# Islamism



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

I posted this in the Political Forum too.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2015)

Awesome video


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Awesome video



When truly informed, reasonable and eloquent people show how they can generate such useful dialogue, it makes me wonder how seemingly intelligent people could ever get to a stance like "Burn it down" or "nuke em all" or "round 'em up" like they do in the PF.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When truly informed, reasonable and eloquent people show how they can generate such useful dialogue, it makes me wonder how seemingly intelligent people could ever get to a stance like "Burn it down" or "nuke em all" or "round 'em up" like they do in the PF.



Living in an echo chamber like PF tends to lend more credibility to extreme viewpoints than normal I think. I started to post a little more often in there a month or so ago but there is very little point since if you don't agree with them it's just because you're a communist libtard .

The same happens in the atheism subreddit and tumblr (3rd/4th whatever wave they are on feminism).

I liked the video too =D. I've always thought of the 4 horsemen Sam Harris is the one most likely to make reasonable progress in moving theists toward moderation simply because he has reasoned opinions and doesn't outright call them idiots like Dawkins, Krauss, and Hitchens. With those three its a case of "You're not wrong.. you're just an CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored."


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When truly informed, reasonable and eloquent people show how they can generate such useful dialogue, it makes me wonder how seemingly intelligent people could ever get to a stance like "Burn it down" or "nuke em all" or "round 'em up" like they do in the PF.



This would be nice. I also like the vid. However, is not being "truly informed, reasonable and eloquent ( eloquent!?)  a Paradise in itself. What psychopath, or worse what sociopath is not ready to spin reason and information eloquently-- for selfish goals?

The original hippies for example were ahead of their times as communal garbage recyclers as their schemes were well reasoned out as being of benefit to their chosen way of life and offered an answer to the industrial ages garbage problems -- until the mob and fugitives  moved in and hid in their ranks with their sundry reasoning to be there...

I don't know really, I haven't empirically checked it out, but I think that perhaps reason is sufficiently full of its charletons. I'll let history sort them out. Yet I will admit that reason does have its saints who are not influenced by greed, the pork barrel of politics or health insurance worries.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Living in an echo chamber like PF tends to lend more credibility to extreme viewpoints than normal I think. I started to post a little more often in there a month or so ago but there is very little point since if you don't agree with them it's just because you're a communist libtard .
> 
> The same happens in the atheism subreddit and tumblr (3rd/4th whatever wave they are on feminism).
> 
> I liked the video too =D. I've always thought of the 4 horsemen Sam Harris is the one most likely to make reasonable progress in moving theists toward moderation simply because he has reasoned opinions and doesn't outright call them idiots like Dawkins, Krauss, and Hitchens. With those three its a case of "You're not wrong.. you're just an CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored."




Furthermore, Harris is truly interested in "spiritual" matters (quotes, since there's really no other word yet to talk about that particular state of consciousness). I've always thought that intellectuals are missing the boat on an experience that's deeply rooted in our humanity.  His desire to investigate spirituality might encourage those who understand the value of reason and evidence, but feel the need to participate in transcendent experience and just don't know how to outside of a church or talking to God.

I think that he's biased towards Eastern Mysticism but the end goal seems good.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> This would be nice. I also like the vid. However, is not being "truly informed, reasonable and eloquent ( eloquent!?)  a Paradise in itself. What psychopath, or worse what sociopath is not ready to spin reason and information eloquently-- for selfish goals?



That's not Rational.



gordon 2 said:


> The original hippies for example were ahead of their times as communal garbage recyclers as their schemes were well reasoned out as being of benefit to their chosen way of life and offered an answer to the industrial ages garbage problems -- until the mob and fugitives  moved in and hid in their ranks with their sundry reasoning to be there...



That's not either.




gordon 2 said:


> I don't know really, I haven't empirically checked it out, but I think that perhaps reason is sufficiently full of its charletons. I'll let history sort them out. Yet I will admit that reason does have its saints who are not influenced by greed, the pork barrel of politics or health insurance worries.




Being a charleton is irrational as well.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's not Rational.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is the pursuit of happiness irrational? Who's rational on it trumps all so that the pursuit is rationally assesses and judged righteous  rational?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 17, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Is the pursuit of happiness irrational? Who's rational on it trumps all so that the pursuit is rationally assesses and judged righteous  rational?



Huh?


----------



## Asath (Jan 2, 2016)

He did say it, actually –“I don't know really, I haven't empirically checked it out”  What more can a man say?  That is about as easy to understand as, say, ‘climate science.’


----------



## Israel (Jan 2, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Is the pursuit of happiness irrational? Who's rational on it trumps all so that the pursuit is rationally assesses and judged righteous  rational?





> huh?



I take the "s" at the end of assesses to be a "d".
I believe I hear the question..."who gets to judge what is _righteous_ or _rightly_ rational?" 

As opposed to what is presented as reason...with the myriad of un-presented agendas swimming beneath...holding the whole of the matter afloat.
Who, then, rightly sees the unseen there? And judges...rightly?

We may, among one another, claim we desire the purity of it...essentially..."No truth but TRUE truth" Who are we kidding? Making the claim itself, in what we may hope will be a revelation of the purity of our own motives...rather laughable.

What liar wants to know?
Sam Harris?
Me?
You?


----------

