killed/

 

Surely you see the fallacy of your carnivore versus housecat analogy. Some carnivores are dangerous. We understand that. In the context of Harris' writings it is clear that he considers all religion even the moderate "housecat" kind, to be dangerous, because he somehow thinks it enables the dangerous kind. Watch out for those housecats. They're one step away from the lions and tigers. A majority of the followers of world religions, including Muslims, can't be linked to violence in any way. So Harris's statement that "religion" is dangerous is an over-generalization and a misrepresentation of the truth. You continue to misunderstand or misrepresent my point about the mass murderers. I never at any time said that all atheism leads to mass murder. Harris said that religion is particularly prone to lead to violence, and I was pointing to atheist regimes which also seem to have been pretty violent--in fact, more so in recent centuries. I might add Revolutionary France during the Reign of Terror. That would lead me to conclude that it's neither religion nor atheism per se that lead to violence, but the circumstances that shape the manifestations of religious or irreligious ideology. I like Scandanavia, too. The people there hold values that are pretty similar to those of Progressive Christians like me, although most are simply not that interested in religion. So your point is?

 

Is the evil nature of ISIS in dispute?

 

.

 

On the basis that when someone believes a dogma about bloodshed and fear, they will be more likely to act in such a way as to effect bloodshed and fear. It's truly a simple premise, I know you not only understand it, but agree with me completely, you are just not happy with how I am presenting this argument. Does a buddhist have a religious basis on which to decapitate a non-buddhist? No. Does a muslim? Yes. End of analysis.

Yes, and be especially careful of your language and steretypes, if you want to avoid being beheaded by a jihadist for say, drawing a cartoon, or damaging a copy of the quran. I am not islamophobic; I am islamo-realist. Again, your argument about the manifold reasons for human violence falls flat on its face; yes, all those reasons are there. Yes, we should address them all. Now, among those reasons, is one, which is called "Islam and other religions which preach violence". For now, the discussion is on this one item on our grocery list of "things that cause human beings to act awfully towards other human beings". That is all. If you cannot sit down, and rationally deconstruct the effect that believing in the Quran and Hadiths has on a person, for fear of insulting them, or their religion, you may already be too indoctrinated against the criticism of beliefs for this conversation to continue. Harris' comments are anything but reckless, and besides, what does reckless mean in a world where you can expect to be issued a death warrant by the leader of a nation for publishing a book criticizing the quran?

Harris' argument that moderates are fully culpable in this religious mess is through arguing that because of exactly the kind of paranoid aversion to honest, direct discourse, come what may, that you are demonstrating in your posts, religious moderates are allowing religious fundamentalists to be safe under the umbrella of religious impunity. It's a rather obvious truth. The more we are afraid to criticize what people believe, no matter how inclusionary or against violence, the more we will feel powerless to address those beliefs which are truly horrific but still under the banner of "religion".

What Harris is speaking of "christians" blocking stem cell research and such, his use of "christians" is short for "american born again christians". Unfortunately we are mostly discussing snippets of talks, where the full context of his comments are not available in a brief viewing. I have read all his books and listened to most of his talks on youtube in full length, so I'll be glad to point out when you are off the rails in terms of his specific argument. He is certainly not a bigot, nor is he painting all religions with the same brushstroke, even if you found one sentence of him somewhere saying that, when taken out of context.

He does not consider moderate religions to be dangerous in the same way that fundamentalist ones are. The former are slowly altering the acceptable parameters of public speech on the subject of religion, will the latter are accumulating large body counts and working tirelessly to bring about the end of the world for all life. To continue with this analogy of carnivores and housecats, I would say that religious moderates (housecats) are slowly gaining rights which prevent us from being properly protected from them (even a housecat can scratch you, or transmit brain parasites like toxoplasmosis). Imagine that housecats were successfully lobbying that we should not ever declaw them, or neuter/spay them, or otherwise be able to move them physically out of our way. Some people would view this as a triumph for animal rights. Now consider in this analogy that the same rights were, by necessity, being granted to bears, lions, tigers, leopards, snakes, spiders, etc, all because the wording of the law used "carnivore".

