2
 
   
 

To Sam himself :  Your mistake

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 08:45
 
burt - 22 October 2007 07:06 PM

But that is just it, you look at the evidence through a filter of your own beliefs and prejudices so you see what you expect.  That means that you are not objective or mentally free.  The same statement applies to Muslims, Christians, Socialists, Flat Earthers, or anybody who can only see the world from a single fixed perspective and believes that this is the way things really are.  It perpetuates exactly the sort of violence and hatred that you decry.  Whey you categorize people simply by what you think their beliefs stand for you are ignoring the individual and dehumanizing them.  When you treat people that way, you will deepen their attachments to their beliefs and simply create a deeper division.  After a while you will begin to think that they really do deserve to be killed because they are totally evil.

You overestimate the degree to which “beliefs and prejudices” are “filtering” the “perceptions” of the people you are arguing with. It is convenient for you to estimate (or assert) that everyone is equally affected by them, except for certain kinds of “enlightened” individuals (and I am sure you count yourself among the latter) who truly do see clearly Traditionalism, elitism and authoritarianism can be disguised as overweening respect for ancient texts. Where have I heard that one before? An enlightened despot not sufficiently enlightened by empirical grounding cannot be trusted. I don’t wish to tell people the “right” way to behave, only to make careful observations of the world, because every person must obey the laws of physics.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how innocuous in practice, a person who believes in invisible non-existent entities is at best going to be periodically incapable of dealing with the real world, and at worst is going to be an implacable enemy who cannot be discouraged except at the point of a gun.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 10:10
 
Salt Creek - 23 October 2007 12:45 PM
burt - 22 October 2007 07:06 PM

But that is just it, you look at the evidence through a filter of your own beliefs and prejudices so you see what you expect.  That means that you are not objective or mentally free.  The same statement applies to Muslims, Christians, Socialists, Flat Earthers, or anybody who can only see the world from a single fixed perspective and believes that this is the way things really are.  It perpetuates exactly the sort of violence and hatred that you decry.  Whey you categorize people simply by what you think their beliefs stand for you are ignoring the individual and dehumanizing them.  When you treat people that way, you will deepen their attachments to their beliefs and simply create a deeper division.  After a while you will begin to think that they really do deserve to be killed because they are totally evil.

You overestimate the degree to which “beliefs and prejudices” are “filtering” the “perceptions” of the people you are arguing with. It is convenient for you to estimate (or assert) that everyone is equally affected by them, except for certain kinds of “enlightened” individuals (and I am sure you count yourself among the latter) who truly do see clearly Traditionalism, elitism and authoritarianism can be disguised as overweening respect for ancient texts. Where have I heard that one before? An enlightened despot not sufficiently enlightened by empirical grounding cannot be trusted. I don’t wish to tell people the “right” way to behave, only to make careful observations of the world, because every person must obey the laws of physics.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how innocuous in practice, a person who believes in invisible non-existent entities is at best going to be periodically incapable of dealing with the real world, and at worst is going to be an implacable enemy who cannot be discouraged except at the point of a gun.

You’re right, there are degrees of encapsulation by words and beliefs.  Likewise, overweening attachment to ancient texts, or etc., is the “error of nations.”  I was replying to a person who is, from his posts, obviously highly fixated.  Probably a guy in his 20s and still highly idealistic.  You are less controlled by words, except when it comes to anything that appears to be a smidgen away from strict empiricism (so, when some non-empirical response is called for, you are also, as you say, going to be incapable of dealing with the real world).  Is them fightin’ words?

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 10:16
 
burt - 23 October 2007 02:10 PM

Is them fightin’ words?

Only in the restricted sense of “fighting”, and to the extent that “words” are an aspect of the “real world”. Hee-hee.

How the fuck should I know when a non-empirical response is called for? As suits my convenience?

Experience cannot be taken as identical to expedience.

All I’ve done with my words is establish that I have no respect for your opinions. It is your words that establish your credibility. I think you have a point to make about Arild’s words.

[ Edited: 23 October 2007 10:28 by Traces Elk]
 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
arildno
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  26-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 10:16
 
burt - 22 October 2007 07:06 PM
arildno - 22 October 2007 05:29 PM
burt - 22 October 2007 04:59 PM
arildno - 22 October 2007 02:45 PM

Utter nonsense, burt.
Read the damn Quran. Read the hadith. Read the Sharia.

