Progressives Vs New Atheists w/ Majority Report's Michael Brooks

Watch Sam Seder's response to Kyle's ceasefire here:
• Sam Seder Responds to ...
Clip from the Monday, August 24th 2015 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday - friday 4-6pm Eastern.
Check out our website - and become a member - at:
www.SecularTalk...
Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:
www.blogtalkrad...
Follow on Twitter:
/ kylekulinski
Like on Facebook:
/ seculartalk
Friends Of SecularTalk:
/ beastofreason
AMAZON LINK: (Bookmark this link to support the show for free!!!)
www.amazon.com/...

[@ffpfp09]

RIP Michael. Will love and miss your dynamic and kind presence forever

[@DebateCentrals]

Sam Harris voted for Clinton over Sanders.... that told me everything.

[@timjkoala7556]

Yep! Harris talks all this fucking shit about wanting a more equal society bla bla bla, and then votes for Clinton and advocates for voting for Michael Bloomberg.

[@squarehammer5045]

Michael Brooks was the most influential person in my movement Left. Rest In Power comrade!

[@yaserthe1]

RIP Michael. You were right about Sam then, and you are right now.

[@cesarbautista8843]

Rest In Peace Michael

[@yomama5368]

5 years later, and Brooks was 100% right. Harris has gone pretty nuts in the intervening time, and this guy called it as early as 2015.

[@santosd6065]

Kyle seems like a decent guy, but his framing of the issue is just inaccurate. There is no "New Atheist vs. Progressives" conflict. The conflict is between "Critics of Neoliberalism and US policies in the War on Terror" (Scahill, Chomsky, Hedges, Arundhati Roy, Greenwald, Snowden, Asange, Robert Fisk, Amy Goodman) and Supporters of Neo Con policies (Harris, Hitchens, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld). Roy, Greenwald, Hedges and Chomsky have absolutely zero problem with Atheism (to my knowledge they are all atheists), they have a big problem with Harris's support of torture, dictatorships, arguing killing people for their beliefs is ethical, and on and on. THAT should be the framing. If you don't want to call him a Neo Con, fine. call him a "Supporter of Neo Con proposals for different reasons", but that's the conflict, not atheism vs. left liberalism or whatever. And the issue shouldn't be resolved by a touchie feelie "let's all be friends" approach. It needs to be resolved by evidence, facts and sound argument. The Atheist Supporters of Neo Con policies (ASONCP? I'd rather call them Atheist Neo Cons) argument is pretty similar to that of Christian apologists: 1) They react to evidence of US atrocities, facts, reality and history the way Christians react to the fossil record, ie, they insult you and say it "God put it there to trick you, it's not real" 2) Their "argument form intention" (ie, the US cannot commit atrocities because our intentions are good) is based on zero evidence, just faith. 3) Whenever you challenge them on facts and force them to explain real historical reality, not imaginary thought experiments, they usually respond with insults, patriotic babbling nonsense about the Founding Fathers and ridiculously bigoted stereotypes gleaned from Wikipedia and right wing websites. 4) They usually engage the arguments of passionate but less informed people, like Affleck, Cenk or absurd theists. With people like Chomsky or Hedges they just use ad hominem attacks. The CRITICS of US policy argue entirely from facts, evidence and reference to the actual historical record (I don't mean liberals like Cenk and Affleck, I mean Scahill, Roy, Chomsky and Hedges). This is actual scolarship and journalism, what Harris contemptuously refers to as "Running around the middle east getting a vibe" (apparently spending 30 minutes on right wing blogs is way more scholarly than spending 7 years as Middle East Bureau Chief for the NYT. It's not "New Atheist vs. Progressives", it's "Critics of US policy vs. Race Baiting Atheist Neo Cons"

[@finichip]

Santos D damn. You nailed it with this comment

[@AnotherOrangeJulius]

Nailed it.

[@raquelcharles1779]

+Santos D I remember you..do you still believe a progressive will win an election ?? Where are you on Bernie these days?? Did you bother to vote in 2016 for the dems ?

[@LouisKing995]

Santos D Harris is in favour of welcoming refugees into the United States, is that a neo-conservative position?

[@HarryS77]

I'm pretty sure Hedges is still an ordained minister, otherwise I completely agree with you. As an aside, I always found it odd that it was the whilom historical materialist and self-proclaimed trotskyite, Christopher Hitchens, who devolved into idealism with all that railing against Islamofascism. @Trajan I believe Harris has also urged that Muslim populations be controlled and incoming Muslims monitored and profiled. That certainly is a neo-con position. Let them in, but only let in the "good" ones.

[@sirius1696]

Sam Harris now also believes in race science and the bell curve, how is that about opposing religious fundamentalism?

[@webdesignerguy]

@Juan Rodriguez-Ortega No it's not, there is no such thing as "race science". Ethnicity is real (and is something that's studied by lots of geneticists) but race isn't a scientific concept. I'm a scientist and I've never heard another scientist talk about race in relation to their work.

[@voxomnes9537]

@Juan Rodriguez-Ortega You cannot.

[@TheDickbeard]

@Juan Rodriguez-Ortega 23andme is a wild guess and theyre completely up front about that

[@meatrace]

@Juan Rodriguez-Ortega Race is a social construct. For example, it's very possible that I have African ancestry if you go back more than 10 generations, so 23 and me would see those markers. But nobody looking at me would say I'm black.

[@turanamo]

One rotten apple and the whole baskets stale!

[@gregorylaperche5574]

We're going to miss Michael Brooks. I think if Kyle and Michael watched this 6 months ago, they would both agree more with Michael than Kyle lol

[@RustyShackleford1066]

People who admit islam is bad along with all other religions vs people who feel the need to defend Islam from criticism as if Islam and Muslims were the same.

[@theatheist7840]

True. I love how Michael tried to call Bill Maher a bigot, yet he offered no evidence for such a bold claim.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

Progressives tend to believe that religious fundamentalism is the problem, and lumping moderate religious people in with the fanatics is unfair and dangerous.

[@RustyShackleford1066]

"I feel like you are saying those who are fanatical and follow the Islamic scriptures more closely are the biggest muslims, and I take issue with it because it's icky and goes against my narrative."

[@RustyShackleford1066]

ImmortalTiger94 That is also what a new atheist would say. Islam and muslims are not the same thing.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

+Jacob. Glad we agree.

[@rachelatwood9555]

Listening to this has me completely and madly in love with Michael Brooks--dude is majorly spot on. Come at me, Bros ^_^

[@racatiwood]

well aren't you just the bees there, Kitten?!? =p

[@andrew_owens7680]

Thought-crime is treason now? Are you Stalin?

[@toxicasset5097]

Rachel Atwood I agree. Brooks is my fav. See his video response to jimmy Dore. Its gold. I look in the comments and even seemingly measured arguments are incoherent! I do not like any religion but its not going anywhere. Brooks is right in saying Reddit indignation and hostility towards religion is about how far Harris shoulda gotten but atheists like myself get pretty fanatical and self righteous too. I really like Kyle too. Good work!

[@AcadFreedom]

This is why Majority Report sucks.

[@robm6645]

+IndieRockOwns Exactly, screw in depth discussion of policy, values and world views, making fun of Pat Robertson is what liberalism is all about.

