I do however agree on the absurdity of the extent of worthless items being spewed at your level. There is literally no reason to stop and compare because now you tend to get one drop that ends up being so semi-God like that you don't switch it out for an Act or more. I'm sure in higher difficulty this will change and this may be an artifact of the design for the endgame here. It just seems it could have been micromanaged a bit better.

Agreed on cult vs. religion. I wonder what this guy's endgame is?>> ^A10anis:

The difference between a cult and a religion? There is NO difference. Both take advantage of the weak, lonely, lost, vulnerable, and desperate people, who are easily brainwashed because of their condition.
How long -hopefully never- before another mass suicide is instigated by their "divine" leader?

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

What I said is that if God isn't in charge it is someone else. Earth answers to a higher authority, one way or another. Stephan Hawking recently said that this power is almost certainly hostile to our interests.

I will say though that it is obvious there is a God. Anyone who believes that something like the Universe comes about by happenstance is in massive denial.

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

If you want to pin suffering and death anywhere, it rests squarely on mans shoulders. We could feed, clothe and vaccinate the entire world for what Europe spends on ice cream every year.

The worse alternative is being ruled over by something that doesn't care about us, which means that, at any moment we are completely expendible, or a resource to be used and abused as it sees fit. Look at what we do to the animals and then imagine what a higher being might do with us. Could be that we're being fattened for the slaughter.

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

Your conscience tells you that you've offended a holy God. And I will go out on a limb here and say I doubt you have ever read the bible, let alone understand what is in it.


>> ^spoco2:
@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.
1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.
&
2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)
&
3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when
a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.
So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.
To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he
he he
he
aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

@shinyblurry:

"Someone has to be God, this what you don't understand."
and
"If God isnt in charge, you should be scared of who is. It is a far better thing to have someone who loves us personally and cares about our lives. The alternative is far worse, and something that should worry any thoughtful person. Because if God isn't in charge, and it isn't you and it isn't me; it is going to be someone else. You might not think God is perfect, but again, you love His reality, you just don't want to play by His rules. What you're unwilling to do is take a long hard look at yourself and see that if you are going to be honest about it, the problem is with you and not with Him. You most certainly have some terrific sounding excuses for how you justify rebellion against God, but none of them will match up to your conscience."

There are a couple of GLARING, STUPEFYINGLY OBVIOUS problems with your 'arguments'.

1) You have decided that there must be a god, that it is inconceivable that there is not one. That there is no other possibility but there is some omnipotent being that runs everything. You give no logical reasoning for this, you have just decided, for yourself, that it MUST be and so there is no arguing the point. Well, on that point you are wrong. Not that there isn't, necessarily a god, but just that there must be one. There is nothing at all that says there must be a god. Go nuts believing that there is one, but don't think that you have come up with some endgame argument that there must be a god, because you haven't.

&

2) You then go on to this weird reasoning that because there must be a god, that it's better if said god is the one in your bible, because, well, he's tip top and damn super, and that he has a personal interest in every one of the 7 billion lives on this planet. Even, apparently, the billions that are condemned to poverty, starvation, murder and death. (And the far worse alternative is that there's some super being somewhere that doesn't give two rat's arses about us... I'm not sure how that's worse at all. What would I care if there's some overlord who is quite happy for this planet to just 'be' and do whatever we want, sounds great to me)

&

3) You again make the assumption (with nothing to back it up) that this reality is created by your god, and so we must play by his rules... when

a) You've convinced no one that it is his reality, and
b) even if it were his reality, I don't think that ridiculous book written by a swathe of people across a vast amount of time, and rewritten by whoever happened to be in power at the time says anything like what he actually believes or wants.

So... sorry, you haven't thrown down any arguments at all... you've spouted your beliefs, from your book that you think is the word of god, no matter how much it can be shown not to be... and somehow you think that's going to win over atheists.

To wit I say... BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HE HE HE He he he he ha ha ho ho he he

he he

he


aaaahhhh, that's priceless, you're adorable.

>> ^Jinx:

Ahhh, what a mannerbear.
I do think if he'd killed off some his supply and got a couple of Corrupters out he would have been in with a chance. The endgame chess analogy is good, but I also imagine it like you can't see their pieces unless they are in an adjacent square .


He had only 100 gas left, and I'm not sure when his spire went down. Frustrating to watch as a zerg player.

Ahhh, what a mannerbear.

I do think if he'd killed off some his supply and got a couple of Corrupters out he would have been in with a chance. The endgame chess analogy is good, but I also imagine it like you can't see their pieces unless they are in an adjacent square .

