It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

page: 17
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

Well your disregarding Iraq was actually secular and had pretty decent equality between the sexes.

As did Syria.

So does Jordan and Lebanon and Turkey until Erdogan, he seems to bring it backwards.

Those countries were and are in the process of reform.

The country we most support is not. Saudia Arabia is disgusting.

Sadam may have been a tyrant but not an extremist religious nut. Just a cultural racist. I think it was a mistake we don't understand the nature of tribal people. He was like a temporary necessary evil IMO.




posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

that's where we disagree. i dont accept the term necessary evil. someone who uses chemical weapons on his own citizens is a war criminal therefore must be removed.

same goes for Assad. once he started killing off his opposition and protesters. you have to go.

hitchens debated Iraq and won me over. ill try to find a link then edit.

here ya go. enjoy.
edit on 29-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)


the arab spring was not all violent. some dictators simply stepped down instead of killing people.
edit on 29-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

We do disagree. It's the good deeds and good intentions. Sadam used weapons we gave him on the Kurds and we looked the other way nearly two decades. Hundreds of thousands died in that war and people live in a state of fear worse than before.

Same goes with Assad. By not brokering a peace deal and forcing the issue the country is in shambles. Possibly the worst civil war ever. Now it's his fault and the rebels but it moat likely could have been prevented.

Saudia Arabia is constantly performing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Where is the intervention?

It's best to not get involved with military action at all. IMO. Just diplomatic and state economic. How bout China? Vietnam etc.

The effect is just as if not more important because of unintended consequences.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

i think we both agree on the topic of Saudi Arabia in the sense that we dont do anything to stop their actions. probably because we depend so much on their oil, so it shows the hypocrisy of the west.

Rwanda is also a good example when Clinton was in office. we could have stopped a genocide there as well as in east timor and the Armenian genocide. its a shame we can't help everyone but at the same time, we have limited resources and power so we have to pick the issues that are most beneficial. in my opinion ME reform should be first priority considering the very real threat of Islamic extremism.

im enjoying our conversation luthier, even if we don't agree on everything, at least we have a common ground, and im open to change my mind at any point.
edit on 29-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

Likewise. Respect is the important part. I appreciate your reason as well.

I enjoy philosophers I don't agree with when they show respect and reason.

People hate Christian apologetics for some reason. Absolutely hate them. And WLC. I don't. I think they elevate the conversation. They make you have to think harder. And by God they don't believe in creationism they use reason. I am surrounded in the deep south with well you know.

I will listen to the link sometime today. I am home sick with my twins. Fun stuff.
edit on 29-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

WLC claims that the death of children is a good thing.......because God...

What's not to hate about a person who would rather (attempt to) justify the death and suffering of children rather than admit his beliefs may be wrong?
edit on 29-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

i use to be a Christian and changed my mind. in some cases its better to be compassionate instead of hateful, but in this case, violence using/against children is evil, so yea hate on.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Craig never says anything like that are you talking about his OT canninites speech?

Thats a pretty disengenius representation of what he said.

I don't agree with him but he is a well respected scholar with hundreds of publications and peer review. Pretty much one of the leading theist philosophers in modern times.

How do you feel about Kinsey or Freud?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

Craig never says anything like that are you talking about his OT canninites speech?

Thats a pretty disengenius representation of what he said.



Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.


And you say you're not an apologist.....this man is worthy of nothing but contempt.


I don't agree with him but he is a well respected scholar with hundreds of publications and peer review. Pretty much one of the leading theist philosophers in modern times.


Considering his views on the death of children, what does this say about theists and theist philosophers?


How do you feel about Kinsey or Freud?


I do not have lofty opinions on either of them like you do for WLC.......like most apologists do......



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

It's actually the entire field of philosophy that does. Try Google scholar sometime read articles on him. I had to argue against a point of his in a paper from my atheist professor who had respect for Craig.

Here is some perspective

commonsenseatheism.com...

I also am not angry and use ad hominem attacks. Your arguements don't make sense and don't follow logic. Sorry man but iyour arguement fails. Craig is not saying in anyway to murder children or people should murder children. You would loose that debate by any academic standpoint even among Atheists.

And again what exactly makes me sound like an apologist. You need a new go to that makes sense this time.

Do apologists usually argue against Christianity?

Have you ever read any other philosophers? Or any for that matter? Do you ever talk to people in a civil way who don't agree with everything you say?
edit on 29-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
If I talk Christianity, it's because that's what I was raised in. "Speak what you know".