[@DoomTone11]

+Rob McCune The fanboyism is real.

[@MobinMGreen]

Summery: Kyle: You guys need to pay attentions on all the good things Sam Harris is trying to do and stop calling him a neo-con for few questionable believes that he has. Michael: Yes, Sam harris is a good guy and i agree with him on some issues, but fuck him cause he said one thing that i didn't like and he wanted to invade Iraq. Kyle: But he was not pro Iraq invasion and for one thing you shouldn't be dismissive of him. Michael: Still fuck him, cause he sounds like Dick Cheney some times, I'ma call him neo-con. Deal with it. Kyle: "Facepalm"

[@metalskinstudios]

+HotSkull Nice slander! You do that for a living, or is it just a hobby to call people psychopaths on the internet?

[@limbs2468]

WiseSloth ForBernieSanders Seriously. How many times did Michael say "and I don't really know sam's position on this". "I don't really know sam's interpretation of atheism" Cripes man. He thinks Sam Harris is a diplomat.

[@Wyrd80]

HotSkull Citation needed.

[@jamesgaspard]

+WiseSloth ForBernieSanders Never been particularly impressed with majority report. This guy is a fairly good example of why.

[@michalum04]

+WiseSloth ForBernieSanders I think my biggest issue with Michael is that he primarily seems to focus on how Sam words a certain argument and then gets all sad when a single sentence in the context of his argument can be taken out of context. For example, Sam will go to great detail to set up how he bases his numbers on polls, stats, etc, to try and differentiate the most extreme muslims from the intermediate and the intermediate from the liberal, etc. Then, if he ever says a general term like "Islam" or "muslims" when trying to save time, then he is accused of painting a broad brush and is a "racist." It's insane. A similar example relates to Harris's treatment of political versus religious motivations for certain attacks. He routinely states that he acknowledges that there are differences and that many attacks are not motivated exclusively by religion. He fully admits this, but his detractors endlessly pretend he doesn't. It's truly bizarre. It's as if it has never occurred to his critics that the two are not mutually exclusive or necessarily at odds with each other. It's as if it never occurred to people that a guy who focuses on religion might try to focus on those attacks that are religiously motivated as this is what he studies. It's not like he's studying these cases to prove the politically motivated attacks don't occur, nor does he ever make this claim.

[@MrIrocknusuck]

I could never get my head around this New Atheism. Orthodox Atheism is a lot better imo.

[@theatheist7840]

Lol. The stupidest comment I've read today. Thanks.

[@armitage5855]

+Agent of the Patriarchy I think the problem is the way the far-right wing is driving it: hate muslims, "I'm not saying they're all evil + just the 99.99%+", religions ARE EVIL, "I'm atheist, therefore I'm rational, therefore I'm 110% right on everything", this type of childish attitude and narrow-mindedness is what ended up creating the concept of a "new atheism". I feel kinda alienated by people with such mindset, it's kinda like conservatives when neocons emerged, and nowadays the typical conservative -or at least the loudest ones- is a neocon.

[@loki2240]

Proto-atheism FTW!

[@thepleblian2079]

+The Courier You're giving this guy way too much energy...

[@Voitan]

Agent of the Patriarchy Same, whenever they say "New Atheists" I think they mean Atheism+, and those people are ridiculous. Ordinary Atheism is just fine the way it is.

[@linuxrobotgeek]

New atheism is like New Coke: appealing at first but then turns out to be a poor substitute for the real thing.

[@wadeking4054]

+Edgardo Peregrino Or just compare coke and crack. Similar, but one is very under-par and dumbed-down.

[@robm6645]

+Edgardo Peregrino That said they did have have better picks of spokespeople.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

True.

[@WokeandProud]

+Edgardo Peregrino WTF is new atheism anyway atheism is just atheism, nothing more or less then a lack of belief in gods.

[@linuxrobotgeek]

engelmohr2006 New atheism is this new "trend" where atheists try to sound like islamophobes rather than criticize all theocracies. Bill Maher is an example of that.

[@nabilkhoury2494]

Very interesting exchange. In a nutshell what Brooks is saying is that Harris' work has so many contradictory narrative and claims that it's very hard to see his relevance in advancing the debate or solutions. I think Brooks' strongest point is that Harris mainly undermines both moderate Muslims and the global struggle against Islamic extremism when he constantly refers to the fanatics as the truer Muslims.

[@dukedematteo1995]

Even if its the truth?

[@VogtTD]

Except atheists say the same thing about fundamentalist Christians. He's not saying all Muslims are bad, he is saying the good ones arr fundamentally at odds with the texts they purport to obey.

[@bearcudlybear]

@@VogtTD ok but then if that is your counter, every major religion is awash with a mass following where the subscribers of said beliefs don't actually follow the text as is. From Hindus to Muslims to even many Sikhs. If the claim is that the underlying text of a religion is inherently pernicious, then you have to explain why it is that for example modern chirstians are supposedly as progressive as Sam Harris claims yet their holy book consistently argues in favor of deeply archaic ethical and scientific prescriptions

[@melimoo6656]

Wow. I’m SO going to miss his contribution to the discourse of left wing intelligencia. RIP Michael Brooks 😥

[@Herb615]

I'm a hardline progressive but I'll respectfully disagree with New Athiest and call it a day. The hostility battle and name calling will get us nowhere. It's important for both parties to realize that we can't agree with everyone and we can't convert everyone.

[@TheCurmudgen]

Is there really a problem between atheists and progressives or is it just some people don't like Sam Harris? I'm really confused about this because I am an atheist and a progressive and I didn't think there were any issues.

[@freemanwalking1867]

+TheCurmudgeon I'm an atheist progressive too. However, these racist war-mongers are having there voices elevated by Zionist racist, war-mongering media to divide the left. All these new atheists "progressives" are Jewish Zionist Harris, Maher, Pakman, Ruban, Saad etc

[@TheCurmudgen]

***** That term confuses me as well. I didn't know I didn't believe in god any differently than atheists of the past. Maybe because we're more outspoken? I dunno.

[@freemanwalking1867]

TheCurmudgeon That's what they say the distinction is; a more aggressive advocacy of secularism and atheistic anti-religiousness.

[@Joe--]

TheCurmudgeon Think of it this way: "Not all Progressives are Liberal & not all Liberals are Progressives" Same could be said of New Atheists vs Progressives. They agree on most things but there are probably keys issues of disagreements that sharply set them apart.

[@Joe--]

***** No, progressives are not absolutely liberal. For example: Those that say that the Charlie Hebdo drawings wouldn't have offended Muslims, otherwise they wouldn't have been bomb. Or the Texas shooting incident. The fact that some defend/ deflect Muslim homophobia and misogyny regarding the LGBT parade in Sweden. Intolerance & violence of LGBT from Ultra-conservative Christians should not be tolerated, neither should the same intolerance & violence from any community.

[@jrconcerned6064]

A soul, spirit and voice who is truly missed. Rest in Power Micheal Brooks.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

There are a lot of new atheists. I'm not sure why Hitchens and Harris are now put forward as representing all the new atheists.

[@freemanwalking1867]

+NoExitLoveNow Because the racist anti-Arab, Zionist media ave empowered them to be!

