Debate about Islam on Bill Maher: Ben affleck vs Sam Harris

[MavsSuperFan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc

got to say Harris makes some strong points.

[Nanners]

i fvcking hate bill maher. the guy is basically a neocon pretending to be a liberal, and that smarmy fvcking smirk he gets every time he says anything....

sam harris is a smart guy tho

[kNIOKAS]

I like americans debating about Islam. Makes complete sense

[Nanners]

maher should have had reza aslan on his little panel there, would have been a much better debate than fvcking ben affleck :facepalm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU

[Akrazotile]

I like americans debating about Islam. Makes complete sense


This.

By any chance is there an extended director's cut of the video? I'd really like to be able to sink my teeth into this topic on a deep and comprehensive level. Is Islam good? Is it bad? And for god sake, what does Ben Affleck think about it???


I'm just glad we have our priorities straight.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I like americans debating about Islam. Makes complete sense

Everything American is bad. We get it. Your schtick is tired and dry, cupcake.

[RidonKs]

hes making points because he's discussing the topic with ben affleck, who's a smart guy but clearly doesn't have access to the appropriate rebuttals required of the points sam harris is prone to make... and in fact does make in this video.

sam harris is an interesting guy. he's basically lambasted in the entire philosophical community. he's a celebrity atheist with a really compelling way of speaking. but typically his conclusions boil down to conjecture with very little application of context... at least with regard to political issues that he pays attention for their religious content.

[NumberSix]

hes making points because he's discussing the topic with ben affleck, who's a smart guy but clearly doesn't have access to the appropriate rebuttals required of the points sam harris is prone to make... and in fact does make in this video.

sam harris is an interesting guy. he's basically lambasted in the entire philosophical community. he's a celebrity atheist with a really compelling way of speaking. but typically his conclusions boil down to conjecture with very little application of context... at least with regard to political issues that he pays attention for their religious content.
Ben's "arguments" consist of....

A) OMG, that's so racist.
B) You're saying they ALL blah blah blah


The problem is that the type of person like Ben who self identify as "liberal" see everything as racial. They don't see Islam as ideology. They see it as brown people.

[Micku]

maher should have had reza aslan on his little panel there, would have been a much better debate than fvcking ben affleck :facepalm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU

Reza Aslan was on his show before, and it would've been a very interesting confrontation between Aslan and Sam Harris since they debated before.

But Ben Affleck opinions and views were good, and he seems to be a smart guy except for the racist comment. I think he basically argued the core of what Reza Aslan would argue, that is the difference between the radicals and the casuals and we shouldn't put them together and call them the "Muslim world". The problem is that Reza Aslan would bring up evidence by mentioning other countries where Islam is the most popular religion.

When Bill Maher said something like "A billion people you say? All of these billions of people don't hold these pretentious beliefs? That is not true." Reza Aslan would have an interesting rebuttal right there as oppose to Ben Affleck that do not have the knowledge of. Affleck just continued his side by saying the same thing without much weight. Sam Harris and Bill Maher are kind'a attacking the core of the religion in a similar way they would attack the Christianity by using modern Evangelical Christians as the face.

However Harris and Maher are saying that there are more ppl that believe in these extreme ideas than what Afflect thinks.

[Akrazotile]

Ben's "arguments" consist of....

A) OMG, that's so racist.
B) You're saying they ALL blah blah blah


The problem is that the type of person like Ben who self identify as "liberal" see everything as racial. They don't see Islam as ideology. They see it as brown people.


This. Just like if you speak out against crime in america, youre a low key racist. If you didnt vote for Obama, racist. Dont like hip hop? Racist.

Annoyed with muslims? ****in racist. Dont want illegal immigration? Racist as shit bro.



These fukking pansy ass nerds are so desperate to play hero rescuer across every inch of the globe...... Not by volunteering their time where its needed, but by complaining like whiney pussees about 'the establishment'.


Shit is such a joke.

[Micku]

Ben's "arguments" consist of....

A) OMG, that's so racist.
B) You're saying they ALL blah blah blah


The problem is that the type of person like Ben who self identify as "liberal" see everything as racial. They don't see Islam as ideology. They see it as brown people.

Disagree. His best argument was something like:

"You are using the minority radicals beliefs as the basis of the "Muslim World"."

That's pretty much the norm to start off this debate. But he did say it was racist, which is incorrect.

[Akrazotile]

Reza Aslan was on his show before, and it would've been a very interesting confrontation between Aslan and Sam Harris since they debated before.

But Ben Affleck opinions and views were good, and he seems to be a smart guy. I think he basically argued the core of what Reza Aslan would argue, that is the difference between the radicals and the casuals and we shouldn't put them together and call them the "Muslim world". The problem is that Reza Aslan would bring up evidence by mentioning other countries where Islam is the most popular religion.

When Bill Maher said something like "A billion people you say? All of these billions of people don't hold these pretentious beliefs? That is not true." Reza Aslan would have an interesting rebuttal right there as oppose to Ben Affleck that do not have the knowledge of. Affleck just continued his side by saying the same thing without much weight. Sam Harris and Bill Maher are kind'a attacking the core of the religion in a similar way they would attack the Christianity by using modern Evangelical Christians as the face.

However Harris and Maher are saying that there are more ppl that believe in these extreme ideas than what Afflect thinks.


Why not, exactly?

[MavsSuperFan]

i fvcking hate bill maher. the guy is basically a neocon pretending to be a liberal, and that smarmy fvcking smirk he gets every time he says anything....

sam harris is a smart guy tho
thats unfair, he is clearly left wing/liberal (in the modern american context of the word) on most domestic issue.

[NumberSix]

Reza Aslan was on his show before, and it would've been a very interesting confrontation between Aslan and Sam Harris since they debated before.

But Ben Affleck opinions and views were good, and he seems to be a smart guy. I think he basically argued the core of what Reza Aslan would argue, that is the difference between the radicals and the casuals and we shouldn't put them together and call them the "Muslim world". The problem is that Reza Aslan would bring up evidence by mentioning other countries where Islam is the most popular religion.

When Bill Maher said something like "A billion people you say? All of these billions of people don't hold these pretentious beliefs? That is not true." Reza Aslan would have an interesting rebuttal right there as oppose to Ben Affleck that do not have the knowledge of. Affleck just continued his side by saying the same thing without much weight. Sam Harris and Bill Maher are kind'a attacking the core of the religion in a similar way they would attack the Christianity by using modern Evangelical Christians as the face.

However Harris and Maher are saying that there are more ppl that believe in these extreme ideas than what Afflect thinks.
Nah, Ben is just an idiot.

You could have made the identical argument with a group other than Islam and he would have hypocritically agreed.

If you said "Western culture has a culture of oppressing blacks. It's not ALL Westerners. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would have agreed that of course that is definitely true.

If you then said "Islam has a culture of oppressing women. It's not ALL Muslims. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would then say "OMG, how can you say that. It's so racist. Just because some do doesn't mean you can demonize the entire group" even though you already said it's not all of them. Just that it's in the culture enough to be a problem.

[Akrazotile]

maher should have had reza aslan on his little panel there, would have been a much better debate than fvcking ben affleck :facepalm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU


How do yo have time to post dude, shouldnt you be on a peace corp mission or somethin? Youre such a caring sharing liberal, right? What are you doing in the corporate capitalist first world postin on a privately owned basketball board? GTFO hypocrite.

[kNIOKAS]

Everything American is bad. We get it. Your schtick is tired and dry, cupcake.
What? This is what you got? You anything but get it then...


Although you can make a point for your own statement pretty good.



I don't like this Sam Harris guy. Listen to a couple of podcasts with him, he seemed dishonest and not what I would describe as a scholar. He's some weird fruit of pop culture to me... Hard to put a finger on though.

[RidonKs]

so numbersix, let's say we all agree ben is a moron who sees everything in terms of race and inequality and shouldn't be discussing these issues.

regardless of the extent to which you disagree with ben, to what extent do you agree with the points sam is making?

[Micku]

Why not, exactly?

Let me recite that. Reza Aslan would argue something like, "You shouldn't have the radical Muslim ideals as the main basis of the 'Muslim world'."


Nah, Ben is just an idiot.

You could have made the identical argument with a group other than Islam and he would have hypocritically agreed.

If you said "Western culture has a culture of oppressing blacks. It's not ALL Westerners. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would have agreed that of course that is definitely true.

If you then said "Islam has a culture of oppressing women. It's not ALL Muslims. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would then say "OMG, how can you say that. It's so racist. Just because some do doesn't mean you can demonize the entire group" even though you already said it's not all of them. Just that it's in the culture enough to be a problem.

I would say what Affleck is doing is like blind compassion. He doesn't have the stats and evidence in his head, but he doesn't think a billion or so ppl in the religion discriminate against women and want execute ppl on mundane things. He believes Harris and Maher are stereotyping based upon the bad apples. However, Sam Harris was tossing out stats and is knowledgeable on the field obviously.

I don't know if I go far as to say he's an idiot, besides the racism thing, but he step in a territory in which he has no evidence to back up whatever he says.

[RidonKs]

micku if you're interested in what an exchange between sam harris and reza aslan would look like, check out this debate between sam harris and chris hedges. it's not particularly different style not withstanding.

link - opening remarks until ~35 minutes, exchange with moderation afterwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE)

i should add whats most interesting about hedges is that he comes from an overtly religious background. he graduated with a phd from the harvard divinity school.

last edit:

just to save anybody the time since i know it's a long video; the point put to sam harris which he is unable to answer, after he says the only thing he's concerned about is the effect belief has on actions, is that the same beliefs and doctrines and ideas are dispersed all over the world and have lead throughout history and currently to extraordinarily different outcomes. so given that fact, that the same religion or ideology can have different outcomes depending on circumstances, how could it possibly be that religion is the overwhelming determinant of social conditions which is what sam constantly seems to suggest?

the above sentence might not be easy to parse, let me know if i'm being unclear.

[RidonKs]

a great example of word games and humour that sam uses as a rhetorical device.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE&t=41m13s)



MOD: For instance you, in your writing, defended the invasion of Iraq, which was basically a secular country

SAM: That's not true, I actually never defended defended the invasion of Iraq

MOD: Okay well then I'm glad to hear that. What i thought you defended in your book, without putting you on the spot or have you defend a position you don't take, but it seemed to me that you had this very broad brush that it was religion that caused the problems; whereas it is my experience from travelling around this part of the world and covering events, the religion became a response to policies pursued by others. And i think if you take Iraq, you have a very good example of this. That for all of the failures of Saddam Hussein, it was basically a secular society in which women were in a better position than they are now. That's just to take one example.

I think the point Chris is making is that when you actually go out and see these societies, the mischief came not from a reading of the Quaran. The mischief came from very enlightened and rational people, the best and brightest, who were conducting the foreign policies of advanced nations.

SAM: I'm certainly not going to deny that we have caused ourselves problems, and one of the reasons we have been so inept in our foreign policy I think, has a lot to do with our own faith based thinking. The fact that we promote people to positions of power who, in the president's case, thinks God put him in the white house. And I've argued that belief logically entails that God did not put him in the white house to make a catastrophic mistake. So I don't think we want someone making these decisions of when to go to war and when not to go to war, who thinks that when he closes his eyes and tries to get a feeling for what to do, his thoughts may just be vetted by the creator of the universe. And I take people at their word. People believe this stuff.


this is just such an unbelievable red herring, as are his following words. when he's talking with religious nutjobs like william lane craig or one of those rabiid jews or even the hosts on fox news, sure he sounds like a goddamn genius. he's arguing for a position that's practically self-evident in those cases. but as soon as he dips his toes in real world issues, he is waaaaay out of his element and its completely transparent.

i really admire his ability to speak. i disagree with him fundamentally on most issues to be perfectly honest but the man has an uncanny ability to hold your attention. which is why he is so popular.

[masonanddixon]

Sam Harris' foundation of moral realism is pretty interesting.

[RidonKs]

Sam Harris' foundation of moral realism is pretty interesting.
its interesting no question. but he promotes it with an arrogance it does not warrant. in short, the science he insists backs up his arguments is not in yet.

[RidonKs]

chris hedges takes the meat axe to everything sam harris has to say about foreign policy by quoting four sentences from harris' most recent book (at the time of this exchange) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE&t=59m55s)

[masonanddixon]

its interesting no question. but he promotes it with an arrogance it does not warrant. in short, the science he insists backs up his arguments is not in yet.

Yeah I completely agree with you. I do not subscribe to moral realism but it's probably the most interesting concept in modern philosophy as the analytics have hit a road block.

[ALBballer]

I don't agree with Bill on most issues but I do find his show entertaining. I do agree with most of his stance against Islam. Islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion and IMO it is one of the worst and most dangerous ideologies to follow. Such a belief goes against the cultural norms of most Liberals and most Liberals go along the lines of "a few bad apples do not make up the religion" but the problem is the religion itself is flawed to begin with.

