Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

Brown Bomber · 18-10-2014 3:02pm

Dave! wrote: »

That's a US poll –

Yes, the same people who he, and if I understand you right also you want to treat as inherently suspicious.

Brown Bomber · 18-10-2014 3:04pm

Dave! wrote: »

He said most, not all – so your Muslim friend is grand!

Assuming that is the case and Harris is correct then statistically it means this man's wife and child are "utterly deranged".

Brown Bomber · 18-10-2014 3:08pm

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The key element here is that removing religion would make it more difficult for dictators to manipulate its people. Islam at its core has some extremely distasteful doctrines that cry out to be abused by those that seek it. Muhammed being one such guy, and his legacy has a lot of blood tied to his alleged statements about Allah's will.

When someone says, which I encounter a lot, that "removing religion will not make the world peaceful, but simply remove one tool used to oppress people, and another will take its place," as if religion is therefore not worth removing at all (or worth criticising), I find their reasoning flawed. No religion is 'true', they are all tools, much like any idealogy can be, but the issue with religion is that it proclaims that it cannot be questioned and is ultimately untestable. This is why religions outlive their time and stagnate. Islam was a fairly 'good' religion 1400 years ago, better than the alleged Arab pagan religions of that time (at least according to Islamic scholars). But it is stagnant, because of its claims of divine revelations that anchor it to the past.

That letter to IS from Islamic leaders (an admirable effort to stop them through theological reasoning) was an example of that, a nice gesture but problematic in its reasoning as it is tied to its religion rather than humanity. Perhaps that is the only way one fundamentalist can talk with another, but that just highlights the issue further, not diminishes it. Relying on ancient prophesies to combat terrorism is not exactly reliable.

It is good that Islam is being scrutinised both in its historical/scientific claims (and having them debunked) and theological moral claims, and more the better. Perhaps it will force it to reform, as many genuinely sincere secular muslims would like to see. But as long as the quran remains largely unquestioned as its root, it will be a source of constant discord much like the way creationists constantly go back to the literalistic view of the bible to validate their anti-science movement.

OK. If you are right then list of some terrorist groups/individuals who have been radicalised not by the brutal realities of colonialism and neo-imperialism but through the Quran alone.

I guarantee you whatever number (if any) you can come up with I can better it with people and groups that resisted colonialism and neo-imperialism through violence that weren't Islamic.

marienbad · 18-10-2014 3:14pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. If you are right then list of some terrorist groups/individuals who have been radicalised not by the brutal realities of colonialism and neo-imperialism but through the Quran alone.

I guarantee you whatever number (if any) you can come up with I can better it with people and groups that resisted colonialism and neo-imperialism through violence that weren't Islamic.

what about womens rights, lgbt rights, minority rights ?

Delirium · 18-10-2014 3:33pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam

Though what difference does it make?

Are you paraphrasing? because I can't see the quote you're attributing to Harris in the linked article.

Dave! · 18-10-2014 3:57pm

The quote is from Letter to a Christian Nation.

pH · 18-10-2014 4:22pm

Dave! wrote: »

The quote is from Letter to a Christian Nation.

thanks - just wanted to read it in context.

Brown Bomber · 18-10-2014 6:08pm

pH wrote: »

thanks - just wanted to read it in context.

Political correctness and the fear of racism have made many Europeans reluctant to oppose
the terrifying religious commitments of the extremists in their midst. With a few exceptions,
the only public figures who have had the courage to speak honestly about the threat that
Islam now poses to European society seem to be fascists. This does not bode well for the
future of civilization.

The idea that Islam is a "peaceful religion hijacked by extremists" is a fantasy, and it is now a
particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should
proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is
not the answer. It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim
world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it
is so because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith. Muslims tend to view
questions of public policy and global conflict in terms of their affiliation with Islam. And
Muslims who don't view the world in these terms risk being branded as apostates and killed
by other Muslims.
http://luptaanticapitalista.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sam-harris-letter-to-a-christian-nation.pdf

I look forward to hearing your response on this.

robindch · 18-10-2014 11:10pm

Mod:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Due to a moderator diktat [...]

You have received a yellow card for ignoring a moderator warning.

Your will receive a red card for posting your next similar post and a ban for the next one after that.

marienbad · 18-10-2014 11:18pm

Brown Bomber what do you think of the Islamic response to Rushdie and the Danish cartoons ?

Isn't that all their is to it really ?

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 11:21am

marienbad wrote: »

Brown Bomber what do you think of the Islamic response to Rushdie and the Danish cartoons ?

