Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan Online Debate at Beliefnet

No, it doesn't. My whole argument depends on a hypothetical scenario where a majority of religiously minded people are also the majority of people and believe that this is true. You are misreading me. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. I don't believe either way that atheists should have their rights restricted.The point is that one side's perception of misinformed is different than the other's such that one person's nonsense is another's truth. Note: I am NOT saying both are right. I am saying we devised a system in this nation where we don't have to agree in order to function as a soceity.

I would just like to say that I am actually enjoying this discussion with you and I hope that if you can continue in this manner indefinitly that eventually you can earn back your forum permissions. You are bringing up academia as as example of where religion is criticized which is somewhat different than criticizing religion in the situations we have discussed thus far.Remember also that I DID AGREE that religion is criticized in certain circumstances. My position is not that religion is NEVER criticized and nor do I believe it to be Sam's position. No not at all! Even crashfrog state quite clearly that this should not be the case. The religious argument should be allowed to the table. What shouldn't be allowed to the table are arguments based on religion that are objectivly false. At a BARE MINIMUM.Ideally, ANY idea, religious or not that has very questionable support should be examined extremely skeptically.The argument boils down to simply providing critera for good decision making. Protection for ANY idea from real criticism because of some cultural taboo is bad. Do you disagree with that statement? It just so happens that we have a number of examples where those ideas are religious in nature.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You misunderstand me. The senator was not using pictures of unborn babies. He was using a child's crayon drawing of little circles with faces on them that represent embroys. He was using a child's anthropomorphised projection onto embryos to make a case that embryos are life and it is better to throw them into the garbage than use them for research on life saving treatments. This mixed in with religiously motivated dialogue equally as insulting to the intelligence of anyone who should every carry the title Senator.I'll repeat my question to you. Please consider this carefully.Wouldn't you RATHER have our decision makers take part in the discussion you outlined for questioning the ethical wrinkles of this important topic? What is more important to you, intelligent adult discussion about the real issues surrounding an important topic or an appeal to emotion and religous beliefs?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

jazzns, politicians are going to do lots of things that seem like grandstanding. That's kind of part of their job so let's not make too much out it.I think scientific facts and religion actually are in agreement in terms of unborn babies being human beings, and it is the other side asserting a subjective opinion in this situation by suggesting that the unborn are really somehow not human beings. So from my vantage point, it's bizarre to hear atheists say they are being objective in this area when they are taking a subjective, non fact-based position.

Funny, Randman, but I've never said anything of the kind; you're misrepresenting my position, arguing a strawman, and, in short, giving ample evidence for why you can't take part in a civil, honest discussion.At this point I can't see any point in replying to you.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Exactly! It does not matter where the irrational idea comes from what matters is that falsified positions should not be considered and any other claims should be alloted criticism equal to the weight of the implications it would impose!The PRIMARY concern is that the criticism is unbalanced for claims sourced from religion.If I had no religious reason for an outlandish claim, there would be absolutly NO concern over lavish criticism. But if such a claim is a standard doctrine of a mainstream religion then the criticism is GREATLY tempered! Moreover the complaint is not just about Christianty. Sam does not pull any punches for Islam either.For example, why should the idea of forcing a dress code on women because it is a tenent of Islam be given any more reserved criticism just because it is someone's religious belief? Please lets treat this as a hypothetical question rather than argue over if this actually happens. We can quibble over examples all day without discussion the meat of what I think Sam is saying about immunity from criticism.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I disagree. The idea of a flat earth should never be considered in matters of public policy and I believe it is within our capabilities as a society to create standards for which such ideas would be excluded yet still preserve the factionalism that you correctly describe. A good seperate discussion could be had over whether this is true. For now I am going to let it go to avoid getting to involved in many examples of disputed cases of religion being criticized.Suffice it to say I disagree and I believe there are cases where religious ideas are either immune to criticism or have criticism greatly tempered due to political correctness and other reasons.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Well, thank you....I enjoy real debate and discussion as well and appreciate your tone and approach. On being readmitted, I am not really asking for or expecting that, and was surprised to see I could post on some other areas outside of the Showcase, but at the same time, I suspect there will be some excuse given to ban me from here as well.Why not come over and discuss topics sometimes on the Showcase forum? It probably won't last that long either, but we can discuss some issues perhaps for a brief time. Well, I think acedemia is very relavant because that's where scientific consensus stems from in a lot of ways. Imo, we have a stifling if not outright bigoted environment towards religious people if they are more traditional, and yet we are to expect the facts to come out of this environment to somehow be objective?I just don't see it. In fact, I don't see any more objectivity than asking the SBC to give us their opinion on homosexuality, but maybe that's stretching things too far. Suffice to say, when we want policy makers to consider things, they need to consider as well the bias from the people making factual claims. But who says what is false and what isn't? Imo, one of the things that has infuriated me about ToE is that I think proponents are advancing as factual, claims that are objectively false, and I've gotten into trouble bringing up one famous example many times.The problem is when we talk about governmental policy is that people don't agree on what is true and false, and don't even agree on the standards that should be allowed. Heck, take this stem cell thing. I have yet to see how anyone oppossing government-funded research has advocated anything objectively false.Have you seen any objectively false "facts" advocated in opposition to stem cell research?I am sure there is some, on both sides, but the physical facts don't seem to be the issue. The issue is ethical and moral. Well, when it comes to morals and ethics, I think the Judeo-Christian ethic is a far better criteria than the current state of scientific opinion. I think relying on science to provide ethics and morals is disastrous and an absurdity.Can science measure morality? and ethics?

That's not a question I could answer without knowing the people involved talking with them, finding out about their lives, interviewing psychologists, reading about the procedure, and speaking to others who had the same condition.The funny thing is this - I can't, for the life of me, see how things like a man who died and supposedly came back from the dead 2000 years ago or a Middle Eastern military leader who died 1000 years ago or a great wheel of life upon which all living things spin could possibly be relevant to issue. And I certainly can't see how the words purported to be spoken by those figures, or about those figures, centuries in the past could possibly carry more weight than the facts and reality of the situation now in coming to my conclusion.Harris makes exactly this point. To deny religion is not to deny realities that we might call "spiritual" or "ethical" - or what is obvious to me is just not being a fucking asshole to the people around you. I don't have a highfalutin' term for that - I'm no philosopher - but Harris's language today moved me, so I'll repeat it here:

quote:

---

As I wrote in The End of Faith, whatever is true about us, spiritually and ethically, must be discoverable now. It makes no sense at all to have one’s spiritual life pegged to rumors of ancient events, however miraculous...

​

I’m asking you to imagine a world in which children are taught to investigate reality for themselves, not in conformity to the religious dogmatism of their parents, but by the lights of truly honest, fearless inquiry. Imagine a discourse about ethics and mystical experience that is as contingency-free as the discourse of science already is.

---

You've laid out a question that I think all would agree requires more consideration than simply the scientific. I agree, of course. I've never made the claim that the scientific is all that there is, and I reject, as I suspect all thinking people do, a strict (and false) dichotomy with science on one side and religion on the other.It might indeed take the "wisdom of Solomon" to decide the question you've laid before me. And I would be lying if I thought there was an easy answer. But one thing is easy to see - that 12 year old person deserves better than to have her own, immediate reality subjugated, by the decision makers, to centuries-old myth, dogma, and prejudice - to the dessicated, provincial solipsism of long-dead men who may not have even existed in the first place.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

But it is. Flat earthers vote, I suspect. The reason they don't influence public policy is that the people overall reject the flat earth premise. Well, if that's what we are going to do then I think we should adopt the Judeo-Christian ethic for all decisions and policies related to morality and ethics. If you don't want that, then you should content yourself with factionalism. If you are going to push for "standards", then don't complain when religious people demand their standards be adopted instead of atheist's standards.

No, I haven't. What part of "if" do you not understand?Also, when are you going to quit dodging and answer the points put to you? Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'll take this as a clarification then. Yes of course. The issue being questioned though is what to do about a situtation where someone's nonsense is actually nonsense. Are you simply saying that we can't do anything about it and we just have to figure out how to deal with the reprecussions of potentially letting real nonsense drive policy?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Yes, except you can do something about it. You cannot make a rule, which is the legalist approach very indicative of modernity, but you can try to persuade the people and the decision-makers that your view is correct.If the majority of both the people and the leaders think something dumb is correct, well, you cannot legislate intelligence.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

These points are not relevant to the debate, and your continued attempt to misrepresent them as rebuttals to my actual position are off-topic.I'm not prepared to go off-topic just to satisfy your curiosity. Moreover, your behavior has already been sufficiently uncivil as to preclude any further response from me. Since you can't debate honestly or stay on-topic, you're not someone I want to continue discussing with.I suspect that won't stop you, of course, from continuing to misrepresent me. Regardless this will be my last post to you on this thread.

Bald-faced assertions are acceptable now? Please explain how they are not relevant to the debate.