Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheism, Islam and liberalism: This is what we are really fighting about)

[untermensche]

Please be joking because I would find it rather sad that you make such a elementary mistake. An absurd statement is not zero information. You can accumulate absurd statements and be much more mistaken than your next door neighbor. The fact that you assign a value of zero to an absurd statement is arbitrary. Ask a mathematician. There must be one "in the house" here, I guess.

I agree. It is an arbitrary process.

I can arbitrarily say that zero demonstrable truths = 0.

So it doesn't matter how many indemonstrable truths you give me, you still have 0.

 

[Herrick]

The interview TYT did earlier this month with Resa Aslan

To me he is an apologist for irrational thinking.

He claims that religion is some special language in which people express ideas they can't express in other ways.

To me, his ideas on religion are just a bunch of nonsense.

He also claims that atheism is what drove Mao. Again that is just nonsense.

I do agree with him that Sam Harris does read the Koran exactly as a fundamentalist would read it. And in that Harris presents a fundamentalist viewpoint of Islam.

I saw that interview yesterday and I was surprised at some of the things Aslan said. Is it true that a literal reading of The Koran and The Bible are very recent? Or did he only make that claim about The Bible? I can't view the video right now because I'm at work. If literal reading is a relatively new phenomenon, then how does one know which verses are to be taken literally and which aren't? If verses that say kill unbelievers are not to be read literally, then what is the intent of those verses?

Also, it seems Aslan doesn't believe a lot of the supernatural events in the Koran like Muhammad ascending into Heaven and things like that. That's interesting.

 

[untermensche]

I saw that interview yesterday and I was surprised at some of the things Aslan said. Is it true that a literal reading of The Koran and The Bible are very recent? Or did he only make that claim about The Bible? I can't view the video right now because I'm at work. If literal reading is a relatively new phenomenon, then how does one know which verses are to be taken literally and which aren't? If verses that say kill unbelievers are not to be read literally, then what is the intent of those verses?

Also, it seems Aslan doesn't believe a lot of the supernatural events in the Koran like Muhammad ascending into Heaven and things like that. That's interesting.

I'm no expert on the guy, but he has written books. Even a book about Jesus.

But he is slick.

He had a few arguments that Uygur wasn't ready for, like equating religion to a special language.

If he is talking about Christians who allegedly "speak in tongues" he has a point, but if he is talking about using English in some special way that only the religious can understand he is talking nonsense.

 

[Herrick]

I'm no expert on the guy, but he has written books. Even a book about Jesus.

But he is slick.

He had a few arguments that Uygur wasn't ready for, like equating religion to a special language.

If he is talking about Christians who allegedly "speak in tongues" he has a point, but if he is talking about using English in some special way that only the religious can understand he is talking nonsense.

I think he's right. If I'm not familiar with a particular religion then I may not understand what adherents to that religion are talking about when they express their beliefs. I think that's what he was saying anyway. What I understood is that he uses Islam to express the faith he has in a deity. I don't know much about Islam but he seems to be a very liberal Muslim. I can't remember hearing any Christians say that expressing belief in a god through non-Christian religions is just as valid as using Christianity.

 

[doubtingt]

I agree that fundamentalism is a problem. But I also agree that outside interference in the region has greatly increased fundamentalism in the region. It is not just some natural evolution of Islam.

So your comment here echoes the key concluding point of the article that I disagreed with

Illiberality and intolerance are intrinsic elements of Muslim doctrine, they argue

They key is to distinguish religion, theism, and Islam, from the variety of ideas, values and actions by every person who claims to adhere to religion, theism, or Islam.
Fundamentally, meaning at its core, the most central ideas of Islam and all Abrahamic monotheism are inherently at odds with liberalism, tolerance, progress, reasoned thought, and other such defining features of what is labeled "fundamentalist religion" which is really just religion when taken seriously and allowed to have influence.

The defining feature of God is the ultimate authority, thus the worship of him is the worship of authoritarian values which objectively impede the values of liberalism, liberty, and tolerance. This God and other foundational notions like an afterlife cannot be accepted without faith which is why all religions that take God's existence seriously promote the epistemology of faith which is definitionally the opposite of honest and reasoned thought.

US foreign policy has had an impact, but not in making Islam something that it isn't, but rather in fueling the influence of Islam's defining ideas and values upon those societies, impeding the kind of secularization that has happened in the West, which really amounts to people becoming less religious and taking religious ideas and values less seriously, even if they continue to con themselves that they are still "Christian" despite not treating the Bible with any more deference than they do Moby Dick.

Like Christianity was in the West, the ideas and values of Islam are a fundamental problem. Liberalism and tolerance occur in "Muslim" countries only when Islam is gutted of its influence and the words "Islam" and "Allah" are largely empty ceremonial pretense as Christianity is for most Westerners, except of course for "fundamentalist" who just those that take their religious ideas seriously and are authoritarian, intolerant, unreasonable, and anti-progressive as a result.

 

[Kharakov]

The defining feature of God is the ultimate authority,

To immature beings (immature theists, as well as every atheist who believes what immature theists say about God). To mature beings, God is the ultimate holder of wisdom who has to deal with those who are less wise and motivated by immature desires that can cause problems in their relationships with others.

Author's quote "Sometimes you have to mimic complete ignorance for someone to perceive their own."

 

[untermensche]

I think he's right. If I'm not familiar with a particular religion then I may not understand what adherents to that religion are talking about when they express their beliefs. I think that's what he was saying anyway. What I understood is that he uses Islam to express the faith he has in a deity. I don't know much about Islam but he seems to be a very liberal Muslim. I can't remember hearing any Christians say that expressing belief in a god through non-Christian religions is just as valid as using Christianity.

I think he is a slick snake oil salesman.

Religion's do not have a special language that only the religious understand.

They have dogma that only the religious believe.

People getting together is fine, but getting together to strengthen delusions is counter productive to human progress.

 

[untermensche]

So your comment here echoes the key concluding point of the article that I disagreed with

Illiberality and intolerance are intrinsic elements of Muslim doctrine, they argue

They key is to distinguish religion, theism, and Islam, from the variety of ideas, values and actions by every person who claims to adhere to religion, theism, or Islam.
Fundamentally, meaning at its core, the most central ideas of Islam and all Abrahamic monotheism are inherently at odds with liberalism, tolerance, progress, reasoned thought, and other such defining features of what is labeled "fundamentalist religion" which is really just religion when taken seriously and allowed to have influence.

These people are more under the influence of living leaders than books. The books are large and can be used by anyone with a will to do whatever they want to do.

If the leaders want to use the books to teach tolerance they can. If they want to teach intolerance they can.

From just watching the disintegration of the Iraqi society bomb by US bomb until we end up with ISIS anybody with eyes can see how US violence has exacerbated fundamentalism in the region.

The books say many things and many of them self-contradictory.

How they are used and why they are used that way are more important than whether or not the books say bad things.

Keep killing Muslims nonstop and many Muslim leaders will use the books to carry out war.

 

[Perspicuo]

So your comment here echoes the key concluding point of the article that I disagreed with



They key is to distinguish religion, theism, and Islam, from the variety of ideas, values and actions by every person who claims to adhere to religion, theism, or Islam.
Fundamentally, meaning at its core, the most central ideas of Islam and all Abrahamic monotheism are inherently at odds with liberalism, tolerance, progress, reasoned thought, and other such defining features of what is labeled "fundamentalist religion" which is really just religion when taken seriously and allowed to have influence.

These people are more under the influence of living leaders than books. The books are large and can be used by anyone with a will to do whatever they want to do.

If the leaders want to use the books to teach tolerance they can. If they want to teach intolerance they can.

From just watching the disintegration of the Iraqi society bomb by US bomb until we end up with ISIS anybody with eyes can see how US violence has exacerbated fundamentalism in the region.

The books say many things and many of them self-contradictory.