[@NoExitLoveNow]

***** Of course, the Iraq war as a huge disaster, obviously so from the beginning. Hitchens got it wrong. Harris, if he actually opposed it, his opposition was imperceptible. PZ got it right as anyone who didn't have his head up his own ass regarding this subject would.

[@Lionfish5656]

NoExitLoveNow, Progressives have really been unfair to the New Atheist movement. NOT all of them are mild war mongers like Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens are.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

Cody Crouse I agree, and I'm a progressive (liberal, social democrat, whatever). Also, Harris'/Hitchens' arguments regarding religion should not be dismissed without consideration merely because they are thought to be mean or because someone disagrees with something else they said on another subject.

[@hesitatingdissension4682]

@@freemanwalking1867 I do not dislike Arabs, but I do greatly dislike Islam (and religiosity and spirituality in general).

[@brennaningram2243]

Kyle... How did you not get angry during this conversation.. He said that arguing against religions in general and preferring a more liberal version of a religion are two incompatible positions. Then when you explained that was your view he agreed with you. Hes only against it when Sam Harris does it. This obvious bias against Harris is what led me to stop watching Cenk... "trust and faith in a sort of narrow type of rationalism as solving our problems or leading us to a better path isnt our savior either." Yes Michael lets not go about solving problems rationally

[@treybaker5716]

Yellow Jacket Sam Harris is Just Dumb!!!

[@Xelbiuj]

Michael Brook definitely doesn't sound like an intellectual.

[@dreyestud123]

When Kyle Kulinski says that religious people are dogmatic...I've observed that those people that self identified as "atheist" are extremely dogmatic.

[@VogtTD]

Atheism is the lack in a belief of unfalsifiable deities. That is all. There is no dogma, no unifying code that ties atheists together.

[@dreyestud123]

@@VogtTD What is the word for a a lack in belief of unfalsifiable definitions because I think you've just created one.

[@kenmcnutt2]

Here is the main point that Michael Brooks completely missed and that Kyle neglected to ram home: Nobody (or very few) will convert directly from a fundamentalist worldview straight to Atheism. Overcoming religious indoctrination for most people is a slow and agonizing process until you've fully let go and understand that life still has meaning and inherent worth. Baby steps. Wean people slowly off of religion one step at a time. Religious moderation is that middle step that most people need to take first.

[@FloridaManofCulture]

Ken McNutt II Exactly!

[@zacharycherif5525]

becoming an atheist is not an accomplishment and it does not make you better than religious people

[@kenmcnutt2]

Zachary CHERIF Believing in things you have no evidence for is not an accomplishment and does not make you a better person. If a person does their own research and finds the evidence lacking, becoming an atheist at least proves that a person's critical thinking skills are working.

[@zacharycherif5525]

some of the best philosophers believed in god and their critical thinking skills where fine. there is no need to be condescending against people that are religious.

[@kenmcnutt2]

Zachary CHERIF Before Darwin, only a very small percentage of people even considered a universe without a God. Thankfully science has progressed since then. There is no need to be condescending against people that aren't religious.

[@Asin24]

I really HATE when the progressive side INSTANTLY can't separate criticism of an ideology and criticism of an idea or an individual. As soon as they make something link (aka pointing out Islams flaws THE RELIGION not the people) suddenly they will attack a person and try and slander them to discredit them, creating a bunch of BS to try and discredit them with whatever crap they can. You can disagree, but as soon as you are trying to attack an individual instead of addressing their ideas (or what you strawman up to be their idea) you seriously lose respect. You are basically doing what fox news does when they can't win with their ideas trying to instead make someone look bad.

[@wadeking4054]

+Purutzil As some people say. "Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas." I want to say that is a quote from a person, but I am too lazy to look it up.

[@wadeking4054]

+Joe Rogen Why are you discussing people? Unless Eleanor Roosevelt isn't a person. Is she an alien? I always knew it.

[@wadeking4054]

***** I also talked about a person, so I'm a small mind also. This is why quotes suck. They don't work in extremes.

[@theatheist7840]

Pretty much. Slander is a powerful weapon on the Left.

[@TheRedCapitalist]

Purutzil Ok, you win the debate. Now what? The world hasn't changed one bit except that you've wasted a lot of your time. People focusing on ideologies, debates etc. w/o actionable outcomes that work are a complete waste of space

[@imnodog]

I really don't understand Kyle's need for us to be in agreement with everybody who's secular. why can't we call out people for being wrong when they are wrong in our views? I don't like Sam's stance and rhetoric when it comes to US foreign policies and I call him out on that, yes, outside of that I probably agree with him on 89% of the issues, that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him on stuff I find wrong and argue about it. that's how our positions evolve with time. I don't need to begin every comment I leave on Sam Harris with _"well, I may agree with Sam on 89% of the issues but on this particular issue may I say that he may be a bit mistaken,"_ fuck no, I say he's wrong and I point out where I think he's wrong, and go from there...

[@sunnydavis2000]

Kyle, I know it’s difficult but it has to work. If people can’t have a civil discussion between two groups which almost agree on 90% of the issues without spiraling down to ad hominem attacks, what hope do we have for a diplomatic way to solve the differences between war-torn countries?

[@ajollyoldben]

"Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists." -Sam Harris Truly a despicable character.

[@AnxiousObserver]

And that is the answer to Brooks' and fellow regressives question. When they ask " so you pointed out Islam is bad, so what are we supposed to do about it?"

[@YOURINQUIRER]

This shows Michael's ignorance of Sam Harris. Harris does not see atheism as a panacea. He even objects to the use of the word 'atheist',. He's continuously said that if won't profit the world if we all become atheists and not become more reasonable. Michael likes to whine about how Harris claims his critics don't understand him. Michael's not doing a good job of proving him wrong.

[@DardyG123]

+Yourinquirer He might not convince his fanboys, but some people are not fanboys anymore because ppl can see through his, 'everyone doesn't understand me' meme.

[@YOURINQUIRER]

Dardy Gerard Funny how when people don't understand Seder or Michael, they just don't understand, but when they don't understand Harris, it's his fault.

[@DardyG123]

I don't know what your talking about. You just making stuff up now.

[@YOURINQUIRER]

Dardy Gerard So no one ever misunderstands Seder or Michael?

[@DardyG123]

Yourinquirer Anything is always possible. But seder and Michael babble on a few minutes at a time about various subjucts. They haven't written books or have talks for hours on end about a single subject. Nor has seder/michael gotten as much scurtiny because their not as influencial. These are obvious things that you should know Harris as put a lot more thought into narrower topics and has received extentisive examination by professionals all over the world, and Harris' only defense is that they just don't understand ever because they don't let him pick and choose what he wants, but lets the pain understanding of his writtings speak for themselves; which is what Harris says about Islam just don't ever apply it to Harris, because that's intellectually dishonest.

[@travismarshall4220]

Losing Michael was maybe the worst thing to ever happen to the left, he was a great voice to have on our side

[@Colls515]

He really was the best. I learned so much from him

[@REVAN2338]

His last statement speaks wonders, we shouldn't have a "narrow rationalist view" he jumped around avoiding saying anything positive about the other side. Also no more Reza he's a liar, look up his statements about Indonesia.

[@marcoantonio7469]

Very interesting discussion. It should've been longer, though.

[@Base612]

It sounds like they are just on the phone. Wonder why they are getting cut off.

[@robm6645]

+Marco Antônio Kyle will be a guest on Sam Seder later in the week.

[@socialmute4101]

+Base612 Kyle streams the show live on Blog Talk Radio for an hour and a half. No reason he couldn't have gone long for the KZbin video as he does it regularly.

[@Base612]

+Social Mute Ahhh, that explains a lot. Thanks for that!

[@samuelsallick9131]

Brooks is condescending and at times outlandish and goofy

[@joses1881]

Rush Limbaugh is neither an intellectual nor a scientist. Rush Limbaugh doesn't spread his nonsense from a platform of ostensibly rational philosophy. I'd recommend a 1967 essay by Chomsky titled "The Responsibility of Intellectuals."

[@SpaceElf]

The Progressive movement is cancerous. It's just tumblr light. But go on, have your silly little political bloc. I'll sit here with people who have an actual end game and know what they're doing.

[@tkvsevolod]

He said Sam Harris contradicts himself because he calls Taliban the real Muslims, and at the same he supports secular Muslims. How is that a contradiction at all? Stating that one group of people literally follow and do everything in the Koran (extremists), therefore they are the closest to being "the real Muslims". And still supporting those who are not literalists, and are secular/liberal Muslims. Where exactly is the contradiction?

[@robm6645]

+tkvsevolod If you define a muslim as someone who believes in the type of society advocated by the Taliban, then a moderate, secular, and liberal muslim becomes a contradiction in terms. Also it's contradictory behavior to call the Taliban the true muslims and at the same time pushing for reforming islam because reforming islam means that a true muslim can be a liberal educated cosmopolitan person.

[@tkvsevolod]

Rob McCune if Taliban follows and enforces the literal interpretation of the Koran, and it's laws in entirety, how exactly are they not "real Muslims"? Moderate Muslims are arguably not real Muslims, because they are not literalists. That doesn't mean that that's a bad thing. In fact completely opposite. The less people take that ancient bullshit literally the better. But in its current state, pure Islam is exactly represented by extremist groups like ISIS, Taliban etc. So saying they are not true Muslims is just dishonest, because literally everything they do is justified by their holy book.

[@robm6645]

tkvsevolod Where did I say that the Taliban weren't true muslims? Trying to say extremists are the true muslims and saying you want to help reform is contradictory, and you haven't made an argument why it's not.

[@tkvsevolod]

Rob McCune "If you define a muslim as someone who believes in the type of society advocated by the Taliban..." - Isn't that an implication that Taliban Members are not true muslims? You still haven't pointed out how stating that literalists like ISIS and Taliban are true Muslims and at the same time wanting Islam to undergo some kind of a reformation is a contradiction.

[@robm6645]

tkvsevolod No, that's not implied at all. In fact in the range of possible interpretations allowed by that ambiguities of the english language that interpretation is way out there. My point was that is a narrow definition, and an inaccurate one. I've also explained why it's a contradiction, because Sam Harris has excluded reformist muslims from being true muslims by definition.

[@SummersTimeEntertainment]

Please excuse my ignorance, but is "new atheism" the term used when nonbelievers voice their opinions, challenge the religious and fight for equal rights/representation and proper education? Or is it something else? And who would be considered a "new atheist?" Madalyn Murray O'Hair?

[@valgehiir]

Summers Time Entertainment It means Atheist. Kyle needs to drop this idiotic 'new' shit from Atheist.. or keep blowing Cenk and keep calling us New Atheist

[@RustyShackleford1066]

It's anti-theism, basically.

[@SummersTimeEntertainment]

Jacob. Okay, I would call myself an anti-theist too, but there are people that worship the sun, moon and their ancestors. I'm not going to tell them that grandma never existed, or that the sun is nothing but a light... like the bible says.

[@ernestoj2223]

I didn't feel that way when I read and interrupted The Bible. My impression of being a Christian was one of inferiority. I couldn't be superior to anyone, as everyone and everything is Gods creation. Meekness is suppose to be rewarded. Another impression I got was that Christians were to live in Love. The concept of love itself has to include mercy. With that mercy you would want no more than any of Gods creations ultimately speaking. So even YOU would be prayed/meditated for durning a Christians live, as you would be in your/their death. The gift would be passed on. I also got a strong feeling that I was not to judge. Only God could do that. Those ideas are what I walked away with. A selfless state of mind really. As I would naturally be flawed, I could expect to stray and make the proper adjustments. The goal is to be as God like in love as humanely possible using self discipline. I could go on, but I don't feel a need. Good luck.

[@SummersTimeEntertainment]

Eric J Which denomination were you? I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and their strategy is to dehumanize non-JW's by identifying them as outsiders and calling them "worldly people" and saying they can only be associates and never your actual friend. Outsiders were subhuman and only existed to be converted into JW's. Anyone who wasn't "one of us" would get destroyed by Jehovah and that's why we didn't mind getting doors slammed in our faces, or hearing people pretend to not be home when we arrived at their doors to "save their lives"... 9am on a Saturday. "It's okay if you don't want "the truth," we fulfilled our obligation by trying to convert you as the bible commands" we would think smugly knowing we'd live forever on a paradise on earth while you'll sleep forever (JW's don't believe in hell).

[@uno_3099]

is that background from mw3? lol

[@youngmoneymahini]

2 of my favorite political minds, RIP Michael Brooks

[@wadeking4054]

I think when Bill Maher talks about other Muslims fighting ISIS, he also means that non-fundamentalist muslims need to fight fundamentalists in society, rather than with war. Sort of like an enlightenment style of fighting. Battle of the ideas, instead of battle of guns. And once again, I am seeing a lot of this "Harris thinks all muslims are bad" kind of argument. It's quite stupid, really, unless I missed Harris actually saying that.

[@ferasalhati8713]

That's brilliant! How come we never thought about that before??

[@jeois411]

You're acting as if there aren't any Muslims fighting extremism BOTH militarily and also "in society" writ large. Moreover, it's quite ironic in that you're saying Maher and Harris is being misrepresented, but you always ignore our problem with Harris even when Brooks said it right here very clearly.

[@jeois411]

shiftingsandland this is just plain ignorant to ask them to carry more of the burden as if they weren't the ones dying fighting them and getting blown up BOTH by extremists and our drones/bombs. Who's fighting ISIS in Syria? We did nothing for almost 3 years and it was just them fighting alone.

[@deliriumtremens5851]

+Jason King I find the mention of Bill Maher in this discussion to be a huge red herring. He's a comedian. I'm a fan actually but Bill tends to get his head set on something and often fails to see the other side. More importantly, he is not Sam Harris so why bring him up in that part of the discussion (question to Michael, not you Jason).

[@jeois411]

delirium tremens he gets lumped into this conversation about new atheists vs. progressives because he's has a show where he expresses opinions of new atheism (and also liberalism in general) and has written about it quite a bit too.

[@autumnalscholar9453]

So this is why the truce idea just won't work. "I heard what you're saying, but I'm gonna ignore those points because my view is right". That pretty well sums up the narrative from Brooks. Wow, that certainly will help the situation.

[@autumnalscholar9453]

It's like Brooks just can't accept that Harris may have a point or may actually be right on anything. That sort of ideological absolutism really doesn't help anything.

[@AnxiousObserver]

Yes, this exactly. Could not have picked a better quote for Brooks.

[@autumnalscholar9453]

Glad I'm not the only one feeling this way.

[@deliriumtremens5851]

Michael seemed relatively intelligent if a bit arrogant; so, I was confused by his one dimensional portrayal of Sam Harris's point that (and this is horribly misquoted on my part) "ISIS represents the true Muslim". Is he trying to misrepresent what Sam is saying here or is he just so busy enjoying the smell of his own farts to take ten seconds to think about it? I disagree with Sam on many things. I think his wording is often very unfortunate to the point where I have to wonder if it's purposeful to stir up controversy. There is a lot to disagree with him about without misrepresenting his views.

[@robm6645]

Great video Kyle, I think it actually comes closer to the goal of your last new atheist vs progressive video because it actually shows people what a civil and respectful dialogue on the issue looks like.

[@infinityand0]

Why do you allow this guy to get away with his blatant mischaracterizations? If we were to treat Brooks the way he treats Harris, we would simply say something like, “All brooks is doing is defending Jihadists."

[@ImmortalTiger94]

When did Brooks mischaracterize anyone?

[@infinityand0]

ImmortalTiger94 For example, Sam Harris never has stated that the jihadists are the “Real Muslims.” Either Brooks is dishonest, or stupid, or perhaps egregiously lazy. But, t’s the only way he can get away with stating that Harris’ attempt at courting moderates is a contradiction. I therefore suspect he is a dishonest little jerk.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

+infinityand0 That is what Sam Harris believes, and the fact that you defend Harris without even knowing his true positions is scary.

[@infinityand0]

ImmortalTiger94 You don't know what you’re talking about. Show me where Harris says that. For the record, I am in disagreement with Harris on a number of points, but I don’t disagree with him by blatantly misrepresenting his positions. Brooks is being dishonest here. show How I am wrong on that point.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

+infinityand0 What? You are the one claiming Brooks is mischaracterizing Harris, yet not providing evidence to actually prove your claim. How about you provide some evidence? Shouldn't be difficult, right?

[@LONDONFIELDS2001]

Brooks is as sharp as knife

[@glich86]

Seeing this 5 years later and it reaffirms my new Kyle stance. He was a short sighted borderline reactionary then, and he's still ashort sighted borderline reactionary. Harris has never changed. Kyle was just uninformed. He's uninformed a lot...

[@detectivegrinch]

Nah Sam Harris has definitely gotten worse. Back then he was an annoying islamophobic interventionist neolib, nowadays he openly endorses/gives credence to the bell curve. Also just because kyle thought sam was half right about Islam doesn't make him "borderline reactionary", its just one of kyles shortcomings where he assumes wrongly that someone is working in good faith when they aren't. Hell you can see how frustrated he is in the interview he conducted with sam after dealing with sams superfluous and incendiary attacks of glenn/cenks character. Its fair to criticize Kyle for being shortsighted but a borderline reactionary isn't a fair description of him at all. Just as I think its inaccurate to say Sam didn't progressively get worse over time.

[@sebolddaniel]

The great Muslim hero, Salah Al Deen, who fought against the Crusaders, was a Kurd

[@altheaflora3450]

Secular Talk Kyle, not everything's a 50-50.

[@anonforuz]

I kinda feel like this dude is taking sam's point out of context, about sam supposedly meaning that true believers are all crazy nut jobs, lumping all of a particular faith into one group. when i think his actual point is that we shouldnt be surprised they act violently when its exactly what their religion permits them to do. they are being true to their religious teachings. kinda why he says how come the only religious people we like are the ones who are least honest about their adherence to the doctrine of their religion. so its kinda like, we all love those christians that say their are a true christian say they believe in god, but denounces all the horrible acts of violence. but we hate westboro baptist church who believes it word for word and sorta enforces it. (im no wordsmith, hopefully my extremely summarize points make sense.)

[@zakichoudhary507]

1:05 Sam pointed out that you didn't know what "neocon" means, or how it's been used in regular discourse the last couple decades. It's cool, we've seen how you evolved and now accept that these people are horrible war mongers that happen to make good arguments, sometimes, on organized religion. And, literally, nothing else (that matters).

[@philipboardman1357]

20:00 Brooks concedes the whole core of the argument here. After he realizes what he's done he says "my thought process is still fluid on that, to be honest with you." I've played the gotcha card, not to feel smart, not to one-up a guy who is most likely smarter than me, but to point out that "progressive atheists" seem to miss the plot. We're only saying that these holy books are filled with bad ideas, ideas that have bad consequences, deadly consequences. Conceding this does not mean that geopolitics are no longer a factor in geopolitical violence.

[@philipboardman1357]

***** No one. that is entirely the point of my last sentence. Religion is only one part of geopolitics. It's not only part that these "progressive atheists" want to ignore. But there are all kinds of economic, social, and cultural dimensions at play.

[@roryreviewer6598]

Great interview. I found it really interesting.

[@Finallyatheist]

I actually unsubscribed to Sam Seder with the release of these last videos about Sam Harris. I was not going to do that because I didn't feel that I should stop listening to them just because they were wrong about Sam's position, but I got to thinking, why should I be allowing these people to help construct my opinion on issues when they are not trying to follow the truth of the matter. They are creating this straw-man of Harris's position and are not moving from their ridiculously hateful stance. If they are not after the truth then I am done with those dudes.

[@robm6645]

+Finallyatheist I had a similar revelation many years ago about a young writer named Sam Harris.

[@Finallyatheist]

Rob McCune What was the issue?

[@ImmortalTiger94]

Straw-man of Harris? When?

[@Finallyatheist]

***** Harris is not for any religion. I have heard him speak many times and I have never come away thinking he was trying to help the jews. If he is then he has an odd way of going about it. I don't agree with every position Sam has but I know he is not what you claim. Why is it that you say this?

[@Finallyatheist]

ImmortalTiger94 They are saying that Harris wants to nuke the Muslims and torture prisoners. This is not what Harris has said.

[@outlawJosieFox]

Sam Harris, Sargon, Molyneux, Trump - funny how the right are always going on about cult of personality politics but just try criticising one of their heroes and whooah baby !!

[@sebolddaniel]

Women have free health care in Saudi Arabia and there are beach hotels and resorts where both men and women can wear what they want, whereas I as a male on a beach in Minneapolis can be gay bashed and talked to by the cops for my Speedo.

[@elizamiller512]

Nice talk. Good job Kyle and Michael.

[@Saddamuel]

@25:00 Claims Sam Harris "thinks the real Muslims are the fanatics", then mentions Maajid Nawaz in same sentence after having previously spoken about their collaboration on a book about moderate Islam. What? It's possible to think that aspects of a religion were intended to be taken literally but at the same time be thankful and support modern interpretations that water down the worst elements. Might not do much good to mention those two in the same sentence! But consider the way that as secular people and atheists we often point to some of the crazy stuff in the Bible and ask people why they don't take that as seriously as a sentence about homosexuality. We're arguing they should water that down too and not that they should stop mixing their cloths and start stoning people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath or whatever. Sometimes we even point to those stories to highlight the basic absurdity of the book and encourage people to question everything therein. If someone only goes halfway, that's better than nothing. If they decide to become more fundamentalist then it's counter productive. So should we stop that line of argument? Doesn't Harris worry about literalist elements of the Quran which make it harder to argue there is room for interpretation...

