• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cenk Uygur vs. Sam Harris on Religious Violence in Islam

Amadeus

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal


Interesting conversation if you can get through all three hours.

Both agree that Islam is a crappy religion, but Harris has arrived at the conclusion that Muslims are especially dangerous. Even though he concedes that the Judaic God and Old Testament are worse than anything found in the Quran.
 
Amadeus said:


Interesting conversation if you can get through all three hours.

Both agree that Islam is a crappy religion, but Harris has arrived at the conclusion that Muslims are especially dangerous. Even though he concedes that the Judaic God and Old Testament are worse than anything found in the Quran.
Click to expand...


Muslims have violent tendencies due to their belief that offensive force in the service of religion is justified. However, liberalism is the main evil of the modern day.

BTW, the Islamic death toll is no where near as high as the atheistic death toll.
 
Paleocon said:
Muslims have violent tendencies due to their belief that offensive force in the service of religion is justified. However, liberalism is the main evil of the modern day.

BTW, the Islamic death toll is no where near as high as the atheistic death toll.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not get into death tolls or the evil of liberalism. That's a sure way to derail this thread, and it wouldn't turn out in your Christian-conservative favor.
 
Amadeus said:
I'd rather not get into death tolls or the evil of liberalism. That's a sure way to derail this thread, and it wouldn't turn out in your Christian-conservative favor.
Click to expand...

No derailment.

Islam has violent tendencies, but it is not the main problem today.
 
Amadeus said:


Interesting conversation if you can get through all three hours.

Both agree that Islam is a crappy religion, but Harris has arrived at the conclusion that Muslims are especially dangerous. Even though he concedes that the Judaic God and Old Testament are worse than anything found in the Quran.
Click to expand...


Both Cenk and Sam are theologically illiterate .... I'm sorry, they (especially cenk) betray a laughable ignorance of historical theology, I like Cenk for his analysis of politics and economics and so on, but when he starts talking religion, he sounds like an idiot.
 
RGacky3 said:
Both Cenk and Sam are theologically illiterate ....
Click to expand...

What a wonderfully self-aggrandizing statement -- since you've set yourself up to be the epitome of what constitutes theological literacy.
 
Amadeus said:
What a wonderfully self-aggrandizing statement -- since you've set yourself up to be the epitome of what constitutes theological literacy.
Click to expand...

Have you heard Cenk's exegesis of Genesis 1?

Sam Harris hasn't ready augustine, Aquantis, Origen Gregory or any of the Church fathers, if he DID, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that People used religion as a replacement for science, or had he known the actual history of religion, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that religion came about because peopel were afraid of death.

I'm not the epitome of theological literacy, but I do know enough theology to see ignorance posturing when I see it.
 
RGacky3 said:
Sam Harris hasn't ready augustine, Aquantis, Origen Gregory or any of the Church fathers, if he DID, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that People used religion as a replacement for science, or had he known the actual history of religion, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that religion came about because peopel were afraid of death.
Click to expand...

I thought these were fair if simplistic points from Harris. Religion was/is a primitive way of understanding and making sense of the world -- in other words, a substitute for science. He's not the first or last person to make this observation. Regarding the latter point, I don't see anything wrong with it. The promise of a beautiful afterlife is not found in all religions, but paying some kind of penance for misdeeds certainly is.

I'm not the epitome of theological literacy, but I do know enough theology to see ignorance posturing when I see it.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that you have an opinion based on what you read, just as they do.
 
Amadeus said:
1. I thought these were fair if simplistic points from Harris. Religion was/is a primitive way of understanding and making sense of the world -- in other words, a substitute for science. He's not the first or last person to make this observation. Regarding the latter point, I don't see anything wrong with it. The promise of a beautiful afterlife is not is not found in all religions, but paying some kind of penance for misdeeds certainly is.



2. Seems to me that you have an opinion based on what you read, just as they do.
Click to expand...

1. Except it wasn't, religion was primarily ritualistic and, for example Christianity, had no real interest in making sense of the world physically, that isn't what it did, neither did Judaism.

2. When you're making opinions on the history of religion, you better have read, the history of religion, if you're making opinions about theology, you better have read, actual theology.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Except it wasn't, religion was primarily ritualistic and, for example Christianity, had no real interest in making sense of the world physically, that isn't what it did, neither did Judaism.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong. Go to any Creationist museum and you'll see people using Biblical text to explain the origin of the world. Rituals are a separate part of religion, just as morality is.

2. When you're making opinions on the history of religion, you better have read, the history of religion, if you're making opinions about theology, you better have read, actual theology.
Click to expand...

And of course, it's possible that people have read this and have come to different conclusions than you. You may place more emphasis on what a Church founder says (for some reason), and others might take a broader view of religion.
 
Amadeus said:
1. Actually, you're wrong. Go to any Creationist museum and you'll see people using Biblical text to explain the origin of the world. Rituals are a separate part of religion, just as morality is.

2. And of course, it's possible that people have read this and have come to different conclusions than you. You may place more emphasis on what a Church founder says (for some reason), and others might take a broader view of religion.
Click to expand...

1. Christian "fundementalism" or New Earth creationism started in the late 1880s ... it has nothing to do With historic Christianity.

2. Because the Church founders are who'd you look at in order to see what Christians have historically believed ... not some dude With a museum ....
 
Which religion does not attempt to use God or gods to explain the creation of the universe, the weather, and natural phenomena? Certainly all the religions which branch from Zoroastrianism do (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The Brahaman religions certainly do (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). Greek, Norse, Japanese, etc. do as well.

Christian creationists are a modern version on what people believed before the prominence of science. When religion was used to explain the world.
 
I think the debate itself is stupid and I don't see the point in having it. As the Turkish guy said, he knows a lot of Muslims who are not violent and don't even care about geopolitical issues. I know a lot of muslims just like that too. The only reason we are having this conversation is the rise of fundamentalism in Islam, and groups like ISIS and Taliban gaining power and pushing radicalism. The people in the nations where those radical groups are strongest are largely uneducated and live in poverty. There are so many other factors explaining why radical groups would appeal to them, why they are willing to blame the west, non muslims, and outsiders for their problems and join or support radical Islamic groups other than just the religion itself.
 
SheWolf said:
I think the debate itself is stupid and I don't see the point in having it. As the Turkish guy said, he knows a lot of Muslims who are not violent and don't even care about geopolitical issues. I know a lot of muslims just like that too. The only reason we are having this conversation is the rise of fundamentalism in Islam, and groups like ISIS and Taliban gaining power and pushing radicalism. The people in the nations where those radical groups are strongest are largely uneducated and live in poverty. There are so many other factors explaining why radical groups would appeal to them, why they are willing to blame the west, non muslims, and outsiders for their problems and join or support radical Islamic groups other than just the religion itself.
Click to expand...

I like your keystrokes.

In addition, I would say that radical Islam has only been a problem since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when much of the Middle East was arbitrarily remapped.
 
I was wondering if a lot of comments Sam Harris made were widely accepted such as religion came about because of death. I question that. I have dabbled in religious studies and know that some of the first human religious objects pertained to female fertility, not a death type of god of goddess or concept of life after death. A lot of his statements seemed inaccurate to me. To him, it probably sounds right, but to me he doesn't sound very informed. He just looks like an opinionated guy who thinks he right, but doesn't have all the facts. He runs a blog, not a religious studies institute... lol.

RGacky3 said:
Have you heard Cenk's exegesis of Genesis 1?

Sam Harris hasn't ready augustine, Aquantis, Origen Gregory or any of the Church fathers, if he DID, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that People used religion as a replacement for science, or had he known the actual history of religion, he wouldn't say idiotic Things like that religion came about because peopel were afraid of death.

I'm not the epitome of theological literacy, but I do know enough theology to see ignorance posturing when I see it.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
I thought these were fair if simplistic points from Harris. Religion was/is a primitive way of understanding and making sense of the world -- in other words, a substitute for science. He's not the first or last person to make this observation. Regarding the latter point, I don't see anything wrong with it. The promise of a beautiful afterlife is not found in all religions, but paying some kind of penance for misdeeds certainly is.
Click to expand...

A lot of what you are saying is inaccurate. The major three religions today are monotheistic, and they have similarities which you sum up. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are also Abrahamic religions, so they will be obviously be very similar. However many polytheistic religions and minor religions often don't focus on penance and wrongdoings, punishment and reward. Polytheistic gods and goddesses are NOT viewed as simply good and evil entities mortals should follow and imitate. Deities and polytheistic religions usually have their good and bad sides, their faults, and deal with punishment and heroic personal journeys themselves.
 
SheWolf said:
A lot of what you are saying is inaccurate. The major three religions today are monotheistic, and they have similarities which you sum up. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are also Abrahamic religions, so they will be obviously be very similar.
Click to expand...

Judaism isn't one of the three major religions (in terms of followers). Hinduism occupies a spot behind Islam as the third most practiced religion, and it is polytheistic with certain monotheistic traits (that all gods are ultimately one).
 
Amadeus said:
Which religion does not attempt to use God or gods to explain the creation of the universe, the weather, and natural phenomena? Certainly all the religions which branch from Zoroastrianism do (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The Brahaman religions certainly do (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). Greek, Norse, Japanese, etc. do as well.

Christian creationists are a modern version on what people believed before the prominence of science. When religion was used to explain the world.
Click to expand...

Science and (certain) religion are completely compatible with each other. Neither could replace the other.

When a believer says that God brings down rain, shapes babies in their mother's womb or creates the universe they don't meant that it happens by "magic" or that it happens by unexplainable natural processes. Rather most if not all natural phenomena has a scientific explanation. The Koran encourages us to study how God does stuff and ponder over the creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom