Islamic State

[Liam_snorkel]

It's more about the vibe, man.

 

[Dave70]

I don't understand spirituality and its non link to the supernatural.

Can you point me to the part of spirituality that manifests in reality?

Yes.

http://www.samharris.org/waking-up

 

[Airgead]

You really love wheeling out that Google search thingie, don't you fellah..

I do indeed... if only to indicate that it doesn't take very much effort at all to look beyond whatever the telegraph is reporting today and get a more balanced picture.

 

[pcmfisher]

Yes.

http://www.samharris.org/waking-up

Looks interesting. Might buy it.

Have you read it?

 

[Dave70]

Looks interesting. Might buy it.

Have you read it?

Not yet, but soon. You can listen to the first chapter here.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

 

[Eagleburger]

Is it just me or has the islamists been getting a lot of bad press the last 15 years?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Only the Murdoch press

 

[jimi]

Not yet, but soon. You can listen to the first chapter here.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

Paul Blooms review from that link; "Sam Harris—one of the great skeptics of our time—shows how spiritual traditions provide important truths that have largely been missed by the scientific and secular communities." makes it sound a lot like De Botton's 2.0
It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the strengths of another side in order to progress the discussion and move to a more rational ground, rather than the all to common apparent yelling of the team line over and over. Which I suppose is yet another common element the theist and athesit fundamenalists share

 

[jimi]

Not so.

Dawkins for example, for all his brilliance, isn't the most articulate orator and frequently seems to be getting outpointed by some crafty theist with the gift of the gab. Because he cant deliver biological science and evolution like a Hillsong car salesman counts for little in reality. It's a tough sell when one side is promising immortality or virgins. No anti-theist who respects data, evidence, reason and truth would lay claim to 'absolute knowledge', that claim is demonstrably the purview or theists or idiots. Equally, no respected atheist commentator or critic of religion anchors their argument to ad hominem, they don't need to.

If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

As the devil once said " My greatest achievement has been to convince everyone that I dont exist"

 

[Blind Dog]

Or would have said if he existed

 

[Camo6]

When did he say that? I skimmed through most of the New Testament. Love this guy, forgive that guy. Old Testament was much more exciting. Why do they always go back for the sequel?

 

[Blind Dog]

If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.

There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.

I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.

 

[Blind Dog]

When did he say that? I skimmed through most of the New Testament. Love this guy, forgive that guy. Old Testament was much more exciting. Why do they always go back for the sequel?

It's a paraphrase of Kevin Spacey's character in the Usual Suspects, which in turn is a mildly altered quote from a French poet. It is routinely spouted by Christian fundamentalists, and recently by both the pope and DBS. There is no evidence El Diablo actually said it at all

 

[manticle]

There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.
I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.

Pretty much on par with my thoughts on all counts.
I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything nor justifying what is essentially a lack of belief and I haven't come across a deist representation I'd willingly worship even if someone could prove their reality.

And jimi - that's an amazingly narrow perspective on what science is. Science asks all the questions religion ever has and more - it just tries harder to provide the answers. Science would not have advanced as far as it has without incredible, engaged, creative and philosophical minds.

 

[Camo6]

It's a paraphrase of Kevin Spacey's character in the Usual Suspects, which in turn is a mildly altered quote from a French poet. It is routinely spouted by Christian fundamentalists, and recently by both the pope and DBS. There is no evidence El Diablo actually said it at all

Cheers, was being a little tongue in cheek. First penned in 1874 by Charles Baudelair in the short story the Generous Gambler (so states that eminent sage Googlu) but yeah I prefer the Keyser Soze version better. And though I've attempted to have a go reading the Good Book, my cynicism usually stops me after a couple of pages.

 

[Dave70]

Paul Blooms review from that link; "Sam Harris—one of the great skeptics of our time—shows how spiritual traditions provide important truths that have largely been missed by the scientific and secular communities." makes it sound a lot like De Botton's 2.0
It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the strengths of another side in order to progress the discussion and move to a more rational ground, rather than the all to common apparent yelling of the team line over and over. Which I suppose is yet another common element the theist and athesit fundamenalists share

I somehow doubt followers of Abrahamic faiths will get much love in this book jimi.
Harris isn't trying to initiate a group hug between theists and non theists here. Contemplative thought and meditation are topics he's discussed in other books and it reflects the years he spent in Asia studying under Hindi and Buddhist teachers. The message (as I see it anyway) is these are experiences open to all people who wish to learn the techniques put in the work, no chanting or to praying to multi limbed elephant statues required.

If Dawkins is getting outpointed it might be becuase he relies on evolution to be his trump card and if he doesn't encounter a literalist / fundamentalist perspective he is lost. The all too long debate between religion and aethism ended long ago in a nil all draw (IMO) because there is simply is no way of proving or disproving something that is (or at least claimed to be) transcendent. Science will observe and measure the observable, that doesn't help when the topic is an abstract entity that can't be measured or observed. The only productive ground for the debate is a honest philosophial discussion that can identify both the strengths and weakness of both practises, but I fear the the loudest noises are those coming from the respective fundamentalists, or may be that's just the popular media presentation.

I agree, its a zero sum game, and so long as one side puts no value in empirical evidence, shall remain so. But just imagine, hypothetically, a generation or two ago kids in Afghanistan were made to realize, lets say via some atheist pamphlet drop into Kabul, that the koran was merely a cobbled together plagiarism of Jewish and Christian mythology, not the word of the prophet, or at the very least, nothing worth killing or dying for. Do you imagine we would be regretting winning that argument today? I think its an argument worth winning to be honest.

You also seem to keep representing atheism as a belief. It isn't, any more than not believing in the existence of leprechauns or fairy's merits its own title. We're not talking two sides of the same coin here.

 

[pk.sax]

Damn fairies. Root of all evil.

 

[jimi]

There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.

I neither want to nor have to prove your (that's a generic your not a personal attack) god does or doesn't exist. Even if you (again generic not personal) could prove the existence of any god I've come across I'd still be an atheist, because they are all without exception petty minded, schizophrenic, misogynistic, egotistical, cowardly, antagonistic bullies.

There has never been a debate, because you can't debate whether a figment of your imagination is indeed a figment of your imagination or real. A devout (insert religion/crack pot cult of choice) can no more prove the existence of their deity or deities than I can prove that I have a Brussels sprout called Dave as my guardian angel who speaks to me in Swahili (which by the way is a bugger cos my Swahili is rudimentary to say the least). But they will always resort to the 'you can't prove God/Allah/Jehovah/Dave don't exist therefore they must exist' argument. If you think that's a debate that ended nil all I suggest you look up the word debate.

A debate that can't be a debate is precisely my point (nil all draw). Both sides keep presenting what I assume they consider to be winning arguments, but these argument rarely meet because they coming from different concepts of truth. The fundamentalist atheist seem to assume that empirical and objective truth is all there can be while the religious fundamentalist seems to assume subjective and relative truth is all that matters when defining/relating to an intangible abstract deity.

Don't get me wrong, objective truth is vital for keeping religion from becoming superstition, but athetists are too often stuck in only this kind of thinking and therefore miss much of what is being said from a religious perspective. That's why I like De Botton's 2.0, philosophy and a break away from the tribal lines of the debate might actually provide something productive for all society. It doesn't seem popular though.

Your description of all the gods you've encountered is a perfect example also of the subjectivity of truth. It's easy to read something like the Hebrew scriptures and think this god they follow is violent and insecure, but its obviously not the truth the Jewish people hold to.

 

[Phoney]

. But just imagine, hypothetically, a generation or two ago kids in Afghanistan were made to realize, lets say via some atheist pamphlet drop into Kabul, that the koran was merely a cobbled together plagiarism of Jewish and Christian mythology, not the word of the prophet, or at the very least, nothing worth killing or dying for. Do you imagine we would be regretting winning that argument today? I think its an argument worth winning to be honest.

Actually that's kinda what did actually happen. In 1980, at the request of Afghan King Shah, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan no doubt with the eventual intention of imposing godless communism in that country. Then the US and Saudi Arabia came along and armed the opposing mujahideen (who later became the Taliban) with stinger missiles. In hindsight, looking at what became of the country when the Soviets withdrew 9 years later, and in comparison to how the other ex-soviet Stans to the north are doing today (that is relatively well), and that's not even taking into account 9/11, Bin Laden etc... then it's damnregrettable that the West helped "win" that conflict. But this is rather off topic.