[@TheJinjo75]

That's not a claim. Thats in Harris most famous work.

[@jacksteudle]

Looking back on this in 2023. Really interesting to hear how Michael’s thoughts on this carried into his book. Going through a deep dive into all of his content right now and really enjoying his critique of the right on this front.

[@djole94hns]

Does this Michael guy know what "fundamentalist" in "fundamentalist Islam" means? It is, by definition, real, pure Islam. The same way WBC and Evangelicals are more fundamentalist, true to the book Christians. Take into account that Quran has even less internal contradictions than the Bible.

[@CODfanboylover]

Is anyone here subscribed to the Amazing Atheist?

[@valgehiir]

CODfanboylover have a guess!

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Nope!

[@preest_nz]

CODfanboylover Only to see what sort of babble he will churn. I find him quite unbearable and don't end up watching most of his videos. Think I will go an unsubcribe right now ;)

[@TheSwordofStorms]

CODfanboylover yeah. Love his shit.

[@zisira2469]

Yes and I'm a huge fan

[@ziffulmyer]

Interesting discussion. I've been following this debate for a long time. I just listened to the Sam Cedar video also, and (at the risk of sounding like a butt-kisser) I'm definitely still on Team Kyle.

[@vanillamindscream196]

I like both of them..

[@jekzinder16]

Taking it to the other context, how does butt kissing, sound any different than kissing another part of the body?

[@ColinJoseph5154]

I love Kyle. He's so reasonable and well spoken. Sometimes the majority report gets up its own ass because they bask in the same partisan snark that you'd see on fox and friends. Kyle disects the issues he disagrees with and then does his best to bridge intellectual gaps. If he cannot come to an agreement with a peson or a policy, he at least does his best to empathize with the person's following or the people who might support the polict he disagrees with. Anyways, enough fellation. This was a good talk and I hope this channel continues to grow.

[@mycount64]

anytime you are dealing with people that believe their position is supported by a supernatural being ... logic and objective reality goes out the window and anything goes.

[@No1ANTAGON1ST]

Yeah! majority report! For the record: they're wrong

[@zzendawgie]

amazing conversation!! Michael brooks is brilliant

[@alixmordant489]

When Mirna Ramírez gave birth two months early, she was detained by the police, accused of attempted murder and jailed for 12 years. In El Salvador, where a draconian anti-abortion law holds sway, her story is an all too familiar one (...) While several other countries in the region have relaxed their anti-abortion laws, El Salvador has moved backwards. In 1973, its criminal code permitted the termination of pregnancies in cases of rape, congenital foetal defects or when the mother’s life was at risk. This, though, was superseded by a revised constitution in which article one stated that human beings come into existence from the moment of conception. As a result, abortion - or miscarriages treated as suspected abortions - can now be regarded as murder, which can carry a 40-year sentence. (...) Even when the lives of pregnant women are at risk, he says (Mr Ortiz, a medical doctor), he has to advise them to continue the pregnancy until they are close to death. Two years ago, in the globally famous case of Beatriz - a 22-year-old woman who almost died because of her pregnancy with a foetus that lacked a brain (...) Ortiz says Beatriz is still paying for the consequences of that delay with a renal disorder, respiratory problems and low blood pressure. “If we had acted promptly at 12 weeks, maybe she wouldn’t have the renal problems.” But he and his colleagues continue to struggle with similar cases, some of which end with the death of the mother. “I had hoped Beatriz’s case would change things but nothing happened. Sometimes I feel, ‘What was the point?’” he laments. “No politician will touch this. Even the ministry of health has problems with it.” The main obstacle is the Catholic church, arguably the strongest institution in the country. With the Opus Dei sect in particular opposed to abortion, there is little debate on the issue. www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/17/el-salvador-anti-abortion-law-premature-birth-miscarriage-attempted-murder Michael, what is your agenda? Why do you neglect facts like this and opt instead of smearing atheism? Polls show, most atheists are leftists/progressives/liberals. Michael, what is your agenda?

[@snivy8776]

Seder and Brooks have nothing against atheism. It's the over emphasis on religion when culture and geopolitics are also hugely influential. (Religion is a product and a large part of culture).

[@koraykoyuncu5242]

Kyle needs to start doing long interviews just like TYT does because I think his short commentaries on the news are not that interesting anymore.

[@trentirvin2008]

Omg two of my favorites

[@BrendanBeckett]

Any English speaker that uses Daesh instead of ISIS/ISIL/IS loses all credibility. It's a transparent attempt to scrub Islam out of the issue. And the funny part is, Daesh is just the Arabic acronym for..... ISIS!

[@robm6645]

+Brendan Beckett How dare he use furrin words to talk bout furriners.

[@BrendanBeckett]

Rob McCune Way to miss the point. People started using Daesh instead of ISIS because they wanted to disconnect Islam from the problem. They didn't know that Daesh just simply means ISIS in Arabic.

[@robm6645]

Brendan Beckett Do you think the name Al Qaeda hides the association with Islam?

[@BrendanBeckett]

Rob McCune Still missing the point man. I'm not saying they were successful, I'm saying that was their intent, and that it doesn't work anymore than it does with Al Qaeda.

[@robm6645]

Brendan Beckett So calling them by their name is an attempt to hide who they are. Makes sense.

[@AnxiousObserver]

Excellent interview, it's frustrating being a fan of guys like Brooks who are oblivious regarding certain issues.

[@ImmortalTiger94]

Like what?

[@soolinemag]

I feel ya.

[@Base612]

Oblivious to what exactly? Brooks is incredibly intelligent and cogent. You can disagree, but oblivious?

[@AnxiousObserver]

+Base612 Oblivious to the actual positions of people like Harris and Maher and Kyle, etc. He's too quick to straw man someone who disagrees with him immediately and never makes an attempt to learn or actually listen to the person. It's too easy to dismiss anything someone else says that he disagrees with as "he's just not looking at it with enough nuance" or "he's just not as smart as me." Positions like that are as bad as a right winger who is just as dismissive and entrenched in their belief before even listening to an argument.

[@sudafedup]

I was actually surprised to find out that Charles Koch is an avowed atheist. Thought he was a fundamental evangelical. Then again, Kyle ain't far from Olsteen.

