Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Beyond Belief '06 - Scott Atran and Sam Harris (Part 4 of 4)

Monday, November 6th - Part 4 of the long exchange on day two where Sam Harris and Scott Atran argue over Islam, and each other. www.beyondbelief2006.org therareoften.blogspot.com  
 
Customize

More From: baneoffafnir

Loading...

QuickList(0)

Featured Videos

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
163 ratings
Sign in to rate
27,613 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (216)   Options

Loading...
darwinkilledgod (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
"Christians killing Muslims" in the middle east? I'd love to see some data on that... the roaming death squads were Shitte if I'm not mistaken, and the Sunni are planting most of the bombs...
darwinkilledgod (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
You would be on firmer ground if you gave examples with a clear chain of reasoning from scientific theory/data to ethics and morals.
jakeman4you (2 weeks ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
GO SAM.....
ThMrksman (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
if by completely fraudulent you mean slightly vague.
The estimate given in that study was 300000-900000.
It just so happens that it is difficult to calculate. That is no reason, however, to ignore the study and instead take Bush's word that its wrong.
ReligionOfNice (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
No it was completely fraudulent. Your response shows that you are living in your little bubble. You give the same king of response a truther gives when you dispute their claim that fire does indeed melt steel. They repeat their mistake and then tell you not to believe Bush. When did I ever mention that idiot Bush? You are so wrapped up in your partisanship you set everything in the black and white of Republican vs. Democrat.

Hopkins was fatally flawed. It''s anecdotes.
ThMrksman (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
i dont know or care about ur USA politics tbh.
I just did a bit of research on the subject, thats all
ReligionOfNice (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
... and your research told you that I was taking Bush's word. It's obvious you both know and care about USA politics because you opened your trap about Bush.
ThMrksman (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
'It's obvious you both know and care about USA politics because you opened your trap about Bush.'
My apologies for insinuating that it was bush who told you to take it on faith.
I just think that you calling a study completely fraudulent seems a bit strange.
Especially when similar studies have previously been integral to the decisions of whether a war is worth fighting in terms of civilian casualties. eg the war in congo.
ReligionOfNice (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
The Lancet study was funded by Soros, it was sent to Lancet on the condition it be published before the election. The data was "collected" by a former official of Saddam Hussein's regiem, Riyadh Lafta.




"This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease." - Richard Horton, Lancet Editor

No other study came within an order of magnitude of this one.
ReligionOfNice (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Read the Wall Street Journal article titled "The Lancet's Political Hit" to get more information on this fraud.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.