Isn't that all their is to it really ?

I don't believe there was a uniformed "Islamic response". Can you describe it for me?

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 11:22am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. If you are right then list of some terrorist groups/individuals who have been radicalised not by the brutal realities of colonialism and neo-imperialism but through the Quran alone.

I guarantee you whatever number (if any) you can come up with I can better it with people and groups that resisted colonialism and neo-imperialism through violence that weren't Islamic.

OK. So that is Zero so far... Anyone got any increase on nothing?

marienbad · 20-10-2014 12:22pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't believe there was a uniformed "Islamic response". Can you describe it for me?

Always answer a question with a question BB. If you want a serious discussion you will answer the question .

It is all that needs to be discussed really.

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 1:01pm

marienbad wrote: »

Always answer a question with a question BB. If you want a serious discussion you will answer the question .

It is all that needs to be discussed really.

And I promise you that I am more than happy to discuss it with you. The problem is that your question is vague to the point of meaningless. I require you to define what you mean by "Islamic response". I don't think I am being unreasonable. For example, do you mean they boycott of Danish goods by some Arabic trading bloc or the mass protests or the fatwa against the cartoonist which you mentioned earlier, which I don't believe actually happened or what?

marienbad · 20-10-2014 1:22pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I promise you that I am more than happy to discuss it with you. The problem is that your question is vague to the point of meaningless. I require you to define what you mean by "Islamic response". I don't think I am being unreasonable. For example, do you mean they boycott of Danish goods by some Arabic trading bloc or the mass protests or the fatwa against the cartoonist which you mentioned earlier, which I don't believe actually happened or what?

how about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie by the Supreme Leader of Iran for starters ?

stevejazzx · 20-10-2014 1:31pm

I don't think Sam Harris is a racist. He has repeatedly and honestly declared such in an unambiguous manner.
I would be totally in support of him (as he is usually cohesive and spot on) were it not for this recent blog of his which he uses, imo, extremely poor logic in defending recent Israeli actions in Palestine.

Although he acknowledges early on (in the blog audio clip) criticism of Judaism (specifically scriptural and textural criticisms) he goes to essentially blur the lines of Israels history in the region and manages to contradict himself quite emphatically within between minutes 2-4 regarding whether or not there should be a Jewish state. It regrettably gets worse as he describes the difference between Israeli and Arab violence eventually concluding in a quite un-Harris manner that the Arabs are worse because if they had Israels power they'd destroy the world. Israel have on the other hand, according to Harris in the clip ~7.20, demonstrated a more controlled nature because they haven't (as yet) completely annihilated all of Palestine (Gaza) (whereas if Arabs had the power they (again according to Harris) almost certainly would destroy Israel.

This twisted and bankrupt logic neglects to include the large political aspect of Israels treatment of Palestinians so we don't really know what Israel would do if they didn't have to comply with some kind of political process or if they weren't under the constant spotlight of humanitarian organisations. Now considering what they have done, the horrors they have committed even under such spotlights there is simply no defense for their actions not even one that conjures up the full barbarism of the worse of the Muslim combatants (as Harris calls them). Leaving out such elemental considerations in his argument and ultimately coming down fully in support of Israel (as can be heard in the final couple of minutes in the clip) Harris reveals himself not as a racist but rather as someone who is unable to fully criticize or accept Israels actions.
Divorcing these inabilities from his lineage seem impossible hence the cries of racism; however a more subtle and fuller explanation would be simple confirmation bias. Harris spends his time searching out support of his arguments against Muslims and unfortunately there are many.

That leaves him in a difficult situation academically; he is now forced to come full circle and realize his shortcomings in trying fit 2 billion Muslims into a logical container or else again subject himself to having his arguments outdone by a second rate movie star who, while clearly not as informed as Harris, is able to get past the elemental areas of hype, propaganda and mass hysteria that Harris seems to still take some refuge in.

Peregrinus · 20-10-2014 1:49pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't think Sam Harris is a racist. He has repeatedly and honestly declared such in an unambiguous manner.

As in "I'm not a racist, but . . ."

To not be racist it's not enough to say "I'm not a racist!". You actually have to not be a racist, not merely say that you're not. In fact it's pretty characteristic of racists that they deny being racists, so we can't conclude too much, one way or the other?

stevejazzx wrote: »

Divorcing these inabilities from his lineage seem impossible hence the cries of racism; however a more subtle and fuller explanation would be simple confirmation bias. Harris spends his time searching out support of his arguments against Muslims and unfortunately there are many.

