Total Posts:176|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Sam Harris being absurd or not?

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 4:04:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

-Sam Harris
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:17:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 4:04:31 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

High religiosity generally equates to poor status for women. This can include numerous factors, not just rape, such as:

* Physical security;
* Equity of family law;
* Equity in general legislation;
* Parental sex preferences in children;
* Protection from trafficking;
* Equity of secondary education;
* Protection from genital mutilation;
* Right to public intermingling;
* Freedom from sex-based dress-codes;
* Government participation by women;
* Access to and discretion to use birth control;
* Access to pregnancy termination;
* Property rights;
* Right for wives to refuse polygynyous marriages;
* Protection from child marriage; and
* Life expectancy.
[http://womanstats.org...]

Rape is also highest, rape sanction highest, and rape reporting lowest, where religiosity is highest. [http://womanstats.org...]

So if you believe that religiosity is a major contributor to these inequities (so that it's not just economic), abolishing religiosity would be a major improvement for female rights and security.

I hope that helps.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:19:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 4:04:31 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

-Sam Harris

I don't know who this chap Harris is, but that is a very sick remark!
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:40:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.

Please explain how the full quote makes any difference to what I provided?

It's clear he would rather keep rape and get rid of religion,

So, your point is?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:48:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:17:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 4:04:31 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not :
High religiosity generally equates to poor status for women. This can include numerous factors, not just rape, such as:

* Physical security;
* Equity of family law;
* Equity in general legislation;
* Parental sex preferences in children;hesitate to get rid of religion.

* Protection from trafficking;
* Equity of secondary education;
* Protection from genital mutilation;
* Right to public intermingling;
* Freedom from sex-based dress-codes;
* Government participation by women;
* Access to and discretion to use birth control;
* Access to pregnancy termination;
* Property rights;
* Right for wives to refuse polygynyous marriages;
* Protection from child marriage; and
* Life expectancy.
[http://womanstats.org...]

Rape is also highest, rape sanction highest, and rape reporting lowest, where religiosity is highest. [http://womanstats.org...]

So if you believe that religiosity is a major contributor to these inequities (so that it's not just economic), abolishing religiosity would be a major improvement for female rights and security.

I hope that helps.

Ok, So you think religion is detrimental to women's rights, I can see why you think that, but who in the modern world thinks that women are not equal and uses religion to argue that point. ?

On another note, rape doesn't only concern women, here is an extract I found from a critic of this quote.

Your six year old daughter is abducted on the way to gymnastics class by a sex offender on prison furlough. She is repeatedly raped by him and his buddies, and then left for dead in a ditch. When she's found, four hours later, she is emotionally and psychologically destroyed, and spends six weeks in the hospital recovering from terrible injury to the most sensitive parts of her body. She never really recovers.

But Harris would rather have that happen, then for the Salvation Army to go out singing Christmas carols and collecting donations for the poor this Sunday. Harris would rather have that happen, than for an 80 year old Japanese woman to offer a prayer to her grandmother at a Shinto shrine. Harris would rather have your six year old daughter gang-raped and left for dead, than for a group of Buddhists to meditate, or for a 92 year old Holocaust survivor to dedicate a Passover seder to the relatives he lost in Auschwitz.

Maybe Harris thinks that religion causes rape, so that by wiping out the one, he would automatically wipe out the other. If he does, he is an imbecile. The irreligious are perfectly capable of rape, and often do rape,

Thoughts?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:52:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:19:47 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 4:04:31 AM, johnlubba wrote:
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.

-Sam Harris

I don't know who this chap Harris is, but that is a very sick remark!

He is regarded as one of the four horsemen of the New Atheist movement, Now old.
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:52:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:40:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.


Please explain how the full quote makes any difference to what I provided?

I already have.

It's clear he would rather keep rape and get rid of religion,

Yes, for the very good reason given.

So, your point is?

Point already made. If I repeated it, what purpose would be served?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:52:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:40:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.


Please explain how the full quote makes any difference to what I provided?

I already have.

It's clear he would rather keep rape and get rid of religion,

Yes, for the very good reason given.

So, your point is?

Point already made. If I repeated it, what purpose would be served?

