lol, I thought that chics arm looked a little hairy!

The difference being that we realize that in the same way we have improved our understanding of mathematics and science, we have improved our understanding of morality as compared to those in the past.

Those sound morals and ethics are pretty questionable to put it nicely. We really do not "need" religion for our moral compass as Harris has stated in his book. He has also explained why these values and morals have evolved and why that's a good thing. What about the very harmful and even hateful values of Christianity and Islam? Do you just dismiss the ones you disagree with? If so how do you pick and choose? Since you likely do pick and choose how can you be sure you are picking and choosing correctly? Would it not be smarter to base your morality some other way? Some measurable, demonstrable way?

Here is where footnote 41 took me

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/is...t-wilders.html

I'm not against creating some sort of terrorist profile. In fact, I think it would be helpful But when he says anyone who could conceivably be muslim what is he talking about here? What does your stereotypical muslim look like?

I pick the ones which are universal to most religions. They seem to resonate with all kinds of societies all over the world. Not bad eh ?

Anyone who is as Islamophobic as Harris is a bit dodgy in my book.

Right, which quotes from the HuffPost article I cited.

So your only issue is the leniency in which he declares someone to display stereotypical Muslim characteristics?

There are very few terrorists of any persuasion in Europe or America. We should be celebrating about that not obsessing over them.

Morality by majority, eh? I'm glad you didn't live in a time where slavery was widely accepted.

my issue is that I think he is essentially saying, 'spot the brown guys with turbans'

And?

Going with the Amish example earlier, would it be wrong to say 'spot the white guys with long beards and period clothing'?

Yes, part of the problem is your inability to see things from any point of view but your own.

He appears to be defending the content of Wilders film "Fitna". Not many would agree with his conclusion that it was uncontroversial. Barely the right side of the incitement and hate speech laws would be more accurate.

"Fitna ('strife' in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial."

the point is that not all muslims fit that profile.... so basically all youd end up doing is hassling everybody with brown skin while the lighter skin guys with no beard get recruited to conduct terror attacks.

sam harris is afraid of a disney villian stereotype

ldo

what's Arabic for "win"?

It was accepted as the way things were but it was not accepted as right.

very wrong

And not all Amish people fit that profile either (or those Amish terrorists that do could change their profile). Again, it seems you're only disagreeing with how he's weighting the effectiveness of profiling and not profiling in general.

Does the fact that they commit harm in the name of religion in no way give you pause for concern? Do you not wish to find solutions to prevent future harm? Using the word "obsessing" does not make the statement true. We tried "ignoring" them, it did not work so well. Still, I am not an advocate of blowing up entire countries and innocents for the acts of some extremists. But, a big part of every Islamic culture as far as I am aware of, oppresses women in some manner (even "moderates"). Do you think that is morally wrong?

You seem to only look at the "good" in religion and dismiss everything else. It's pretty dishonest to not look at the whole picture. A broken clock is still correct twice a day. It may sound good to say "I only take what I feel is good and common among them all and do away with the bad". But a better approach would be to look at all of the options. Not to just dismiss what Harris and others have to say on morality, because you took what he said out of context in regards to other specific political issues.

I really do not think you have actually read his book or seen any of his lectures, even though I provided you a link with one on his idea of the "Moral Landscape". I can't really discuss this further I suppose since you have made up your mind completely and dismiss everything else. After discovering the claim that you were not "religious" I had some hopes that you may have been willing to investigate it more deeply. But you seem to be just as guilty as theists in regards to once you get to god(s) and his rules/laws that's the end game with nothing more to be said on the topic.

Right, just so we're clear that in that article Harris was not defending Wilders' political views.

pretty sure I said i was against racial profiling. Obviously i am not against constructing a profile for a criminal... that would be silly. But they need to be specific characteristics... using race, ethnicity, religion etc by themselves is way too broad and is unfair for those that happen to fall into that category

The states do not have "Hate Speech" laws. We give all the idiots the right to show how stupid they are. Mostly so we can make fun of them. One of the few things still valued highly here is the freedom to say stupid, hateful things without going to jail for it.

It shouldn't be valued because it incites violence. Ask all the American Muslims and Sikhs who have been at the butt end of it. Iirc Wilders was tried in the Netherands but he crafted his film to stay just the right side of the incitement and hate speech laws there.