He he he,Majlos pronasao negdje na kupusovom listu koji chak i neradi,probaj ponovo ali dobro udri palicom.U međuvremenu pogledaj link u vezi pravog Harrisa i šta kaže u vezi tvoje glupe religije.http://www.samharris.org/

Е мој милосе и тесла, то су вам само пусти снови. Чак и у случају да је то тачно, сад би вам његово мишљење изненада било важно, а пре је било неважано шта прича. Дозовите се памети и отканите се празноверја. Бог је само Деда Мраз за одрасле.

Vic za kuma:
Bosanac na samrti kaže sinu: - „Je li ono mati peče baklavu? Donesi mi jednu.” Sin ode i vrati se bez baklave. - „Ne da mater, kaže da je to sutra za dženazu.”

Majlos opet nerzume,evo ti link iz istog linka pa mi kaži gdje ovde Hariss kaže da vjeruje u boga.Nisi ti dzaba bio u policiji.http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#harriss

Mnogi će priznati dok je još vreme, a svi ostali takođe ali na kraju kad je kasno.

Hej, ljudi, zar ne vidite da nam Majlos ode u dizajnere. Naravno on misli da je inteligentan pa na „dizajnere” dodaje atribut „inteligentan”. Steta za tako dobrog pravoslavca. A i ovaj prebeg je toliko važan za istoriju religije da će uci u sve buduce udzbenike sa prvi razred predskolskog obrazovanja.

Hugenote1, kako god okrenes ti iskazujes svoj fransko-srpsko-americko-grcki prostakluk. Nekulturno je i prostacki za coveka reći da se okotio. Tu slobodu i prostakluk sebi ni neskolovani srpski seljaci ne odobravaju. U Srbiji se samo zivotinje kote, okote i nakote. A ta se reč koristi samo kada se govori o drustvenom sljamu. Ne znam kakva je situacija u Francuskoj? Stidi se, ako ni zbog čega drugog, onda zbog tog tvog zvanja kojeg si sebi prilepio.

Dobro, molim vas, primite moje izvinjenje... Ja sam u početku boravka u Jugi ucio srpski na radnoj akciji pa sam sacuvao po neki izraz iz tog vremena...a teskom mukom sam morao da se oslobodim naucenog psovanja kada sam stigao u gimnaziju.
Freelance , otkud znaš za „ grcki ” deo ? Jesam u tome pricao?

Jeste „Copy paste” ali vredi citati. To je osvrt na dve knjige a drugu je upravo napisao Sam Harris... Primecujem isto ono sto primecujem kod Kuma, ima tendenciju da nas sve ubacuje u isti kos sa ultra fundamentalistima, bez obzira sto ponavljam , na primer, da ne everujem u mladu zemlju, sto liberali smatraju da su Adam i Eva samo simboli ipotpuno negira sve humanitrane akcije gde smo mi , hrišćani, ukljuceni... Znaci, ipak je to sablonski , ukalupljeni način razmišljanja...
...


Against All Gods, by AC Grayling. Oberon Books £8.99, pp64

Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris. Bantam Press £10, pp96

For some years, AC Grayling and Richard Dawkins have been the good cop/bad cop of anti-religious thought. Dawkins publicly fights fire with fire, while Grayling has opted for a gentler advocacy of humanist values. But now, in Against All Odds, a little collection of his reworked newspaper essays, a distinct note of exasperation has crept in. 'If the tone of the polemics here seems combative,' Grayling writes, 'it is because the contest between religious and non-religious outlooks is such an important one, a matter literally of life and death, and there can be no temporising.'

This belief is echoed by American writer Sam Harris in his concise anti-religious apologetics, Letter to a Christian Nation: 'It is terrible that we all die and loše everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion ... is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity.'

Harris's previous book, The End of Faith, was a US bestseller whose position was uncompromising: moderates of any faith do as much damage as extremists, he argued, because they make religion acceptable, opening the door for those who enforce their dogmas with explosives. Harris's arguments were reasoned, but his tone often slipped from forthright into hectoring.

Given that his new book is addressed to the believers whose minds he wishes to change, you might think he would have modified his approach, but no. He does not seem to comprehend the mindset of those he addresses, curiously, since he berates others for failing to understand the Islamist's religious conviction. 'Western secularists, liberals and moderates have been very slow to understand [jihadist violence]. The cause of their confusion is simple: they don't know what it is like to believe in God.'

But neither does Harris; at least, he does not know what it is like to be a born-again Christian or he would not expend so much sarcasm on the minutiae of Old Testament law. It is a tenet of evangelical Christianity that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ created a new covenant with the church, so they no longer believe that a man should stone his wife to death if she is not a virgin.

It seems equally futile to offer comparisons with the gods of ancient Greece; neither Harris nor anyone else will persuade a born-again Christian that their faith is as risible as a belief in Zeus. Grayling tries the same trick by arguing parity between all beliefs in the supernatural, reducing God to the status of unicorns and fairies. Those who agree already will be amused by the simile; those who believe that Christ is the way, the truth and the life will simply reply that the author cannot understand the revelation of the gospel.

Both authors argue that the rise of fundamentalism in the West is directly attributable to a declining respect for intellectual values. 'We are building a civilisation of ignorance,' says Harris of the erosion of science by religion in American schools. Grayling's most controversial argument is that the 'weakening of intellectual rigour' began when polytechnics were allowed to call themselves 'universities'.

There is a further tendency on the part of both authors to disregard the good that comes from religious faith in terms of charity and spiritual comfort. 'Is truth less important than comfort, even for the lonely and afraid? Are there not truthful ways to comfort them from the resources of human compassion?' Grayling asks. Well, yes, is the answer, but he fails to acknowledge that, too often, it is only the churches which bother to comfort the lonely and the dying; part of their attraction is that there is too little kindness in the world.