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:05:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religitroll course 101, lesson 1: Quote-mine a prominent atheist by taking a single sentence out of an extended response. The aim is to make thd atheist look as bad as possible by providing no context for the one-liner. When someone complains, pretend you don't understand what point they are making. Anyone else who tries to defend the quote is to be attacked as lacking basic morality.

I think the OP will do well in this course.
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:48:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:17:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
if you believe that religiosity is a major contributor to these inequities (so that it's not just economic), abolishing religiosity would be a major improvement for female rights and security.
Ok, So you think religion is detrimental to women's rights,

I said that if you believe religious faith is detrimental to women's rights then it's easy to argue that abolishing religiosity abolishes the entrenched doctrinal obstacles to womens' equity.

who in the modern world thinks that women are not equal and uses religion to argue that point. ?
Women are not equal in traditional forms of:
* Christianity "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:22-24);
* Islam "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth.superiority above the other" (Qur'an Sure 4:34);
* Hinduism "In childhood a woman must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband; and where lord is dead, to her sons, a woman must never be independent" - Manusmriti; or
* Confucianism "One hundred girls are not worth as much as one boy.";

Between them, these faiths comprise 88% of the world's religious adherents. So it's certainly true that women have had a bad deal in most world faiths.

Your six year old daughter is abducted on the way to gymnastics class by a sex offender on prison furlough.

Is this representative of world crime against women, John, or confected for effect? You may be aware that most rapes, like most other violence to women, occur within the home, and and frequently perpetrated by the family. That makes religious injunctions about women submitting to male family members problematic in those families where people follow those injunctions.

Moreover, I'd point out that the words you're objecting to are Harris' and not mine. If you'd like to argue that women would be better off with religion but without rape, why not source some real data?

Maybe Harris thinks that religion causes rape,
There is certainly a link between religiosity, rape incidence, and barriers to reporting rape. Please see my earlier links.

Whether that link is a cause or a correlation could be argued. But we can see that most world religions are not kind to women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:18:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.

You never added anything significant to discuss, simply providing the full quote confirms nothing. Just because Sam Harris thinks/believs that religion is harful to society as a whole adds nothing to the fact he would rather keep rape.

It's a disgusting analogy.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:26:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:48:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:17:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
if you believe that religiosity is a major contributor to these inequities (so that it's not just economic), abolishing religiosity would be a major improvement for female rights and security.
Ok, So you think religion is detrimental to women's rights,

I said that if you believe religious faith is detrimental to women's rights then it's easy to argue that abolishing religiosity abolishes the entrenched doctrinal obstacles to womens' equity.

who in the modern world thinks that women are not equal and uses religion to argue that point. ?
Women are not equal in traditional forms of:
* Christianity "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:22-24);
* Islam "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth.superiority above the other" (Qur'an Sure 4:34);
* Hinduism "In childhood a woman must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband; and where lord is dead, to her sons, a woman must never be independent" - Manusmriti; or
* Confucianism "One hundred girls are not worth as much as one boy.";

Between them, these faiths comprise 88% of the world's religious adherents. So it's certainly true that women have had a bad deal in most world faiths.

Your six year old daughter is abducted on the way to gymnastics class by a sex offender on prison furlough.

Is this representative of world crime against women, John, or confected for effect? You may be aware that most rapes, like most other violence to women, occur within the home, and and frequently perpetrated by the family. That makes religious injunctions about women submitting to male family members problematic in those families where people follow those injunctions.

Moreover, I'd point out that the words you're objecting to are Harris' and not mine. If you'd like to argue that women would be better off with religion but without rape, why not source some real data?

Maybe Harris thinks that religion causes rape,
There is certainly a link between religiosity, rape incidence, and barriers to reporting rape. Please see my earlier links.

Whether that link is a cause or a correlation could be argued. But we can see that most world religions are not kind to women.

I declared that religion can be detrimental to women's rights and equality, That is quite evident, if we take the literal accounts to be applicable to the modern era, which I don't think they are, or maybe they are. I'm not sure.

But you have failed to pick up on the fact that rape does not only concern women, it also includes little children, girls and boys, plus grown men.

Please cite a religious doctrine that endorses that rape of little children?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:32:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plus can you offer a proper citation for the Hindu quote you provide. In my view it could mean that a women should always have a man in her life to depend on.

