Dangerous Atheist!

[Sandform]

Part One Part Two

[Black_Eagle]

Oh the screaming false analogies running rampant in the streets!

[SomeDreamer]

rofl, should have figured the ratings were disabled before I clicked the videos :3 I guess they know people are going to hate the videos after all (well, the most of them anyway)

[dostoevskyblue]

all the mental exhaustion,anxiety,christian radio spreads,i think my sirius satell. subscription runs about 12-13$ a month

[DeathCell]

This guy is a fool.

[Sandform]

The rest of the parts are up. Part Three: It's amazing how reliant people like Dawkins are on on Darwins theory of Evolution! (which was never proven to be true, and isn't backed up by the fossil record) You know, for things like the basis of much of modern medicine. And Dawkins is such antiquated Biologist, I mean, God you guys, he still believes in natural selection over gradual periods of time! No Biologists think that these days. Part Four:

[Bonsay]

Argh... How can you listen to this. You can't even argue, you just have to listen to the nonsense they sout out. Makes me feel frustrated.

[Xaqaria]

Argh... How can you listen to this. You can't even argue, you just have to listen to the nonsense they sout out. Makes me feel frustrated. Thats too bad. I was hoping someone would try to refute some of what was said instead of just paling around with all the atheists. I thought this was a discussion forum? Lets start with the Sam Harris quote (attributed to Christopher Hitchins in the video) "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." I've seen some people say that this is taken out of context, so some of the rest of the text that it appears in is, "This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense..." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Do you think it is okay to advocate killing people for their ideas?

[Bonsay]

Thats too bad. I was hoping someone would try to refute some of what was said instead of just paling around with all the atheists. I thought this was a discussion forum? I didn't even see the other responses and talking to somebody else about this subject won't make the video person stop - which is somewhat the source of the frustration. Lets start with the Sam Harris quote (attributed to Christopher Hitchins in the video) "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Do you think it is okay to advocate killing people for their ideas? I don't want to kill anyone. Strategically though, if you know you'll have to fight someone, then why not kill them before they come to you?

[Sandform]

Thats too bad. I was hoping someone would try to refute some of what was said instead of just paling around with all the atheists. I thought this was a discussion forum? Lets start with the Sam Harris quote (attributed to Christopher Hitchins in the video) "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." I've seen some people say that this is taken out of context, so some of the rest of the text that it appears in is, "This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense..." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Do you think it is okay to advocate killing people for their ideas? Their ideas? If someone intends to kill because of their ideas why wouldn't self defense be tolerable? If you can exhaust other options before killing, I would prefer it, but sometimes you can't. EDIT: As the author put it "Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible."

[Xaqaria]

Their ideas? If someone intends to kill because of their ideas why wouldn't self defense be tolerable? If you can exhaust other options before killing, I would prefer it, but sometimes you can't. EDIT: As the author put it "Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible." Well the issue I take is with his choice of words. In his clarification, it sounds as though he is really arguing that some people be killed for their actions, but then why did he make a point of stressing the word beliefs? If someone is acting on their dangerous beliefs then you can just kill them for their dangerous actions and ignore their beliefs entirely. If you are killing someone for their beliefs, then you are ignoring their actions. This brings us to the question; if you are deciding to kill someone for their beliefs because you believe them to be dangerous and predict that they will lead to dangerous actions, who really gets to decide which beliefs are dangerous and which aren't? If christians were to use the same reasoning (some beliefs are dangerous enough to kill over) then they would be killing abortion doctors instead of just picketing them. Killing someone over some percieved future intent based on their beliefs is not self defense no matter how you swing it.

[Sandform]

Well the issue I take is with his choice of words. In his clarification, it sounds as though he is really arguing that some people be killed for their actions, but then why did he make a point of stressing the word beliefs? If someone is acting on their dangerous beliefs then you can just kill them for their dangerous actions and ignore their beliefs entirely. If you are killing someone for their beliefs, then you are ignoring their actions. This brings us to the question; if you are deciding to kill someone for their beliefs because you believe them to be dangerous and predict that they will lead to dangerous actions, who really gets to decide which beliefs are dangerous and which aren't? If christians were to use the same reasoning (some beliefs are dangerous enough to kill over) then they would be killing abortion doctors instead of just picketing them. Killing someone over some percieved future intent based on their beliefs is not self defense no matter how you swing it. Because your actions are based on your beliefs. You have to know the mind of a person to understand their future actions, and their mind is made up of their beliefs. Beliefs determine actions. It isn't hard to tell. As for your bit about abortion. Well then, it goes to show that these Christians really do understand that abortion isn't the same thing as murder, because any sane person who actually did think that abortion was murder would in fact do more than just picket. You wouldn't picket outside the house of a man who drugs people takes them to his house and then murders them. You would stop him right away. Killing someone over some percieved future intent based on their beliefs is not self defense no matter how you swing it. I'll let Hitchens respond to that statement. When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri, the answer cannot be, “because they have killed so many people in the past.” These men haven’t, to my knowledge, killed anyone personally. However, they are likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what they and their followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. As I argued in The End of Faith, a willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in most cases this is impossible. The statement about beliefs was after a long discussion, and in the context it is meant to be read as beliefs influence action, people of certain beliefs actually are dangerous, and in a case where they are dangerous they must be stopped, and in a case where there is no alternative, killing may be the only option. The reason the word beliefs was stressed was because of the context of the topic he was talking about.

[Xaqaria]

Because your actions are based on your beliefs. You have to know the mind of a person to understand their future actions, and their mind is made up of their beliefs. Beliefs determine actions. It isn't hard to tell. As for your bit about abortion. Well then, it goes to show that these Christians really do understand that abortion isn't the same thing as murder, because any sane person who actually did think that abortion was murder would in fact do more than just picket. You wouldn't picket outside the house of a man who drugs people takes them to his house and then murders them. You would stop him right away. I'll let Hitchens respond to that statement. The statement about beliefs was after a long discussion, and in the context it is meant to be read as beliefs influence action, people of certain beliefs actually are dangerous, and in a case where they are dangerous they must be stopped, and in a case where there is no alternative, killing may be the only option. The reason the word beliefs was stressed was because of the context of the topic he was talking about. You side stepped one of my questions. Who gets to decide which beliefs are dangerous and which are not? Who decides who is innocent and who is not? If it is okay for anyone to kill on the basis of a personal decision that someone else's beliefs are dangerous, then the jihadists are justified by the exact same argument. They believe western beliefs are dangerous and are therefore justified in killing to stop us.

[Sandform]

You side stepped one of my questions. Who gets to decide which beliefs are dangerous and which are not? Who decides who is innocent and who is not? If it is okay for anyone to kill on the basis of a personal decision that someone else's beliefs are dangerous, then the jihadists are justified by the exact same argument. They believe western beliefs are dangerous and are therefore justified in killing to stop us. What do you mean? It comes down to whether your case carries weight or not. If it isn't demonstrable then it doesn't carry weight. You make it out as if the statement says that if your beliefs are dangerous we kill you, that isn't the case. The case is that if your beliefs are so dangerous that it will provoke you to kill, or cause others to kill, and we can't stop you any other way, then it is justified to kill someone to save lives.

[Kael Seoras]

I'm put off by how full of himself this guy must be. "Ambassador of Heaven" riiiiiiiiiight, how can you be ambassador of a place you've never been too?...assuming it is, indeed, a place...

[Xaqaria]

What do you mean? It comes down to whether your case carries weight or not. If it isn't demonstrable then it doesn't carry weight. You make it out as if the statement says that if your beliefs are dangerous we kill you, that isn't the case. The case is that if your beliefs are so dangerous that it will provoke you to kill, or cause others to kill, and we can't stop you any other way, then it is justified to kill someone to save lives. So since Harris' beliefs are likely to inspire others to kill people with dangerous beliefs, does this mean I am justified in killing Harris for his beliefs?

[Sandform]

I don't really know what to say other than I think that is a silly thing to say. It is like saying you should kill the man who assigned the sniper who is about to kill the man who is about to blow up a building full of innocent people. The key point here is to keep innocent people safe.

[Xaqaria]

I don't really know what to say other than I think that is a silly thing to say. It is like saying you should kill the man who assigned the sniper who is about to kill the man who is about to blow up a building full of innocent people. The key point here is to keep innocent people safe. I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of advocating killing people for their beliefs about killing people for their beliefs.