Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

[mhosea]

Crap... I said I wasn't going to get into it.

Resistance is futile.

I am Roman Catholic, raised Presbyterian. I had it all figured out at age 18. Now I'm just confused. But science and mathematics I do understand.

[Jason Rees]

I find the 'purity' in faiths, the best of faiths around the world can be traced to the mystics of these faiths, most of the time.

Your definition of purity really confuses me.

Good, my hope is to not offend anyone. And I hope I haven't done so. I just want to add an alternative point of view to some of these discussions.

He basically denounces islam but does so without nearly as much polemec as warraq.

I don’t see being inoffensive as a virtue. While intentionally setting out to offend people is rude, I don’t feel a person should have to withdraw a point from discussion simply because someone might claim they were offended by it. The only exception being common courtesy on the occasion of being a guest. For example, when Senseis Mattson or Glasheen have objected to something I have posted here and there, I've withdrawn those statements. I'm a guest here, the same as you.

If I were in your home, I probably wouldn't call Mohammed a child-molesting pervert. I might refer to his marriage to a 9-year old girl and leave the obvious unsaid, however.

Harris, despite now releasing a book about morality, talked about dropping a nuke on the middle-east as a solution for terrorism and torture being alright for it all.

When did he propose mushrooming the Middle East, or sponsor torture? Linkage?

The aliens analogy is interesting but misses the salient point. Humans are creatures of emotion as well as reason. I assume you have exactly nothing invested in your notion that aliens do not exist. Get back to me when you've written a couple of books and lectures on why it's irrational to believe aliens exist based on existing evidence. I think it would be fascinating to see you try, since I believe the scientific consensus is that intelligent aliens probably do exist, that it would be astonishing if we were the singular case of it in the universe.

Mike,

I can think of nothing more potentially fatal to religion (and destructive to our very existence) than the appearance of extra-terrestrials. If there is life out there capable of reaching us, we’re hosed. If there is life out there, and it’s not capable of reaching or communicating with us, then it’s irrelevant, because we’ll never know about it. If there isn’t life out there, then earth is unique in the universe, religions can still claim ‘exclusive truth,’ and life goes on. I pray SETI transmissions will get sucked into a black hole before they ever reach intelligent life.

JR: I don't know anyone who believes in more than one religion. There are hundreds out there. They are all thus effectively <1/100s "believer" or >99% nonbeliever. See what I mean? These faiths are generally mutually exclusive; either Jesus is the son of God, or he's not, for example. So while lots of religious people feel they're all worshipping the same God, or what matters is faith in general, that sounds crazy to me. It's like saying a belief in planets is what's important, and so it doesn't matter if we think we're on the third or the 9th or if there's 1 or 20.

Ian,

It doesn’t make sense to me that someone would have to believe in more than one religion to be >99% believer. Whatever that’s supposed to measure. Any mature faith features doubt, so perhaps that would be a reason to say someone is <100% ‘believer.’

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian and Muslim truth claims are mutually exclusive, and others much more-so. I don’t know how people can live with that kind of cognitive dissonance. I also agree with you that science doesn’t belong in the business of dictating morality, especially with it having a difficult time with ethics as it is.

[mhosea]

I can think of nothing more potentially fatal to religion (and destructive to our very existence) than the appearance of extra-terrestrials. If there is life out there capable of reaching us, we’re hosed. If there is life out there, and it’s not capable of reaching or communicating with us, then it’s irrelevant, because we’ll never know about it. If there isn’t life out there, then earth is unique in the universe, religions can still claim ‘exclusive truth,’ and life goes on. I pray SETI transmissions will get sucked into a black hole before they ever reach intelligent life.

Tangents are fun.

I guess I've always assumed (playing the odds) that a great many different intelligent aliens existed but that they were incapable of reaching/finding us to more or less the same degree as we are incapable of reaching/finding them. I assumed this even when I was an extremely religious person, and sometimes I heard people suggest that John 10:16 (~ "I have sheep not of this fold" -- yes I had to Google to get chapter and verse) might have a secondary interpretation of referring to life on other planets, so I know at least that the existence of intelligent aliens is not completely toxic to religion. True, I don't know what the strict creationists (~5000 year-old earth) would do with confirmation of aliens, but I think they would adapt somehow.