So you're saying that he starts from the conclusion that "Islam = bad", and then casts around for arguments in support of his already-chosen conclusion? Isn't that pretty much the definition of bigotry? I mean, I'm not saying that Harris is an islamophobic bigot, but how does this behaviour differ from the behaviour of an Islamophobic bigot?

stevejazzx · 20-10-2014 2:04pm

Peregrinus wrote:

To not be racist it's not enough to say "I'm not a racist!". You actually have to not be a racist, not merely say that you're not. In fact it's pretty characteristic of racists that they deny being racists, so we can't conclude too much, one way or the other?

That is of course true but I am applying, whether it is fair or not, a higher standard for Harris given his public contributions and general honesty on a wide range of subjects to date. In addition to this he is generally correct in what he is saying or at the very least backs up his arguments significantly.
With that acknowledged I am more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt when he claims he is not racist. That aside, some kind of straight forward racism does not fit into any model of argument that he has ever set out which is why his apparent Islamophobia may well be more fully explained by deficiencies in his academic approach.

Pergrinus wrote:

So you're saying that he starts from the conclusion that "Islam = bad", and then casts around for arguments in support of his already-chosen conclusion? Isn't that pretty much the definition of bigotry?

Not necessarily. Depending on the case at hand it is a little bit of a jump. In this particular case it is more readily explained by confirmation bias.
Explaining it by claiming Harris is a bigot is inferring all kinds of complexities upon the affair and attributing all kinds of duplicitous behavior on the part of Harris which again is not in any way congruent with any of his other behavior.

Dave! · 20-10-2014 2:11pm

He is consistently more critical of white Islamic extremists than others, so clearly race is not the determining factor here.

Fire out all the ad hominems you wish, but if "racist" is one of them, then you're a goon.

Peregrinus · 20-10-2014 2:18pm

Dave! wrote: »

He is consistently more critical of white Islamic extremists than others, so clearly race is not the determining factor here.

Actually, that's not a given either. It's not unknown for racists to be more vituperative about "race traitors" of their own race than they are about people of other races.

Having said that, I'm not particularly concerned to label Harris a racist. Race is a cultural construct. So is religion. Bigotry against a group identified by race is racism; bigotry against a group identified by some other cultural construct is not racism, but that hardly gives it a free pass; it's still bigotry. If I was accusing someone of antisemitism, nobody would defend him by saying "oh, but he's not a racist, because Judaism is not a race."

Michael OBrien · 20-10-2014 2:18pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. If you are right then list of some terrorist groups/individuals who have been radicalised not by the brutal realities of colonialism and neo-imperialism but through the Quran alone.

I guarantee you whatever number (if any) you can come up with I can better it with people and groups that resisted colonialism and neo-imperialism through violence that weren't Islamic.

then you don't understand the argument at all. This is why the issue persists.
I have not gone on that ONLY the quran is the cause of problems in Islam. I never said that, I said that as long as the quran remains unquestioned it will never allow Islam to be truly peaceful as a religion as it is a violent text that spreads hatred of non-muslims.

laurinjames · 20-10-2014 8:34pm

Interesting discussion. The Harris / Maher / Affleck debate was missing one crucial thing. Some Muslims.

What would people here say is your stereotypical Muslim ?

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 9:29pm

marienbad wrote: »

how about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie by the Supreme Leader of Iran for starters ?

A couple of points.

1. How do the whims of a single man albeit a dictator constitute the combined "Islamic response"? Or in other words why do Khomenei's actions define Islam to you more than a humble peasant family in Indonesia who are just trying to get on with their lives?
2. From what I can understand about Shariah Law causing death without trial is unislamic.
3. Morally, how is Khomenei's actions any different to the so-called liberal President of the secular USA with his personal "kill-lists"?

marienbad · 20-10-2014 9:40pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A couple of points.

1. How do the whims of a single man albeit a dictator constitute the combined "Islamic response"? Or in other words why do Khomenei's actions define Islam to you more than a humble peasant family in Indonesia who are just trying to get on with their lives?
2. From what I can understand about Shariah Law causing death without trial is unislamic.
3. Morally, how is Khomenei's actions any different to the so-called liberal President of the secular USA with his personal "kill-lists"?

You never answer anything do you ? You asked for a specific example and I gave you one . So what is your response ?

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 9:41pm

laurinjames wrote: »

Interesting discussion. The Harris / Maher / Affleck debate was missing one crucial thing. Some Muslims.

