1. Comment #56090 by Rtambree on July 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Harris needs to clone himself a doppelganger so he can finish his PhD thesis. Perhaps Ben Stiller could fill in?

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #56093 by Science H Logic on July 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm

How long has he been working on that?

Other Comments by Science H Logic

3. Comment #56095 by mpslg on July 13, 2007 at 5:56 pm

I'm not complaining because I love hearing Sam speak, but I think I've heard all of these points in every lecture he gives.

Other Comments by mpslg

4. Comment #56096 by chileman on July 13, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Disagree mpslg. Sammy embracing his sense of humor with reckless abandon (for him reckless) was worth the listen alone. Once again SH delivers a clear, concise lecture without wasting one word or second. Wish he would video debate the delusional more often.

Other Comments by chileman

5. Comment #56097 by Robert Maynard on July 13, 2007 at 6:28 pm

mpslg: I'm not complaining because I love hearing Sam speak, but I think I've heard all of these points in every lecture he gives.

I feel the same way, but really.. they're pretty good points, and they deserve repeating - he is almost certainly speaking to a different audience every time, many of whom have probably never heard of him.
Meanwhile we have a dubious privilege, what one might call the Roadies Dilemma, where we can follow our favourite speakers like a rock star from show to show. After a while of touring I imagine even the best setlist starts to seem pretty dry.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

6. Comment #56098 by rmercad2 on July 13, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Damn it!!!

I could've been the first one to write a comment on this page but I wasted that opportunity by watching Harris' talk.

........

There's always next time.

Other Comments by rmercad2

7. Comment #56099 by rufustfirefly on July 13, 2007 at 6:38 pm

It is the same old, same old, but it's worth hearing again. I'd like to pipe it into churches Sunday and lock the doors from the outside.

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

8. Comment #56101 by rmercad2 on July 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I think we should listen to Sam every chance we get.
It's like going to church via the internet.

Other Comments by rmercad2

9. Comment #56102 by Rtambree on July 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

6. Comment #56098 by rmercad2

>Damn it!!! I could've been the first one to write a comment on this page but I wasted that opportunity by watching Harris' talk.

Once you're a regular here, you'll know what Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc have to say without watching the whole video (e.g. This is the part where he makes the joke about the birth canal, etc). Then you can post-before-you-watch.

A book/lecture tour in 2007 seems like an increasingly outdated concept. With webcasting allowing one to bypass mainstream media and with the enormous carbon footprint and hassle of flying (security, jetlag, etc), the redundancy of saying the same thing over again in different cities will eventually be unnecessary.

Already authors appear via satellite link to the Sydney Writers Festival - people can ask questions, get answers, all via telecommunications. That's what the technology is there for.

With webcasts, the people get to see more big names, the big names don't have to do an impersonation of a broken record, and everyone's happy.

Interaction might be a little more limited, but after having been to some of these events, I've found you can't really engage in a dialogue anyway - the host always reprimands each questioner to "keep it short" and after 15 minutes of questions the speaker gets too tired, or the venue needs to be cleared out for the next event, etc.

Having these events online would mean the fans miss out on a booksigning, but if the fans really respected the speaker, would they insist that he sit on a plane and in airport terminals for 20 hours just so they can say "Make it out to Fred"?

Half the time, the authors don't have the time, willpower, or hand stamina to personalise autographs anyway.

Other Comments by Rtambree

10. Comment #56106 by Martha on July 13, 2007 at 7:19 pm

If I were an American, living in America, I'd be much more concerned about what was in my food, than the religious opinions of my fellow Americans.

Other Comments by Martha

11. Comment #56108 by 82abhilash on July 13, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Perhaps repitition is necessary, until the idea gains critical mass and gets internalised by mainstream society.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

12. Comment #56109 by jaffacakes on July 13, 2007 at 7:33 pm

well i hope no one goes to see billy connelly cos he uses the same jokes but they need new ears from time to time. i liked sam first time i heard his thoughts i hope he repeats himself often to new ears:). I cant see the problem though the bible has been repeated enough usually on a sunday once a week if your lucky

Other Comments by jaffacakes

13. Comment #56111 by OhioAtheist on July 13, 2007 at 8:11 pm

I like how Sam has integrated Sathya Sai Baba into his critique, as an example of how we should be skeptical of miracle stories. It seems likely he picked this up from Hitchens--and it's a very useful meme, what with folks like William Lane Craig always harping on how the miracles of Jesus allegedly prove Christianity.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

14. Comment #56113 by sane1 on July 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm

yea, this is similar to other talks by Sam, but this one is the best I have heard yet. There are some new angles and arguments, and some new clever flouruishes. Listen to it, and send it to everyone you know.

Other Comments by sane1

15. Comment #56115 by USA_Limey on July 13, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Comment #56102 by Rtambree wrote:

"With webcasting allowing one to bypass mainstream media and with the enormous carbon footprint"

... I'll apologize in advance because I have had a few beers but....

CARBON FOOTPRINT MY ASS!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

16. Comment #56116 by windfall on July 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Excellent stuff. It's like listening to an expert jazz musician weave a new variation of a familiar tune. I have never heard anyone speak so clearly on any subject as Sam does on this one.

It was worth watching it to hear his one-liner response to the tired 'isn't it legit to be an agnostic' question (though it did come from a professed unbeliever - which makes it even more important): 'Are you an agnostic about Zeus?' (or something like that). It reminded me of a RD Q&A when a girl simply asked him 'What if you're wrong?'. His inspiringly terse response was 'What if YOU'RE wrong about Bujubba on the mountain?'

Keep it up Sam!

Other Comments by windfall

17. Comment #56117 by exegesis_saves on July 13, 2007 at 9:03 pm

If I were an American, living in America, I'd be much more concerned about what was in my food, than the religious opinions of my fellow Americans.

Which raises an interesting point...how are we going to get the average American to abandon faith when we can't even get him/her to avoid high fructose corn syrup?

Other Comments by exegesis_saves

18. Comment #56122 by BT Murtagh on July 13, 2007 at 9:57 pm

rmercad2 prompts me to this plea, because I see an annoying meme taking hold here:

Can we please avoid the Slashdot-esque "First Post!" obsession? Being the first to comment on a story means NOTHING, especially if it's a banal and pointless self-congratulation on getting the first post followed by an admission you have nothing relevant to say, as seen on several recent stories.

A banal and pointless bemoaning of the fact you didn't get the first post isn't any better, either, especially if you have nothing relevant (insightful, or funny, or at least on topic) to add to that.

You don't get extra points for being First Post. Aim for Best Post instead; take your time, put some thought into it, maybe even polish your wording a bit.

We now return to your regularly scheduled deprogramming by the estimable Sam Harris...

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

19. Comment #56139 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

Ayann Hirsi Ali is at the Aspen Ideas Festival also:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B7Yo74YF14M

She is lovely, calm, and very meticulous in her observing skills regarding Europeans/Americans.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #56149 by The_Stone on July 14, 2007 at 4:02 am

Sam I am, I love green eggs and ham. Would you with a clam? I surely hope not. Thanks Mr. Harris!

Other Comments by The_Stone

21. Comment #56153 by inimitabull on July 14, 2007 at 5:25 am

Yeah, this is one disappointing thing about Harris. There isn't quite enough of him. Once you've heard his main eight or nine points, he tends to repeat them. But I really think that he's just a vicitm lof his own success that way. Those eight or ten points are absolutely perfect, and he words them so beautifully. He's so good that you just can't help wishing there'd be more, and this would probably be true no matter how many great points he made.

Other Comments by inimitabull

22. Comment #56154 by coretemprising on July 14, 2007 at 5:31 am

Martha wrote:

"If I were an American, living in America, I'd be much more concerned about what was in my food, than the religious opinions of my fellow Americans."

If that's true, then you need an avatar with someone throwing, oh, I don't know, a Big Mac, into the trash, rather than a bible, eh?

What's in my son's school lunch is much less problematic than what will be his lot there when he feels the desire to let on to his atheism in this faith-infested area.

As to Sam Harris, when any of you dissing bozos can get up in front of an audience and make the points he makes with such certainty, then you might be entitled to boo hooing about his (needed) repetitions. Idiots.