[RidonKs]

I don't agree with Bill on most issues but I do find his show entertaining. I do agree with most of his stance against Islam. Islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion and IMO it is one of the worst and most dangerous ideologies to follow. Such a belief goes against the cultural norms of most Liberals and most Liberals go along the lines of "a few bad apples do not make up the religion" but the problem is the religion itself is flawed to begin with.
if you were born not to become a savvy soft spoken nyc businessman but rather to one of the 50 million peaceful muslim families in indonesia... do you expect you would still be able to espouse the opinion that islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion?

though at the core of this, i would agree with sam harris. not on islam but on allem. organized religion in the world today and throughout history is much more hateful cult than spiritual guidance/transcendence.

[ALBballer]

if you were born not to become a savvy soft spoken nyc businessman but rather to one of the 50 million peaceful muslim families in indonesia... do you expect you would still be able to espouse the opinion that islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion?

though at the core of this, i would agree with sam harris. not on islam but on allem. organized religion in the world today and throughout history is much more hateful cult than spiritual guidance/transcendence.

I'm not sure of your analogy but I was born to a peaceful muslim family that was very much secular. Once I learned more about the true religion,the more I became alienated from it.

[RidonKs]

I'm not sure of your analogy but I was born to a peaceful muslim family that was very much secular. Once I learned more about the true religion,the more I became alienated from it.
ah sorry. i know you're originally from the former yugoslavia but i dunno why i assumed u weren't raised muslim.

do you connect your alienation from islam to the ongoing violence that we read about every day concerning countries in the middle east as well as islamist terrorist cells operating all over the world? or was it more of a raw rejection of religion in general?

[NumberSix]

if you were born not to become a savvy soft spoken nyc businessman but rather to one of the 50 million peaceful muslim families in indonesia... do you expect you would still be able to espouse the opinion that islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion?

though at the core of this, i would agree with sam harris. not on islam but on allem. organized religion in the world today and throughout history is much more hateful cult than spiritual guidance/transcendence.
Indonesia is a country whose population happens to be mostly muslim. It's not a "muslim country".

Saudi Arabia however is NOT a country whose population "happens to be" muslim. Islam itself is the law of the land. The country is governed by sharia law.

An issue in Indonesia may have nothing to do with islam at all. If the government does something crazy, it's not necessarily linked to Islam in anyway. It could be just bad government action/policy.

That's not the case in Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi government does something, it's because it is in accordance with Islamic law. There is no "it has nothing to do with religion" argument to be made.

[RidonKs]

Indonesia is a country whose population happens to be mostly muslim. It's not a "muslim country".

Saudi Arabia however is NOT a country whose population happens to be muslim. Islam itself is the law of the land. The country is governed by sharia law.

An issue in Indonesia may have nothing to do with islam at all. If the government does something crazy, it's not necessarily linked to Islam in anyway. It could be just bad government action/policy.

That's not the case in Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi government does something, it's because it is in accordance with Islamic law. There is no "it has nothing to do with religion" argument to be made.
i can't believe you're using saudi arabia to defend this distinction between the religious majority of a population and the religious mandate of the state government that represents them. well i can believe it because its the most obvious example but it goes precisely to proving my point.

there is no war with saudi arabia, the most fundamentalist and islamist country in the world. a country that both funds and supplies and advocates everything the war on terrorism proclaims to "degrade and destroy" as president obama put it so nicely in his speech to the american people.

the reason indonesia and saudi arabia are such obvious countries to point to with regard to the debate sam harris and bill maher and various other public figures like to engage in is that they are both allies of the west and they're both dominated by islam; whether demographically as you're implying is the case in indonesia or fundamentally as you're implying is the case in saudi arabia.

though once again for the hundred millionth time your facts are extremely distorted and largely uncorrelated with the real world on which you so arrogantly opine (that one was fun to write)

[NumberSix]

i can't believe you're using saudi arabia to defend this distinction between the religious majority of a population and the religious mandate of the state government that represents them. well i can believe it because its the most obvious example but it goes precisely to proving my point.

there is no war with saudi arabia, the most fundamentalist and islamist country in the world. a country that both funds and supplies and advocates everything the war on terrorism proclaims to "degrade and destroy" as president obama put it so nicely in his speech to the american people.

the reason indonesia and saudi arabia are such obvious countries to point to with regard to the debate sam harris and bill maher and various other public figures like to engage in is that they are both allies of the west and they're both dominated by islam; whether demographically as you're implying is the case in indonesia or fundamentally as you're implying is the case in saudi arabia.

though once again for the hundred millionth time your facts are extremely distorted and largely uncorrelated with the real world on which you so arrogantly opine (that one was fun to write)
I literally have no idea which part of what I said you're even disagreeing with.

[guy]

Nah, Ben is just an idiot.

You could have made the identical argument with a group other than Islam and he would have hypocritically agreed.

If you said "Western culture has a culture of oppressing blacks. It's not ALL Westerners. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would have agreed that of course that is definitely true.

If you then said "Islam has a culture of oppressing women. It's not ALL Muslims. But it's in the culture enough that it's a problem". Ben would then say "OMG, how can you say that. It's so racist. Just because some do doesn't mean you can demonize the entire group" even though you already said it's not all of them. Just that it's in the culture enough to be a problem.

Yea would have to agree with you here. It's really not much different then how the media seems to lump catholic priests all together as child molesters. But you know no one ever seems to bat an eye when they do that.

[RidonKs]

you are making blanket generalizations about how hundreds of millions of people are complicated in very complicated countries you've in all likelihood never visited and know very little about. that's the part of your post i disagree with. though almost incidentally you are correct in the fact that the indonesian government is quite secular and has been for a long time.

that of course didn't stop the indonesian state government from massacring hundreds of thousands of people in the past 40 years. but that's all ancient history right? its got nothing to do with islam or terrorism or the quran. just a hideous american-supported dictatorship lead by a madman named Suharto who killed hundreds of thousands of people as he ran the country for 30 years. ever heard of him? he was born to muslim parents but did not associate with the religion. i wonder what made him such a dangerous killer that makes him different from say saddam hussein or bashar al-assad?

[Patrick Chewing]

I want Ben Affleck beheaded.

[masonanddixon]

I want Ben Affleck beheaded.

lol

[millwad]

I want Ben Affleck beheaded.

I really wonder what happened to you in life that makes you hate muslims so much, do you have a dead-beat muslim dad? Did you mom get her legs spread and her ****** screwed by a muslim?

[Patrick Chewing]

I really wonder what happened to you in life that makes you hate muslims so much, do you have a dead-beat muslim dad? Did you mom get her legs spread and her ****** screwed by a muslim?


Islam is a violent, oppressive religion. Through its historic teachings and through what we see today with all the violence. I am a Conservative, not a Progressive, but with Islam, I fully support a radical Progressive change within that culture. I don't hate the people, I hate their practice.

I would much rather debate an atheist than try and justify freedom of and from religion with a Muslim.

And the term "Moderate Muslim" is a joke and a farce. It's just an excuse to excuse radical Islam. The most moderate of Muslims still starve themselves, still force their women to wear hijabs and all that nonsense.

[Graviton]

Millwad as someone from Sweden, can you comment on the muslim influence there? I keep hearing they are ruining Sweden while the government isn't doing anything to stop it. I read some articles about the increase in sexual abuse there while the PC media tries to cover up the fact it's done mostly by muslims.

What's actually true though? As a resident what's your view on it?

[millwad]

Islam is a violent, oppressive religion. Through its historic teachings and through what we see today with all the violence. I am a Conservative, not a Progressive, but with Islam, I fully support a radical Progressive change within that culture. I don't hate the people, I hate their practice.

I would much rather debate an atheist than try and justify freedom of and from religion with a Muslim.

And the term "Moderate Muslim" is a joke and a farce. It's just an excuse to excuse radical Islam. The most moderate of Muslims still starve themselves, still force their women to wear hijabs and all that nonsense.

I think all religion is bogus, the difference is that I don't judge based on their religious beliefs. There are more than 1.8 billion muslims in the world and I am not judging them based on the actions of a few.

It's a bogus claim that you say that you don't hate the people, only their practice. You've been spamming the forum with your hate towards muslims and their religion.

I don't judge Islam because leaders like those in Iran hi-jacked the religion for their own good and use it as a tool to remain in power. I have never met an atheist who hates a specific religion like you do, you're most like religious yourself which makes the whole thing even more stupid

[Patrick Chewing]

I need to stoop down to your level so that you understand me instead of jump to some asinine conclusion.


1. I am not an atheist. I'm a Christian.


2. And let me get this straight, you don't judge Islam because of Iranian leaders and Iranian politics??


So 9/11 terrorists, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. don't elicit a response from you??

:biggums:

[millwad]

Millwad as someone from Sweden, can you comment on the muslim influence there? I keep hearing they are ruining Sweden while the government isn't doing anything to stop it. I read some articles about the increase in sexual abuse there while the PC media tries to cover up the fact it's done mostly by muslims.

What's actually true though? As a resident what's your view on it?

First of all, there's a lot of propaganda going on regarding the situation in Sweden. We had FOX News in the third biggest city here, Malm

[millwad]

I need to stoop down to your level so that you understand me instead of jump to some asinine conclusion.


1. I am not an atheist. I'm a Christian.


2. And let me get this straight, you don't judge Islam because of Iranian leaders and Iranian politics??


So 9/11 terrorists, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. don't elicit a response from you??

:biggums:

You are not stepping down to anyone's level, you're an imbecile and your hate only proves how ignorant and uneducated you really are.

Pretty original of a Christian to hate another religion, Christian countries with Christian values, like the US are abusing other countries on daily basis yet you never use their actions as proof to why Christianity is bogus and stupid. Christian countries have Christian values, by your logic we should rant about how awful Christianity is as well.

Just look how ignorant you are to start with, you use the 9/11 attack, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. as a tool to hate on the religion. I don't judge 1.8 billion people based on the actions of a bogus fraction of them.

The biggest muslim population in the world is in Indonesia, I don't judge 209 million people based on the actions of some few extremists who are not even existing in the same country.

And last but not least, judging by what I just wrote even you would be able to realize that I don't judge muslims and Islam in general because of the actions of a few extremists.

[Nanners]

How do yo have time to post dude, shouldnt you be on a peace corp mission or somethin? Youre such a caring sharing liberal, right? What are you doing in the corporate capitalist first world postin on a privately owned basketball board? GTFO hypocrite.

the fvck are you talking about idiot?

now liberals arent allowed to have free time or post opinions on the internet?

how do you have free time to post? you worthless neocon piece of shit, shouldnt you be out protesting against illegal immigrants or attending a klan meeting or something? GTFO hypocrite

[Patrick Chewing]

You are not stepping down to anyone's level, you're an imbecile and your hate only proves how ignorant and uneducated you really are.

Pretty original of a Christian to hate another religion, Christian countries with Christian values, like the US are abusing other countries on daily basis yet you never use their actions as proof to why Christianity is bogus and stupid. Christian countries have Christian values, by your logic we should rant about how awful Christianity is as well.

Just look how ignorant you are to start with, you use the 9/11 attack, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. as a tool to hate on the religion. I don't judge 1.8 billion people based on the actions of a bogus fraction of them.

The biggest muslim population in the world is in Indonesia, I don't judge 209 million people based on the actions of some few extremists who are not even existing in the same country.

And last but not least, judging by what I just wrote even you would be able to realize that I don't judge muslims and Islam in general because of the actions of a few extremists.


And neither am I. I am not judging the people based on the acts of the terrorists, I'm judging based on the barbaric nature of their faith that they still practice today.

Everyone wants to come back with "Well Christianity was just as violent." "Spanish Inquisition blah blah blah". Yes, and since then, Christianity has reformed itself. The Spanish Inquisition was 600 years ago. Islam is still beheading, still stoning, still fasting, still subjecting their women to rape and violence and abuse.

Moderate Islam doesn't speak out against these terrorists because they are in fear for their lives. This makes them just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Islam must be reformed.

[Nanners]

chris hedges takes the meat axe to everything sam harris has to say about foreign policy by quoting four sentences from harris' most recent book (at the time of this exchange) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE&t=59m55s)

:applause:

sam harris is a smart guy and very talented at this type of debate, but he cant hang with a true intellectual like hedges. you are spot on with your criticism of harris in this thread.

[9erempiree]

Looks like people think Islam is a piece of shit.

[Inactive]

And neither am I. I am not judging the people based on the acts of the terrorists, I'm judging based on the barbaric nature of their faith that they still practice today.

Everyone wants to come back with "Well Christianity was just as violent." "Spanish Inquisition blah blah blah". Yes, and since then, Christianity has reformed itself.In what way did Christianity reform itself? Did the Bible change? Was the nature of Christianity barbaric in Yugoslavia 20 years ago? Is it barbaric in central Africa today?

