|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:This is so irrelevant as to be nonsensical. Linen and denim, my friend. Perhaps you're unfamiliar: Christianity, through the Book of Leviticus, the one with that bit about the gays in it, holds that God's Law commands that no believer should be permitted to wear cloth of two different kinds at the same time. In addition, it establishes the correct number of cattle to be sacrificed in order to ordain a priest, as well as the proper valuation and number of animals to be sacrificed to The Lord Our God in the event one is caught committing one of a great number of sins. God's law is quite clear on this. You can read it right here, right now, there are versions on the internet. It's absolutely fascinating reading, at least insofar as you can tell why Jesus got popular: Leviticus was hopelessly out of touch with modern society two thousand years ago, and has not improved in the interim. Every Christian who wears jeans and a t-shirt is guilty of a crime precisely as against the law of god as homosexuality. And yet, curiously, these people who are so desperately concerned with obeying the law of god when it relates to homosexuality can be caught wearing jeans and a t-shirt with no effort whatsoever, and have never sacrificed a turtledove in their lives. What explains this curious behavior, to your mind?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes, it is. There is nothing else like religion as a vehicle for spreading ideas; the sociocultural penetration and disemination of ideas, over generational and territorial gaps, is nigh incomparable to anything else. Just say "Muslims bad", because that's what all these semantics have as the endgame. New Atheism seems to be where all the Tea Party types who can't reconcile their atheism with the turbo-"christian" bigotry go, instead they settle for regular bigotry. Ironically, both religious shitheads and atheist shitheads use their religion(or lack of one) for exactly the same purpose: To legitimize their hate. Your belief in God is incidental to your humanity. Believing or not believing is not a magical shield that protects you from scorn and lifts you above the plebs. EDIT: The crux of Who What Now's argument is "Religion can be a contributing factor to shittiness, but is not the sole cause", this is a totally reasonable statement and the amount of semantics being deployed to deflect it is baffling, unless someone's desperate to paint all religious people as inferior. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
I think on the whole New Atheism was very successful and certainly the number of young people willing to call themselves atheists skyrocketed in the early 2000s in large part thanks to influential works by Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. The biggest difference between this wave of atheists and past atheists was a refusal to give deference to religious beliefs. This reads as smug and aggressive to many people, and much of the push back has to do with this perceived smugness. The other biggest issue facing new atheism is religion as a proxy for race and the oft-perceived (and sometimes real) racism that can come from attacking those religions. Also a lot of the new atheist Internet personalities like Thunderfoot and The Amazing Atheist are misogynists and Dawkins is getting older and crazier every day. All that said it is easier to be openly atheist now than it had been, even if Steve Harvey can go on TV and say things about atheists with little to no backlash that would have likely led to a firestorm if they had been directed at any other minority. I still think New Atheism on the whole was successful assuming a very loose goals of "make the world generally a little better for atheists" and "give people who doubt their religion the push they need to free themselves from it." People still tend to take great offense when their religion is dispassionately criticized, but they usually see it coming now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:New Atheism started as a "no gently caress you dad" movement by white libertarians but has devolved into generic anti-Islam screeds. /thread Also anyone who think the new athiests got people out of religion not the idiocies of Blair, Bush, and JPII I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
The problem with new atheists is that they dont understand anything about Islam and Muslims, cant read a word of Arabic, have never properly researched history and and religious texts, have no understanding of current and near current history and geo-political happenings that may have formed secular reasons why the middle east is in the situation it's in and have put nowhere near the same amount of academic inquiry as they would the bible. but insist that it's worse than their own civilization for no reason other than their own sense of racial and civilization superiority. to them, all religions are bad but some MORE bad than others, especially the ones they arent born into. that makes them especially poisonous and hypocritical. Anyways, have some links to some videos and debates of western educated journalists and academics actually debating those creeps:- Tariq Ramadan:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyjamZvjuUQ Mehdi Hasan:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Xn60Zw03A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0 Take note, richard dawkins was so angry about this interview he later tweeted that the journalist should be fired from his job over his religion:- https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416 