Meaning, she should never be alone.
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:46:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:18:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.

You never added anything significant to discuss, simply providing the full quote confirms nothing. Just because Sam Harris thinks/believs that religion is harful to society as a whole adds nothing to the fact he would rather keep rape.

It's a disgusting analogy.

You're as transparent as a pane of glass. Do you understand the principle of "the lesser of two evils"? Sam Harris has made such a choice and deliberately made it controversial in order to dramatize the danger of possible nuclear conflict in the M-E because of irreconcilable religious ideologies.

What message do you get out of that? Here, look, Sam Harris condones rape!

Your dishonesty in blatant quote-mining is only exceeded by your attempts to make it look like atheists lack moral judgement. It's pathetic.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:52:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:26:29 AM, johnlubba wrote:
you have failed to pick up on the fact that rape does not only concern women, it also includes little children, girls and boys, plus grown men.
john, it seems I must remind you a second time that your argument is with Harris' words.

Please cite a religious doctrine that endorses that rape of little children?
I think a fairer question might be: to what extent does religious paternalism fail to protect children from abuse, but nevertheless protect child rapists from being caught?

Assuming you feel that religious paternalism actually does as terrible a job of protecting children from abuse as it does for women, then perhaps you feel Sam Harris is being unfair to adult male victims of rape?

That's an objection, I suppose. But it could also be stretching the point.

To return to topic, you asked the question: is Harris' position defensible, or is it absurd?

I think it's defensible if you believe religion oppresses women and makes kids vulnerable to abuse.

Many reasonable people believe that, so I imagine that some reasonable people might find sense in Harris' words.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:46:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:18:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.

You never added anything significant to discuss, simply providing the full quote confirms nothing. Just because Sam Harris thinks/believs that religion is harful to society as a whole adds nothing to the fact he would rather keep rape.

It's a disgusting analogy.

You're as transparent as a pane of glass. Do you understand the principle of "the lesser of two evils"? Sam Harris has made such a choice and deliberately made it controversial in order to dramatize the danger of possible nuclear conflict in the M-E because of irreconcilable religious ideologies.

What message do you get out of that? Here, look, Sam Harris condones rape!

Your dishonesty in blatant quote-mining is only exceeded by your attempts to make it look like atheists lack moral judgement. It's pathetic.

You are as transparent as a polar bears hair.

Here is another quote to sum things up.

The more one analyses people, the more all reasons for analysis disappear. Sooner or later one comes to that dreadful universal thing called human nature.".

Wiping out religion would not wipe out the danger of any political dictator who is hell bent on power pushing a nuclear button. Get real.

If the problem is nuclear weapons he would be better of stating he would rather get rid of nuclear weapons rather than rape, as human nature is more than capable to want to set of a nuclear weapon.

Now I am going to accuse you of being dis-honesty using a blatant fallacy being a jerk and ect ect. But that just looks stupid,

which reminds me.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:00:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:52:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:26:29 AM, johnlubba wrote:
you have failed to pick up on the fact that rape does not only concern women, it also includes little children, girls and boys, plus grown men.
john, it seems I must remind you a second time that your argument is with Harris' words.

Please cite a religious doctrine that endorses that rape of little children?
I think a fairer question might be: to what extent does religious paternalism fail to protect children from abuse, but nevertheless protect child rapists from being caught?

Assuming you feel that religious paternalism actually does as terrible a job of protecting children from abuse as it does for women, then perhaps you feel Sam Harris is being unfair to adult male victims of rape?

That's an objection, I suppose. But it could also be stretching the point.

To return to topic, you asked the question: is Harris' position defensible, or is it absurd?

I think it's defensible if you believe religion oppresses women and makes kids vulnerable to abuse.

Many reasonable people believe that, so I imagine that some reasonable people might find sense in Harris' words.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but I know many religious people who are not dangerous and do not oppress women, in fact I don't any dangerous religious people, that's not, there are, are there are dangerous and non-dangerous non-religious people. But in my experience and all the religious people I know, are peaceful compassionate and caring people, who practice self sacrifice for the good of others.

But wait, I would rather keep rape and have those people abolished.