[millwad]

And neither am I. I am not judging the people based on the acts of the terrorists, I'm judging based on the barbaric nature of their faith that they still practice today.

Everyone wants to come back with "Well Christianity was just as violent." "Spanish Inquisition blah blah blah". Yes, and since then, Christianity has reformed itself. The Spanish Inquisition was 600 years ago. Islam is still beheading, still stoning, still fasting, still subjecting their women to rape and violence and abuse.

Moderate Islam doesn't speak out against these terrorists because they are in fear for their lives. This makes them just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Islam must be reformed.


That is just a worthless rant, you have zero understanding or knowledge regarding what you're talking about.

"Islam" is not beheading, stoning, raping or abusing, you're just an idiot and that's a fact. You are judging the people based on the actions of extremists and corrupt leaders and the funny thing is that the US has a great share of responsibility in it as well.

In that case, the Christian country Uganda approved a law regarding that same sex relationships could lead to death or life in prison. You don't see me bashing all the Christians in the world for a small share of extremist beliefs, don't you?

You don't see me bash Christianity for all the criminal acts the US has done towards other countries these last decades, a country with strong Christian values, right?

I don't give a shit about Islam to be honest, my personal belief is that all religion are equal with nonsense but I don't judge people, you do.

And if you'd know politics you'd know that the US has been trying to unstabilize the Middle East for decades. Abuse only give the extremists more followers, simple logic.

[millwad]

In what way did Christianity reform itself? Did the Bible change? Was the nature of Christianity barbaric in Yugoslavia 20 years ago? Is it barbaric in central Africa today?

As an atheist I can't stop laughing about the fact that the biggest Islam hating poster is a religious man himself, a Christian.

He is blaming muslims and Islam for everything, he goes on unreadable rants on daily basis where he uses muslims and Islam as scapegoats for everything bad that's going on today in our world.

It's like if I would bash Christianity for the same sex relationship hatred that's going on in countries like Uganda, where you can get killed for being a homosexual. Uganda, a country with Christian beliefs.

[RidonKs]

Islam is a violent, oppressive religion. Through its historic teachings and through what we see today with all the violence. I am a Conservative, not a Progressive, but with Islam, I fully support a radical Progressive change within that culture. I don't hate the people, I hate their practice.

I would much rather debate an atheist than try and justify freedom of and from religion with a Muslim.

And the term "Moderate Muslim" is a joke and a farce. It's just an excuse to excuse radical Islam. The most moderate of Muslims still starve themselves, still force their women to wear hijabs and all that nonsense.
finally we get to listen to somebody speak on islam who has no experience with it whatsoever! such a refreshing perspective! thanks patrick chewing!

[Dresta]

That is just a worthless rant, you have zero understanding or knowledge regarding what you're talking about.

"Islam" is not beheading, stoning, raping or abusing, you're just an idiot and that's a fact. You are judging the people based on the actions of extremists and corrupt leaders and the funny thing is that the US has a great share of responsibility in it as well.

In that case, the Christian country Uganda approved a law regarding that same sex relationships could lead to death or life in prison. You don't see me bashing all the Christians in the world for a small share of extremist beliefs, don't you?

You don't see me bash Christianity for all the criminal acts the US has done towards other countries these last decades, a country with strong Christian values, right?

I don't give a shit about Islam to be honest, my personal belief is that all religion are equal with nonsense but I don't judge people, you do.

And if you'd know politics you'd know that the US has been trying to unstabilize the Middle East for decades. Abuse only give the extremists more followers, simple logic.Well, then your 'personal belief' is simply wrong: all religions may very well be equally untrue, but they clearly differ, and if they differ, then they can't be viewed equally without your treating each one unequally. Islam still makes the grandest claims of any religion, claiming to be the 'final' revelation, and making it particularly resistant against any kind of reform. It is also the only religion posing a clear threat to the national security of Western nations, and providing the ideal set of excuses to turn ignorant and stupid young men into sadistic psychopaths. It is the only religion bringing in swaths of immigrants who live by their own laws in our countries, and who run off to butcher and kill people who don't share their idiotic beliefs.

The US has been trying to 'unstabilize' the Middle East for decades? The region has been fractured and in turmoil far longer than that, and it is clearly in turmoil right now because of the fanatical religion at its centre.

God knows why anyone would think Ben Affleck worth listening to on this matter (or any matter, in fact).

[Dresta]

:applause:

sam harris is a smart guy and very talented at this type of debate, but he cant hang with a true intellectual like hedges. you are spot on with your criticism of harris in this thread.
:roll:

Hedges? One of the most pathetic intellectual forces in American politics Chris Hedges? The Chris Hedges who can't write a thing without appealing to maudlin sentimentality? Chris Hedges the writer who can't turn a phrase that he hasn't borrowed?

Wow, how sad it is that this is your definition of a 'true intellectual' - all the man need do is be a socialist and defend suicide bombing lunatics and write in a newspaper and he'll have your unwavering support from here on out i take it?

Some closing thoughts on the likes of Chris Hedges:


Hitchens: It's exact equivalent of the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It's this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there's been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won't listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.
...

Religion consists now, we find, no longer of moral absolutes. It used to be, when I debated with religious types, they would say, 'Yes, circumcision is good; *********ion is bad. We know this, because God tells us so. Hacking of the genitals of a child with a sharp stone is divine; touching them with a hand -- not so great.' We know -- so we knew where we were. We were absolute. Now [gesturing towards Chris Hedges] it's all relative. Now it's all completely relative. It's made up a la carte and cherry-picked by mediocre pseudo-intellectuals who want you to believe that the following thing that would have happened -- in the year, in the month of the year that the liberation of Iraq took place, that finally, after an endless thesaurus of United Nations resolutions condemning every aspect of its regime, that Iraq was free from the proprietorship of Saddam Hussein -- that was March, 2003 -- do you know what would have happened in April, 2003? Iraq was going to be the chair of the United Nations Special Committee on Disarmament. Some people think that would have been a better outcome. More humane, more legal, less troubling, altogether more dealable with. Just as Iran and Libya have just been re-elected to that very Committee on Disarmament at the United Nations. I ask you: You pick that kind of relativism, you'll also find you're dealing with a very surreptitious form of absolutism, which is only capable of describing as fascistic relatively comical forces (who I've denounced up- and downhill all my life in the United States), but cannot use the word totalitarianism about the religion that actually conducts jihad, actually organizes totalitarianism, actually inflicts misery, pain, unemployment, and despair upon millions of people, and then claims what it has done as the license for suicide and murder. A perfect picture [gesturing towards Chris Hedges] has been given to you of the cretinous relationship between sloppy moral relativism, half-baked religious absolutism, and the journalism that lies in between.

Thank you.

I find it hilarious how the biggest left-wing moralisers are always the ones who justify the most disgusting and outrageous acts, because they are so sure they're in the right of course. Hedges would side with Satan if Satan were opposed to the United States. Likewise, fellow lovers of mankind George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells favoured eugenics and the removal of millions of their fellow men so long as the socialist dream could be obtained! What great men! What fine intellectuals!!

[Dresta]

a great example of word games and humour that sam uses as a rhetorical device.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE&t=41m13s)


this is just such an unbelievable red herring, as are his following words. when he's talking with religious nutjobs like william lane craig or one of those rabiid jews or even the hosts on fox news, sure he sounds like a goddamn genius. he's arguing for a position that's practically self-evident in those cases. but as soon as he dips his toes in real world issues, he is waaaaay out of his element and its completely transparent.

i really admire his ability to speak. i disagree with him fundamentally on most issues to be perfectly honest but the man has an uncanny ability to hold your attention. which is why he is so popular.:rolleyes:

How can you say what Sam Harris says is a Red Herring when the question he was asked is the definition of one. The MOD declares Iraq a secular country despite Saddam Hussein having but 'God is Great' on the Iraqi flag, despite his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers, despite his having a Koran written in out of his own blood.

Sounds real secular to me. About how North Korea can be called 'secular' when its leader is effectively a God.

[poido123]

Let's get all the murky shit out of the way.

Here are the things that bother people about Muslims:

1. Poor assimilation. They constantly whine of oppression, they demand rights in a land which supports Christian values. Moderate Muslims do not do enough to expose potential/current extremists.

2. Deflection. The Muslim apologists are unbearable as the Muslims themselves. They cannot understand the criticism they get, so they point to anything they can deflect the attention away.

3. Outspoken. Here in Australia, we have a very multicultural society. We have experienced more issues with Muslims than any other migrants. They even protested against the pre-emptive raids and cried oppression. There were women in these communities condemning the police officers, yet a muslim man had attacked two police officers with a knife and nearly killed both of them.


Here's the affect of Islam in Brittain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6U6Hhy_2M

Here's the protests happening in Sydney Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg0OMM2T1qQ


If you cannot see how these people are forming a cancer in Western nations, I don't know what to say.

Wake your eyes up people. This fascist ideology is going to ruin the world.

[Nanners]

:roll:

Hedges? One of the most pathetic intellectual forces in American politics Chris Hedges? The Chris Hedges who can't write a thing without appealing to maudlin sentimentality? Chris Hedges the writer who can't turn a phrase that he hasn't borrowed?

Wow, how sad it is that this is your definition of a 'true intellectual' - all the man need do is be a socialist and defend suicide bombing lunatics and write in a newspaper and he'll have your unwavering support from here on out i take it?

Some closing thoughts on the likes of Chris Hedges:



I find it hilarious how the biggest left-wing moralisers are always the ones who justify the most disgusting and outrageous acts, because they are so sure they're in the right of course. Hedges would side with Satan if Satan were opposed to the United States. Likewise, fellow lovers of mankind George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells favoured eugenics and the removal of millions of their fellow men so long as the socialist dream could be obtained! What great men! What fine intellectuals!!

:oldlol:


if you are going to reduce hedges to "socialist who defends suicide bombers", then i am going to reduce you to "spiteful douchebag who tries in vain to appear intelligent by picking big words out of his thesaurus to post in his late night basketball message board rants"

[longtime lurker]

Good on Affleck for maintaining some reason in this whole debate. It's funny that as the US starts ramping up to go to war you'll see more and more attacks on Islam disguised as debates. I wonder if Maher would ever have a guest knowledgeable about Islam instead of Ben Affleck

[ALBballer]

ah sorry. i know you're originally from the former yugoslavia but i dunno why i assumed u weren't raised muslim.

do you connect your alienation from islam to the ongoing violence that we read about every day concerning countries in the middle east as well as islamist terrorist cells operating all over the world? or was it more of a raw rejection of religion in general?

Nah my alienation is not due terrorism because I feel Western Imperialism has had a large effect of on this perceived problem.

My issue is with the religion itself. I do consider myself agnostic and think organized religions are a farce but think Islam is the most dangerous and hateful of all religions.

[RidonKs]

Nah my alienation is not due terrorism because I feel Western Imperialism has had a large effect of on this perceived problem.

My issue is with the religion itself. I do consider myself agnostic and think organized religions are a farce but think Islam is the most dangerous and hateful of all religions.
hmm interesting man. i mean it's not hard to see what you mean. at the same time i'm always careful to evaluate religions not just on raw scripture and not just on contemporary relevance but on historical application. and in that sense, islam is no more dangerous or hateful than most other major religions. obviously including judaism, christianity, hinduism. most of the time these doctrines are used to destructive ends, it's because they're dripping with nationalism.

[RidonKs]

How can you say what Sam Harris says is a Red Herring when the question he was asked is the definition of one. The MOD declares Iraq a secular country despite Saddam Hussein having but 'God is Great' on the Iraqi flag, despite his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers, despite his having a Koran written in out of his own blood.
lol just these few sentences you just wrote don't make any sense and for a very simple reason. in the section of the video i linked, the moderator refers to iraq as a secular country; not to saddam hussein as a secular individual.

now if you want to argue iraq wasn't a largely secular country at the time of the invasion, well i'm sure with enough research you could put together a pretty compelling argument. religion is everywhere and typically not very deep beneath the surface. but if you're going to make such an argument, your evidence is going to have to be much better than references to the iraqi flag, what saddam spent his money on, and this other batshit insane allegation you're making about his koran that may or may not be true... i have no idea if it's true, but if you follow my logic, you can see why i would see that fact or fiction as entirely irrelevant.

the moderator isn't committing a red herring. he's responding to Harris who insists that the muhammad cartoon controversy is a direct result of scripture. bear in mind this is at the very beginning of a 45 minute exchange and, as i see it, the moderator proceeds in the part i quoted to make a broad and sweeping challenge to harris' very premise; as he says, that "its religion that drives the insanity". that isn't a red herring whatsoever.

so in short, i don't know what you're talking about here.

[Dresta]

:oldlol:


if you are going to reduce hedges to "socialist who defends suicide bombers", then i am going to reduce you to "spiteful douchebag who tries in vain to appear intelligent by picking big words out of his thesaurus to post in his late night basketball message board rants"
I am because that's pretty much all he is other than a tedious and jargon-filled writer. The stuff he says and writes is propagandistic hogwash; things as demonstrably incorrect and imbecilic as 'FDR saved capitalism', who thinks he lives under the totalitarian rule of the "corporate superstructure" and lots of other fabricated concepts. As a typical socialist bad things in society are attributable to this mythical evil entity known as the corporation.

Though an "idiot socialist who defends the scum of the earth so he can pretend he's protecting the oppressed common man and thus fulfil his narcissistic collectivist delusions" would be a more accurate definition of the man.

I don't know what your problem is but it's pretty obvious you suffer from a lot of insecurity; i write in plain English, and if you can't understand it then that's really your problem. But i get it man, railing against writing in your native tongue with a vocab of more than 500 words is the thing with kids these days. I know how disdained it is and was at school for someone to actually read something away from the syllabus!!! Attitudes like yours are why people are so stupid: congrats.

[RidonKs]

:roll:

Hedges? One of the most pathetic intellectual forces in American politics Chris Hedges? The Chris Hedges who can't write a thing without appealing to maudlin sentimentality? Chris Hedges the writer who can't turn a phrase that he hasn't borrowed?

Wow, how sad it is that this is your definition of a 'true intellectual' - all the man need do is be a socialist and defend suicide bombing lunatics and write in a newspaper and he'll have your unwavering support from here on out i take it?

Some closing thoughts on the likes of Chris Hedges:



I find it hilarious how the biggest left-wing moralisers are always the ones who justify the most disgusting and outrageous acts, because they are so sure they're in the right of course. Hedges would side with Satan if Satan were opposed to the United States. Likewise, fellow lovers of mankind George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells favoured eugenics and the removal of millions of their fellow men so long as the socialist dream could be obtained! What great men! What fine intellectuals!!
christopher hitchens is a smart man and you do well to quote him. you do far less well to dismiss the entire body of work of a man who has a phd and has spent decades covering ethnic conflicts in latin america and the middle east for the new york times... and who in my opinion does very good work.

call him pathetic if you'd like. laugh at his work. i have little doubt that you are sorely unfamiliar with his work but hey, it's your prerogative.

my definition of a good intellectual has nothing to do with either socialism or suicide bombings. if you'd like, i could provide you with a very substantive list of scholars who's work i appreciate who explicitly reject the principle of the socialist utopia and who also revile suicide bombers.

now if i wanted to, and i might some time in the future, i reckon i could have a good time parsing through that chris hitchens quote and trying to explain why it's not my cup of tea. i think i could make pretty convincing arguments, and i've read/heard more than enough of mr hitchens to have a grasp of his standard line of thinking on these subjects.

but i'm not going to waste my time doing that. if you want to explain to me in your own words why Chris Hedges is so objectionable to you, with specific reference to the debate with Sam Harris that i linked, i'd be happy to engage in that discourse with you. if you aren't willing to take that time, well i suppose this conversation will end in the same way all of our other conversations seem to end; with a cliffhanger.



though on that note and as it happens, i did read with a great deal of interest your post in response to my inquiry on the german education system. i've been speaking about it with my roommate who is familiar with it through friends and it's all very fascinating and nowhere near as black and white as i realized.

[Dresta]

lol just these few sentences you just wrote don't make any sense and for a very simple reason. in the section of the video i linked, the moderator refers to iraq as a secular country; not to saddam hussein as a secular individual.

now if you want to argue iraq wasn't a largely secular country at the time of the invasion, well i'm sure with enough research you could put together a pretty compelling argument. religion is everywhere and typically not very deep beneath the surface. but if you're going to make such an argument, your evidence is going to have to be much better than references to the iraqi flag, what saddam spent his money on, and this other batshit insane allegation you're making about his koran that may or may not be true... i have no idea if it's true, but if you follow my logic, you can see why i would see that fact or fiction as entirely irrelevant.

the moderator isn't committing a red herring. he's responding to Harris who insists that the muhammad cartoon controversy is a direct result of scripture. bear in mind this is at the very beginning of a 45 minute exchange and, as i see it, the moderator proceeds in the part i quoted to make a broad and sweeping challenge to harris' very premise; as he says, that "its religion that drives the insanity". that isn't a red herring whatsoever.

so in short, i don't know what you're talking about here.
You really have no right to tell anyone they aren't making sense. Almost no one on this site makes less sense than you do. If you can't see the point you are lost: it is clear as ****ing day.

It is true:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/19/saddam-legacy-quran-iraqi-government

And it isn't irrelevant. The man and the regime were not secular, he supported and aided islamic terrorism, and spent his time exterminating the all the secularists in the region. It shouldn't be so confusing for you, really.

[RidonKs]

You really have no right to tell anyone they aren't making sense. Almost no one on this site makes less sense than you do. If you can't see the point you are lost: it is clear as ****ing day.

It is true:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/19/saddam-legacy-quran-iraqi-government

And it isn't irrelevant. The man was not secular, he supported and aided islamic terrorism, and spent his time exterminating the all the secularists in the region. It shouldn't be so confusing for you, really.
are you even bothering to read what i'm writing? do you deny the distinction between the religious/secular nature of a society and the religion/secular nature of the tyrant in charge? i mean this is plain as a fking sunrise dude. if i'm not making any sense, well i can only hope the problem is on the receiving end as opposed to with the messenger.

great. saddam wrote a koran with his own blood. that's absolutely true and we're in complete agreement on the matter. and i don't give a flying shit. because saddam hussein was on the front pages for decades prior to his execution. i know more than enough about this man to have long ago concluded that he is extremely authoritarian, extremely dangerous, and extremely hateful. whether that's due to his religion or not is besides the point.

we were having a different conversation. about iraqi society. which is as different as north korean society is from kim jung il or iranian society is from the ayatollah or the deep american south is from bill clinton.

please tell me you aren't falling behind in class again dresta.

[Nanners]

I don't know what your problem is but it's pretty obvious you suffer from a lot of insecurity; i write in plain English, and if you can't understand it then that's really your problem. But i get it man, railing against writing in your native tongue with a vocab of more than 500 words is the thing with kids these days. I know how disdained it is and was at school for someone to actually read something away from the syllabus!!! Attitudes like yours are why people are so stupid: congrats.

:roll:

I can understand what you write just fine, you pompous jackass.

Go ahead and keep typing like you are some kind of 18th century englishman with a stick up his ass if you really think it makes your hateful bullshit sound more intelligent, but you should know that most people arent fooled by that crap.

edit: and lol at this moron who argued for days that cigarettes dont cause cancer saying that I am why people are stupid.... thats just rich

[RidonKs]

i dunno nanners i remember that cigarettes thread and i think dresta was making some solid points.... certainly he was adamant that second hand smoke was most government propagated fraud. i don't think he cited any research of his own but the research others cited in evidence was quite flimsy.

this is all from memory though so i may be waaaaaay off

[Nanners]

i dunno nanners i remember that cigarettes thread and i think dresta was making some solid points.... certainly he was adamant that second hand smoke was most government propagated fraud. i don't think he cited any research of his own but the research others cited in evidence was quite flimsy.

this is all from memory though so i may be waaaaaay off

well if he was only arguing that "second hand smoke is government propagated fraud" then i guess he is totally not a moron at all :oldlol:

dresta is basically what you would get if you had a literature major typing up bruinloves thoughts

[RidonKs]

well if he was only arguing that "second hand smoke is government propagated fraud" then i guess he is totally not a moron at all :oldlol:

dresta is basically what you would get if you had a literature major typing up bruinloves thoughts
lol i just remember that being the part i interjected on because i was surprised about the claim... though i do feel like proving the link between smoking and cancer is much harder than people probably think. i just read a nifty interview Vice Magazine did with Bill Nye the Science Guy and he briefly mentions that in his mind, the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change is probably better supported than the smoking/cancer connection.

now i don't know if thats true. but bill strikes me as a reasonably reliable source for the subject :lol

[Dresta]

are you even bothering to read what i'm writing? do you deny the distinction between the religious/secular nature of a society and the religion/secular nature of the tyrant in charge? i mean this is plain as a fking sunrise dude. if i'm not making any sense, well i can only hope the problem is on the receiving end as opposed to with the messenger.

great. saddam wrote a koran with his own blood. that's absolutely true and we're in complete agreement on the matter. and i don't give a flying shit. because saddam hussein was on the front pages for decades prior to his execution. i know more than enough about this man to have long ago concluded that he is extremely authoritarian, extremely dangerous, and extremely hateful. whether that's due to his religion or not is besides the point.

we were having a different conversation. about iraqi society. which is as different as north korean society is from kim jung il or iranian society is from the ayatollah or the deep american south is from bill clinton.

please tell me you aren't falling behind in class again dresta.
Wait... so now you're saying the citizenry define the national religion? But Iraq still wouldn't be secular in that case - the country is currently, and historically Islamic.


:roll:

I can understand what you write just fine, you pompous jackass.

Go ahead and keep typing like you are some kind of 18th century englishman with a stick up his ass if you really think it makes your hateful bullshit sound more intelligent, but you should know that most people arent fooled by that crap.

edit: and lol at this moron who argued for days that cigarettes dont cause cancer saying that I am why people are stupid.... thats just rich
Ah, i see you have reached new levels of anti-intellectual snobbery: to attack someone for writing grammatically and precisely as being 'some kind of 18th century englishmen with a stick up his ass' for doing so (you obviously haven't read any of these though, but feel free to compare me to them!). And of course it's me spreading 'hateful bullshit' even though you persist in making up lies about me. I've never said cigarettes don't magnify the risk of a lot of illnesses (including some cancers - the expression 'cigarettes cause cancer' is, strictly speaking, incorrect), but so do lots of things, particularly if you do them all day every day for decades. The modern anger AND discrimination against smokers (because this is what it is, and it is YOU who are being hateful and intolerant) is a natural consequence of it not fitting with a dogmatic democratic ideology that values cost/utility analysis over all else (thus health, security, safe and long life) and cannot understand the world viewed any other way.

It's sad you can't see through your own bullshit because it's so inane.

[RidonKs]

Wait... so now you're saying the citizenry define the national religion? But Iraq still wouldn't be secular in that case - the country is currently, and historically Islamic.
listen man. this isn't complicated. you took issue with something the moderator said, which is that iraq was "a secular country" at the time it was invaded by the united states. you've backed up your contention by citing the iraqi flag, direction of state funds under saddam's control, saddam's personal koran, and now... you're just broadly citing history as evidence against this man's claim.

basically you're doing an abnormally poor job of elaborating on your reasoning as well as backing your conclusion up with evidence to support your claims.

i would suggest you try again.



i am not saying "the citizenry defines the national religion". but i am saying that when determining how religious or secular an entire society is, one should probably appreciate to a much greater extent than you do the simple distinction between the dictator running the show (against the will of most of the people) and the people who take his orders. so well the citizenry may not define the national religion in any official sense, it is certainly the source to turn to with regard to precisely what we're talking about; "is iraq a secular country", again the original quote you took issue with.

give it another go i guess? or give up it doesn't really make much difference to me and i don't expect this conversation to go very far.

[kNicKz]

I like americans debating about Islam. Makes complete sense

Are you saying that being Muslim ≠ being American? lol

[Dresta]

listen man. this isn't complicated. you took issue with something the moderator said, which is that iraq was "a secular country" at the time it was invaded by the united states. you've backed up your contention by citing the iraqi flag, direction of state funds under saddam's control, saddam's personal koran, and now... you're just broadly citing history as evidence against this man's claim.

basically you're doing an abnormally poor job of elaborating on your reasoning as well as backing your conclusion up with evidence to support your claims.

i would suggest you try again.


i am not saying "the citizenry defines the national religion". but i am saying that when determining how religious or secular an entire society is, one should probably appreciate to a much greater extent than you do the simple distinction between the dictator running the show (against the will of most of the people) and the people who take his orders. so well the citizenry may not define the national religion in any official sense, it is certainly the source to turn to with regard to precisely what we're talking about; "is iraq a secular country", again the original quote you took issue with.

give it another go i guess? or give up it doesn't really make much difference to me and i don't expect this conversation to go very far.
What are you talking about? The society was still Islamic. You haven't yet forwarded a single argument as to why you or that moderator should deem Iraqi society secular. I can't even see why you think you are making sense here - what you're saying is simply incomprehensible to me I guess...

[kNIOKAS]

Are you saying that being Muslim ≠ being American? lol
No, not really. To me it's not that vague what it's about. It's about americans debating about something that is not american. That's so hard to grasp, looking at everything through those american lenses. Their love to call things left and right, liberal and conservative while actually those terms are understood quite differently in the world. It permeats debating the religion or anything... At least get a muslim in the studio - he may be american, at least they'd be on the same page terms-wise.

