(August 15, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Irrational Wrote: Well, aside from the chart I just referred to in previous post, he mentioned FGM as an example to illustrate the point that culture irrespective of religion can play a significant role in fostering barbaric "ideals" and made some other points that escape my mind at the moment. But the overall point is that you can't make generalizations about the Muslim population based on a bad handling of statistics or without consideration of the role of culture in triggering certain practices/attitudes or of the multiple different ways in which religious doctrines are interpreted (leading to different ways of applying beliefs).
I am not making generalisations, and I don't think a correct understanding of what Harris says, can lead to anyone making such generalisations.
Neither I, nor Harris ever said that Islam is the only source for terrorism. The point is, when the holy text they believe is the exact word of their god, is full of barbaric ideas, it allows for an easy route to acting on such bad ideas. Yes, no question, it also takes religious leaders, and the right cultural milieu, to get followers to act. But to say that the Koran is not also a big motivator, is being a bit naive.
Quote:As an example, China has a horrible human rights record toward Tibetans. So where are all the Tibetan terrorists? Might some of the differences be the religious text they adhere to?
Sure, that's possible. Or rather their interpretation of it. Physical environment may play a role as well, I don't know. At the end of the day, it's so many multiple factors that one can't just assert religion is a major contributor to all these barbarisms.[/quote]
The problem is, the barbaric, violent passages DO exist in the Koran. The fact that the majority or Muslims ignore them, is a very good thing.
Quote:And terrorism itself has been committed by various nonMuslims anyway throughout history of mankind, even in modern days.
Never said any different.
I am not at all saying that there is no other motivation, besides religion, for terrorism. But this particular conversation is concerning the motivation behind Islamic terrorism.
You can't ignore the fact that many of the 19 September 11 hijackers were not poor, downtrodden, persecuted, men mistreated by Western civilisation.
Mohamed Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, graduating in 1990, and continued his studies in Hamburg, Germany at the Technical University of Hamburg.
Wail al-Shehri was a school teacher.
Satam al-Suqami was a law student.
Khalid al-Mihdhar was from a prominent and rich family.
Majed Moqed was law student.
Ziad Jarrah had a wealthy and secular upbringing.
Ahmed al-Nami was a college student from a upper middle class family.
It seems to do what these men did, much of their motivation has to come from their religious beliefs.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
