Can someone give me a basic gestalt on why Sam Harris is so extremely anti-Trump...

Can someone give me a basic gestalt on why Sam Harris is so extremely anti-Trump? I stopped listening to his podcast because it just became annoying.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=46kAzBMJpEk
youtube.com/watch?v=HcEJr8h_yGM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Have a quick rundown instead

>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs
>In contact with aliens
>Possess psychic-like abilities
>Own castles & banks globally
>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line
>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)
>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth
>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies
>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world
>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now
>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?
>scientists pointed a telescopic array at the source of the 'bog bang' that created our universe
>this is what they heard: youtube.com/watch?v=46kAzBMJpEk
>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff
>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
>the big red phone in the Kremlin is a direct line to the Bogdanoff manor
>the last person who missed a call was Mikhail Gorbachov. He resigned and fled the country in fear and the Bogdanoff

Was he wrong? Look at this shitshow.

Sam Harris is a dumbass.

Sam Harris' B.A. in philosophy doesn't appear to be sufficient for making him a competent philosopher. The question of whether morality can and does exist objectively without God is entirely a metaphysical question - making his background in neuroscience entirely irrelevant. His arguments, as do all atheists' arguments, depend on fundamental tenets like materialism, naturalism, empiricism, etc. - none of which are coherent. Empiricism is self-refuting; it holds that empirical observation is the only way to know truth, but it can't show that statement to be true. Belief that science is the only way to know truth, is also self-refuting, as there's no way to conduct an experiment to test if that's true. It's also false simply because truth can be obtained via methods like logical deduction, completely independent of science. Naturalism is self-refuting; if our ability to conceive of truth exists only because it has naturally evolved to be as it is, and nature selects only for traits that help us survive, and knowledge of truth isn't necessary for our survival, then there's no reason any of our conceptions of truth would be correct and Sam Harris shouldn't believe anything he says.

Materialism is false; in order for it possibly to be true, one would have to believe ideas and concepts exist physically and objectively. Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties only exist subjectively. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind objectively exists. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Thus materialism is false. As you should infer, when science is conducted by someone who isn't a logician, it allows for logical incoherencies to be overlooked or ignored, and makes evidence susceptible to being interpreted in accordance with bias.

In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects. I don't know if he dismisses this necessity all together, but at the very least, he presupposes at least one of these to be true. This is because he presupposes God doesn't exist, demonstrably from a number of these logical fallacies: straw man ('God is a magical sky wizard'), appeal to ridicule ('lol they actually believe this'), begging the question (assuming his conclusion, like that morality objectively exists in a materialistic world, and -then- trying to explain how it works), red herring (anything irrelevant like 'What matters is that we have morality'), appeal to need ('We don't need God'), appeal to emotion ('God was bad and atheism is the only true enlightenment'), appeal to what should be ('It would be bad for God to exist'), genetic fallacy ('All religions correlate with certain cultures, therefore they are all false'), argument from ignorance ('I don't recognize evidence for God, therefore He's unlikely to exist'), or - and this is the most popular one, responsible for most atheist's delusions about atheism being synonymous with "reason" - appeal to the stone (dismissing something as obviously ridiculous without giving proof).

Consequently, Sam assumes morality is material and works his way from there. He certainly didn't arrive at that conclusion logically. He explains how our sense of morality has evolved to be as it is for our survival, but this doesn't imply morality objectively exists, only that subjective morality exists. In Sam's world view, unless he's cognitively dissonant or profoundly logically inconsistent, morality is objectively meaningless - nihilism is an inescapable consequence of atheism. He tries to confuse and conflate subjective meaningfulness with objective meaningfulness, but that's just an appeal to emotion. They simply aren't the same thing - nothing objective is contingent on our thoughts. Explaining how something would be plausible does not imply the probability of that thing being true. Sam Harris does nothing to show the existence of God is unlikely or ridiculous.

In all seriousness though, Sam Harris says whatever he thinks will keep him in the good graces of high society. The guy's tone screams fake.

