Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 3889102 times)

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43650 on: December 17, 2021, 04:00:27 PM »
The idea of becoming more religious needs to be picked apart though.
Perhaps, although I don't think it need to be picked apart much. I think if someone indicates that religion is now more important to them than it used to be and/or they increase their active religious participation, i.e. religious practice - then they are becoming more religious.

I was under the impression that the research showed that there are so many different interpretations of religion. Certainly Gallup polls have shown that Muslims in different regions have different definitions of Jihad, with those who are in the Middle East defining it in militaristic terms rather whereas those outside the MIddle East define it as a personal moral struggle.
And that is perhaps more about how that greater religiosity may manifest itself rather than the greater religiosity per se. I'm not sure whether your regional distinctions apply to muslims within non muslim countries such as the UK. But the research does indicates that those people who become radicalised within the UK (and other similar countries) tend to do so because their religion has become much more important to them, rather than because of some broader political agenda. And by definition, I guess, we'd identify radicalisation with a propensity to support violence and/or to engage in violent activity.

By the way, none of this suggests that all or even most muslims who are highly religiously active and consider their religion to be important support or have a propensity toward violence. What it tell us is the typical profiles of those who do become radicalised, and those are, thankfully, a tiny, tiny minority of muslims in the UK and elsewhere.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2021, 04:24:23 PM by ProfessorDavey »

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43651 on: December 17, 2021, 04:21:13 PM »
You may be happy with a man who would make a preemptive strike on a nuclear islamist regime
This is a lie. How are your morals now?
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43652 on: December 17, 2021, 04:28:07 PM »
The research suggests that the political motivation for these radicalised people is much less important than the religious aspects - with the 'typical' profile being a person who is more religiously active than moderate muslims, considers religion to be more important than moderate muslims and probably has shown a very great increase in their interest and practice of islam alongside radicalisation. So perhaps a young man or woman who hadn't been much interested in the religion, even though likely brought up in a muslim family (or certainly a religious one) and who suddenly becomes very religious.

This does seem to fit with a lot of the anecdote, and where communities perhaps missed something. How often have we heard that so and so used to go out partying all the time but then started going to the mosque more and more. That should have set alarm bells ringing but I think too often this was seen as 'good' rather than 'odd'. To me a young person suddenly turning away from what young people tend to do (having fun) and towards something that young people often rebel from (being religious) isn't very normal behaviour for ... well ... young people.
Sorry - I missed responding to this bit. I think I would agree to some extent that it could be worrying if young people turn away from UK teen culture but it depends - it could also be a life-line for many teens who feel lost to become more religious.

As a parent of a teen the impression I get is there has been a huge explosion in mental health issues with kids increasingly self-harming, stressed, suffering from anxiety and panic attacks, having suicidal ideation etc. This seems to have become normalised, along with excessive drinking and the drugs culture, casual sexual hook-ups, sexting etc. These kids seem really unhappy so if they found an increase in peace of mind by becoming more religious that acted as an incentive to turn away from what young people tend to do, I think I would be relieved. Obviously not so much if they then become terrorists, but if they just became more religious I would be fine with that. 
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43653 on: December 17, 2021, 04:38:25 PM »
Sorry - I missed responding to this bit. I think I would agree to some extent that it could be worrying if young people turn away from UK teen culture but it depends - it could also be a life-line for many teens who feel lost to become more religious.

As a parent of a teen the impression I get is there has been a huge explosion in mental health issues with kids increasingly self-harming, stressed, suffering from anxiety and panic attacks, having suicidal ideation etc. This seems to have become normalised, along with excessive drinking and the drugs culture, casual sexual hook-ups, sexting etc. These kids seem really unhappy so if they found an increase in peace of mind by becoming more religious that acted as an incentive to turn away from what young people tend to do, I think I would be relieved. Obviously not so much if they then become terrorists, but if they just became more religious I would be fine with that.
Well I think that sudden changes in behaviour amongst teenager should always be a flag to watch carefully.

I think the point is that communities and parents etc failed to see that change in behaviour as a warning flag when it meant a sudden increase in religiosity - somehow that was seen as inherently 'good' - indeed you've rather suggested that too. So too often the eye was taken off the ball when behind (or alongside) that increased religiosity lay radicalisation. And the perceptions of the communities and families was that they were seeing a person becoming more religious, a better person and therefore not a cause for concern, when they were actually a far greater cause for concern than their teenage friends (probably ex friends) who'd gone a bit off the rails partying.

Once again - to reiterate,  none of this suggests that all or even most muslims who are highly religiously active and consider their religion to be important support or have a propensity toward violence. What it tell us is the typical profiles of those who do become radicalised, and those are, thankfully, a tiny, tiny minority of muslims in the UK and elsewhere.

But the reality is that communities who should have been the best eyes and ears for that tiny number being radicalised too often missed it.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43654 on: December 17, 2021, 04:45:31 PM »
That's something you're reading into Harris that I don't think is there.

On the other hand, you think everybody is bad. No exceptions. How is your opinion better than Sam Harris's?
There you go again "we are all evil".
There's your straw man again. Nobody thinks religious moderates are more guilty than the extremists.

Do you think some extremist Islamic regime getting hold of nuclear weapons and deciding that the infidels (that's us) need to burn in hell - literally - is not a terrifying prospect.
A terrifying prospect yes, Using your own large nuclear arsenal to bomb a country so there is no possibility that any of their weapons continue to exist not so sure.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43655 on: December 17, 2021, 04:52:38 PM »
A terrifying prospect yes, Using your own large nuclear arsenal to bomb a country so there is no possibility that any of their weapons continue to exist not so sure.
Are you actually going to provide the evidence to back up your claim that Harris thinks it is right to make a preemptive strike on a nuclear islamist regime?

Given that you have form in making claims as to Harris' opinions that you cannot provide the evidence for I will reserve judgement on commenting on Harris' views until you provide that evidence.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43656 on: December 17, 2021, 04:55:30 PM »
This is a lie. How are your morals now?
I don't think it is since he sees nuclear first strike as a necessity if a regime is islamist. Is he saying he would nuke them because they have weapons or because of their religiousity.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43657 on: December 17, 2021, 04:59:20 PM »
Are you actually going to provide the evidence to back up your claim that Harris thinks it is right to make a preemptive strike on a nuclear islamist regime?

Given that you have form in making claims as to Harris' opinions that you cannot provide the evidence for I will reserve judgement on commenting on Harris' views until you provide that evidence.
He says it would become necessary, presumably the sacrifice of them ensures the perpetuation of what he sees as his civilisation. That is the only sense I have said he thinks it would be right. But even the morals of that is dubious. I have provided the evidence.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43658 on: December 17, 2021, 05:00:20 PM »
Vlad,

Again: why do you think someone persuaded to fly full passenger ‘planes into crowded office blocks would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if he had access to them?
If you are making a positive claim you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. The burden of proof is on you.

If your claim is that a person who can be persuaded to fly a plane into a crowded office block, causing 3000 deaths - and only because the twin towers collapsed, which they did not predict - that they can also be persuaded to use nuclear weapons resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, what is your evidence for this claim? If you are not making a positive claim, what are you trying to say?

If you are making such a claim and advocate a pre-emptive strike, congratulations, you have trumped Bin Laden, who seemed to be trying to achieve some balance rather than outright annihilation. He said:

Many Western and Eastern leaders have said that the true roots of terrorism should be dealt with; they meant the Palestinian cause. Then we have a righteous cause, but they couldn't admit this out loud of fear of America. They say we are terrorists but solve the Palestinian cause. All of a sudden, Bush and Blair declared, "The time has come to establish an independent state for Palestine." Throughout the past years the time hasn't come, until after these attacks, for the establishment of the Palestinian state. They only understand the language of attacks and killings.

Just as they're killing us, we have to kill them so that there will be a balance of terror. This is the first time the balance of terror has been close between the two parties, between Muslims and Americans, in the modern age. American politicians used to do whatever they wanted with us. The victim was forbidden to scream or to moan

Clinton has said, "Israel has the right to defend itself," after the massacres of Qana. He didn't even reprimand Israel. When the new President Bush and Colin Powell declared in the first few months of their taking office that they will move the American embassy to Jerusalem. They said Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of Israel. They got a standing ovation in Congress and the Senate. This is the biggest bigotry, and this is tyranny loud and clear.

The battle has moved to inside America. We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs


https://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/

Quote
Now let’s say that you had impeccable intelligence that one such person (or regime) did have nuclear weapons. What would you do about it?
Firstly there is no such thing as impeccable intelligent. So if I got a dodgy dossier that a militant organisation or regime did have nuclear weapons, I would not launch a pre-emptive strike against innocent civilians. Are you saying you would? If yes then Bin Laden might acknowledge you as a kindred spirit.

Pakistan is believed to have a stockpile of approximately 160 warheads, making it the 6th largest nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is actively developing nuclear weapons, and experts project that it may have the 5th largest arsenal by 2025 with 220-250 warheads. Pakistan has adopted a position of “no first use” against non-nuclear weapon states, but maybe you think we should launch a pre-emptive strike against them just in case?

Based on what seems to be your reasoning, surely it makes sense to launch a pre-emptive strike against America since the US government have form for dropping nuclear bombs on civilians? So why would you think they could not be persuaded to do it again?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2021, 05:03:33 PM by Violent Gabriella »
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43659 on: December 17, 2021, 05:03:40 PM »
He says it would become necessary, presumably the sacrifice of them ensures the perpetuation of what he sees as his civilisation. That is the only sense I have said he thinks it would be right. But even the morals of that is dubious. I have provided the evidence.
I'm not interesting in you paraphrasing what you think Harris thinks as you've been found out in the past of claiming he said something when he said nothing of the sort.

Link please to an article of his where he makes this claim. I'm not saying he hasn't - indeed I mentioned earlier in this thread that I don't think I've even read any of his stuff, so I'm not real idea what his views are. But you can forgive me for being sceptical given your previous form on your claims of his views.

So link please to his words, not just your opinion on what you think his words mean.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43660 on: December 17, 2021, 05:10:54 PM »
If your claim is that a person who can be persuaded to fly a plane into a crowded office block, causing 3000 deaths - and only because the twin towers collapsed, which they did not predict -
Are you claiming that the terrorists did not predict the towers would collapse? While I doubt they could have guaranteed that the Towers would collapse I think they thought they might, and it would appear that they did everything in terms of where and how they hit the towers to maximise that likelihood and that their ideal goal was that they would collapse.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43661 on: December 17, 2021, 05:12:46 PM »
It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

Sam Harris.

In other words If a nuclear power launched a first(and by his account comprehensive) strike. It would be the destroyed countries fault. If it illicited a devastating retaliation none of it would be the fault of the first aggressor which allows whoever is left to lament the passing of the original aggressor nation. And this can only happen due to religion which he thinks poses a special problem.


The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43662 on: December 17, 2021, 05:20:45 PM »
Well I think that sudden changes in behaviour amongst teenager should always be a flag to watch carefully.

I think the point is that communities and parents etc failed to see that change in behaviour as a warning flag when it meant a sudden increase in religiosity - somehow that was seen as inherently 'good' - indeed you've rather suggested that too.
I think increased religiosity would be good if it meant they were happier and less likely to harm themselves by abusing alcohol / drugs/ casual hook-ups that leave them feeling worthless and unhappy. If there was an indication that they were becoming radicalised by espousing extremist ideology or becoming intolerant that would be a different matter. 
Quote
So too often the eye was taken off the ball when behind (or alongside) that increased religiosity lay radicalisation. And the perceptions of the communities and families was that they were seeing a person becoming more religious, a better person and therefore not a cause for concern, when they were actually a far greater cause for concern than their teenage friends (probably ex friends) who'd gone a bit off the rails partying.
I'm not worried about teens who go off the rails, but I am worried about the misery of mental health issues, self-harm and suicide ideation that seems to have become the new normal for teens. If religion can help combat this then to me that's a positive rather than a dead teen.

Not sure the eye was taken off the ball as many parents have flagged worrying behaviour in their children. Can you give me a specific example of what you are referring to?
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43663 on: December 17, 2021, 05:23:19 PM »
Are you claiming that the terrorists did not predict the towers would collapse? While I doubt they could have guaranteed that the Towers would collapse I think they thought they might, and it would appear that they did everything in terms of where and how they hit the towers to maximise that likelihood and that their ideal goal was that they would collapse.
I am going by what Bin Laden said in his video http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm

It was reported that on the tape he is heard saying that he had not anticipated the Twin Towers would collapse, killing so many people.

ETA: In case you want more detail Bin Laden said:

We calculated in advance the number of casualties who would be killed based on the position of the tower," he said.

"We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.

'This is all we had hoped for'

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit, and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for," he said, gesturing with one hand horizontal striking his other hand, held vertically, as if a plane hitting a building.


https://www.news24.com/News24/Bin-Laden-did-not-expect-Twin-Towers-to-collapse-20011213
« Last Edit: December 17, 2021, 05:28:10 PM by Violent Gabriella »
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17587
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43664 on: December 17, 2021, 05:49:56 PM »
It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

Sam Harris.

In other words If a nuclear power launched a first(and by his account comprehensive) strike. It would be the destroyed countries fault. If it illicited a devastating retaliation none of it would be the fault of the first aggressor which allows whoever is left to lament the passing of the original aggressor nation. And this can only happen due to religion which he thinks poses a special problem.
Link please - just so we can be sure that you are quoting correctly and completely.

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43665 on: December 17, 2021, 06:25:05 PM »
A terrifying prospect yes, Using your own large nuclear arsenal to bomb a country so there is no possibility that any of their weapons continue to exist not so sure.
You are lying again. It doesn't seem like your Christianity has made you any better.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43666 on: December 17, 2021, 06:26:18 PM »
I don't think it is since he sees nuclear first strike as a necessity
Lying again Vlad. Why aren't you ashamed of your behaviour?

Quote
if a regime is islamist. Is he saying he would nuke them because they have weapons or because of their religiousity.
Liar.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43667 on: December 17, 2021, 06:28:20 PM »
It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

Sam Harris.

In other words If a nuclear power launched a first(and by his account comprehensive) strike. It would be the destroyed countries fault. If it illicited a devastating retaliation none of it would be the fault of the first aggressor which allows whoever is left to lament the passing of the original aggressor nation. And this can only happen due to religion which he thinks poses a special problem.

You're lying again.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32502
  • Blurb
    • Sincere Flattery: A blog about computing
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43668 on: December 17, 2021, 06:33:55 PM »
If a doctor says "a festering wound might become gangrenous and we'd then have to amputate" you don't say they are advocating for cutting limbs off.

Sam Harris says that, if a fanatical Islamic regime gets hold of nuclear weapons and decides they need to purge the world of infidels with them we'd be face with the horrible choice of annihilating them first which he sees as horrific. Therefore, he is urging us to do something about it before we are faced with that decision.

He does not advocate a first strike nuclear attack against Islamic nations: he advocates doing everything necessary to stop that from happening.

Frankly your mischaracterisation of what he says is disgusting and not worthy of anybody, never mind a so called Christian. 
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43669 on: December 17, 2021, 06:40:28 PM »
It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

Sam Harris.

In other words If a nuclear power launched a first(and by his account comprehensive) strike. It would be the destroyed countries fault. If it illicited a devastating retaliation none of it would be the fault of the first aggressor which allows whoever is left to lament the passing of the original aggressor nation. And this can only happen due to religion which he thinks poses a special problem.
The link to Sam's words can be found here under My position on preemptive nuclear war - about half way down the page https://www.samharris.org/blog/response-to-controversy

Interesting. Perhaps Sam Harris should watch that programme I mentioned earlier on PBS to overcome his fear https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/reformed-racists-white-supremacists-life-after-hate/

He seems to have been relatively untroubled by all the other people willing to die and kill for a cause before Muslim terrorists came along so perhaps he will just get used to the idea and calm down about Muslim terrorists too. 

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr02004.pdf

Interdisciplinary Journal of
Research on Religion       
The Market for Martyrs
Laurence R. Iannaccone, Koch Professor of Economics, George Mason University

Page 14 (my emphasis):

Quote
Finding people who are willing to work and especially to die in this line of
business would seem to be management’s greatest challenge. Given the
pathological character of suicide (and murder), it comes as no surprise that nearly
everyone—the press, the public, policymakers, and most scholars—views labor
supply as the central problem and puzzle of suicide bombing.

I contend, however,
that this seriously misinterprets the situation, focuses on the wrong side of the
market, and suggests the wrong strategies for deterrence.

Supply of Killers. Sadly, the basic supply of labor is readily available. Many
people can be induced to steal, riot, vandalize, kill, or commit other acts of
violence, protest, and civil disobedience. Indeed, every society devotes substantial
effort to limiting the prevalence of such activities. Increased risk of capture,
injury, or death certainly reduces supply, but keep in mind that the number of
“martyrs” is very small in relation to the total number working for radical
religious firms. Ex ante, the typical worker may face risks less than those endured
by most front-line soldiers.

Supply of Self-Sacrifice. Rational people do not readily sacrifice their health,
status, income, comfort, or freedom, much less their life. But most people do
endure substantial costs for reasons other than personal benefit. Apparently
rational individuals routinely risk wealth, health, and even life for family and
friends and sometimes even strangers.

Nearly everyone claims willingness to
suffer and even die for their most cherished values, and a nontrivial number make
good on their claims. As Stark (1996) has shown, the early Christian martyrs
faced death in a manner that is (probably) best interpreted as voluntary, deliberate,
and rational.

Standard Strategies. Groups and societies routinely induce people to kill and die
for causes far removed from their personal well-being or genetic fitness. Military
training is the prime example. The most effective soldiers are not those with
nothing to live for, but those with something they are willing to die for. (The best
recruits are also young, single, healthy, capable, and intelligent males.) Effective
military units make very limited use of battle pay, family bequests, and other
material rewards.

Status and honor are more important motivators, as are
demonizing the enemy and maintaining a shared sense of moral conviction about
the enterprise.


Above all, it is critical that (in addition to the requisite skills and
knowledge) the soldiers of a unit build strong mutual bonds of trust and affection.

Rational Sacrifice. The evidence therefore suggests that prospective “martyrs”
respond rationally to changes in expected costs and benefits. The most salient
benefits include fame, honor, recognition, the perceived value of the suicidal act,
rewards to family and friends, anticipated personal rewards in this life or the next,
and harm and humiliation imposed on enemies.

In general, the stream of expected
benefits starts well before the suicidal act (as when the volunteer is honored by
comrades or rewarded by leaders) and extends well beyond its conclusion.

Socially constructed benefits weigh heavily in the actor’s calculations, as do the
subjective probabilities attached to the anticipated outcomes. A rational actor will
weigh the net benefits against the relevant costs, including anticipated pain and
suffering; costs to loved ones; and risk of failure, humiliation, capture, execution,
and reprisals
.
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43670 on: December 17, 2021, 06:49:05 PM »
Link please - just so we can be sure that you are quoting correctly and completely.
Great one atheist thinks I haven't got the brains to mock a Harris quote and another atheist who expects nothing less ha ha ha. It can be found here and i'm sure other places.

https://pangrammaticon.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-hedges-and-sam-harris-on-nuclear.html

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33188
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43671 on: December 17, 2021, 06:54:39 PM »
If a doctor says "a festering wound might become gangrenous and we'd then have to amputate" you don't say they are advocating for cutting limbs off.

Sam Harris says that, if a fanatical Islamic regime gets hold of nuclear weapons and decides they need to purge the world of infidels with them we'd be face with the horrible choice of annihilating them first which he sees as horrific. Therefore, he is urging us to do something about it before we are faced with that decision.

He does not advocate a first strike nuclear attack against Islamic nations: he advocates doing everything necessary to stop that from happening.

Frankly your mischaracterisation of what he says is disgusting and not worthy of anybody, never mind a so called Christian.
so Harris disgusts me and that disgusts you.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43672 on: December 17, 2021, 06:55:43 PM »
If a doctor says "a festering wound might become gangrenous and we'd then have to amputate" you don't say they are advocating for cutting limbs off.
Interesting re-interpretation of Sam Harris's words. But Harris is not advocating amputating a gangrenous limb, he is advocating killing the patient, all their family, all their children and their neighbours, in fact the whole city or in his own words "tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day".

Quote
Sam Harris says that, if a fanatical Islamic regime gets hold of nuclear weapons and decides they need to purge the world of infidels with them we'd be face with the horrible choice of annihilating them first which he sees as horrific. Therefore, he is urging us to do something about it before we are faced with that decision.

He does not advocate a first strike nuclear attack against Islamic nations: he advocates doing everything necessary to stop that from happening.

Frankly your mischaracterisation of what he says is disgusting and not worthy of anybody, never mind a so called Christian.
I don't think Vlad is mischaracterising.

Harris says: "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

The situation he is referring to is "What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?"

He thinks this catastrophe is increasingly likely: "That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely."

Certainly sounds like he thinks if an Islamist regime gets long range nuclear weapons, they and all the innocent civilians surrounding them should be nuked.

Not surprising really given the history of the USA involves nuking civilians or napalming civilians to make a point and try to ensure fewer US soldiers die. I suppose we should be thankful that there are some other violent people to keep the US violence in check.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2021, 07:30:46 PM by Violent Gabriella »
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43673 on: December 17, 2021, 06:58:50 PM »
so Harris disgusts me and that disgusts you.
Lol. Yeah - I wouldn't worry about what disgusts JeremyP - when some of the atheists can't be bothered putting an argument together  they try the "you disgust me" routine, like anyone cares.
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3870
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #43674 on: December 17, 2021, 08:58:16 PM »
As Sam Harris is seemingly at the centre of this argument, It might be informative, or at the very least quite interesting, to hear how the man himself actually responds to the accusation that he is advocating a first nuclear strike against an islamic state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7T7barZEeU

It's only a few minutes long.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright