Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Deluded and dangerous fantasy comparing a real atheist autocrat who has actually tooled his country up disproportionate to it's geopolitical position and your own personified fantasy hate figures.

You're still missing the entire point. Autocratic regimes (atheism is irrelevant because it applies equally to autocratic religious regimes that don't fall into the particular form of extremism we're talking about) owning weapons of mass destruction is always a threat (in fact all weapons of mass destruction are a threat no matter how sane and democratic the countries are because of the possibilities of misunderstanding and mistakes) but it becomes an immediate existential threat if they fall into the hands of people who literally think their own death and the death of countless others is not only acceptable but desirable, because then, the whole idea of deterrence (that using them would be suicidal and lead to the destruction of their whole state) falls apart because they not only don't care about the consequences, they actually think they are desirable.

This really isn't complicated.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still missing the entire point.

Hyperbole

Autocratic regimes (atheism is irrelevant because it applies equally to autocratic religious regimes that don't fall into the particular form of extremism we're talking about)

I'm afraid it is relevent since you cannot point to a religious autocracy or one that that has it's own nuclear arsenal and yet here we have an actual atheist autocrat, autocratic in the uttermost sense who in his own mind  and that of his population has surpassed even the neitszchian superman stage. I would argue that it is doubtful if there can be a theist version of this.

owning weapons of mass destruction is always a threat (in fact all weapons of mass destruction are a threat no matter how sane and democratic the countries are because of the possibilities of misunderstanding and mistakes)

But it is a question of the reality of that threat or the possibility of the threat and an atheist autocracy is already the reality

but it becomes an immediate existential threat if they fall into the hands of people who literally think their own death and the death of countless others is not only acceptable but desirable, because then, the whole idea of deterrence (that using them would be suicidal and lead to the destruction of their whole state) falls apart because they not only don't care about the consequences, they actually think they are desirable.

I don't think there is any evidence for this just paranoid atheist extrapolation. The more probable immediate existential threat is de facto an atheist autocracy led by a ''superhuman'' because they actually exist and have the tools. Al Queda could not win a conventional war. There is an islamic power with nuclear weapons as well as a hindu power and probably a jewish power as well making the link between religion and nuclear armageddon weaker.

Harris does not make the point that anybody with nuclear weapons is an existential threat but that religious people with nuclear weapons are the more immediate threat.
He doesn't mean this point to be ephemeral but scriptural. As an intellectual prophesy it is failed, I don't know if NK had nuclear weapons when it was written. Harris's scenario where it becomes necessary to make a first strike because it is specifically a religious regime and people who have the bomb and this strike has to be comprehensive overkill because we don't know where the bombs are and might be followed by a total nuclear war at the end of which Harris maintains the right to the moral high ground because, by existing his enemy ''made him do it''...is paranoid atheist fantasy.

[Stranger]

Al Queda could not win a conventional war.

But they could, nevertheless, destroy the 'infidels' in the US, if they gained control of a nuclear arsenal. That's the point.

There is an islamic power with nuclear weapons as well as a hindu power and probably a jewish power as well making the link between religion and nuclear armageddon weaker.

To which the Harris's argument does not apply (he even mentions Pakistan in his discussion of the subject), thus undermining your entire nonsense about it being about atheism and theism.

"For instance, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, but they have yet to develop long-range rockets, and there is every reason to believe that the people currently in control of these bombs are more pragmatic and less certain of paradise than the Taliban are."

-- Response to Controversy

Harris does not make the point that anybody with nuclear weapons is an existential threat but that religious people with nuclear weapons are the more immediate threat.

Have you actually read what he said or are you just deliberately lying? His point is about a particular theist sects that regard death as acceptable and desirable. There really is no point in discussing this further if you just keep on attacking a straw man, rather than the actual point.

[jeremyp]

one exists.....the other exists in your imagination.

Nobody's denying that religious extremists in control of nuclear weapons is currently a hypothetical concept.

Frankly, although Kim Jong Un is a ruthless evil bastard, he is probably a safer pair of hands than the kind of person who thinks he'll go to Paradise if he ends the World.

[jeremyp]

This really isn't complicated.

It's too complicated for Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody's denying that religious extremists in control of nuclear weapons is currently a hypothetical concept.

Frankly, although Kim Jong Un is a ruthless evil bastard, he is probably a safer pair of hands than the kind of person who thinks he'll go to Paradise if he ends the World.

Nonsense statement since Kim Jong Un exists and a person who thinks he'll go to paradise if he ends the world and is in charge of a regime is an atheist's wankfantasy.

[jeremyp]

Nonsense statement since Kim Jong Un exists and a person who thinks he'll go to paradise if he ends the world and is in charge of a regime is an atheist's wankfantasy.

No it isn't. It's a real possibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. It's a real possibility.

Compared with the 100% certainty of an atheist autocrat whose people think is a superhuman with a nuclear arsenal.

First there is no islamist or religious terror regime. If they became a regime, why would they want to throw that away?

Secondly what evidence are you drawing on that there are religious terrorists who would gladly bring about the end of the world?

I think there are, mercifully, several degrees of separation from ''real possibility''.

[jeremyp]

Compared with the 100% certainty of an atheist autocrat whose people think is a superhuman with a nuclear arsenal.

That is irrelevant to the point. It's just a giant piece of whataboutery. Stick to the subject.

First there is no islamist or religious terror regime. If they became a regime, why would they want to throw that away?

Because they are religious nutters. They might even choose to seize control of a country with nuclear weapons just so they can end the World. That is what makes them dangerous.

Secondly what evidence are you drawing on that there are religious terrorists who would gladly bring about the end of the world?

If you have the mentality that it's to your benefit to fly an airliner into a tower block, anything is possible.

I think there are, mercifully, several degrees of separation from ''real possibility''.

Depends howe you are defining degree but I'd be more comfortable if the moderates weren't enabling the extremists.

[ProfessorDavey]

How are you with an atheist autocrat in charge of the North Korean nuclear arsenal?

Yes I am concerned about Kim Jong Un having nuclear weapons, but I'd make a few observations.

First the notion that he is atheist is pretty well irrelevant to his fundamental political motivations.

Secondly - from what I have seen North Korea largely seem to want to be left alone, they don't really seem to have aspirations to take their political philosophy and impose it on the rest of the world (with the exception of South Korea). So NK have not attacked distant countries, nor deliberately targeted the civilian populations of those countries.

Thirdly - there is no evidence that the standard 'mutually assured destruction' basis of nuclear deterrent does not apply to NK. I doubt that Kim Jong Un would fire nuclear weapons if he recognised it would result in the destruction of NK and his own death. The problem with the suicide philosophy (whether islamist or not) is that it negates the basic concept of nuclear deterrent that your opponent doesn't want to die.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thirdly - there is no evidence that the standard 'mutually assured destruction' basis of nuclear deterrent does not apply to NK.

Or to any other type of regime. Harris also conflates small cardres of suicidal terrorists with complete regimes and somehow a man with a suicide vest with kilograms of high explosive can be equated with a regime with megatons at it's command merely on the grounds that he thinks, well Jeremy summed up the atheist position, that these are religious nutters. Slack, Lazy, Alf Garnettian and facile arguments all round boys.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or to any other type of regime. Harris also conflates small cardres of suicidal terrorists with complete regimes and somehow a man with a suicide vest with kilograms of high explosive can be equated with a regime with megatons at it's command

Well firstly, what defines a regime and when does a small cadre of terrorists become part of a regime, or are in fact the regime.

I would certainly argue that we've seen at least two such regimes in recent years (albeit neither acquired nuclear weapons). The first being the Taliban who assimilated and supported al qaeda who were an integral part of the forces that brought the Taliban to power and then became the manner by which the Taliban exerted their authority beyond their borders.

The second being the so-called Islamic state, which at its height controlled significant territory in northern iraq and syria, which IS considered to be a separate islamic state. Without doubt they fit any reasonable criterion for a regime.

merely on the grounds that he thinks, well Jeremy summed up the atheist position, that these are religious nutters. Slack, Lazy, Alf Garnettian and facile arguments all round boys.

The only person making lazy stereotypical Alf Garnettian comments here Vlad is you - with your tiresome requirement to imply that anything negative is about atheism. You seem to think that me, Jeremy P and Kin Jong Un are somehow three peas in a pods as we are all atheist (I presume). We are, in fact completely different people and there is not one iota of agreement politically between Kim Jong Un (an autocratic, despotic, militaristic dictator who considers inheritance to be appropriate in leadership) and me (Jeremy can speak for himself, as he is a third person with his own views). That I don't believe in god/gods and (presumably) Kim Jung Un also doesn't believe in god/gods is no more relevant in comparison terms to the notion that you Vlad don't believe in leprechauns and neither (presumably) did Hitler.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well firstly, what defines a regime and when does a small cadre of terrorists become part of a regime, or are in fact the regime.

I would certainly argue that we've seen at least two such regimes in recent years (albeit neither acquired nuclear weapons). The first being the Taliban who assimilated and supported al qaeda who were an integral part of the forces that brought the Taliban to power and then became the manner by which the Taliban exerted their authority beyond their borders.

The second being the so-called Islamic state, which at its height controlled significant territory in northern iraq and syria, which IS considered to be a separate islamic state. Without doubt they fit any reasonable criterion for a regime.

Worth noting that both al qaeda and IS are known to have attempted to obtain nuclear weapons (thankfully both unsuccessfully). IS acquired and used chemical weapons.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You think Sam Harris is a lunatic because he says that a nuclear first strike is an unthinkable crime?

I have already explained repeatedly that I oppose Sam Harris's lunatic ideas about how mass murder against civilians in a pre-emptive nuclear strike may be the only course of action available. Bit too extreme for me. He is a lunatic for thinking that a nuclear first strike murdering millions of innocent people "may be the only course of action available" despite it being an unthinkable crime. That's makes him worryingly genocidal - he acknowledges it's an unthinkable crime and then follows that with still thinking it may be the only course available. See my replies #43672; #43690;  #43717; #43691;
#43714 showing the equivalence between Sam Harris and Bin Laden;
#43717; #43728;

Just a few posts back reply #43736 was to you explaining why Sam Harris is a lunatic.

Making me repeat my answers to you just makes you look unintelligent. 

It's a "what if" situation. If a bunch of dangerous madmen with the same mentality as those who flew planes into the twin towers of the WTC got hold of long range nuclear weapons, we might need to wipe them out before they had a chance to use them.

No in that scenario you don't need to murder millions of innocents. If you think you do then I think you are a lunatic like Sam Harris. See my reply #43728 for why you are a lunatic.

What would you dos in that situation?

I already said what I would do in that situation - see my reply #43690 5th paragraph

Who said anything about it being the USA that does it?
Why are you making this about the USA? It's not about the USA.

The USA's actions, foreign policy, cultural prejudices, aggression, arms sales is very much a part of the problem. Terrorists do not exist in a vaccum - their statements show they have political goals which oppose the political, economic and cultural goals of certain members of the US government and international businesses.

You have not explained why it matters whether political goals and morality are expressed in religious terms and language compared to political goals and morality expressed in non-religious language.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Or to any other type of regime. Harris also conflates small cardres of suicidal terrorists with complete regimes and somehow a man with a suicide vest with kilograms of high explosive can be equated with a regime with megatons at it's command merely on the grounds that he thinks, well Jeremy summed up the atheist position, that these are religious nutters. Slack, Lazy, Alf Garnettian and facile arguments all round boys.

Yes would agree with you there. Seem to be quite a few Alf Garnett type responses to your posts. I think they and the genocidal Sam Harris need to get a grip and stop being so hysterical on account of 3000 dead people in the US in a couple of towers. Lot more than that have been murdered/ blown up in wars over the years in the pursuit of various political goals and ideologies.

Just can't understand the sudden paranoid hysteria generated by a couple of planes being flown into a building in 2001 as a way to show opposition to US foreign policy and actions in the Middle East.

There have been many people through the centuries who welcome killing and dying for a cause they believe in or in pursuit of an ideology and see it as some kind of honour - some of these people are religious, some not.

Dolce et decorum est, Pro patria mori - Wilfred Owen

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

IS acquired and used chemical weapons.

So did regimes supported by the US - see Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

My view is that despite history showing us the death-loving actions of the US and Iraqi governments of the time in relation to chemical weapons, I would not contemplate a pre-emptive nuclear strike to murder millions of innocent civilians in the US or in Iraq let alone state "it may be the only course of action available to us". Only a lunatic like Sam Harris would support that kind of faulty thinking.

[Alan Burns]

interesting sermon entitled "Is science opposed to faith?"
a new take on the feast of the epiphany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLlVA2h0gk

[Stranger]

interesting sermon entitled "Is science opposed to faith?"
a new take on the feast of the epiphany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLlVA2h0gk

Interesting? Only in the sense that you might find some clown making a complete fool of himself interesting.  The presenter seems to think astrology is a science (and make no mistake, looking at patterns in the sky to predict a human event on earth is pure astrology). The whole thing's kind of comical in the sense that he uses one superstition (astrology) to represent science and then says that faith (superstition) needs science (that he's represented as another superstition) to stop it from being a superstition.

All with a bit of trite drivel about order needing a designer (completely ignoring the infinite regress or special pleading that that inevitably leads to) thrown in just to make it even more absurd.

[Maeght]

interesting sermon entitled "Is science opposed to faith?"
a new take on the feast of the epiphany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLlVA2h0gk

A good speaker and expresses his beliefs well. If he had changed one word early on it would have been better - instead of 'recognising' intelligence when looking at the skies 'imagined' intelligence.

[ProfessorDavey]

So did regimes supported by the US - see Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

Yet another of your attempts to create equivalence where there isn't any.

For the record IS did not support a regime that used chemical weapons, nope they used them themselves. If you cannot see the difference then you really need to look a bit harder.

And in your example the regime that actually used the chemical weapons wasn't the US, but Iraq, who I unequivocally condemn for their use of such weapons. And you will no doubt remember that their use of these weapons lead to very strong action from the international community (including the US), including sanctions, weapons inspections etc through the 1990s. And guess who steadfastly opposed those actions and used them as justification for deliberately murdering civilians - oh yes that would be Bin Laden and al qaeda.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet another of your attempts to create equivalence where there isn't any.

Harris articles are all about creating equivalence. So to him and his defenders, religious moderates are as bad a prospect as religious extremists, small groups of terrorists are equivalent to islamist regimes and men with suicide vests obviously are the same as those who want to usher in armageddon. Again where's his evidence?

[ProfessorDavey]

Harris articles are all about creating equivalence.

I cannot talk about his articles as I have never read any. I have read the brief section referenced in this thread from one of his books - noting that I have not read the actual book for context. However the paragraph cited is not all about creating equivalence - he is really clear that his comments are about extreme islamist groups that consider suicide and martyrdom as noble aims. He is also very clear in both the paragraph and his subsequent interview that was linked to that he sees no equivalence between the islamist extremists and moderate muslims and moderate muslim regimes. He makes this point very clear in the interview when discussing Pakistan and also in the paragraph where he sees the moderate muslim world as key allies in preventing the extremists getting weapons of mass destruction.

So to him and his defenders, religious moderates are as bad a prospect as religious extremists, ...

Complete non-sense - he sees islamist extremists as the problem - he sees moderate muslims as a key part of the solution to that problem. He sees moderate muslims as allies in the fight to prevent islamist extremists gaining weapons and indeed in the fight against islamist extremist radicalisation.

... small groups of terrorists are equivalent to islamist regimes and men with suicide vests obviously are the same as those who want to usher in armageddon. Again where's his evidence?

So when does a group of terrorists (in the case of al qaeda very well organised, very well funded and operating across many countries) become a regime Vlad. As far as I can see Taliban/al qaeda in the 1990s and IS in the 2010s are both regimes. But I don't really see the relevance of the distinction - the distinction is surely between extremist groups/regimes that want to deliberately murder innocent civilians and moderate groups/regimes that do not want to deliberately murder innocent civilians and oppose those extremist views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete non-sense - he sees islamist extremists as the problem - he sees moderate muslims as a key part of the solution to that problem. He sees moderate muslims as allies

Then why did he write this on beliefnet.

 '' religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.''

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/secular-philosophies/the-problem-with-religious-moderates.aspx
One wonders if he even has the definition of religious moderation right. It seems to be different from what I assume is yours where  alliances with the people who ''bear a terrible dogma'' are possible.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then why did he write this on beliefnet.

 '' religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.''

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/secular-philosophies/the-problem-with-religious-moderates.aspx
One wonders if he even has the definition of religious moderation right. It seems to be different from what I assume is yours where  alliances with the people who ''bear a terrible dogma'' are possible.

Did you actually bother to read the whole article - or just quote mine?

So firstly in the article Harris is absolutely clear that he doesn't see an equivalence between moderate and extreme religious believers - hence:

People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused'

His argument is that if you justify your actions on the basis of your perception of what your god thinks you should do, and do this without evidence, then it is extremely difficult to argue with someone who is using exactly the same approach but comes to a different conclusion based on their perception of what their god thinks they should do. And often times it is the same god and the same religious texts that the moderate interprets (without evidence) means one thing while the religious extremist interprets (again without evidence) means something entirely different.

Thats is the 'terrible dogma' he speaks of - not that moderates and extremists are the same, but that they adopt the same unsubstantiated approaches to reach highly differing conclusions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yet another of your attempts to create equivalence where there isn't any.

For the record IS did not support a regime that used chemical weapons, nope they used them themselves. If you cannot see the difference then you really need to look a bit harder.

Another of your attempts to distract attention from US support for Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Sure IS used mustard gas. I condemn IS for using chemical weapons. I also condemn Saddam for using chemical weapons. I also condemn Reagan and the US foreign policy that allowed the US to give Iraq technical support on the battlefield when they knew Hussein was using chemical weapons.

And in your example the regime that actually used the chemical weapons wasn't the US, but Iraq, who I unequivocally condemn for their use of such weapons. And you will no doubt remember that their use of these weapons lead to very strong action from the international community (including the US), including sanctions, weapons inspections etc through the 1990s. And guess who steadfastly opposed those actions and used them as justification for deliberately murdering civilians - oh yes that would be Bin Laden and al qaeda.

That you can't bring yourself to mention that the US looked the other way and was silent while Saddam used chemical weapons in the 1980s, and you can't bring yourself to condemn the US for supplying Saddam with chemicals despite the US knowing they were being used as weapons, tells me all I need to know about your morals. You do know that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden were not working with Saddam right? But the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by sanctions was one of the reasons cited by Bin Laden for attacking the US on  9/11.

It was ironic that the US decided to invade Iraq in 1990 over oil, considering this led to what a UN survey team in April 1991 termed a “near-apocalyptic” situation in Iraq caused in large part by the intentional destruction of water treatment facilities by the United States. And after the US had control of the area in 1991 it did pretty much nothing when Saddam was gassing Shiites in southern Iraq.