Tsk
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:16:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:52:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:26:29 AM, johnlubba wrote:
you have failed to pick up on the fact that rape does not only concern women, it also includes little children, girls and boys, plus grown men.
john, it seems I must remind you a second time that your argument is with Harris' words.

Please cite a religious doctrine that endorses that rape of little children?
I think a fairer question might be: to what extent does religious paternalism fail to protect children from abuse,

but nevertheless protect child rapists from being caught?

It's also apparent you think your smart enough to construe arguments, you have tangled up the topic so much it is giving me headache.

Who claims religious paternalism's job is to protect children from rapists? Why don't atheists also have the same duty or everyone for that matter, Oh wait we do, as a moral ethic.

That wasn't the question, I suggested you show me a religious doctrine that endorses the rape of little children,

There aren't any,

On the other hand we find an imbecile in the name of Sam Harris, who would rather abolish religion in fear a religious nut could cause a nuclear war, with no regards for humans being capable of doing such things without any need for religion to play a part. yet he would still prefer to wipe out religion and still have little children and grown women being raped.

Totally moronic.


Assuming you feel that religious paternalism actually does as terrible a job of protecting children from abuse as it does for women, then perhaps you feel Sam Harris is being unfair to adult male victims of rape?

That's an objection, I suppose. But it could also be stretching the point.

To return to topic, you asked the question: is Harris' position defensible, or is it absurd?

I think it's defensible if you believe religion oppresses women and makes kids vulnerable to abuse.

Many reasonable people believe that, so I imagine that some reasonable people might find sense in Harris' words.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:35:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 7:00:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
I know many religious people who are not dangerous and do not oppress women,
To the best of my understanding, John, abolishing religion would not abolish those people, their compassion or decency. What it might abolish though, are any paternalistic impediments to improving the status of women and the protection of children embedded in sacred theological doctrine.

in my experience and all the religious people I know, are peaceful compassionate and caring people, who practice self sacrifice for the good of others.
It seems you feel, John, that absent any data, your subjective individual experience is sufficient to prosecute a counter-argument for the whole of humanity. What I'm wondering is: why.

At 4/6/2015 7:16:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Who claims religious paternalism's job is to protect children from rapists?
To the extent that doctrinal religion claims the supreme moral authority to tell people how to live, some reasonable people think it's fair to evaluate its ability to do that.

he would still prefer to wipe out religion and still have little children and grown women being raped.
Is that what he said? I think he said that abolishing religion would do more for humanity than abolishing rape.

I think there are two key implications there. Namely, that Harris believes that:
Implication A) Rape is bad, but religion is worse; and that
Implication B) Both are forms of abuse.

One can argue over either statement, but reasonable people also believe those things, so those statements are defensible.

However, implications not present include:
Strawman Curly) Sam Harris thinks rape is acceptable.
Strawman Larry) Sam Harris thinks all religious people are rapists; or
Strawman Moe) Sam Harris doesn't care about violence, or the safety of women and children.

I think putting those up as strawmen would be disingenuous and trollish.

On the other hand, rebutting A) or B) with data would be reasonable, interesting and perhaps educational.

I wonder whether you will.
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:55:37 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:46:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:18:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.

You never added anything significant to discuss, simply providing the full quote confirms nothing. Just because Sam Harris thinks/believs that religion is harful to society as a whole adds nothing to the fact he would rather keep rape.

It's a disgusting analogy.

You're as transparent as a pane of glass. Do you understand the principle of "the lesser of two evils"? Sam Harris has made such a choice and deliberately made it controversial in order to dramatize the danger of possible nuclear conflict in the M-E because of irreconcilable religious ideologies.

What message do you get out of that? Here, look, Sam Harris condones rape!

Your dishonesty in blatant quote-mining is only exceeded by your attempts to make it look like atheists lack moral judgement. It's pathetic.

You are as transparent as a polar bears hair.

So I'm opaque. Okay.

Here is another quote to sum things up.

The more one analyses people, the more all reasons for analysis disappear. Sooner or later one comes to that dreadful universal thing called human nature.".

Uh huh.

Wiping out religion would not wipe out the danger of any political dictator who is hell bent on power pushing a nuclear button. Get real.