People who think of the existence of God as a ridiculous notion, presumably by choice, imagine Him as some limited being who's unlikely to exist by definition. God is generally defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, and ultimately incomprehensible. Imposing purposely silly definitions on Him (or any definition), aside from being an appeal to ridicule, does not function as a valid reduction to absurdity because any and all imposed definitions conflict with His actual definition. For example, a "flying spaghetti monster" is either not omnipotent by definition, or its form isn't necessary and therefore arbitrary and non-definitive. If or when the intention is merely to show God is "as ridiculous" as any fantastical thing using false analogies, it is only a redundantly-fallacious appeal to the stone. It's also akin to saying "Look, I can make things up. Therefore your God is made up," and yet these are the kind of unsophisticated arguments atheists use, presumably all because they refuse to conceive of possibility outside our comprehension, lest they have to admit we may be held accountable to something outside ourselves.

The existence of God isn't ridiculous, anymore than the existence of minds, multiple dimensions, fundamental forces, ideas, concepts, thoughts, good, evil, purpose, meaning, physical constants, logical constants, existence in general, etc. are ridiculous. You might be tempted to contest something like "But we observe these things." No, you don't. You only observe their effects.

Arguments against Sam Harris' belief of the existence of objective morality in a Godless world:

Subjective relativism is self-refuting. If subjective relativism were true, the proposition "subjective relativism is false" would be paradoxical and couldn't exist. The proposition can exist, as I've demonstrated. Therefore subjective relativism is false. Therefore subjective morality isn't necessarily objectively correct.

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral.
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious.
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (from 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent.
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (from 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The objective is by definition independent of human or limited consciousness.
9. Morality can be objective if and only if God exists. (from 7 and 8)
10. Everything is objective or subjective.
11. If God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective. (from 9 and 10)

1. If God exists, morality exists as a Godly idea.
2. Godly ideas exist objectively.
3. If God exists, morality exists objectively.
4. If God doesn't exist, materialism is true.
5. The only thing that exists outside of minds is matter and possibly abstract objects.
6. Morality cannot be composed of matter.
7. Abstract objects are only concepts.
8. Concepts cannot exist objectively.
9. Abstract objects do not exist objectively.
10. If morality is an abstract object, it does not exist objectively.
11. Morality cannot exist outside of minds.
12. If God doesn't exist, morality only exists as a human idea. (from 6 and 10)
13. Human ideas don't exist objectively.
14. If God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist objectively.
15. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, morality is only subjective, and it's objective only if God exists.

In conclusion, Sam Harris is demonstrably a dumbass.

He triggered that fag Muslim apologist Ben Bin Afflecki on Mahers show. Harris made him look like a complete dipshit.

blah blah blah i'm a butthurt godfag who lost my foreskin to a goat fucker kike meme religion blah blah blah

he's a jew

jews don't understand why they hate Trump. it's just something they feel deep down

It's only atheists that appeal to butthurt, kid. Sounds like you're projecting.

He's a fucking Jew

Just look at that schnozz

>Empiricism is self-refuting
You need to read Hume, bro. If we can't have rational insight into the deep structure of reality, we can still do commerce, science, statecraft, etc. But rational arguments for religion do not survive.

Of course, one could accept Hume's argument and make an irrational case for religion, i.e., religion without reason, in the style of Hamann or Jacobi, but that's a different track.

Thanks for the quick rundown, my dude

I though seth green had just gotten old.
Is that really Harris and not set green?

LOL DRUMPF BTFO!
Ignore his growing approval ratings

Funny how he's so anti religious but when it comes to his tribe is all about zionism. He says that's different though because it's a culture and a race, not just a religion. Atheist jews always find a way to exclude their tribe from the rules they want to impose on everybody else.

>jordan petson btfo'd sam harris during a molymeme discussion saying his comphresion of religion is that of a child who doesn't know anything

Spooks against Spook spook of the spookiness of spooky spookity in a Spookless spook:

Spooky spookism is self-spooking. If spooky spookism were spooky, the spook "spooky spookism is spooky" would be spooky and couldn't spook. The spook can spook, as I've spooked. Therefore spooky spookism is spooky. Therefore spooky spookity isn't spookily spookily spooky.

1. There is only the spook and the nonspook. (spook ^ spook' = spook)
2. We know spookively that the spooky (nonspook) is not spook.
3. In some spooky spook, there is only the nonspook.
4. In some spooky spook, there is no spookity. (from 2 and 3)
5. Spookity is spooky.
6. Spookity is not spooky on the nonspook. (from 2)
7. Spookity is spooky on the spook. (from 1, 5, and 6)
8. The spooky is by spook spooky of spooky or spooky spookness.
9. Spookity can be spooky if and only if Spook spooks. (from 7 and 8)
10. Spook is spooky or spooky.
11. If Spook doesn't spook, spookity is only spooky. (from 9 and 10)

1. If Spook spooks, spookity spooks as a Spookly spook.
2. Spookly spooks spook spookily.
3. If Spook spooks, spookity spooks spookily.
4. If Spook doesn't spook, spookism is spooky.
5. The only spook that spooks spook of spooks is spooks and spookily spooky spooks.
6. Spookity cannot be spooked of spooks.
7. Spooky spooks are only spooks.
8. Spooks cannot spook spookily.
9. Spooky spooks do not spook spookily.
10. If spookity is a spooky spook, it does not spook spookily.
11. Spookity cannot spook spook of spooks.
12. If Spook doesn't spook, spookity only spooks as a spooky spook. (from 6 and 10)
13. Spooky spooks don't spook spookily.
14. If Spook doesn't spook, spookity doesn't spook spookily.
15. Therefore, if Spook doesn't spook, spookity is only spooky, and it's spooky only if Spook spooks.

In spookclusion, Spook is spookily a spook.

Nice job bud have an upvote

Because he is an ideologue and he disagrees with Trumps ideology whereas the Democrats pander to him and his audience.

>listening to his podcast

kys

Give us a link m8

>literally too intelligent

[Citation needed]

This, desu.

youtube.com/watch?v=HcEJr8h_yGM

molymeme is severely outclassed, not that this is a discussion

It wont let me post the fucking link.
Google: 'POLL: Travel ban is one of Trump's most popular executive orders'
It from the business insider

>gestalt
why are you faggots posting this word constantly?

how is materialism incoherent?

get out, globalist

Thanks

Harris is just a giant neocon. A giant neocon whose job during the 2000's was to get autistic liberals on board with neocohenism.

Why wouldn't he be anti-Trump? Everybody in his camp is.

>thus the mind is immaterial
ok but if the body is material, and the body is the means of the mind's execution of intentional action in the world, how does an immaterial object of the body causally influence the material object of the body? or are you an epiphenomenalist?

woah my trips

Why would you bother to post something so complicated on this board of retards?

Good read anyhow. Yes Sam Harris is retarded but he sounds smart.

>In order for objective morality to exist in a materialistic world, as Sam Harris believes, it would need to be an abstract object or exist in physical objects.

You could watch his ted talk on the moral landscape and understand his argument in 10 min. His claim is that there are ideas that contribute to human flourishing, and there could be similar moral peaks. But there is still a clear distinction between ideas that lead to flourishing and ideas that do not. Objective morality is about ideas and results.

how do you get from props 7 & 8 to morality is conscious iff God exists? none of your other props mention God (I'm assuming you mean a limitless consciousness). I don't really understand that part of your argument.

>Checking own post

Die, shit-gobbler

Sup Forums should shitpost Sam Harris. #HWNDU is dead and we need a new bitch boi to fuck with. It will be difficult and strenuous but a necessary challenge. #HWNDU was low hanging fruit, but Sam Harris is primo grade A Columbian. Nothing will be able to stop Sup Forums if we can make the Sam Harris buttblast in the most glorious of ways.

Its not even worth it. Its all a big fedora tipping circlejerk.

Make him squeal. RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

...

bitch, I'm not watching an hour and a half video

... huh, this is really good

OK, I'm watching an hour and a half video...

How is it not worth it? How does one quantify who is worth of trolling and shitposting?

Because Trump is a cunty retarded child in the body of a fat bald 70 year old who fell ass backwards into the most powerful position of earth by appeasing nazis.