Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "How Michael Brooks Defeated Sam Harris" video.

No clue how Harris got a philosophy degree, when he doesn't seem to grasp basics, like subjectivity and objectivity.
23
Sam's problem though, was that he defined religions, especially Islam, as if there was one true interpretation, and then argued that those who didn't believe exactly what he claimed the one true Islam to be, were less religious, were "nominal" Muslims. He was, basically, making the same argument the likes of ISIS makes, that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe isn't a "true" Muslim. The actual fact is that people interpret things, cherry pick, give weight to, include additional writings and rulings, differently. Even people in the same church, temple, synagogue, or mosque, can have somewhat different beliefs. A pacifist Muslim isn't necessarily less religious, anymore than a Quaker is less religious than some hate filled Southern Baptist spewing that all gays should be stoned to death. If you portray Islam as a singular, horrible, "motherlode of bad ideas", and every single Muslim on the planet practices Islam, by definition, then you've said something about what every single Muslim on the planet believes and practices. Broad brushing, like that, generally makes you wrong, out of the gate.
5
@joshboston2323 Well, there's his nonsensical morality argument, that includes him using completely garbage "analogies". One being using chess as an "analogy" to morality, and calls it a game of pure objectivity. But, chess has rules, which is an analogy to having laws, not to morality. And, those rules were created by the subjective decisions of its creator, people make the subjective decision to play or not, people make the subjective decision whether they actually want to win or not (might want to let their kid win), people make the subjective decision whether they want to use alternative rules or not, ... He also argues against himself, first claiming all variations of morality are about "well being". If true, that would mean everyone has a different idea of what "well being" entails, everyone has a different subjective concept of "well being". But then he makes out like his version of "well being" is objective and uses it to judge other versions of "well being" as worse. He doesn't ever actually get beyond his initial statement about the consensus being that science/objectivity, can't tell you what main goal to set, but once you subjectively decide on a main goal, science/objectivity can tell you, objectively, whether a course of action will bring you closer to, or further from, reaching that goal. All he did was stick in his own subjective version of "well being", as the main goal. It was complete nonsense, by a dimwit who thinks he's smarter than Hume. There's also his fearmongering about AI, as if an AI having more knowledge (objectivity), giving an example of an AI that's more intelligent to us than we are to ants, will somehow lead to it turning against us (subjectivity). There's zero indication we can even create an AI with its own subjectivity, its own ability for primary goal setting. You have to worry about the programmers who are programming in the primary goals, not an AI suddenly up and deciding it wants to organize paperclips, one day. An AI has no personal desires.
2
@seandoyle296 You're talking like Harris. "Islam" didn't have a relationship with slavery. "Islam" doesn't exist on its own. Certain Muslims have had a relationship with slavery. There's also wasn't particularly racist, as they also made non Africans slaves. And, like you said yourself, they couldn't keep any of them as slaves, if the slaves converted. Converting didn't help African slaves in the Americas, because their status as slaves was entirely race based. There's also a difference between temporarily enslaving people for a period of time (which was often done with prisoners of war and criminals, and even developed countries still do with criminals) and chattel slavery, where you get to own them as personal property for life, and own their children, and their children, ... You also seem to be conflating conquest with forced conversion. It actually benefited Muslim rulers to not force convert populations, because they could tax non Muslims a little bit extra. It benefited non Muslims, that they could pay a little extra to keep their ability to practice their own religion. The majority of the population in Hispania remained Christian, under Muslim rule, and Sephardic Jews remaiined Jewish. That's quite different than the Catholic conquerors giving Muslims and Jews the options of conversion, death, or exile. European Catholics also conquered more of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire than Muslims did, but it's not considered quite as big a deal. It's more acceptable for Christians to conquer other Christians. But, if Muslims happen to conquer a Christian area, it's portrayed as some kind of holy war, when it wasn't necessarily so. It was largely Christians who made things into holy wars, that comprised of both conquest and forced conversion. They had crusades against northern pagans, crusades to "reconquer" Hispania, and crusades against Muslims to the East.
1
@seandoyle296 Do you have reading comprehension problems, or does your mind only jump between two extremes, of all good and all bad? I didn't call anyone "noble", or argue anything was "utopic". I simply explained some differences. You were mentioning the spread of Islam, in other posts. Not sure where I lost you, while explaining the difference between simply conquering vs conquering with forced conversion. I used Catholics, as an example, because all of Europe was Catholic, at the time, and they force converted along with conquest. They had been force converting since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity and force converted its own populace. You can go on about Muslim conquests, but that doesn't change the fact that they didn't much practice forced conversion. Alexander conquered all the way to India, as well, but he didn't force convert the populations along the way to believe in the Greek gods. Pre-Christian Romans conquered large amounts of territory, but also didn't force convert populations along the way. There's a difference between spreading your borders by the sword, and spreading your religion by the sword. You get that, as a rate, 12m over 500 years is worse than 17m over 1300 years, right? You also failed to mention the millions of slaves being bread like livestock, over hundreds of years, in the Americas, on top of those traded from Africa. There were 4 million, in the US alone, in 1860, and millions more in the 200 years prior. Chattel slavery, like that, wasn't commonplace in Muslim nations, while manumission was common, even mandatory in places. There were black Moors accepted as rulers. There were also Sudanese Mamluks accepted at the elite levels of your slavery hierarchy, that also went on to be rulers in places. There was also a hierarchy in the chattel slavery of the Americas, where whites couldn't be chattel slaves, blacks were considered good chattel slaves, and natives were considered bad chattel slaves, so were wiped out, ethnically cleansed, or simply worked to death en masse. You have an uphill battle trying to argue other forms of slavery was as racist, or as bad, as it was.
1
@seandoyle296 It does seem to be a reading comprehension problem, because you don't seem to be grasping things I am saying, and make up things I haven't said. What I'm talking about is me simply pointing out the fact that Muslims didn't do X, and you then jumping to comparisons to "apologetics", "nobility", or "utopia", I haven't apologized for anything they actually did. I haven't called anyone "noble". I haven't painted anything as a "utopia". In what reality is having multiple forms of slavery some noble utopia? It's not. Pointing out the fact that they didn't really have race based chattel slavery is simply a fact. That chattel slavery itself wasn't common in Muslim nations is just a fact. Not sure how you're going to dig up millions of extra black slaves, that were bred into slavery, when that wasn't really much of a thing in Muslim nations. Them freeing slaves being more common doesn't change that they enslaved someone to begin with. It doesn't make them saints. It just means they practiced slightly less horrible forms of slavery, and were somewhat less racist. Muslims were only about 16% of the population in India, when the British started ruling, after centuries of Mughal rule. There's no evidence of an ongoing mass forced conversion effort of the populace. Hindu princes helped rule, and Hindus helped run the administration. The Sikh religion itself draws from both Hinduism and Islam, and was only in its infancy around when Mughals started ruling. It actually grew and spread, under Mughal rule. It was mainly just one ruler that tried to force convert people. I'm sure it had nothing to do with them forementing uprisings, and whatnot. You're the one desperately grasping at little anecdotes, to try and make out like two largely different spreads were the same. But, you don't actually have stories of widespread, ongoing, relentless, forced mass conversion, almost everywhere Muslims ruled ... like within the Roman Empire against pagans, like within new territories conquered by Christian Romans, like Northern Crusades against pagan rulers, like Eastern Crusades against Muslims, like the "reconquest" of Spain, like a Chinese Jesus waging one of the bloodiest wars in history, like enslaving or wiping out native Americans that wouldn't convert, Orthodox Russians force converting pagans and Muslims and Jews, etc. Force converting was almost everywhere Christians ruled, on an ongoing grand scale, for centuries. Grasping at what this one Muslim ruler did here, or that this happened to this single Christian there, isn't actually evidence that the overall spread was the same. That there aren't endless accounts from almost everywhere Muslims ruled, and that you have to grasp at little anecdotes, is actually evidence the overall spread wasn't the same. And, again, simply pointing out a fact, isn't arguing that tons of bloody conquests, or any brutal rulers, were some noble utopia, or apologize for anything they actually did do.
1
@seandoyle296 Are there lists with Europeans considered to be superior chattel slaves, in the Americas, or were they not at all on chattel slave lists? Is there an example of blacks being considered inferior, and used as chattel slaves, in just Spanish controlled Americas, or was it also in the British controlled Americas, the France controlled Americas, the Dutch controlled Americas, the Portuguese controlled Americas? Were natives considered inferior in one European empire's colony in Africa, the Americas, East Asia, the South Pacific, or in pretty much all of those colonies, for hundreds of years? Were there black Christian rulers ruling over major parts any Christian empires, like there were black Muslims ruling over major parts of Islamic empires? Were there Africans or natives even being made governors, or generals? The Zanj rebellion wasn't even a black slave only rebellion, and black slaves might not have even been the majority of rebels. It included Beduins and Bahrani, who were Muslim. It included Basra peasants, who were Muslim. It included previously, or partially, freed slaves, of various races, who were Muslim. They were led by a free Muslim man, who was largely Arab, with a grandmother that was a freed slave, who preached the extreme egalitarian philosophy of previous Kharijite rebels, the first Muslim sect, who had also operated out of Basra. The rebels were also, themselves, quite brutal, slaughtering and burning villages. Your rebellion totals are for both sides, dumb dumb, and the side you're claiming them all on wasn't all black, maybe not even a majority black. Not to mention, that said rebellion led to Islamic empires no longer using large concentrations of slave labour, which kind of f*cks up your bullshit samesies narrative. Even in that brutally authoritarian area of a single Muslim empire, the very fact that many of them were previously freed, or partially freed, slaves, indicates they weren't practicing endless chattel slavery. I'm doubting you even know what that term means, since you keep comparing things that weren't it, to it. It means someone being property for their entire lives. It means their children being property from birth, even if it's a white man's child, for their entire lives. And so on, and so on, generation after generation. Even within that same empire, there were also prominent black Moors in positions of power in parts of it. I have no clue where you're getting the idea that white Christian European nobility would be fine with black Christians ruling over them, or power sharing with black Christians, or even for it to be common to have black Christians amongst their governing administrations. And that's the only possible idea you could possibly have, to think the two were equally racist. Brutality doesn't debunk manumission. Spaniards eradicated entire islands of its people, brought in tons of slaves, cared less if they died as they were constantly bringing in more ... plus weren't commonly freeing them, on top of that. You don't think there were any land deaths, or camp deaths, prior to shipping slaves west? There were also millions shipped to Asian and African markets, by Atlantic slave traders. South Africa was largely uninhabited. They imported a ton of slaves. And European slave traders weren't, at all, capturing Europeans to be slaves, while Muslims like Barbary pirates did. Why? Because their chattel slavery was entirely race based, ffs, while the non chattel Muslim slavery, hierarchy or not, wasn't entirely race based, didn't have a chattel category for people of certain races you didn't even consider human. Christian nations also had non racist debt slavery, political slavery, and criminal slavery, on top of their purely race based chattel slavery. Many of them were treated very poorly, but were released if they made it through their time served. Australia was founded on that kind of non race based non chattel slavery of criminals ... while they were almost entirely eradicating the black natives, because they were racist as f*ck. But hey, some Muslim guy made a hierarchy list, so samesies. Oh geezus. Yeah, Christians also converted slaves ... on top of force converting all of Europe, Russia, people in numerous colonies ... samesies.
1
@seandoyle296 Rofl. Here are a couple easy questions ... In society A, if you are born outside its borders, you may get brought in as a slave, may even be considered inferior amongst slaves, but you are likely to be freed at some point, and if you are born within its borders, you will be free from the get go, and can attain positions of authority and be accepted as equals amongst the society's higher ups. In society B, whether you're born outside its borders and brought in, or within, you most likely will be a chattel slave your entire life, and if you're in the teenie tiny minority that are freed, you won't attain positions of authority, and likely won't be accepted as an equal. Which society would you prefer living in? In society A, if you are of a different religion, you can pay a bit more taxes, and keep practicing your religion. In society B, your religion is made illegal (maybe even your different denomination), and you are given the option of conversion, death, or exile. Which society would you prefer living in? If you answer B, to either of those, then I can only assume that you are completely delusional.
1
@Lashkor Yes, I did. It was garbage. Even in one of his own responses to criticisms, he touched on the possibility that morality could simply be very strong likes/dislikes, but then dropped it quickly. Chess is an analogy to laws, dumb dumb, not morality. It has rules to follow, but the rules were created based on the rulemaker's subjective wishes. Once you've created a law, it's pretty easy to tell, objectively, if you're breaking it, or not. No new insight, there. Morality is above lawmaking. Laws can be considered immoral. Rofl! Yeah, it's pretty simple to tell, since they don't do anything they aren't programmed to do, and there's zero indication they ever will.
1