ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th June 2019, 04:33 PM   #81
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Don't know what to make of Sam Harris. He seems to genunely want to understand people and portray both sides, as it were, and he has some valid points on a lot of topics, and he is good at challenging you and making you think, but I do think he's gone off the deep end when it comes to his views on migration and Islam.
Interesting you think that about Sam in relation to migration and Islam. Could you direct me to something reenforcing this view? The following is a short video where Sam talks about Islam being described as "the religion of peace" I find no fault with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:15 PM   #82
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
...It seems that the SJWs are primarily hostile to Christianity, not religion in general. Also they seem quite supportive of Islam. Anything critical of Islam instantly becomes "Islamophobia". Note that the term Christianophobia is not part of our linguistic currency. Ever wonder why that is?
For years I didn't really understand (read "give a **** about") the Left's sympathies for Islam (especially over Christianity) until one day a guy explained it clearly in about 4 seconds. Fundamentally, what Islam wants and what the Left wants are the exact same thing. They both want capricious, omnipotent power and control over all constituents. The seeming insatiable need/desire to impose their will and oversee and dictate one's every thought, act, word, emotion and life runs rampant in both "movements". The notion of "freedom" doesn't appear to have any importance whatsoever with either one.

But forget all that, the really hilarious part is yet to come. And it's a blatant case of 'be careful what you wish for'. Beyond CNN and MSNBC and HuffPost, i.e. in reality, there is literally nothing the Left and Islam actually share in common beyond that power thirst. Islam isn't just right leaning, it is the extreme right. It's Allah™ or the highway buddy. They (and Allah™) hate gay marriage, trannies, women's rights, children's rights, freedom, bacon, Jews, etc. Seriously, where would both sides' disparate ideals meet exactly (beyond the totalitarian theme)? They won't and it's only going to get funnier and funnier the closer to that realization we get.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
WTF has happened to 'skepticism'
1. The same thing that happened to "Social Justice," the internet turned it into a fandom.

2. The same thing that happened to almost every quality, it only gets used in context now as a backhanded "Oh I thought you were a so&so" or "Oh I thought this was a place for such & such" style passive aggressive jab.

3. All the things skepticism came about to deal with turned hard into pure anti-intellectualism, leading to the post-truth world we now live in.

4. *Shrugs* I don't know... sunspots? Y2K?
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:16 PM   #83
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Hume is going way back. When we say "skepticism" around here, we usually aren't really using the philosophical term. That causes a bit of confusion, but so be it. What we usually mean is anything associated with James Randi, CSICOP, and the magazine "The Skeptical Inquirer".
That's certainly not the case for me. While I think of Randi as an important promoter of the ideas of skepticism, it's simply a philosophical stance related to the limits of knowledge and the best ways to go about understanding the world given those limits.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 11:19 PM   #84
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,323
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And who doesn't like torture? What better way is there to truly know someone?
I think it's worth pointing out that Harris has said that due to the potential for abuse we should have a policy of never allowing torture. He also says that there may be some exceptions wherein it makes sense to torture but when they come up they will be obvious that we don't need to explicitly allow them, and if we were to try to explicitly define those scenarios ahead of time it would open up potential for abuse so it's better to just have a complete ban.

Something like that.

To portray that viewpoint as "who doesn't like torture?" seems pretty dishonest to me.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 07:21 AM   #85
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,243
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
"NPC" stands for "non-player character." It originated as a video game term for the dudes that follow the main dude around but aren't directly controlled by the gamer.
Nitpick, it predates computer/video games and originated in tabletop RPGs.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 09:21 AM   #86
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
For years I didn't really understand (read "give a **** about") the Left's sympathies for Islam (especially over Christianity) until one day a guy explained it clearly in about 4 seconds.
Shouldn't that have been a clue that what was about to explained was nonsense?

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
Fundamentally,
Interesting word choice. Go on . . .

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
what Islam wants and what the Left wants are the exact same thing. They both want capricious, omnipotent power and control over all constituents. . . . The notion of "freedom" doesn't appear to have any importance whatsoever with either one.
I can fix that for you Harry, to help you avoid something like 3 or 4 logical fallacies:
"what Islam some crazy imams definitely want[s] and what the Left some fictitious and crazy caricature of what that guy seems to have thought 'the Left' is wants are the exact same thing."

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
there is literally nothing the Left and Islam actually share in common
Hey, this^ bit is pretty much accurate!

Back to the original premise, if there is sympathy that "the Left" (whatever that means) has for Islam, it is for the individual rights of people who happen to be Muslim. There is no leftist love for the likes of bin Laden, Taliban, al Zarkawi, daesh, Khamenei, etc. Those are seen as analogous to Christianity's KKK, the many perpetrators of anti-semitic violence over centuries (deadly violence as recently as March in CA), Breivik, etc., who exist as anomalies to otherwise peacefully practicing Christians.

In my experience, liberals might be less willing to say "Islam is NOT a religion of peace" than is Sam Harris, but that's as deep as I see the divide here. The Left is wholly ready to condemn acts of Islamic terrorism and oppression at any time, they just also want to see our leaders calling out acts of Christian terrorism and oppression when they occur, too. Oh, and maybe we could stop persecuting the billion or so practicing Muslims who reject the violent tenets of their faith? Helping those people lead safe and peaceful lives – especially in the US where those rights are Constitutionally guaranteed – is all that "social justice" means.

Personally, I respect Harris' thoughts on this and see it as good critical thinking: Islam as described in the Quran is not a religion of peace. Despite that, there are about a billion Muslims in the world today who practice Islam as if it were a religion of peace. Those peaceful Muslims need the support of the rest of us to rout out the fundamentalists whack-jobs among their ranks, if for no other reason that Muslims are the primary victims of Islamic terrorism.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 08:28 PM   #87
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Shouldn't that have been a clue that what was about to explained was nonsense?
Fine, I overstated the understatement a little. 44 seconds.

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
...I can fix that for you Harry, to help you avoid something like 3 or 4 logical fallacies:
"what Islam some crazy imams definitely want[s] and what the Left some fictitious and crazy caricature of what that guy seems to have thought 'the Left' is wants are the exact same thing."
You fixed my LF with a LF? Damn you!

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Hey, this^ bit is pretty much accurate.
Now we're gettin' somewhere.

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Back to the original premise, if there is sympathy that "the Left" (whatever that means) has for Islam, it is for the individual rights of people who happen to be Muslim. There is no leftist love for the likes of bin Laden, Taliban, al Zarkawi, daesh, Khamenei, etc. Those are seen as analogous to Christianity's KKK, the many perpetrators of anti-semitic violence over centuries (deadly violence as recently as March in CA), Breivik, etc., who exist as anomalies to otherwise peacefully practicing Christians...
I won't wholly disagree with that. As an aside, Breivik was not a Christian let alone a fundamentalist one. Which makes the fact he was branded one early on (and their knowing it would stick) either suspicious or pure incompetence. I mean, the press deliberately lying about it whilst knowing that such an attribution could be highly inflammatory to a huge number of people worldwide once they realize the truth, can't really be defended ethically/morally no matter how many people the idiot killed. And I surely don't give a **** about him, but for some reason I'm compelled to "defend" millions of members of a group I don't even belong to, kinda like you're doing. I'm agnostic atheist by the way.

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
In my experience, liberals might be less willing to say "Islam is NOT a religion of peace" than is Sam Harris, but that's as deep as I see the divide here. The Left is wholly ready to condemn acts of Islamic terrorism and oppression at any time, they just also want to see our leaders calling out acts of Christian terrorism and oppression when they occur, too. Oh, and maybe we could stop persecuting the billion or so practicing Muslims who reject the violent tenets of their faith? Helping those people lead safe and peaceful lives – especially in the US where those rights are Constitutionally guaranteed – is all that "social justice" means.
Trust me, I don't think we differ at all in opposition to terrorism of any sort.

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Personally, I respect Harris' thoughts on this and see it as good critical thinking: Islam as described in the Quran is not a religion of peace. Despite that, there are about a billion Muslims in the world today who practice Islam as if it were a religion of peace. Those peaceful Muslims need the support of the rest of us to rout out the fundamentalists whack-jobs among their ranks, if for no other reason that Muslims are the primary victims of Islamic terrorism.
Not so much me agreeing with you here as you're agreeing with me. One of the undersold points of my original post was the capricious nature of Islam and/or its "leadership" (worldwide). The fact the Quran lays out its hostilities towards anyone not a Muslim - despite the widespread disobedience by "a billion Muslims" in the present day to that specific tenet - can't be so easily dismissed given the otherwise ultra strict adherence to the book surely millions of Muslims have. Thus the notion "Islam is not a religion of peace but can be temporarily under these specific conditions" isn't anywhere near the 'comforting thought' it's pretending it wants to be. It's probably needless to point out that's not the premise nor practice of Christianity or <name of any other major religion> in the present day.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:30 AM   #88
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,909
[quote=HarryHenderson;12727570]As an aside, Breivik was not a Christian let alone a fundamentalist one.
Indeed it's murky to assign any particular ideology to a nutcase like him, and there's a whole lotta No True Scotsman to watch out for in those discussions. He was a bit Odinist, certainly also agnostic, but also culturally Christian (as claimed in his own manifesto). He was a Freemason and took the name Knights Templar for his made-up organization. He might have been a lousy Christian, but the dude was Christian.

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
The fact the Quran lays out its hostilities towards anyone not a Muslim - despite the widespread disobedience by "a billion Muslims" in the present day to that specific tenet - can't be so easily dismissed given the otherwise ultra strict adherence to the book surely millions of Muslims have.
I'm with you – and Harris – on this. All religions are/can be violent, but Islam specifically instructs its followers to enact the violence.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:18 PM   #89
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,665
Quote:
His religious faith is Odinism. While Breivik was frequently described as a Christian fundamentalist", such assertion was disputed in a number of sources, and Breivik denied it, saying in letters to Norwegian newspaper Dagen that he "is not, and has never been a Christian", and that he thinks there are few things in the world more "pathetic" than "the Jesus-figure and his message". He said he prays and sacrifices to Odin, and identifies his religion as Odinism. However, in his manifesto Breivik claimed that he prayed to God in the days leading up to the attack.
Anders Behring Breivik: Religion
(Wikipedia)

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
I'm with you – and Harris – on this. All religions are/can be violent, but Islam specifically instructs its followers to enact the violence.

You seem to think that the Bible doesn't.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; Yesterday at 02:20 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.