The end of faith.

So, I recently got done reading a book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. In it, he goes to show that faith is the prime factor in irrational decisions and injustices throughout history.

First, he calls for an end to all established religions: especially Islam, due to the number of verses the Muslim community in the Middle east uses to support it's suicide bombings and violence. Because there is little to no moderate Islam in the middle east, and little tolerance for liberal positions on Scripture, the area has become religiously stagnant and their religious texts and faith is what drives them to violence and rationalizes their violence. If they were a faithless society, it would remove the justification for their actions. We can also go into how Christianity has used it texts and faiths to savagely murder millions, but since a majority of it's followers are now moderate, our largest concern is the end of Islam, or at least fundamental Islam.

Secondly, he makes the case that we can establish moral truths without the need for religion. He basically founds this on the principle that almost all of us want happiness and happiness for others. This is a general concept, so don't bother getting picky about it. If we establish that it is in our nature to find happiness and to provide happiness, we can then extend this into what brings happiness and what doesn't in a rational way. BUT - we can only approach rational morality this way if we first throw away faith-based rationality. An example would be: God doesn't like homosexuality, therefore it makes me unhappy to see gay people, therefore gay people should be outlawed. This is an irrational claim based on the beliefs of an unresponsive invisible being. Imagine the case where anti-gay advocates had to base their arguments on rationality: "We want to end homosexuality because they don't produce babies, and that means it wastes energy, which makes society more tired and less happy!" A bit harder to argue then the typical "GOD WILL BURN YOU" argument, eh? As our society becomes more secularized and less religionized, we will see more rational morality, such as gay unions/marriage, female/male equality, drug laws that actually make sense, etc. As we can see from the past, Religion is always playing catch-up adaptation with modern day secular morality and science.

Thirdly, he claims we can have spiritual experiences without Religion, mainly concentrating on our levels of consciousness. We still don't know why we are self-aware and other creatures are not. There's yet to be a biological marker found that says "these creatures will be self-aware and these creatures will not." The spirituality Harris puts forth is based mainly around our interaction with our self-awareness and how we can manipulate or experience reality differently. This is most commonly accomplished through meditation, drug use, and other ways yet to be discovered.

----------------------------------

That's a basic summary of the book. I think I agree with most of what he has to say. It's difficult to present the book since it covers an insane number of topics on culture and society and government and of course, religion, but I tried. There are pluses to Religion, such as establishing a community, goodwill services, etc, but these can all be accomplished just as easily through secular mechanisms instead of religious ones. Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world. If we look at the different Religions, the ones we consider most moral are the ones most closely tied to secular rationality, not faith based rationality.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Someone in my English class is reading that book, and they really like it.

I agree with those points aswell, and the world would be a much better place if that idea was to become a reality. However, you can pretty much count on it never happening. Telling a religioius person to give up everything they beleive in is impossible. Faith is just that; faith.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Free.User

Telling a religioius person to give up everything they beleive in is impossible. Faith is just that; faith.

Although I'm definitely not arguing with that, I think the point was to not take away faith, but the structures that it currently uses.
I'm probably wrong, but that's how I interpreted it...
I agree, though. As fascinating and appealing as the idea is, it's all theoretical. Plus of course there's the point that it's not religion that starts wars so much as overzealous fanatics who do; and I'm sure you'll get those whether there's structured religion or not. Can't get rid of crazy people!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by franposis

Although I'm definitely not arguing with that, I think the point was to not take away faith, but the structures that it currently uses.
I'm probably wrong, but that's how I interpreted it...
I agree, though. As fascinating and appealing as the idea is, it's all theoretical. Plus of course there's the point that it's not religion that starts wars so much as overzealous fanatics who do; and I'm sure you'll get those whether there's structured religion or not. Can't get rid of crazy people!

I agree with franposis on this one, crazy people are always going to be there. Religion is just a shield they can hide behind to justify their questionable actions, when something is done "in the name of God" they believe it's ok to slaughter thousands in war. Personally I can't believe that God would wish slaughter on anyone seeing as he is omnibenevolent. Religion can be a very good thing but also a very bad thing. Sadly there's no getting out of it for us since religion can never truly be abolished, people just need to coincide with each other and respect each others beliefs.
Like that'll ever happen -sighs-

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by franposis

Although I'm definitely not arguing with that, I think the point was to not take away faith, but the structures that it currently uses.
I'm probably wrong, but that's how I interpreted it...

