Actually, history proves that atheists can be every bit as dangerous to society as any theists. More have been murdered under atheists, and by atheists, than in all religious wars combined. That is by no means something that can be casually swept under the rug. New Atheism is nothing more than the old organized atheism recycled. Very dangerous, very oppressive, and potentially disastrous. There are many things Harris and others like him do not care to acknowledge.
@bantumwt I would like to see these numbers on more atheists causing more violence than theists when over 90% of the world is religious. There is no possible way that atheists cause more violence than theists. The fact that people cause violence from all persuasions I think it's safe to say that religion does not create the moral standard that we think it does. And on your comment about organized and oppressive atheism, it would be more accurate to describe that for religion based on history.
@xrckrx Well, don't take my word for it. Do the research, see what you find, and make an honest conclusion. If you think that those people somehow represent the atheist people of today, then I don't know what to tell you. My point being, when is the last time you heard of an actual atheist kill (or even harm) a believer? I never have. The worst thing I've seen is somebody call a believer retarded; that's about the extent of it.
@xrckrx Cont. They were psychotic. Why do you think all the theologians in debates do not use this argument anymore? Because it's a bad one. The only time you'll see it is in older debates, or by people who never did the research on it. I could sit here all day talking about the millions of deaths religion is "accountable" for, but it wouldn't prove religion wrong or prove me correct. It's not a good argument.
@xrckrx Cont. dogmatic, and flat-out psychotic thinking. It is the complete opposite of how an atheist would act today. Hitler was responding as a Christian did in those times, against Jews; meaning with violence. Everybody in the German army and SS was a Christian. The Vatican supported Hitler, so atheist? No. Stalin's psychosis is a bit more involved, so research the history there. It was dogmatism, and ideology, the opposite of what any "atheist" believes today. It wouldn't make even a sligh
@xrckrx Well, I know you're being sarcastic as well, but I'll reply. Hitler wasn't an atheist. If you read Mein Kampf, or watch many of his speeches, you'll see this. He created a political ideology, a dogma, the very opposite of what "atheists" act like today. Even if he was a non-believer, like Stalin, he still was not doing what he did because of his lack of belief. None of these people ever killed somebody because of their atheism or as a result of atheism. It was as a result of political,
I don't agree we should not have a name for a movement. I don't like defining myself in terms of what can't be proven. The best names would be: Scientists. We base the ideas which have influence upon others based upon knowledge, not belief. Who cares what we personally believe if it affects no one else?
@misfitplanet Because more often than not, what we believe personally affects our world view and how we interact with others and therefore does affect others.
Quite an interesting point to make and I think it's worth contemplating. As a former devout Christian, I am grateful for my religious experience without prejudice because it better prepares me for the argument with my fellows who believe in a god. Having thoroughly studied theology for more than half of my life (I'm currently 28 years of age), I am fortunate to have studied theology and philosophy through the eyes of a believer, a theist, a monotheist, a Christian. I taught it.
@xrckrx You didn't like the talk about slavery, mass killings, raping, pillaging, genocide, wars, etc... all born of religion? You say Hitler. Seems there's lots of evidence he was 'religious' at the very least.
I think the most important point he is making here , is in that of an inward journey ,if for no other reason than to attempt some understanding of a religious point of view. (albiet I cant say all religious people even attempt an inward journey)
But this would go along way to not letting bigotry arise within athiest peoples. Because if Athieism (err reason I mean) Is truly an evolutionary step above religious beliefs ... then it has to show that bigotry can be shed from human reactions.
@sugmegpls Something is boring based on either what is being discussed, or the way it is being discussed. If he is bright and eloquent, then you must simply not be interested in what he has to say.
Hahaha! Sam Harris is anything but boring. How can supreme intelligence without ego be boring??? It's what the world needs right now. HE is the example for all of us, he is the light that needs to guide us.
We need to listen to Sam and start combining science with introspection.
To be called atheist or not called atheist ? I don't really get Sams point here,that we should quietly stay under the radar and refrain from calling ourselves atheist .. Sams next vid I watched was titled "Applying pressure to peoples religious beliefs" ! Now thats showing conviction of HIS beliefs by getting into that ATTACK mode ! Did he give that talk as a "non-atheist" ? I dont get it..it wont make any difference if you title yourself atheist or not.
@brindow1 Sam didn't say to do nothing, he said to attack bad ideas and bad reason "Wherever you find them!" Did you miss that part? He said this could be most strategically done while not under the banner of Atheism because your opponent will be more difficult to fight if you do.
@makarr01 Point im trying to get over is this .. if YOU for example are atheist and you decide to follow Sam's advice-how exactly would what he says effect you in comparison to how how you may have reacted before watching the vid ? HOW OFTEN in your everyday life do you confront an theist to talk about your differences? Most people dont talk about God in their everyday lives do they? From YOUR OWN point of view,do you think you will actually use Sam's advise?
@fauxx82 Well,yes I watched all the vid. You'll have to be more specific than that ! What part of what I said,dont you agree with ? Or at least can you give an answer to the point I brought up.
@brindow1 you're asking what you get out of this video if you are already an atheist, implying it's all unnecessary because we don't talk about God everyday. He articulates the position better than most ever could. Why ever discuss anything that you already have a position on , then?
@brindow1 his main point is that we should not have to call ourselves atheists, just as we should not have to call ourselves non-racist or non-astrologists. Destroy bad ideas wherever you may find them, don't just fixate on religion.
@fauxx82 Well,that may be Sams philosophy or advise and it may be you agree with him completly. I DONT consider myself part of any atheistic movement .. do you ? I do not set out with any specific attitude if I happen to get into a conversation with a theist[very rare-it just doesn't happen in everyday life]. I may attack a theist viewpoint,I may not. It depends on so many things. Would I attack an old lady who thinks she's going to heaven soon? Would you ?
@brindow1 there is most certainly an 'atheistic movement', in the sense that more and more people are becoming freethinkers and atheists. But that isn't his point, and the question you're asking me has nothing to do with the point he's making either. In fact I explicitly outline his point for you in my previous comment, you may have missed it since I replied twice. CONT-
@fauxx82 You do like correcting people dont you ?[not that you are necessarily right either !]. You come over as imperious and you know more than the other person. If you wish to improve your standing with people I think you will have to learn to blend a little more with other people's opinions. You virge on being a troller. Im not getting much out of this relay..best to cal it a day.
@brindow1 I'm verging on trolling? I have to blend with their opinions? What kind of nonsense is this? I was clear and polite with my response, you seem to be unable to respond, so you cop out with that. Your choice, a pathetic one, but not surprisng.
@brindow1 But to answer your question, no, I would not attack an old lady who is on the verge of death. The basis of morality (or what it should be) is human happiness and suffering. If it was someone who was not on their deathbed and really wished to discuss the workings of the universe, sure, I'd attack their belief in God. If it was an old woman who kept her beliefs to herself (at least didnt prosyletize) and they made her happy, of course leave her alone. CONT-
@brindow1 I, however, see NO reason not to attack the younger generation for a belief in a God. The whole idea of "believe what you want" is great in principle, but when you get people believing in such a convoluted idea as organized religion, and they condemn others for not believing, and they bring their views as politicians into public policy...then we have a problem. Change has to start somewhere.
@TheElfdreaming so you do think we should focus more on reason and logic in debate..Right?. Whats this about an equality view?? In europe we call it human rights. So your right about naming something, but untill I read the god delusion and heard about how things are in such countries as the USA, I never bothered with the term, Atheist. You realise atheists may have nothing else in common, by going on about christian right and left....what? protestants and catholics still try to kill each other.
What philosophers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say in 45 minutes,
game theorists write down in 45 seconds, and infinitely more hypothetical other situations.
Even philosophers and political analysts with whom I agree (Ingrid Newkirk, Ralph Nader, Max Keiser, Stacy Herbert, Pat Condell) on their main points do not impress me. Because they really ought to, need to, be doing game theory instead of endless talk.
21m32s Sam Harris: tough shit to the christians who keep bringing up the same tired old memes and soundbites (Stalin, etc). Don't address them.
Just turn up the flamethrower on THEIR side and demand to ask why christians eat meat yet their religion says "don't kill", or why they support soldiers, yet soldiers kill, or any of an UNCOUNTABLY many number of hypocrisies and logical inconsistencies in theism.
I also believe for the SAME reasons that NOT all bombings in this world and "acts of violence" are unjustified or "equally immoral". THAT is a LOAD of bullshit. Factory farms and places where animals are tortured beyond imagination SHOULD be bombed, the torturers themselves tortured and or killed. They should PAY for their cruel cause. THEY should make the sacrifice for their "right" to torture and kill fully sentient animals.
I think perhaps some of his better points are not helped by not calling ourselves athiests but more simply changing the focus of the 'athiest movement'. A Chrisitian says we are faith, good for him, now let's talk about chaplains in schools...
What he does say rather well, is that 'athiests' tend to focus or fixate on 'religion is wrong' generally rather than whatever the point at hand is. For example, I recently had a debate with a Muslim on freedom of religion/freedom of expression (online) and felt this was more useful than other athiest whose main concern was to point out the stupidity of his religion.
i think these kind of arguments are what make the religious laugh, they got us so caught up in stupid little intricasis of language, so scared of people saying we believe something... that we should be 'under the radar' telling people individually what we think?
I have been flamed down by other athiests when I try to discuss athiesm. But a world view is made up of many things, and one of those things is a lack of belief in any God. I may stand next to another athiest, and have next to nothing in common, bar that her world view also doesn't include a God.
just like a Christian 'right' may stand next to a Chrsitian 'left' and have next to nothing in common except a belief in God.
I think 'equality' is a world view, and similarly think of athiesm as a world view. I view the world through these lenses. If I changed my mind on either, my world view would change. Therefore I think it is relevant to use the term 'athiest'. Whilst there may be no term I know for 'someone who believes in equality', there are certainly groups of people who band together in common outlook, for the purposes of either a support group type thing or to encourage others to support equality too.
Sorry, in regard to my first sentence: an Atheist may claim to know a supreme being does not exist, but they are of the minority (as taking anything on faith, including knowing something does not exist without proof is not part of the Atheist ethos, which is more than I can say for theists).
The Amish are known for their severe child abuse. I live in Philadelphia, which is just a few miles from Lancaster county which has one of the largest Amish populations in the country and hear about it a lot.
His usggestion was a Good one... but unfortunately Harris refusing to la
bel himself and 'Athesist' will not stop others from doing so.
However he can of course disavow suggestions he is... and say... 'No, sorry I refuse to be labeled something in opposition to your idea, Have your crazy ideas...I don't care... but that won't stop me from pointing out where your demonstrably wrong.'
After all Lamarck never labeled himself an evolutionist, Faraday never labeled himself a theoretical physicist.
Never even considered myself an athiest nor was I proud to be represented as one (due only to misinterpretation of the word). But, as I expressed my ideas and reason, I consistently found people of faith labeling me as such. I'm sure many of you reading this can concur.
@wojovox Never understood religion to begin with. But I certainly never agreed to fall under any label. It's only happened in the last decade really.
In fact when the subject came up I used to joke I was an 'Agnostic Atheist' and that meant "I didn't know, and didn't give a shit either way". I didn't realise the joke was in fact accurate and that there are agnostic atheists!
Anyway... yep, might be a good idea to drop the labels... It certainly removes the target.
As Dawkins himself once wrote, words are our servants, not our masters. We don't have a word for 'non-astrologer' because not believing in astrology is not a particularly contentious or interesting position, whereas atheism manifestly is. But since his goal is not to pursue truth but to change the culture, he resorts to sophistry like this to get an agenda across. "Bright" indeed.
Well, in my humble opinion "We Need A Lot More OF These's Meeting's" We need more Science Center's and Public Science Lecture's, As Thomas Jefferson said " Information is the currency in a Democracy "
How can Sam claim to "advocate intellectual honesty and reason", broadbrush religion as being unreasonable, and then find himself unable to locate a single official teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to reason (referring to more of his talks). Can he? Let's see him do it -- an official teaching (i.e. Catechism of the Catholic Church) -- he's never done it, and hence is not advocating intellectual honesty and reason. Is Sam a closet "enemy of reason"? Is he avoiding good evidence?
When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? While I agree that Christian fundamentalists misrepresent Christianity because of a lack of reasoning, the same lack of reasoning applies here. Dawkins lies and straw mans Aquinas' proofs for God's existence. Hitchens ad hominems for entertainment. Harris is the master of Red Herring, never remotely considering intelligently the spiritual powers of free will and reasoning when addressing morality. Atheism - the dark force.
@patientthomist What? Didn't Harris, Dennet and Hitchens all discuss 'free will' at length?
I'd question 'free will' being in the domain of 'spiritual powers'. Spirituality has nothing to do with free will... so it wouldn't be too much of a surprise to find Harris not considering it.
Next I'm interested in where you see Dawkins using an argument Thomas Aquinas never made in relation to proofs of existence of god? Either I missed that or never read it to begin with.... please elaborate.
Harris and his idea of " well-being" is actually a very provocative concept for atheism and atheists. This is why I believe people like Harris are very valuable to philosophy, religion, and spirituality. Harris challenges all of us to review our inner selves.
Atheism has to understand that it is not conceptual religion that is it's most ardent enemy, it is the money system, which is the real religion in the world. It is also purely conceptual, but because of it's institutionalized dogmas and the willingness of uniformed fanatics to 'enforce' the dogma of money, money is the religion that is destroying everything. Religion is just a diversion, A easy target put there to attract fire. Money is the real deadly superstition of humanity.
Atheism has to understand that it is not conceptual religion that is it's most ardent enemy, it is the money system, which is the real religion in the world. It is also purely conceptual, but because of it's institutionalized dogmas and the willingness of uniformed fanatics to 'enforce' the dogma of money, money is the religion that is destroying everything. Religion is just a diversion, A easy target put there to attract fire. Money is the real deadly superstition of humanity.
@RoanCarratu Sorry... the money system is the enemy of people who lack a belief in God?
I give up... seriously I really do....
Yeah look your right we'd all get on perfectly well living in mud huts using a barter system for things we produce and services we carry out.... all 6 billion of us... I'm sure it would be perfectly equatable and efficient...
Buddhism is not a religion. It is the earliest form of science. Repeatable experiment is a better tool than what Buddha could have, but it is never less experiential, and not just imagination. Buddhism is atheist, it has no 'gods' and no 'dogma'. Tibetan Buddhism seems to almost Catholic in it's fervor for the Dali Lama, but it is the result of ignorance, not dogma. The information that Buddha transmitted was not religion, it was his experience of something that is repeatable by anyone.
But money is? You need a dictionary, everyone else is using one definition for concepts and you are using a one of your own invention. Which will make you impossible to understand.
As far as Dogma goes (please look up the definition) Buddhists insist that the only people who are 'capable' of either understanding or reciting the written words of Siddhartha Gautama must be a buddha, disciple, a deva, a ṛṣi... Seems pretty dogmatic to me.
@RoanCarratu Moreover you are incorrectly attributing the idea of 'Dogma' to mean 'negative' ... lots of things in human society are both dogmatic, and also demonstrable and clearly an absolute requirement... many are laws for a very good reason.
For example some countries label murder as wrong, yet relabel the idea of 'murder' themselves when it comes time to 'punish' murderers. Is such punishment for murder dogma? if not why is there a requirement to relabel it as 'capital punishment'?
Hey, who knows....maybe guys like William Lane Craig will turn about to be right and we will find out that the universe was created by Lord Krishna. Oh! My mistake, I mean Apollo....Jesus! That's the one. Sorry there are so many God's out there, it's hard to remember who prays to which one.
Maybe Kent Hovand was right... and there was an insanely huge ice shield around the earth, and all the pre-flood creatures were hyper pressurized... and had absolutely 0 radiation from the sun... and *magic* is the ultimate answer to every question in the universe.
I would say that the problem of the atheist label is that it continues to be incoherent if it is not asserting a truth. It is not rational if it can not assert a truth. And the usual tautologies about tea pots and Santa show this poverty. Rational is a mathematical term and beyond that is more spongy. This is a black and white issue. If you have evidence for the truth then you stand up and assert that. If you can't define atheism as the truth then what is it?
@rusty2029 Atheism is very rational. There is nothing more rational than the rejection of all propositions of the existence of X which are presented without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
@TomFynn Is it rational? That is a mathematics term but outside of math becomes more nuanced. What do you mean by evidence? What is your criteria for truth? One can reject all kinds of things but that does not mean one is rational about it. If you only have indirect or circumstantial evidence is that not evidence? I can indeed impose the standard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheism if 'rational' has warranted evidence or reason for said proposition amiright?
@TomFynn Is atheism subject to this criteria? You have a wonderful criteria that is also demonstrably limited and very constrained. With this one could deny much of what is held as historical evidence. This criteria also negates much of the soft sciences like archeology. So with this stultifying criteria that is so limited compared to what is generally counted as evidence you have a box or blinders to stay inside of. Not even atheism can stand up to this kind of verificationism.
BTW: The texts, deeds, chronicles, artifacts, dated by C-14, are not open and demonstrable evidence? And predictions derived from them for, say, a certain site to be there are not testable *and* falsifiable?
@rusty2029 "I would say that the problem of the atheist label is that it continues to be incoherent if it is not asserting a truth. "
I would say you totally missed the point of the video. The entire point of the video is that atheists don't need to assert anything. The demonstrable stuff is all on our side of the fence the undemonstrative stuff on the other side of the fence. We don't have to call ourselves anything... just reject all ideas that have no valid evidence.
holy fuck! this must be his most boring speech ever. I cannot take him seriously when on one hand he describes the stupidity on Mormanizm and people, who blindly believe in propaganda; yet on the other hand he promotes the propaganda story about Muslims flying airplanes into buildings or Pentagon paid jewi-ish repoter of Pentagon-owned New York Lies paper' story about 8-year old Iraqi girl ( recycling of old Hollow-caust Industrial Complex's fables)
is logic and is inner taught is implacable way to go sam you say things that i always taught and could nt put into word your way mote articulate than me bravo for the vid and thanks a lot
Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian nation' is an excellent book. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell
Once people see that every man represent the environment they origins from, and no real freedom of choice has ever been made. That the person have been led by the information he has perceived through the senses he has been given. When we stop believing in freewill, empathy will blossom. Every evil act a man does against other beings have been learned from their environment to them to do. They believe the social and environmental norm as 'right', who refer to the compatibilistic view of freewill.
Harris makes an excellent point - calling ourselves 'atheist' is foolhardy. When asked (or more usually when believers foist their mumbo jumbo on me) I simply say that I dont have an imaginary friend (i.e. God). Invariably they consider my remarks incendiary and insulting. I inquire 'why'?. Again I am expected to be respectful to their beliefs. Why?, because I jsut have to. End of story. The argument is always the same.
@kirked007 You don't have to respect jack shit. Respect is earned, its not a given.
You can respect the privacy of a lion on the African savanna. Not doing so will lead to the lions showing you how they earned that respect.
So the theist should be happy you are questioning the basis of their belief.
Next time insist you are giving the theist the opportunity to gain respect for their belief by explaining how they are not deluded with imaginary friends. How they might do that beats me.
Don't categorize non-believers into a group and give them a name
Try to relate to others with different beliefs by understanding that their claims of feeling 'one with the universe' can be experienced by anyone who practices meditation for long periods of time.
Personally, I'd rather read a book than meditate, but that's just me
@hurley3000gt That is just you, and that's the point Harris is making. You haven't experienced what other people have experienced. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but most atheists will claim that things such as what the contemplative's claims are impossible or if not impossible not worth doing. But they do so without any working knowledge of what they are talking about. The blind describing the worthlessness of sight to the blind.
lots of people probably think I'm crazy because I talk to myself aloud. I do it all the time. I think it's quite likely that it engages more areas of the brain that way, since the motor neurons would be activated as well, therefore--hopefully--raise blood flow to the brain, overall.
I have no proof for this but it does seem to work rather well.
@AssistingHealth I'm a lecturer... I do that too, and because it works. Reading or reciting things to yourself is a very powerful way of ensuring you remember and can recall ideas.... it won't help you to understand them though.
Memory is activated by the manner in which the thought was laid down to begin with. The more dramatic, larger, funnier, sexier, loud, smelly etc. an idea is, the more likely you are to recall it.
The first book I read on this was Tony Buzan's 'Use Your Head'
CONT. From that point I was hooked. In that time I've pretty much turned my mind into a storage device.
For example, I don't even bother to use the phone number save facility on my cell phone... every phone number I ever heard since 1985 is in my head. And I said every one of them out loud at least five times at some point. Every one of them has a picture, a sound, a taste, a smell associated with it.
Not only can you remember everything, you actually can't forget.
the term "Godless" or "Atheos" was coined by the Greeks before Christianity. The term was used as a negative for those in the Hellenist (Greek) society who did NOT embrace the Greek gods. It was adopted by the Roman Empire as well, and later used by the Roman Catholic Church to demonize those who didn't accept Christianity.
That was a great talk. I''m not sure I fully agree with every point he made, but it is irksome to see the negative reactions of others when they hear a "profession" of atheism. As if I were some soul-less creature who wants to take away all the joy and love out of the world and leave only chrome and steel and robots behind. Nothing could be further from the truth.
@bolizdor ......."why he is not saying anything bad about jewish faith?" ..ha ha ha ha oh man thats good. Self preservation I suppose,.,cause he likes to sell his books,.,.he doesn't want to be confused with mel gibson,.ha ha ha,..,,.but in all seriousness it is fuckt we can't challange our Zionist alliance without being demonized as anti-semetic nazis
@jttalkshow1 What IF Heaven does not exist? To tell you the truth, I don't think many atheists really consider the idea of a Heaven even being possible, I for once have a hard time believing the whole thing. But whether someone believes in Heaven or not does not take away the fact that many people do live an earnest life. If a person were to be prohibit entrance to it just for not believing in 'God' even though they have lived a peaceful life, surely they would be glad to not be going then.
The fact that there are "atheists" causes a fair number of otherwise duped religious youth to question, and thereby abandon their foolish religious beliefs. If we all flew under the radar, I think too many zealots would hold sway over these individuals. Just take a look at the percentages of the people in developed nations in the last hundred years. Our numbers as atheists have virtually exploded. These archaic beliefs within religion cannot survive, regardless of how we refer to ourselves.
lol as a british non muslim person i dont see the problem with 68% people insulting islam being arrested. The word insult has a wide scope and seeing how vile the main members of society can be against muslims and others different from them it doesnt surprise me. Im sure the 68% didnt mean someone saying islam is wrong or similar, they are probably speakng about voilent and threatening behaviour. Its ironic that sam speaks on old school racism at the beginning of the talk but then says this.
@Richdavt Nope they are talking about someone painting a cartoon of their prophet literally being executed. Why don't you ask them?
Approach it just like that, ask a muslim what should happen to YOU if you were to paint a picture of a man and then write the words 'this is Mohammad' under it.
You'd be surprised what constitutes a 'crime' and an 'insult' in Islam. In strict muslim countries it is illegal to practice other religions or own any books that question islam.
@wordword31 Non racism is not a philosophy it doesn't have a word in the dictionary. Atheism is not a philosophy by definition of the word in the dictionary no less!
Ergo both are not a philosophy.
Can you tell me where either of these are actually a philosophy?...and what that philosophy might entail?
@MumblingMickey Non racism would entail among many other things a compassion for ppl of other races. Atheism's philosophy is very detailed. Perhaps you should study it, but to leave a couple points to satisfy your question, atheism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural and a strong belief in the fantasy of evolution.
@wordword31 said "Atheism's philosophy is very detailed."
Based on what authority that dictates the elements of this "philosophy"?
... and said "a strong belief in the fantasy of evolution."
Do you think that all scientific theories, such as germ theory and the theories of gravitation and electromagnetism, are fantasies also, or is it just the theory concerning evolution that's a fantasy?
@ndrthrdr1 Philosophies are not dictated by authorities. They are imagined by very intelligent persons to satisfy their personal need and utilized by other intelligent persons as propaganda to frame a collective mind in order to have enough ppl thinking similarly to accomplish a particular agenda. I have studied all those other theories which have concrete science behind them and not simply wild imaginary drawings with disclaimers on each diagram like evolution. Write inbox 4 purpose of scam.
Meditation for years on end might bring about some sort of spiritual awakening, but I'm pretty sure a few magic mushrooms or a hit of LSD could do the same in a much shorter period of time. I love some of Harris's points, but to say that we need to pay more attention to the metaphysical world of mystics, to me, is the same as saying we should pay more attention to psychedelic drugs. And if I had to pick between the two...it would not be the solitary confinement scenario. Which is reasonable?
What's exactly the danger of not believing in after life?What's the danger of not agreeing with what God taught "We must kill with rocks the homosexuals" ...What's the danger of being more open-minded than that?What's the danger of not believing in this Santa-Claus for grown-ups?
@Davincidz .....at least you're not a Progressive, apparently. In Loonyleftyland, 2+2=5 or whatever else you want. There are no wrong answers. And here's another one from the Nutball Left: Social Security is a trust fund.
How many in that room believe that? Too many, unfortunately.
@baldrad1 tut tut tut ... and after you sat through a video that was all about demanding evidence for everything whether atheist or not...
I'm certainly atheistic...I'm defiantly not politically left wing... and I don't see a correlation either. Are you trying to suggest belief in beings you cannot prove that have magical powers is the domain of everyone except politically left wing minded individuals?
How about this for a startlingly good idea... READ A FUCKING BOOK!
Every world power that had no "religion" ultimately resorted to genocide. I'll agree that 99% of religion is jacked but you better be afraid of "no religion"
@SilverStar40 If you're thinking about Russia under Stalin, the problem there was that the state was run too much like a religion, the same applies to North Korea and similar states run in that fashion. Hitler wasn't an atheist, though even if he was the populace wasn't and they didn't oppose him. It should be noted that even under Stalin most people were religious, but it made no difference. So we have to consider how one man controls the direction of a whole nation who are mostly religious!
@SilverStar40 No one rams air planes into buildings screaming "Nothing happens when you die!" There are bad people and good people. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god. Atheism doesn't drive actions because it's doesn't have a dogma to dictate what is right or wrong. It gives a person the freedom to make rational decisions based on ethics and morality. Unlike religion, which has doctrine(An idiotic Fictional piece of garbage), that often leads GOOD people to do BAD things.
@SilverStar40 ill be more afraid of faith. Those world powers you are talking about, I assume being Nazi Germany, Japanese Empire, Pol Pot, Stalin. All of them led with the belief that the leaders are always right.
Whats safe is the power of the people to question. Religion encourages obedience, not rebelliion. What keeps us safe is peoples rebelliousness.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
@shieldsff yeah I read that... and it certainly says something... which is 'paper never refuses ink'
One can posit arguments for or against any political, religious or economic ideology....But it is immensely difficult to posit an argument against a methodology such as science. It's simply not open to the question 'Does it work' after a demonstration... its only open to the question...'how should we agree to use this knowledge'.
Ergo science produces both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
CONT. I would take issue with the idea in this article that 'militant atheists' side with any power structure that will lend them an ear, such as G.W.Bush and Iraq.
If there is one thing we can all be sure of its that trying to get consensus among atheists is like trying to herd cats! They are no meek positivists in this respect.
Whatever Harris's political position it will certainly be ideological, that's unavoidable... his scientific understanding in relation to that will certainly not be.
CONT. Lastly can I make a further and much more important point than the two I raised above.
When a search engine returns tens of thousands of responses if I copy and paste your comment into it then those of us who reason will arrive at the conclusion that the poster of the comment never read the article them-self.
Clearly this backfired on you, you might have noticed this happens a lot. What does that tell you?
I'll be expecting a response to my points AFTER you read the article.
thanks for your comment which I agree raises a valid point;it must be conceded that "atheists' are by no means uniform on all issues or that they necessarily share a uniform political position.I think though that Lears point more accurately,is that like any ideology, in the hands of capable& influential individuals, can, in fact, take on a [pragmatist) agenda which of necessity wills to power; witness the pro-war bent of Harris & Hitchens. I remain unconvinced that science is ethically neutral
Science doesn't do ethics., or at least it does as much ethics as humans do. Some scientists even use the ethical debate to counteract religions objections.
A case in point might be Craig Venter's ethical committee. The religious authorities simply had to concede that their scripture said what he was about to do was impossible.
So their position resolved to 'no position', even though they knew that same scripture was again about to be demonstrated invalid...
CONT. Now when we reach a point in human civilization that those who claim they are the 'moral authority' are bypassed using their own dogma....that is a very dangerous situation.
Hypothetically if some bright spark decided that they could create a machine to send information back in time.to say a week ago this poses serious moral questions. However most scripture of the worlds religions claim this is impossible. Sp they have to opt out of the ethical debate or admit their dogma is erronous.
CONT. In my hypothetical example above we now know religion will opt out rather than admit they might be wrong fundamentally and address the question...That will give a tacit free for all to anyone that wanted to engage in such research.
I think we need a replacement for religious morality.... its not up to the job to be honest. There are some very serious questions that need to be addressed this century and religious moral values speak to a population long dead in a time with no such worries.
@powereddrive okay fine. maybe i made too wide a statement. rebels can cause damage too... but if you look at history at a whole, cultures which encourage questioning of their leaders (questioning, not a starting revolutions) are often better for the people, which makes sense, because it gives the people power not to be treated like shit.
@gooieslee .."but if you look at history at a whole, cultures which encourage questioning of their leaders (questioning, not a starting revolutions) are often better for the people"
.democracy does seem to be popular...well with the working masses atleast...and violent revolutions are sometimes necessary. Do you think we could have solved the revolutionary/civil wars over tea and hugs? yea im sure thats what jesus would do..but the rest of us have the burden of reality to contend with.
@gooieslee I wish I could give you multiple thumbs up for that answer! This answer embodies the enlightenment and I salute you sir. I just wish it were not a vicious circle, where people become more religious, the government becomes more fascist/disfuncitonal, people become more religious etc. I wish I knew how to break that cycle. I think the United States is in that cycle and I would like nothing more than to put us back on the path that our enlightenment founders started us on.
@gooieslee- mistrusting [some forms of] religion, I have to agree can be a good thing'
Jesus actually said that the scribes of his day (the social/political oppressors) the Pharisees (the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES) & the UNBELIEVING God haters should all be be very concerned, because at the end they will all be judged and sent to eternal punishment (i.e., hell). So the question is not if you are religious or not, but whether you have the facts and turn in faith to the truth of God in simple faith
Do you feel more secure yet, DM? Two posts. Have you gotten your daily dose of talking for the sole purpose of reading your own words and hearing your own voice? Listening to yourself each time in the amazingly pathetic hope that your doubt and insecurity will vanish with some convoluted argument that generates in your mind. I'm sorry, DM. I'm sorry that your mind was lost a long time ago.
@EJNewbury I see you have three posts so far today. Do you feel better? Actually, my mind has never been more clear about the world and life. You would be surprised how the world around you comes to light when you come to realize the truth of the Creator of the world.
@DMilbury Yea, Hitler was "clear" about the Jewish "threat" too. Now, this is the part where you say Hitler was an atheist, and then I say that you should go buy and read "Mein Kampf," so you can read first hand how wrong you are. So, can we just skip to the end where you don't bring up the Hitler thing? You know, because I don't take enjoyment in beating people like you down.
Actually, history proves that atheists can be every bit as dangerous to society as any theists. More have been murdered under atheists, and by atheists, than in all religious wars combined. That is by no means something that can be casually swept under the rug. New Atheism is nothing more than the old organized atheism recycled. Very dangerous, very oppressive, and potentially disastrous. There are many things Harris and others like him do not care to acknowledge.
bantumwt 1 day ago
Comment removed
camyu02 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bantumwt I would like to see these numbers on more atheists causing more violence than theists when over 90% of the world is religious. There is no possible way that atheists cause more violence than theists. The fact that people cause violence from all persuasions I think it's safe to say that religion does not create the moral standard that we think it does. And on your comment about organized and oppressive atheism, it would be more accurate to describe that for religion based on history.
camyu02 5 hours ago
"You cannot get around the concept of God." -- Adolf Hitler
AlienDominators 2 days ago
Sam Harris is the Hazel Motes of our generation.
BunnyMan456 3 days ago
Julia's so cute when she gushes.
MoriyaMug 4 days ago
Show us Smaug the dragon you cunts!
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 Why on earth do you need to use such words
muvley 1 week ago
@muvley
This is not the trailer for the Hobbit?
TheMrgoku1985 1 week ago
@TheMrgoku1985 silly young fool,have respect.
muvley 1 week ago
@xrckrx Well, don't take my word for it. Do the research, see what you find, and make an honest conclusion. If you think that those people somehow represent the atheist people of today, then I don't know what to tell you. My point being, when is the last time you heard of an actual atheist kill (or even harm) a believer? I never have. The worst thing I've seen is somebody call a believer retarded; that's about the extent of it.
BER2ERKER 2 weeks ago 2
"is there a non racist organisation to join?"
How about abolitionists?
1stCainite 2 weeks ago
Josh Timonen is a cunt.
TweekDash 3 weeks ago
@xrckrx Cont. They were psychotic. Why do you think all the theologians in debates do not use this argument anymore? Because it's a bad one. The only time you'll see it is in older debates, or by people who never did the research on it. I could sit here all day talking about the millions of deaths religion is "accountable" for, but it wouldn't prove religion wrong or prove me correct. It's not a good argument.
BER2ERKER 4 weeks ago
@BER2ERKER Thanks. I really do appreciate your comment. I was previously misinformed
xrckrx 2 weeks ago
@xrckrx Cont. dogmatic, and flat-out psychotic thinking. It is the complete opposite of how an atheist would act today. Hitler was responding as a Christian did in those times, against Jews; meaning with violence. Everybody in the German army and SS was a Christian. The Vatican supported Hitler, so atheist? No. Stalin's psychosis is a bit more involved, so research the history there. It was dogmatism, and ideology, the opposite of what any "atheist" believes today. It wouldn't make even a sligh
BER2ERKER 4 weeks ago
@xrckrx Well, I know you're being sarcastic as well, but I'll reply. Hitler wasn't an atheist. If you read Mein Kampf, or watch many of his speeches, you'll see this. He created a political ideology, a dogma, the very opposite of what "atheists" act like today. Even if he was a non-believer, like Stalin, he still was not doing what he did because of his lack of belief. None of these people ever killed somebody because of their atheism or as a result of atheism. It was as a result of political,
BER2ERKER 4 weeks ago
I don't agree we should not have a name for a movement. I don't like defining myself in terms of what can't be proven. The best names would be: Scientists. We base the ideas which have influence upon others based upon knowledge, not belief. Who cares what we personally believe if it affects no one else?
misfitplanet 1 month ago
@misfitplanet Because more often than not, what we believe personally affects our world view and how we interact with others and therefore does affect others.
inademv 1 month ago
@inademv but i said when it doesnt effect others, i do care when others form policy that does change my life
misfitplanet 1 month ago
@xrckrx Your lack of understanding in sociology, history, dogma, "atheism", is noted, thanks for sharing.
BER2ERKER 1 month ago
@BER2ERKER You're not going to write a longer response? I'm genuinely interested in learning
xrckrx 1 month ago
Who's said he was boring? So far this is the only guy I don't get tired of listening to..
KrazyKKid 1 month ago
Quite an interesting point to make and I think it's worth contemplating. As a former devout Christian, I am grateful for my religious experience without prejudice because it better prepares me for the argument with my fellows who believe in a god. Having thoroughly studied theology for more than half of my life (I'm currently 28 years of age), I am fortunate to have studied theology and philosophy through the eyes of a believer, a theist, a monotheist, a Christian. I taught it.
theycallmeherc 1 month ago in playlist Dawkins/Harris
I thought he was going to talk about the evils that atheist regimes have brought onto this world like Hitler and Stalin. I'm disappointed.
xrckrx 1 month ago
@xrckrx You're also a silly girl
parkerthehicks 1 month ago
@parkerthehicks Back yourself up
xrckrx 1 month ago
@xrckrx You didn't like the talk about slavery, mass killings, raping, pillaging, genocide, wars, etc... all born of religion? You say Hitler. Seems there's lots of evidence he was 'religious' at the very least.
SippinonMickeys 2 weeks ago
I think the most important point he is making here , is in that of an inward journey ,if for no other reason than to attempt some understanding of a religious point of view. (albiet I cant say all religious people even attempt an inward journey)
But this would go along way to not letting bigotry arise within athiest peoples. Because if Athieism (err reason I mean) Is truly an evolutionary step above religious beliefs ... then it has to show that bigotry can be shed from human reactions.
Mk101T 1 month ago
Mr.Harris is bright and eloquent. He is also boring.
sugmegpls 2 months ago
@sugmegpls Something is boring based on either what is being discussed, or the way it is being discussed. If he is bright and eloquent, then you must simply not be interested in what he has to say.
fauxx82 1 month ago
@sugmegpls
Hahaha! Sam Harris is anything but boring. How can supreme intelligence without ego be boring??? It's what the world needs right now. HE is the example for all of us, he is the light that needs to guide us.
We need to listen to Sam and start combining science with introspection.
NLPCPNL 1 month ago
@sugmegpls To you I guess. Being bright and eloquent instantly makes a person interesting for me.
JarethGT 1 month ago
I'm a theist, but I very much liked his discussion about spirituality and the reasons for it. Kudos Harris!
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Very good Sam!!
makarr01 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid.
"Those who speak do not know.
Those who know do not speak."
These people speak and do not know. They are worthless.
Kurtlane 2 months ago
13:55 that was red meat haha
Serpico261 2 months ago
Bravo!
ddalrymple1 2 months ago
To be called atheist or not called atheist ? I don't really get Sams point here,that we should quietly stay under the radar and refrain from calling ourselves atheist .. Sams next vid I watched was titled "Applying pressure to peoples religious beliefs" ! Now thats showing conviction of HIS beliefs by getting into that ATTACK mode ! Did he give that talk as a "non-atheist" ? I dont get it..it wont make any difference if you title yourself atheist or not.
brindow1 2 months ago
@brindow1 Sam didn't say to do nothing, he said to attack bad ideas and bad reason "Wherever you find them!" Did you miss that part? He said this could be most strategically done while not under the banner of Atheism because your opponent will be more difficult to fight if you do.
makarr01 2 months ago
@makarr01 Point im trying to get over is this .. if YOU for example are atheist and you decide to follow Sam's advice-how exactly would what he says effect you in comparison to how how you may have reacted before watching the vid ? HOW OFTEN in your everyday life do you confront an theist to talk about your differences? Most people dont talk about God in their everyday lives do they? From YOUR OWN point of view,do you think you will actually use Sam's advise?
brindow1 2 months ago
@brindow1 he goes into detail and explains his reasons, did you stop watching 5 minutes in? ;o
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
@fauxx82 Well,yes I watched all the vid. You'll have to be more specific than that ! What part of what I said,dont you agree with ? Or at least can you give an answer to the point I brought up.
brindow1 3 weeks ago
@brindow1 you're asking what you get out of this video if you are already an atheist, implying it's all unnecessary because we don't talk about God everyday. He articulates the position better than most ever could. Why ever discuss anything that you already have a position on , then?
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
@brindow1 his main point is that we should not have to call ourselves atheists, just as we should not have to call ourselves non-racist or non-astrologists. Destroy bad ideas wherever you may find them, don't just fixate on religion.
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
@fauxx82 Well,that may be Sams philosophy or advise and it may be you agree with him completly. I DONT consider myself part of any atheistic movement .. do you ? I do not set out with any specific attitude if I happen to get into a conversation with a theist[very rare-it just doesn't happen in everyday life]. I may attack a theist viewpoint,I may not. It depends on so many things. Would I attack an old lady who thinks she's going to heaven soon? Would you ?
brindow1 3 weeks ago
@brindow1 there is most certainly an 'atheistic movement', in the sense that more and more people are becoming freethinkers and atheists. But that isn't his point, and the question you're asking me has nothing to do with the point he's making either. In fact I explicitly outline his point for you in my previous comment, you may have missed it since I replied twice. CONT-
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
@fauxx82 You do like correcting people dont you ?[not that you are necessarily right either !]. You come over as imperious and you know more than the other person. If you wish to improve your standing with people I think you will have to learn to blend a little more with other people's opinions. You virge on being a troller. Im not getting much out of this relay..best to cal it a day.
brindow1 3 weeks ago
@brindow1 I'm verging on trolling? I have to blend with their opinions? What kind of nonsense is this? I was clear and polite with my response, you seem to be unable to respond, so you cop out with that. Your choice, a pathetic one, but not surprisng.
fauxx82 2 weeks ago
@brindow1 But to answer your question, no, I would not attack an old lady who is on the verge of death. The basis of morality (or what it should be) is human happiness and suffering. If it was someone who was not on their deathbed and really wished to discuss the workings of the universe, sure, I'd attack their belief in God. If it was an old woman who kept her beliefs to herself (at least didnt prosyletize) and they made her happy, of course leave her alone. CONT-
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
@brindow1 I, however, see NO reason not to attack the younger generation for a belief in a God. The whole idea of "believe what you want" is great in principle, but when you get people believing in such a convoluted idea as organized religion, and they condemn others for not believing, and they bring their views as politicians into public policy...then we have a problem. Change has to start somewhere.
fauxx82 3 weeks ago
Combo breaker.
jungleefender 3 months ago
@mphello I've never played a game that helped me out in real life.
Bornofbadger 3 months ago
@TheElfdreaming so you do think we should focus more on reason and logic in debate..Right?. Whats this about an equality view?? In europe we call it human rights. So your right about naming something, but untill I read the god delusion and heard about how things are in such countries as the USA, I never bothered with the term, Atheist. You realise atheists may have nothing else in common, by going on about christian right and left....what? protestants and catholics still try to kill each other.
Bornofbadger 3 months ago
What philosophers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say in 45 minutes,
game theorists write down in 45 seconds, and infinitely more hypothetical other situations.
Even philosophers and political analysts with whom I agree (Ingrid Newkirk, Ralph Nader, Max Keiser, Stacy Herbert, Pat Condell) on their main points do not impress me. Because they really ought to, need to, be doing game theory instead of endless talk.
mphello 3 months ago
21m32s Sam Harris: tough shit to the christians who keep bringing up the same tired old memes and soundbites (Stalin, etc). Don't address them.
Just turn up the flamethrower on THEIR side and demand to ask why christians eat meat yet their religion says "don't kill", or why they support soldiers, yet soldiers kill, or any of an UNCOUNTABLY many number of hypocrisies and logical inconsistencies in theism.
mphello 3 months ago
Everything differs in magnitude, not in kind.
mphello 3 months ago
I agree 99% with Sam Harris.
I also believe for the SAME reasons that NOT all bombings in this world and "acts of violence" are unjustified or "equally immoral". THAT is a LOAD of bullshit. Factory farms and places where animals are tortured beyond imagination SHOULD be bombed, the torturers themselves tortured and or killed. They should PAY for their cruel cause. THEY should make the sacrifice for their "right" to torture and kill fully sentient animals.
mphello 3 months ago
I think perhaps some of his better points are not helped by not calling ourselves athiests but more simply changing the focus of the 'athiest movement'. A Chrisitian says we are faith, good for him, now let's talk about chaplains in schools...
TheElfdreaming 3 months ago
What he does say rather well, is that 'athiests' tend to focus or fixate on 'religion is wrong' generally rather than whatever the point at hand is. For example, I recently had a debate with a Muslim on freedom of religion/freedom of expression (online) and felt this was more useful than other athiest whose main concern was to point out the stupidity of his religion.
TheElfdreaming 3 months ago
i think these kind of arguments are what make the religious laugh, they got us so caught up in stupid little intricasis of language, so scared of people saying we believe something... that we should be 'under the radar' telling people individually what we think?
TheElfdreaming 3 months ago
I have been flamed down by other athiests when I try to discuss athiesm. But a world view is made up of many things, and one of those things is a lack of belief in any God. I may stand next to another athiest, and have next to nothing in common, bar that her world view also doesn't include a God.
just like a Christian 'right' may stand next to a Chrsitian 'left' and have next to nothing in common except a belief in God.
TheElfdreaming 3 months ago
I think 'equality' is a world view, and similarly think of athiesm as a world view. I view the world through these lenses. If I changed my mind on either, my world view would change. Therefore I think it is relevant to use the term 'athiest'. Whilst there may be no term I know for 'someone who believes in equality', there are certainly groups of people who band together in common outlook, for the purposes of either a support group type thing or to encourage others to support equality too.
TheElfdreaming 3 months ago
@DMilbury
Sorry, in regard to my first sentence: an Atheist may claim to know a supreme being does not exist, but they are of the minority (as taking anything on faith, including knowing something does not exist without proof is not part of the Atheist ethos, which is more than I can say for theists).
ciaobellakate 3 months ago
Comment removed
ciaobellakate 3 months ago
The Amish are known for their severe child abuse. I live in Philadelphia, which is just a few miles from Lancaster county which has one of the largest Amish populations in the country and hear about it a lot.
christo930 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His usggestion was a Good one... but unfortunately Harris refusing to la
bel himself and 'Athesist' will not stop others from doing so.
However he can of course disavow suggestions he is... and say... 'No, sorry I refuse to be labeled something in opposition to your idea, Have your crazy ideas...I don't care... but that won't stop me from pointing out where your demonstrably wrong.'
After all Lamarck never labeled himself an evolutionist, Faraday never labeled himself a theoretical physicist.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Never even considered myself an athiest nor was I proud to be represented as one (due only to misinterpretation of the word). But, as I expressed my ideas and reason, I consistently found people of faith labeling me as such. I'm sure many of you reading this can concur.
wojovox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wojovox Never understood religion to begin with. But I certainly never agreed to fall under any label. It's only happened in the last decade really.
In fact when the subject came up I used to joke I was an 'Agnostic Atheist' and that meant "I didn't know, and didn't give a shit either way". I didn't realise the joke was in fact accurate and that there are agnostic atheists!
Anyway... yep, might be a good idea to drop the labels... It certainly removes the target.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
As Dawkins himself once wrote, words are our servants, not our masters. We don't have a word for 'non-astrologer' because not believing in astrology is not a particularly contentious or interesting position, whereas atheism manifestly is. But since his goal is not to pursue truth but to change the culture, he resorts to sophistry like this to get an agenda across. "Bright" indeed.
mrarcher857 4 months ago
Well, in my humble opinion "We Need A Lot More OF These's Meeting's" We need more Science Center's and Public Science Lecture's, As Thomas Jefferson said " Information is the currency in a Democracy "
k9a2g6 4 months ago
How can Sam claim to "advocate intellectual honesty and reason", broadbrush religion as being unreasonable, and then find himself unable to locate a single official teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to reason (referring to more of his talks). Can he? Let's see him do it -- an official teaching (i.e. Catechism of the Catholic Church) -- he's never done it, and hence is not advocating intellectual honesty and reason. Is Sam a closet "enemy of reason"? Is he avoiding good evidence?
patientthomist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patientthomist " unable to locate a single official teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to reason "
Okay how about using precisely that catechism to promote the idea of not using barrier forms of contraception in Africa.
Since we know full well why condoms are vital in Africa... Actively promoting them NOT being used for no reason whatsoever is 'contrary to reason'.
Don't you agree? Or can you provide a reason? One that would outweigh mass death from HIV/Aids.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? While I agree that Christian fundamentalists misrepresent Christianity because of a lack of reasoning, the same lack of reasoning applies here. Dawkins lies and straw mans Aquinas' proofs for God's existence. Hitchens ad hominems for entertainment. Harris is the master of Red Herring, never remotely considering intelligently the spiritual powers of free will and reasoning when addressing morality. Atheism - the dark force.
patientthomist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patientthomist What? Didn't Harris, Dennet and Hitchens all discuss 'free will' at length?
I'd question 'free will' being in the domain of 'spiritual powers'. Spirituality has nothing to do with free will... so it wouldn't be too much of a surprise to find Harris not considering it.
Next I'm interested in where you see Dawkins using an argument Thomas Aquinas never made in relation to proofs of existence of god? Either I missed that or never read it to begin with.... please elaborate.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Harris and his idea of " well-being" is actually a very provocative concept for atheism and atheists. This is why I believe people like Harris are very valuable to philosophy, religion, and spirituality. Harris challenges all of us to review our inner selves.
jimboedwardlee 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism has to understand that it is not conceptual religion that is it's most ardent enemy, it is the money system, which is the real religion in the world. It is also purely conceptual, but because of it's institutionalized dogmas and the willingness of uniformed fanatics to 'enforce' the dogma of money, money is the religion that is destroying everything. Religion is just a diversion, A easy target put there to attract fire. Money is the real deadly superstition of humanity.
RoanCarratu 4 months ago
Atheism has to understand that it is not conceptual religion that is it's most ardent enemy, it is the money system, which is the real religion in the world. It is also purely conceptual, but because of it's institutionalized dogmas and the willingness of uniformed fanatics to 'enforce' the dogma of money, money is the religion that is destroying everything. Religion is just a diversion, A easy target put there to attract fire. Money is the real deadly superstition of humanity.
RoanCarratu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoanCarratu Sorry... the money system is the enemy of people who lack a belief in God?
I give up... seriously I really do....
Yeah look your right we'd all get on perfectly well living in mud huts using a barter system for things we produce and services we carry out.... all 6 billion of us... I'm sure it would be perfectly equatable and efficient...
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Buddhism is not a religion. It is the earliest form of science. Repeatable experiment is a better tool than what Buddha could have, but it is never less experiential, and not just imagination. Buddhism is atheist, it has no 'gods' and no 'dogma'. Tibetan Buddhism seems to almost Catholic in it's fervor for the Dali Lama, but it is the result of ignorance, not dogma. The information that Buddha transmitted was not religion, it was his experience of something that is repeatable by anyone.
RoanCarratu 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoanCarratu
"Buddhism is not a religion."
But money is? You need a dictionary, everyone else is using one definition for concepts and you are using a one of your own invention. Which will make you impossible to understand.
As far as Dogma goes (please look up the definition) Buddhists insist that the only people who are 'capable' of either understanding or reciting the written words of Siddhartha Gautama must be a buddha, disciple, a deva, a ṛṣi... Seems pretty dogmatic to me.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RoanCarratu Moreover you are incorrectly attributing the idea of 'Dogma' to mean 'negative' ... lots of things in human society are both dogmatic, and also demonstrable and clearly an absolute requirement... many are laws for a very good reason.
For example some countries label murder as wrong, yet relabel the idea of 'murder' themselves when it comes time to 'punish' murderers. Is such punishment for murder dogma? if not why is there a requirement to relabel it as 'capital punishment'?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
11:55 - 12:27. There's the meat. Every atheist/agnostic should take note.
graciousSenor 4 months ago
The Artist Formerly Known As An Atheist.
shrimpoffthebarbie 4 months ago
It was at 4:15 that he started to speak. But thanks for the heads up! Interesting speaker.
unkmonk1 4 months ago
Hey, who knows....maybe guys like William Lane Craig will turn about to be right and we will find out that the universe was created by Lord Krishna. Oh! My mistake, I mean Apollo....Jesus! That's the one. Sorry there are so many God's out there, it's hard to remember who prays to which one.
torontoBluejays87 4 months ago 12
@torontoBluejays87
Maybe Kent Hovand was right... and there was an insanely huge ice shield around the earth, and all the pre-flood creatures were hyper pressurized... and had absolutely 0 radiation from the sun... and *magic* is the ultimate answer to every question in the universe.
Callirgos1 4 months ago
I would say that the problem of the atheist label is that it continues to be incoherent if it is not asserting a truth. It is not rational if it can not assert a truth. And the usual tautologies about tea pots and Santa show this poverty. Rational is a mathematical term and beyond that is more spongy. This is a black and white issue. If you have evidence for the truth then you stand up and assert that. If you can't define atheism as the truth then what is it?
rusty2029 4 months ago
@rusty2029 Atheism is very rational. There is nothing more rational than the rejection of all propositions of the existence of X which are presented without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn Is it rational? That is a mathematics term but outside of math becomes more nuanced. What do you mean by evidence? What is your criteria for truth? One can reject all kinds of things but that does not mean one is rational about it. If you only have indirect or circumstantial evidence is that not evidence? I can indeed impose the standard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheism if 'rational' has warranted evidence or reason for said proposition amiright?
rusty2029 4 months ago
@rusty2029 Criteria for truth:
Open, demonstrable and repeatable results not dependent on the person.
A model free of "hidden variables" able to derive testable and falsifiable predictions.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn Is atheism subject to this criteria? You have a wonderful criteria that is also demonstrably limited and very constrained. With this one could deny much of what is held as historical evidence. This criteria also negates much of the soft sciences like archeology. So with this stultifying criteria that is so limited compared to what is generally counted as evidence you have a box or blinders to stay inside of. Not even atheism can stand up to this kind of verificationism.
rusty2029 4 months ago
@rusty2029 Open demonstrable evidence: No argument from “revelation” and/or authority. Everyone is equal.
No “hidden” variables: Means: No mysteries.
Testability/Falsifiablity: Prevents wish-ful thinking.
Hard to think of *less* constrained criteria.
BTW: The texts, deeds, chronicles, artifacts, dated by C-14, are not open and demonstrable evidence? And predictions derived from them for, say, a certain site to be there are not testable *and* falsifiable?
TomFynn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rusty2029 "I would say that the problem of the atheist label is that it continues to be incoherent if it is not asserting a truth. "
I would say you totally missed the point of the video. The entire point of the video is that atheists don't need to assert anything. The demonstrable stuff is all on our side of the fence the undemonstrative stuff on the other side of the fence. We don't have to call ourselves anything... just reject all ideas that have no valid evidence.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
holy fuck! this must be his most boring speech ever. I cannot take him seriously when on one hand he describes the stupidity on Mormanizm and people, who blindly believe in propaganda; yet on the other hand he promotes the propaganda story about Muslims flying airplanes into buildings or Pentagon paid jewi-ish repoter of Pentagon-owned New York Lies paper' story about 8-year old Iraqi girl ( recycling of old Hollow-caust Industrial Complex's fables)
wwaalltthheerr 4 months ago
is logic and is inner taught is implacable way to go sam you say things that i always taught and could nt put into word your way mote articulate than me bravo for the vid and thanks a lot
mystisme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian nation' is an excellent book. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey, Joseph Wheless, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell
zytigon 4 months ago
I think that religion will go the way of the "sun revolves around our flat earth" policy. People get smarter.
gnarkillkicksass 5 months ago 9
Once people see that every man represent the environment they origins from, and no real freedom of choice has ever been made. That the person have been led by the information he has perceived through the senses he has been given. When we stop believing in freewill, empathy will blossom. Every evil act a man does against other beings have been learned from their environment to them to do. They believe the social and environmental norm as 'right', who refer to the compatibilistic view of freewill.
gr0gg0 5 months ago
One flaw in his argument, When its time for the next meeting,Wtf are we gona call it?
SmoothLikeAcid 5 months ago
@SmoothLikeAcid Does it really matter?
pumpkins0 4 months ago
Skip to Sam's speech: 4:15
ehhhhhhhhhh 5 months ago
I love that little comment, "To skip my speech..." XD Did -exactly- that.
LithiumLogica 5 months ago
Harris makes an excellent point - calling ourselves 'atheist' is foolhardy. When asked (or more usually when believers foist their mumbo jumbo on me) I simply say that I dont have an imaginary friend (i.e. God). Invariably they consider my remarks incendiary and insulting. I inquire 'why'?. Again I am expected to be respectful to their beliefs. Why?, because I jsut have to. End of story. The argument is always the same.
kirked007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kirked007 You don't have to respect jack shit. Respect is earned, its not a given.
You can respect the privacy of a lion on the African savanna. Not doing so will lead to the lions showing you how they earned that respect.
So the theist should be happy you are questioning the basis of their belief.
Next time insist you are giving the theist the opportunity to gain respect for their belief by explaining how they are not deluded with imaginary friends. How they might do that beats me.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Summation:
Don't categorize non-believers into a group and give them a name
Try to relate to others with different beliefs by understanding that their claims of feeling 'one with the universe' can be experienced by anyone who practices meditation for long periods of time.
Personally, I'd rather read a book than meditate, but that's just me
hurley3000gt 5 months ago
@hurley3000gt That is just you, and that's the point Harris is making. You haven't experienced what other people have experienced. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but most atheists will claim that things such as what the contemplative's claims are impossible or if not impossible not worth doing. But they do so without any working knowledge of what they are talking about. The blind describing the worthlessness of sight to the blind.
rolexxx11 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
hurley3000gt 5 months ago
lots of people probably think I'm crazy because I talk to myself aloud. I do it all the time. I think it's quite likely that it engages more areas of the brain that way, since the motor neurons would be activated as well, therefore--hopefully--raise blood flow to the brain, overall.
I have no proof for this but it does seem to work rather well.
AssistingHealth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AssistingHealth I'm a lecturer... I do that too, and because it works. Reading or reciting things to yourself is a very powerful way of ensuring you remember and can recall ideas.... it won't help you to understand them though.
Memory is activated by the manner in which the thought was laid down to begin with. The more dramatic, larger, funnier, sexier, loud, smelly etc. an idea is, the more likely you are to recall it.
The first book I read on this was Tony Buzan's 'Use Your Head'
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONT. From that point I was hooked. In that time I've pretty much turned my mind into a storage device.
For example, I don't even bother to use the phone number save facility on my cell phone... every phone number I ever heard since 1985 is in my head. And I said every one of them out loud at least five times at some point. Every one of them has a picture, a sound, a taste, a smell associated with it.
Not only can you remember everything, you actually can't forget.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
the term "Godless" or "Atheos" was coined by the Greeks before Christianity. The term was used as a negative for those in the Hellenist (Greek) society who did NOT embrace the Greek gods. It was adopted by the Roman Empire as well, and later used by the Roman Catholic Church to demonize those who didn't accept Christianity.
xephyr1000 5 months ago
That was a great talk. I''m not sure I fully agree with every point he made, but it is irksome to see the negative reactions of others when they hear a "profession" of atheism. As if I were some soul-less creature who wants to take away all the joy and love out of the world and leave only chrome and steel and robots behind. Nothing could be further from the truth.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
why he is not saying anything bad about jewish faith?
bolizdor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bolizdor ......."why he is not saying anything bad about jewish faith?" ..ha ha ha ha oh man thats good. Self preservation I suppose,.,cause he likes to sell his books,.,.he doesn't want to be confused with mel gibson,.ha ha ha,..,,.but in all seriousness it is fuckt we can't challange our Zionist alliance without being demonized as anti-semetic nazis
nrgetick 5 months ago
what are you going to do IF there is a heaven?
jttalkshow1 5 months ago
@jttalkshow1 What IF Heaven does not exist? To tell you the truth, I don't think many atheists really consider the idea of a Heaven even being possible, I for once have a hard time believing the whole thing. But whether someone believes in Heaven or not does not take away the fact that many people do live an earnest life. If a person were to be prohibit entrance to it just for not believing in 'God' even though they have lived a peaceful life, surely they would be glad to not be going then.
Raziel354 5 months ago
@jttalkshow1
Avoid it.
oneznzeroz 5 months ago
@jttalkshow1 .,,,.,,.i'll get to enjoy watching my enemies burn
nrgetick 5 months ago
Comment removed
PrometheusRumiHuxley 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jttalkshow1 But what about the fish? Aren't you afraid you'll drown without the fish?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
The fact that there are "atheists" causes a fair number of otherwise duped religious youth to question, and thereby abandon their foolish religious beliefs. If we all flew under the radar, I think too many zealots would hold sway over these individuals. Just take a look at the percentages of the people in developed nations in the last hundred years. Our numbers as atheists have virtually exploded. These archaic beliefs within religion cannot survive, regardless of how we refer to ourselves.
atoz7983 6 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 6 months ago
interestin but get to the fuckin point
jwillxxxxx 6 months ago
@jwillxxxxx makes excellent observations and criticizm of bad religion and its practices, but that's pretty much it.
reaperq88 6 months ago
lol as a british non muslim person i dont see the problem with 68% people insulting islam being arrested. The word insult has a wide scope and seeing how vile the main members of society can be against muslims and others different from them it doesnt surprise me. Im sure the 68% didnt mean someone saying islam is wrong or similar, they are probably speakng about voilent and threatening behaviour. Its ironic that sam speaks on old school racism at the beginning of the talk but then says this.
Richdavt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Richdavt Nope they are talking about someone painting a cartoon of their prophet literally being executed. Why don't you ask them?
Approach it just like that, ask a muslim what should happen to YOU if you were to paint a picture of a man and then write the words 'this is Mohammad' under it.
You'd be surprised what constitutes a 'crime' and an 'insult' in Islam. In strict muslim countries it is illegal to practice other religions or own any books that question islam.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
of the subject but there is a non racist element you can join, at least here in the uk the name escapes me at the moment now though
Richdavt 6 months ago
lol sorry i hard to go to 4.00 and skuip you to see teh sam harris lol
Richdavt 6 months ago
This guy compares atheism to non-racism and calls both "not a philosophy." How can a mind accept that? Do you ppl even have minds?
wordword31 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordword31 s enough not to believe in magic and superstition
emailpobox666 6 months ago
@wordword31 Non racism is not a philosophy it doesn't have a word in the dictionary. Atheism is not a philosophy by definition of the word in the dictionary no less!
Ergo both are not a philosophy.
Can you tell me where either of these are actually a philosophy?...and what that philosophy might entail?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey Non racism would entail among many other things a compassion for ppl of other races. Atheism's philosophy is very detailed. Perhaps you should study it, but to leave a couple points to satisfy your question, atheism is the belief that there is nothing supernatural and a strong belief in the fantasy of evolution.
wordword31 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordword31 said "Atheism's philosophy is very detailed."
Based on what authority that dictates the elements of this "philosophy"?
... and said "a strong belief in the fantasy of evolution."
Do you think that all scientific theories, such as germ theory and the theories of gravitation and electromagnetism, are fantasies also, or is it just the theory concerning evolution that's a fantasy?
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Philosophies are not dictated by authorities. They are imagined by very intelligent persons to satisfy their personal need and utilized by other intelligent persons as propaganda to frame a collective mind in order to have enough ppl thinking similarly to accomplish a particular agenda. I have studied all those other theories which have concrete science behind them and not simply wild imaginary drawings with disclaimers on each diagram like evolution. Write inbox 4 purpose of scam.
wordword31 4 months ago
Meditation for years on end might bring about some sort of spiritual awakening, but I'm pretty sure a few magic mushrooms or a hit of LSD could do the same in a much shorter period of time. I love some of Harris's points, but to say that we need to pay more attention to the metaphysical world of mystics, to me, is the same as saying we should pay more attention to psychedelic drugs. And if I had to pick between the two...it would not be the solitary confinement scenario. Which is reasonable?
bluegirl1616 6 months ago
What's exactly the danger of not believing in after life?What's the danger of not agreeing with what God taught "We must kill with rocks the homosexuals" ...What's the danger of being more open-minded than that?What's the danger of not believing in this Santa-Claus for grown-ups?
Psofioracoon 6 months ago
Atheism: a religion people join to appear smarter
Mordecai2013 6 months ago
@Mordecai2013 Troll.
bluegirl1616 6 months ago
@Mordecai2013 = clearly, you haven't joined.
CyeOutsider 6 months ago
@Mordecai2013 nah, just the inevitable position of a smart person who actually thinks through the issue.
Noone CHOOSES to be an atheist, it just occurs like you realize 2+2=4 and will always be 4
Davincidz 6 months ago
@Davincidz .....at least you're not a Progressive, apparently. In Loonyleftyland, 2+2=5 or whatever else you want. There are no wrong answers. And here's another one from the Nutball Left: Social Security is a trust fund.
How many in that room believe that? Too many, unfortunately.
baldrad1 4 months ago
@baldrad1 tut tut tut ... and after you sat through a video that was all about demanding evidence for everything whether atheist or not...
I'm certainly atheistic...I'm defiantly not politically left wing... and I don't see a correlation either. Are you trying to suggest belief in beings you cannot prove that have magical powers is the domain of everyone except politically left wing minded individuals?
How about this for a startlingly good idea... READ A FUCKING BOOK!
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey ...here's a startlingly good idea for you, Mickey---read something besides MARRIAGE MANUALS.
baldrad1 4 months ago
@Mordecai2013
"Atheism: a religion people join to appear smarter"
Well lets use a little 'reason' on this shall we.
First Atheism is the exact opposite of religious belief. Next ''join" are you serious? Getting atheists to agree is like trying to herd cats!
and lastly 'appear smarter' There have been lots of studies of this. Atheists actually 'are' smarter on average, there are many reasons.
So not wanting to be a smart arse, but the only words still standing are 'to', 'a' and 'people'
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Every world power that had no "religion" ultimately resorted to genocide. I'll agree that 99% of religion is jacked but you better be afraid of "no religion"
SilverStar40 7 months ago
@SilverStar40 If you're thinking about Russia under Stalin, the problem there was that the state was run too much like a religion, the same applies to North Korea and similar states run in that fashion. Hitler wasn't an atheist, though even if he was the populace wasn't and they didn't oppose him. It should be noted that even under Stalin most people were religious, but it made no difference. So we have to consider how one man controls the direction of a whole nation who are mostly religious!
ninjatoothpaste 7 months ago
@SilverStar40 No one rams air planes into buildings screaming "Nothing happens when you die!" There are bad people and good people. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a god. Atheism doesn't drive actions because it's doesn't have a dogma to dictate what is right or wrong. It gives a person the freedom to make rational decisions based on ethics and morality. Unlike religion, which has doctrine(An idiotic Fictional piece of garbage), that often leads GOOD people to do BAD things.
Sanosukeafo 6 months ago
@SilverStar40 ill be more afraid of faith. Those world powers you are talking about, I assume being Nazi Germany, Japanese Empire, Pol Pot, Stalin. All of them led with the belief that the leaders are always right.
Whats safe is the power of the people to question. Religion encourages obedience, not rebelliion. What keeps us safe is peoples rebelliousness.
gooieslee 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
shieldsff 6 months ago
@shieldsff yeah I read that... and it certainly says something... which is 'paper never refuses ink'
One can posit arguments for or against any political, religious or economic ideology....But it is immensely difficult to posit an argument against a methodology such as science. It's simply not open to the question 'Does it work' after a demonstration... its only open to the question...'how should we agree to use this knowledge'.
Ergo science produces both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
CONT. I would take issue with the idea in this article that 'militant atheists' side with any power structure that will lend them an ear, such as G.W.Bush and Iraq.
If there is one thing we can all be sure of its that trying to get consensus among atheists is like trying to herd cats! They are no meek positivists in this respect.
Whatever Harris's political position it will certainly be ideological, that's unavoidable... his scientific understanding in relation to that will certainly not be.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
CONT. Lastly can I make a further and much more important point than the two I raised above.
When a search engine returns tens of thousands of responses if I copy and paste your comment into it then those of us who reason will arrive at the conclusion that the poster of the comment never read the article them-self.
Clearly this backfired on you, you might have noticed this happens a lot. What does that tell you?
I'll be expecting a response to my points AFTER you read the article.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
thanks for your comment which I agree raises a valid point;it must be conceded that "atheists' are by no means uniform on all issues or that they necessarily share a uniform political position.I think though that Lears point more accurately,is that like any ideology, in the hands of capable& influential individuals, can, in fact, take on a [pragmatist) agenda which of necessity wills to power; witness the pro-war bent of Harris & Hitchens. I remain unconvinced that science is ethically neutral
shieldsff 3 months ago
@shieldsff
Science doesn't do ethics., or at least it does as much ethics as humans do. Some scientists even use the ethical debate to counteract religions objections.
A case in point might be Craig Venter's ethical committee. The religious authorities simply had to concede that their scripture said what he was about to do was impossible.
So their position resolved to 'no position', even though they knew that same scripture was again about to be demonstrated invalid...
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
CONT. Now when we reach a point in human civilization that those who claim they are the 'moral authority' are bypassed using their own dogma....that is a very dangerous situation.
Hypothetically if some bright spark decided that they could create a machine to send information back in time.to say a week ago this poses serious moral questions. However most scripture of the worlds religions claim this is impossible. Sp they have to opt out of the ethical debate or admit their dogma is erronous.
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
CONT. In my hypothetical example above we now know religion will opt out rather than admit they might be wrong fundamentally and address the question...That will give a tacit free for all to anyone that wanted to engage in such research.
I think we need a replacement for religious morality.... its not up to the job to be honest. There are some very serious questions that need to be addressed this century and religious moral values speak to a population long dead in a time with no such worries.
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@gooieslee
Those who suffered through the Jacobin terror would disagree.
powereddrive 6 months ago
@powereddrive okay fine. maybe i made too wide a statement. rebels can cause damage too... but if you look at history at a whole, cultures which encourage questioning of their leaders (questioning, not a starting revolutions) are often better for the people, which makes sense, because it gives the people power not to be treated like shit.
gooieslee 6 months ago
@gooieslee .."but if you look at history at a whole, cultures which encourage questioning of their leaders (questioning, not a starting revolutions) are often better for the people"
.democracy does seem to be popular...well with the working masses atleast...and violent revolutions are sometimes necessary. Do you think we could have solved the revolutionary/civil wars over tea and hugs? yea im sure thats what jesus would do..but the rest of us have the burden of reality to contend with.
nrgetick 5 months ago
@gooieslee I wish I could give you multiple thumbs up for that answer! This answer embodies the enlightenment and I salute you sir. I just wish it were not a vicious circle, where people become more religious, the government becomes more fascist/disfuncitonal, people become more religious etc. I wish I knew how to break that cycle. I think the United States is in that cycle and I would like nothing more than to put us back on the path that our enlightenment founders started us on.
Newenlightenmentnow 6 months ago
@gooieslee- mistrusting [some forms of] religion, I have to agree can be a good thing'
Jesus actually said that the scribes of his day (the social/political oppressors) the Pharisees (the RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES) & the UNBELIEVING God haters should all be be very concerned, because at the end they will all be judged and sent to eternal punishment (i.e., hell). So the question is not if you are religious or not, but whether you have the facts and turn in faith to the truth of God in simple faith
shieldsff 3 months ago
@SilverStar40 Every world power with religion also resorted to genocide...Its going on right now.
That's basically every world power...
Maybe its being a 'world power' or just 'power' that causes that and has nothing to do with religion or lack thereof.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Totally amazing what passes for educated and intellectual these days! Unbelievable!
DMilbury 7 months ago
Do you feel more secure yet, DM? Two posts. Have you gotten your daily dose of talking for the sole purpose of reading your own words and hearing your own voice? Listening to yourself each time in the amazingly pathetic hope that your doubt and insecurity will vanish with some convoluted argument that generates in your mind. I'm sorry, DM. I'm sorry that your mind was lost a long time ago.
EJNewbury 7 months ago
@EJNewbury I see you have three posts so far today. Do you feel better? Actually, my mind has never been more clear about the world and life. You would be surprised how the world around you comes to light when you come to realize the truth of the Creator of the world.
DMilbury 7 months ago
@DMilbury Yea, Hitler was "clear" about the Jewish "threat" too. Now, this is the part where you say Hitler was an atheist, and then I say that you should go buy and read "Mein Kampf," so you can read first hand how wrong you are. So, can we just skip to the end where you don't bring up the Hitler thing? You know, because I don't take enjoyment in beating people like you down.
EJNewbury 7 months ago