Having locked doors in airplane cockpits (to stop terrorist acts and hijacking) hasn't wiped out the possibility of an airplane crash caused by a mentally ill pilot. The two things are unrelated. You can significantly reduce one cause of potential disaster without eliminating the danger of catastrophe entirely. You are merely expressing the fallacy of bifurcation - all or nothing - if you can't solve a problem completely then don't do anything.

If the problem is nuclear weapons he would be better of stating he would rather get rid of nuclear weapons rather than rape, as human nature is more than capable to want to set of a nuclear weapon.

Yes, but he happened to be commenting on human behaviour, specifically religiosity. This is his focus as a neuroscientist. (Eliminating nuclear weapons is not possible since that particular genie is out of the bottle. Something once discovered cannot be undiscovered. Eliminating religion on the other hand is a possibility, although it would be very difficult. It's already happening naturally in many European countries).

Now I am going to accuse you of being dis-honesty using a blatant fallacy being a jerk and ect ect. But that just looks stupid,

Sure does, unless you can provide evidence. Lol.

which reminds me.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:00:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 7:35:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 7:00:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:
I know many religious people who are not dangerous and do not oppress women,
To the best of my understanding, John, abolishing religion would not abolish those people, their compassion or decency. What it might abolish though, are any paternalistic impediments to improving the status of women and the protection of children embedded in sacred theological doctrine.

Perhaps you are including you own spin on this, with regards to how religion views women, I have conceded that religion doesn't do much for women's equality, But I will not concede that I would rather keep rape if I had a magic wand.


in my experience and all the religious people I know, are peaceful compassionate and caring people, who practice self sacrifice for the good of others.
It seems you feel, John, that absent any data, your subjective individual experience is sufficient to prosecute a counter-argument for the whole of humanity. What I'm wondering is: why.

Please show how the whole of humanity agrees with your position rather than mine?

I am not saying that religion hasn't got it's downfalls, it has, especially if taken out of context. All religions teach at it's core, a fundamental practice of peace, compassion, tolerance, charity, generosity, forgiveness, and love.

That's what it tries to endorse. and it tries to encourage all adherents to follow.

Why would you want to abolish such things and keep rape?


At 4/6/2015 7:16:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Who claims religious paternalism's job is to protect children from rapists?
To the extent that doctrinal religion claims the supreme moral authority to tell people how to live, some reasonable people think it's fair to evaluate its ability to do that.

Please tell me how it can protect a child from being raped?

Go

Again you are misconstruing the argument, simply because you couldn't provide a single source where religion endorses rape.


he would still prefer to wipe out religion and still have little children and grown women being raped.
Is that what he said? I think he said that abolishing religion would do more for humanity than abolishing rape.

In his opinion, which doesn't count for much for me, I give everyone a fair hearing and with Sam Harris I am not impressed.


I think there are two key implications there. Namely, that Harris believes that:
Implication A) Rape is bad, but religion is worse; and that
Implication B) Both are forms of abuse.

I don't believe religion is worse.


One can argue over either statement, but reasonable people also believe those things, so those statements are defensible.

According to you, but your defence of it isn't very impressive thus far.

However, implications not present include:
Strawman Curly) Sam Harris thinks rape is acceptable.
Strawman Larry) Sam Harris thinks all religious people are rapists; or
Strawman Moe) Sam Harris doesn't care about violence, or the safety of women and children.

I think putting those up as strawmen would be disingenuous and trollish.

On the other hand, rebutting A) or B) with data would be reasonable, interesting and perhaps educational.

I wonder whether you will.

There is no strawman, we are not immature enough to understand the implications of what he means.

He would rather keep rapists who rape little children and women,

Isn't that what a rapist is? Do you want a source to explain that to you?

And abolish religion.

I'm sorry, but I would rather share a room with a religious person than a rapist.

Do you have any religious people ion your family?

Would you rather go to their house for dinner, or say, a rapist who happens to also be your relative?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 7:59:30 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:55:37 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:46:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:18:36 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 6:12:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:57:07 AM, johnlubba wrote:

You have nothing to say, but you are saying it, and that's poetry.

As predicted. You pass.

You never added anything significant to discuss, simply providing the full quote confirms nothing. Just because Sam Harris thinks/believs that religion is harful to society as a whole adds nothing to the fact he would rather keep rape.