Other Comments by coretemprising

23. Comment #56158 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Hmmm. There seems to be some egocentric thinking on this message board. I doubt that Sam Harris is creating new talks all the time just for each one of us. Harris is trying to disseminate his ideas, and in order to do that, he has to communicate ideas consistently. While some of you may find this "boring" or "repetitive", this is what academics do. When I have given talks in my own field, for example, I haven't changed the talks because I was concerned with repetition out of fear that someone in the audience might have seen it before. No, I have a central message I want to communicate, which I refine over time. Academics are not here for your amusement. Harris is likely making the assumption that the majority of his audience is going to be acquainted with his ideas for the first time. We have seen refinements in Harris' talks over time; this is just like any academic who is open to improvement, but who is still trying to make the evidence generally known. Why would Harris change his talks for non-theists who follow him like groupies? This makes no sense.

Other Comments by oxytocin

24. Comment #56161 by Zaphod on July 14, 2007 at 7:08 am

I agree with many of the previous comments. I have heard these views from Sam Harris before. The same or similar sentences. This is really the same with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. This only the case because I like hearing them talk and reading their books and articles.

I found this talk enjoyable. I particularly liked Sam's new 2nd commandment "Try not to deep fry all your food".

The points made by Sam do need repeated because the general public aren't all literature junkies. Not everyone scours websites looking for speeches and talks and articles lol.

Other Comments by Zaphod

25. Comment #56162 by tieInterceptor on July 14, 2007 at 7:14 am

I agree with Rtambree, If you are a regular in this webpage then most of the speeches start to sound repetitive, but that's just normal and it's our problem not theirs.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

26. Comment #56163 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 7:24 am

I wasn't complaining about the repetitiveness, just asking why an author has to trot around on a book tour from city to city saying the same thing where a webcast or telecast can do the same thing at a fraction of the hassle.

"Open file and press play."

Then the author can still appear live at the end via a videolink to answer questions. Saves cost, saves time, saves carbon, saves jetlag, etc etc. Surely it must be boring for them - they usually sound eager to leave by the end. It's already happening now for Sydney, because few authors want to travel for 50 hours (return), but I think it'll increasingly occur for shorter routes as well. This webcasting is only the beginning. The full potential is ahead of us.

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #56165 by Monsterbeach on July 14, 2007 at 7:36 am

Frame it. (Rockridge style). And repeat it. (For the next 10-15 years till all get it)

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

28. Comment #56167 by ImagineAZ on July 14, 2007 at 7:47 am

I've heard/seen Sam speak MANY times, but I honestly think this was the single best lecture I have ever seen on any topic.

Thank You, Sam

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

29. Comment #56168 by Mango on July 14, 2007 at 7:48 am

Harris can't be a doctoral student forever -- American universities generally only allow 8-10 years to complete it.

As others have said -- Harris must always assume (correctly, I think) that most people in that audience have not seen him before or read his books.

And I like hearing his points over again because I tend to remember them better.

Other Comments by Mango

30. Comment #56170 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 7:52 am

Rtambree, while I agree with you that webcasts are the way of the future, I think you might be under-estimating the impact of seeing someone in person. Also, I think you can still reach more people with personal appearances since there are folks without internet access [particularly senior citizens]. The good thing about these appearances is that the speaker can adapt the talk to the location, the subject matter can evolve with feedback, and one can interact with the local audience in a more personal way.

Other Comments by oxytocin

31. Comment #56171 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 8:03 am

You could still have formal writer's festivals, debates, lectures and book tours in halls, theatres, auditoriums, etc but the speaker would be on a screen. That way you could access MORE people as you could have multiple sessions.

The organisers could play the 1 hour speech (which as we know is usually the same) and then the author appears for a live feedback. He's have more stamina for a longer Q&A because he'd be fresh. He'd be willing to do more such sessions because he wouldn't have to spend so much time in planes, airports and hotels.

About the need to see someone live... We've had 100+ years of movies, 50 years of TV and the young are happy texting each other on mobile phones. How innate can the need for "in the flesh" be?

We'll get used to it as the technology improves - HD screens, HD cameras, less time-delay with the hook-up, more interactivity with the audience, being able to run video/audio clips of interviews & quotes, etc.