This is yet another point harris makes: The word "religion" is a word like "sports". There are some sports in which serious injury and even death would not come as a surprise. There are other sports in which obtaining a bruise or a scratch would be cause for embarassment. In fact, looking at the vast array of different sports out there, from rugby and american football, to chess and curling, the only thing they have in common, is breathing. "religion" is the same way, so is "drugs", a very salient example for most people here, who can buy tylenol (by all accounts a genocidal chemical) over the counter with a blessing and a smile, but smoking a joint will land you in jail for life in some parts of the world.

If you think this is harris contradicting himself all I can say is to get over his statement that "religions are a source of great suffering in the world", if you are unable to then listen to more of what he says when he explains what he means. I shouldn't have to explain to you that he's not talking about cafeteria christians who pick out all the mean nasty parts of the bible, nor is he talking about jains or buddhists. I shouldn't have to tell you because a) he himself explains this many times across his talks on youtube and b) you should realize you are not actually undermining any argument for a more serious dialogue between secular minds on the truth, nature, and utility of certain belief systems.

Also I must say, I have much more respect for genocidal christians than I do for peaceful, inclusive christians. It's not because I prefer genocide to equal rights for homosexuals, I'm not a psychotic. It's because from an ideological point of view, the former are following the book they believe to be divinely authored/inspired, to the letter, while the latter are, for mysterious reasons, following that same book but then deciding themselves what they will and won't follow, which immediately implies a cognitive dissonance towards the divine origin of that manuscript and those myths of YWHW et al.

I mean, is he god or isn't he? Is the bible his word or isn't it? Who are you to disregard Leviticus? God clearly wants gays to be stoned to death, and jesus said he has come to make sure every law is fulfilled to the letter. Seems pretty open and shut to me, but what do I know, I just try and be consistent in my beliefs and found them on rational principles, not 2,000 year old mad ramblings.

 

Wrong. How many Muslims have you known? I know lots, but none who beiieve in bloodshed and fear. You equate Muslims with radical Islamists and terrorists. Most are neither, just as most Christians aren't fundamentalists. You may think that in my heart I know you're right. but you're wrong. As for Buddhists, for the most part they're peaceable people. But not always. Zen Buddhists contributed to Japanese militarism before World War II, there have been violent battles between Red Hats and Yellow Hats in Tibet, and there has been anti-Tamil violence by Buddhists in Sri Lanka and anti-Muslim violence in Burma and Thailand. Your analysis is faulty.

 

Again you assume that all or most Muslims will cut someone's head off for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. That is a paranoid fear. Many Muslims marched in Paris sporting "Je Suis Charlie" signs. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo were prompted by an unstable criminal thug-turned-jihadist's response to ISIS propaganda. It was a deplorable action by isolated individuals acting on behalf of an heretical group calling itself Islamic--no more so than the Klan is Christian. There is nothing in the Qur'an calling for homicide to avenge an insult to the Prophet. Unfortunately, illiterate and marginalized people can be mobilized by demagogues in the service of political agendas. They aren't a majority of Muslims, by any means.

 

Progressive Christians are not shy about criticizing fundamentalists, nor in defending atheists, but being rational people we don't like to shoot our mouths off without discriminating between the bad guys and the innocent. If Harris uses "Christian" to refer to "born again" Christians, he is wrong, because only a minority of Christians use that label (I being one of them). I've read his Letter to a Christian Nation, The End of Faith, and The Moral Landscape, and of course the You Tube selections you've been providing. I rest my case.

 

Yes, Harris and some atheists prefer to have their believers stupid and easy to discredit. The literalists are mostly ignorant of, or in denial about, the nature of the book they follow. They are "bibidolators", worshiping a collection of manuscripts written over centuries by anonymous authors with different agendas as though they were the "Word of God" instead of the words of men trying to figure god out. I'm a Christian, not a Pharisee. I go by the spirit, not the letter, of scripture.The words are often insightful, and I value those. But what fool would admire or feel compelled to follow the genocidal, sexist, homophobic, patriarchal passages that make up so much of the Old Testament? Why should Christians be expected to follow "2,000 year old ramblings" just to satisfy you or Sam Harris? Do I really have to believe in a Six Day creation or a 6,000 year old earth, pregnant virgins, talking snakes, and walking dead people in order to follow the teachings of a man who preached a gospel of unconditional, non-judgmental love for everyone, especially the poor, the marginal and society's rejects? To believe the Bible literally misses the point. I became a Christian after a life-changing experience involving passages in Genesis. I never believed for a moment that Genesis should be taken literally. Does a good Buddhist have to believe in hells and reincarnation? The notion that a Christian is one who follows the literal words of the Bible is relatively new in Christian history-- American Gothic dating mostly from the nineteenth century. It is foreign to most people in the world who call themselves Christian. I follow the historical-metaphorical approach pioneered by Origen in the third century and refined by the late, great theologian Marcus Borg. To understand the meaning of scripture, we have to look at it in historical context. Not just what it says in Leviticus, but what it meant in the context of a people trying to preserve their existence in Babylonian captivity. At that time, sex was a relationship between unequals, and for a man to penetrate another man was to turn him into a woman and to waste the seed meant for procreation of the Jewish people. Homosexuality was also associated with shrine prostitution. It is interesting to me how we so often hear Leviticus quoted to support homophobia, and how seldom we hear other parts of Leviticus:
“You shall love the stranger as yourself,”
“The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning.”
“You shall not curse the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind.”
“You shall not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.”
“You shall not go about as a talebearer (or gossipmonger) among your people.”
“Do not hate your brother in your heart.”
“Do not take revenge or bear a grudge.”
“You shall not reap the corners of your vinyard, but rather leave them for the poor.”
“You shall respect the elderly.”
“You shall use honest weights and measures.”
“In judging a dispute, you shall not show undue favoritism for the poor or the rich.”

How often do you her these from the Bible Thumpers? Harris shows ignorance of Christian history, and has no standing to dictate to Christians what they should believe. Why should I care whether or not an atheist or a bible thumper respects me? As for cafeteria Christians, I don't believe whatever I want, but only what I think is warranted on the basis of good judgment, informed by reason, intuition, and close study of scripture in historical context, consistent with science. I use criteria for authenticity employed by biblical scholars like the Jesus Seminar--especially age of attestation, multiple attestations, embarrassment, and discontinuity. The Jesus Seminar estimates that Jesus said and did less than 20% of the things attributed to him, but I think it's possible to form a plausible picture of what those were.

 

When someone is afraid they are likely to respond from a state of fear. I don't mind how you present your argument, it is not a matter of style. your argument is simplistic and exclusionary in it's examination of human motive at large. If I agreed with you I would not object. Animosity needn't have a religious basis. Any police action comes from devotion to an ideal of proper behavior and is countenanced by the rules. Civil society has it's jihadist group fielded to prosecute it's war on crime bla bla. Many civil societies find no trouble in putting people to death for things like treason. A buddhist doesn't need a religious basis for a murderous thought to emerge nor does a muslim need a religious basis to commit murder, only the sense of personal affront is required. Nor does any religious grouping represent monolithic practice or understanding. Personal apprehension is highly variable. Asking a single question is not what I would call a thorough analysis albeit it is posited as the end of yours. Your conclusion is based on too small a sampling, like I say, too small to address human motive at large. To get a accurate accounting we need regard all phenomena on an equal basis, not on the basis of a sliding scale of acceptable or not. The appearance of acceptable or not is made by comparison to a set of basic assumptions. There is conflict built into yours which cannot be resolved except through condemnation. You must accuse in order to legitimize your stance.

 

And you would be incorrect in your summation, A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Buddhism is a religion.
Jainism is one of the oldest religions in the world. Your distinction of belief in a creator god as required for a system to be a religion is a false distinction.

 

Culture is our operating system, not religion. Religion as a specific form is a cultural addition bur regardless of form religious or not we are devoted to our model of good or our sense of value.

This speaks to the origins of religion and it's clients. It also speaks to the stultifying effects of certain basic assumptions on the ability to apprehend things,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

 

As I said to apprehend phenomena we need consider them on an equal basis. You require an exclusion here in order to say that those are not religions. You could make the distinction that those particular religions don't postulate god but it is not correct to say they are not religions. Buddhism and jainism are not only defined as religion by the person you mention. They are included in list of religions from many sources.
So my emphasis leans toward cultural beliefs or belief systems in general as the true functionary in the appearance of behavior. In purest regard this amounts to level of identification as we naturally uphold those things we call our own. In every instance again god is that which we invoke and to invoke is to cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument. This appeal to authority is the functional guide to our behavior as we are vested fundamentally in our sense of rightness. Language does not separate it exists for communication. We can learn each others language. Cultural divergences are formed on the basis of taboo and hero worship or devotion to an idealized, (not evident,) state. So I wouldn't say language qualifies as a belief system. A belief system is a world model of any kind. Science is a practice of observation not requiring a world view although views are developed from it. I don't get the connection that technology is a religion or an operating system of any kind although we produce technological mechanisms. "Art is personal expression.

Cultural programming inhibits observational focus because it focuses on conformity to an ideal and this programming is taught by parents and their parents before. There is another teacher in the world that exposes something quite different and that is the whole community of nature.

 

Most Muslims will not cut your head off. Most might even march in the streets right beside you in the name of peace. However you can be certain without any doubt that if you invite enough of them into your society they will eventually impose sharia law. Now if you've bothered to learn anything about human nature from our history, then you can guarantee that the more docile Muslims will simply turn a blind eye to you when their fanatical aggressors begin slicing into your throat.

http://youtu.be/oQyRvxTqjRw

-

Can you fucking believe this shit?
My grandparents generation lost tens of thousands of people in my country,
Liberating France...
So that now white women can't walk in the street without getting beaten because they don't cover their face in Muslim communities?

This is just a tiny taste of what religious freedom is going to have in store for us.
"What God wants, God gets"

 

Relaxxx, I am glad you also are aware it is primarily human nature which is causing people to impose their mindset on others, and not exclusively a religious one. About that we can be certain that if we invite enough muslims in our society they will impose sharia law (we have been going off topic with this me thinks, but I am just reacting to you guys): this is not certain. It is likely though if 1) they would not be screened at all (if you invite enough people of anything there is bound to be a few rot apples between them, doesn't have to say anything about the majority), and 2) if they or the generation after them is chronicly discriminated against on the job market, their ethnicity, on the streets etc. Sure, certain muslims discriminate others too on the street (against jews or gays for example) but first of all: this is also not exclusive to muslims AT ALL. and secondly: we should focus on the action, and to insist the problem lies with the religion primarily is to jump to your own biased conclusions.

Does this mean nothing to you? I guess this does not mean as much to you and people like Writer as it should, because it does not suit your argument.

Chronically dismissing the other aspects in (abrahamic) religions and religious followers (that the majority is not crazy unreasonable or intolerant against people with other beliefs/mindsets) that don't suit your argument about how bad it is, is bound to lead to a distorted truth and even bias. This is really unfortuntate as it seems one of the main problems most atheists on here have with these religions is that their own beliefs in God and religion is causing bias in their behaviour. Rallying against their religions as a whole (like claiming this problem would not be there if they did not believe in such a God as they do) becomes a bit out of proportion argument then. And in fact there is an easy parallel that can be drawn in what (for example) you and Writer are projecting on them and what atheists like you are doing yourself.

 

The meaning? The meaning is lost on you. The march is a just a meaningless show, an empty sentiment. Islam is a cancer, it will always blossom into a full blown social cancer. The Muslim population in France were once refugees from Algerian Islamic radicalism. Now these same refugees are terrorizing France with their sharia law fundamentalism. It is pure naive cluelessness to think Islam is fundamentally peaceful and benign. It's really quite the opposite and the reason why fundamentalists are called FUNDAMENTALISTS, certainly not because they are hemorrhaging peace and love!