| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
31 Oct 2006 01:47:49 AM |
| Object: |
Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
---
Bad reasons to be good
Sam Harris
The Boston Globe
America's midterm elections are fast approaching, and their outcome
could well be determined by the "moral values" of conservative
Christians.
While this possibility is regularly bemoaned by liberals, the link
between religion and morality in our public life is almost never
questioned.
One of the most common justifications one hears for religious faith,
from all points on the political spectrum, is that it provides a
necessary framework for moral behavior. Most Americans appear to believe
that without faith in God, we would have no durable reasons to treat one
another well. The political version of this morality claim is that the
country was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," the implication
being that without these principles we would have no way to write just
laws.
It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The
problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of
religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with
genuine morality.
The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for
the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings.
This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we
don't have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why
(generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals,
and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more
sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of
crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and
complexity of a creature's brain and its experience of the world.
Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the
living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious
people often devote immense energy to so- called "moral" questions -
such as gay marriage - where no real suffering is at issue, and they
will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious
beliefs.
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa. The wars in this part of the world are
interminable. AIDS is epidemic there, killing around 3 million people
each year. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how bad your luck is if
you are born today in a country like Sudan. The question is, how does
religion affect this problem?
Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human
suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of
Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for
acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don't have
to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born
of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate
places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like
Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons.
Helping people purely out of concern for their happiness and suffering
seems rather more noble than helping them because you think the creator
of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, or
will punish you for not doing it.
But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes
good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the
suffering of others.
In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in
villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about
condoms comes from the ministry. They also preach the necessity of
believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ in places where religious
conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the deaths of
millions.
Secular volunteers don't spread ignorance and death in this way. A
person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village
decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based
moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good
people to do fewer good deeds than they might otherwise.
We have to realize that we decide what is good in our religious
doctrines.
We read the Golden Rule, for instance, and judge it to be a brilliant
distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across
another of God's teachings on morality: If a man discovers that his
bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death
on her father's doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21). If we are civilized,
we will reject this as utter lunacy. Doing so requires that we exercise
our own moral intuitions, keeping the real issue of human happiness in
view. The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help to us
whatsoever.
As we consider how to run our own society and how to help people in
need, the choice before us is simple: Either we can have a 21st-century
conversation about morality and human happiness - availing ourselves of
all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have
accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can
confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our
holy books.
Wherever the issue of "moral values" surfaces, ask yourself which
approach to morality is operating. Are we talking about how to best
alleviate human suffering? Or are we talking about the whims of an
invisible God?
International Herald Tribune
---
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/opinion/edharris.php
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
06 Nov 2006 01:05:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1d0tk2l9kl014t4miaek7nfoia93mvs0vl@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:32:57 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <d19qk2prd9c3v3q55fedcqt1d7sc9qlt9v@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:26:05 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
Another important biological criterion for
distinguishing species is the ability to breed and produce fertile
offspring.
It's not a "biological criterion", it's part of one definition of
"species", which would make lions and tigers the same species and
horses and donkeys a species in the process of speciating.
But aren't mules and ligers infertile?
Most mules are, which is why they're in the process of speciating.
If most can't reproduce wouldn't that lead to an evolutionary dead end?
One problem is the disparate number of chromosomes in the horses and
donkeys. The mismatches may be the cause of the infertility:
http://freespace.virgin.net/gwyneth.wright/fertile.html
Ligers are less so, but they're also speciating.
With ligers, the males are generally infertile but the females are
fertile. Since lions and tigers do mate in the wild there is a chance
that they might give rise to a new species. However, the offspring are
often not as healthy as the parent species so whether or not this
species is viable is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
I would say that lions and tigers
as well as donkeys and horses have speciated, but are still close enough
to their common ancestor to mate and produce such sterile offspring.
According to the definition of species I was referring to, "same
species" means "able to produce fertile offspring", which is still
possible, but not normally expected, in both cases. Hence
"speciating", not "speciated". There are other definitions that would
put then squarely in one camp or the other.
In a way, since evolution is ongoing all organisms can be thought of as
'speciating'. However, while hybrids produced by the mating of different
species may, in some instances, give rise to new species, if the genetic
differences are too great, the resulting hybrids may not be able to give
rise to a stable species with sufficient fertility rates and
survivability.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
06 Nov 2006 07:45:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:05:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <1d0tk2l9kl014t4miaek7nfoia93mvs0vl@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:32:57 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <d19qk2prd9c3v3q55fedcqt1d7sc9qlt9v@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:26:05 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
Another important biological criterion for
distinguishing species is the ability to breed and produce fertile
offspring.
It's not a "biological criterion", it's part of one definition of
"species", which would make lions and tigers the same species and
horses and donkeys a species in the process of speciating.
But aren't mules and ligers infertile?
Most mules are, which is why they're in the process of speciating.
If most can't reproduce wouldn't that lead to an evolutionary dead end?
No, horses can reproduce and donkeys can reproduce. There's always
going to be something produced by a mating of the 2 diverging species
that's less and less fertile as time goes on. But, in the natural
world, there wouldn't be a speciation if the 2 (horses and donkeys, in
this case) live in the same area and continued to mate.
One problem is the disparate number of chromosomes in the horses and
donkeys. The mismatches may be the cause of the infertility:
Among other reasons.
Ligers are less so, but they're also speciating.
With ligers, the males are generally infertile but the females are
fertile. Since lions and tigers do mate in the wild
Africa and Asia?
I would say that lions and tigers
as well as donkeys and horses have speciated, but are still close enough
to their common ancestor to mate and produce such sterile offspring.
According to the definition of species I was referring to, "same
species" means "able to produce fertile offspring", which is still
possible, but not normally expected, in both cases. Hence
"speciating", not "speciated". There are other definitions that would
put then squarely in one camp or the other.
In a way, since evolution is ongoing all organisms can be thought of as
'speciating'. However, while hybrids produced by the mating of different
species may, in some instances, give rise to new species, if the genetic
differences are too great, the resulting hybrids may not be able to give
rise to a stable species with sufficient fertility rates and
survivability.
The hybrid won't. But the two base species will, barring other
problems (like change in habitat or weather).
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
07 Nov 2006 12:04:17 AM |
|
|
In article <mqeuk2laou32b56ifiahou1r77pvbbpmmq@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:05:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <1d0tk2l9kl014t4miaek7nfoia93mvs0vl@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:32:57 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
In article <d19qk2prd9c3v3q55fedcqt1d7sc9qlt9v@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:26:05 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
Another important biological criterion for
distinguishing species is the ability to breed and produce fertile
offspring.
It's not a "biological criterion", it's part of one definition of
"species", which would make lions and tigers the same species and
horses and donkeys a species in the process of speciating.
But aren't mules and ligers infertile?
Most mules are, which is why they're in the process of speciating.
If most can't reproduce wouldn't that lead to an evolutionary dead end?
No, horses can reproduce and donkeys can reproduce. There's always
going to be something produced by a mating of the 2 diverging species
that's less and less fertile as time goes on. But, in the natural
world, there wouldn't be a speciation if the 2 (horses and donkeys, in
this case) live in the same area and continued to mate.
OK. That was the point that I was trying to make. Mules are an
evolutionary dead end, not horses or donkeys.
One problem is the disparate number of chromosomes in the horses and
donkeys. The mismatches may be the cause of the infertility:
Among other reasons.
Ligers are less so, but they're also speciating.
With ligers, the males are generally infertile but the females are
fertile. Since lions and tigers do mate in the wild
Africa and Asia?
In Northwest India, Asian lions and tigers overlap, at least that's the
claim in the article below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
I would say that lions and tigers
as well as donkeys and horses have speciated, but are still close enough
to their common ancestor to mate and produce such sterile offspring.
According to the definition of species I was referring to, "same
species" means "able to produce fertile offspring", which is still
possible, but not normally expected, in both cases. Hence
"speciating", not "speciated". There are other definitions that would
put then squarely in one camp or the other.
In a way, since evolution is ongoing all organisms can be thought of as
'speciating'. However, while hybrids produced by the mating of different
species may, in some instances, give rise to new species, if the genetic
differences are too great, the resulting hybrids may not be able to give
rise to a stable species with sufficient fertility rates and
survivability.
The hybrid won't. But the two base species will, barring other
problems (like change in habitat or weather).
Yes. The parent species will do all right. I should have made that
clearer.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
03 Nov 2006 08:48:13 PM |
|
|
Martin Willett wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <4quhanFor63lU1@individual.net>,
Martin Willett <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <4qrfstFo8ollU1@individual.net>,
Martin Willett <mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote:
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy? Point to
sub-Saharan Africa on a map, then point to "black Africa". Notice
anything? Calling it sub-Saharan Africa makes it appear to be a
geographical issue not a "race" issue, so that's alright then, isn't it?
I think it's more geographic. Some peoples who live in the Sahara are
just as dark skinned as those who live further to the south.
Science has shown that biologically, race is a meaningless concept
anyway. Sadly racism, like theism still persists. Both are based on
drastically flawed assumptions. I've read Harris' books and other
articles. Sam Harris is not a racist.
Not many smart people are.
The idea that biologically race is meaningless is a liberal article of
faith not supported by evidence.
I'll take 99.9% DNA homology as evidence.
Of what? How many claimed subspecies of tigers and snails or such have
been pooh-poohed by such evidence? Seriously I'd like to know. I don't
have an axe to grind here, I just want to know.
The skin coloration of humans is controlled by very few genetic changes
- but the change in appearance is dramatic.
Much greater changes in the genome of two lizards might produce two
creatures that you and I could not tell apart.
So point one is "appearence" is no guide to the amount of underlying
variation - it is not an *objective* measure.
What matters in deciding whether two creatures are to be called
subspecies *should* be a objectively measurable difference in the
genome that is one step beyond the usual variation within a population.
Take any set of physical characteristics in humans and the variation
*within* "races", with rare exceptions, is less than or equal to the
variation between races.
When we do find an example of one (or a small carefully chosen) set of
characters that would say these two "races" are consistently seperable
- we always find another set that show half of one "race" to be closer
to another "race"- so the assigning of races becomes arbitary and ad
hoc - and more important objectively measurably inconsistennt.
If one set of characteristics you use to spit the species split it one
way and a differnt set of charcteristics ALSO split the species in the
same (or compatible ) way then that would be a good reason to call
them sub-species.
That is:
If goups of characteristics divided *consistently* between two groups
within a species then it makes sense to call them subspecies.
This doesn't happen with humans - that's an objective fact.
There is nothing "liberal" about facts.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
04 Nov 2006 08:23:22 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Take any set of physical characteristics in humans and the variation
*within* "races", with rare exceptions, is less than or equal to the
variation between races.
Brain fade - that obviously should read:
Take any set of physical characteristics in humans and the variation
between "races", with rare exceptions, is less than or equal to the
variation within races.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
01 Nov 2006 06:28:17 AM |
|
|
Martin Willett wrote:
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy?
No.
At least the thought never occured to me.
Point to
sub-Saharan Africa on a map, then point to "black Africa". Notice
anything?
Not really - what I am supposed to notice?
And how do you decide which bit is "black africa"?
Calling it sub-Saharan Africa makes it appear to be a
geographical issue not a "race" issue, so that's alright then, isn't it?
The people in southern africa are just as "black" as those in
sub-saharan africa - but southern Africa is not as prone to drought and
famine.
Central (tropical) africa is different again.
There are many Africas and many people - which can be arbitarily
assigned "races" - if you are into that.
I think the whole "race" idea is an anachronism it has been shown to be
largely meaningless in any objective scientific sense.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghod" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
01 Nov 2006 09:19:04 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1162384097.874083.133330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Willett wrote:
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who
happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by
people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really
want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy?
No.
At least the thought never occured to me.
Wiki agrees with Martin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is the term used to describe those countries of the
African continent that are not considered part of North Africa. In
19th Century Europe and the Western world, the area was sometimes
referred to as Black Africa. Africa as a whole was commonly known as
"the Dark continent", a term that was usually intended to refer to the
Sub-Saharan region. This was partly due to the skin color of its
inhabitants and partly because much of it had not been fully mapped or
explored by Westerners. These terms are now obsolete and often
considered to be pejorative. Further, they are misleading, as Africans
are indigenous to much of North Africa, as well. Cultural writer and
filmmaker Owen 'Alik Shahadah adds "the notion of some invisible
border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted
in racism, ... This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans
to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither
politically or physically". Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan
Africa is a product of European imperialism, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a
byword for primitive African: a place which has escaped advancement.
Hence, we see statements like 'no written languages exist in
Sub-Saharan Africa.' Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilization."
Point to
sub-Saharan Africa on a map, then point to "black Africa". Notice
anything?
Not really - what I am supposed to notice?
And how do you decide which bit is "black africa"?
Calling it sub-Saharan Africa makes it appear to be a
geographical issue not a "race" issue, so that's alright then,
isn't it?
The people in southern africa are just as "black" as those in
sub-saharan africa - but southern Africa is not as prone to drought
and
famine.
Central (tropical) africa is different again.
There are many Africas and many people - which can be arbitarily
assigned "races" - if you are into that.
I think the whole "race" idea is an anachronism it has been shown to
be
largely meaningless in any objective scientific sense.
You have a confused idea of what sub-saharan refers to.......
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1218.html
"This brochure covers all of Africa except the five nations bordering
the Mediterranean. Sub-Saharan Africa includes 48 nations. Forty-two
of these nations are on the mainland. In addition, four island nations
in the southwest Indian Ocean (Madagascar, The Comoros, Mauritius, and
Seychelles) and two island nations in the Atlantic Ocean (Cape Verde
and Sao Tome and Principe) are considered part of Africa. For
convenience, we will often use the word "Africa" to refer to the
sub-Saharan region. For information on the five northern African
nations of Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, and Egypt, see Tips for
Travelers to the Middle East and North Africa ."
......but I certainly agree with you about "race".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
02 Nov 2006 05:06:19 AM |
|
|
Ghod wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1162384097.874083.133330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Willett wrote:
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who
happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by
people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really
want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy?
No.
At least the thought never occured to me.
Wiki agrees with Martin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is the term used to describe those countries of the
African continent that are not considered part of North Africa. In
19th Century Europe and the Western world, the area was sometimes
referred to as Black Africa.
It looks like I was wrong - I had no idea.
Damn! Thats the at *least* the second time I have been wrong about
something since 1975!
8-)
<snip>
You have a confused idea of what sub-saharan refers to.......
I stand corrected - I always thought it refered to the marginal lands
to the south of the Sahara.
<snip>
.....but I certainly agree with you about "race".
And a good thing too!
8-)
Thank's for the information.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
04 Nov 2006 08:51:51 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2006 03:06:19 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote
in alt.atheism
Ghod wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1162384097.874083.133330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Willett wrote:
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who
happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by
people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really
want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy?
No.
At least the thought never occured to me.
Wiki agrees with Martin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is the term used to describe those countries of the
African continent that are not considered part of North Africa. In
19th Century Europe and the Western world, the area was sometimes
referred to as Black Africa.
It looks like I was wrong - I had no idea.
Damn! Thats the at *least* the second time I have been wrong about
something since 1975!
8-)
I didn't know, either. Something new. The question remains if the data
update will be retained in memory.
<snip>
You have a confused idea of what sub-saharan refers to.......
I stand corrected - I always thought it refered to the marginal lands
to the south of the Sahara.
<snip>
.....but I certainly agree with you about "race".
And a good thing too!
8-)
Thank's for the information.
Mark.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
04 Nov 2006 05:20:56 PM |
|
|
Ghod wrote:
Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan
Africa is a product of European imperialism, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a
byword for primitive African: a place which has escaped advancement.
Hence, we see statements like 'no written languages exist in
Sub-Saharan Africa.' Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilization."
Actually, I've always thought it was a religious, linguistic and ethnic
difference, brought about by the conquest of North Africa during the
time of the caliphs in the 7th Century, with North Africa being
transformed away forcibly from Monophysite Christianity to Islam, with
the Arabic language following with it. The lands that formed the
"breakwall" were Coptic Axumite Ethiopia in the east (a role it still
serves today) and the Empire of Ghana in the west (the predecessor to
the Mali and Songhai Empires). Economically and culturally, the North
African realms (to include their dominance by the Roman Empire) have
always had closer ties with the Mediterranean than with the coasts and
interior further south. There is a reason the Pharoahs didn't go
further south than Sudan...the terrain was simply too inhospitable for
military action and economic exploitation. Race or European imperialism
had nothing to do with it. This difference was in place long, long,
LONG before the 19th Century.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Usage
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bad reasons to be good - Sam Harris |
04 Nov 2006 08:48:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:48:42 +0000, Martin Willett
<mwillett.org@invalid.invalid> wrote in alt.atheism
johac wrote:
Sam Harris on religion and morality.
<snip>
Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen
to live in sub-Saharan Africa.
<snip>
Isn't "sub-Saharan" simply a weasel-word that means black used by people
who know blacks in Africa have (are?) a problem but doesn't really want
to confront the thought head-on because it makes them queasy?
Not at all, but you're welcome to your projectionist viewpoint.
Point to
sub-Saharan Africa on a map, then point to "black Africa". Notice
anything? Calling it sub-Saharan Africa makes it appear to be a
geographical issue not a "race" issue, so that's alright then, isn't it?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
