What's your opinion on Sam Harris?

What's your opinion on Sam Harris?
youtu.be/vQgI4bHpAlA

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=22cYcsVPOok
youtube.com/watch?v=vg7p1BjP2dA
youtube.com/watch?v=8exJQiykF9E
youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU
youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM
youtube.com/watch?v=k4r99y5IEl8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

BASED Liberal.

Calls it like it is when it comes to Islam and terrorism.

Gets a lot of shit thrown at him from the regressive left.

CS Lewis really said that?

Wow, what a retard.
He uses established scientific principles to disperse ideas which rely on mysticism and "you never know" mentalities.

Literally correct about 99% of things.

One of the smartest guys around. Is in fact as smart or more than any philosopher out there.

His book the moral landscape as far as I am concerned is a masterpiece and simply nails morality.

His only weakness is his fundamentalism about guns and obsession with muslims.

>I can think therefore God exists.

What?

Also, this.

The thing is he doesn't actually hate Muslims or Islam, he just realizes the inherit non secular nature of the religion causes massive incongruity with the modern secular nations.

>obsession with muslims.

He criticizes Islam and gets called a bigot, islamophobe and racist.

He's not obsessed with muslims from what I can see.

He's a very smart jew, I'll give you that.

Completely agree with him in practically everything.

Even when it comes to the reasoning as to why he supports Hilary over trump.
I support trump but I agree in his stance that when it comes to making the safe choice Hilary is the correct pick, I however am fucking tired of liberal nonsense so even if I know it isn't the safe choice I'm willing to take the risk

He's atheist and shits on Judaism too.

youtube.com/watch?v=22cYcsVPOok

>Samil Harrisburg

Crypto as fuck

he's a pretty smart guy
I also like his voice and the way he talks, no homo

Sam Harris is an uneducated dolt. Anyone with a smidgen of learning would avoid his asinine 'speculations', like those of all of the New Atheists. Try Nietzsche or Feuerbach or Marx instead.

>Sam Harris is an uneducated dolt.

Said the user on an imageboard.

kek

Smart dude. I'de like him if he wasn't such an Israel cuck.

>Shakespearean chimp argument
it's been disproved in various ways.

it is a common misconception that evolution is a process of design or chaos exclusively. instead, evolution is a process of what you can call ordered chaos. genetic changes happen without much direct reason and often don't change much, but the ones that stick are the ones that increase the fitness of the species. people who are religious can't grasp the idea that it is possible there was no plan because their beliefs are usually centered around a plan.

there's no correct parallel for how actual evolution occurs because there is no end goal or solution. humans evolved as a result of evolution, and this is the only reason why humans exist utilizing all current evidence.

Sam Harris is much more reasonable than Dawkins or Hitchens. I like his argument regarding meat eating and how it's okay because the animals we eat have far less capacity to suffer than we do.

Seems like a pretty reasonable argument to me. I don't see why you'd dismiss it like that. You said: "CS Lewis really said that?", implying you thought him to be more reasonable than that. Yet you assume that he's the dumb one and not you for lacking the capacity to understand his argument beyond your bias lens.

doesnt seem like a true atheist to me, he mentions meditations and buddhism too often.

but in that regard I agree with him though.

>neuroscientist
>uneducated
what?

mmmmm but jews have no God, or im wrong?

I thought jews worshiped the sheckel.

>implying neuroscientists can't be dumb as bricks.

Personification of the phrase "too smart for his own good."

It's interesting that every single one of the so-called Four Horsemen of the New Atheism has had his ass handed to him in formal debates with the relatively mild-mannered and unassuming William Lane Craig.

Observe as WLC turns Mr. Harris into a quivering pile of sweaty man-flesh at Notre Dame:

youtube.com/watch?v=vg7p1BjP2dA

He's obviously not stupid, and he listens far better than most of the atheist personas dominating the landscape of modern debate. He also gives arguments with true consideration of not distorting the views expressed by others.

But that Jewish man's reasoning pertains to the creator of the universe, not a man living within it. The more potent argument Harris could have delivered would have been "the same can be applied to any other particular character of God such as Shiva or Allah, so why are you only applying them to YOUR idea of God - Yahweh?"

Nobody is going to watch a fucking 2 hour debate.

What time does Harris supposedly get REKT?

Or are you just being a bullshitting Christfaggot?

youtube.com/watch?v=8exJQiykF9E

>"Black people are apes" - Sam Harris

Das racis

Wow thanks for posting this. I had no idea these people had the balls to debate an intelligent and well-educated theist.

Yeah but that's pretty obvious and wouldn't have been as funny.

I'm going to watch the whole thing. I'm sure many anons here have watched multiple several hour-long debates. They're interesting if you care about ideas more than lulz.

kek

And that's why there are still more theists than atheists. Comedy routines do not dismantle religion - they just get dumber people to oppose it.

I'm in my 30s, m8. I've watched dozens of debates between atheists and Christians over the years. I should have said I'm not going to watch it.

She's a neurosurgeon not neuorscientists. Surgeons don't need to be smart. They just need to have good hands and pass a board exam.

>ass handed to him by william lane craig

youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU

>the universe can't be infinite without a creator
>the creator can be infinite without a creator
>what makes the universe different from a creator?
>....
>....
>....
>....
>....

Yeah, you should have, because then I wouldn't have raised the issue. Now that you've clarified, I have no issue.

What are you doing on millenialchan you old fuck?

>dumber people oppose religion

Not sure about that. I've seen reports that state religious belief is negatively correlated with IQ.

And theism is negatively correlated with educational attainment.

This seems to be the case. The nations with lower education levels and lower IQs seem to be the most religious.

Look at the Middle East and Africa.

A neuroscientist can be dumb, but not uneducated.

Also, Anjali Ramkissoon was not a neuroscientist, she was a resident neurologist.

Based thinker. Clear, careful, precise. Also takes intellectual honesty /integrity seriously.

B-b-but I am a m-m-millenial.

Not sure what you're trying to imply, but Craig utterly destroyed Hitch in that debate. I like Christopher Hitchens, I mean, he's hard not to like, even though I don't agree with his atheism. But William Lane Craig left him literally sweating, grasping for words, and even forced him to admit to a 1% chance of God's existence before that debate was over. Hitchens refused to address that debate in interviews for the rest of his life, it became part of his appearance rider.

I just got done listening to him shit on Cenk for 3hours. I know he's an atheist, doesn't change the fact that he's an ethnic jew.

>I like his argument regarding meat eating and how it's okay because the animals we eat have far less capacity to suffer than we do.

I don't think he would draw that conclusion, though he would agree with the premise. Where did you hear that?

Lower levels of theism follow from more education and wealth. They don't create it. The west has become more atheistic because it is richer it didn't become richer because it was atheistic.

Agree with him on islam, disagree on politics

Why does it matter if he's an ethnic jew. If he wasn't a cuck to Israel I don't think it should matter.

He got a PhD from UCLA. Undergraduate from Stanford. Not the university of Grenada lol

faggy Jewish cunt
>meme logic
youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

I dont like this dude.

All this fake atheism and forced intelletualism is too much to handle.

Maybe some of you will not like this, but you should study a little Christianity, Islam and Judaism before judging.

What about politics do you disagree with?

1% chance of god existing would be classified as an extremely weak possibility.

Craig is definitely a good debater stylistically, but his arguments and defenses are always based on theological ideas which have no objective basis. Everything comes down to whether you want to believe it or not.

HaHa xD le tipp'd fedora xD

Pic related lol typical atheist lol.

I am Christian now lol.

1% is pretty good when you consider the ramifications of the answer one way or another.

I've seen that debate. Harris crushes him. Ur just b8ing ppl.

I wasn't saying that only dumb people are atheists, I was saying that only dumb people oppose religious beliefs on the basis of comedy. There are a great number of intelligent atheists.

Also, I've seen the same statistics (or at least similar ones) and your point is no doubt valid. I'll go so far as to say that most religious people are dumb. However, there are also a great many intelligent theists who defy the statistics collected thus far about religious demographics.

>oh yeah? then what caused god?
this special pleading accusation doesn't work with craig's formulation of the kalam, it's specifically worded with 'comes into being,'
>what makes the universe different from a creator?
one came into being, one didn't

Sorry, friend, but arguments that have no objective basis are easily refuted. The unfortunate truth about atheism is, it can't be argued effectively. There is in fact a preponderance of evidence for God's existence, and this cannot be rebutted with mere appeals to authority. I congratulate any atheist who is willing to engage the formal debate, knowing quite well that when the argument turns to logic and deductive reasoning, their argument breaks down completely.

It's hard to take him seriously after hearing him shill for Hillary. I thought his critiques of Islam were sound, but he doesn't seem to have the courage of his convictions.

I've only seen Craig debating Hitchens, and Craig completely destroyed him. Hitchens was annihilated by the fine tuned universe argument, he kept babbling about how Dawkins thought it was an interesting argument while try to dodge the bullet.

Hitchens was the worst horseman, he's no where near as good as the other three in terms of scientific, historical or philosophical knowledge. He's just an overweight edgelord and nothing else.

If that's true, maybe you should encourage people to watch this happen, rather than sweep it under the rug.

Now you've just created a counterpoint to that user that's equally weightless as his. Now we have to see for ourselves to know the truth, you pesky fedorafag.

Most atheists would just turn the tables of your argument and say that's what theists are doing. You should provide at least a short argument to illustrate your point for the rest of us.

1% was just Hitchens saying the possibility was present yet extremely low due to the lack of evidence. pascal's wager is only true if there is only one possible deity. what if Allah is the actual deity? then your are sent to hell because you chose to reject Muhammad's teachings. what if Yahweh is the actual deity? then you are again screwed because Jesus would have been a heretic and you were following his tradition. what if an alien species on the opposite side of the galaxy's primary deity was the correct deity? then the best option would be to not have any sort of deity and just be agnostic regarding deities in general.

besides, believing in Christianity as a result of some form of Pascal's wager is not actual belief in Christianity based on the religion's belief system.

Pascals wager is still fine with multiple possible deities. 99/100 chance of going to an eternal hell is infinitely much better than a 100/100 chance.

>the universe comes into being without a maker
>god comes into being without a maker
show me how the latter is more logical than the former and I'll honestly congratulate you

This argument was debunked like a year after he proposed it.

As an axiom the second is better.

...

like I said in what you replied to, 1% was a metaphorical way of saying Christianity with all other religions to consider is very unlikely. there is no actual percentage, as what matters is the evidence. until evidence is provided that directly proves in any way God exists, there is a 0% chance of God objectively existing.

as an axiom the second has just existed for a longer period of time, appeal to tradition

First of all, he is a cuck to Israel. Secondly, some of the worst jewry has been done by secular jews. See: early 20th century Russia.

just another jewish propagandist.

He's fantastic. I agree with literally almost anything he says.

I disagree with him about Trump/Hillary though, although he does have a point. He just seems to have a harder time articulating it than usual.

If Trump wins, we simply have no idea what is going to happen whereas Hillary is the status quo.

He has a negative outlook on this election, I have a positive one.

>God comes into being
you seem confused.

God exists past eternally, he never began to exist, one of the premises in the KCA is that the universe began to exist.

(if the universe existed eternally in the past, then it wouldn't have 'come into' existence either, that's why when presenting the argument the person presenting it gives reasoning to support that that's less likely than its negation)

i'll try to substantiate that premise if you like, but really i was just pointing out that saying there's special pleading going on is to misunderstand the argument.

Utilitarianism is the spergiest of ethical systems. It's essentially the an-capism of ethics.

Also it's simpler.

You may like social glue and I won't bash on you for that, but I believe you know the underlying theology of a creator is at best wishful thinking.

Shmuel Horowitz only posses a sham degree in "theoretical science"

his musings and speculations actually have no more substance that the rants of fanboys on a comic book discussion convention

>The unfortunate truth about atheism is, it can't be argued effectively. There is in fact a preponderance of evidence for God's existence

Atheists always kinda loose cause they can't into semantics and Craig make sure he lures them into it:

>reality isn't real
>reality is absurd
>how can there be logic in absurdity
>therefore, no empiricism
>therefore, science is a metaphysical, nonsensical belief system
>but then why don't we live in glitch city, why don't we live in a 60's rock cover
>cuz intelligent designer, he keeps everything in balance, logic exists only though beliebing in him
>and jesus is god btw

Then there is the: why does existence exist if there is no real endgoal to it?GAWD

The absolute worst is that Krauss guy, nasty dumb fucker.Possibly the worst debater, even Sargon's better.

>until evidence is provided that directly proves in any way God exists, there is a 0% chance of God objectively existing.
That's not how evidence works. God could exist we just might not have evidence for it. Just because before Darwin there was no evidence of evolution doesn't mean the it didn't exist.

I wasn't disagreeing about him being an Israel cuck. I was just saying jews should be judged on merit.

If you mean Lawrence Krauss, he's a SJW piece of shit and an Islam apologist:

youtube.com/watch?v=k4r99y5IEl8

Sargon isn't that bad. Not as bad as TheAmazingAtheist, Paulsego, or half of the people Sargon argues against. Sargon just lacks a rich education of the foundations of theology.

There's three prevalent hypotheses regarding the physical start of the universe present today: the universe was created from principles outside of our universe's laws (big bang without a physical source), the universe was created from an old universe (constantly repeating universe, shown by a periodic function), and the universe was created from a multiverse (lots of universes exist sort of like galaxies, everything else is hypothetical).

God's creation of the universe would be classified by the first type, and I tend to agree with the third type. I don't think the universe existed eternally in the past and I think that the universe was probably the result of a process that we are nowhere close to understanding utilizing modern or near future scientific data, technology, and investigation.

My basis for atheism is in how Christianity originated as a belief system (not God's possible physical existence), and this would be difficult to explain in a concise fashion. Basically my disbelief stems from the history of world religions that preceded Christianity with a focus on Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. You should study the basic religious beliefs of Zoroastrianism and early belief practices in Buddhism to understand my position.

for the multiverse hypothesis I meant to say everything else exists as a hypothetical of a hypothetical

He's alright

The guy is not an intelligent man. He's right to distrust Islam, but it doesn't take any brains to realize that. He's pretty ignorant about everything else.

He's a good physicist but sadly falls into the same trap that he likes to accuse theists of: talking about stuff they don't know anything about - which is exactly what he does when it comes to politics.

>Basically my disbelief stems from the history of world religions that preceded Christianity with a focus on Zoroastrianism and Buddhism.
so you saw the movie zeitgeist?

the basis for your atheism seems more like a basis for not believing in christianity, not theism in general.

we're sort of derailing the topic of the jewish neuroscientist this thread's about.
but your 'exists as a hypothetical of a hypothetical' statement was interesting, you should read about molinism if you get bored enough one day. it provides a really interesting take on hypothetical worlds and free will + determinism (yes) + omniscience's compatibility.