Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Hitchens rightly states "Totalitarianism is innate in all religion" - yet he is firmly on the side of right wing christian fanatics.
I love him for all he has done, but his siding with the Dick Cheney's of the world confirms that his intellectual heft is not as impressive as his debating skills - if it was, he'd not be spouting the christianist line against all of Islam, and he'd be saying what he does about Islam, about his pro-war, neo-fascist colleagues.
What an odd, yet rather tired and cliched criticism of these guys.
This is partly a discussion about how best to articulate their opinions to the greater world. Because whether you like it or not, people listen to them, and digest their ideas.
But I'm sure you simply wish to view the entire conversation through your very own prefabricated lens.
@cinesimonj I think were probably governed to see things in our own way and thats what makes us unique. But the only people who are going to get this in its entirity are people who are well educated , and im not sure the majority of the world is . I apologise for the comment before, its purely ignorant I know, infact im trying to see the perspectives of others more now ive reached adulthood . And have taken on board what you've said. Thanks THT
If smallpox were so easy to manufacture, we'd all be dead. Life would not be well adapted to be proof against a natural phenomenon. Earth remains a dead planet. End of story.
As Hitchens was about to say, we couldn't remain ignorant of this. Somebody would figure it out and doom us all anyway, might as well try and prevent it.
But on the off-chance that nukes do not annihilate all life, we cannot remain ignorant of it. (Or if you prefer, some secret bioweapon recipe.)
If jihadists were happy, they wouldn't be jihadists. Can one of these intelligent people please address this and not completely blame 9/11 and terrorism on Islam? Can Noam Chomsky join in on this debate?
That's a tall order. Who has equipped and exploited these uhhh, disillusioned victims of yours?
I honestly don't believe Christians were much better until we decided that it had to obey due process in the modern world. I think it reasonable that Islam could get there too, but that like its annoying Abrahamic cousins, it will always crave the old glory days when it was king.
@Lesardah It is. The drinking is one thing, but the smoking? It's such a horrible addiction... inhaling such things as carbon monoxide. Someone so brilliant should know what it leads to. Just goes to show even the most brilliant among us has a blind spot about something.
I think they make the mistake of believing that religion necessitates theism. Many religions such as certain sects of Buddhism make no claims on the existence of god.
ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR GOD AND SAVIOUR, ACCEPT HIS AMAZING GIFT OF SALVATION THROUGH HIS SUFFERING, HIS AMAZING GIFT GRANTED BY THE MERCIFUL GOD ALMIGHTY, OR SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL WITH YOUR WORM THAT DOESN'T DIE, WHERE THE FIRE IS NEVER QUENCHED
What if scientists could prove that one year from now, every single person in the world will die, all at the same time, just drop dead. If they revealed this knowledge, what do you think would happen? This isn't a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it and then tell me if that's what you would want to happen.
@pixi6666 . I know you directed your question to Math2Anton, but I wanted to respond. It would be false to call that knowledge, as scientists could not ABSOLUTELY PROVE that every single person will die at the same time one year from now. PROOF would only be achieved when that event occurred. But the point is, as reasonable being, my reaction would be that I would examine the scientists claims and address it with some degree of scepticism.
There is knowledge we shouldn't know? What a bogus, imagine you discover that one race is less intelligent then an other. Then you simply have to be civilized and treath them as people. Bad thoughts, urgres etc. makes people bad, not knowledge. If people want to murder others they make up reasons, regardless of the truth. I think all our knowledge made the world a better place. I don't think the west has gone to far.
Dennet gets on my nerves. I don't know why. I think it's that he breaks up his speech with so many pauses all the time. Like he has to think of just the word he wants to say, allll the time.
@Mr7893 Aw, give him a break. He's 130 yr's old and he's probably tired from delivering all those presents to all the little boys and girls around the world...
women kept down vs. fascist invasion, what's worse? depends on whether you ask the women today or tomorrow, I suppose:) either way, the GINNS always win!;)
And now Dennet's going down: what information could we as a species possibly be better off not knowing? Surely the inherent danger is that our technological knowledge and skills might outpace our wisdom and moral grounding, but the solution to that problem is not to stop finding stuff out. It's to make ourselves wise enough at the same time to be able to use that knowledge to the best (most ethical) advantage.
I'd like to hear a conversation between the other 3 without Hitchens, he just comes across here one of those loud mouthed people who loves the sound of his voice, but doesn't really have anything that interesting to say.
I can think of one thing that if discovered/invented should not be revealed to anyone, and that is COLD FUSION. With very little equipment someone could potentially create an atomic bomb in his home. They could blow up millions of people, either by accident or on purpose. But that is still in the realm of imagination. Interesting topic of conversation though!
I can think of one thing that if discovered/invented should not be revealed to anyone, and that is COLD FUSION. With very little equipment someone could potentially create an atomic bomb in his home. They could blow up millions of people, either by accident or on purpose. But that is still in the realm of imagination. Interesting topic of conversation though!
Discussion from 5:00 was quite stupid.I am Indian and i think i know more than these guys and i dont want to sound arrogant.We invented the number 0 which means nothing. Europeans still r afraid of the concept of nothingness.I think this fear is what drives europeans,while this fear of emptiness is lesser in other races.
Whites r scared shit of dieing that they hv invented all the nonsense machines to defend themselves.
Of course, the ability to determine what somebody is actually thinking/feeling is quite limited by our current technology and understanding concerning the mind, but that doesn't rule out empirical tests as a possibility one day though.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the mind is you.. what technology do you need to understand what ur feeling!!! lol... I will tear a new one to all these four fucks if they discuss raciest intelligence.. becoz everything we think is learned and put in here..
in what way r they more smarter?these morons dont know what free will is, they r afraid to even touch that topic.. do you want to know the truth o smart whit boy?
well i am just a reverse raciest.. i dont sting till someone bites. How intelligent can they be if they have still not found out why the bell curve is wrong.. they talk of religion being indoctrination and brain wash and how some ppl hv lesser chances in life, yet they want to mystify intelligence as something unknown. How can thy be considered wise if they know nothing of what they use every day, there mind.
i know what is an analogy but thats an stupid analogy to even bring up. The fact was they where not sure of its fallacy but they are sure of god!!
Either way there is no free will, there is no action or pure action or spontaneous action there is only reactions. No one in world can prove to me that there is spontaneous action,there are only reactions.The implications of this is devastating to science and religion. Look away intelligent boy.
1) A reverse "raciest"? That concept does not exist in my book, and you don't seem to have justified the term.
2) "...why the bell curve is wrong". Is the bell curve wrong? I don't think it is, look at the distribution of intelligence and you will see the bell-curve.
3)When do they say that they want to mystify intelligence as something unknown, I'm sure that they would support studies of intelligence.
4)Small point, learn to spell and use grammar, you come across as a moron.
I have to disagree with the idea that you can prove that you love someone. I would posit that anything that he can do to show that he loves his wife, I can do just the same though I obviously don't love her. I also don't think it's a knockdown argument against atheism. However, I do think it's a valid response to the argument for athiesm when one claims that they will change their mind when they are shown proof of the existence of God. Love is 100% subjective and can't be concretely proven
Nothing can be proven, because there is always the possibility that we are brains in tanks being fed delusions, but a good deal of evidence can be shown for something. For example, one could show evidence for love if there were a portion of the brain found in peer reviewed studies to be activated only while feeling the emotion of love. Then a person could prove their love by having that part of their brain light up on the scan when asked about a specific person or memory.
Our thoughts and emotions are constantly emitting unique energetic frequencies which can be read, measured and cataloged. A state of love can be displayed on a computer screen.
The racial bell curve thing is that in America, when you control for all the other factors except the one being examined (age, income, education, time in jail, etc.) blacks do far worse on about every objective measure. There is little biological difference between races, so its fairly obvious to me this is an example of life conforming to expectation, not genes (i.e. nurture not nature is the cause here). Still, if you're an employer or a lender you probably wish you didn't know this.
As someone filled with white, liberal guilt I know exactly how racist this is btw, but it doesn't make it any less true that if you take two men in this country whose only difference is the shade of their skin, the one with a darker complexion is more likely to screw up by some measurable standard. Frankly I think the racial bell curve thing is a perfect example of knowledge I wish I could unlearn.
Question is, where and when do you draw the line for censorship? should there even be a line at all? oooh!! stuff to disagree with! thank you Sam Harris. I actually think that the same level of spirituality can be derived from artistic expression, if not more profound, more moving, more sophisticated, and one that can engage our brains as well as our emotions...
Permit me to revisit a proposition abroached some months ago here:----suppose someone suggested that a study exists PROVING that Internet pornography has demonstrably reduced the incidence of violent sex crimes nationally?---To suppress,or no??
Are there truths that we are better off not knowing? I wonder if Dennett refers to an absolute here, in the sense, we should never find out. The example given with small pox is insufficient, since we do know it, yet is harmful in the wrong hands. Their example however points to a different subject. Selective censorship. We wouldn't let a5 yr old watch porn as well as we wouldn't allow access to a weapon to someone who's deranged.
@grimwatcher One 'truth' or ideology we were better off not knowing or pursuing knowledge of was the eugenics movement. It was true at that time in that intelligent, scientifically trained, powerful people believed it was true. Aspects of the ideology may still be true, in fact, if, say, it were accompanied by a strict adherence to nonviolence. The problem is there are always wacko subcultures that can take good ideas and do horrible things with them.
The truth value of eugenics or anything else is independent of implementation or time in history. Many of the claims of the science behind it were true (I'm specifically talking about the American eugenics movement). But being true does not make something moral. A public well trained in critical thinking and skepticism coupled with a strong legal system will prevent "wacko subcultures" or governments from acting immorally better than censorship ever will.
I hope you don't think I'm advocating censorship. My point is that the world should be one way and is another. Of course, I agree with you that the public should be well trained in critical thinking and skepticism and the legal system should be strong, but that's not the way things are. Given the way things are, people who possess dangerous truths like Oppenheimer may want to dispense with their truths judiciously. I'm not sure we disagree though.
hitchens really likes to just talk over the other people. starting to get on my nerves, especially since his arguements are the weakest and most distorted of the four. i find his only interresting point so far being the idea of necissary cognative dissonnance. he says at one point he wants to keep religion so that he can continue to argue with it, which i think is the wrong attitude.
Hitchens definitely sounded as though he said this, but I suggest an alternative--what Hitchens was suggesting was that a demand to end theology would inevitably give rise to theology again. At best, keep it minimum to where it cannot cause harm or infliction onto someone else. Utterly vanquishing theology, while desirable and beneficial, would give us an elapsed time frame to work with. Overtime, the need for cognitive dissonance would flicker-away and give rise to religion.
I think he actually becomes increasingly eloquent as he consumes more alcohol, I watched a video where he actually talked about his consumption of alcohol.
He said something along the lines of 'drinking makes other people more interesting and unlike others; I can continue to speak without slurring my words. ' He went on to say something about him being not being the slave to his drink but him being its master..
@6bobjohnson9 i deeply admire and appreciate hitchens, and i do love to drink myself, but this clip makes clear who is the master. hitchens' mental abilities become noticeably--and disappointingly--degraded the more he drinks. I think he recognizes that when he notes that he contradicted himself. as someone who drinks a lot, i'm pretty sure hitchens knows when drunkeness takes him to the ragged edge of his intellect
they didn't choose their words well enough "The Current savage islam..." this is the fast road to trouble. Islam is not savage. Christianity is not savage, Judaism is not savage, but ALL have many savage characteristics within its confines yes, but to call islam savage is a quick way to piss off (an compound you problems) anyone who is or is not a savage within it's confines...
Not when things are put out of context. For example, if book that is read by many people say that Islam is savage, then We will look at Islam through the "savage filter". Even the best of intentions can look bad through this frame of mind. Or like the fact that if someone says something is going to happen, so in order to go about avoiding such outcome, you insult the third party by withdrawal of yourself from the situation, which in turn backfires and caused what you seek to avoid...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
harris brings up the bell curve and hitchens immediately smothers him. here these guys are talking about scientific honesty but then cherry-picking the politically correct knowledge out of the darwinian barrel. these guys are almost as sheepish as the religious humanists.
Harris is also wrong that art has been historically limited in its representation of compassion. Shakespeare, for one, in his construction of character, exhibits such a depth of compassion that scholars have often wondered about how he himself felt about his figures, so deeply did he understand their motives.
I don't accept Dennett's proposition that because knowledge and truth can be a liability we should therefore limit the value of truth. This is a classical functionalist/utility position in keeping with Dennett's own functionalist neuro-reductionism. It is also dangerously close to a pro-censorship/anti-free speech position.
At the end of chapter 8. Scientists have a responsibility to better communicate scientific understanding to the masses. This lack of communication perpetuates the need for religion. The average person has such a limited understanding. They are like our ancient ancestors who rationalised the rising oif the sun on a chariot rider.
Ahh, I knew Dennett was laying the groundwork to ignore 'mean' truths. That is nothing knew, it's called political correctness and it is worse than religion. instead of not believing something because of ignorance or stupidity, it is knowing a fact to be true and outright denying it.
AS bad as religion...And let's not omit mention of why:P.C.looks askance at unlovely truths in deference to a misguided rubric of egalitarian ethicality.The grand myth that everything and everyone rates equal treatment and respect.
Thronsohn, a dry martini is usually made with around 5 parts gin to 1 part vermouth. Nothing feminine about that. It was a favorite of Winston Churhill. It's drinks like the appletini and cosmopolitan that give the martini glass a bad image.
{What Irony...Effectively concluding in citing the very gaffe that behooved his intercession...Perhaps genuinely,as opposed spuriously,he'll actually be inspired to learn basic Latin.}
'Can anyone think of any idea so rotten that if true,would be best to leave it veiled'---in answer to this query I posited a notion culled from Dept. of Justice finding relative yo a statistical decrease in crime,and an inference in re Internet porn.
Evidently it's not programmed for basic Latin."After the fact,therefore because of the fact"....You do know what a 'fallacy' is.Or do you require your devices to provide you with the rudiments of Logical Argumentation?
Really?---And are we aware of the header that covers challenging arguments that have yet to be asserted?Or would you otherwise merely label it 'arguing to hear yourself argue?'
It seems to require so very little straw to fabricate a strawman for some dilettantes.Citing statistics would presuppose adherence to a position.Tell me...which?
It is apparent that you are so preoccupied with spewing an endless stream of useless philosophical rhetoric that you cannot be bothered to actually read the posts of other individuals who are conversing with you. Not at all surprising since those who vainly attempt to inflate their egos through the usage of intelligent sounding and Latin laced phrases would be far too narcissistic to actually engage in a meaningful dialog.
I was asking YOU to back up your initial claims. Can you do so?
Wow dude. For all that posing with impressive wordsmithing and empty dialogue, you complete missed what the discussion was about, didn't you?
I guess that happens when you are too pre-occupied with cutting and pasting Latin phrases off the net or snagging SAT words from your word a day calendar.
Tell you what: how about you backtrack through the comment stream and see if you can spot it. A quasi-intellectual such as yourself should have no problems with a minor amount of detective work.
1) You asserted in earlier posts that statistics are not an adequate baseline from which to form a conclusion. Then you cite a statistical reference to try to prove your claim.
2) You draw a causal conclusion that is the opposite of what the statistics indicate. If there has been a statistical decrease in crime that occurred during a simultaneous increase in porn (specifically, internet based) then you are essentially flawed in your argument.
I've no quarrel with a Humean pedigree of prudential skepticism....Except,when it morphs to paranoid accusation.Then you may as well be channeling Cotton Mather.
I asserted neither of the two points you've cited....You're interposing strawmen to make quantum leaps of argument fodder to joust.But given you allege point 2...you still haven't the couth to understand how a post hoc fallacy correlates to what you "claim" I've syllogized.Odd.
And I have no issue in engaging in dialogue with an individual provided they have substance in their posts and provide something tangible to posit. Otherwise, you may as well be channeling Colon Matter.
Your argument is often cited by those who argue that violence in video games is causal to violent tendencies in children. Yet when studies were performed, the video games themselves merely served as an outlet for an individual who was unstable to begin with. Often, as a result of either being abused at home or at school.
The similarity there demonstrates that ancillary societal stimuli, like porn (or video games) has a minimal effect when compared to family life or predisposed mental disorders.
If you care to glance at the stats in piecemeal----in spite of the sociological prognosis over wide swathes of historical observation such as what you propound----a societal continuum may be punctuated with hiccups of anomalous non-aggression.
And if you actually utilized real statistics and baseline data instead of spouting non-sensical buzzwords and a legalise writing style, you might actually present a more convincing and cogent argument.
Instead, you just sound like a pompous windbag that has little more than a dictionary for reference and not actual tangible substance to his words.
What Twain long ago postulated about statistics holds true,as evidenced by your insistence that they serve as a be-all -end-all in examining social phenomena.I'm reporting,not contriving.
Do you realize that a object remains in a state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced force?
That statement (Newton's First Law) has about as much bearing on this conversation as your "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". Which ironically, kicks in my computers spell checker as I reference it. Basically indicating that not only are you attempting to use large words, you apparently make new ones up as you go along.
If you are not utilizing statistics to drive your assertions, you are not reporting, Reporting requires requisite data sets or investigated material to draw a cogent conclusion based on the established trend evidenced by the data points. By drawing conclusions with no basis in fact, that is in essence the very essence of a contrived view.
Shall we throw more large words at each other to see who has the larger dictionary? Or do you have anything of substance to add?
On the subject of an idea so destructive that it would be best to keep it unknown: C.H. expressed an interest in this concept, but i don't think it was really addressed by the others (I think he was looking for something more...Lovecraftian). Can anyone think of any idea so rotten that, if true, it would be best to leave it veiled? Some ideas: Reason is actually worthless; God exists and hates everyone, and there's no way to placate Him. Does anyone have any other, less dumb, ideas?
Here is one such idea,purposively cached by the media as a correlate:that the advent of Internet porn has been a causal link to the statistical decrease in national incidences of rape.
Personally,I believe in a multiplicity of causes,not the least of which ,however,DOES HAPPEN TO BE,facile accessibility of alternate libido satiation via vicarious stimuli.
That's very interesting. It, in a way, gives an excuse to look at porn.
Aside from that, I can't believe these videos have been aroud for almost two years and i haven't seen them. Is there any other videos of this type you would recommend i watch?
These twelve installments are the ultima thule.However,any debates featuring Hitchens,and any lecture featuring Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson.Harris' debates are also worthwhile.
From a purely clinical perspective,the psychosocial disadvantages of pornography indulgence outweigh the boons by a considerable margin from the rubric of normative social behavior.
Statistics demonstrate that the more repressive a culture is from the standpoint of sexual expression, the more violent it is. That is why the highest incidents of rape and violence against women exist in cultures that have a more prudish view of sexuality.
Actually, no. I am citing data which draws a correlation between aggressive societies and their repressive natures.
There is no demonstrable link between pornography and any societal disadvantage. As I stated, the opposite is actually true. Much like supposed religiosity and its prevalence in a society is often correlated directly with lack of societal progression and increased violence.
"6,000' years,you say?...When Krishna was born of a Virgin birth courtesy his mom,Devaki,grew up and claimed to be the LIGHT OF THE WORLD,....?...that "Christ"??
The objective is to enlighten,which often occasions...certain people....discomfort.Why follow the traditional errant fallacy of attributing to the heart,what a portion of the brain is responsible for?
tHE HUMAN HEART?...it pumps blood and regulates the filtration of impurities.Like sweaty palms or knees,it also registers emotion.But it does not AUTHOR EMOTION.
Ignorance is in your definition of God's love.The very archetype of Christ had to be invented just to apologize for the puerile ,capricious sadism of Yahweh,which no sane human could countenance.
What manner of Divine psycho commands his most faithful subect---Abraham----to run his beloved son thru with a knife just to prove a point!---How needy do you have to be for slavish devotion...sheeeesh!
Islamists however believe in that which cannot be verified by Scientific method:A SOUL....Atheists are skeptical of any component of human physiology not researchable fom Merck manual precepts.
Even so, the point was that atheists and Islamics arrive at the same conclusion in regard to the deity of Yeshua. The fact that you disagree with just about everything else is evidence that hardly anyone agrees about anything EXCEPT the deity of Christ. There are likely more people that HAVE believed in the deity of Christ than there are people that can agree about anything else. Think about it keeping in mind that belief in Christ is 6,000 years old.
What age is FORCED belief of Christ on pain of death?Is it older than that of Martyrdom for insistence ON believing in Christ?Does anyone in your Heaven mind the amount of blood shed either way?
You can't shake God with talk of blood because He is the one that gave the life in the first place and He can give it back to you after it is taken away. In fact, every person good or bad, will be raised from the dead. We will all be raised and we will all be judged for what *we* did.
...and christians are no different than atheists, they don't believe in any of the gods of other religions either (allah,zeus, kali). We atheists just believe in one less god than christians
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The only God that does exist is the God that is able to do something for us. The only God that is able to do something for us is the One who has done something for us since the beginning of time. That's the difference between being a true God and a false god. The true God loves us and has made a provision and covering for us Himself so we can live and He speaks truth so we can live right. Guess which is God. If you don't know, it is the One that sent us His Son to die for us and send His Spirit.
I want to add, that people in a dire personal situation sometimes tend to seek help in the supernatural, and then see everything good happening in that supernatural kontext (prayer, etc.)
This has been flagged as spam show
I like how the two most popular comments don't contradict each other
MightySheep25 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
Hitchens rightly states "Totalitarianism is innate in all religion" - yet he is firmly on the side of right wing christian fanatics.
I love him for all he has done, but his siding with the Dick Cheney's of the world confirms that his intellectual heft is not as impressive as his debating skills - if it was, he'd not be spouting the christianist line against all of Islam, and he'd be saying what he does about Islam, about his pro-war, neo-fascist colleagues.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
i see this more as an whos better at articulating a point rather than making a point.
which i dont think goes very far from just being egosentric
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
@ThanksDoctorThoctor
What an odd, yet rather tired and cliched criticism of these guys.
This is partly a discussion about how best to articulate their opinions to the greater world. Because whether you like it or not, people listen to them, and digest their ideas.
But I'm sure you simply wish to view the entire conversation through your very own prefabricated lens.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj I think were probably governed to see things in our own way and thats what makes us unique. But the only people who are going to get this in its entirity are people who are well educated , and im not sure the majority of the world is . I apologise for the comment before, its purely ignorant I know, infact im trying to see the perspectives of others more now ive reached adulthood . And have taken on board what you've said. Thanks THT
ThanksDoctorThoctor 5 months ago
I loved the way Dennett responding to the question about hiding something he discovered. Makes me think he has some secret knowledge.
fitzyp 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course God is real. I found the Garden of Eden He Created. Look at my Channel and see it for yourself.
downyourtube 6 months ago in playlist atheist debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
"i'd rather speak for the devil pro bono"
- god has always been aggressive about spreading his story, like a Mormon at the front door i like how the devil respects my personal space.
bigpappasmurff 7 months ago
If smallpox were so easy to manufacture, we'd all be dead. Life would not be well adapted to be proof against a natural phenomenon. Earth remains a dead planet. End of story.
As Hitchens was about to say, we couldn't remain ignorant of this. Somebody would figure it out and doom us all anyway, might as well try and prevent it.
But on the off-chance that nukes do not annihilate all life, we cannot remain ignorant of it. (Or if you prefer, some secret bioweapon recipe.)
Basically: Tough shit.
dhx84 9 months ago
If jihadists were happy, they wouldn't be jihadists. Can one of these intelligent people please address this and not completely blame 9/11 and terrorism on Islam? Can Noam Chomsky join in on this debate?
johnpotter26 11 months ago
@johnpotter26
That's a tall order. Who has equipped and exploited these uhhh, disillusioned victims of yours?
I honestly don't believe Christians were much better until we decided that it had to obey due process in the modern world. I think it reasonable that Islam could get there too, but that like its annoying Abrahamic cousins, it will always crave the old glory days when it was king.
dhx84 9 months ago
Almost every single comment, for all these clips, are on Hitch. Love him or hate him, we all love him.
indiegoblue 11 months ago
God I hate seeing Hitchens take a drag on that cig, knowing what it's going to lead to!
mcquestion 1 year ago 5
@mcquestion I know... I hear you. He's aged like 20 years in the last six months because of his disease. It's sobering.
Lesardah 11 months ago
@Lesardah It is. The drinking is one thing, but the smoking? It's such a horrible addiction... inhaling such things as carbon monoxide. Someone so brilliant should know what it leads to. Just goes to show even the most brilliant among us has a blind spot about something.
mcquestion 11 months ago
prove that you love your wife? how is that a knockout argument? i don't get it..
daemonowner 1 year ago
I think they make the mistake of believing that religion necessitates theism. Many religions such as certain sects of Buddhism make no claims on the existence of god.
Enthos2 1 year ago
@Enthos2 Can you name others? Cause that is the only one to me that springs to mind.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
@Enthos2 yea, such as ''certain sects of buddhism'', not 'many religions' though... 97% of religions how bout that instead:)
buktomsin 1 year ago
They contradict each other because one was answering the other or opposing the other.
jsmitt06 1 year ago
I like how the two most popular comments completely contradict each other
hempartist420 1 year ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE OF THIS PAGE
ACCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR GOD AND SAVIOUR, ACCEPT HIS AMAZING GIFT OF SALVATION THROUGH HIS SUFFERING, HIS AMAZING GIFT GRANTED BY THE MERCIFUL GOD ALMIGHTY, OR SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL WITH YOUR WORM THAT DOESN'T DIE, WHERE THE FIRE IS NEVER QUENCHED
JESUS LOVES YOU ALL
ACCEPT YOUR SAVIOUR
AVOID THE HORRORS OF AN ETERNAL HELL
yington 1 year ago
@Math2Anton
What if scientists could prove that one year from now, every single person in the world will die, all at the same time, just drop dead. If they revealed this knowledge, what do you think would happen? This isn't a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it and then tell me if that's what you would want to happen.
pixi6666 1 year ago
@pixi6666 . I know you directed your question to Math2Anton, but I wanted to respond. It would be false to call that knowledge, as scientists could not ABSOLUTELY PROVE that every single person will die at the same time one year from now. PROOF would only be achieved when that event occurred. But the point is, as reasonable being, my reaction would be that I would examine the scientists claims and address it with some degree of scepticism.
Quanye1 1 year ago
Great to see Dennett getting involved there. I need to see more action between him and Dawkins
Icecoldpoker 1 year ago
There is knowledge we shouldn't know? What a bogus, imagine you discover that one race is less intelligent then an other. Then you simply have to be civilized and treath them as people. Bad thoughts, urgres etc. makes people bad, not knowledge. If people want to murder others they make up reasons, regardless of the truth. I think all our knowledge made the world a better place. I don't think the west has gone to far.
Math2Anton 1 year ago
Dennet gets on my nerves. I don't know why. I think it's that he breaks up his speech with so many pauses all the time. Like he has to think of just the word he wants to say, allll the time.
Mr7893 1 year ago
@Mr7893 Aw, give him a break. He's 130 yr's old and he's probably tired from delivering all those presents to all the little boys and girls around the world...
babuwhite2010 1 year ago 4
Hitch to Harris: Twit
Harris to Hitch: Drunk
asiekdilsa 1 year ago
women kept down vs. fascist invasion, what's worse? depends on whether you ask the women today or tomorrow, I suppose:) either way, the GINNS always win!;)
unicorn187 1 year ago
that goes for any religion!! they are all immoral! its corrupted! dont single out islam!
DaAlphaOmega 1 year ago
@DaAlphaOmega Why not? Islam is currently the most virulent but still rather timid compared to christianity in the middle ages.
SNap15 1 year ago
i love richards voice so much lol
Slacktoo2010 1 year ago 5
Dennet is boring in this, he takes way too long too get his point across.
Everytime he came on i fast forwarded LOL.
TheDerekdub 1 year ago
And now Dennet's going down: what information could we as a species possibly be better off not knowing? Surely the inherent danger is that our technological knowledge and skills might outpace our wisdom and moral grounding, but the solution to that problem is not to stop finding stuff out. It's to make ourselves wise enough at the same time to be able to use that knowledge to the best (most ethical) advantage.
flibbertergibbet 1 year ago
@flibbertergibbet He said he was playing devil's advocate, which means that is a view he does not hold himself.
SimKoning 1 year ago
@SimKoning Sure, but either way, it doesn't make sense as a point.
flibbertergibbet 1 year ago
I'd like to hear a conversation between the other 3 without Hitchens, he just comes across here one of those loud mouthed people who loves the sound of his voice, but doesn't really have anything that interesting to say.
haveguitarwilltravel 1 year ago 2
I can think of one thing that if discovered/invented should not be revealed to anyone, and that is COLD FUSION. With very little equipment someone could potentially create an atomic bomb in his home. They could blow up millions of people, either by accident or on purpose. But that is still in the realm of imagination. Interesting topic of conversation though!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
constant bourbon and cigarettes, Hitchens is the man.
thesuit333 1 year ago
I don't think there is anything that we shouldn't try to find out.
AtheistInsight 1 year ago
@AtheistInsight
I can think of one thing that if discovered/invented should not be revealed to anyone, and that is COLD FUSION. With very little equipment someone could potentially create an atomic bomb in his home. They could blow up millions of people, either by accident or on purpose. But that is still in the realm of imagination. Interesting topic of conversation though!
ruirodtube 1 year ago
Discussion from 5:00 was quite stupid.I am Indian and i think i know more than these guys and i dont want to sound arrogant.We invented the number 0 which means nothing. Europeans still r afraid of the concept of nothingness.I think this fear is what drives europeans,while this fear of emptiness is lesser in other races.
Whites r scared shit of dieing that they hv invented all the nonsense machines to defend themselves.
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
The only hope for a reasonable or benign Islam is to take away its political authority just as was done with Christianity.
stinkinheathen 1 year ago 2
Of course, the ability to determine what somebody is actually thinking/feeling is quite limited by our current technology and understanding concerning the mind, but that doesn't rule out empirical tests as a possibility one day though.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the mind is you.. what technology do you need to understand what ur feeling!!! lol... I will tear a new one to all these four fucks if they discuss raciest intelligence.. becoz everything we think is learned and put in here..
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
Relax dude. Intelligence bell curve was used an analogy. Obviously they don't support it.
Also, they are likely a lot smarter than you are based on the quality of your comment.
hpholland 1 year ago 4
in what way r they more smarter?these morons dont know what free will is, they r afraid to even touch that topic.. do you want to know the truth o smart whit boy?
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
Not from a racist idiot, no.
hpholland 1 year ago
well i am just a reverse raciest.. i dont sting till someone bites. How intelligent can they be if they have still not found out why the bell curve is wrong.. they talk of religion being indoctrination and brain wash and how some ppl hv lesser chances in life, yet they want to mystify intelligence as something unknown. How can thy be considered wise if they know nothing of what they use every day, there mind.
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
ANALOGY. Look it up in the dictionary. I hope you know how to use one.
hpholland 1 year ago
i know what is an analogy but thats an stupid analogy to even bring up. The fact was they where not sure of its fallacy but they are sure of god!!
Either way there is no free will, there is no action or pure action or spontaneous action there is only reactions. No one in world can prove to me that there is spontaneous action,there are only reactions.The implications of this is devastating to science and religion. Look away intelligent boy.
KarthikSoun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANALOGY. Look it up in the dictionary. I hope you know how to use one.
hpholland 1 year ago
@KarthikSoun Wow.
1) A reverse "raciest"? That concept does not exist in my book, and you don't seem to have justified the term.
2) "...why the bell curve is wrong". Is the bell curve wrong? I don't think it is, look at the distribution of intelligence and you will see the bell-curve.
3)When do they say that they want to mystify intelligence as something unknown, I'm sure that they would support studies of intelligence.
4)Small point, learn to spell and use grammar, you come across as a moron.
jamma246 1 year ago
@KarthikSoun
Atharkas 1 year ago
@KarthikSoun
If everything we think is learned, then how do you explain imagination where people invent stories and fantastical creaturs?
Atharkas 1 year ago
I have to disagree with the idea that you can prove that you love someone. I would posit that anything that he can do to show that he loves his wife, I can do just the same though I obviously don't love her. I also don't think it's a knockdown argument against atheism. However, I do think it's a valid response to the argument for athiesm when one claims that they will change their mind when they are shown proof of the existence of God. Love is 100% subjective and can't be concretely proven
pyrobryan 2 years ago
@pyrobryan
Nothing can be proven, because there is always the possibility that we are brains in tanks being fed delusions, but a good deal of evidence can be shown for something. For example, one could show evidence for love if there were a portion of the brain found in peer reviewed studies to be activated only while feeling the emotion of love. Then a person could prove their love by having that part of their brain light up on the scan when asked about a specific person or memory.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Our thoughts and emotions are constantly emitting unique energetic frequencies which can be read, measured and cataloged. A state of love can be displayed on a computer screen.
LIVEETERNALLOVE 2 years ago
@darkmiles22
We don't need a genetic explanation. So we can label wholly on socialisation, not just expectations. An entire cultural approach.