[@JPrescottQ]

I used to be 100% on board with Sam Harris, but I have been very dismayed about him over the past 1-2 years. For all of his high minded talk about compassion his stance against Syrian refugees is appalling. Another thing that has turned me off of Harris are his fans. I used to just read his books and occasionally listen to his podcast, but looking at the intellectual bankruptcy of his followers, (look no further than comments from this video) I really started to question if Harris indeed had anything meaningful to say about Islam; and the fact he he doesn't I still think Harris is a smart guy and his work on the Moral Landscape impacted my worldview a great deal, and he isn't totally wrong about some of the violence that can be justified by some interpretations of the scripture; but he is totally out of his depth the moment he opens his mouth about what our political reactions should be. I heard Harris demand that Obama "say Islamic terrorism" and then offered no other solutions, as if just saying magic words does anything. In summary, I more or less agree with most of the philosophical underpinnings of Sam Harris, but his conclusions are almost always embarrassing to even listen to. This is the danger of leaning too much on philosophy, it can trick you into thinking you have more merit than you really do. Just because a line of though is logical doesn't mean the answer is correct. You can be 100% logical but also completely false. When it comes to foreign policy, you have to be data driven and culturally sensitive, frankly as of late Harris is neither.

[@BALZACHERTZ]

I think it's telling that Brooks is so smarmily confident in his views but has no idea who Majjid Nawaz is.

[@nathandrake5544]

Why would you expect any random American political analyst to?

[@BALZACHERTZ]

+Nathan Drake well, a random one, no. But for a guy who has strongly criticized (and regardless what he says here, has often attempted to clown for stupidity) Sam Harris and references his own contacts in the Middle East and books on subject to not know who one of the foremost reformers in the Muslim world is renders his points useless.

[@andrew_owens7680]

Majjid Nawaz is Sam Harris's idea of what a Muslim scholar is. In fact, he is a politician and an opportunist who cares less about Islam than how many book deals he gets.

[@BALZACHERTZ]

Regardless, a guy with Brooks' supposed knowledge of the Islam, the middle east AND Sam Harris should know who he is.

[@andrew_owens7680]

He was doing an interview with Sargon of Akkad and claimed to have never heard of the New York Times or Salon.com. He has a dry sense of humor. But remember, this interview was in 2015. I watched a lot of Sam Harris before I came across that name, and this is also a subject of interest for me. I'm Muslim and Nawad is not on anybody's list of Muslim scholars simply because he isn't a scholar. And his value as a reformist or anything other than a tool for justifying more violence against innocent Muslims is questionable. All Nawad does that I can see is to see up hoops for Muslims to jump through so that they don't get banned from the West. It's basically the approach my ancestors took with the Native Americans. You set up a very difficult-to-enforce rule and when they break it, you punish them severely. "Any Indian that steals from a settler, you lose all your territory."

[@tomatodamashi]

Reading the comment section proves that Kyle failed so badly trying to get Progressives and Neo-Atheists together...

[@equalsd123ful]

Glad to listen to this, I love Michael and Kyle, don't agree with either totally but they both are on the right side of things.

[@mistermood4164]

this is a pointless discussion..:/

[@mistermood4164]

***** me ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@mistermood4164]

***** why do you ask?

[@mistermood4164]

***** i read some..but i'm not TO into it.

[@mistermood4164]

***** sure you can, i'm not obsessed with it, but i read the occasional poem.:/

[@mistermood4164]

***** of course i'm familiar with those poems. i has to read some of them in school, like the Odyssey, Iliad. but what does that have to do,with , in "dealing with the western world"

[@PlayerVid]

I think people who subscribe to the New Atheist ideology should understand that on some levels, you are just as bad as the religions you speak out against. It's fair to call out the issues with religion. But when you feel the need to force people to subscribe to your belief, not matter how right you think you are, it is a problem. Sam uses skewed statistics to paint a very broad brush of over a billion people. They're not just religious zealots. They are people with different life experiences, points of views, upbringings, etc. If people like Sam go out and try to portray those who practice Islam as all holding extreme views, then you get people like Trump. A person who will take it to the next level and try to form policies based around that line of thinking.

[@madalice5134]

I think that the hyper aggressive new atheists are just as bad any zealot. Same my way or the high way thought process and black and white worldview. They also have the same tendency towards cults of personality as those they speak against. If an evangelical won't stop proselytizing about how everyone else is wrong and they're right, how is it different than an atheist who does the same? They're still inflicting their views on others with no regard or respect for those who have beliefs and are just going about their business and want to be left alone. I have a personal abhorrence for anyone who tries to convert others, regardless of what they are trying to convert people to.

[@Botzu]

Kyle is being too generous in this conversation. Michael Brooks is slimy and so is the majority report guy in the video you linked. I go click on the sam seder video linked in the comment bar and its a complete embarrassment, no wonder it has so many dislikes. That guy talks like the argument is "if you agree more than 50% on things they are saying you shouldn't criticize anything they say" and he goes on a rant about how sam is against certain religions because "its non western beliefs". Just the level of dishonesty they have to start at in order to make these kinds of argument is too much. Then there is this video where he tries his damnedest to portay sam harris as some kind of political lobbyist for neocons. Where did he fish that one out of? The cj werlaman school of arguing?.

[@BakedAtheist]

It seems as though Michael doesn't understand either. Does he state that there is a contradiction in supporting 1st amendment rights while arguing against religion? Or does he mean that supporting moderate Muslims while calling attention to extremism is contradictory? There isn't a contradiction in either case. I fully support people's right to believe as the wish, while continuing to argue against erroneous and potentially dangerous beliefs. Michael uses the same straw-man 3 times without being called. He states that Harris believes that only extremists are "true Muslims", but this is false. If I understand Sam's position correctly, which I believe is similar to my own, it is that he does not define who is or isn't a real Muslim. The misunderstanding is in the distinction many people make between literalists, who tend to adhere more "fundamentally" to their holy texts, and those who take a metaphorical view and tend to be more liberalized.

[@BakedAtheist]

I don't want to dislike these guys, I agree with Michael on many things he said. I also disagree with Sam on certain issues, but it's these kinds of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of the skeptic/atheist movement in general, and Sam Harris in particular, that force me to believe some of them are being intentionally misleading. It almost as though they've made up they're minds and don't even want to discuss. As an atheist, I love debate and discussion on any number of topics. I believe we're all on the same side. We may have specific disagreements but I think we serve different purpose. The progressives take on foreign policy, the atheist take on religious dogmatism. There are the pro choicers and science advocates and pseudoscience debunkers and feminists. We all have our specific areas of interest. And what does "naive view of rationalism" mean? What is there besides reason, skepticism and evidence to ground your worldview?

[@omy8443]

Man, I don't give a rats ass about this topic. And yeah, I just commented to say that.

[@GermanLeftist]

Great interview, good job Kyle and I now understand a little bit better where Michael and the other guys from The Majority Report are coming from, even though in the end, I still disagree with them on this issue.