These guys are utter fascists and racists when it comes to certain religions, and are really close in their rhetoric to anti-semitic Europeans against jewish religion only with a different target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are you not even reading this thread? He said those things. He did not say that the statement that I said was spot on meant those things. But here, I'll spell out it out for you. I do not believe that religion is necessarily uniquely pernicious (thought it may be). Nothing I believe requires that as an axiom. And I'm happy enough to cede that point because something doesn't have to be uniquely pernicious for me to have a problem with it and that point is a place where people like to drag their feet. I do think that there is a rare (if not exclusive) deference given to religious belief that makes people reluctant to criticize it. At this point, I also believe you are either unwilling or incapable of giving what I just wrote a straightforward reading without attempting to load as many of your biases as possible into and turn it into a jumbled mess of misguided assumptions, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try one more time since you say you want to discuss these things. No straw manning please, I'm not interested in defending other peoples' positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:
That has to be probably the quote that made me realize that there was no reason to debate Dawkins at his heart he is a simple bigot who just seeks to beat down on any theist period. I was still on the wall then on where I stood in relation to God, but this idea that someone cannot be respected because they hold a view that might be strange to some, which in no way impacts their job was utterly insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Linen and denim, my friend. Right, I didn't say it was irrelevant because I didn't know about Levitican law, I understood the reference just fine. I said it was irrelevant because it's, y'know, irrelevant. I have heard the theological acrobatics to explain why this law need not be followed, but you're wrong that this is the only place in the Bible which condemns homosexuality, and that it's given equal weight in the text. But, whatever. Not important. The point is that people wearing jeans and a t-shirt aren't disobeying God's law but giving preference to secular law, it's that they've convinced themselves that it's not against God's law in the first place. Your line of argument began with taking issue that I'd suggest someone feeling as though their bigotry came from a being who can never be wrong was a bit stronger bulwark than someone who had a pseudoscientific basis or whatever else. You bringing up the linens line is just throwing more data onto the chart in the hopes that it will confuse me into concession. Perhaps Christians have changed their mind on different fibers. Perhaps that change had taken place before Christians even were a thing. But the change would have been far easier had it been based on something like "I heard wearing two fibers gave you a rash?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
New must be a relative concept to you...might as well just call them all Communists too. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:New must be a relative concept to you...might as well just call them all Communists too. Probably the easiest way is to advocate for nuking people for not believing what you do under the pretense of a pre emptive strike. Sam Harris has always been a blood thirsty psychopath to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:New must be a relative concept to you...might as well just call them all Communists too. This page linked to his article on torture where I found this: Sam Harris posted:Nevertheless, I believe that there are extreme situations in which practices like “water-boarding” may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary Jesus loving Christ, that is psychotic. Sam Harris can go gently caress himself. Crowsbeak posted:Probably the easiest way is to advocate for nuking people for not believing what you do under the pretense of a pre emptive strike. Sam Harris has always been a blood thirsty psychopath to me. The more I read of him the more I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Sam is a utilitarian who believes in a moral golden rule of minimizing suffering to sentient beings. While this philosophy can lead to conclusions you don't like, it's at best simplistic and at worst irresponsible to call him a "bloodthirsty psychopath." I guess it's easier than actually engaging with his arguments, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Right, I didn't say it was irrelevant because I didn't know about Levitican law, I understood the reference just fine. I said it was irrelevant because it's, y'know, irrelevant. I have heard the theological acrobatics to explain why this law need not be followed, but you're wrong that this is the only place in the Bible which condemns homosexuality, and that it's given equal weight in the text. The Defender of Science complaining that someone introducing data points he doesn't like into the conversation is cheating is a novel tactic, I'll give it that. In a comparison of dueling secular laws, you would have no difficulty in agreeing that laws left unenforced functionally constitute no authority at all in the society to which they apply. And yet presented with a wholly opt-in legal system, one whose subjects pick and choose which laws to follow as they please, and which has never observably