What would people here say is your stereotypical Muslim ?

There is no such thing. Though a far more nuanced, unbiased and intelligent discussion could have been had without zealots like Maher and Harris but instead had atheists like Asad Abukhalil or Tariq Ali who understand Islamic culture and also the history, social and geopolitical issues concerning the regions.

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 9:44pm

marienbad wrote: »

You never answer anything do you ? You asked for a specific example and I gave you one . So what is your response ?

It goes without saying that I condemn the fatwa though I reject your example.

The reaction of a Muslim is not the "Islamic response"

marienbad · 20-10-2014 9:54pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It goes without saying that I condemn the fatwa though I reject your example.

The reaction of a Muslim is not the "Islamic response"

He was a bit more than a Muslim BB and to say otherwise takes from your credibility.

laurinjames · 20-10-2014 10:01pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no such thing. Though a far more nuanced, unbiased and intelligent discussion could have been had without zealots like Maher and Harris but instead had atheists like Asad Abukhalil or Tariq Ali who understand Islamic culture and also the history, social and geopolitical issues concerning the regions.

And ironically instead of dancing with strawmen, how about throwing in actual practicing muslim or two as well for a change ? Ones that are capable of explaining in detail what Muslims actually believe, rather than what non muslims claim muslims believe.

harris/affleck/maher are all pretty moronic substitutes for reasoned balanced discussion.

maher the 'host' was so bad / lost he even had to resort to profranity in an attempt distract from the 'debate'

Akrasia · 21-10-2014 10:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

As in "I'm not a racist, but . . ."

To not be racist it's not enough to say "I'm not a racist!". You actually have to not be a racist, not merely say that you're not. In fact it's pretty characteristic of racists that they deny being racists, so we can't conclude too much, one way or the other?

So you're saying that he starts from the conclusion that "Islam = bad", and then casts around for arguments in support of his already-chosen conclusion? Isn't that pretty much the definition of bigotry? I mean, I'm not saying that Harris is an islamophobic bigot, but how does this behaviour differ from the behaviour of an Islamophobic bigot?

Harris is not racist. In fact, many of the defenders of Islam are playing the race card by saying 'not all islam is barbaric, just muslims from x arab/african countries, therefore, it's the arabs/africans we should hate, not the religion.

In reality, There is a serious serious serious problem with islamicism. The more seriously people take islam, the more likely they are to support horrific positions such as FGM, denying education to women, capital punishment for apostasty/blasphemy, imposition of sharia law etc..

The same can be said for fundamentalist christians, the more seriously you take the texts and doctrines of the religion, the more likely you are to hold abhorrent positions

Harris makes the point over and over again that not all religions are equally damaging. Harris regularly mentions Jainism, and the fact that it's core principle is non-violence, and jainist fundamentalists are the least violent people in the world. He contrasts this with islam, where the Quran calls for holy war and calls for it's supporters to enforce the doctrines of the faith on everyone.

The language of fundamentalist islam is that there are believers, and infidels, and all the infidels are at war with islam (whichever version of islam one happens to subscribe to). Islam allows jihad against those who are attacking them. A lot of muslim jihadists believe that the west is at war with Islam and therefore, jihad is justified. It's a them versus us attitude that can only result in permanent war as long as this attitude prevails.

There is a huge difference between the doctrines attached to Islam, and the doctrines of Jainism. Christianity is also problematic, but in a different way as it has chilled out due to the influence of liberalism and modern secular democracy. Islamic states are deeply hostile to almost all post enlightenment values.

Brown Bomber · 21-10-2014 11:32am

laurinjames wrote: »

And ironically instead of dancing with strawmen,

Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

laurinjames wrote: »

how about throwing in actual practicing muslim or two as well for a change ? Ones that are capable of explaining in detail what Muslims actually believe, rather than what non muslims claim muslims believe.

This is what you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if it's Muhammed Al Fayed or Muhammed Ali there is not a single authority who can speak for all Muslims.

That is why the Tafqiri al-Baghdadi is buthchering other Muslims for being "infidels".

Beyond the Quran being divinely inspired and Muhamed being a Prophet almost everything else is open to interpretation, even the divinely inspired text of the Quran. There are multiple interpretations amongst the multiple sects across the multiple lands and diverse cultures Islam has been prominent in throughout multiple centuries and there is still multiple ongoing debates within these same multiple sects.

Ben Affleck vs. Sam Harris & Bill Maher on Real Time

Comments