3 1

LINK Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus | Glenn Greenwald | Opinion | The Guardian

I thought this was an interesting article on how some of Sam Harris’ anti-Muslim commentary goes way too far. Give it a read and see what you think, perhaps we should look more critically at prominent atheist speakers.

Denker 7 Sep 6

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


If you've traveled widely in Islamic countries, you see things which make you understand Sam's message. I've had far too many discussions with well-meaning but uneducated/untraveled Xtians who think of Islam as just another religion.

It's not.

Islam IS the government in many of these countries. The government builds mosques, pays for mosque schools, etc. The government establishes laws to subjugate women. They are beaten, married off as children, have mutilated genitals, etc. (Notice I did say "MANY"....not all. But, even secular Turkey is reverting to the old ways.)

I've argued with people who claim the Quran is ''loving and peaceful." BULL! The beginning is....and the more you read, the more you discover hatred, violence and very ''biblical'' contradictions which make it very handy when the reader wants to obtain power and control over other nations/peoples. The Hadiths, which show up at the end, are despicable....a lot like the ravings of Jehovah.

In my opinion, much of this criticism of Hitchens and Sam is really directed at atheism, cloaked in the guise of ''liberal excess."


The best of Hitchens about islam::::


As I posted elsewhere: The author is amazing. But also amazingly wrong. He is a member of those Sam, and others, have correctly identified as the "regressive left."

All of the author's "arguments" are exactly what Harris, and Hitchens, And Dawkins, and Murray, have been describing, and delineating, as false assumptions and conclusions.

It is obvious the author does not understand the PEW research, and has read not completely any thing Sam has written.

The author claims Sam picks and chooses, yet every quote connecting to Sam's writings, is so out of context they should be considered as reflective of what the National Enquirer publishes.

An example: The author quotes Hitchens' 2006 comments sbout Sam's ideas. The author then fails to reflect upon how Hitchens did a 180 once Hitches learned Sam was correct by doing his research..

And so on.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:172696
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.