punished a single human being for violating said laws, you are telling me it must be the single most overridingly important source of authority for the people in question. You're an atheist. Base your argument in something more than your own fearful intuition of how Those People must think. And figure out why these people, supposedly slaves to the terror of eternal damnation should they fail to follow God's Law, feel so very comfortable with breaking it the second it might interfere with what they wanted to do already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:New must be a relative concept to you...might as well just call them all Communists too. So you admit atheism historically has significant influence from Libertarians. Now what you need to prove is that New Atheism is divorced from those influences. And no, saying "all my atheist friends say they're progressive" doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Sam is a utilitarian who believes in a moral golden rule of minimizing suffering to sentient beings. While this philosophy can lead to conclusions you don't like, it's at best simplistic and at worst irresponsible to call him a "bloodthirsty psychopath." I guess it's easier than actually engaging with his arguments, though. Oh poo poo, is Sam Harris here so I can engage with him? What's his username so I can address him directly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Now what you need to prove is that New Atheism is divorced from those influences. And no, saying "all my atheist friends say they're progressive" doesn't count. There's really no burden of proof to do this. The claims of new atheism are regarding the existence of a deity and how religious values should be treated. Engaging it on other grounds is a distraction. If I had to guess I'd imagine atheists are more likely to be Libertarians or Welfare state Socialists (like me) than your average person, but that's anecdotal and irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Oh poo poo, is Sam Harris here so I can engage with him? What's his username so I can address him directly? He doesn't need to be here for you to invent his position and then argue against it, so it's functionally equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The Defender of Science complaining that someone introducing data points he doesn't like into the conversation is cheating is a novel tactic, I'll give it that. Not data points I don't like, data points that don't matter to the discussion. quote:In a comparison of dueling secular laws, you would have no difficulty in agreeing that laws left unenforced functionally constitute no authority at all in the society to which they apply. It seems to me you don't really think people believe what they say they believe. There are many, many religious people who do not view God's laws as "unenforced". Though it may be true in practice, believers further do not see themselves as "picking and choosing" the laws they like based on subjective preference. I have known religious people personally that really really wanted to do something, but didn't, and specifically because in their religious framework, God did not allow it. quote:You're an atheist. Base your argument in something more than your own fearful intuition of how Those People must think. Again, I don't think people are breaking what they perceive to be God's laws with the alacrity you are attributing to them. Even so, my point has not been "religious people never change their mind" (I pointed out where I overstated my case before), but that a religious foundation to a belief is a stronger impediment to changing it than many others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Sam is a utilitarian who believes in a moral golden rule of minimizing suffering to sentient beings. While this philosophy can lead to conclusions you don't like, it's at best simplistic and at worst irresponsible to call him a "bloodthirsty psychopath." I guess it's easier than actually engaging with his arguments, though. When your utilitarian calculus produces "we must nuke the middle east as an act of pre-emptive defense," it is perhaps unsurprising that other people start checking your work. When it produces "no, seriously, the Iraq war was an excellent humanitarian idea, the Jews had the Holocaust coming for refusing to assimilate into German society, and also psychic powers are real", well, your credibility takes a couple of hits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
This Tariq Ramadan guy is very adamant that homophobia is an immutable and unchangable aspect of Islam and in his view all other religions as well. I very much disagree with his assessment but it's funny that the New Atheists and the Islamic scholars agree on this point while the liberals and leftists disagree. http://tariqramadan.com/english/islam-and-homosexuality/ quote:Today we are witnessing an upsurge of unhealthy, ideology-driven movements. To affirm one’s convictions and respect others is no longer sufficient. Muslims are now being called upon to condemn the Qur’an, and to accept and promote homosexuality to gain entry into the modern world. Not only is such an attitude doomed to fail (the majority trends in both traditional and reformist Islam, as in other religions, will never waver on this question) but it also reveals a new dogmatism—and a whiff of colonialism, not to mention xenophobia—at the heart of so-called modern, progressive thought. Certain prominent intellectuals and lobbies have ordained a new form of political correctness; they would like to force everyone to be “open” or “liberal” in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Probably the easiest way is to advocate for nuking people for not believing what you do under the pretense of a pre emptive strike. Sam Harris has always been a blood thirsty psychopath to me. Not even related to the conversation, and hardly the point behind his argument. Taking the mere hypothetical of what you do when MAD isn't a deterrent to nuclear war and pushing it into the idea that he wants to commit to genocide against the entire Middle East is pretty disingenuous and not the first time I've seen it parroted here. That being said, this article is about Ojectivists, which is merely a counterpoint to Computer Parts weak attempt to imply that New Atheists are all Libertarians. Still, we haven't gotten down to what counts as New Atheist, and I am willing to bet a good number of the people on here regardless of "side" categorize themselves as non-religious to some degree, so it really just seem to be a catch all title for "people I don't like/agree with" but since we have already so many people toss out varying l titles, but I'd say what clearly people mean by New Atheist is "Conservative Atheist" and then cherry pick people who are clearly ostensible liberal so they fit that viewpoint. Then again maybe it is I who lacks perspective here. I haven't been going to all the Atheist rallies or trawling through Reddit Threads so maybe I've just missed New Atheism's beating black heart? But getting back to the OPs original topic. I'd say there is viability in the ideas pedaled by the New Atheists, but again I don't really like the idea of a sub-movement within the larger Progressive sphere that needlessly alienates. I'd say most of the arguments against religion stand on their own, and fundamentalists do a great job of scaring people off themselves that we don't need an equally loud and fervent team at the other end of the spectrum cheerleading. Is anyone familiar with AronRa? As far as youtube Atheists go he is the only one who I have taken the time to follow in all these years. The Foundational Falsehoods series is still amongst my favorite. computer parts posted:So you admit atheism historically has significant influence from Libertarians. Sorry the burden of proof is on you, and merely posting a picture of Ayn Rand does not an argument make.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Sam is a utilitarian who believes in a moral golden rule of minimizing suffering to sentient beings. While this philosophy can lead to conclusions you don't like, it's at best simplistic and at worst irresponsible to call him a "bloodthirsty psychopath." I guess it's easier than actually engaging with his arguments, though. I'm a utilitarian also and he sounds like an idiot. Utilitarianism has a problem with attracting loving freaks who use it to justify their own hosed up opinions and lack of concern for others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Please. You can propose a campaign of awareness like in the gay rights or civil rights movements to get people to step away from their religious beliefs, and this has not only been done, but has worked in many cases already. The books these "New Atheists" have written have actually deconverted people. I find it extremely unlikely that the sort of religious people who actually do bad things in the name of their religions would be persuaded by atheist literature without still retaining most of the same biases and bigotry they had to begin with. The sort of Muslims who commit acts of terrorism aren't going to be persuaded in this manner. Which again begs the question of what people like New Atheists are proposing when they insist we "be aware" of Islamic extremism. ...which is actually another absurd element of the whole thing; I'm pretty sure most of the Western world is very familiar with the topic of Islamic terrorism and believes terrorists and terrorist groups should be punished, so what are you making them "aware" of? What is the benefit to trying to attach the religion of Islam as a primary motive for stuff like terrorism that isn't equally achieved by just addressing terrorists and terrorist groups specifically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:When your utilitarian calculus produces "we must nuke the middle east as an act of pre-emptive defense," it is perhaps unsurprising that other people start checking your work. That is very different from what he actually said. Saying that it's possible for there to be a situation where a preemptive strike is necessary is not the same as advocating any particular preemptive strike. To suggest otherwise is to be a liar. quote:When it produces "no, seriously, the Iraq war was an excellent humanitarian idea, the Jews had the Holocaust coming for refusing to assimilate into German society, and also psychic powers are real", well, your credibility takes a couple of hits. I challenge you to produce something he's written or said that produces these conclusions when given a charitable reading. I frequently disagree with Sam Harris. It's easy enough to write a challenge to the idea that a pre emptive strike would ever be the correct action. I think that's probably a better thing to do than lying about his positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
It would be a very bland world without the incredible culture passed down through religion. If only there was some way we could refute the nasty bits so everyone would be nice like these guys. This is a frustrating watch, but Sam Harris really does clean house. Sadly shouting over him doesn't work great for Ben Afflek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60 jiggerypokery fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:There's really no burden of proof to do this. The claims of new atheism are regarding the existence of a deity and how religious values should be treated. Engaging it on other grounds is a distraction. The actions of a bunch of racists will inevitably create a racial tinge to any actions they do. Thus, it is important to determine if people are racists or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Not data points I don't like, data points that don't matter to the discussion. You're an atheist. You know for a fact that the thing they believe in does not exist. You know for a fact they have never witnessed it in action. You know for a fact it is all in their heads. You know how the process of human learning functions, and that a law that is not enforced is, as far as we're concerned, only a shade more potent than no law at all. And you insist that these phantom laws, which have never in human history been seen enforced by their supposed enforcer, must weigh more heavily in decision-making than the laws that have been. You are comfortable in proclaiming the foundation of these people's beliefs to be utterly groundless lies, and those who seek to spread them to be liars. Why, then, do you immediately turn around and insist that when they speak of these lies, they must necessarily be telling the unvarnished truth? If linen and denim is not your speed, perhaps a more modern parable will help you work through this issue. How do you explain the story of the Traditional Marriage Congressman and the Kid He Met On Grindr?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:He doesn't need to be here for you to invent his position and then argue against it, so it's functionally equivalent. I must have really struck a nerve when I schooled you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Not even related to the conversation, and hardly the point behind his argument. Taking the mere hypothetical of what you do when MAD isn't a deterrent to nuclear war and pushing it into the idea that he wants to commit to genocide against the entire Middle East is pretty disingenuous and not the first time I've seen it parroted here. One it shows his rather simplistic understanding of Muslims, and the fact he thinks he would need to do that to deter Muslims is quite frightening. Maybe it is indeed you profile all people of a religion, who think its fine who lacks perspective and maybe you need to learn some basic human compassion and not rush to prophets of "reason who think its reasonable to align with fascists, and advocates preventing a people from being able to build centers of worship. Also taking someone at their word is not creating a man of straw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This Tariq Ramadan guy is very adamant that homophobia is an immutable and unchangable aspect of Islam and in his view all other religions as well. I very much disagree with his assessment but it's funny that the New Atheists and the Islamic scholars agree on this point while the liberals and leftists disagree. Nice cherry picking, from the same article you quoted:- quote:But the question is not whether one agrees with the religious texts, the beliefs and the convictions espoused by individuals. It is to determe what is appropriate behavior in the societies in which we live together. For more than twenty years I have been insisting—and drawing sharp criticism from some Muslim groups—that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, but that we must avoid condemning or rejecting individuals. It is quite possible to disagree with a person’s behavior (public or private), while respecting that person as an individual. This I have continued to affirm, and gone further still: a person who pronounces the attestation of Islamic faith becomes a Muslim; if that person engages in homosexual practices, no one has the right to drive him or her out of Islam. Behavior considered reprehensible under the rules of morality cannot justify excommunication. There is no ambiguity, and ample clarity: European Muslims have the right to express their convictions while at the same time respecting the humanity and rights of individuals. If we are to be consistent, we must respect this attitude of faith and openness. Wow, so homophobic. Also, when he talks about the ideological driven question of colonialism and the modern homosexual identity movements, is actually based on the Incredible book made by Columbia university professor of Joseph Massad, 'Desiring Arabs' , a book which earned him full tenure at that university, which talks extensively about the differences between homosexuality traditionally practiced in arab and muslim societies and how western colonialism first inserted and introduced homophobia as law into the societies they governed, then when times changed the western LGBT political movements use their rhetoric as a sword in the hand of people who wish to impose a new form of colonialism 'in the name of liberal values' while at the same time promoting and backing the absolute most homophobic regimes simply due to them being puppets of the west. I really recommend this book because it's really an interesting insight into homosexuality in the Arab and Islamic world and how much western colonialism hosed them in many ways. it's really easy to talk poo poo about races and religions you dont like when you have zero knowledge or insight into what you're talking about. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Oh yeah those guys are Old Cops. We're the New Cops, and you can't prove we're racist just because a lot of black people get beaten up on our watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:That is very different from what he actually said. Saying that it's possible for there to be a situation where a preemptive strike is necessary is not the same as advocating any particular preemptive strike. The End of Faith is a hell of a book, my man. The lengthy sequence explaining that because Bush could have caused more damage, the Iraq war must necessarily have been a good thing was the biggest takeaway for me, but aside from that? On the Holocaust: The End of Faith posted: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. Prior to the rise of the church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture – that is, for the content of their own unreasonable, sectarian beliefs. The dogma of a “chosen people,” while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world. "It's almost impossible to contemplate, but really, if you think about it, they did strictly speaking ask for it. The strident little shits." On Psychic Powers Being Real The End of Faith posted:There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science. Your boy's ideals beyond All Browns Must Glow end up being about as well-supported as the one that got him all those cushy neocon speaking arrangements back during the Bush years, it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
He and David Icke should team up and expose the psychic reptilian conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:One it shows his rather simplistic understanding of Muslims, and the fact he thinks he would need to do that to deter Muslims is quite frightening. Maybe it is indeed you profile all people of a religion, who think its fine who lacks perspective and maybe you need to learn some basic human compassion and not rush to prophets of "reason who think its reasonable to align with fascists, and advocates preventing a people from being able to build centers of worship. Also taking someone at their word is not creating a man of straw. Once again I don't know where you guys get some of this. I see you making ties or taking extra steps to where none exist. You're talking about a man that commonly uses extreme situations to establish frameworks for moral discussions. What you see as advocacy of torture is truly just a challenge to the notion that torture is inherently immoral on its own terms. As a person open to reason and knowledgeable on the subject he is surely aware that as an effective means of gaining information it isn't reliable and often provide false info, but one can easily posit a situation where it could be a moral act. Hell, the entire premise of the Moral Landscape begins to the absurd extremes of infinite human happiness and a universe of ultimate suffering. Going back to torture you can easily construct a scenario where a terrorist has hidden a nuke in a major city, and the only way to get him to reveal the information is something extreme like torture or even the threat of harm against his family. When weighed against the lives of millions this seems like an easy moral choice to make. You could take it one step further and say we have a special machine that will literally extract the information from your unwilling captives brain but the process will cause pain on such a level that he will simply die from it. I've read the articles you people describe and no where do I see a man simply calling for the torture and deaths of millions through simple blind hate and ignorance. Anyway, I'm done on my Sam Harris defense or any other New Atheist thinker. I don't think that is what the OP intended, so I will leave it there, rebut as you desire, but lets end it here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Once again I don't know where you guys get some of this. I see you making ties or taking extra steps to where none exist. You're talking about a man that commonly uses extreme situations to establish frameworks for moral discussions. What you see as advocacy of torture is truly just a challenge to the notion that torture is inherently immoral on its own terms. As a person open to reason and knowledgeable on the subject he is surely aware that as an effective means of gaining information it isn't reliable and often provide false info, but one can easily posit a situation where it could be a moral act. Hell, the entire premise of the Moral Landscape begins to the absurd extremes of infinite human happiness and a universe of ultimate suffering. Going back to torture you can easily construct a scenario where a terrorist has hidden a nuke in a major city, and the only way to get him to reveal the information is something extreme like torture or even the threat of harm against his family. When weighed against the lives of millions this seems like an easy moral choice to make. You could take it one step further and say we have a special machine that will literally extract the information from your unwilling captives brain but the process will cause pain on such a level that he will simply die from it. I've read the articles you people describe and no where do I see a man simply calling for the torture and deaths of millions through simple blind hate and ignorance. You have just said "as a person open to reason and knowledgeable on the subject, he is surely aware" about a person who is on record in a book he published as claiming that psychic powers are real and mainstream science is just refusing to look into them. This assertion may be less than perfectly supported.