[RidonKs]

What are you talking about? The society was still Islamic. You haven't yet forwarded a single argument as to why you or that moderator should deem Iraqi society secular. I can't even see why you think you are making sense here - what you're saying is simply incomprehensible to me I guess...
i haven't tried to lay out any kind of an argument as to what makes iraq more or less secular. it should be no surprise that we're having such a hard time hearing each other on this issue. it's extremely complicated.

i'm letting the facts of the matter rest, whatever they are. i posted a video to expose sam harris as a posturing charlatan... a clever one with strong instincts and fantastic rhetorical skills, but nevertheless a charlatan. i introduced this thread to a red herring i thought was perfectly obvious.

you responded to a single sentence in the moderator's question that boiled down to "iraq was a secular society". you disagreed with this and thought it was just plain obvious why everybody should know what the moderator was saying is foolish.

you then proceeded to offer evidence to back up your claim, or in other words counterevidence to rebut the claims of the moderator.

your evidence was exceedingly weak and proved absolutely nothing to do with the moderator's topic. now you are insisting i provide evidence in support of what the moderator said. i have not once in this exchange presumed to know for certain whether the moderator was right or wrong in this microcosm of his analysis. you have. and you haven't explained why.

[NumberSix]

you responded to a single sentence in the moderator's question that boiled down to "iraq was a secular society". you disagreed with this and thought it was just plain obvious why everybody should know what the moderator was saying is foolish.
Perhaps if he had said "secular government", that might be plausible but "secular society"? Come on now. Let's not be completely ridiculous.

Even the "secular government" claim is a bit of a stretch. The "Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party" was almost entirely Sunni with a few Christians like Tariq Aziz (who had to publicly pretend to be muslim). Were they explicitly sunni-centric? No, but they're political goals were goals that sunnis would be in favour of and shi'a would obviously not be.

[Booz Vivic]

bill maher is scum

[Patrick Chewing]

In what way did Christianity reform itself? Did the Bible change? Was the nature of Christianity barbaric in Yugoslavia 20 years ago? Is it barbaric in central Africa today?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

[Patrick Chewing]

finally we get to listen to somebody speak on islam who has no experience with it whatsoever! such a refreshing perspective! thanks patrick chewing!


Everything I've mentioned about Islam is irrefutable fact. Idiotic apologists on this board actually think there is nothing wrong within that faith. Wow.

[Inactive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_ReformationThe Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with making Christianity more peaceful, less barbaric, or more tolerant. It didn't replace the Catholic, and Orthodox churches either. I don't see how it is in any way relevant, aside from containing the word "reform".

[NumberSix]

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with making Christianity more peaceful, less barbaric, or more tolerant. It didn't replace the Catholic, and Orthodox churches either. I don't see how it is in any way relevant, aside from containing the word "reform".
ISH. Where Christianity is horrifically barbaric and Islam is purely peaceful

[Inactive]

ISH. Where Christianity is horrifically barbaric and Islam is purely peacefulAll of the Abrahamic religions are backwards, and barbaric. One of them isn't worse than any other.

[NumberSix]

All of the Abrahamic religions are backwards, and barbaric. One of them isn't worse than any other.
This^ kind of thinking makes you a fool. A dangerous fool.

The one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by God AFTER you die is not EQUAL to the one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by humans now.

God wants me to tell you that you will be punished in hell > God wants me to kill you

[Inactive]

This^ kind of thinking makes you a fool. A dangerous fool.

The one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by God AFTER you die
None of them say that. None of them have been interpreted that way historically.

the one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by humans now.All of them say that. All of them have been interpreted that way historically.

[ThePhantomCreep]

ISH. Where Christianity is horrifically barbaric and Islam is purely peaceful

...and strawman arguments are a way of life.

[Patrick Chewing]

One of them isn't worse than any other.


Just plain stupid. :facepalm

[RidonKs]

This^ kind of thinking makes you a fool. A dangerous fool.

The one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by God AFTER you die is not EQUAL to the one that says you're a bad person and will be punished by humans now.

God wants me to tell you that you will be punished in hell > God wants me to kill you
and yet throughout history all three abrahamic religions have practised and preached both sides of this coin; they insist you're a sinner so you're going to hell and they threaten to kill you to send you to hell.

so the distinction you're entering, while moderately tenable with regard to today, completely falls apart as soon as you go back just a few decades let alone a few centuries. and over that long period of time, the scriptures you're talking about have barely changed, yet they have been interpreted in every way imaginable.

which leads to the obvious conclusion that anybody with a brain should have arrived at by now; the scripture does not necessarily cause the violence. if the scripture did cause the violence, then islamic terrorism would have much longer history than it does and the crusades would have never ended and the jews would still be doing whatever the jews used to do before everybody started killing them.

but of course thats not the way history reads, is it?

[Patrick Chewing]

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with making Christianity more peaceful, less barbaric, or more tolerant. It didn't replace the Catholic, and Orthodox churches either. I don't see how it is in any way relevant, aside from containing the word "reform".


Of course you don't see it cause you still think Christians are burning witches at the stake apparently.

My point is that Christianity has reformed at various points in its History. Back then the Catholic Church was the end all be all. It governed the Western World. It does not any longer. Islam is still slicing people's heads off like they did 1000 years ago.

To "not see" how Christianity is not on the same stratosphere of barbarism as Islam is just means you're just a dumb, blind son of a bitch.

[RidonKs]

Of course you don't see it cause you still think Christians are burning witches at the stake apparently.

My point is that Christianity has reformed at various points in its History. Back then the Catholic Church was the end all be all. It governed the Western World. It does not any longer. Islam is still slicing people's heads off like they did 1000 years ago.

To "not see" how Christianity is not on the same stratosphere of barbarism as Islam is just means you're just a dumb, blind son of a bitch.
i'll address you politely just this once to see how you respond


Well Mr Chewing, while you write cogently and coherently, I'm not sure you are appreciating the significant overlap between these religions.

Each of the Abrahamic religions are based on scripture that offers both a lot of peace and a lot of barbarism. A lot of wisdom and a lot of racism. A lot of good and a lot of evil. That much we should be able to agree on. If you really give a close reading to the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran, you will find as much heinous atrocity in one as you will in the next. That's a fact and it's extremely easy to prove. If you disagree however, please let me know.

Now the distinction that's necessary to enter at this point is between a) the scripture and b) interpretation of the scripture.

Clearly right now today as I type this, the same scripture is being interpreted differently all over the world. Since there are billions of practitioners of both Islam and Christianity. Additionally, since these doctrines have been around for such a long time, we have ample historical documentation demonstrating that the same doctrine was interpreted differently from one decade to the next. And often times the new interpretation was dangerous and violence.

Now how could it possibly be that it is INHERENTLY the wording documented in the Quran that is causing ongoing Islamic violence when those same words has FAILED to have that effect not just all over the world but unquestionably throughout history.

Your remark that Islam was cutting people's heads off a thousand years ago does not necessarily imply that all practitioners of Islam have been cutting people's heads off for thousands of years.

I feel unfortunate to be the one to have to tell you Mr Chewing -- and doubly so for the fact that I can't do it with my usual dismissive candor I typically save for people just like you -- that your entire belief system with regard to this topic is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. With enough people holding your point of view, it could very plausibly lead to a lot more Muslim deaths in the future. If you have already weighed those consequences and accepted them as reasonable in exchange for the destruction of Islam, that is well within your right as an American citizen goddamnit.




alright enough of that:wtf:

[Derka]

I like americans debating about Islam. Makes complete sense

F*cking A, so much THIS.

[Dresta]

and yet throughout history all three abrahamic religions have practised and preached both sides of this coin; they insist you're a sinner so you're going to hell and they threaten to kill you to send you to hell.

so the distinction you're entering, while moderately tenable with regard to today, completely falls apart as soon as you go back just a few decades let alone a few centuries. and over that long period of time, the scriptures you're talking about have barely changed, yet they have been interpreted in every way imaginable.

which leads to the obvious conclusion that anybody with a brain should have arrived at by now; the scripture does not necessarily cause the violence. if the scripture did cause the violence, then islamic terrorism would have much longer history than it does and the crusades would have never ended and the jews would still be doing whatever the jews used to do before everybody started killing them.

but of course thats not the way history reads, is it?
Well done captain obvious: that's like saying the rape and abuse of children doesn't necessarily cause them to develop personality disorders, or to hurt their enjoyment of the rest of their lives. Likewise, indoctrinating your children in a barbaric ideology, doesn't necessarily turn them into mass-murdering psychopaths, but it helps, and in many cases it clearly has allowed these people to sever their consciences.

You also assume 'islamic terrorism' has a short history because its current form (aided modern technology, basically) is all you associate with it; Islamic terrorism actually has a very long history, and the US has been involved with countering the actions of Islamic terrorists for over 200 years now. One of the first things Jefferson did as President did was crush the Barbary pirates (without the permission of congress), who were abducting and enslaving Americans on the high seas. Years before when he had spoken to the ambassador of Tripoli he asked 'we have no enmity or contentious history with you, we have never been at war with you or wronged your people, unlike the European powers, so why do you abduct our merchants, why do you force Americans into slavery' - and as Jefferson wrote in 1786:

'The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right an duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.'

So no, none of this is new. Just because it's been given the modern word of terrorism, doesn't mean the sentiment hasn't been there for centuries (because it has). Funnily enough John Adams said this about the Barbary pirates 'we ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.'

And we are still fighting them, even if people like you are determined to ignore the obvious, and wilfully remain ignorant so you can believe in the self-evidently untrue belief that all religions are the same or equal - they are different and therefore unequal BY DEFINITION.


i'll address you politely just this once to see how you respond

Well Mr Chewing, while you write cogently and coherently, I'm not sure you are appreciating the significant overlap between these religions.

Each of the Abrahamic religions are based on scripture that offers both a lot of peace and a lot of barbarism. A lot of wisdom and a lot of racism. A lot of good and a lot of evil. That much we should be able to agree on. If you really give a close reading to the Torah, the New Testament, and the Koran, you will find as much heinous atrocity in one as you will in the next. That's a fact and it's extremely easy to prove. If you disagree however, please let me know.

Now the distinction that's necessary to enter at this point is between a) the scripture and b) interpretation of the scripture.

Clearly right now today as I type this, the same scripture is being interpreted differently all over the world. Since there are billions of practitioners of both Islam and Christianity. Additionally, since these doctrines have been around for such a long time, we have ample historical documentation demonstrating that the same doctrine was interpreted differently from one decade to the next. And often times the new interpretation was dangerous and violence.

Now how could it possibly be that it is INHERENTLY the wording documented in the Quran that is causing ongoing Islamic violence when those same words has FAILED to have that effect not just all over the world but unquestionably throughout history.

Your remark that Islam was cutting people's heads off a thousand years ago does not necessarily imply that all practitioners of Islam have been cutting people's heads off for thousands of years.

I feel unfortunate to be the one to have to tell you Mr Chewing -- and doubly so for the fact that I can't do it with my usual dismissive candor I typically save for people just like you -- that your entire belief system with regard to this topic is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. With enough people holding your point of view, it could very plausibly lead to a lot more Muslim deaths in the future. If you have already weighed those consequences and accepted them as reasonable in exchange for the destruction of Islam, that is well within your right as an American citizen goddamnit.

alright enough of that:wtf:
The Quran is easily the most violent and dogmatic and unpleasant of the founding texts of the 3 Abrahamic religions - it is also the most unoriginal, the most reactionary, and is presently causing more damage in the world than all the other religions in the world combined, and multiplied by 10. Islam has always been a religion of expansion and aggression and conquest, ever since its very beginning, and that is not the case with Judaism or Christianity. So yeah, those words have had a continuously detrimental affect on the world ever since an illiterate and deranged epileptic goat-herder decided to force them onto the world.



F*cking A, so much THIS.
What, Islam doesn't concern Americans? They have as much right to talk about Islam as anyone else, including Muslims. Holding certain beliefs doesn't grant you special privileges where your beliefs can't be questioned, or where only people with brown skin are allowed to criticise them. It's just more racism from the strident anti-racists.

[Micku]

micku if you're interested in what an exchange between sam harris and reza aslan would look like, check out this debate between sam harris and chris hedges. it's not particularly different style not withstanding.

link - opening remarks until ~35 minutes, exchange with moderation afterwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE)

i should add whats most interesting about hedges is that he comes from an overtly religious background. he graduated with a phd from the harvard divinity school.

last edit:

just to save anybody the time since i know it's a long video; the point put to sam harris which he is unable to answer, after he says the only thing he's concerned about is the effect belief has on actions, is that the same beliefs and doctrines and ideas are dispersed all over the world and have lead throughout history and currently to extraordinarily different outcomes. so given that fact, that the same religion or ideology can have different outcomes depending on circumstances, how could it possibly be that religion is the overwhelming determinant of social conditions which is what sam constantly seems to suggest?

the above sentence might not be easy to parse, let me know if i'm being unclear.

Thanks man. I was just going to watch that today. I know that they debated before, but I never seen it. I like watching debates.


I don't agree with Bill on most issues but I do find his show entertaining. I do agree with most of his stance against Islam. Islam at its roots is more of a hateful cult than a religion and IMO it is one of the worst and most dangerous ideologies to follow. Such a belief goes against the cultural norms of most Liberals and most Liberals go along the lines of "a few bad apples do not make up the religion" but the problem is the religion itself is flawed to begin with.

I would think that Maher and Harris think that all religion is flawed. I believe Maher thinks religion is destructive, but refers to himself as a agnostic. Harris is an atheist who constantly attacks religion. Religions like Christianity and Judaism have some passages that makes you raise an eyebrow. Islam have its extremists and passages that make you go wtf. You can find pieces of all religion and just call BS and how no one should follow the rules by the letter anymore. So, when Harris say something like Islam is the motherlord of bad ideas, I'm sure he made a comment similar to that about other religions in the debates that I watched.

Not to mention there are different sects of the different religions. Some take it literal and some don't. Pick and choose the verses in which to take literal. Affleck was trying to defend the ppl who aren't extremist, but Harris just thinks the whole core belief in Islam is bad and provided stats on casual Muslims in how quick they are willing to prosecute on the mundane things like a drawing. Affleck didn't have a rebuttal, and he wasn't informed in that subject to battle with the wits of Sam Harris. Basically proving Harris point since Sam Harris started off by saying:

[NumberSix]

when Harris say something like Islam is the motherlord of bad ideas, I'm sure he made a comment similar to that about other religions in the debates that I watched.
You know when you hear people say things like "If you're going to criticize one (insert), criticize them all. Don't single one out"?

This gives the illusion of sounding fair and rational, right? That's right. It is an illusion.

What this person is actually requesting is for them to be EQUAL. It's ok if they're all bad, just as long as they are equal. One can never be worse than the other.

[NumberSix]

you must be the most uneducated and dull simpleton that has ever existed on this earth - dresta
LOL. I'm going to assume you meant to click on the poster under me.
:roll:

[Micku]

You know when you hear people say things like "If you're going to criticize one (insert), criticize them all. Don't single one out"?

This gives the illusion of sounding fair and rational, right? That's right. It is an illusion.

What this person is actually requesting is for them to be EQUAL. It's ok if they're all bad, just as long as they are equal. One can never be worse than the other.

It ain't no damn illusion when you talk about Ume Boll directed films. Screw dem films. All of them are equally as bad.

[Dresta]

LOL. I'm going to assume you meant to click on the poster under me.
:roll:
Although that sounds a little like something i would say, it wasn't actually me at all, just someone signing my name surreptitiously and probably hoping to undermine the argument that Islam is a dangerous ideology in the process. My money is on someone sad and insecure like Nanners, someone who's blind to anything except sides and causes. Thus he thinks: 'if i send NumberSix message from Dresta insulting him then they will cease to agree on the matter of Islam, as who could agree with someone they don't like' - this is obviously the mindset of the kind of individual who garners his ideologically beliefs by choosing the whatever is opposite to those held by people he dislikes. The merit of the ideals is unimportant: what is important is the relative merits of the men who hold to said ideal.

That's why nothing a tea party member ever said would be worth listening to in the world of Nanners, because due to who they are they can't say anything that would interest him and his type (they are 'wingnuts' of course). Likewise, everything said by Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges is taken as gospel due to the fact they are just the type of thinkers people like Nanners love to get their views ready-made and pre-packaged from, and they know the ideology is virtuous because the man is virtuous.

[LJJ]

chris hedges takes the meat axe to everything sam harris has to say about foreign policy by quoting four sentences from harris' most recent book (at the time of this exchange) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopVbZvFJUE&t=59m55s)

Wow this is hilarious. This is a debate from 2007. In the context of the Arab spring the arguments that Rober Scheer guy and that Hedges guy are making are downright laughable. After the small tid bit you are referring to those guys start talking about how no Iraqi is waging terrorism outside of Iraq and how most of the Middle East has a liberal interpretation of Islam.

[RidonKs]

Wow this is hilarious. This is a debate from 2007. In the context of the Arab spring the arguments that Rober Scheer guy and that Hedges guy are making are downright laughable. After the small tid bit you are referring to those guys start talking about how no Iraqi is waging terrorism outside of Iraq and how most of the Middle East has a liberal interpretation of Islam.
the point of posting that video was not to insist that everything they said in 2007 is still true today. it was to point out the major flaws in the harris interpretation of the world which is exactly what hedges and the moderator do, and exceedingly well i should add.

harris has about 100x the reach of a guy like hedges. he's the celebrity best selling author here. which, along with the fact that his political opinions are very controversial, is why this debate feels more like an interrogation of harris' ideas than anything else.

[LJJ]

the point of posting that video was not to insist that everything they said in 2007 is still true today. it was to point out the major flaws in the harris interpretation of the world which is exactly what hedges and the moderator do, and exceedingly well i should add.

I know it wasn't your intention, but it's funny nonetheless.

In the video Hedges and Scheer constantly use ad hominem attacks on Harris, they call him a racist and all that. Nitpick single lines from his book. Then they say so many things about the root of terrorism and how little it has to do with Islam that have turned out to be wrong. In the years since the debate it's almost as if the world has conspired to make all the the examples they use and assumptions they make completely false.

7 years later most of the arguments Harris makes can still be used and most of his arguments have become stronger yet again, while the entire framework of the arguments of the opposition has to be reworked and spinned in a different direction.

[Inactive]

You also assume 'islamic terrorism' has a short history because its current form (aided modern technology, basically) is all you associate with it; Islamic terrorism actually has a very long history, and the US has been involved with countering the actions of Islamic terrorists for over 200 years now. One of the first things Jefferson did as President did was crush the Barbary pirates (without the permission of congress), who were abducting and enslaving Americans on the high seas. Years before when he had spoken to the ambassador of Tripoli he asked 'we have no enmity or contentious history with you, we have never been at war with you or wronged your people, unlike the European powers, so why do you abduct our merchants, why do you force Americans into slavery' - and as Jefferson wrote in 1786:

'The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right an duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.'

So no, none of this is new. Just because it's been given the modern word of terrorism, doesn't mean the sentiment hasn't been there for centuries (because it has). Funnily enough John Adams said this about the Barbary pirates 'we ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.'

And we are still fighting them, even if people like you are determined to ignore the obvious, and wilfully remain ignorant so you can believe in the self-evidently untrue belief that all religions are the same or equal - they are different and therefore unequal BY DEFINITION.Calling the Barbary pirates Islamic terrorists is a ridiculous stretch. They weren't interested in conquest, or conversion. They were interested in making money. They would attack any merchant vessel that didn't have a navy to protect it. They were encouraged by the British to target Americans. Religion was a post hoc excuse, not a motivating factor.


The Quran is easily the most violent and dogmatic and unpleasant of the founding texts of the 3 Abrahamic religions - it is also the most unoriginal, the most reactionary, and is presently causing more damage in the world than all the other religions in the world combined, and multiplied by 10. Islam has always been a religion of expansion and aggression and conquest, ever since its very beginning, and that is not the case with Judaism or Christianity. So yeah, those words have had a continuously detrimental affect on the world ever since an illiterate and deranged epileptic goat-herder decided to force them onto the world.

4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods

13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
The Quran is not more violent than that.

[Nanners]

Although that sounds a little like something i would say, it wasn't actually me at all, just someone signing my name surreptitiously and probably hoping to undermine the argument that Islam is a dangerous ideology in the process. My money is on someone sad and insecure like Nanners, someone who's blind to anything except sides and causes. Thus he thinks: 'if i send NumberSix message from Dresta insulting him then they will cease to agree on the matter of Islam, as who could agree with someone they don't like' - this is obviously the mindset of the kind of individual who garners his ideologically beliefs by choosing the whatever is opposite to those held by people he dislikes. The merit of the ideals is unimportant: what is important is the relative merits of the men who hold to said ideal.

That's why nothing a tea party member ever said would be worth listening to in the world of Nanners, because due to who they are they can't say anything that would interest him and his type (they are 'wingnuts' of course). Likewise, everything said by Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges is taken as gospel due to the fact they are just the type of thinkers people like Nanners love to get their views ready-made and pre-packaged from, and they know the ideology is virtuous because the man is virtuous.

:oldlol:

I am flattered that you are allowing me to live rent free inside your head, it reeks like stale cigarettes in here but I suppose I shouldnt complain since the price is right.

Anyway, I got this rep yesterday for one of my posts in this thread. I figured it was just someone trying to bait me into negging you.

http://i.imgur.com/PtKsxKa.jpg

Hopefully you wont evict me from your head just yet, I havent even started unpacking. Now excuse me while I go find an air freshener...

[RidonKs]

I know it wasn't your intention, but it's funny nonetheless.

In the video Hedges and Scheer constantly use ad hominem attacks on Harris, they call him a racist and all that. Nitpick single lines from his book. Then they say so many things about the root of terrorism and how little it has to do with Islam that have turned out to be wrong. In the years since the debate it's almost as if the world has conspired to make all the the examples they use and assumptions they make completely false.

7 years later most of the arguments Harris makes can still be used and most of his arguments have become stronger yet again, while the entire framework of the arguments of the opposition has to be reworked and spinned in a different direction.
that is absolutely false though i'm not going to be able to willy nilly tell you why in a single post. the arguments harris makes are as weak and unsubstantiated today as they were in 2007 as they were in 2003 as they were in 1991 as they were throughout the 80s. and throughout that time, while occasionally the group/geographical actor targeted by the arguments changes will change, the substance invariably stays the same. and those arguments, having heard them many times before, are inevitably abstract and uncorrelated the what's actually happening on the ground. they are also unsurprisingly implemented in rash and self-interested ways, making the policies stemming from the ideas of gentlemen like Mr Harris even more troublesome. this isn't the red cross taking charge here...

[RidonKs]

:oldlol:

I am flattered that you are allowing me to live rent free inside your head, it reeks like stale cigarettes in here but I suppose I shouldnt complain since the price is right.

Anyway, I got this rep yesterday for one of my posts in this thread. I figured it was just someone trying to bait me into negging you.

http://i.imgur.com/PtKsxKa.jpg

Hopefully you wont evict me from your head just yet, I havent even started unpacking. Now excuse me while I go find an air freshener...
ha i was about to respond to dresta before i saw your response. the only thing in this thread i'm more certain about than the invalidity of Sam Harris' political prescriptions is that you did not send that neg rep :lol

[LJJ]

that is absolutely false though i'm not going to be able to willy nilly tell you why in a single post. the arguments harris makes are as weak and unsubstantiated today as they were in 2007 as they were in 2003 as they were in 1991 as they were throughout the 80s. and throughout that time, while occasionally the group/geographical actor targeted by the arguments changes will change, the substance invariably stays the same. and those arguments, having heard them many times before, are inevitably abstract and uncorrelated the what's actually happening on the ground. they are also unsurprisingly implemented in rash and self-interested ways, making the policies stemming from the ideas of gentlemen like Mr Harris even more troublesome. this isn't the red cross taking charge here...

Point is, you can disagree with Harris but he is still at it with the exact same shit. I doubt mister Hedges is still running with his "Iraqi's never wage terror outside Iraq, proof religion doesn't have anything to do with this!" and "The middle and upper class never become terrorist. Only the poor and opressed participate in it" arguments. Lol. How wrong can you turn out to be?

[Dresta]

Point is, you can disagree with Harris but he is still at it with the exact same shit. I doubt mister Hedges is still running with his "Iraqi's never wage terror outside Iraq, proof religion doesn't have anything to do with this!" and "The middle and upper class never become terrorist. Only the poor and opressed participate in it" arguments. Lol. How wrong can you turn out to be?
That's just classical leftist avoidance; it's how the avoid ever admitting being wrong on any issue. As soon as they're proven wrong they shift their argument to pursue the same agenda from a slightly different angle and then claim the past failure doesn't prove them wrong because something else and unrelated to their ideology caused the failure. It's how so many of them managed to defend the Stalin regime for so long. Esteemed individuals like John-Paul Sartre and his wife, and many others open defenders of the purges and show-trials. Never admitted making a mistake though, of course.

Repeating the same mistakes again and again, endlessly. It gets so tiresome reading the same debates rehashed again and again with complete ignorance of the past.

I actually think it may be some kind of congenital abnormality that causes people to live under such self-deception. You've got Ridonks in here now arguing that the critique of Sam Harris that Iraqi society is secular is valid, and also that Chris Hedges wasn't wrong in declaring 'only the poor and oppressed engage in islamic terrorism' - it's ****ing mindnumbing.

[Nowitness]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc

got to say Harris makes some strong points.