I'd be a lot more worried about an asteroid impact than aliens, if I were you. The existence of such things is already confirmed, and we remain powerless to defend ourselves, even though there are many ideas. Basically, you just want to make a small perturbation to the object's trajectory when it is far away, but right now we think it's a really long way to the moon.

[AAAhmed46]

Your definition of purity really confuses me.

Basically, the mystics don't pretend to have a monopoly on the truth, that only their way is the right way, or only way to paradise or enlightenment. The legalistics of religion however think their way is the only way to paradise or enlightenment. I even recall reading of how soem buddhist sects even had such thinking that achieving peace and nirvana could only be done with divine help. But the zen buddhists, the mystics, don't seem to believe this, and do not claim you have to be a buddhist to have any sort of special spirituality. To them, life is not so black and white.

In hinduism, i have met enough super extreme hindus who refused to even touch me because i was a non-hindu, I was so low on the caste system i was off the scale.

And then I have met hindus who have truly sophisticated interpretations of the Gita and the Vedas, who have deeply profound metaphysical philosophies and views. The world to them, is NOT about hindus and non-hindus but of an entire species holistically. The truth to them was not solid, but highly fluid and ever changing.

Gnostic christians are alot like Sufis. They acknowledge divinity is not exclusively christian, that maybe other people have the 'truth'. And that 'truth' is highly subjective, and as i said to all other examples....FLUID.

I don’t see being inoffensive as a virtue. While intentionally setting out to offend people is rude, I don’t feel a person should have to withdraw a point from discussion simply because someone might claim they were offended by it. The only exception being common courtesy on the occasion of being a guest. For example, when Senseis Mattson or Glasheen have objected to something I have posted here and there, I've withdrawn those statements. I'm a guest here, the same as you.

If I were in your home, I probably wouldn't call Mohammed a child-molesting pervert. I might refer to his marriage to a 9-year old girl and leave the obvious unsaid, however.

I found pissing people off really kills the whole point of having a discussion, it keeps people from being open to consider the other side. People seem to shell up if you anger them. Besides, we should disagree without being disagreeable.

I can also present the rebuttal of the whole child thing from two different scholarly perspectives. Both with powerful legitmacy. I could go into far more detail, citing all sorts of hadith, scholars, and historical records. But honestly, is it worth it for a forum discussion? Ill go into it moderatly.
But before i do, id like to point out that, you said you read this in the quran. But the quran doesn't talk about what mohammed said or did, nor does it even talk about Companions, other than very rare instances, and even thats a stretch. What you read was probably commentary added into the translation of the quran you were reading. Even the most irrational anti-muslims like spencer would say this is in the hadith more than the quran.

Now, the two perspectives:

1) According to hadith, the perspective is that she was 9 but had puberty with curves, was an adult in a time where people dropped dead at 30(mohammed outlived all his daughters but one, who died at the age of 29) puberty is confirmed in the hadith by her own statements of her age. The marriage like the others, was political as well(though he was fond of aisha) by helping him merge with Abu Bakr's tribe. The fact she hit puberty and curves is the consensus of most scholars, including salafi scholars. When death at 30 is common, im pretty sure adult hood is expected far earlier. The fact she menstrated and hit puberty is an opinion of both Medievalclassic and modern scholars.
2) The other perspective is that she was NOT 9. Evidence? Many young men wanted to fightin the battle of badr, but mohammed refused saying that in order to step on the battle field, one had to be atleast 15 years old. Aisha however, was on the battle field with mohammed and one female warrior named Romeasa(i spelled her name wrong)
Also, Abu Bakr's wife gave birth to 4 children within the course of 2 years. THe time in between that period and post-hijra was roughly seven years. Aisha was atleast 14 then.

Basically, it brings doubt on the so called authentic sahih hadith, just by sheer logic of the time inbetween birth and marriage.

The last comment isn't a perspective, but rather some added info to this issue.

The pre-islamic arabs did not record birth dates nor deaths. They did very little long term planning, usually measuring things with the weather, which even that is unreliable. Even the age muhammed as in death is really not concrete. Same goes for the companions.

When did he propose mushrooming the Middle East, or sponsor torture? Linkage?

End of faith, pg 129 for nukes. 193-194 and 151-152 for torture. Doesn't seem like he's talking about waterboarding either, but just torture in general.

