Do you like Sam Harris?

[Lexicus]

They are a Muslim country, we took out their government,

AFAIK Saddam's government was secular, not "Islamic" in any real sense.

 

[caketastydelish]

AFAIK Saddam's government was secular, not "Islamic" in any real sense.

Well sure. It was overwhelmingly a Muslim country. Name any time in the past 15 years where America made that kind of military action (or anything remotely like it) against a non-Muslim country.

 

[Lexicus]

Well sure. It was overwhelmingly a Muslim country. Name any time in the past 15 years where America made that kind of military action (or anything remotely like it) against a non-Muslim country.

Can't, though I know we're engaged in military operations in central Africa as well.
In any case it doesn't matter, because these facts aren't enough to establish that the US is at war with Islam.
I'm again unsure why you are insisting this; this is what ISIS insists and what ISIS uses to claim that other Muslims should flock to its banner. Why are you helping ISIS by insisting that its propaganda is correct?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

religious folk are making the same claim when they attribute existence to a creator, they 'know' what is not responsible too (a non-creator)... Atheists cannot exclude a divine being from the possibilities, doing so makes a claim of knowledge we dont have. I dont know what is responsible so all I can do is speculate, but it seems 'knowing' does tend to produce a less humble approach that quickly devolves into flame wars.

Of course I exclude a divine being from the possibilities, for the simple reasons that there is no evidence to support that claim and pretty much the only "evidence" that creationists/ID proponents offer is "look around; the world exists, therefore God made it" or they wave the bible and say "God made everything, it says so in this book that he wrote."

One thing I'll give to Harris is, at least he appears to be a sincere atheist. Dawkins is just a Protestant who's figured out a way to set himself one step further removed from the Vatican.

Dawkins said himself that on his 1-7 scale, he considers himself a 6. He said the reason is in case evidence actually comes in that would prove him wrong.

I'm agnostic and I'd lean to the 'divine' origin side... I figure if the universe is infused with life, then life preceded the universe. But maybe not

Let's not start that again.

so atheists believe the universe has a creator too, just not the one in the Bible?

Where did you get that idea?

Not exactly. Atheists reject the idea that any of presented versions of creator entities made it since those doesn't exist. That doesn't rule out options not presented yet.

Whut?

I can assure you that if someone came up to me tomorrow and tried to convert me to some religion I'd never heard of before and they claim that religion's supreme being or pantheon created the universe, I'm still going to require evidence. If no evidence is forthcoming, I will reject that religion just as I reject the ones I already know about.

Agnosticism = without knowledge, atheism = without god... Most people on the planet believe in their own god(s) and not the other guys. If atheism is merely the same position then whats the big deal? How does the atheist say 'all of your creators are fictitious but mine is not'?

Atheists don't believe in "creators." Period.

Theists claim the universe has a creator. Do atheists reject that claim? I'm getting different answers.

I reject the claim that the universe has a creator. It doesn't make sense, because where did this supposed creator come from? If this claim is true, then why are there so many different religions with different creation stories? They should all be the same, if the universe was created by one specific entity.

Ya'll need to follow these people online more. Dawkins alone has gone on massive Islamophobic rants on Twitter over the years, as well as sexist ones.

I'm aware of Dawkins' sexism, and I'm appalled by it. However, I said that in all the videos of his I've seen, he has never expressed any sort of racism against Middle Eastern/Arab people. He has expressed considerable disdain against Islam, which is not the same thing.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming all Middle Eastern/Arab people follow Islam, any more than all Europeans and North/South Americans follow the same religion.

 

[caketastydelish]

Ok, but only if "crazy lone gunman who happened to be a Muslim" doesn't count as a terrorist attack by Muslims.

Nope. I'll only say it a Muslim terrorist attack if they explicitly say the attack was carried out by influence of Islam. (they almost always do, and when they don't, I ignore it)

Cake, no. For one thing, as you yourself point out Israel is largely in the wrong there. For another, to say that the US is at war with Islam is literally repeating ISIS' propaganda.

Don't help ISIS with its propaganda and recruiting.

I have demonstrated time and time again that the United States only bombs, subjugates, occupies, and oppresses, Muslim countries. We are clearly targeting them, it is undeniable. Likewise they seem fond of terrorist attacks against us. Even if their hatred of the United States is very justified, you cannot deny a conflict is there.