How they are used and why they are used that way are more important than whether or not the books say bad things.

Keep killing Muslims nonstop and many Muslim leaders will use the books to carry out war.

So that's your preoccupation -killing people with war machines.

We all agree with you there.

But if you think that the only way to peace is to recognize Islam as a religion of peace or some equal-parts-bullshit and equal-parts-wisdom recipe, you are absolutely wrong and deluding yourself. That would be akin to Neville Chamberlain going all over town about the reasonableness of a certain central European dictator, just to be able to hold on to the last opportunity for peace. Seeing reality straight in the eye is never a bad thing to do, no matter how afraid one can be.

Islam actually is a crock of very very bad ideas, notwithstanding we all think that living in a world with Muslims in peace should be possible, as long as they dilute that enormous teabag of hogwash down to homeopathic levels, similar to how liberal Quakerism is a long dilution down from mainstream Christianity.

And who wouldn't want to hold hands and sing along about love with the Quakers -even those of us who think the Bible is a poisonous manual of muck? Definitely yes!

 

[Herrick]

I watched that Young Turks discussion with Harris a couple days ago. I'm not sure TYT Guy came away with a different view on Harris. In some parts, TYT Guy seemed to be deliberately obtuse like when Harris was talking about what some extremists would do to Israel if they had the power, and TYT Guy kept bringing up the reasoning behind the animosity for Israel which wasn't the point Harris was trying to make.

I thought the nuclear strike topic was interesting. So TYT Guy not only wouldn't do a first strike but he wouldn't even consider it? I guess he's willing to die along with many other people just so the US can't commit the sin of using nuclear weapons. He seems to have the same view on torture as well.

Nowhere in the discussion did Harris deny the impact of Western influence on Muslim countries *shrug* I think he did a good job of defending some of his views that have been controversial over the years. I didn't get the impression that he was condemning all Muslims or claiming that Islam was "irredemable".

TYT Guy should've brought up Harris's comment about moderate Muslims not taking their faith seriously.

 

[Underseer]

The defining feature of God is the ultimate authority,

To immature beings (immature theists, as well as every atheist who believes what immature theists say about God). To mature beings, God is the ultimate holder of wisdom who has to deal with those who are less wise and motivated by immature desires that can cause problems in their relationships with others.

Author's quote "Sometimes you have to mimic complete ignorance for someone to perceive their own."

Emphasis added.

You cannot discuss the attributes of God without first demonstrating that God in fact exists. Otherwise, you might as well speculate on the details of Bigfoot societal norms before first establishing that Bigfoot exists, or speculate on alien political structures before first establishing that aliens exist.

 

[untermensche]

These people are more under the influence of living leaders than books. The books are large and can be used by anyone with a will to do whatever they want to do.

If the leaders want to use the books to teach tolerance they can. If they want to teach intolerance they can.

From just watching the disintegration of the Iraqi society bomb by US bomb until we end up with ISIS anybody with eyes can see how US violence has exacerbated fundamentalism in the region.

The books say many things and many of them self-contradictory.

How they are used and why they are used that way are more important than whether or not the books say bad things.

Keep killing Muslims nonstop and many Muslim leaders will use the books to carry out war.

So that's your preoccupation -killing people with war machines.

We all agree with you there.

But if you think that the only way to peace is to recognize Islam as a religion of peace or some equal-parts-bullshit and equal-parts-wisdom recipe, you are absolutely wrong and deluding yourself. That would be akin to Neville Chamberlain going all over town about the reasonableness of a certain central European dictator, just to be able to hold on to the last opportunity for peace. Seeing reality straight in the eye is never a bad thing to do, no matter how afraid one can be.

If I am Chamberlain then I guess that makes Muslims just a bunch of Nazi's.

So I suppose we should continue to be good Nazi's ourselves and continue killing Muslims forever.

 

[Perspicuo]

Non sequitur.

you insist on inventing meanings in what I say that aren't either in what I say nor what I intended, because someone is killing Muslims.