Sirstingray 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I would love to have a drink with these guys.
daytripper57 2 years ago 10
The racial bell curve thing is that in America, when you control for all the other factors except the one being examined (age, income, education, time in jail, etc.) blacks do far worse on about every objective measure. There is little biological difference between races, so its fairly obvious to me this is an example of life conforming to expectation, not genes (i.e. nurture not nature is the cause here). Still, if you're an employer or a lender you probably wish you didn't know this.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
As someone filled with white, liberal guilt I know exactly how racist this is btw, but it doesn't make it any less true that if you take two men in this country whose only difference is the shade of their skin, the one with a darker complexion is more likely to screw up by some measurable standard. Frankly I think the racial bell curve thing is a perfect example of knowledge I wish I could unlearn.
darkmiles22 2 years ago
Question is, where and when do you draw the line for censorship? should there even be a line at all? oooh!! stuff to disagree with! thank you Sam Harris. I actually think that the same level of spirituality can be derived from artistic expression, if not more profound, more moving, more sophisticated, and one that can engage our brains as well as our emotions...
grimwatcher 2 years ago 4
Permit me to revisit a proposition abroached some months ago here:----suppose someone suggested that a study exists PROVING that Internet pornography has demonstrably reduced the incidence of violent sex crimes nationally?---To suppress,or no??
djnross 2 years ago
Are there truths that we are better off not knowing? I wonder if Dennett refers to an absolute here, in the sense, we should never find out. The example given with small pox is insufficient, since we do know it, yet is harmful in the wrong hands. Their example however points to a different subject. Selective censorship. We wouldn't let a5 yr old watch porn as well as we wouldn't allow access to a weapon to someone who's deranged.
grimwatcher 2 years ago
@grimwatcher One 'truth' or ideology we were better off not knowing or pursuing knowledge of was the eugenics movement. It was true at that time in that intelligent, scientifically trained, powerful people believed it was true. Aspects of the ideology may still be true, in fact, if, say, it were accompanied by a strict adherence to nonviolence. The problem is there are always wacko subcultures that can take good ideas and do horrible things with them.
jonwold82 2 years ago
The truth value of eugenics or anything else is independent of implementation or time in history. Many of the claims of the science behind it were true (I'm specifically talking about the American eugenics movement). But being true does not make something moral. A public well trained in critical thinking and skepticism coupled with a strong legal system will prevent "wacko subcultures" or governments from acting immorally better than censorship ever will.
GreenByNature86 2 years ago 2
I hope you don't think I'm advocating censorship. My point is that the world should be one way and is another. Of course, I agree with you that the public should be well trained in critical thinking and skepticism and the legal system should be strong, but that's not the way things are. Given the way things are, people who possess dangerous truths like Oppenheimer may want to dispense with their truths judiciously. I'm not sure we disagree though.
jonwold82 2 years ago
hitchens really likes to just talk over the other people. starting to get on my nerves, especially since his arguements are the weakest and most distorted of the four. i find his only interresting point so far being the idea of necissary cognative dissonnance. he says at one point he wants to keep religion so that he can continue to argue with it, which i think is the wrong attitude.
glgamecoder 2 years ago
@glgamecoder
--
Hitchens definitely sounded as though he said this, but I suggest an alternative--what Hitchens was suggesting was that a demand to end theology would inevitably give rise to theology again. At best, keep it minimum to where it cannot cause harm or infliction onto someone else. Utterly vanquishing theology, while desirable and beneficial, would give us an elapsed time frame to work with. Overtime, the need for cognitive dissonance would flicker-away and give rise to religion.
Aizenx7 1 year ago
Atheists rule.
infinityjrh 2 years ago
I love Hitchens.... but he does get less articulate the more he drinks... especially when next to Harris!
xtiaan3 2 years ago 22
To be fair, everybody looks less eloquent compared to Sam Harris...
youvebeenthunderstru 5 months ago
I love watching the amount of scotch in Christopher's glass get smaller and smaller...is it me or is he slurring just a little bit?
yfs88 2 years ago 4
I think he actually becomes increasingly eloquent as he consumes more alcohol, I watched a video where he actually talked about his consumption of alcohol.
He said something along the lines of 'drinking makes other people more interesting and unlike others; I can continue to speak without slurring my words. ' He went on to say something about him being not being the slave to his drink but him being its master..
6bobjohnson9 2 years ago 48
@6bobjohnson9 i deeply admire and appreciate hitchens, and i do love to drink myself, but this clip makes clear who is the master. hitchens' mental abilities become noticeably--and disappointingly--degraded the more he drinks. I think he recognizes that when he notes that he contradicted himself. as someone who drinks a lot, i'm pretty sure hitchens knows when drunkeness takes him to the ragged edge of his intellect
sswindgassen 1 year ago
@6bobjohnson9 The esophageal cancer has proven otherwise.
AsSomedayItMayHappen 1 year ago
@6bobjohnson9 I realize this is a "necro" reply but I assume you refer to Hitchens?
Ninjaheman 1 year ago
@Ninjaheman Yes, that's right.
6bobjohnson9 1 year ago
@6bobjohnson9 Hitchss getsh more (hic) elloquint whinny drinx allright...****(burp)
So do I! (hic)
Hitch: Whattya mean, shtuff we dowanna know? (hic)
Harris: For example, bad stuff...
Hitch: (hic) oh yeh...
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
@6bobjohnson9
The drunken master?
dhx84 9 months ago
lol
SofaKingAbsent 2 years ago 3
they didn't choose their words well enough "The Current savage islam..." this is the fast road to trouble. Islam is not savage. Christianity is not savage, Judaism is not savage, but ALL have many savage characteristics within its confines yes, but to call islam savage is a quick way to piss off (an compound you problems) anyone who is or is not a savage within it's confines...
maddcatone 2 years ago
wouldn't any reaction that warranted censorship confirm the validity of the comment?
SofaKingAbsent 2 years ago
Not when things are put out of context. For example, if book that is read by many people say that Islam is savage, then We will look at Islam through the "savage filter". Even the best of intentions can look bad through this frame of mind. Or like the fact that if someone says something is going to happen, so in order to go about avoiding such outcome, you insult the third party by withdrawal of yourself from the situation, which in turn backfires and caused what you seek to avoid...
maddcatone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
harris brings up the bell curve and hitchens immediately smothers him. here these guys are talking about scientific honesty but then cherry-picking the politically correct knowledge out of the darwinian barrel. these guys are almost as sheepish as the religious humanists.
2xcheese 2 years ago
it's pathetic how the other 3 let hitchens put words in their mouths. look up IQ and Global Inequality on wikipedia. it explains a lot.
2xcheese 2 years ago
hitchens is full of it around 6:46.
2xcheese 2 years ago
Harris is also wrong that art has been historically limited in its representation of compassion. Shakespeare, for one, in his construction of character, exhibits such a depth of compassion that scholars have often wondered about how he himself felt about his figures, so deeply did he understand their motives.
dandiacal 2 years ago 2
I don't accept Dennett's proposition that because knowledge and truth can be a liability we should therefore limit the value of truth. This is a classical functionalist/utility position in keeping with Dennett's own functionalist neuro-reductionism. It is also dangerously close to a pro-censorship/anti-free speech position.
dandiacal 2 years ago
Sam FTW! LOL
xephyr1000 2 years ago 2
At the end of chapter 8. Scientists have a responsibility to better communicate scientific understanding to the masses. This lack of communication perpetuates the need for religion. The average person has such a limited understanding. They are like our ancient ancestors who rationalised the rising oif the sun on a chariot rider.
Thank you for sharing this video with us.
png2001 2 years ago 5
Ahh, I knew Dennett was laying the groundwork to ignore 'mean' truths. That is nothing knew, it's called political correctness and it is worse than religion. instead of not believing something because of ignorance or stupidity, it is knowing a fact to be true and outright denying it.
Freecell5671 2 years ago 2
Muhummed spread Islam by the sword, it wasn't a peaceful beggining.
Freecell5671 2 years ago
AS bad as religion...And let's not omit mention of why:P.C.looks askance at unlovely truths in deference to a misguided rubric of egalitarian ethicality.The grand myth that everything and everyone rates equal treatment and respect.
djnross 2 years ago
Well, they just forgot addressing the question: Is a moderate Islam possible! Too bad.
bhigr 2 years ago
Lol I like the "prove that you love your wife" part.
His answer should have been "even if I can't prove that I love her, I can at least prove that she exists"
rhyfelur 2 years ago
Thronsohn, a dry martini is usually made with around 5 parts gin to 1 part vermouth. Nothing feminine about that. It was a favorite of Winston Churhill. It's drinks like the appletini and cosmopolitan that give the martini glass a bad image.
dudefacemcgee 2 years ago
Plus: James Bond drinks Martinis, now how feminine is he? *giggle*
mfwg74 2 years ago
Well sorry everyone but I believe that all emotionally generated percption is fallaicous...
God is love.
DrunkenBlowhort 2 years ago
Love,my ostensibly inebriated fellow commenter,...is an emotionally generated perception.Now,let's order this conjecturally,hhhmmm....
djnross 2 years ago
Well I would just say then that your 'vision' must be blurred!
DrunkenBlowhort 2 years ago
Dear dear sir--LOL--to quote a memorable lyric by a once-relevant rock band:"I can see for miles"
djnross 2 years ago
Comment removed
DrunkenBlowhort 2 years ago
i think straight men shouldnt drink stuff like dawkins and dennet do...
Thronsohn 2 years ago
{What Irony...Effectively concluding in citing the very gaffe that behooved his intercession...Perhaps genuinely,as opposed spuriously,he'll actually be inspired to learn basic Latin.}
djnross 2 years ago
'Can anyone think of any idea so rotten that if true,would be best to leave it veiled'---in answer to this query I posited a notion culled from Dept. of Justice finding relative yo a statistical decrease in crime,and an inference in re Internet porn.
djnross 2 years ago
Evidently it's not programmed for basic Latin."After the fact,therefore because of the fact"....You do know what a 'fallacy' is.Or do you require your devices to provide you with the rudiments of Logical Argumentation?
djnross 2 years ago
I am quite familiar with fallacies. The ones I see repeatedly in your posts would be:
Argument from ignorance
Argument from personal incredulity
Ad Hominem
and of course, the most important one:
Fallacies of Ambiguity
"Fallacies of ambiguity appear to support their conclusions only due to their imprecise use of language"
Not unlike your repeated use of catch phrases you regurgitate from whatever philosophy class you took through the local learning annex.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
Really?---And are we aware of the header that covers challenging arguments that have yet to be asserted?Or would you otherwise merely label it 'arguing to hear yourself argue?'
djnross 2 years ago
It seems to require so very little straw to fabricate a strawman for some dilettantes.Citing statistics would presuppose adherence to a position.Tell me...which?
djnross 2 years ago
It is apparent that you are so preoccupied with spewing an endless stream of useless philosophical rhetoric that you cannot be bothered to actually read the posts of other individuals who are conversing with you. Not at all surprising since those who vainly attempt to inflate their egos through the usage of intelligent sounding and Latin laced phrases would be far too narcissistic to actually engage in a meaningful dialog.
I was asking YOU to back up your initial claims. Can you do so?
Diomedes01 2 years ago
Precisely which are you disputing?
djnross 2 years ago
Wow dude. For all that posing with impressive wordsmithing and empty dialogue, you complete missed what the discussion was about, didn't you?
I guess that happens when you are too pre-occupied with cutting and pasting Latin phrases off the net or snagging SAT words from your word a day calendar.
Tell you what: how about you backtrack through the comment stream and see if you can spot it. A quasi-intellectual such as yourself should have no problems with a minor amount of detective work.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
I recall being asked about the verity of the causal linkage...I did not fabricate the report.
djnross 2 years ago
And you just contradicted yourself twice.
1) You asserted in earlier posts that statistics are not an adequate baseline from which to form a conclusion. Then you cite a statistical reference to try to prove your claim.
2) You draw a causal conclusion that is the opposite of what the statistics indicate. If there has been a statistical decrease in crime that occurred during a simultaneous increase in porn (specifically, internet based) then you are essentially flawed in your argument.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
I've no quarrel with a Humean pedigree of prudential skepticism....Except,when it morphs to paranoid accusation.Then you may as well be channeling Cotton Mather.
djnross 2 years ago
Someone did arrive on the late end of what initially tindered off this polemic,and I would point fingers,but..............modesty forbids.
djnross 2 years ago
"modes ty forbids"
Actually, a better Latin phrase in deference to you and your posting style would be "Caveat Emptor ".
But I end this thread with the following:
"Ignoratio elenchi"
Diomedes01 2 years ago
I asserted neither of the two points you've cited....You're interposing strawmen to make quantum leaps of argument fodder to joust.But given you allege point 2...you still haven't the couth to understand how a post hoc fallacy correlates to what you "claim" I've syllogized.Odd.
djnross 2 years ago
Damn man, you're smart. Why do you waste your time with this poo-slinging bullshit? It's not real flattering.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago
Whether pansophist or pedant,here is what's axiomatic about erudition:the more one knows,the more there becomes discoverable in want of knowing.
djnross 2 years ago
And I have no issue in engaging in dialogue with an individual provided they have substance in their posts and provide something tangible to posit. Otherwise, you may as well be channeling Colon Matter.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
Your argument is often cited by those who argue that violence in video games is causal to violent tendencies in children. Yet when studies were performed, the video games themselves merely served as an outlet for an individual who was unstable to begin with. Often, as a result of either being abused at home or at school.
The similarity there demonstrates that ancillary societal stimuli, like porn (or video games) has a minimal effect when compared to family life or predisposed mental disorders.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
If you care to glance at the stats in piecemeal----in spite of the sociological prognosis over wide swathes of historical observation such as what you propound----a societal continuum may be punctuated with hiccups of anomalous non-aggression.
djnross 2 years ago
And if you actually utilized real statistics and baseline data instead of spouting non-sensical buzzwords and a legalise writing style, you might actually present a more convincing and cogent argument.
Instead, you just sound like a pompous windbag that has little more than a dictionary for reference and not actual tangible substance to his words.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
What Twain long ago postulated about statistics holds true,as evidenced by your insistence that they serve as a be-all -end-all in examining social phenomena.I'm reporting,not contriving.
djnross 2 years ago
Hopefully,you do realize that a causal stressor,no matter how ancillary,cannot be reductively dismissed as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy....?
djnross 2 years ago
Do you realize that a object remains in a state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced force?