 

[caketastydelish]

I personally think the best solution to the problem is to leave those people alone rather than profiling or torture, but "The United States is at war Islam" is reasonable.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm aware of Dawkins' sexism, and I'm appalled by it. However, I said that in all the videos of his I've seen, he has never expressed any sort of racism against Middle Eastern/Arab people. He has expressed considerable disdain against Islam, which is not the same thing.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming all Middle Eastern/Arab people follow Islam, any more than all Europeans and North/South Americans follow the same religion.

I can't honestly imagine that Dawkins has many nice things to say about the Druze or Chaldeans.

Dawkins said himself that on his 1-7 scale, he considers himself a 6. He said the reason is in case evidence actually comes in that would prove him wrong.

I just meant that he's a chauvinistic cultural Protestant. His atheism is another step on the Englishman's grand historical march from Babylon to Jerusalem, even if he'd prefer a different name for publicity reasons.

I personally think the best solution to the problem is to leave those people alone rather than profiling or torture, but "The United States is at war Islam" is reasonable.

It's the very opposite of reasonable. It's actively deranged.

 

[Lexicus]

I personally think the best solution to the problem is to leave those people alone rather than profiling or torture, but "The United States is at war Islam" is reasonable.

No, it's not reasonable, not even with Trump and his crazy friends in the White House.

 

[caketastydelish]

Can't, though I know we're engaged in military operations in central Africa as well.
In any case it doesn't matter, because these facts aren't enough to establish that the US is at war with Islam.
I'm again unsure why you are insisting this; this is what ISIS insists and what ISIS uses to claim that other Muslims should flock to its banner. Why are you helping ISIS by insisting that its propaganda is correct?

If the United States openly declared war on every single Muslim country in the world and sent troop to every single one of them, we would instantly get the world popularity Germany had in 1939 (and rightfully so). We love to screw them, but only as much as we can get away with. Even then, people are getting sick of us.

There are plenty of Muslims all over Africa, including central Africa.

It is possible for a clock to be correct twice a day. If Hitler told me the sky is blue and the grass is green, he would be correct. I am not afraid of 'agreeing with ISIS'.

 

[caketastydelish]

No, it's not reasonable, not even with Trump and his crazy friends in the White House.

Trump ultimately represents big money and corporations (what else would explain his blatant cabinet choices). Big money doesn't want him to just go out and say the United States is at war with Islam. If it were in the best interest of corporate greed for him to go out and say that, he would.

 

[Traitorfish]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[caketastydelish]

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

'We' I suppose you mean Britain? I don't know enough about British history. You were obviously at war with Islam during the Crusades. In Colonial times the Brits were at war with basically everyone, including the United States. The strange love affair we started having didn't come until after 1812, when you burned down our capital.

The USA's involvement in destabilizing Muslim countries for our own gain goes back to the 1950's, at the very least. I know we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because we decided their oil getting nationalized would not be in our best interests. Among other things. The USA is also nowhere near as old as Britain, and the time that we've been a Super Power is VERY recent in terms of world history. As far as I can tell the USA hasn't really been a top dog super power since post world war 2, and since that time we have been exploiting Muslim countries.

 

[Traitorfish]

it was a nineteen eight-four reference, bloody hell.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'll also add that some of are 'Muslim country allies' are only partially true.

Pakistan is our 'ally'. Why? We bribe their government to supporting us. The people of the country by and large, hate us. We give Pakistan a lot of money. Not to be nice, but to buy them.

Saudi Arabia: Ditto.

etc

 

[El_Machinae]

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling

He makes an error in this piece, but not the one you think. Profiling should not exist because the people need to know what level of oppression the profiled are experiencing. But the argument FOR profiling is one of efficiency and opportunity cost. And the counter-argument is one designed to make sure that people's rights are taken away in a way that results in the democratic process still being able to stop the over-reach. He's making the opportunity-cost argument. And his anecdote "they missed the bullets in my carryon while they searched the candles of a little kid" is cromulent, but in a way somewhat opposite to his point.

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

This article is a nuanced position, and takes pains to frame out his specific scenario. He even hopes that he is incorrect, so he's trying his very best to mix ethics with pragmatism.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

The part you quote here is a longer passage with regards to how much more difficult any self-defense decisions become if an Islamic State gets long-range nuclear weapons, and how pressing it is to avoid the situation where so many options are trimmed away. MAD is less effective with Jihadists.

He's a lot more insightful than you think. I'll agree he goes a bit too far on his conflation of Islam with jihadism. But he has positions on a lot of topics.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

He makes an error in this piece, but not the one you think. Profiling should not exist because the people need to know what level of oppression the profiled are experiencing. But the argument FOR profiling is one of efficiency and opportunity cost. And the counter-argument is one designed to make sure that people's rights are taken away in a way that results in the democratic process still being able to stop the over-reach. He's making the opportunity-cost argument. And his anecdote "they missed the bullets in my carryon while they searched the candles of a little kid" is cromulent, but in a way somewhat opposite to his point.

This article is a nuanced position, and takes pains to frame out his specific scenario. He even hopes that he is incorrect, so he's trying his very best to mix ethics with pragmatism.

The part you quote here is a longer passage with regards to how much more difficult any self-defense decisions become if an Islamic State gets long-range nuclear weapons, and how pressing it is to avoid the situation where so many options are trimmed away. MAD is less effective with Jihadists.

He's a lot more insightful than you think. I'll agree he goes a bit too far on his conflation of Islam with jihadism. But he has positions on a lot of topics.

I dunno. I mean, his state-based argument for nuclear weapons could seemingly apply to, say, Pakistan or Iran (or at least, it's not hard to interpret it that way), and I don't really think we need to be considering a strike on them.

I guess as far as profiling goes, any attempt to cage a pro-profiling argument behind opportunistic "pragmatism" or some similar logical conceit is a non-starter. it's usually based on bad stats and is a bad route for the state to go down.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'll also add that some of are 'Muslim country allies' are only partially true.

Pakistan is our 'ally'. Why? We bribe their government to supporting us. The people of the country by and large, hate us. We give Pakistan a lot of money. Not to be nice, but to buy them.

Saudi Arabia: Ditto.

etc

I think you're confusing "ally" with "BFF".

Nobody ever said that international alliances were about liking each other.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I can't honestly imagine that Dawkins has many nice things to say about the Druze or Chaldeans.

Then by all means, link me to where he expresses racism, rather than atheism/agnosticism/anti-theism.

I just meant that he's a chauvinistic cultural Protestant. His atheism is another step on the Englishman's grand historical march from Babylon to Jerusalem, even if he'd prefer a different name for publicity reasons.

Since I am neither English nor a man and have no idea what "march from Babylon to Jerusalem" means, you're going to have to rephrase this.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then by all means, link me to where he expresses racism, rather than atheism/agnosticism/anti-theism.

It's not about thumping his chest and proclaiming the herrenvolk. Dawkins is a liberal imperialist, with a general and unapologetic contempt for the non-Western. You may not find him saying anything specifically hostile to the Yazidis or Jains or Assyrians, but you'll find little to suggest he holds any sympathy for them, more than he does adherents of the Muslim, Catholic or Orthodox faiths.

Since I am neither English nor a man and have no idea what "march from Babylon to Jerusalem" means, you're going to have to rephrase this.

"Chauvinist" in the sense of "national chauvinism". And what I mean is, Dawkins atheism is an expression of a very English and Protestant abhorrence of the Orient, which in practice means everything that isn't English and Protestant. History is for Dawkins a movement from the superstition of the ziggurat to the rationalism of the university, and his rejection of God, who is after all a sort of cosmic space-pope, is just another step in this direction.

 

[El_Machinae]

I dunno. I mean, his state-based argument for nuclear weapons could seemingly apply to, say, Pakistan or Iran (or at least, it's not hard to interpret it that way), and I don't really think we need to be considering a strike on them.

He specifically states that it would not apply to countries like Iran or Pakistan, actually. The point was that 'jihadis get nuclear weapons' is a very scary scenario, because it suddenly means that you have to consider a first-strike scenario.

I guess as far as profiling goes, any attempt to cage a pro-profiling argument behind opportunistic "pragmatism" or some similar logical conceit is a non-starter. it's usually based on bad stats and is a bad route for the state to go down.

No need to scare-quote, though. The pragmatism argument is a good one, as long as it's not based on bad statistics. They're not necessarily linked, and it's not fair to assume that someone is linking them until they signal or dog-whistle that they are. The reason why profiling is bad is not so much an argument that the stats are bad (they can always be improved); it's that a minority is being subjected to an injustice of which the majority is not aware ... and therefore both sympathy and empathy will not be present when the injustice crosses a line.