@gwiz665

Thanks for your post. If that truly is Harris's endgame, then all I can say is he is going about it in a very bizarre way. The only way to eradicate Islam would be to either convince the people who practice it to stop practicing it... or to eliminate all of the practitioners. I don't see him really advocating the second option, but I also don't see anything in his arguments that are likely to bring about the 1st option either. As far as I can tell, his plan seems to be to convince non-Muslims how awful Islam is... and then what? Are they going to outlaw it? I don't see that working very well--it'll just go underground and in all likelihood become even more radicalized. So how do you get people to stop practicing Islam then?

@SDGundamX The endgame is the eradication of all religions, starting with the clearly most violent one.

Harm is a very fluid term, because reality is subjective, but there are objective truths we can hold to, and there are points of view that are more valid than others. As far as I understand it, this is what Sam Harris is trying to elaborate on in the Moral Landscape, which I still haven't read, sadly.

@SDGundamX

*takes a deep breath*

Okay,you do get one thing partially right: while Harris and I are arguing one thing, you insist on hearing something else. We say "religion", "Islam", "ideology", and all you seem to hear is "Muslims". I've already repeatedly rejected your strawman understanding of our arguments, I won't do it again (when I said you should reread, I was not joking).

Since speaking plainly doesn't seem to reach you, lets try some analogy:

If the law of religion X, as stated in its founding texts, says that prostitutes should be put to death, as well as anyone who lets their hair grow out after wearing it short all their life; that exhibitionists should have their junk cut off; that short people are worth half as much as tall people, and should wear 10-inch highheels at all times; but "only" 33% of Xites in your country want X law to be enforced, should you fear for the state of human rights in that country (and for those poor, unethically raised Xite kids who would answer such a thing)? And what about the countries were such laws are actually being enforced? What about the increase of short people having their legs broken (in X and non-X countries) because they were not wearing high heels, so were "asking for it"?

Of course I'm not worried, why should I be? Look at all the "good" Xites are doing! X provides a sense of meaning, community, etc. Xites do charity, too! What? All that can and is done by non Xites as well? But why?? Where do they get their morals from?? And why would anyone want to criticize X? What could possibly be their endgame?? (you see the point I hope)


"Harm and misery" are subjective? Are you serious? With such a grossly unethical (and scientifically wrong) argument, I'm starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of it, in which case go argue with shinyblurry, he likes repeating himself: I don't.

As for the "many denominations/interpretations" argument, have you ever heard a so-called "New Atheist" addressing a particular denomination instead of the shared ideology at the core when criticising religion? Why should that be in any way a mitigating factor? Yes, there are different takes on the core ideology (which we call by its name, be it Christianity or Islam), some more influenced by the progress made in the domains of morality and science (which are the same for all humans, i.e. secular, i.e. do not have their source in religion) than others. As I stated in a comment above, I'm pretty sure I can safely assert that the large majority of humans, regardless their creed or lack thereof, live empathetic and peaceful lives. Do I have to stress that that includes muslims?

Also, who's talking about "eliminating" religions? I'm sure most of us antitheists would love to be able to click our fingers and have all those backwards and inherently tyrannical ideologies disappear (and all the new-age woo and pseudo-science too), but I doubt any of us are so naive as to think such a thing possible. Instead, by raising awareness to religion's negative effects, we hope that people will eventually grow out of it, and speak up to fight (with ideas and reason; we're not the fundies) those who want such ideologies to effect our lives and others', especially when those effects are unethical and cause real "harm and misery". (srsly, I still can't believe you'd say such an ignorant, relativist thing)

You are not obliged to answer this post, but if you do, please, please, please, PLEASE try to grasp the arguments you are opposing; because if I get another strawman/hypocrisy-filled response I will simply ignore it. As you can tell, having to deal with such responses make me frustrated, and waste my time (I do not have the composure and patience of a, say, Sam Harris).

p.s.: "transformation of Islam into a political ideology"? Do you read the links you post? If you did, you might have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam


(Suggestion: don't say you have no intention of enraging a secular humanist and antitheist (that's me), and follow up with something like "I don't think I could ever[y] provide you with enough evidence to change your mind". Remember that H-word I was accusing you of? This is another example.)

@hpqp

I'm sorry you feel enraged. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. As I tried to state clearly in the original post, I wanted to tell you my opinion on the issue. That's all. I wasn't trying to convince you I was right because honestly I don't think I could every provide you with enough evidence to change your mind. All I can do is tell you why I listen to the same things Harris says and see a different picture being painted than you do.