Id like to point out that Hitchens was pro-torture and even offered himself to be waterboarded. He got waterboarded and stopped it immediatly, changing his position pretty much on the spot.

Id also point out that, before Dick Cheney changed definitions, seemed that most people viewed waterboarding as tortuer. It may be a fictional film, but 'five deadly venoms' they kill one of the main charecters by waterboarding him to death. It may be a fictional movie, but fiction protrays the perception of the society at the time. Also, John McCain, before changing postions during the election, also considered waterboarding torture. A youtube search of him saying that can be found easily. Harder now since the election is done.

Mike,

I can think of nothing more potentially fatal to religion (and destructive to our very existence) than the appearance of extra-terrestrials. If there is life out there capable of reaching us, we’re hosed. If there is life out there, and it’s not capable of reaching or communicating with us, then it’s irrelevant, because we’ll never know about it. If there isn’t life out there, then earth is unique in the universe, religions can still claim ‘exclusive truth,’ and life goes on. I pray SETI transmissions will get sucked into a black hole before they ever reach intelligent life.

Do you view it like stephen Hawkings does in regards to if life exists they are probably as warlike as we are? (I know im making what he said a bit simplistic)

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian and Muslim truth claims are mutually exclusive, and others much more-so. I don’t know how people can live with that kind of cognitive dissonance. I also agree with you that science doesn’t belong in the business of dictating morality, especially with it having a difficult time with ethics as it is.

As ive gone through life, ive been drifting more and more toward the mystics of abrahamic religion for that very reason. If i learned anything, it's that 'truth' can be highly fluid. So if truth is fluid, why not spirituality?

[Jason Rees]

Basically, the mystics don't pretend to have a monopoly on the truth, that only their way is the right way, or only way to paradise or enlightenment.

Jesus claimed you could only get to heaven through him. You either believe that, or you don't, but if you don't believe the guy, you're hardly going to follow him, and therefore not going to call yourself a Christian, mystic or not. It's one of those irreconcilable truth claims Ian talked about.

I found pissing people off really kills the whole point of having a discussion, it keeps people from being open to consider the other side. People seem to shell up if you anger them. Besides, we should disagree without being disagreeable.

People shell up because they can't handle conflict. That's not my problem, but theirs. I have to watch my mouth and my manners all day at work, so don't expect too much on my off time.

I can also present the rebuttal of the whole child thing from two different scholarly perspectives. Both with powerful legitmacy. I could go into far more detail, citing all sorts of hadith, scholars, and historical records. But honestly, is it worth it for a forum discussion?

1) According to hadith, the perspective is that she was 9 but had puberty with curves, was an adult in a time where people dropped dead at 30(mohammed outlived all his daughters but one, who died at the age of 29) puberty is confirmed in the hadith by her own statements of her age. The marriage like the others, was political as well(though he was fond of aisha) by helping him merge with Abu Bakr's tribe. The fact she hit puberty and curves is the consensus of most scholars, including salafi scholars. When death at 30 is common, im pretty sure adult hood is expected far earlier.

So you're going with the whole "old enough to breed, old enough to bleed?" Really? That's pretty disgusting, man.

2) The other perspective is that she was NOT 9. Evidence? Many young men wanted to fightin the battle of badr, but mohammed refused saying that in order to step on the battle field, one had to be atleast 15 years old. Aisha however, was on the battle field with mohammed and one female warrior named Romeasa(i spelled her name wrong)
Also, Abu Bakr's wife gave birth to 4 children within the course of 2 years. THe time in between that period and post-hijra was roughly seven years. Aisha was atleast 14 then.

Oh, I get it. It's written in this super-infallible source that she was 9. Except she wasn't.

Wow, who needs to refute this stuff?

Basically, it brings doubt on the so called authentic sahih hadith, just by sheer logic.

Either that, or somebody was a child-molesting pervert, sanctioned by a culture full of child-molesting perverts. Ouch.

End of faith, pg 129 for nukes. 193-194 and 151-152 for torture. Doesn't seem like he's talking about waterboarding either, but just torture in general.

Did he advocate nuking the Vatican as well? Just curious. Thanks for the source.

Id like to point out that Hitchens...Harder now since the election is done.

Yeah, I'm not going to get into the whole water-boarding thing. It's so far off-topic that it's just not worth it. I've not made up my mind on it, but I imagine experiencing it would sway most people.

Do you view it like stephen Hawkings does in regards to if life exists they are probably as warlike as we are? (I know im making what he said a bit simplistic)

I think they would be advanced enough in technology to view it as a simple fact, that we have resources they want, and they are capable of taking those resources. Warlike? Kinda carries negative connotations that ignore the fact that progress usually follows bloodshed, which eventually devours the progress. Advanced civilizations must be able to use violence to maintain their 'place,' or they will be wiped out.

As ive gone through life, ive been drifting more and more toward the mystics of abrahamic religion for that very reason. If i learned anything, it's that 'truth' can be highly fluid. So if truth is fluid, why not spirituality?

When the Law of Gravity becomes fluid, let me know.

[AAAhmed46]

Jesus claimed you could only get to heaven through him. You either believe that, or you don't, but if you don't believe the guy, you're hardly going to follow him, and therefore not going to call yourself a Christian, mystic or not. It's one of those irreconcilable truth claims Ian talked about.

From what i understand, Gnostic christianity is more complex than that. Besides, the whole accept christ and enter heaven or you don't and go to hell is more so from later commentary if im not mistaken. I could be very very wrong though.

People shell up because they can't handle conflict. That's not my problem, but theirs. I have to watch my mouth and my manners all day at work, so don't expect too much on my off time.

I can also present the rebuttal of the whole child thing from two different scholarly perspectives. Both with powerful legitmacy. I could go into far more detail, citing all sorts of hadith, scholars, and historical records. But honestly, is it worth it for a forum discussion?

[/quote]
So you're going with the whole "old enough to breed, old enough to bleed?" Really? That's pretty disgusting, man.

Just explaining a perspective.
And from that perspective, She was an adult really, by the standards of that time. Doesn't take 18 years of education to boil a pot of water, milk goats. Especially considering the death rate. It isn't about morality, it's about survival. I Guarantee if it became regular for people to croak at late twenties or early thirties, sex would be done earlier, and adulthood would be different. Besides, look at the age of consent in britain and the united states in the 1700s.
Also, political marriage. Marrying into a tribe. Every wife he had came from a different tribe, usually of high standing within the tribe. Helped preserve muslim survival. Looks bad when someone declared kin is killed by kin. Aisha was no exception.

Oh, I get it. It's written in this super-infallible source that she was 9. Except she wasn't.

Wow, who needs to refute this stuff?

What super-infallible soarce? This issue does not stem from the quran at all really.

Hadith isn't infallible. I don't think even saudi arabian and Iranian Mullah's would say hadith is infallible. Quran and Hadith are very different. Nearly all of this dispute about aisha is based around the hadith and not the quran. If you read this in the quran, than you were probably reading hadith, and not the quran. Unless it was a footnote inserted.

Either that, or somebody was a child-molesting pervert, sanctioned by a culture full of child-molesting perverts. Ouch.

Your culture too. Look at age of consent historically at the same times for anglo saxon cultures. Notice how the longer people live, the longer childhood becomes? When kids can shoot white goo, mensterate and have curves, they basically were no longer seen as kids. I would also like to point out that most of mohammeds wives were usually old widows. Seemed he liked MILFS more than Pedo meat. Hell i like milfs(Fertility is sexy) Besides, historical logic suggests that aisha was older than hadith suggests. Hell evidene in HADITH indirectly show her as older.

Did he advocate nuking the Vatican as well? Just curious. Thanks for the source.

Don't think he said anything about using force on the vatican, as he views western society as now secular, and vatican thinking highly secularized. Atleast thats the impression im getting.

Yeah, I'm not going to get into the whole water-boarding thing. It's so far off-topic that it's just not worth it. I've not made up my mind on it, but I imagine experiencing it would sway most people.

Agreed.

I think they would be advanced enough in technology to view it as a simple fact, that we have resources they want, and they are capable of taking those resources. Warlike? Kinda carries negative connotations that ignore the fact that progress usually follows bloodshed, which eventually devours the progress. Advanced civilizations must be able to use violence to maintain their 'place,' or they will be wiped out.

Ah resoarces. The motive for 90% of historical wars. Can't exactly blame nations for acting the way they do, but still isnt pleasant though.
Also, why would they bother looking for other worlds if they had enough resoarces? Good questions.

When the Law of Gravity becomes fluid, let me know.

Now you know why im still at thiest. I basically stopped believing in god in late highschool, but came to a different conclusion later on.

Though i have heard that some Quantem physics theories where there is a belief that: is gravity a force in the earth attracting us down, or is it some force that is pushing down on us.

Seems some physists are even questionign the very nature of things like gravity.

But i get what your saying.

[Jason Rees]

From what i understand, Gnostic christianity is more complex than that. Besides, the whole accept christ and enter heaven or you don't and go to hell is more so from later commentary if im not mistaken. I could be very very wrong though.

I really don't think you understand what gnosticism was, or that it was never acknowledged as 'Christian' at all. Gnosticism was comprised of several heretical movements that all had one thing in common: a claim of secret knowledge being the only way to heaven. I can't think of a less mystical view based on your description.

As for entering heaven, I can quote you chapter and verse. John 3:17 is one such verse (I had to Google it. I've very little of the Bible memorized).

"17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

What super-infallible soarce? This issue does not stem from the quran at all really.

So it's in the koran, unless it isn't, in which case it might have a footnote, in which case it is. This koran of yours was truly ambiguous already. And here I didn't think the koran's scriptures could get any more obtuse.

Ah resoarces... Also, why would they bother looking for other worlds if they had enough resoarces? Good questions.

You're asking the wrong question. Define 'enough' for a people capable of traversing a galaxy.

[AAAhmed46]

I really don't think you understand what gnosticism was, or that it was never acknowledged as 'Christian' at all. Gnosticism was comprised of several heretical movements that all had one thing in common: a claim of secret knowledge being the only way to heaven. I can't think of a less mystical view based on your description.

As for entering heaven, I can quote you chapter and verse. John 3:17 is one such verse (I had to Google it. I've very little of the Bible memorized).

"17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

I think todays christianity would be viewed as heretical by many early christians. It's a matter of perspective. I got a different impression of gnosticism from the gnostics i talked to.

So it's in the koran, unless it isn't, in which case it might have a footnote, in which case it is. This koran of yours was truly ambiguous already. And here I didn't think the koran's scriptures could get any more obtuse.

I think it's actually pretty clear. The quran does not talk about aisha age, and barely talks about Aisha at all.

Everything else i posted was merely speculation on how you may have percieved it as being from the quran, which it isn't. It's from hadith. There are entire sects of 'quran only' muslims who totally reject hadith.

Here is my own personal view of aisha, and some of my reasoning for thinking otherwise:

The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad's bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.


Other calculations based on historical events place Aisha as old as 20 when she was became a bride. Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar (the second caliph). This means she must have been at least a young girl in the year 610. Assuming she was five years old when Abu Bakr and his family converted to islam, the information puts the age of Aisha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad was consummated in 624AD.


Furthermore, most Islamic historians agree that Asma, the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than her. It is also reported that Asma died in 683AD at the ripe age of 100. If this is true, then Asma would have been 31 years old at the time of Aisha's wedding with Muhammad in 624 and the bride would have been 21.

You're asking the wrong question. Define 'enough' for a people capable of traversing a galaxy.

Enough to their satisfaction i would say.

Do we in the developed world have 'enough?' We could survive on far less resoarces, but that would mean a far less pleasant lifestyle.
Maybe it's the same with them.

[IJ]

Wow! Just how creepy can commentary about sleeping with 9 year olds get? I wonder though, even in the modern age, we're seeing age of menarche drop. This means that even a hundred years ago nutrition and conditions were worse to a point puberty was delayed. So we're to believe that puberty was far earlier back in the times of the Quran? Hardly. Also, that "drop dead at 30" stuff is BS. It comes from two sources: first, the practice of designating skeletons 30+, after which you can't easily tell the age, which gives the false impression life ended then because it's the last recorded age. Second, people listed an AVERAGE age of death. This was skewed by very high infant mortality. After that, people did better. Remember that in authortitative unquestionable data, Moses lived hundreds of years

[mhosea]

As for entering heaven, I can quote you chapter and verse. John 3:17 is one such verse (I had to Google it. I've very little of the Bible memorized).

"17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

It's probably a mistake for me to try to explain such things, given that I have so many doubts about so many things, but I do have the benefit of having studied these things a long time ago, and possibly I retain enough insight to explain a thing or two as it is explained by those who have no doubts. Anyway, the overall teachings on this issue are a little bit more involved. I guess it could be said that this verse leaves out some middle ground. The subsequent verses do add some context to this (as to why they don't believe), which doesn't fit all cases of when a person just doesn't happen to believe, intellectually, in Jesus. The concept of "not believing" here represents a conscious and informed choice to reject. It does not apply in situations where a person is not faced with a moment of decision. Examples would be young children or infants, as well as people who have never had the gospel correctly presented to them. Christians avoid "judgment" through the atonement. Others will have to be judged individually, and since we are all imperfect, it follows that those who are saved will only be saved by the mercy of the judge.

I don't know if that sounds better or not, but that's an example of how exegesis might be done. In orthodox Christianity, you don't just read a passage like that and interpret it as saying that all Muslims are going to hell. You'll find no shortage of Bible-thumpers who believe that, but by contrast, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church says

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

[AAAhmed46]

Wow! Just how creepy can commentary about sleeping with 9 year olds get? I wonder though, even in the modern age, we're seeing age of menarche drop. This means that even a hundred years ago nutrition and conditions were worse to a point puberty was delayed. So we're to believe that puberty was far earlier back in the times of the Quran? Hardly. Also, that "drop dead at 30" stuff is BS. It comes from two sources: first, the practice of designating skeletons 30+, after which you can't easily tell the age, which gives the false impression life ended then because it's the last recorded age. Second, people listed an AVERAGE age of death. This was skewed by very high infant mortality. After that, people did better. Remember that in authortitative unquestionable data, Moses lived hundreds of years

Like i said, i don't support this view, in face of evidence stated above about historical inconsistencies that show up comparing hadith.

But from this opposite perspective:
Ive gotten chest infections, that if it were not for anti-biotics, i probably would have died. Maybe i woudl survive as low functioning all my life, but in a time where 90% of the population did physical labour? I doubt i would live very long. Especially in a culture with alot of tribal war, such as pre-islamic arabia.

Not exactly a scholarly soarce, but then again, there are peer reviewed papers that say the same. And yes, i am talking about AVERAGE. Morality may have a solid base, but is altered during the stresses of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... te_note-12

And considering the way people died around muhammed, usually by disease, i can see why they were like this. I noticed a trend looking at ancient islamic history. Seems people either got sick and died fairly early or ended up living really long. Those that survived, lived long lives.

The climate aspect is also important. My mom told me how many of my aunts menstrated at eight or nine and began developing early in pakistan.

Also, you forget the political dimenstions of this, how marriage is used to cement tribal connections between different tribes.

[AAAhmed46]

I don't know if that sounds better or not, but that's an example of how exegesis might be done. In orthodox Christianity, you don't just read a passage like that and interpret it as saying that all Muslims are going to hell. You'll find no shortage of Bible-thumpers who believe that, but by contrast, the official Catechism of the Catholic Church says

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Basically applies for Islam as well actually.

[IJ]

Mike we seem to agree about a lot: the scientists are largely evidence based, they are passionate, and they can change their minds, perhaps slowly. You believe no example can rise to the level of God evidence so we'll just have to see, and so I concur. I can't prove this negative. I will say I think that the huge incentive to believe when such evidence occurs will mirror the importance of the debate, and also that God would have to be on the hypothesis list if NYC turns into the Garden of Eden all at once. Lastly I thank you for somehow considering me a model of dispassionate discussion here on the forums. I just don't know if you're teasing!

To JR's point about being 99% nonbeliever, let me rephrase. They are nonbelievers in 99% of the available belief systems. They only have to take that one step farther. It's sometimes helpful for me to point this out to people incredulous I don't believe in their God. They don't believe in 99%+ of Gods either, so why is that surprising? We're closer (rationally) than we're apart. But sadly the response isn't rational.

Panther hinted that the big bang could be part of an intelligent plan, and of course I agree. I just focus on the fact we have no reason to believe that it is. As for traveling at the speed of light, you can't, so no, you can't be torn up doing it. You couldn't get anywhere close, even if your ship was 100% efficient at turning its mass to motion thru e=mc2. We did the calculations in class. Could there be a Star Trek way to cheat? Possibly, but not practically, it seems likely. I refer all fellow superdorks to this interesting summary of the issue: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... energy.htm

Panther also wrote that there's no harm to living and letting live with the belief issue. I totally support the sentiment but doubt it will ever happen. First, religions mandate conversion efforts. Islam wants to spread everywhere, right? Am I wrong? This stuff is in the Bible too. Second, religious people find it very threatening (I'm generalizing; not all do) when others won't share belief. It's almost like how aggressive people were in attacking my vegetarianism back in the day. Some would say they find the alternate belief an attack on their faith, or diet, respectively. Third, nonbelief is a threat. Look at the decline of Catholicism in Western society, or the disappearance of Judaism in mixed marriages. For the atheists, we worry about the spread of mushy thinking. Religious people who believe a number of contradictions and don't know what their own faith describes, for example. How about those who justify their hate with religion? The recent rantings of a school board member included a lot of reference to the sin of gay students, who he wanted to all kill themselves. There was the terrible essay from Tony Perkins on the WaPo recently, too, as another example. Freedom from religion doesn't guarantee the end of bias, but it would likely help. And lastly...

...the greatest threat the atheists see to peace and safety is from fanaticism. And this is a nice seque into the total BS that Ahmed foisted on us. Earlier, we were told Harris wanted preemptive nuke strikes on Islam; I was told I was wrong to support him because he believed in it, even though I'd never heard of it. Turns out that a simple google (end of faith harris nuclear bomb) provides the truth on the first hit.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... troversy2/

Ahmed, you want to go re-read that "offensive" paragraph and tell me that if a psycho islamic regime (say, the nation of al qaeda, if one develops) acquired a nuclear strike capability, you wouldn't be worried enough to consider the need for taking them out? You want to tell me Harris didn't express enough despair and sadness over this possibility? For shame, really. For shame. He is clearly describing the threat to all of us from those with incredible power and wacko, unteachable, violent FAITH.

[AAAhmed46]

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... troversy2/

Ahmed, you want to go re-read that "offensive" paragraph and tell me that if a psycho islamic regime (say, the nation of al qaeda, if one develops) acquired a nuclear strike capability, you wouldn't be worried enough to consider the need for taking them out? You want to tell me Harris didn't express enough despair and sadness over this possibility? For shame, really. For shame. He is clearly describing the threat to all of us from those with incredible power and wacko, unteachable, violent FAITH.

He is also backpeddling, because shortly after the book was published, in debates he basically argued for it in a very current context, saying the majority of moderate muslims support suicide attacks, often citing pew polls saying muslims support suicide bombers. He did this in debates with chris hegdes. Before making this reply on his website, he seemed to DEFEND the notion of nuking the musilm world, basically implying that most people were fanatics and thus must be dealt with by force, as that is the only option.
But within these very debates, he was proven wrong as the pew polls he uses to support his ideas are misquoted, as the polls said "do you support suicide attacks under violent occupation and oppression, and you feel your survival is in danger?" and of course, most muslims said yeah, if we are being oppressed it's fine. The emphasis on defense.
But before saying he doesn't advocate this, he defended this position as something practical for TODAYS situation. Check out the debates. He was very serious about saying most muslims support terrorism and therefore cannot be reasoned with and should be wiped out. This simply is not the case.
Ask muslims who visited saudi arabia. Behind the backs of white people, they seem to have no idea how the western world views them, they honestly have great fondness for the United states and american culture. Even talking about Abu Gharib they say 'we are saudis, were different'. Ironically, this is the nation where the 9/11 hijackers came from. But this pro-western attitude seems to be the norm.
This perception is obviously different in different countries.

The problem is, he generalizes and paints multiple cultures with a very broad brush. Especially, when reading on, he talks about Iran, mentioning Iran(not realizing that Iran has wanted nukes since the 1980's)
He is constantly inferring to Iran in his book, i noticed. Not taking into account that Al-qaeda and al-qaeda related terrorists are all sunni, while Iran is shiite.



He assumes that al-qaeda is JUST about fanatics. It's a far more complex beast than that. Even the 9/11 commission, for it's faults, talked about how middle eastern grievences against the west had powerful motives into what they did. The interviews with different terrorists has shown the complexity of their motivations. Fact is, Al-qaeda will NEVER take over, it can't. Not enough numbers, too much decentralization. He uses the threat of a nuclear strike as if to push the danger of faith, this faith more than it really is. He presents it like a real possibility and seems to endorse it. He talka about this scenario playing into the fears of people to support an obviously failing foreign policy. Ive noticed more militant libertarian athiests quoting harris than liberal athiests, because Harris's description backs up their political view of the 'other' while it doesn't for the liberal athiest.

I know your dislike of religion makes you want to make it all a bigger threat than it really is, but even if you think religion is so evil, the fact is that isn't just about faith. No matter what you think about american foreign policy, it's the perception of what western foreign policy is, is how these guys even recruit. Like i said before, in this thread.
Yes it's about wild eyed fanatics. But thats just one piece of a bigger puzzle. Harris is spinning it all to be far more simplistic than it really is. We get enough of that from Fox as is.

I would also point out that if you look at Hamas, once it went from a band of military terrorists to a government, it quickly had to change approches. Beacause suddenly, it had to stop it's shananegans and suddenly act like a political power with lives on the line. It's currently doing a horrible job of it, but it had the shocking realization it couldn't act so reckless.

Al-qaeda however is even more scattered than hamas, as hamas atleast had a singular goal against isreal. Al-qaeda is literally all over the place. All it will EVER be able to do is random terrorism.

[mhosea]

Mike we seem to agree about a lot: the scientists are largely evidence based, they are passionate, and they can change their minds, perhaps slowly. You believe no example can rise to the level of God evidence so we'll just have to see, and so I concur. I can't prove this negative. I will say I think that the huge incentive to believe when such evidence occurs will mirror the importance of the debate, and also that God would have to be on the hypothesis list if NYC turns into the Garden of Eden all at once. Lastly I thank you for somehow considering me a model of dispassionate discussion here on the forums. I just don't know if you're teasing!

Not teasing, but don't let it go to your head.

We have some disconnects on the miracle issue.

Perhaps the most important is that it's a useless hypothetical. Supposedly God did this stuff in the past, parting the Red Sea, raising Jesus from the dead, etc., but given that we now approach tradition like this with skepticism, we need fresh miracles so that we can see them ourselves, apply our advanced sensibilities to the matters. Apparently God is not going to do that for us, so talking about demonstrations that won't occur whether or not God exists is not useful. It's certainly invalid to argue that if God exists he would do these things (and since he doesn't, he doesn't exist), so talking about these things is pointless unless and until it actually happens.

All right, but I can talk about pointless things as much as anybody else. So here goes. There is a huge difference between "practically almighty" and having the power to save your immortal soul, so to speak. Just having apparently unlimited power doesn't mean you deserve to be loved and worshipped. We have to respect power when we find that we are subject to it, of course, as we respect volcanoes, grizzly bears, and heavyweight UFC champions, but the concept of God in Christianity and Islam goes far beyond power and knowledge. This God rewards you in the afterlife. He is master of both physical and spiritual universe. What sort of physical demonstration would prove that? Making NYC into the Garden of Eden would be a good trick, but is it even rational to believe that the creator of the entire universe is the only entity in the universe that could do this? The answer, provided any entity can do it, is no. It is not rational to assume that any entity we encounter for the first time is a singular entity. By the same token, we can now destroy an entire city with a single fusion bomb. Properly staged, would our ancestors not have regarded this demonstration of power as proof that we are God himself? I think so. We simply cannot infer a relationship to the creator of the physical and spiritual universe from demonstrations of power, constructive or destructive.

As for what scientists would do, hypothetically, I can only point to the sorts of philosophy of science matters that I've gone on before about (let's not start that again) and what they have done. What they have done is to approach Biblical reports of miracles with skepticism and the assumption that there is a natural explanation for any perceived miracle. I consider this entirely appropriate. Even the Big Bang, the previously unsuspected beginning of time and matter in our universe, is not interpreted as evidence of the existence of God, rather as the primary natural phenomenon for this particular physical universe. If evidence of a moment of "creation" does not make scientists put a "creator" on top of their hypothesis list, why would a much tinier demonstration be any different? I concede that a constructive demonstration would be very impressive, but I still don't think it would be appropriate or even likely that scientists would abandon a skeptical frame of mind and join a church or mosque so that some dude can tell them all sorts of details about God which, despite the miracle, are still not in evidence. They'll concede that something big exists that they previously did not suspect, but they won't assume that this thing is the creator of the universe, let alone specifically the God of Abraham.