Also,
No one is targeting Muslims. In the 90's Yugoslav war the US fought to protect Muslim Bosnians from Christian Serbs. In Gulf War 1 the US defended Kuwaitis (Muslims) against Saddam Hussein (Muslim) therefore that wasn't a war against Muslims. In Gulf War 2 again versus Hussein and democracy was constituted there. That wasn't a war against Muslims (and at most what can be said it was a war for petroleum). Now there is [sort of] a war against ISIS (Muslims) to defend Iraqis (Muslims), Kurds (Muslims) and Syrians (Muslims).

There is no war against Islam.

And certainly there is no connection between stating Islam contains the most vile ideological venom outside of the first ten books of the Tanakh (BTW tacitly abrogated in the Talmud)... and any war waged by a Western power in the last 700 years.

 

[untermensche]

....No one is targeting Muslims....

Since 2001 the US has been killing Muslims nonstop.

Targeting Muslims and killing Muslims.

In Gulf War 2 again versus Hussein and democracy was constituted there. That wasn't a war against Muslims (and at most what can be said it was a war for petroleum).

It was the deliberate and unprovoked attack of Muslims and the killing of many Muslims and it has resulted in ISIS.

Now there is [sort of] a war against ISIS (Muslims) to defend Iraqis (Muslims), Kurds (Muslims) and Syrians (Muslims).

Yes, more killing of Muslims.

And certainly there is no connection between stating Islam contains the most vile ideological venom outside of the first ten books of the Tanakh (BTW tacitly abrogated in the Talmud)... and any war waged by a Western power in the last 700 years.

Again, the books say many things.

If Muslims are being attacked and killed nonstop for over a decade many Muslim leaders will use the books to wage war.

 

[jab]

um--the shah wasn't fundamentalist

 

[jab]

please specify what you mean by "fundamentalists" here. Do you mean Christian fundamentalists, do you mean Hindu fundamentalists. . . ?

I'm glad you reconsidered.

I didn't. My first position is that power in the hands of fundamentalists is the problem.

That is still my position.

And the fact that fundamentalists have so much power is directly related to violent and other kinds of incursions to control oil and make profits from selling oil.

The US government is the muscle and protection force of big oil.

 

[jab]

Of course the excesses of Christian fundamentalism in the Dark Ages were large the fault of the iniquitous Roman Empire.

Based on what evidence?

I have mine: Islamic fundamentalism (which has always been very political, and very scripturally so) is many centuries older than 1776.



Your turn.

We are not talking about the existence of Islamic fundamentalists.

We are talking about the real world power of Islamic fundamentalists.

Remember when Christian fundamentalists had power. We call it the Dark Ages.

The problem is Islamic fundamentalists have too much real world power in the region.

The fundamentalist states of Iran and Saudi Arabia represent a lot of real world power.

And this is largely due to Western interference since about 1938.

 

[jab]

, not to mention the logic behind selling them for cash rather than shaking them down for it, and the logic behind keeping the younger females for themselves as sex slaves.

When you have something even remotely relevant to contribute, come back.

Aren't you talking to yourself here. I see the relevance of Bomb's post, from which you quote selectively--why's that? Therefore I don't see the relevance of yours.

 

[jab]

So the Islamic fundamentalists lack sufficient agency to be responsible for their own acts. Any abhorrent regime in the Middle East, whether supported by America or opposed by it, is mostly America's fault. You stand exhibits extreme Eurocentric condescension. The real actors are always and practically only Americans.

 

[Warpoet]

Aren't you talking to yourself here. I see the relevance of Bomb's post, from which you quote selectively--why's that? Therefore I don't see the relevance of yours.

And you're under the impression that this matters to me, given your pronouncements on this subject in the past? Rest assured that it does not.

I did not quote anything selectively. That's what was said in response to me; I ignored the subsequent post because it was a bunch of ranting and unsubstantiated crap that was not in response to me and had no bearing on the point I was making. Please read more carefully before posting.