It's a disgusting analogy.

You're as transparent as a pane of glass. Do you understand the principle of "the lesser of two evils"? Sam Harris has made such a choice and deliberately made it controversial in order to dramatize the danger of possible nuclear conflict in the M-E because of irreconcilable religious ideologies.

What message do you get out of that? Here, look, Sam Harris condones rape!

Your dishonesty in blatant quote-mining is only exceeded by your attempts to make it look like atheists lack moral judgement. It's pathetic.

You are as transparent as a polar bears hair.

So I'm opaque. Okay.

Here is another quote to sum things up.

The more one analyses people, the more all reasons for analysis disappear. Sooner or later one comes to that dreadful universal thing called human nature.".

Uh huh.

You still don't get it do you?


Wiping out religion would not wipe out the danger of any political dictator who is hell bent on power pushing a nuclear button. Get real.

Having locked doors in airplane cockpits (to stop terrorist acts and hijacking) hasn't wiped out the possibility of an airplane crash caused by a mentally ill pilot. The two things are unrelated. You can significantly reduce one cause of potential disaster without eliminating the danger of catastrophe entirely. You are merely expressing the fallacy of bifurcation - all or nothing - if you can't solve a problem completely then don't do anything.

And you still don't get it, it has nothing to do with a person being mentally ill, when humans are selfish and greedy and evil enough to commit any atrocity, without being religious.


If the problem is nuclear weapons he would be better of stating he would rather get rid of nuclear weapons rather than rape, as human nature is more than capable to want to set of a nuclear weapon.

Yes, but he happened to be commenting on human behaviour, specifically religiosity. This is his focus as a neuroscientist. (Eliminating nuclear weapons is not possible since that particular genie is out of the bottle. Something once discovered cannot be undiscovered. Eliminating religion on the other hand is a possibility, although it would be very difficult. It's already happening naturally in many European countries).

You still don't get it, do you, I thought he said IF he had a magic wand? Meaning if he could choose, so why not choose to get rid of nuclear weapons


Now I am going to accuse you of being dis-honesty using a blatant fallacy being a jerk and ect ect. But that just looks stupid,

Sure does, unless you can provide evidence. Lol.

which reminds me.

Just look a few posts up.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:07:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:40:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.


Please explain how the full quote makes any difference to what I provided?

It's clear he would rather keep rape and get rid of religion,

So, your point is?

He never said he would rather 'keep" rape.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:13:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 7:00:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:

But wait, I would rather keep rape and have those people abolished.

Tsk

Yes, tsk, Harris did not say anything about keeping rape or abolishing people. You've now moved the goalposts significantly.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:13:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 8:07:31 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:40:58 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:38:11 AM, dee-em wrote:
Full quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology. I would not say that all human conflict is born of religion or religious differences, but for the human community to be fractured on the basis of religious doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible, in an age when nuclear weapons are proliferating, is a terrifying scenario.
--- Sam Harris

Rape, as reprehensible as it is, is not likely to end human civilization as we know it.

In context, his remarks are perfectly understandable.


Please explain how the full quote makes any difference to what I provided?

It's clear he would rather keep rape and get rid of religion,

So, your point is?

He never said he would rather 'keep" rape.

Work it out Einstein. Having a choice of getting rid of one means keeping the other.

Now go play with the traffic.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:16:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 8:13:17 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/6/2015 7:00:27 AM, johnlubba wrote:

But wait, I would rather keep rape and have those people abolished.

Tsk

Yes, tsk, Harris did not say anything about keeping rape or abolishing people. You've now moved the goalposts significantly.

I do not find anything you say of interest,

Are you that lonely that you have to interact with me, although I have told you many time that I find your conduct and attitude despicable.

Please go away you annoying old man.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:23:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 8:00:18 AM, johnlubba wrote:

I am not saying that religion hasn't got it's downfalls, it has, especially if taken out of context. All religions teach at it's core, a fundamental practice of peace, compassion, tolerance, charity, generosity, forgiveness, and love.

Perhaps, is some small way they teach those things partially, but they also teach the exact opposite of those traits, as well.

Where is the peace, compassion and tolerance to those other faiths, homosexuals and non-believers?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth