Do you like Sam Harris?

[Traitorfish]

Well, you made it appear that the only people making the death threats were the Iranian government. Then I said that isn't true. I don't know all the specific people that made death threats. Perhaps some of them were anonymous. Perhaps Holland decided not to publicly disclose all the names. Perhaps some of the names are already publicly available and I'm too lazy to dig them up.

The Iranian government was the only specific party cited; I was trying to make as rich a soup as a I could with the cleanly-picked carcass that was offered to me.

But you're missing the point: you claimed that the people who call Harris "Islamophobic", that is, Western leftists, are the same people who called Holland "Islamophobic", but you didn't actually produce an example of Western leftists making that claim, or indeed of anyone calling him "Islamophobic", only of "insulting Islam", which is a very different claim both in substance and what it tells us about the priorities of the accuser, assuming a certain level of good faith on their part.

When the man can't even have an event in his own country and gets attacked for something very reasonable like this, there is definitely a problem.

Shut down every single communist organization, such as every political party that openly calls itself communist. Every time someone goes on TV and says they support communism, have them arrested.

Hm.

 

[warpus]

Agnostics make no claim about God, the theists and the atheists do.

I'm an atheist and I make no claims about the Christian (or the Muslim or the Hindu or the ..) God. I simply lack a belief in any of those creatures.

But with a creator, will I be held to account or will my creator take the blame for my imperfections?

Who knows? If there is a creator, maybe he wants us to eat as much cheese as possible, during our time here. Maybe that's what gets you into paradise. Maybe he'll judge you based on the way you walk instead, or the type of hats you like to wear, or..

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I've seen quite a few Dawkins videos now (and several more in which he partners with Laurence Krauss), and while both of them are quite blunt at times, I have seen no evidence of anti-Arab/Middle Eastern bigotry. Their antipathy is toward any organized religion or religious person that denies science, the scientific method, evidence that has been found and is either being studied or is on display in museums, etc.

Dawkins is against religious indoctrination of children before they're old enough to understand what they're being indoctrinated with, and there was a time when Krauss gave a talk to a group of Muslim students and refused to begin until the audience had been de-segregated from men's seating and women's seating. He wanted everyone in mixed seating, and for women to be able to sit in front, if they wanted to.

There is no such thing as "new" atheists. I wish you would stop using that word.

@GoodEnough: Accusing Harris of Islamophobia is ridiculous, and your criticism is completely unfounded.

I strongly assume that you haven't read any of Harris' works, and have only formed your opinion through hearsay and intentionally badly presented information about him? If you actually care to get some real insight into what you're commenting on, I would suggest you read Islam and the Future of Tolerance (10 min YouTube clip to MSNBC interview) , by Harris and Nawaz. It's not a big book either.

Interesting. How do you get the opinion that Affleck doesn't disagree with them? I've seen the clip multiple times, and I have never been able to not see it as Affleck refusing to listen to any arguments and just screaming "racism" to shut down the conversation.

It's one thing to disagree with Sam Harris (I personally do) but the 'Sam Harris is a racist Islamophobe' people are pure pathetic. He criticizes ALL religions, not just Islam. Islam is not a race anyway. Most Christians (at least in the west) are white. Is Sam Harris racist against whites? Like I said, it's ok to criticize him and disagree with him, but don't talk out of your ass.

I guess I'll address all of these together. I read Sam Harris' "End of Faith" in 2007 in college. I've listened to a podcast of his before. 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.

Sam Harris has written for the Washington Times, a right-wing rag American "newspaper" where he said the west is at war with Islam, and stated that Ben Carson would make a better president than Noam Chomsky simply because the former "understands" the threat that refugees and Islam poses. Sam Harris has also written in support of pre-emptive nuclear strikes (conveniently, always only on Middle Eastern targets), racial profiling, and torture. They're all on his website! They're always about profiling/torturing/attacking Muslims. Hard pass.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

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

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

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

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.