Educate yourself on the worst hellholes on this planet, namely the Islamic countries of this world.

Unless Muslims start a much-needed condemnantion of their childfucking, mass-murdering prophet, they remain, all of them, deeply morally perverted individuals.

Whenever was “the Irish question” the explicit, defining ideology of England??

Don’t you see how your perceptions and reactions are controlled by words, how when somebody speaks or writes the word Islam you have no possibility of responding except in the way that you do?  To the degree that this happens, you are not an awake human being but a puppet of words.

Yawn.
You are a naive fool.
Look at the evidence, in this matter, as in every other.

However, you probably won’t get it, given your “perspective”.

You really don’t understand, do you, that for example the whole idea of Hell, where unbelievers are to be burned for all eternity is simply an expression of rank sadism.

And thus, every one ascribing to that horrid fantasy,thinking it proper, whether Christian or Muslim, is a deeply perverted individual.

But that is just it, you look at the evidence through a filter of your own beliefs and prejudices so you see what you expect.  That means that you are not objective or mentally free.  The same statement applies to Muslims, Christians, Socialists, Flat Earthers, or anybody who can only see the world from a single fixed perspective and believes that this is the way things really are.  It perpetuates exactly the sort of violence and hatred that you decry.  Whey you categorize people simply by what you think their beliefs stand for you are ignoring the individual and dehumanizing them.  When you treat people that way, you will deepen their attachments to their beliefs and simply create a deeper division.  After a while you will begin to think that they really do deserve to be killed because they are totally evil.

Fixated by words?
Seeing through “filters”?

When the hadiths clearly state that, for example, the penalty of apostasy is death, then THAT is what it means.
When all of the four law schools of Islam, and the law codes in every Islamic country agree upon this, then THIS is the reality. There is no “filtered” perceptions here.

It is utterly irrelevant in this context that not all apostates are murdered by the state, or by private individuals (the most common form of religious terror in Islamic countries being done by neighbours on other neighbours, or on family members by other family members).

It is the PRINCIPLE of death penalty for apostasy that is utterly perverted, and every single person ascribing to that idea (even if he or she has no intention personally to carry out any such vile act) is disastrously morally flawed.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
arildno
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  26-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 10:53
 

“When you treat people that way, you will deepen their attachments to their beliefs and simply create a deeper division.”
Or, you might create enough cognitive dissonance within them that may well make their earlier immoral beliefs crumble. By systematically driving them into despair and shame, you force their hand to make a stand:
Either they come to their senses and reject their immoral beliefs, or, if they choose to behave IM-morally, they harden in their beliefs and actions, whereby even stronger measures against them are morally justified.


This “danger of deeper attachment to an immoral doctrine”, which creates a need for censorship of every strong, unapologetic condemnation of Islam is just a blanket permission to let the vileness in it to continue on an indefinite basis.

[ Edited: 23 October 2007 10:58 by arildno]
 
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 October 2007 12:48
 
Salt Creek - 23 October 2007 02:16 PM

All I’ve done with my words is establish that I have no respect for your opinions.

I, on the other hand, do respect your opinions, I just disagree with most of them.  tongue wink (where is the razzberry when we need it?)

 
penndragonn2001
 
Avatar
 
 
penndragonn2001
Total Posts:  3
Joined  07-02-2013
 
 
 
07 February 2013 22:36
 
arildno - 22 October 2007 01:29 PM
burt - 22 October 2007 04:59 PM
arildno - 22 October 2007 02:45 PM

Utter nonsense, burt.
Read the damn Quran. Read the hadith. Read the Sharia.

Educate yourself on the worst hellholes on this planet, namely the Islamic countries of this world.

Unless Muslims start a much-needed condemnantion of their childfucking, mass-murdering prophet, they remain, all of them, deeply morally perverted individuals.

Whenever was “the Irish question” the explicit, defining ideology of England??

Don’t you see how your perceptions and reactions are controlled by words, how when somebody speaks or writes the word Islam you have no possibility of responding except in the way that you do?  To the degree that this happens, you are not an awake human being but a puppet of words.

