If Books Could Kill - Episode 34: The End of Faith

Original description:
In the mid-2000s, Sam Harris helped revive atheism with his sharp wit, polemical style, and absolute refusal to listen to real experts.
Peter and Michael discuss the book that launched the phenomenon of New Atheism and asked the question: What if we hated Muslims, but in a secular way?
Where to find us:
Peter's other podcast, 5-4
Mike's other podcast, Maintenance Phase
Sources:
Views of Violence
Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System
The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over
Does intuitive mindset influence belief in God?
Terrorism science: 5 insights into jihad in Europe
Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief
What Is "Islamophobia"?
Essays In Defense of Profiling
To Profile or Not to Profile
Chapter 2 The Making of Jihadist Social Actors in Europe in
Who are the new jihadis?
Disbelief - Prometheus Books
God and the Ivory Tower
Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion
The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Displays, and Group Competition Generate
Talking to the Enemy
Thanks to Mindseye for our theme song!

[@nephone]

I'm wondering if Sam has ever talked at length about the general profile of the mass shooters in the US, and how to screen for possible future attackers and what to do to stop them. It seems like any discussion about this issue falls between a sarcastic "oh of course, you want to blame white men for everything!" and "lol pathetic incels lashing out at innocent civilians", sometimes from the same people. I get the feeling of being unjustly blamed when someone points out that some problem seems to be mostly the xx group's problem, and you happen to be a part of xx group, but there is a permission to do this only one way (like in this example, to do it to muslims in the western world, and to westerners in the muslim world), and people don't want to see the double standard. If someone pretends to be a member of the "intellectual dark web", i would expect they don't shy away from difficult conversations even if they risk pissing off majority of their audience. But this whole skeptic circle jerk is more interested in dunking on whoever they don't agree with then actual skepticism about all their core beliefs.

[@felicitasjuarez]

Thank you so much for uploading! Can you upload their other podcasts? 9 to 5 and Maintenance Phase?