Unlike some Christians who seem to be "experts" on Islam and atheism ---- but, never were either.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

There are plenty of Christians who don't know Christianity very well. There are theologians who are Atheists. What you really are trying to do is control speech and make everybody have to play by your rules.

One of my best friends has a Masters in theology(as an atheist) because he was interested in it. Some people do go to school to learn about things. It doesn't need to be a church or mosque.

I consider myself an atheist much of the time. Are you going to tell me I am wrong?



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

It's actually the entire field of philosophy that does.


The man consistently uses incorrect arguments and deceptive tactics in his debates, so even if it is true that he is well respected, I couldn't care less.


I also am not angry and use ad hominem attacks.


I didn't say you were or that you had......seems like you're attempting to play the victim, something else apologetics like to do...


Your arguements don't make sense and don't follow logic. Sorry man but iyour arguement fails.


Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. It might eventually help with spelling but it's not going to have an affect on anything else...


Craig is not saying in anyway to murder children or people should murder children. You would loose that debate by any academic standpoint even among Atheists.


Strawman: check

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. That or in your furor to defend WLC you didnt notice that neither I nor WLC said as much.......ill post the quote again for you:


Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.



And again what exactly makes me sound like an apologist. You need a new go to that makes sense this time.


A few things, such as your attempt to claim the christian god never had any part in genocides or the ordering of them because they happened in the OT......suggesting that i'm angry purely because i'm not agreeing with you and your reluctance to condemn an obvious personal hero in WLC for saying that the death and suffering of children is a good thing......all typical of apologists.....is that enough?


Do apologists usually argue against Christianity?


Ive not seen you do that in this exchange so I wouldn't know.


Do you ever talk to people in a civil way who don't agree with everything you say?


Ive been perfectly civil, you're playing the victim again...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Do you know what a strawman is apparently not. You said essentially Craig condones murder of children. He never said this. He is justifying his faith and that God can kill children. To him he does with every car accident etc. That is not condoning murder. It's rationalizing suffering. Again I don't believe that, meaning what he is saying or this premise at all.

I am saying you are angry and have hatred for theism. I understand the lack of logic in a book written by men bit you are so angry you can't have a rational arguement. Which is why wlc destroys many Atheists in debates. I think Harris is one that kept his composure and won the debate.

Have you contributed at all to the thread op? Do you know who Sam Harris is? I do I listen to almost all his podcasts.

I mostly consider myself a diestic atheist. I have explained my view of religion several times on this thread plain as day. I don't believe in theism.

Do you know what a Christian apologist is?

Not playing the victim you just keep labelling me things that make no sense out of anger. Thats rude.

I am on a cell otherwise I would point out every instance you have ignored rational arguement and played a name calling game.

Your arguements are very flawed. They come from anger and confusion.

If you wish to have a good debate you should actually listen to your opponent and try and discredit their arguement. You haven't done that. You react based on hate of theism and ignore the logic. Yes theists use logic especially apologists. Unless you just want high fives from people who think exactly like you, you may want to learn to discredit logic and think of refuting falicious claims instead of tired old cliches that aren't even on topic.

Again who is Sam Harris and why are you even commenting on a thread about him if you haven't mentioned a single thing about the op.


edit on 29-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Prezbo369

Do you know what a strawman is apparently not. You said essentially Craig condones murder of children. He never said this. He is justifying his faith and that God can kill children. To him he does with every car accident etc. That is not condoning murder. It's rationalizing suffering. Again I don't believe that, meaning what he is saying or this premise at all.


Oh the ironing....

Once again you argue against a claim I never made, very dishonest (lane would be proud). I have quoted Lane twice to avoid any confusion, and yet you have twice attempted to put words in my mouth.


I am saying you are angry and have hatred for theism. I understand the lack of logic in a book written by men bit you are so angry you can't have a rational arguement. Which is why wlc destroys many Atheists in debates. I think Harris is one that kept his composure and won the debate.


The only thing that has annoyed my slightly during this exchange is your efforts to create a strawman argument, a sure sign that you have no argument.

At this point I have doubts you understand rationality or logic.


Have you contributed at all to the thread op? Do you know who Sam Harris is? I do I listen to almost all his podcasts.


And the icing on the cake.......you responded to a comment I made in reply to another poster who claimed that bad things happen when religion isnt around. I gave that member a list of atrocities made by the religious/while the religious were around. You then attempted create an argument that didn't exist by claiming that 'Christianity is no more to blame for these wars than Atheists under communism'......and now that you have no-one where to go.....you want to return to the OT......