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Nice cherry picking, moron, from the same article you quoted:- The quote you provided is the same "love the sinner hate the sin" stuff that conservative Christians have always pushed, do you think that has worked well in practice? Also the notion that anti-gay beliefs are an immutable part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is absurd and patently false. He claims that they will "never waver" when clearly there is a substantial and increasing amount of wavering. Also, I think you missed the point of why I even posted that, it was not to call Tariq a homophobe, but to point out his view on anti-gay beliefs being an intrinsic part of Abrahamic religions. The reason I wanted to point it out was that many posters in this thread disagree. As far as "talking poo poo about religions I don't like," I started out in this thread criticizing Christian homophobia. Does this mean I must hate Christianity as well? That would certainly be news to me considering how much time I have wasted defending it at various times. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:/thread I hope it is a nice bridge that can lead into a better argument because I am pretty sure I became an atheist without any world leaders influence. I did not exclusively read or listen to any of the main 3 guys in atheism usually brought up, but beyond some comedy podcasts with an atheist bent I was influenced quite a bit by The Atheist Experience, which in turn had been influenced by some of the people mentioned. I don't agree with them on everything, especially some of the dumber political stuff Hitchens spouted, but I would say their writings helped make me an atheist today, whereas before I was one of the more ardent (and only) believers in my circle of friends and coworkers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The quote you provided is the same "love the sinner hate the sin" stuff that conservative Christians have always pushed, do you think that has worked well in practice? About as well as people ITT saying they can criticism Islam without hating Muslims, I'd say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The quote you provided is the same "love the sinner hate the sin" stuff that conservative Christians have always pushed, do you think that has worked well in practice? Also the notion that anti-gay beliefs are an immutable part of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is absurd and patently false. He claims that they will "never waver" when clearly there is a substantial and increasing amount of wavering. What's the problem with the concept that people should believe what they want to believe as long as all individuals are treated fairly and equally in a civil society? he was essentially describing the same thing that all modern civil societies should practice, that each person should be respected as individuals and be treated fairly and equally even if your religious and moral beliefs contradict this. the reason why it hasn't worked in 'practice' is because they allowed their religion to harm the civil society the same way that racists, anti-Semites, etc. were able to harm the political system, the only reason why it's letting looser now isn't due to religions changing but because the political system and society has changed, the racists and homophobes are dying out in sufficient numbers that their grip on the political system has wavered (although unfortunately it may be coming back soon) that gives more room in the political system for opposing viewpoints and for people to believe what they want and practice what they want without being censured. I dont believe that Christianity (as in the main core of Catholicism and Protestantism scripture and teaching) has wavered in its attitudes on homosexuality (see the African countries like Uganda) it's that the civil societies of the western world now allow for people to live freely and equally, and that's what Tariq Ramadan was arguing, it's that part of being in the Islamic faith is that despite having restrictions on homosexuality, it is to treat others with the respect and dignity of equal citizens and that no one should dictate to others what they should or shouldn't believe by force. The reason why arab and muslim countries dont treat it's citizens freely and equally is the same reason why there isnt any political freedoms and democracy for anyone, let alone homosexuals, it's that there is no civil society and no freedom to be had in the first place, thanks to outright fascism either by officers cap or by royal crowns, many of them sponsored by the west. So it's not the religion, it's the geopolitical circumstances. If you're core argument is that religion is bad because it has negative outlooks on homosexuality for the people who choose to believe in it then OK that's fine, but to me, what should matter more than what views religions have on moral issues is that the political system and civil society should ensure that everyone be treated fairly and equally. and not that believers in a religion should throw their Bibles/Qurans/Torahs into the trash. Also, I apologize, I didnt mean you when I said 'religions you dont like' I meant new atheist thinkers. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:About as well as people ITT saying they can criticism Islam without hating Muslims, I'd say. If they thought that all practice of Islam is inherently evil and bad then sure, I don't think many people were making that argument though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 22:45
|
|