The underlined part is, I think, where our disagreement comes from. You seem to believe that everyone must see things in one way. For example, you keep citing the Koran as evidence of Islam's evil. My response to that is the same as Antonio Scalia's recent response in the Supreme Court ruling that allows video games to be covered under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "All literature is essentially interactive." In other words, all literature is interpreted by its readers. Whatever intent writers may have had when penning a work, once it is out of their hands and is distributed, that message is no longer the only valid interpretation. This is especially true for a work of literature whose author has been dead for over 1000 years.

There is not--there cannot be--one interpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people around the world in over 232 countries and territories. These people come from wildly different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicity, nationalities, education levels, and so forth. Even a cursory glance at the statistics hints at what an investigation of how Islam is practiced around the world makes clear--Islam as a religion is realized in the world very differently by people depending on a huge variety of factors including (but not limited to) local tradition, history, the socio-economic status of the practitioners, etc. They may agree with other practitioners around the world on some basic facts (Allah is the one true God, Mohommand was God's prophet) but they disagree on a great many other things. Ironically Sam Harris himself glaringly points out this disagreement in his own talks--for example when he states that 1/3 of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law... which necessarily implies that 2/3 of British Muslims don't.

So we have the “teachings” of Islam (as codified in the Koran, Hadith, and Sufi texts), we also have the widely differing interpretation and actualization of those teachings, and we also have the people (who may—as in the case of Al-Queda terrorists—have ambitions far beyond simply being a Muslim who follows the teachings as best as possible) who are doing the interpreting and actualization. Adding to the complexity is the transformation of Islamic ideas into a political ideology.

So when Sam Harris wants to criticize Islam, one of the first questions I have for him is... which one? Yet he (and you) seem to be insisting that there is only one proper way to read the Koran--only one possible way to interpret it that represents all of Islam. I find that fascinating because that is exactly the same view that fundamentalists have. The fact that millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike--from all backgrounds including laypeople, theologians, and scholars--have widely different views about how to interpret and actualize what is written in the Koran and Hadiths demonstrates to me that this view--this fundamentalist view that Harris (and you) seem to embrace--is completely incorrect.

No, the Koran is not "pretty clear" at all. There are multiple differing translations of the Koran. There are multiple differing interpretations of those translations. And there are multiple ways in which Islam is realized in the world (radical fundamentalism, Sufism, etc.). Unlike Christianity, which gives us no end of labels for the differing interpretations of the Bible and how Christianity should be practiced (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and so on...) Islam does not have nearly as many labels for its differing interpretations. But those differing interpretations quite clearly exist. Even if such labels existed for Islam, we know from Christianity that within a similar group of Christians (Unitarians for instance) there is even further differentiation and interpretation between different regions, churches, and even individuals in beliefs and practices.

So, in short, to answer your question about why I don't read Harris and agree with what he say: I think the fundamental premise of his argument is wrong. His argument against "Islam" breaks down completely if he acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran. The fact that he is an extremely well-educated man who refuses to admit that these differing interpretations even exist hurts his credibility in my eyes even further. I hope that makes my position clear.

Thanks for reading my long-winded posts. And just to reiterate, I'm seriously not trying to convince you of anything at this point. I'm stating my opinion on the topic. That's all.

P.S. I apologize for assuming you were a guy. Because we kept bumping into each other in the same vids, I figured we had similar video preferences. I guess I figured it was more likely a guy would be interested in those vids than a girl. My mistake.

P.S. 2 Could you please, please, please, please, PLEASE, answer the question that I've been asking you across two threads and several comments now? What's Harris's/your desired goal? What's the endgame? What are you both hoping to achieve with all of this?

@hpqp

Thanks for the heads-up about the post. And thanks for clearly detailing your position on the matter. If I may, I’d like to explain my opinion on the topic.

Is it wrong to “criticize Islam?” In a civilized society that values free speech, clearly the answer is no. But free speech is a two-way street. If it is acceptable to criticize Islam, then clearly it is just as acceptable that such criticism be open to criticism in return. In short, just because a person thinks their opinion on a particular matter is correct doesn’t make it so. And if a person can’t handle someone disagreeing with their opinion… well we all know the adage about people who live in glass houses.

My major objection to people like Sam Harris is not that I believe religion or in particular Islam is some off-limit topic of criticism. No. My major objection to Sam Harris is that rather than criticize Islam he instead tries to inspire fear of it—and, by association, Muslims as well (i.e. No one lies awake at night worrying about the Amish—but those Muslims on the other hand…). Many of his arguments seem to be based on fear, misunderstanding, exaggeration, oversimplification, and in of some cases apparent intentional misrepresentation of not only Islam but other religions such as Jainism as well. They often lack any sort of evidence (i.e. Islam is the religion causing the greatest amount of suffering in the world) yet we are expected to swallow their truth without doubt. And when someone raises these criticisms of his supposed criticism? Rather than actually defend his claims and provide solid evidence in support of them he instead insinuates we’re just too “liberal”—too culturally relativistic— to see the danger that he sees.

Sam Harris is free to criticize Islam. In fact, I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when he actually starts doing so (in the dictionary sense of the term). In the meantime, I dismiss his arguments as both unsupported and intended to intentionally stir up both fear and prejudice against Islam and its followers.

Next, I’d like to address the issue of Islamophobia—prejudice against, hatred, or fear of Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia doesn’t exist? I think the 200,000 Muslims killed and 50,000 Muslim women raped during the Bosnian Genocide would disagree with that statement. So would Iranian-American Zohreh Assemik, who was sliced with a boxcutter, kicked, had her hand smashed with a hammer, and had anti-Muslim slurs written on the mirrors of her nail and facial salon. So would pretty much anyone who played Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide in which you get to kill not only terrorists but Muslim civilians as well.

Frankly, @hpqp, I’m surprised. All of our conversations on the Sift have been reasonable, if a bit passionate at times. I think you would be just as shocked if I were to suddenly proclaim there is no such thing as Antisemitism as I was to read your statement in this thread. Islamophobia (as defined above) is quite real. No, claims of Islamophobia should not be used to shut down criticism of Islam (any more than claims of Antisemitism should be used to squelch criticism of Israeli policies). But that’s a far cry from claiming Islamophobia doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

You seem like a reasonable guy. I know you’ve tried your best to explain it to me but I still don’t understand why you believe so strongly that Islam itself—and not particular interpretations of Islam—are such a threat. So let's do something different. I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t reply, so I’ll ask you again—what do you/Harris hope to achieve with all of this vitriol? What’s the goal? What do you hope to see happen? What’s the endgame? I ask these questions because I think the answers will really help me see where you are coming from and to understand your point of view.

@hpqp

I’d like to ask you to bear with me a little longer. I'm trying to understand your point of view. I am very interested in the basis of your beliefs--basically, how you came to your conclusion. I would ask you tone down the condescension a bit so we can have a reasonable discussion.

So let's try approaching this from a different angle... what exactly does Harris (and I'm assuming you as well) hope to accomplish with all this? What's the endgame? And how does he/you propose we get there?

By the way, this debate reminds me of the academic debate over whether violence is inherent to the ideology of Communism. There have volumes written on the topic and to date it hasn’t been settled (as far as I know). The evidence presented by those who believe violence is inherent in Communism parallels the evidence you have presented to me—they raise the original writings of both Marx and the Bolsheviks as well as Stalin’s atrocities, Tiananmen Square, etc. Opponents of this view point out that the violence in the writings was to be interpreted as only to be used against oppressors: the subsequent acts of violence that continued after the revolution was complete (for example, Lenin’s use of terror against his own people) was not what the original visionaries had in mind.

See here for an example analysis:

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/twentiethcenturycommunism/articles/2whorley.html

Not trying to prove anything with that link. Just found the argument fascinatingly similar.

>> ^ant:

>> ^BoneRemake:
because of Warcraft and Diablo..especially Diablo, I had to buy a new mouse as the buttons wore out !
Fun fact- I hate starcraft

I love Diablo and WoW series, but not a fan of their RTS games. I prefer Westwood Studios' C&C and Dune series. However, old Battle.net was awesome.


Exact opposite for me. Diablo 1 and 2 had great setting/story, and were fun the first time through, but the gameplay was a mindless clickfest. WOW was great with friends, but the endgame is an endless gear treadmill. Starcraft and e-sports are Blizzard's greatest achievement in gaming IMO.

^Indeed. Ever since the finale to Season 1 I've dreaded and expected for it to start going downhill, but it really hasn't. Apart from Season 3 finale, which I felt was rushed and didn't do justice to the main villain (but that's it), it's really been all highs and no lows.

As for the endgame to this story, I actually expect they're going to out him to the public before the end.

>> ^blankfist:
Does this mean you're now against nation-building, NR?

What do you mean "now"?

I grew up hating the way the US treated other countries like chess pieces in a grand game with the Soviet Union. I certainly didn't like the Iraq war, and I'm not particularly clear on what our endgame is supposed to be in Afghanistan, though it appears neither Bush nor Obama are all that clear on that subject either.

My foreign policy preference is a lot closer to "leave people alone" than "invade and destroy other nations and set up pro-American puppet governments" as we have done so often in our recent past.