[@nawidyusuf8254]

Sam Harris is against the Iraq war? Since when? The revisionism of his fanboys? Look at the way he presents the war in Iraq. It was conducted poorly, but those against the invasion are morally questionable. Thus, from his statement one can only assume the moral position would have been pro-intervention. Just cause he does mental gymnastics doesn't make his statement any less pro-war. His advocating for a first strike policy against a potential Islamist state with nuclear weapons. His understanding of the concept of martyrdom in Islam and assertion that his understanding of the concept is what is held by true Muslims or Islamists. Therefore, the concept of MAD is not a deterrent for Islamists which is non-sensical. For example, Iran has WMDs and the ability to deliver them to Israel, but hasn't yet is an Islamist regime. Why not? Are they not itching for martyrdom? Or can we not paint all Islamists with the same brush and do we admit Iran is not Al Qaida and Al Qaida is not ISIS, etc. Maybe even ISIS understands the concept of MAD. They have manufactured WMDs yet have not struck Israel, they took possession of SCUDs and other relatively devastating equipment and have not attacked Israel. The idea that the Taliban or ISIS have the true interpretation of Islam is also contradictory. How do we figure? Islam has a cannon which is not only the Quran and ahadith, but also qiyas, taweel, tafsir, etc that has 1400 years of scholarship behind it. The vast majority of Muslims who have ever lived have accepted these concepts as have the majority of Muslim scholars. If ISIS rejects all of this and says they have figured out in the 21st century that they were all wrong and some guy in the 18th century was right, how does that make them the true Muslims? Aren't they like the Islamic mormons? ISIS calls for a caliphate, mourning the loss of the Ottoman caliphate, that they view as lost to western imperialism yet that same caliphate executed people who followed Wahhabism as heretics.

[@HotKakez]

Sweet, I'm glad that Kyle and Majority Report could have a talk together. I listen to both shows and it almost feels like a watching teenage mutant ninja turtles meet the power rangers...well, not like the real thing. That was a deplorable episode.

[@voiceforjusticeandproporti5543]

Good discussion. As a muslim (and published scientist) one of the challenges that euro-american discourse of islam have is that they fail to consult any of the last 1400 years of past interpretative history of the quran and hadith. It has been refined to a science and a huge amount of very intelligent discourse happens in non-english languages. Sadly, very few of the euro-american scholars of islam can speak or understand arabic, persian, turkish, urdu, etc. An introduction is provide by Joseph Lumbard who talks about this briefly in English (kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5LcgKKqlsR1fbM)

[@utah133]

I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says, but for some reason a lot of people stubbornly misunderstand what he says. Islam is a religion. It has problems. Muslims are people. He's talking about the religion, not the people when he derides Islam. It does have problems, as does Christianity.

[@n8glenn]

One thing I would point out about sam harris's little book project, where he is working with a secular minded muslim, is that this is nothing new and not unusual. When he does this, he is really implying that HE is the one trying to reform the religion, which he considers by it's very nature bad and dangerous, full stop, because it is a religion, and that no one else is trying to do that. The main thrust of what he's doing is glossing over the fact that islam is a major world religion, a major set of world cultures, which contains every imaginable political current, across a wide spectrum that goes from pacifism, communism, feminism, to extreme fascism and intolerance. In other words, there are already major political movements within the islamic world advocating liberalism and tolerance, women's rights, etc. So don't think that when harris and his muslim friend wrote some book about liberalism, that they are somehow breaking new ground or doing something novel. Just imagine how preposterous it would be for buddhists or zoroastrians to undertake a project to liberalize christianity, by writing a book about how christianity can in fact be liberal and include women's rights, as if that had never happened before, while simultaneously denouncing all of the christian world as fundamentally bad and threatening based on the very fact that it is christian. We get away with this sort of insanity because we're rich and powerful, and no other reason, but outside of our little bubble, in other parts of the world, we aren't looking so good right now.

[@kdemetter]

He's not a neocon. He's just a philosopher who likes to play with controversial ideas. I just see it as public brainstorming. The problem is that a lot of people aren't interested in philosophy, and can't place this where it belongs. They conclude that merely thinking about something means you want to implement it ( in fact I've heard some people say that some things shouldn't be thought about, which is basically saying 'you are not allowed to think this' ) . For someone criticizing Sam Harris, he doesn't seem to know that much about him. I think he agrees more with Sam Harris then he realizes.

[@yaserthe1]

Poor Kyle, talking to a giant in foreign policy. RIP Michael.

[@DoggoWillink]

I'm not a big Harris fan anymore. I once was, back after Letter to a Christian Nation, when I first realized there was an atheist movement. At this point, I don't really care, I tend not to idolize people anymore at my age. That tends to end in disappointment, when you realize the person is a human, and has views you don't agree with as well. Whatever, that's life. I still like Harris for what he has done with those first couple books, the debates and things he has done on religion. But I have no real desire to defend him per say. What I do have a desire to do is to say how disappointed I am today with the so called progressives (something I considered myself) and basically what you could call the far left. All this radical (yet unequal) social justice shit, demonization of people, fascist approaches to speech, etc, I'm sick of. I used to think the far right had no equal, but I was wrong. These people (not this guy particularly, don't even know him) are their reflection.

[@deane2473]

Micheal Brooks wont stop pandering to me, to progressives, throughout the entire conversation.

[@heatherwantsyourbod]

"Sam Harris believes real Muslims are the fanatics." Sam doesn't believe all Muslims are fanatics, which is what you seem to be implying here. When he was talking about Muslims being "true" Muslims they believe the literal word of the Quran, which would make you a fanatic, but you'd also be a true Muslim considering you believe the literal word of the Quran. He cleared this up during his interview with Cenk. He's basically saying you're not a true Muslim if you cherry pick to Quran, because then you're not obeying all of it's teachings. It's like Christians calling themselves true Christians, but they cherry pick the Bible and ignore specific passages that don't fit their lifestyle or personal ideals. Sam can come off radical sometimes, but I still feel like this guy is twisting Sam's words.

[@nathanrobbin6341]

Brooks is so worried about being wrong he never says anything. The dude is wasting his talent pretending to make arguments for positions he either does not understand or does not want to understand

[@DoggoWillink]

Also, even if Sam Harris has blatantly said that fundamentalists are the only Muslims, there is no contradiction in his working with reformists. I'm almost positive he has not, his claim is more nuanced than that, and is a position that most any rational person holds. Namely, that the more fundamentalist you are, the more of a "true" believer you are, simply being that you are reading your texts the most closely and taking it literally, truly enacting your teachings. Meanwhile, moderates do a lot more picking and choosing, and generally have a modern approach to life. Their religion is a lot more diluted and much more of a cultural and traditional entity. Anyway, again, there is no contradiction there, at all. It is entirely rational (even if you disagree) to say, "I don't believe moderates are 'true believers', but we're much better off with them so I will help them". There is no contradiction there. With your strawman, you could say that there is some dishonesty there, but that's it.

[@crazychainsawkid1]

Kyle speaks the truth, well done man.

[@iMaDeMoN2012]

New Atheist!?! How do you build a community and political consensus around the lack of a belief in gods.? Kyle, drop the new atheist label already. What a waste of time.

[@groam6666]

Maybe it's just me, but I find a lot of progressives and liberals as being smug, just like I find most conservatives and religious people to be smug. I've never seen a video where Sam Harris was smug, although I'm sure they're probably out there. I like it when people try and believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible and backup their arguments logically with a plethora of credible sources, examples and thought provoking approaches as to how they reached their conclusions. So far, they're more atheists like that than any other pundit that I've seen so far. If you disagree with liberals or progressives, they're extremely quick and hungry to label you a racist, bigot, a fascist, etc. Just look at Cenk's behavior towards Sam Harris during his interview, disgraceful.

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

tax religion and most of the issues go away?

[@Lamilton82828]

Micheal was such a big influence on me I think we all miss him a lot.

[@storytheshorty]

PLEASE UPGRADE YOUR AUDIO QUALITY