And Mr Sam would have the time to finally become Dr Sam.

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #56172 by Monsterbeach on July 14, 2007 at 8:14 am

Rtambree: "And Mr Sam would have the time to finally become Dr Sam."
Irrelevant. (Ad hominem)

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

33. Comment #56173 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 8:17 am

Rtambree, are you meaning to suggest that people would be ok with never meeting people in the flesh, as you say? No one's denying the importance of technology, the efficiency that it permits, and the prominent role it will increasingly play. Yes, texting is very handy, but I don't think many people are satisfied with a social life consisting of TMs. There's an emotional impact, due to all sorts of psychological reasons, of seeing someone in person. I would imagine, but do not know if it is true, that this emotional impact may have some bearing on the degree to which an individual is influenced by the speaker. The further we remove ourselves from the speaker, the less information we glean from the interaction. A lot of this has to do with non-verbals.

Other Comments by oxytocin

34. Comment #56175 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 8:56 am

Oxytocin,

One has to distinguish between interpersonal relationships and lecture-audience relationships.
Of course technology will never substitute for friendships, only augment them.

But having been to many talks by the pantheon of public intellectuals such as Dawkins, etc, there's not a lot of interaction between a member of the crowd and the speaker other than a 10 second question and 20 second answer if you are brave and lucky.

Yes, a screen can adequately convey non-verbal communication - perhaps more so as it can be zoomed in closer than what an audience would see sitting further back.

Added to that, a speaker can access larger crowds at more events with more in-depth Q&A all with less of a burden on the speakers and the environment. The advantages of technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

Do we need to touch them to ensure they're real? Or do we need them to talk to us to ensure that we're real? Atheists should be the last people to insist upon "essentialism" like this.

There are select events where rich people can pay for one-on-one time with the pantheon - e.g. The Amazing Meeting Private Dinners and the Galapagos Cruises, but generally at a book tour talk, there's litte, if any, individual interaction. The speaker will be jetlagged, eager to get it over with, and is whisked in surrounded by his entourage and whisked out again like a rock star. Notice how they always say "just one more question" even if there's a sea of hands. A webcast followed by a live video interactive Q&A will be largely indistinguishable from a normal event, and may even be better if more time can be allocated to Q&A and the speaker will have more stamina.

Other Comments by Rtambree

35. Comment #56176 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 9:21 am

Rtambree, I don't think I was insisting on any such "essentialism", nor do I think denying the existence of magic makes anyone less immune to the non-conscious cognitive processes that take place within us. Yes, I think there is something more psychologically "real" or "convincing" in person...this is one reason why people have inclinations to touch things when in their presence. If you've ever been to any important historical site, you'll have seen this in action. Often the response by officials is to partition the site off to prevent this from happening [above and beyond the potential for vandalism].

Yes, while you can get some non-verbals from monitors, there's more to it than the face that conveys information about the message.

I don't really think we're disagreeing on much of anything. All I'm trying to say is that the emotional impact, for many people, is likely maximized when in-person. Perhaps it isn't for you.

Other Comments by oxytocin

36. Comment #56177 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 9:31 am

>All I'm trying to say is that the emotional impact, for many people, is likely maximized when in-person

Yes, I agree. All things being equal, in person is preferable. But if it's a choice between being a video participant in, say, the Beyond Belief Conference, and being up the back in a crowded lecture hall where a small figure in the distance moves onto the stage, does his spiel, and then disappears again, I think I'd find the former more satisfying.

We'll see where this webcasting takes us - it's in its embryonic stage.... perhaps a 3D version of Second Life were you attend a talk as an avatar. Perhaps televisions will be become holograms like in Minority Report with content chosen by you, not some network programmer. Perhaps it'll be a direct feed into your optic nerve so it'll be like seeing it with your own eyes. Perhaps they'll broadcast themselves into your dreams at night for maximum time efficiency. :)

Other Comments by Rtambree

37. Comment #56178 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 9:38 am

Oh yes, completely agree. If we can interact with the person, then it takes on a whole new importance. Holograms/VR would certainly be the next best thing.

Other Comments by oxytocin

38. Comment #56182 by Algebratheist on July 14, 2007 at 10:23 am

theres one thing new about harris: his hair.

he's still great.