That statement (Newton's First Law) has about as much bearing on this conversation as your "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy". Which ironically, kicks in my computers spell checker as I reference it. Basically indicating that not only are you attempting to use large words, you apparently make new ones up as you go along.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
If you are not utilizing statistics to drive your assertions, you are not reporting, Reporting requires requisite data sets or investigated material to draw a cogent conclusion based on the established trend evidenced by the data points. By drawing conclusions with no basis in fact, that is in essence the very essence of a contrived view.
Shall we throw more large words at each other to see who has the larger dictionary? Or do you have anything of substance to add?
Diomedes01 2 years ago
On the subject of an idea so destructive that it would be best to keep it unknown: C.H. expressed an interest in this concept, but i don't think it was really addressed by the others (I think he was looking for something more...Lovecraftian). Can anyone think of any idea so rotten that, if true, it would be best to leave it veiled? Some ideas: Reason is actually worthless; God exists and hates everyone, and there's no way to placate Him. Does anyone have any other, less dumb, ideas?
QuinnnniuQ 2 years ago
Ah that sounds scary enough thank you! (shivers run down spine)
LokiMythos 2 years ago
Here is one such idea,purposively cached by the media as a correlate:that the advent of Internet porn has been a causal link to the statistical decrease in national incidences of rape.
djnross 2 years ago
Is that true?
miniontemple 2 years ago
Personally,I believe in a multiplicity of causes,not the least of which ,however,DOES HAPPEN TO BE,facile accessibility of alternate libido satiation via vicarious stimuli.
djnross 2 years ago
Great way of putting it, however, what i was intending to ask is, does the media actually provide such statistics for the decline in rape occurances?
miniontemple 2 years ago
NPR certainly does...Annually as well over 5 and 10 yr stretches.
djnross 2 years ago
That's very interesting. It, in a way, gives an excuse to look at porn.
Aside from that, I can't believe these videos have been aroud for almost two years and i haven't seen them. Is there any other videos of this type you would recommend i watch?
miniontemple 2 years ago
These twelve installments are the ultima thule.However,any debates featuring Hitchens,and any lecture featuring Dawkins or Neil deGrasse Tyson.Harris' debates are also worthwhile.
djnross 2 years ago
From a purely clinical perspective,the psychosocial disadvantages of pornography indulgence outweigh the boons by a considerable margin from the rubric of normative social behavior.
djnross 2 years ago
The porn comment was a joke.
miniontemple 2 years ago
That is absolute nonsense.
Statistics demonstrate that the more repressive a culture is from the standpoint of sexual expression, the more violent it is. That is why the highest incidents of rape and violence against women exist in cultures that have a more prudish view of sexuality.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
You're arguing conventional wisdom versus current available data---which I reported,as opposed,concoct.And yes,status quo N.America.
djnross 2 years ago
By the way,all violent crime save for murder...Murder has been shown as a relative constant.
djnross 2 years ago
Actually, no. I am citing data which draws a correlation between aggressive societies and their repressive natures.
There is no demonstrable link between pornography and any societal disadvantage. As I stated, the opposite is actually true. Much like supposed religiosity and its prevalence in a society is often correlated directly with lack of societal progression and increased violence.
Diomedes01 2 years ago
these christians that post rediculous attacks at atheist vids are so funny, they really just prove the point!!!!!
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what dopes
cementisfree 2 years ago
"6,000' years,you say?...When Krishna was born of a Virgin birth courtesy his mom,Devaki,grew up and claimed to be the LIGHT OF THE WORLD,....?...that "Christ"??
djnross 2 years ago 2
Bring me up to speed on the quaint mythology,here in re DEVIL?...Does he too parlay truths that hurt our vanity,hhmmm?
djnross 2 years ago
The devil just has bad information. There may be "some truth" in it but the objective is to deceive. Whatever is not 100% true is entirely deceptive.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
The objective is to enlighten,which often occasions...certain people....discomfort.Why follow the traditional errant fallacy of attributing to the heart,what a portion of the brain is responsible for?
djnross 2 years ago
tHE HUMAN HEART?...it pumps blood and regulates the filtration of impurities.Like sweaty palms or knees,it also registers emotion.But it does not AUTHOR EMOTION.
djnross 2 years ago
The devil is in your definition of "heart".
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Ignorance is in your definition of God's love.The very archetype of Christ had to be invented just to apologize for the puerile ,capricious sadism of Yahweh,which no sane human could countenance.
djnross 2 years ago 10
What manner of Divine psycho commands his most faithful subect---Abraham----to run his beloved son thru with a knife just to prove a point!---How needy do you have to be for slavish devotion...sheeeesh!
djnross 2 years ago 6
The Westminster confession also claims to be the final word (which is a contradiction).
Knowledge usually does more harm than good because it is easier to destroy than it is to create.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Atheists are no different than people who believe in Islam because neither believe that Yeshua (God) came in the flesh.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Islamists however believe in that which cannot be verified by Scientific method:A SOUL....Atheists are skeptical of any component of human physiology not researchable fom Merck manual precepts.
djnross 2 years ago
Even so, the point was that atheists and Islamics arrive at the same conclusion in regard to the deity of Yeshua. The fact that you disagree with just about everything else is evidence that hardly anyone agrees about anything EXCEPT the deity of Christ. There are likely more people that HAVE believed in the deity of Christ than there are people that can agree about anything else. Think about it keeping in mind that belief in Christ is 6,000 years old.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
What age is FORCED belief of Christ on pain of death?Is it older than that of Martyrdom for insistence ON believing in Christ?Does anyone in your Heaven mind the amount of blood shed either way?
djnross 2 years ago
You can't shake God with talk of blood because He is the one that gave the life in the first place and He can give it back to you after it is taken away. In fact, every person good or bad, will be raised from the dead. We will all be raised and we will all be judged for what *we* did.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
That's the biggest nonsense argument ive heard. Justifying dictatorship only proves that the dictator doesn't exist.
elfred1980 2 years ago
...and christians are no different than atheists, they don't believe in any of the gods of other religions either (allah,zeus, kali). We atheists just believe in one less god than christians
dawayne1970 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The only God that does exist is the God that is able to do something for us. The only God that is able to do something for us is the One who has done something for us since the beginning of time. That's the difference between being a true God and a false god. The true God loves us and has made a provision and covering for us Himself so we can live and He speaks truth so we can live right. Guess which is God. If you don't know, it is the One that sent us His Son to die for us and send His Spirit.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
every single religion in the world believes that that god is their god.
necrotictransversal 2 years ago 7
why do you believe the way you do? One of two reasons.
1. Your parents indoctrinated you as a child and forced you to go to church.
2. Another human ( not god ) told you it was true.
tyrone9009 2 years ago 8
I want to add, that people in a dire personal situation sometimes tend to seek help in the supernatural, and then see everything good happening in that supernatural kontext (prayer, etc.)
mfwg74 2 years ago
It is just easier for people to think that something other than themselves will have to deal with their burdens. That is why jesus is so popular.
tyrone9009 2 years ago 3
What does God think about Atheists? read Psalms 14 & Psalm 53.
ophachew 2 years ago