What would you except from someone who devotes his life to refuting religion? To lose to Batman?

[kentatm]

i fvcking hate bill maher. the guy is basically a neocon pretending to be a liberal

lol no

he is not a neocon

dude wants to stay out of other nations for the most part.

[NumberSix]

how do you have free time to post? you worthless neocon piece of shit, shouldnt you be out protesting against illegal immigrants or attending a klan meeting or something? GTFO hypocrite
Hey, you just insulted someone's ideology. You're a racist.

[Nanners]

lol no

he is not a neocon

dude wants to stay out of other nations for the most part.

you are right. i was exaggerating, hes not really a neocon... hes just not nearly as far to the left as people say he is.

[russwest0]

All religions are so goddamn stupid and such a waste of breath and time to even deal with.

[kentatm]

you are right. i was exaggerating, hes not really a neocon... hes just not nearly as far to the left as people say he is.


that I will agree with.

:cheers:

[J Shuttlesworth]

All religions are so goddamn stupid and such a waste of breath and time to even deal with.
Weren't you christian recently? :biggums: or am I thinking of poido?

Completely agree regardless though

[russwest0]

Weren't you christian recently? :biggums: or am I thinking of poido?

Completely agree regardless though

I was "Christian" until I was like seven years old and I lost one of my favorite toys and my mom told me to "pray to god to help you find it" and I thought about how ****ing stupid that was, and instead of sitting down and talking to myself in my head, I just got off my ass and found the toy myself.

[Patrick Chewing]

I was "Christian" until I was like seven years old and I lost one of my favorite toys and my mom told me to "pray to god to help you find it" and I thought about how ****ing stupid that was, and instead of sitting down and talking to myself in my head, I just got off my ass and found the toy myself.


So because your Mom was deceitful in her message about Christianity, you found it upon yourself to dismiss the teachings and message of Jesus Christ and Christianity as a whole?

[russwest0]

So because your Mom was deceitful in her message about Christianity, you found it upon yourself to dismiss the teachings and message of Jesus Christ and Christianity as a whole?

It's all a bunch of horse shit and a waste of time. I'm not going to support some bogus ass religion based on the teachings of a book that was written a long ass time ago and has been translated a thousand times over the years through multiple languages, along with being "updated" to be more "modern" or whatever.

It's not worth the time to dedicate any ounce of time to some bullshit that runs off of zero evidence and isn't any religion that anyone here would believe in if not taught to them or forced upon them by someone else.

[Dresta]

Hey, you just insulted someone's ideology. You're a racist.
He also accuses other people of being hateful and then says things like that. What a hypocrite...

[Nanners]

He also accuses other people of being hateful and then says things like that. What a hypocrite...

:roll:

First of all, I did not accuse you of being hateful, I accused you of spewing hateful bullshit.

Secondly, I never have and never will deny that am hateful. I have plenty of hate, so go ahead and call me hateful cause its 100% true.

Thirdly, being a hypocrite does not mean that you are wrong.

Anyway, sure is nice having a place to live without paying rent. looks like i might be able to stay here for a while...

[Dresta]

:roll:

First of all, I did not accuse you of being hateful, I accused you of spewing hateful bullshit.

Secondly, I never have and never will deny that am hateful. I have plenty of hate, so go ahead and call me hateful cause its 100% true.

Thirdly, being a hypocrite does not mean that you are wrong.

Anyway, sure is nice having a place to live without paying rent. looks like i might be able to stay here for a while...
I thought it was only the teenage ISH trolls who engaged in that kind of stupid nonsense - you've already said that like 3 times in this thread - aren't you tired of acting like a childish troll yet?

[millwad]

Everything I've mentioned about Islam is irrefutable fact. Idiotic apologists on this board actually think there is nothing wrong within that faith. Wow.

I just love it, a Christian bashing Islam while talking good about his own bogus faith.

In Uganda, the very Christian Uganda they passed a law that would result in death penalty or life in jail for same sex activities. Do you see us bash Christianity and all Christians because of Uganda's Christian actions?

[Nanners]

I thought it was only the teenage ISH trolls who engaged in that kind of stupid nonsense - you've already said that like 3 times in this thread - aren't you tired of acting like a childish troll yet?

:oldlol:

you have been going around this thread crying about how i supposedly created a conspiracy to neg rep people in order to argue with you, or whining about how i said you spew hate... thats rent free living.

[kNIOKAS]

Here's Aslan's comment on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU

[RidonKs]

i'm embarrassed by my posts in this thread. this was one of those conversations i've been trying to eliminate where there are so many digressions and asides from the initial subject of conversation that nobody even understands what anybody is talking about anymore. my attempt to distinguish a religious society from a religious state was ill-conceived... and not exactly what the moderator in question was suggesting anyway i don't think. though it's tough to tell. but whatever he meant by that single phrase is irrelevant to his larger point, which is what i'm sorry to ish for having gotten away from. yakna, what REALLY MATTERS and all that jazz.

[Take Your Lumps]

Sam Harris' take:

Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself? (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself)

[kNIOKAS]

i'm embarrassed by my posts in this thread. this was one of those conversations i've been trying to eliminate where there are so many digressions and asides from the initial subject of conversation that nobody even understands what anybody is talking about anymore. my attempt to distinguish a religious society from a religious state was ill-conceived... and not exactly what the moderator in question was suggesting anyway i don't think. though it's tough to tell. but whatever he meant by that single phrase is irrelevant to his larger point, which is what i'm sorry to ish for having gotten away from. yakna, what REALLY MATTERS and all that jazz.
This is what they call white guilt isn't it :lol


Sam Harris' take:

Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself? (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself)
This guy has got no class nor dignity. He writes on who called who and that type of stuff. That's not an appropriate response for an educated man.

[poido123]

This is what they call white guilt isn't it :lol


This guy has got no class nor dignity. He writes on who called who and that type of stuff. That's not an appropriate response for an educated man.


Harris and Maher are spot on. They remain very clear and precise about how the confusion and misuse of racism is present when Muslims are criticised. Somehow they are exempt from criticism and treated like a minority, when they really aren't a minority at all.

Only that Ben wants to drag that conversation into pigeon-holed sterotyping or classic diversion arguments made by Muslims themselves to avoid scrutiny.

[kNIOKAS]

Harris and Maher are spot on. They remain very clear and precise about how the confusion and misuse of racism is present when Muslims are criticised. Somehow they are exempt from criticism and treated like a minority, when they really aren't a minority at all.

Only that Ben wants to drag that conversation into pigeon-holed sterotyping or classic diversion arguments made by Muslims themselves to avoid scrutiny.
If you watched the vid I posted you'd know why it's not correct to say it's muslims.

[NumberSix]

If you watched the vid I posted you'd know why it's not correct to say it's muslims.
What's "it"?

[kNIOKAS]

What's "it"?
Your muslims, stupid.

[poido123]

Here's Aslan's comment on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjxPR36qFU

Here's a quote that unpackets what Aslan says in that clip:

Aslan does make some fair points but he is nearly just as guilty at whitewashing women's rights in Muslim countries as Maher is in tarring them all with the Saudi brush. Indonesia is hardly a good example of female equality - this is a country in which they have had to divide train carriages by gender because women were being so constantly harassed/raped in public! Turkey is closer to modern gender norms but this is because Turkey has had a strong secularisation movement which has limited to the influence of Islamic views on gender. The (relative) successes there have been achieved despite Muslim influence.

Bottom line is, Islam IS an outdated and repressive religion which screws women over. That doesn't mean that ALL Muslims are misogynist but it doesn't mean that Islam is overall a negative influence on women's rights. It's ridiculous to make out that Islam is totally neutral on this issue when that religion's history and texts all give ample justification to oppressing women.

[kNIOKAS]

Here's a quote that unpackets what Aslan says in that clip:

Aslan does make some fair points but he is nearly just as guilty at whitewashing women's rights in Muslim countries as Maher is in tarring them all with the Saudi brush. Indonesia is hardly a good example of female equality - this is a country in which they have had to divide train carriages by gender because women were being so constantly harassed/raped in public! Turkey is closer to modern gender norms but this is because Turkey has had a strong secularisation movement which has limited to the influence of Islamic views on gender. The (relative) successes there have been achieved despite Muslim influence.


You certainly need to find out what Aslan says in that clip, quote him and read it again.

What you provided has nothing to do with the video, in fact, it blatantly ignores the points made in it and conveniently comes back to the ridiculous claim that you've been pushing before.


Bottom line is, Islam IS an outdated and repressive religion which screws women over. That doesn't mean that ALL Muslims are misogynist but it doesn't mean that Islam is overall a negative influence on women's rights. It's ridiculous to make out that Islam is totally neutral on this issue when that religion's history and texts all give ample justification to oppressing women.

Don't post here.

[poido123]

You certainly need to find out what Aslan says in that clip, quote him and read it again.

What you provided has nothing to do with the video, in fact, it blatantly ignores the points made in it and conveniently comes back to the ridiculous claim that you've been pushing before.


Don't post here.


You are quite rude.

Who do you think you are? That you can just ignore or disregard someone's opinion(the very thing that you are jacked up about with Aslan), when i have taken the time to watch your video and make my stance on it?

I don't give a shit whether you "like" muslims being grouped as muslims. Like it or not, many in our society see it that way. Whether you want to acknowledge some clear problems associated with this religious group, then you are only reinforcing my points about how Muslims and Muslim apologists like yourself use diversion statements and distort the truth so they are free from any blame.

Sounds to me you just want to jump through hoops, rather than acknowledge the issues that have arisen from people practising faith in this religion.

Get with the times Muslims, we don't want Sharia Law or your other primitive beliefs bestowed on our way of life.

[kNIOKAS]

You are quite rude.

Who do you think you are? That you can just ignore or disregard someone's opinion(the very thing that you are jacked up about with Aslan), when i have taken the time to watch your video and make my stance on it?

I don't give a shit whether you "like" muslims being grouped as muslims. Like it or not, many in our society see it that way. Whether you want to acknowledge some clear problems associated with this religious group, then you are only reinforcing my points about how Muslims and Muslim apologists like yourself use diversion statements and distort the truth so they are free from any blame.

Sounds to me you just want to jump through hoops, rather than acknowledge the issues that have arisen from people practising faith in this religion.

Get with the times Muslims, we don't want Sharia Law or your other primitive beliefs bestowed on our way of life.
You just insist on being stupid, don't you.

[qrich]

Let's get this thread deleted too.

It's the fault of the Jews!!

[Droid101]

Let's get this thread deleted too.

It's the fault of the Jews!!
http://www.moneyandshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/man-with-christmas-lights.jpg

[RidonKs]

YEA THE JEWS DID IT FK THE JEWS


*the views expressed in this message do not represent those of its poster and are merely intended to pull the leg of an administrator gone wild*

[RidonKs]

http://www.moneyandshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/man-with-christmas-lights.jpg
:roll:

[Nanners]

Sam Harris on Jews


The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth. [...] the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day. [...] Jews, insofar as they are religious, believe that they are bearers of a unique covenant with God. As a consequence, they have spent the last two thousand years collaborating with those who see them as different by seeing themselves as irretrievably so. Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

[Dresta]

:oldlol:

you have been going around this thread crying about how i supposedly created a conspiracy to neg rep people in order to argue with you, or whining about how i said you spew hate... thats rent free living.
I did nothing of the sort, thanks. You keep up the lying and distorting to preserve your childish ego!! :applause:

[kNIOKAS]

Here's a text for you that just don't get it:

Bill Maher Isn’t the Only One Who Misunderstands Religion
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html?_r=0

<...>
What both the believers and the critics often miss is that religion is often far more a matter of identity than it is a matter of beliefs and practices. The phrase “I am a Muslim,” “I am a Christian,” “I am a Jew” and the like is, often, not so much a description of what a person believes or what rituals he or she follows, as a simple statement of identity, of how the speaker views her or his place in the world.

<...>

The abiding nature of scripture rests not so much in its truth claims as it does in its malleability, its ability to be molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires. The same Bible that commands Jews to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) also exhorts them to “kill every man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” who worship any other God (1 Sam. 15:3). The same Jesus Christ who told his disciples to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) also told them that he had “not come to bring peace but the sword” (Matthew 10:34), and that “he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The same Quran that warns believers “if you kill one person it is as though you have killed all of humanity” (5:32) also commands them to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:5).

How a worshiper treats these conflicting commandments depends on the believer. If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in your scriptures to justify your beliefs. If you are a peaceful, democratic feminist, you will also find justification in the scriptures for your point of view.

<...>

At the same time, critics of religion must refrain from simplistic generalizations about people of faith. It is true that in many Muslim countries, women do not have the same rights as men. But that fact alone is not enough to declare Islam a religion that is intrinsically more patriarchal than Christianity or Judaism. (It’s worth noting that Muslim-majority nations have elected women leaders on several occasions, while some Americans still debate whether the United States is ready for a female president.)