I mostly consider myself a diestic atheist. I have explained my view of religion several times on this thread plain as day. I don't believe in theism.


Do you even oxymoron?

How can a person be an atheist and also believe in a god?......are you really still that confused on what the definition of atheist (or deist) is?


Do you know what a Christian apologist is?


Yes I do, and I believe i'm responding to one now.


Not playing the victim you just keep labelling me things that make no sense out of anger. Thats rude.


You have accused me of making ad hominem attacks against you when that is not true (perhaps even a lie), so yeah it seems like you are attempting to play the victim.


I am on a cell otherwise I would point out every instance you have ignored rational arguement and played a name calling game.


Have at it hoss.


Your arguements are very flawed. They come from anger and confusion.


You keep saying this, and never go so far as to explain exactly why.......you do know that repeating something doesn't....ah nvm....






edit on 30-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Let me explain what an atheist is in the most basic terms. Greek for opposite of theist. Apposing theism.

If you read a little more you may find that diesm alone fits this description. A simple Google search you would find deistic Athesit. On Sam Harris.org even.

You have shown no arguements to prove you know what a Christian apologist is. Maybe look up the definition so you can stop calling me one.

Hey what strawman have I argued. Try posting that. You are playing it off as if Craig is saying kids suffering and dying is a good thing. Christians believe in an after life. Can you prove it doesn't exist? They are justifying suffering and death of innocents by saying they go to a better place. Please try and argue against that. Good luck. Personally I think it's pointless. Nobody can prove or disprove that claim.

Why don't you clear up why you think Craig thinks suffering is or death of children is good. God and stuff is a juvinile argument.

Which brings me to your complete failure to argue. If you are actually wanr to be good at argueing you must deconstruct the arguement.
All you do is throw out a completely ignorant arguement which is baseless on the premises of the original claim.

You are mad at Christianity I get that. It's irrational to me as well. You'll have to do a little better with your arguements though if you want to not appear like a teenager.

Maybe watch Harris argue with craig and learn something. He sure doesn't use adolescent arguements or he would be laughed off the stage as many Atheists were.

Again atheist from Greek anti theist. A Diest can have many different views of what God is. God can be dead after having created the big bang for instance. Or the universe or the condition that created the big bang. In other words only the first cause.

Pretty hard to argue against God regardless of what you believe. There are alternatives but all are as unknown as God. Which brings up the pointlessness of the arguement. There is no proof for or against God. Which is why I believe in a version of weak atheism.

You completely misunderstand the fact that I can respect an arguement I don't agree with for support of it. Which is juvenile. By definition not by insult.

So how do you feel about Harris's view on being labelled an atheist?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

All that text and yet you didn't say anything.....

At this point the exchange is in a loop thanks to you repeating the same old straw men, fallacies and inaccuracies.

Maybe the most dishonest ATS member I've encountered (and that's saying something....)




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Maybe you shouldn't make strong comments on a philosopher or philosophy if you don't have experience in the subject.

Most particularly the historical arguements for the existence of God and their counter arguments. That way we don't have to hash out arguments from 1000 years ago.

I don't make strong claims on quantum mechanics for this very reason.


What about Sam Harris. How do you feel about his opinion on varying degrees of insanity in religion?

No strawmans again you lack pointing them out


Here is your argument literally. Craig thinks children's suffering and death is a good thing because....God

Not his arguement. You can try and snip out a piece of it like fox news but anybody who has studied philosophy knows that doesn't work.

He believes in an after life. He is making sense of suffering in an abrahamic religeon way. It's most commonly considered an allegory story to teach this. Which is what that bible vs is about.

Now prove that's wrong.

Is that simple enough?

PS. I am not a theist but understand to discredit an arguement you first need to understand it.

edit on 30-1-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: luthier

All that text and yet you didn't say anything.....

At this point the exchange is in a loop thanks to you repeating the same old straw men, fallacies and inaccuracies.

Maybe the most dishonest ATS member I've encountered (and that's saying something....)





You apparently have more patience then others. Good effort.

I still haven't been able to get through the whole video. I'm still proud of labeling myself atheist. But, it's personal. I do not promote it in public. Only in online discussions relating to the topic. Oh, and the voting booth.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

How far have you got so far?

What do you think about the part you have listened to?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join