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

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Edit: This is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year in an interview, he agreed with Ted Cruz that the US should take Christian over Muslim refugees, for instance.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Yep - and even then, he's much more smarter (and more successful) than you are. If you are truly holier than though, you would be in a better position than you are in now. Deal with it.

Prove it.

edit: You've already instantly lost me by saying Dawkins is an islamophobe and a sexist, because he's someone I actually closely follow.

Dawkins is opposed to Brexit, supports international women's day, among other things. I've heard this 'Dawkins is a sexist' BS before and the best I could find is how he made fun of someone who complained about a man asking him out for a cup of coffee. Even if he was a little bit too judgemental, to call him an outright sexist for it is insane.

I'll also add I'm willing to trust someone with a PhD from a top university more than someone who can't even get more than a minimum wage job.

What? What kind of response is this? I never attacked you.

But to your point; I consider myself plenty successful if it means I am not a bigot like he (or Dawkins) is.

 

[Farm Boy]

The more I get convinced to watch these sorts of guys because people here watch them, the more convinced I'm growing that the future bigots of faith in the US will be driven by those that claim none, rather than differing.

 

[caketastydelish]

Islam isn't a race. His views in this regard are largely unwarranted of course. It is true that statistically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks against western countries (America in particular) were caused by Islam. Call me, Sam Harris, or anyone racist for pointing it out, I wouldn't care at all. I personally don't think torture or profiling is the answer.

As for preferring Ben Carson for president- so what? He is allowed to prefer a Republican candidate. There are about as many Republicans in America as Democrat. Republicans are extremely mainstream, not a fringe neo Nazi minority.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Islam isn't a race. His views in this regard are largely unwarranted of course. It is true that statistically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks against western countries (America in particular) were caused by Islam. Call me, Sam Harris, or anyone racist for pointing it out, I wouldn't care at all. I personally don't think torture or profiling is the answer.

As for preferring Ben Carson for president- so what? He is allowed to prefer a Republican candidate. There are about as many Republicans in America as Democrat. Republicans are extremely mainstream, not a fringe neo Nazi minority.

I recommend reading the Guardian link I edited in; it has a potpourri of really bad stuff Dawkins (and Harris) have come out in support of. Now, I'm willing to give him some benefit because Twitter and Facebook and stuff tends to not lend itself to careful, nuanced positions, but at this point, the evidence is all there.

And of course he is allowed to favor a candidate. It's the why however; he basically views us at war with Islam, and even though he calls himself a liberal, he would sell every political position to get someone who views Islam the same way.

 

[caketastydelish]

I went through the Dawkins link. Much of it was a bunch of BS he supposedly said without any verified source. Then from the things they verified, none of it was that bad except the part about not believing rape victims if they were drunk. Even then Dawkins has apologized for much of what he's said.

Would I be racist for saying the United States is at war with Germany, Italy and Japan in world war 2? Can you name one country in the world we are war with that isn't a muslim country? The best I think of is North Korea and even then we aren't really at war- just an uneasy peace.

 

[Traitorfish]

Would I be racist for saying the United States is at war with Germany, Italy and Japan in world war 2? Can you name one country in the world we are war with that isn't a muslim country?

Can you name any that are? Iraq and Afghanistan are both your allies, and ISIS is not by any reasonable measure a "country".

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Ok. You can say we're at war with Islam, as long as you consider the US the aggressor and the guilty party. But then we'd be making the propaganda for extremists ourselves.

 

[Lexicus]

It is true that statistically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks against western countries (America in particular) were caused by Islam.

No, it is true that statistically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks against the US are done by far-right white supremacists.

 

[caketastydelish]

Can you name any that are? Iraq and Afghanistan are both your allies, and ISIS is not by any reasonable measure a "country".

The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan is our 'ally' is because we are literally forcing them to. Otherwise we would be at war. As for ISIS. I don't know the technical jargon, but we are definitely at war with ISIS, and ISIS is undeniably an Islamic state.

This isn't even including the times the United States has dropped drone strikes and bombs on other middle eastern countries, even the ones we don't directly have boots on the ground in. We are extensively only doing this with Muslim countries, and with no other countries.

 

[caketastydelish]

No, it is true that statistically, the vast majority of terrorist attacks against the US are done by far-right white supremacists.

I'd be willing to believe it. You'd have to prove it. FYI, "Crazy lone gunman who happened to be white" doesn't count as a terrorist attack by a far right white supremacist.

 

[caketastydelish]

Ok. You can say we're at war with Islam, as long as you consider the US the aggressor and the guilty party. But then we'd be making the propaganda for extremists ourselves.

In this regard you are basically correct. But to say "the united states is at war Islam" is not entirely unclear. We have a pattern.

one more example: We overwhelmingly favor Israel over Palestine even though all common sense and the human rights violations of Israel would make defending Palestine the sensible thing to do. The United States is 'at war with Islam' as much as it possibly could be.

 

[Lexicus]

FYI, "Crazy lone gunman who happened to be white" doesn't count as a terrorist attack by a far right white supremacist.

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

one more example: We overwhelmingly favor Israel over Palestine even though all common sense and the human rights violations of Israel would make defending Palestine the sensible thing to do. The United States is 'at war with Islam' as much as it possibly could be.

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

The only reason Iraq and Afghanistan is our 'ally' is because we are literally forcing them to. Otherwise we would be at war.

At war with who? The current Iraqi and Afghan states were both created under American supervision by pro-American elements. The Ba'ath and Taliban states no longer exist to be at war with.

As for ISIS. I don't know the technical jargon, but we are definitely at war with ISIS, and ISIS is undeniably an Islamic state.

It's not technical jargon, it's just a plain description of facts. The United States has carried out military actions against ISIS, but is not engaged in the active waging of war. ISIS is a self-declared "Isamic state", but lacks most of the characteristics of a state, or international recognition as such.

 

[Lexicus]

but lacks most of the characteristics of a state, or international recognition as such.

It also lacks most of the characteristics of "Islamic", or international recognition as such.

 

[caketastydelish]

At war with who? The current Iraqi and Afghan states were both created under American supervision by pro-American elements. The Ba'ath and Taliban states no longer exist to be at war with.

Sure, but why are the Ba'ath and Taliban states no longer to be at war with? We took them out. They are a Muslim country, we took out their government, and replace it with something we would prefer. It seems from the past 15 years or so (as far back as I can personally remember) we are only doing this to Muslim countries.

It's not technical jargon, it's just a plain description of facts. The United States has carried out military actions against ISIS, but is not engaged in the active waging of war. ISIS is a self-declared "Isamic state", but lacks most of the characteristics of a state, or international recognition as such.[/QUOTE]

How about this: They're a group of human beings, a group of human beings under the Islamic faith and banner. We are at war with them.

 

[Traitorfish]

It also lacks most of the characteristics of "Islamic", or international recognition as such.

It's certainly not an "Islamic state" in the conventional sense of a state which incorporates Islamic law and Islamic principles of governance into its constitution, seeing that it has no clear law, no clear principles of governance, and no constitution of any kind.

America is in a not-war with the not-Islamic not-State. Hard to build a theory of civilisational struggle on that.

Sure, but why are the Ba'ath and Taliban states no longer to be at war with? We took them out.

And now they are your allies. I'm not sure what point you're making?

They are a Muslim country, we took out their government, and replace it with something we would prefer. It seems from the past 15 years or so (as far back as I can personally remember) we are only doing this to Muslim countries.

Fifteen years isn't really long enough to establish a civilisational conflict. Civilisations, if they're a useful category, work on a timescale of centuries, not years.

How about this: They're a group of human beings, a group of human beings under the Islamic faith and banner. We are at war with them.

There are a lot of human beings under "the Islamic faith and banner". You aren't at war with most of them, and you're allied to more than you're at war with.