Bill Maher is right to condemn religious practices that violate fundamental human rights. Religious communities must do more to counter extremist interpretations of their faith. But failing to recognize that religion is embedded in culture — and making a blanket judgment about the world’s second largest religion — is simply bigotry.

[kNIOKAS]

I did nothing of the sort, thanks. You keep up the lying and distorting to preserve your childish ego!! :applause:
:lol childish ego? Who told you this? Person was right there, you have it.

[russwest0]

I did nothing of the sort, thanks. You keep up the lying and distorting to preserve your childish ego!! :applause:

lmao thats what I'm seeing too

[Dresta]

:lol childish ego? Who told you this? Person was right there, you have it.
This doesn't make any sense like 95% of the garbage you post on here.

[RidonKs]

Bill Maher isn't the Only One who Misunderstands Religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html?_r=1)

good balanced overview on the issues that have been discussed in this thread

[kNIOKAS]

Bill Maher isn't the Only One who Misunderstands Religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html?_r=1)

good balanced overview on the issues that have been discussed in this thread
You need to step your last page game up.

[RidonKs]

You need to step your last page game up.
what i need to do is stop posting about political issues on insidehoops

[StephHamann]

Bill Maher isn't the Only One who Misunderstands Religion (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/bill-maher-isnt-the-only-one-who-misunderstands-religion.html?_r=1)

good balanced overview on the issues that have been discussed in this thread

The cultural practices of a Saudi Muslim, when it comes to the role of women in society, are largely irrelevant to a Muslim in a more secular society like Turkey or Indonesia.

So 9er Nick and the other boys are right. Attaturk made Turkey a secular state, thats why they are more succesful than other Muslim countries.

Ban Islam from the public-> The country becomes more succesful :eek:

What western society nower days is doing is the exact opposite, and look how good it works.

[kNIOKAS]

what i need to do is stop posting about political issues on insidehoops
You don't need to do that, unless you found some brighter crowd elsewhere. Because look who you are arguing with...

[RidonKs]

You don't need to do that, unless you found some brighter crowd elsewhere. Because look who you are arguing with...
:lol

time and energy are finite. if the interest in 'arguing' (i prefer 'conversing' tho ur term might be more appropriate for this site) is to hear yourself talk or even to challenge your own beliefs by offering them up to an anonymous and hostile forum, ish is perfect. however if the interest in 'arguing' is to have leave a lasting impression on your fellow minds, hoping they see things in a new light, lending perspective, and at the same time opening up your own mind to alternative viewpoints... well it doesn't matter how dim or bright any other group of people is by comparison. the honest and hard truth is that ish offers few returns in that regard. though i must admit i've been pleasantly surprised over the past few months with the kindness and openmindedness i've encountered from other posters on this site, even from the last folks you might expect to carry on a civil discussion. when people are addressed politely but firmly, they tend to respond in turn. even on teh interwebz.

[ArbitraryWater]

http://c2.thejournal.ie/media/2014/10/benaffleck1.png

[RidonKs]

oh ben. you mean so well.

[kNIOKAS]

:lol

time and energy are finite. if the interest in 'arguing' (i prefer 'conversing' tho ur term might be more appropriate for this site) is to hear yourself talk or even to challenge your own beliefs by offering them up to an anonymous and hostile forum, ish is perfect. however if the interest in 'arguing' is to have leave a lasting impression on your fellow minds, hoping they see things in a new light, lending perspective, and at the same time opening up your own mind to alternative viewpoints... well it doesn't matter how dim or bright any other group of people is by comparison. the honest and hard truth is that ish offers few returns in that regard. though i must admit i've been pleasantly surprised over the past few months with the kindness and openmindedness i've encountered from other posters on this site, even from the last folks you might expect to carry on a civil discussion. when people are addressed politely but firmly, they tend to respond in turn. even on teh interwebz.
Well, I do not see how a conversation with the likes of Nick Young can return you honest or harsh truth. Although I can see what you mean, like, sociological truth, such as that There are retards. But ok, it's fair... You're funny to look at, having this kind of naive and innocent approach. Nice.

[RidonKs]

sociological truth
this is very well put and something i didn't really touch on but totally applies

[9erempiree]

So what we have here is:

Liberal Society(brainwash) + Islam(whacked out religion) = shit society.

The fact that there is a made-up word called "Islamaphobia" already says a lot. A made-up word to garner sympathy for these Muslims.

I should just say people are 9erphobia so I can get people to think there is such an oppression against me.

[RidonKs]

So what we have here is:

Liberal Society(brainwash) + Islam(whacked out religion) = shit society.

The fact that there is a made-up word called "Islamaphobia" already says a lot. A made-up word to garner sympathy for these Muslims.

I should just say people are 9erphobia so I can get people to think there is such an oppression against me.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/507dba43c4aabcfd2216a447/t/5244609de4b0d08691bdc2ee/1380212895097/Troll%20Face.jpg

we see you there 9erempiree. but we aren't listening.

[9erempiree]

we see you there 9erempiree. but we aren't listening.

You just have 9erphobia. Fear of me.

:confusedshrug:

[RidonKs]

http://static.squarespace.com/static/507dba43c4aabcfd2216a447/t/5244609de4b0d08691bdc2ee/1380212895097/Troll%20Face.jpg

we see you there 9erempiree. but we aren't listening.

[Dresta]

Sam Harris' take:

Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself? (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself)
[QUOTE]I want to make one thing clear, however. I did not take Affleck

[kNIOKAS]

Ah yes, that wonderful intellectual heavyweight. Amazing how anyone can consider a guy who thinks just yelling 'racist' is enough to win the debate. Typical monopoliser of the moral high-ground: he will be morally self-righteous and preachy about every subject he discusses, it is the nature of this kind of 'intellectual'
Have you ever made a statement that is not whining about somebody, attacking somebody ad hominem or trying to put words into somebody's mouth?

You have no substance, dawg.

[qrich]

So what we have here is:

Liberal Society(brainwash) + Islam(whacked out religion) = shit society.

The fact that there is a made-up word called "Islamaphobia" already says a lot. A made-up word to garner sympathy for these Muslims.

I should just say people are 9erphobia so I can get people to think there is such an oppression against me.

Coming from the person who defends a Muslim Rapist!

[Dresta]

Have you ever made a statement that is not whining about somebody, attacking somebody ad hominem or trying to put words into somebody's mouth?

You have no substance, dawg.
Says the man posting the completely substance-less post that is only an insult. At least when i insult people i usually provide an argument.

I've posted more in this thread of substance than you have, and to be frank, those who think criticism of a particular religion to be racist, need to be insulted and shot down, again and again, until they finally shut up and return to their nerd caves.

More substance (in this thread) than anything kNikos has ever thought or written in his short and trivial life:


Well, then your 'personal belief' is simply wrong: all religions may very well be equally untrue, but they clearly differ, and if they differ, then they can't be viewed equally without your treating each one unequally. Islam still makes the grandest claims of any religion, claiming to be the 'final' revelation, and making it particularly resistant against any kind of reform. It is also the only religion posing a clear threat to the national security of Western nations, and providing the ideal set of excuses to turn ignorant and stupid young men into sadistic psychopaths. It is the only religion bringing in swaths of immigrants who live by their own laws in our countries, and who run off to butcher and kill people who don't share their idiotic beliefs.

The US has been trying to 'unstabilize' the Middle East for decades? The region has been fractured and in turmoil far longer than that, and it is clearly in turmoil right now because of the fanatical religion at its centre.

God knows why anyone would think Ben Affleck worth listening to on this matter (or any matter, in fact).


Well done captain obvious: that's like saying the rape and abuse of children doesn't necessarily cause them to develop personality disorders, or to hurt their enjoyment of the rest of their lives. Likewise, indoctrinating your children in a barbaric ideology, doesn't necessarily turn them into mass-murdering psychopaths, but it helps, and in many cases it clearly has allowed these people to sever their consciences.

You also assume 'islamic terrorism' has a short history because its current form (aided modern technology, basically) is all you associate with it; Islamic terrorism actually has a very long history, and the US has been involved with countering the actions of Islamic terrorists for over 200 years now. One of the first things Jefferson did as President did was crush the Barbary pirates (without the permission of congress), who were abducting and enslaving Americans on the high seas. Years before when he had spoken to the ambassador of Tripoli he asked 'we have no enmity or contentious history with you, we have never been at war with you or wronged your people, unlike the European powers, so why do you abduct our merchants, why do you force Americans into slavery' - and as Jefferson wrote in 1786:

'The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right an duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.'

So no, none of this is new. Just because it's been given the modern word of terrorism, doesn't mean the sentiment hasn't been there for centuries (because it has). Funnily enough John Adams said this about the Barbary pirates 'we ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.'

And we are still fighting them, even if people like you are determined to ignore the obvious, and wilfully remain ignorant so you can believe in the self-evidently untrue belief that all religions are the same or equal - they are different and therefore unequal BY DEFINITION.


The Quran is easily the most violent and dogmatic and unpleasant of the founding texts of the 3 Abrahamic religions - it is also the most unoriginal, the most reactionary, and is presently causing more damage in the world than all the other religions in the world combined, and multiplied by 10. Islam has always been a religion of expansion and aggression and conquest, ever since its very beginning, and that is not the case with Judaism or Christianity. So yeah, those words have had a continuously detrimental affect on the world ever since an illiterate and deranged epileptic goat-herder decided to force them onto the world.

What, Islam doesn't concern Americans? They have as much right to talk about Islam as anyone else, including Muslims. Holding certain beliefs doesn't grant you special privileges where your beliefs can't be questioned, or where only people with brown skin are allowed to criticise them. It's just more racism from the strident anti-racists.


Remember, it's sometimes very difficult not to insult someone who says things as stupid as the garbage you post on here.

[RidonKs]

I've posted more in this thread of substance than you have, and to be frank, those who think criticism of a particular religion to be racist, need to be insulted and shot down, again and again, until they finally shut up and return to their nerd caves.
hedges was commenting on harris' claim that palestinian mothers don't grieve for children who commit suicide bombings. his claim of racism didn't have much to do with religion at all.

you know a lot of words dresta. your problem is they've already been put in order in your head before you even wake up in the morning. even worse, when people suggest your stream of (occasionally) rather impressive prose is also completely uncontextualized and unsupported by the facts, you have another auto-response that isn't so much impressive as ugly. you toss out insults like its your job.

it's all very perplexing to me but hey, i guess i'm more of a fly by the seat of my pants kinda guy. u keep it up dresta, ur doin real good.

[Dresta]

hedges was commenting on harris' claim that palestinian mothers don't grieve for children who commit suicide bombings. his claim of racism didn't have much to do with religion at all.

you know a lot of words dresta. your problem is they've already been put in order in your head before you even wake up in the morning. even worse, when people suggest your stream of (occasionally) rather impressive prose is also completely uncontextualized and unsupported by the facts, you have another auto-response that isn't so much impressive as ugly. you toss out insults like its your job.

it's all very perplexing to me but hey, i guess i'm more of a fly by the seat of my pants kinda guy. u keep it up dresta, ur doin real good.
Wrong. Everything i say is supported by facts and logic, otherwise i wouldn't bother saying it. It is not my fault if you cannot follow the logic. I don't know what 'uncontexualized' means, but i most certainly provide my posts with context (which is actually why they tend to be quite long: most people don't provide their posts with context, and forever use ambiguous language).

I doubt i am alone in thinking both yours and kNioKas posts to be some of the most incoherent on this site. You guys turn your responses into crossword puzzles, where the point you are actually making has to be worked out from the mass of syntactical chaos that tends to constitute your posts. You also both have names that mix upper and lower case letters, which implies only a recent graduation from childhood (though you are older, and much less stupid than he is). You are still a romantic idealist with a tonne of naivety to you: your thoughts are inconsistent and lacking clarity, but at least you have the right attitude towards the acquisition of knowledge, which the other guy lacks (hence why he will probably always be an ignorant d-bag).

Romanticism is always painful because its needs are never satisfied (and can never be). Your faith in the good will of politicians (a profession of dishonesty), or the effective and charitable actions of a heavily centralised democratic legislature is just that - a faith that will never be justified or satisfied. It always ends in disillusionment, so better to discard this way of thinking now if you can.

[kNIOKAS]

Says the man posting the completely substance-less post that is only an insult. At least when i insult people i usually provide an argument.

I've posted more in this thread of substance than you have, and to be frank, those who think criticism of a particular religion to be racist, need to be insulted and shot down, again and again, until they finally shut up and return to their nerd caves.

More substance (in this thread) than anything kNikos has ever thought or written in his short and trivial life:






Remember, it's sometimes very difficult not to insult someone who says things as stupid as the garbage you post on here.
You might have a mild case of schitzophrenia. I wish you all the best.

[MadeFromDust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc

got to say Harris makes some strong points.
Vid link no worky

But here's another one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg