Forgiveness

[phart]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

As funny as believing those two labels are true ?

As funny as playing the man and not the ball (again) ?

Well humour is subjective. He is a right-wing, he supports things like ethnic screening. He proposed Causal relationship between Extremist Islam and suicide bombing (even though non-muslims suicide bomb),exhibits deeply flawed biases.

" And I am not proposing a mere correlation between extremist Islam and suicidal terrorism. I am claiming that the relationship is causal. " Blog Post May 25th 2012.

What ball? i'm describing his beliefs and politics so i have to mention his politics and beliefs.

I also have to mention that other academics in the subject he speaks on as a group think he is a charlatan who doesn't understand the concepts he tries to explain. That's literally no joke that's how he is regarded. That's why he writes populist books for the masses and hasn't published anything in scientific journals, cause it wouldn't make it in, he doesn't so science he does identity politics.

He has a cult of personality just like Jesus did.

[Ally Bongo]

1 minute ago, phart said:

Well humour is subjective. He is a right-wing, he supports things like ethnic screening. He proposed Causal relationship between Extremist Islam and suicide bombing (even though non-muslims suicide bomb),exhibits deeply flawed biases.

" And I am not proposing a mere correlation between extremist Islam and suicidal terrorism. I am claiming that the relationship is causal. " Blog Post May 25th 2012.

What ball? i'm describing his beliefs and politics so i have to mention his politics and beliefs.

I also have to mention that other academics in the subject he speaks on as a group think he is a charlatan who doesn't understand the concepts he tries to explain. That's literally no joke that's how he is regarded. That's why he writes populist books for the masses and hasn't published anything in scientific journals, cause it wouldn't make it in, he doesn't so science he does identity politics.

He has a cult of personality just like Jesus did.

He has had 3 peer reviewed publications in science journals ! (Harris not Jesus)

Misrepresenting someone's views to discredit them is something i thought you of all people would be able to spot not to mention the red flag of those doing the misrepresenting (Greenwald for example)

Yes philosophers disagree with and some even dislike the attention Harris gets on subjects such as free will but as far as i am aware that is completely separate to his atheism & criticism of Christianity  - see Daniel Dennett - which is the whole jist of this thread and a deflection  

You should really watch his interview with Dave Rubin where he addresses some of the misrepresentations including profiling, being a Neo Con and nuking the Middle East !

 

 

 

[phart]

lets see the 3 of them then.

 

Got them

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191001414X

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

wait only two of them one is a duplicate.

Both funded by his own Non-profit it seems as well.

Funding your own research into a subject you already have an opinion on. Interesting.

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[Ally Bongo]

7 minutes ago, phart said:

lets see the 3 of them then.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191001414X

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.21301/full

[phart]

16 minutes ago, phart said:

lets see the 3 of them then.

 

Got them

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191001414X

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

wait only two of them one is a duplicate.

Both funded by his own Non-profit it seems as well.

Funding your own research into a subject you already have an opinion on. Interesting.

" Project Reason had a role in funding MRI scanner use, subject recruitment, and psychological testing, and had the sole role in funding study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript. The other sources of funding had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript"

 

So his non-profit company with a social engineering remit funded the research, got the MRI time set up all the recruitment , study design etc.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]

18 minutes ago, phart said:

" Project Reason had a role in funding MRI scanner use, subject recruitment, and psychological testing, and had the sole role in funding study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript. The other sources of funding had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript"

 

So his non-profit company with a social engineering remit funded the research, got the MRI time set up all the recruitment , study design etc.

 

Jesus Christ he never did any of the experiments himself either. His own phd had 3 other folk doing it with him, and the other lead author did all the experiments. Jonas T Kaplan who currently works as a behavioural neuroscientist.

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, phart said:

he doesn't so science he does identity politics.That's why he writes populist books for the masses and hasn't published anything in scientific journals, cause it wouldn't make it in

 

 

10 minutes ago, phart said:

Jesus Christ he never did any of the experiments himself either. His own phd had 3 other folk doing it with him, and the other lead author did all the experiments. Jonas T Kaplan who currently works as a behavioural neuroscientist.

Just admit your information was wrong thanks

[phart]

10 minutes ago, phart said:

Jesus Christ he never did any of the experiments himself either. His own phd had 3 other folk doing it with him, and the other lead author did all the experiments. Jonas T Kaplan who currently works as a behavioural neuroscientist.

Also the subject picking is weird.

" Only data from those who replied with 90% predictability was analysed. I.e. only those who either believed at least 90% of the religious statements or disbelieved at least 90% of them were kept. "

How do they know this gives an actual random spread,? this is called p-hacking.

[phart]

9 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

Just admit your information was wrong thanks

 

I was wrong. He had been joint lead author on his phd and a named person on 2 other papers (one of which is duplicate), which he funded himself and did none of the experiments for, and no one has been able to reproduce.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[Ally Bongo]

6 minutes ago, phart said:

 

I was wrong. He had been joint lead author on his phd and a named person on 2 other papers (one of which is duplicate), which he funded himself and did none of the experiments for, and no one has been able to reproduce.

 

peer reviewed

[phart]

Just now, Ally Bongo said:

peer reviewed

Almost everyone phd gets published. He has no contributions post his phd. The 2011 paper was submitted by his tutor (who is the lead author) in 2009.

Interesting to note the journal had to put a correction in regarding his funding as ole Sammy boy had forgot to mention the particulars of his funding.

See the correction

" The Competing Interests section should read: Sam Harris, one of the first authors on this study, is also a co-founder and CEO of The Reason Project. The Reason Project is a nonprofit foundation devoted to the spread of scientific thought and secular values in society. This affiliation does not alter the authors' adherence to all PLoS ONE policies on the sharing of data for the purposes of academic, noncommercial research. "

The paper has also never been cited by another paper according to the scholarly article search. Just a standalone paper that he turned into a book from neuroscientist Sam Harris.

 

[phart]

16 minutes ago, phart said:

Almost everyone phd gets published. He has no contributions post his phd. The 2011 paper was submitted by his tutor (who is the lead author) in 2009.

Interesting to note the journal had to put a correction in regarding his funding as ole Sammy boy had forgot to mention the particulars of his funding.

See the correction

" The Competing Interests section should read: Sam Harris, one of the first authors on this study, is also a co-founder and CEO of The Reason Project. The Reason Project is a nonprofit foundation devoted to the spread of scientific thought and secular values in society. This affiliation does not alter the authors' adherence to all PLoS ONE policies on the sharing of data for the purposes of academic, noncommercial research. "

 

 

This is the original words in the competing interests column: Competing interests: No competing interests declared.

[Ally Bongo]

Is this the first time you have been wrong ?

 

[phart]

20 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Is this the first time you have been wrong ?

 

Sure we can talk about me if you want. I take it no more refutations on anything else, so not much subject matter left for you.

I'm wrong a lot, once shown though i admit it.

[Dave78]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

You should really watch his interview with Dave Rubin where he addresses some of the misrepresentations including profiling, being a Neo Con and nuking the Middle East !

 

 

 

 

Just watched all of that. Yes, he deals with the profiling and nuking claims well, but i think some of the Neo-Con mud sticks. During the conversation on the definition of neo-conservatism he references the cheerleaders Kristol and Wolfowitz, yet seems to miss the Israeli dimension to motivations for the Iraq war. I wasn't surprised to learn later in the video that he's Jewish, defends Israel, and mis-represents Palestinian thinking. I like the guy, but he has a blind spot there i think.

[phart]

He's also not even an empiricist with his own theories. Scott Atran is: here is his bio

Scott Atran (born February 6, 1952) is a French-American cultural anthropologist who is a Director of Research in Anthropology at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, Research Professor at the University of Michigan, and cofounder of ARTIS International and of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford University.[1] He has studied and written about terrorism,[2] violence[3] and religion,[4] and has done fieldwork with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists,[5] as well as political leaders.[6]

He has moaned about the dishonesty of Harris misrepresenting his views and ignoring data in favour for his own opinon (same as philosphers moaning about him, he can't grasp the subject, or doesn't want to so just keeps changing your argument)

Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Sam Harris posted a recent blog about my views on Jihadis that is unbecoming of serious intellectual debate, if not ugly. He claims that I told him following a “preening and delusional lecture” that “no one [connected with suicide bombing] believes in paradise.” What I actually said to him (as I have to many others) was exactly what every leader of a jihadi group I interviewed told me, namely, that anyone seeking to become a martyr in order to obtain virgins in paradise would be rejected outright. I also said (and have written several articles and a book laying out the evidence) that although ideology is important, the best predictor (in the sense of a regression analysis) of willingness to commit an act of jihadi violence is if one belongs to an action-oriented social network, such as a neighborhood help group or even a sports team (see Atran, TALKING TO THE ENEMY, Penguin, 2010).

Harris’s views on religion ignore the considerable progress in cognitive studies on the subject over the last two decades, which show that core religious beliefs do not have fixed propositional content (Atran & Norenzayan, “Religion’s Evolutionary Landscape,” BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 2004). Indeed, religious beliefs, in being absurd (whether or not they are recognized as such), cannot even be processed as comprehensible because their semantic content is contradictory (for example, a bodiless but physically powerful and sentient being, a deity that is one in three, etc) It is precisely the ineffable nature of core religious beliefs that accounts, in part, for their social and political adaptability over time in helping to bond and sustain groups (Atran & Ginges, “Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict,” SCIENCE, 2012). In fact, it is the ecstasy-provoking rituals that Harris describes as being associated with such beliefs which renders them immune to the logical and empirical scrutiny that ordinarily accompanies belief verification (see Atran & Henrich, “The Evolution of Religion,” BIOLOGICAL THEORY, 2010). "

Harris’s generalizations of his own fMRIs on belief change among a few dozen college students as supportive of his views of religion as simply false beliefs are underwhelming. As Pat Churchland surmised: “There is not one single example in [Harris’s work] of what we have learned from neuroscience that should impact our moral judgments regarding a particular issue. There may EXIST examples, but he does not provide any.”

 

https://evolution-institute.org/article/here-he-goes-again-sam-harriss-falsehoods/

SAm Harris:neuroscientist ignoring cognitive studies?

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]

13 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

 

Just watched all of that. Yes, he deals with the profiling and nuking claims well, but i think some of the Neo-Con mud sticks. During the conversation on the definition of neo-conservatism he references the cheerleaders Kristol and Wolfowitz, yet seems to miss the Israeli dimension to motivations for the Iraq war. I wasn't surprised to learn later in the video that he's Jewish, defends Israel, and mis-represents Palestinian thinking. I like the guy, but he has a blind spot there i think.

he misrepresents Islamic thinking as well, or ignores the current research in favour for his own interpetation.

" But Harris’s take on such matters is so scientifically uninformed and mendacious as to be a menace to those who seek a practical and reasoned way out of the morass of obscurantism. "

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]

12 minutes ago, phart said:

He's also not even an empiricist with his own theories. Scott Atran is: here is his bio

Scott Atran (born February 6, 1952) is a French-American cultural anthropologist who is a Director of Research in Anthropology at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, Research Professor at the University of Michigan, and cofounder of ARTIS International and of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford University.[1] He has studied and written about terrorism,[2] violence[3] and religion,[4] and has done fieldwork with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists,[5] as well as political leaders.[6]

He has moaned about the dishonesty of Harris misrepresenting his views and ignoring data in favour for his own opinon (same as philosphers moaning about him, he can't grasp the subject, or doesn't want to so just keeps changing your argument)

Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Sam Harris posted a recent blog about my views on Jihadis that is unbecoming of serious intellectual debate, if not ugly. He claims that I told him following a “preening and delusional lecture” that “no one [connected with suicide bombing] believes in paradise.” What I actually said to him (as I have to many others) was exactly what every leader of a jihadi group I interviewed told me, namely, that anyone seeking to become a martyr in order to obtain virgins in paradise would be rejected outright. I also said (and have written several articles and a book laying out the evidence) that although ideology is important, the best predictor (in the sense of a regression analysis) of willingness to commit an act of jihadi violence is if one belongs to an action-oriented social network, such as a neighborhood help group or even a sports team (see Atran, TALKING TO THE ENEMY, Penguin, 2010).

Harris’s views on religion ignore the considerable progress in cognitive studies on the subject over the last two decades, which show that core religious beliefs do not have fixed propositional content (Atran & Norenzayan, “Religion’s Evolutionary Landscape,” BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 2004). Indeed, religious beliefs, in being absurd (whether or not they are recognized as such), cannot even be processed as comprehensible because their semantic content is contradictory (for example, a bodiless but physically powerful and sentient being, a deity that is one in three, etc) It is precisely the ineffable nature of core religious beliefs that accounts, in part, for their social and political adaptability over time in helping to bond and sustain groups (Atran & Ginges, “Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict,” SCIENCE, 2012). In fact, it is the ecstasy-provoking rituals that Harris describes as being associated with such beliefs which renders them immune to the logical and empirical scrutiny that ordinarily accompanies belief verification (see Atran & Henrich, “The Evolution of Religion,” BIOLOGICAL THEORY, 2010). "

Harris’s generalizations of his own fMRIs on belief change among a few dozen college students as supportive of his views of religion as simply false beliefs are underwhelming. As Pat Churchland surmised: “There is not one single example in [Harris’s work] of what we have learned from neuroscience that should impact our moral judgments regarding a particular issue. There may EXIST examples, but he does not provide any.”

 

https://evolution-institute.org/article/here-he-goes-again-sam-harriss-falsehoods/

SAm Harris:neuroscientist ignoring cognitive studies?

This above and more in the link was in response to ths blog post.

"I have long struggled to understand how smart, well-educated liberals can fail to perceive the unique dangers of Islam. In The End of Faith, I argued that such people don’t know what it’s like to really believe in God or Paradise—and hence imagine that no one else actually does. The symptoms of this blindness can be quite shocking. For instance, I once ran into the anthropologist Scott Atran after he had delivered one of his preening and delusional lectures on the origins of jihadist terrorism. According to Atran, people who decapitate journalists, filmmakers, and aid workers to cries of “Alahu akbar!” or blow themselves up in crowds of innocents are led to misbehave this way not because of their deeply held beliefs about jihad and martyrdom but because of their experience of male bonding in soccer clubs and barbershops. (Really.) So I asked Atran directly:

“Are you saying that no Muslim suicide bomber has ever blown himself up with the expectation of getting into Paradise?”

“Yes,” he said, “that’s what I’m saying. No one believes in Paradise.”

At a moment like this, it is impossible to know whether one is in the presence of mental illness or a terminal case of intellectual dishonesty. Atran’s belief—apparently shared by many people—is so at odds with what can be reasonably understood from the statements and actions of jihadists that it admits of no response. The notion that no one believes in Paradise is far crazier than a belief in Paradise."

[phart]

He knows most people don't fact check, i just hope a lot of folk haven't gave him money?

I see he asks for donations and money: https://www.samharris.org/support

https://www.patreon.com/samharris

patreon as well, over 9000 folk paying him but it doesn't state how much he gets a month, which i see on the couple of journalists i sponsor via it.

SamHarris.org is supported by the generosity of its readers and listeners. If you find my essays, interviews, or podcasts useful, please consider becoming a sponsor of the website. —SH

Monthly Support

Member$7 / month
Supporting Member$20 / month
Sustaining Member$45 / month
Patron$95 / month

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[Ally Bongo]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/once-again-scott-atran-exculpates-religion-as-a-cause-of-terrorism/

Let me first be clear: contrary to some of my critics, I don’t think that religion is the sole cause of Islamic terrorism. Obviously there are other factors: disaffection, the need to feel part of something greater than oneself, innate aggression of young males, and, yes, the mishandling of many Middle Eastern situations by the West. But I will maintain that as far as Islamic jihadism goes, religion is a critical part of the mix, perhaps to the extent that without it we wouldn’t have terrorism of the sort that strikes down not only Parisians, but many other Muslims, Yazidis, and gays.  I argue this on several grounds, including the behavior and writings of the terrorists themselves, the fact that terrorism is wedded to particular faiths with particular doctrines, and the fact that terrorist groups like ISIS behave in many ways as if they truly believe religious doctrines, and then act accordingly.

The question to ask is this: if you could rerun history so the entire world were free from religion, would everything in the Middle East still be the same? Would the Paris attacks, the 9/11 bombings, the slaughter of Yazidis, and so on, still have occurred? Of course I have no answer to this: all we can do is infer motivations from what terrorists say and how they behave.

Scott Atran has spent much of his career interviewing terrorists, and, like Robert Pape, has come to the opposite conclusion: that religion and its doctrines, in particular Islam, play at best a minimal role in terrorism. Some of Pape’s analyses, conclusions, and statistics have been called into question (see here, here and here, for instance). Atran has argued that religious beliefs aren’t really like “normal beliefs,” in that they aren’t seen by many as “true” or “false”, and therefore can’t motivate terrorist behavior (see here, for instance). That’s an argument that Maarten Boudry and I see as false (see here). The widespread Muslim beliefs in martyrdom and the attainment of paradise are apparently important factors in motivating terrorism and suicide bombing, as evidenced by the terrorists’ own statements and actions. I’d also recommend, as I do often, that those who believe religion is unimportant read Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which imputes much of modern terrorism not to Western missteps, but to a hatred of the modernity and licentiousness that Muslims see as pervasive in the West.

In a new Guardian article,”Mindless terrorists? The truth about ISIS is much worse.“which does make some good points, Atran continues to imply that religion plays no role in Islamist terrorism, although his words sometimes appear to contradict that. He first notes that ISIS is using, and using effectively, tactics from an old Al-Qaeda manual that recommends striking “soft” targets. But he then goes on to argue that religion isn’t part of the mix. Here is Atran going after (without naming it) what must surely be Graeme Wood’s famous article in The Atlantic: “What ISIS really wants“, which has now garnered nearly 15,500 comments. As you may recall, Wood, having interviewed many terrorists and their sympathizers, emphasizes the importance of religious doctrine—particularly the reinstatement of a Caliphate—as a prime motivator for ISIS. Atran:

Simply treating Isis as a form of “terrorism” or “violent extremism” masks the menace. Merely dismissing it as “nihilistic” reflects a wilful and dangerous avoidance of trying to comprehend, and deal with, its profoundly alluring moral mission to change and save the world. And the constant refrain that Isis seeks to turn back history to the Middle Ages is no more compelling than a claim that the Tea Party movement wants everything the way it was in 1776. The truth is more complicated. As Abu Mousa, Isis’s press officer in Raqqa, put it: “We are not sending people back to the time of the carrier pigeon. On the contrary, we will benefit from development. But in a way that doesn’t contradict the religion.”

A way that doesn’t contradict the religion! Doesn’t that mean anything? Well, here Atran offers one statement by an ISIS press officer as evidence against what Wood says. And perhaps the truth is more complicated than just the desire for a Caliphate, but where does the “profoundly alluring moral mission” of ISIS come from? Whence ISIS’s desire to “change and save the world?” Both come from Islam and the brand of ascetic and outsider-hating morals that infuse the faith—the same morality emphasized by Lawrence Wright.

Near the end, Atran’s exculpation becomes clearer:

As I testified to the US Senate armed service committee and before the United Nations security council: what inspires the most uncompromisingly lethal actors in the world today is not so much the Qur’an or religious teachings. It’s a thrilling cause that promises glory and esteem. Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: fraternal, fast-breaking, glorious, cool – and persuasive.

In other words, ISIS is, as Atran notes, a big “band of brothers (and sisters)”.  Atran may be right in part about the attractions of excitement, of battle, of joining with others who are like minded. And surely many ISIS fighters aren’t theologically astute! But that doesn’t matter if the overlords who recruit and direct them are motivated by religion. And surely many of the deeds of ISIS (see below) are not only motivated by Islamic doctrine, but also show that that doctrine, and the notion of Paradise, are real beliefs, not quasi-fictional imaginings.

Further, think about this: young men (and women, too) all over the world are into things “cool, glorious, and persuasive”. The classic motto is, of course, “sex, drugs, and rock and roll,” though that trio is off limits to Muslims. But why is it only Muslims who channel this natural adventurousness and rebelliousness into murder and barbarity? Why don’t they just play football? Now you could argue that the 60’s leftists (I was one) channeled their rebelliousness into politics, but what we did was demonstrate, speak, and write—we did not kill others or go on suicide missions. Why the difference between us and the young men and women who flock to ISIS? Could it be—religion? (Most radicals of the Sixties weren’t exactly religious.)

When I read Atran’s brand of Islamic apologetics, and when I think of the terrorists’ cries of “Allahu Akbar” that accompanied their Kalashnikov fire, and when I ponder why young men out for just “a good time, a cause, and brotherhood” would do these deeds knowing they were surely going to die (and probably believing that, as martyrs, they’d attain Paradise), and when I think of the other deeds they do—the slaughter of Christians, Yazidis, apostates, atheists, and gays, and of the way they treat women like chattel, raping their sex slaves and stoning adulterers—when I think of all this, and the explicitly Islamic motivations the terrorists avow, I have to ask people like Atran: “WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU ASCRIBE ANY OF THEIR ACTIONS TO ISLAM?”

 For truly, I can’t see how these actions could implicate religion any more clearly. Yes, of course other factors are involved, but take religion out of the multifactorial mix—rerun Middle Eastern history when there is no religion and no Allah—and I seriously doubt this would be happening. There is no way that Atran can demonstrate otherwise.

 

For people like Atran the default answer is always politics and Western culpability, no matter how infused with religion the situation appears. But why not another default answer: “religion”?

 

[Ally Bongo]

ps I will take this as a lesson never to interact with you on here about anything ever again 

Mental

[phart]

15 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

ps I will take this as a lesson never to interact with you on here about anything ever again 

Mental

Away in the huff again, how often do you say the above lol.

So we're to ignore Atran's academic papers and personal experience interviewing and studying jihad for the sources cited in the above article. namely

3 articles discussing someone called Pape who has been thrown in with Atren, no idea why we're citing those.

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 Paperback – August 21, 2007 buy it on amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/The-Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road/dp/1400030846

an article in the atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/    having 15,500 comments is cited for the article.

Let''se see what they say about Atram in the piece.

" In a new Guardian article,”Mindless terrorists? The truth about ISIS is much worse.“which does make some good points, Atran continues to imply that religion plays no role in Islamist terrorism, although his words sometimes appear to contradict that. "

"  Atran may be right in part about the attractions of excitement, of battle, of joining with others who are like minded. And surely many ISIS fighters aren’t theologically astute!"

That article is also a misrepresentative view of Atran, which you would know if you ever bothered to read anything you copy and paste into threads. How many times we going to go through this, with you refusing to speak anymore, then slowly coming back and speaking again.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]

As I testified to the US Senate armed service committee and before the United Nations security council: what inspires the most uncompromisingly lethal actors in the world today is not so much the Qur’an or religious teachings. It’s a thrilling cause that promises glory and esteem. Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: fraternal, fast-breaking, glorious, cool – and persuasive. -Atran

The same feeling that made many leftists walk to Spain to battle Fascism, Orwell included.

 

I wonder why US Congress and the UN decide to speak to Atran instead of the author of Al-Qeada and the road to 9/11, who according to Ally Bongo knows more about the causes of jihadism and islamic terror, oh maybe cause only one person was using the scientific method and empiricism as opposed to journalists interviewing folk.

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]

40 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

For people like Atran the default answer is always politics and Western culpability, no matter how infused with religion the situation appears. But why not another default answer: “religion”?

 

This isn't his view at all, would have been better if they read and understood his argument would make it easier. Confusing cause for effect.

" “I also said (and have written several articles and a book laying out the evidence) that although ideology is important, the best predictor (in the sense of a regression analysis) of willingness to commit an act of jihadi violence is if one belongs to an action-oriented social network, such as a neighborhood help group or even a sports team.”

This is his view, idealogy is important but the best predictor in regression analysis of willingness to commit an act of violence is the social network, which explains why some Muslims suicide bomb and others dont.

Also as Tony Benn says there is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber, both kill for political reasons, so the whole thing is false equivalency anyway.

Edited December 28, 2017 by phart

[phart]