Other Comments by Algebratheist

39. Comment #56199 by ungodlystheist on July 14, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Am I the only person who dislikes Harris?
Everyone here seems to be a fan, but I am lost to understand why?

Do not want to get into the whys of it here, just want to see if there are others.

BTW This talk is in many ways identical to the points he made in his debate with Christopher Hedges over at truthdig.


I thought Hedges won that debate hands down.

ungodlyatheist

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

40. Comment #56201 by Serious on July 14, 2007 at 12:50 pm

mpslg: "I'm not complaining because I love hearing Sam speak, but I think I've heard all of these points in every lecture he gives."

Unfortunately, the opposing positions are repeated from tens of thousands of pulpits every week. I don't think we should complain about repetition. I wish more could presents these key points well and in more ways to get it across to more people.

Other Comments by Serious

41. Comment #56202 by carnitine on July 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm

"I thought Hedges won that debate hands down."

Wow! I can't even imagine what kind of prejudices you'd have to have to think that. Hedges was a disaster in that debate. I went in wanting to like him, as I liked his book, but man he got destroyed.

Other Comments by carnitine

42. Comment #56204 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Yes everyone knows that this speech is almost identical to his opening statement from when he debated Hedges. So what? Is this really surprising? I mean, if you follow the career of any public intellectual, he/she repeats his/her points all the time when talking about the same topic. Robert Maynard already gave the example of "roadies dilemma". Another illustration would be to compare public intellectuals to stand up comics. Stand up comics repeat their act reuse their best jokes all the time.

You thought Hedges won their debate? Unreal.

Other Comments by roach

43. Comment #56211 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Sam Harris accurately describes the folly, superstition, evil and irrational dogmas of organized religion. However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of One True God, The Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes that may exist.

Other Comments by darwin2

44. Comment #56217 by zenmite on July 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Sam Harris accurately describes the folly, superstition, evil and irrational dogmas of organized religion. However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of One True Chicken, The incubator and Egg which gave rise to our universe and all other universes that may exist.

However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of Zeus who is the One True God, The Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes that may exist.

However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of Ralph, who is the One True God, The Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes that may exist.

Other Comments by zenmite

45. Comment #56245 by pragmathiest on July 14, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Here is why Sam and Hitch needs to be heard, even if its repetitive to us. Every time they speak, or write the same arguments, it reaches a few more. Right now on CNN.com, here are the two top headlines:

Latest News
Diocese to pay $600M for sex-abuse claims
In video Bin Laden calls for martyrdom

To me, this is almost surreal, like a SNL news skit, poking fun at christiandom. A loving personal god watches as priests sodomize little boys for decades (rather centuries), but I will continue to believe whatever I have been told without evidence. Yet, those who preach that their religion demands martydom against infidels based on their text, and those who are willing to lay down their lives on the basis of such faith, are fools, cowards, etc. How can any christian ask the suicide bombers to lay down their bombs, when they are unwilling to even question their faith and the word of their clerics even in the face of pedophile priests getting away with it for decades to the tune of 600MM? This is why even the slightest faith or religion is dangerous -- Harris' central premise, to me.

Other Comments by pragmathiest

46. Comment #56246 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm

He should have done it himself, but I'll point out that when darwin2 says things like that, he's talking 'subjectively', he freely admits that reality is likely not as he describes it.

Other Comments by robert s

47. Comment #56248 by ungodlystheist on July 14, 2007 at 3:49 pm

roach

I was not castigating, Harris for using the same material, far from it, I as merely addressing the idea expressed earlier in the thread, that this was 'new'.

However, I will say I find it alarming that Harris, makes some of his comments, not ad-hoc, but after careful and deliberate rehearsals.

carnitine

I did think Hedges won, hands down!

Harris offers a simplistic response to a complex problem, he does it to the problems in the Middle East, and he does it with the rise of American fascism amongst the religious right in America.

Harris' argument simply boils down to this: the religious right is the problem, if there was no religion, there would be no religious right. Is is so simplistic that I remain amazed he is able to sell books, and be invited to speak, as if he is saying something profound.

The question that Harris refuses to answer, through he does give a great verbiage of words as a response, is the simple one of "Why now? When I first read "The End of Faith", even my dithering old mind kept asking the "Why now?" question.

"Why suicidal bombings now?", the first Palestinian suicide bombing was in 1993? Why so late? after all Palestinians were Muslim, went to the mosque, read the Quran?

The nearest Harris gives to an answer is along the lines of it is only now, with the rise of modern warfare technology that this threat has become obviously manifest and systematic. In other words, this death lust within Islam is nothing new, merely the technology that is new.

To which I have to say "What sheer balderdash!" The ability to make a suicide bomb has been around since the beginning of the 20th century, so why is it only now? Whatever we may think the answer to that question is, we can be sure that Harris' answer is incorrect.


The idea that it is the Quran and Islamic religion, that is the sole motivaion and primary justification is obviously false, since where were the Islamic suicide bombers of the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's etc.,

Why did Pakistan, a Muslim country, vote in an election for a woman prime minister? I doubt even America would be willing to vote for a female president, which is why Hialry will not be the Democatic candidate for president.


What about the secular Mohammad Mossadegh, who was democratically elected in Iran? Before he was overthorwn in a coveted CIA operation, only to be replaced by the Shah (who, to say the least, was not a very nice man, or a democrat).

Look at the Egyptian lader Nassar, whatever we think of him - he was secular, yet throughout the 50's and 60's he was one of the most idolised politicians in the Middle East.

The idea that religion can be interpreted free from the political, economic and nationalistic yearnings of its adherents, as Harris claims, is simply false - as any examinaion of the facts demonstratively proves?

Religion, is not about to disappear, no matter how much we may wish it would. How do we support a 'reformation' or 'enlightenment in the Muslim world, assuming there has not been one. I would say there has, and the idea that Muslim societies -because they are Muslim- can be categorised as backward etc, is false. What is needed is a return to these values by those Muslims who have left them.

Look at history, how did Christianity or Judaism become 'civilised'. It was not by people in Florence and other cities that led the enlightenment, denouncing religion - but by finding the values of tolerence, etc within those religious texts, and discrediting as having any value those passages that spoke against those values.

The drive towards the enlightenment, was do successful, that Christians in America believe it was Christianity (Protestant version anyway), that created democracy?!?!?!

Rather then run scarred of religious texts we need to realise that they are open to interpretation. I know you will call this Cherry picking, but that is what all religious people do, they cherry pick - even Islamists cherry pick.

What is needed is for them to cherry pick, and more inportantly interpret, those parts they have cherry picked, in a way that respects those values that we, as secular atheists, can endorse.


Martin Luther King, for example, a committed Christian, most probably layed more on the line for civil-rights, then many of us atheists will ever do. For that he is to be applauded, not castigated as the upholder of the first rung on the ladder towrds religious fascism.

To go from athiesm, to anti-religion (as if all religion is the same), I believe is self-defeating.

I agree with Hitchens on this, even if I disagree with so many of his other statements: "I am not bothered what my neighbour believes, so long as he leaves me alone."


The End of Faith has some horrific ideas contained in it which scare me as much as anything that the religious right are capable of, for example it states that some Muslim countries will need to have benigh dictatorships imposed on them, either from within, or from outside, through military intervention.

We should be booing, not cheering such dangerous talk from Harris. Harris may say he does not support the war in Iraq, but he sure as hell lays down the idealogical defence to justify further such 'benign' military interventions.

These are the reason I think Hedges won the debate "Hands down!"

Did Harris get some cheap jibes in at religion, of course he did, but any of us can do that. However, cheap jives will not solve the present difficulties, if only they would - then they could be resolved with the further publication of anti-religious books, and a few stand up comedians!

However, I dount even Harris believes that!

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

48. Comment #56263 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Perhaps someone did express that this was new material (I didn't see it) but go back and read the posts. You will find that almost everyone mentions that Sam is busy repeating himself. Of course, they rightly add that they have no problem with this and provide reasons why he has to be repetitive.

As for your points about the debate and The End of Faith. I really can't understand how you could be so wrong about Sam Harris. I have to go now but I'll just respond to one point you raised.

You say "To go from athiesm, to anti-religion (as if all religion is the same), I believe is self-defeating." This is something Harris would definitely agree with (based on his writings, lectures, and debates) he is very careful to point out that "our religions are different. they don't all teach the same things. And where they do teach the same things, they don't teach them equally well." He said this during the debate with Hedges! He's on record as saying that if he could wave a magic wand and make every fundamentalist a religious moderate, he would.

As for your comments, I'll leave those to the rest of the posters for now (they're smarter than I am so I expect your arguments to be torn to shreds).

Other Comments by roach

49. Comment #56269 by Summer Seale on July 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

ungodlystheist,

I'm sorry, but you seem to be of the Western school of thought which also appears to think that Islam had an amazing golden age in which everyone was treated as equals, birds lived in bejeweled trees, and people walked around in Cordoba as they rubbed their own personal Djinni lamps.

Just because Muslim suicide bombers didn't become "popular" until 1993, does not mean it was not a very useful tactic rooted in the Middle East previous to that time.

Do you remember 1983 in Lebanon? The Marine barracks were bombed with a suicide bomber truck. That was not the first time either.

Go look up the Hashashin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin and you might be a little more informed about the uses of suicide missions in the Muslim World pre-1993, thank you.

Also, I will defend Harris on this point: It is about technology. Previous to globalization reaching into the Muslim/Arab World (yes, yes, I know there are Christian Arabs and most Muslims are not Arab, and Iranians aren't Arab etc..etc..etc...please spare me the lectures on distinctions), the Arab world in particular was extremely isolated within its own culture. Because of technology, this has changed. Look at the effect of Al Jazeera and Satellite TV within the Arab world.

But let's not stop there. You remember a month ago? Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. Something that almost nobody saw in the west, except for a few bloggers, however, was a scene which best described everything which Harris is talking about - and I have seen nobody yet refer to this moment in history. And before I tell you about it, spare me the platitudes about an oppressed people throwing off the yoke of the oppressor...couldn't care less.

There was a Fatah higher up who was caught by a mob and smashed to pieces well past his expiration. It isn't what they did to him which amazed me, however, but the footage and pictures of the event. Because, during this footage of insane brutality - and I understand this was still a really bad guy who deserved it anyway - there was a mob around him. Young, wearing Western style jeans and T-Shirts, with rage and glee in their eyes. And those who were not smashing in that guy's face with their heels were grinning and laughing as they pointed their cell phone cameras into that bloody mess, taking pictures with 21st century technology (invented in Israel, no less), while acting out the gesticulations of a 7th century Arabian mob.

And if that didn't take your breath away about the contamination of religion upon an entire society, I don't know what ever will.

Other Comments by Summer Seale

50. Comment #56273 by ungodlystheist on July 14, 2007 at 5:14 pm

roach,

How about this which is said earlier in the thread

"yea, this is similar to other talks by Sam, but this one is the best I have heard yet. There are some new angles and arguments, and some new clever flouruishes. Listen to it, and send it to everyone you know."

I was merely poiting out that Harris' talk here is almost verbitam (at least in the opening 15 minutes), what he said in his debate with Hedges.
not sure why your getting upset that I have mentioned this, when others have also said in the thread tht Harris has little new to say.

As you say "Harris is busy repeating himself", well I agree with you, so what is the problem?!?

Why am I the one you choose to have ago at, is it possible because I disagree with Harris (Not on the insane stupidity of religion - but on his political interprtations of religion).

By religion being the same, I was meaning Harris wants to say that religion is just "mad, bad and sad". And that the more you are genuinely religious, the more bad, mad and sad you are.
(Try saying that about Martin Luther King!)

Now there are different variations, of this badness, madness and sadness, but those are the only notes that exist.

Harris does in deed claim he wants all fundamentaists to be moderates, but then he turns around and blames the moderates for the fundamentalists.

Which makes has much sense to me, as it would be to blame the fundamentalists for the xistence of moderates

Both claims are equally true, at one level, and both claims actually say nothing of ny real worth.

BTW roach, do you too support the imposition of benign dictatorships upon Muslim countries? or do you at least disagree with Harris on that point?

Other Comments by ungodlystheist