Did you read the book too? When I read it I got the impression that faith is Harris' enemy (hence the title of the book haha). I think what he aims to change is the way we interpret spirituality. His version of spirituality includes no elements of faith in it.

Originally Posted by franposis

Plus of course there's the point that it's not religion that starts wars so much as overzealous fanatics who do; and I'm sure you'll get those whether there's structured religion or not. Can't get rid of crazy people!

I agree, I was just emphasizing religion since it's the most relevant thing in our society today. Back during WW2, we were fighting the atrocities of atheists. The foundation of faith, however, was still there. To quote from the True Believer: "Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: "Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains; all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts."

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Did you read the book too?

No, just interpreting from what you've written. I may read it now it's been suggested, it looks interesting...

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Back during WW2, we were fighting the atrocities of atheists. The foundation of faith, however, was still there.

In a way, atheism has always seemed like a religion to me, in that most of the people who are atheists believe in it as strongly as Christians do in God. I know I do; I put as much faith in science as I ever could in a religion. Although I have to admit I've never considered WW2 a question of atheism (which is worded badly but it's late night and can't be bothered to phrase it well), I can see where you're coming from.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by deadsky

I agree with franposis on this one, crazy people are always going to be there. Religion is just a shield they can hide behind to justify their questionable actions, when something is done "in the name of God" they believe it's ok to slaughter thousands in war.

Of course, and if it were not religion, it would be something else. I mean that convenient skin color excuse for example? Any excuse to point to a group of people and say "they aren't like us in some way!!!" is good enough to start a war if the will is there.

Quote:

Personally I can't believe that God would wish slaughter on anyone seeing as he is omnibenevolent.

Depends which version of his biography you read. He's only a kind and loving God to everyone in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. Other religions that decended from that same family tree don't make him out to be quite such a nice deity.

Originally Posted by Free.User

I agree with those points aswell, and the world would be a much better place if that idea was to become a reality. However, you can pretty much count on it never happening. Telling a religioius person to give up everything they beleive in is impossible. Faith is just that; faith.

So true. Even if you outlawed religion, it would still persist, but be better hidden. There's plenty of historical examples for that. You'd never stamp out religion even if you could convince 99% of believers to recant. As long as one believer in one religion remains, there's that chance he can win others over to his cause. Even if he has the craziest UFO-cult religion on the planet, as Phineas T. Barnum is often quoted as having said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

I'm not saying that Christianity or any of the other major religions are equivalent to other UFO cults. I'm just saying that some people have the gift of being able to win others over to their cause, no matter what that cause is. You've got to be quite the talker to win someone over to the ideo of suicide bombing, don't ya think? I don't think the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife would convince me. A bird in the hand s worth two in the.... *achem* bush, and my life is one hell of a bird in the hand.

As long as those kind of slick-talking people exist, the worst kind of religious extremism will persist.

Originally Posted by franposis

In a way, atheism has always seemed like a religion to me, in that most of the people who are atheists believe in it as strongly as Christians do in God. I know I do; I put as much faith in science as I ever could in a religion.

A lot of Christian fundies have said this to me. I always told them that I thought they were full of shit. I guess if you can say that, they weren't quite so wrong as I thought. I believe there's something deeply wrong with the idea of atheism as a religion, or with the religion of science...

I'm an atheist myself. It shows, right? I don't treat it like a religion though. I treat it like the absense of religion. Science isn't sacred. It's a good tool, one of the best, but it's far from perfect and it's not something I put 'faith' in. For one thing, it doesn't require belief. The parts of science that work may be proved empirically.

It disturbs me a little that you can say this, but I'm sure it does no actual harm...

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by franposis

In a way, atheism has always seemed like a religion to me, in that most of the people who are atheists believe in it as strongly as Christians do in God. I know I do; I put as much faith in science as I ever could in a religion. Although I have to admit I've never considered WW2 a question of atheism (which is worded badly but it's late night and can't be bothered to phrase it well), I can see where you're coming from.

Well, putting faith in science isn't the same as putting faith in there not being a God. Atheism at it's root is the belief/faith that there is no God. And I don't particularly have faith in science either - I'm only going to believe in science if science can produce facts and strong correlations. My belief in it is dependent upon it's provable reality, not upon my concept of the word "science."

And as for WW2, you should probably buy The True Believer by Eric Hoffer as well. He goes to show how Christianity and Nazism were connected to each other through their use of similar systems to produce mass movements. Basically, faith is always going to be the antithesis of rationality, and thus able to produce any and all kind of atrocities without need for justification.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Well, putting faith in science isn't the same as putting faith in there not being a God. Atheism at it's root is the belief/faith that there is no God.

-nods- By saying I put my faith in science, I meant, as you say, I'm putting faith in there being no God. Sorry about the poor wording there. This takes in its own way as much blind trust as believing that there is a God, considering that there's no proof to say there's not and that human nature seems to need something beyond itself.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

And I don't particularly have faith in science either - I'm only going to believe in science if science can produce facts and strong correlations. My belief in it is dependent upon it's provable reality, not upon my concept of the word "science."

As for trusting the reliability and provability of science, in a philosophical sense that's as much of a belief in that we're trusting our senses and the appearance of the world to be true. But that would be going offtopic, so for the sake of arguement let's assume that everything we percieve exists and not turn this into an empirical arguement

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

You've got to be quite the talker to win someone over to the ideo of suicide bombing, don't ya think? I don't think the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife would convince me.

Well, being a good talker is a lot more necessary concerning non-religious faith like Nazism. Hitler had to be a good talker, to the degree where the German people thought that this guy really could lead them to prosperity. If they happen to a kill a few million non-believers and evildoers along the way, all for the better. As for religions like Islam, the need for smooth talking is a lot less. This is because they have their Holy texts that speak of them being rewarded in heaven for fighting infidels.

Don't be mistaken, there are also verses that say violence is wrong, but they are much fewer in number. Just like the Christian Bible, there are many contradictions in messages. The difference is that Islam is VERY fundamental in the middle east, so the interpretations are always going to be pro-violence and pro-fighting infidels. Any other interpretation is considered unfaithful to Allah.

Here's a survey Harris inserts into his book.

Suicide Bombing In Defense of Islam: Is it ever Justifiable?

________________Yes___No_____DK/Refused
Lebanon_________82____12_________6
Ivory Coast______73____27_________0
Nigeria__________66____26_________8
Jordan__________65____26_________8
Bangladesh______58____23_________19
Mali____________54____35_________11
Senegal_________47____50_________3
Ghana__________44____43_________12
Indonesia_______43____54__________3
Uganda_________40____52__________8
Pakistan________38____38_________23
Turkey_________20____64_________14

So are we at war with Iraq? Or at war with Islam? Should people have freedom to choose a religion in which the majority of it's constituents are OK with suicide bombing non-believers?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Woah. Can I ask where you got the figures from, out of curiosity?
That's frightening...

Edit:
Ah sorry being slow. Noticed the Harris reference above it -blushes

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Well, being a good talker is a lot more necessary concerning non-religious faith like Nazism. Hitler had to be a good talker, to the degree where the German people thought that this guy really could lead them to prosperity. If they happen to a kill a few million non-believers and evildoers along the way, all for the better. As for religions like Islam, the need for smooth talking is a lot less. This is because they have their Holy texts that speak of them being rewarded in heaven for fighting infidels.

The reason I said that I assume you need to be a good talker is because I assume that even the most devout of believers has some doubt. Your life is a bird in the hand. It's the one thing you know you have. These rewards in the afterlife are quite uncertain. You won't ever know for sure that you're going to get them until the job is done. Plus scholars disagree on the meaning of the verses in question.

Then there's the 'creative' tactics that involve various parts of a pig being interred along with the bodies of terrorists. That's whole extra bunch of uncertainty that can add to the problem.

Isn't it only natural to have some doubts? I mean, no matter how devout you are, there might just be nothing. No afterlife. Just worm food. That's a big risk for these sucide bombers.

Quote:

So are we at war with Iraq? Or at war with Islam? Should people have freedom to choose a religion in which the majority of it's constituents are OK with suicide bombing non-believers?

Don't go there. Don't betray the founding principles of your nation just because of a few acts of terrorism. America was founded on freedom of religion.

That survey you posted is interesting, but is the data verifiable? If so, why is the question so broad? Is suicide bombing ever justfied? Well that 'ever' is a really nice touch, isn't it? It adds too many variables into the mix. Of course I'd rather say that it's not ever justified, but I didn't grow up in an that environment. Ask muslim people who grew up in my environment, and you'd get a completely different set of results. The answer then is to fix the enviroment in which they live.

Yeah, that's easier said than done.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

I agree, I was just emphasizing religion since it's the most relevant thing in our society today. Back during WW2, we were fighting the atrocities of atheists. The foundation of faith, however, was still there. To quote from the True Believer: "Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: "Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains; all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts."

Also after WWII, the concept of Existentialism/Absurdism was born, where the advocates of these concepts agree that human beings live in an irrational world in isolation.

It seems kind of pessimistic cause it is said that people will try to find meaning in this world but will fail in the process.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by franposis

Woah. Can I ask where you got the figures from, out of curiosity?
That's frightening...

Edit:
Ah sorry being slow. Noticed the Harris reference above it -blushes

Actually the survey wasn't by him.

From the book: "Over 38,000 people recently participated in a global survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The results constitute the first publication of its Global Attitudes Project entitled "What the World Thinks in 2002." The survey included the following question, posed only to Muslims:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justifiable in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified."


-----------------

Sam Harris showed the original results, and then lumped the "often/sometimes/rarely" into the "ever" category to show how many find it acceptable to any degree, period. Also, we have to keep in mind, this is suicide bombing specifically against civilian targets, non-combatants. Also keep in mind Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq and Palestinian territories weren't included in the survey.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

The reason I said that I assume you need to be a good talker is because I assume that even the most devout of believers has some doubt. Your life is a bird in the hand. It's the one thing you know you have. These rewards in the afterlife are quite uncertain. You won't ever know for sure that you're going to get them until the job is done.

One of the things Eric Hoffer goes into is that the reason smooth talking isn't that necessary is because the believers willingly want to give up their private identities and become part of a system, a mass movement, especially when their current life is crap (aka Germany after WW1). It's appealing to many to give up your own decision making processes which may or may not work out in the end, for a system that's promising rewards as long as you stick to their rules.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Plus scholars disagree on the meaning of the verses in question.

Scholars have little to no influence on mainstream Islam in the middle east, so what does it matter? Plus, there may be different interpretations, but there's only so much wiggle room you get with honest interpretation. In Harris' book he devots 6 pages of text to quotes straight from the Koran speaking of how the infidels, non-believers should be punished to death. Christianity also has some verses like this in the Old Testament, but they're ignored for the most part because Christianity has become secularized. Christianity no longer does the witch-hunt thing. Islam still does.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Isn't it only natural to have some doubts? I mean, no matter how devout you are, there might just be nothing. No afterlife. Just worm food. That's a big risk for these sucide bombers.

It's natural for you to have doubts, yes. It's natural for most people living in America to have doubts, yes. It is not natural for middle eastern Muslims to have doubts, because if you have doubts, you are put to death for your non-belief. Actually, let me change that. It IS natural for them to have doubts, but the punishment for doubt is very severe so it effectively eliminates it. Die and go to heaven as a hero, or die as a traitor to God? These are your options in that society.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Don't go there. Don't betray the founding principles of your nation just because of a few acts of terrorism. America was founded on freedom of religion.

A few acts of terrorism? Do the people who die on a regular basis in Iraq not really count as people, then? Because they're dying everyday due to this terrorism caused by their religion. Would you defend freedom of religion to the extent to where you might allow a country of openly pro-suicide-bomb-civilian-Muslim zealots to immigrate into the US? Our government calls them terrorists, but they're just following their faith. Is religious doctrine important enough to sacrifice lives for? Even a single life? Not in my opinion.

*edit* Now, I know I may be coming off VERY anti-Muslim, but it's not out of racism. I could care less what race you are. If you're OK with killing civilians by blowing yourself up, regardless if it's a religious concept or not, it's completely unacceptable. Yes, verses can be interpreted differently by scholars, but mainstream mid-east Islam doesn't care - and most importantly, they are the one who represent Islam. You will get Muslim professors in the US claiming their religion is being "misrepresented" - but who are they to "correctly" interpret the religion? What matters is how the masses are interpreting it, and I don't think the idea of a jihad is any new concept to them. If anything, modern non-violent interpretations of the Koran are the dishonest interpretations, simply hoping to salvage the religion so it can survive in a growingly secular, rational world.

For the majority of Muslims in the mid east, the jihad against America is real, not imaginary. Our evil is real, not imaginary. And them going to heaven for killing us is real, not imaginary.

But we can't criticize it since, you know, it's religion.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

If so, why is the question so broad? Is suicide bombing ever justfied? Well that 'ever' is a really nice touch, isn't it? It adds too many variables into the mix.

I posted above the actual technicalities of the question. The bottom line is that these are civilian targeted suicide bombings. The question of "is it ever justifiable" would only have too many "variables" if you include military targets, in my opinion. However, the survey explicitely said civilian targets.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Moving this thread to PP since this discussion is getting political and stuff

FELIPE NO

Quote:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...s_quote04.html


I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Sam Harris is full of shit. It'd be nice if he could stop jacking himself off to the humanism poster he hangs over his bed long enough to understand that injustices are perpetrated because humans are conditioned to form inclusive, and exclusive communities. That religion excludes based on faith is the leading cause of injustices in history is primarily because we've had tens of thousands of years when man could only explain the world supernaturally, as opposed to the 500 some-odd years of reason and logic.

I guess it's cool to also point out that concepts of justice are subjective, and that one society's conception of what is right may be radically different from others, irregardless of whether or not that justice is based on religion. Communism killed more people than two world wars, and you could hardly call it faith-based.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Because there is little to no moderate Islam in the middle east, and little tolerance for liberal positions on Scripture, the area has become religiously stagnant and their religious texts and faith is what drives them to violence and rationalizes their violence.

Have you ever lived in the middle east? Just because you're a Muslim in the middle east does not automatically make you a terrorist, that kind of thinking is blatant racial profiling - and defiantly something we should try to be avoiding.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Atheism at it's root is the belief/faith that there is no God.

No, that's only one side of the coin. Technically the "religious" atheists are a subset of atheists in general, who simply lack the belief in God. I stopped calling myself an atheist a while ago, because like you, most people assume the more extreme case.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Wait a second. Isn't it agnostics who simply don't believe, or is it that they just lack faith?

Most amazing jew boots

Agnostic –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Atheist -noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Basically, according to the dictionary, atheists deny and/or don't believe in the existence of God. Agnostics simply say it cannot be proven one way or the other. You could say neither have religious faith, I suppose.

EDIT: For clarity's sake, I should say that neither have faith in a supreme being, rather than "religious faith." Because you can actually have religion without it being centered around a supreme being, as shown below (I love the dictionary.) It's only "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency." But you can have a religion based upon something like the big bang theory, as well. Which is why scientology exists.
Religion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So, basically, Sam Harris wrote a book about something that everyone should already be aware of.

I'm not anti-religion, I'm just saying that anyone with eyes and the ability to string two ideas together, should already be aware of what the situation is.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

So, basically, Sam Harris wrote a book about something that everyone should already be aware of.

I'm not anti-religion, I'm just saying that anyone with eyes and the ability to string two ideas together, should already be aware of what the situation is.

ah, but you're missing the point. He probably used really long words to explain it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Mississippi. Mississippi is a long word.

Cat. Cat is a short word.

Cat is not as short as "at."

FELIPE NO

Look at that cat. Look at it. That cat is fat. That cat is short. Look at that short fat cat. My hat fits that cat. My hat is fat, and short. Put the short fat hat on the short fat cat. Look at that short fat cat in the short fat hat. Look at that! Here comes longcat! Longcat is loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong

I think we've gone a little off subject here. I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with the statement that "Faith is, in a nutshell, the largest hindrance we've had to peace and justice in this world." I pose that fear (not faith) and the symptoms of fear (anger, jealousy, greed) would be such a hindrance. Faith, as I've come to find, often results in an absence or at least a quieting of fear, and therefore cannot possibly be a hindrance to peace and justice.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

People like killing each other, people will always like killing each other, every year people discover new and exciting ways to kill each other.
As long as people have things to kill each other with, they'll kill each other.
I don't think it really matters what we try and blame it on.

How ya doing, buddy?