Yawn.
You are a naive fool.
Look at the evidence, in this matter, as in every other.

However, you probably won’t get it, given your “perspective”.

Right on the money arildno!  Burt needs to catch up on his reading me thinks! 

You really don’t understand, do you, that for example the whole idea of Hell, where unbelievers are to be burned for all eternity is simply an expression of rank sadism.

And thus, every one ascribing to that horrid fantasy,thinking it proper, whether Christian or Muslim, is a deeply perverted individual.

 
 
 
Avatar
 
 
gsmonks
Total Posts:  126
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
02 March 2013 03:42
 
Dee - 16 October 2007 12:26 AM

Dear Mr. Harris,

This world; this civilization ,screams out for an explaination, an examination, a deep, deep look at religion , so your books are not only helpfull, but timely. Both books are good; I, for one ,am very glad you wrote them, but I have a problem with “christan Nation ” .
It’s as though you decided to scold Christians, as if THEY were an outstanding example of corruption in the world of religions. I believe you do know that’s not so, but there are probably thousands of others who think you are singling out Christians as bad.
I can see many a Muslim crowing with satisfaction ,high-fiveing one another and saying : “see ? we always did say that Christianity was sinful and needs to more like our religion ! 
I may be wrong, but that has been bothering me for a long time.
You must know that Islam is a far greater threat to civilization . By modern standards it is backward and inhumane . It’s a terrible threat to democracy compared to Christianiy .  If I had the talent to write like you do I’d try to make sure the reader understands this.
Maybe it’s me who does’nt understand ? I’m sorry , but that’s how I feel.

Christianity is many times the threat to Democracy Islam ever was. The subversion and perversion of the US rule of law and foreign policy are two glaring examples. You can’t say the same about Islam. In fact, the “threat” Islam represented in the Middle East was manufactured by the Christian Right in the US. While the “war on terror” wasn’t a lie, it was the deluded thinking of Christian nutters.

“Backwards and inhumane” is exactly right, but Islam’s threat to us is near non-existent. The wars in the Middle East were rightly characterised as “Star Wars vs The Flintstones”. The Christian Right, however, had its grubby fingers involved in policy-making, and in subverting the US Constitution and the US’s legal machinery (as in Gauntonimo (sp?) Bay in Cuba and Abu Grabe (sp?) in Iraq.

The only “deep look” religion merits is to to uproot and get rid of it.

 
 
Avatar
 
 
Charwiz
Total Posts:  89
Joined  11-04-2013
 
 
 
25 April 2013 19:25
 
Dee - 16 October 2007 12:26 AM

Dear Mr. Harris,

This world; this civilization ,screams out for an explaination, an examination, a deep, deep look at religion , so your books are not only helpfull, but timely. Both books are good; I, for one ,am very glad you wrote them, but I have a problem with “christan Nation ” .
It’s as though you decided to scold Christians, as if THEY were an outstanding example of corruption in the world of religions. I believe you do know that’s not so, but there are probably thousands of others who think you are singling out Christians as bad.
I can see many a Muslim crowing with satisfaction ,high-fiveing one another and saying : “see ? we always did say that Christianity was sinful and needs to more like our religion ! 
I may be wrong, but that has been bothering me for a long time.
You must know that Islam is a far greater threat to civilization . By modern standards it is backward and inhumane . It’s a terrible threat to democracy compared to Christianiy .  If I had the talent to write like you do I’d try to make sure the reader understands this.
Maybe it’s me who does’nt understand ? I’m sorry , but that’s how I feel.

    If you read the title to Sam’s Book,  A LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION,  than you will understand that it was not a letter to religion in general.  He did not write a letter to the religions of the world. Sam Harris is NOT as much anti-religion, but more like   anti blind faith.  He is a man of reason. Even though he does practice and conform to, some of the Buddha’s teachings he still does not go along with the Buddhist beliefs that are based on FAITH. Christianity is 99% faith based.  Christianity needs to be scolded.  You cannot hold to any belief system in the 21st century that is based on faith.  And writings that were written 2000 years ago.  It does not matter if Christians are less violent than Muslims. It really does not matter.  Because there is no room for Religion in the future at all. The future will only have room for REASON.
Just a thought,
CHARWIZ

 

 
 
2