As long as the teachings of religion persists to exist, within the system of society LEGALLY, in all of its diverse forms, there will never be freedom from such a mind altering cult. Instead of debate, change the system. This must be done for the future of mankind or our destruction will be most evident.
I've yet to find a label that utterly describes myself. Technically, I'm a socialist, an atheist, a scientist (not professionally), a rationalist, an empiricist, a communist, a romantic, a metal head, a humanist, a secularist, a logician, a democrat, an anarchist (within reason), a martial artist, an athlete, a personal trainer, a comic book geek, and so on. Notice that many of these words overlap, but none of them completely contain another. People are complicated and have complicated opinions.
@dnlbraden Yep, and she has really big titties too, lol. I think I'd rate her physical attractiveness as a 7/10 when the titties are taken into account. Now, there's nothing wrong with being a 7/10. In fact, I tend to prefer women in that range because they're not so hot that you constantly worry about losing them, but they're still quite attractive. Also keep in mind the fact that I would rate her brain as a 10/10 and I think that's what really makes her so attractive.
I'm a theist, but after watching this talk (and the Q&A session) I have a new respect for Harris. Too many atheists seem to act like they are mad at religion and want to bulldoze spirituality in the process. Harris by contrast takes a much more thoughtful approach.
@JohananRaatz I agree. I'm an atheist, but I have experiences that are important to me like awe and self-transcending love, and it's refreshing for me to find a speaker like Harris who respects those and includes them when he articulates the atheist position.
@Clifton100 You said: "Anyone who didn't like what he said needs to be shot for being so closed-minded just like religious people".
You're joking yeah? If not I would say that I think you're inhabiting a valley of Harris' moral landscape with comments like that. Ha! (Closed minded can run like a mirror sometimes). (including this comment).
But I hope us rational people can be trusted to be only saying these things to bring humour from the sarcasm we espouse. Please excuse me if you were joking.
@Mo11yB1oom Thanks for your helpful comment. I don't think religious people need to be shot (on the whole. lol) nor do I feel malicious toward people who disagree with Dr. Harris
The quote you are curious about was written tongue-in-cheek but you are absolutely right. I did not make it clear, and it appears to me now (a bit too late:-) to have been written in really bad taste. I don't know how long ago that quote of mine was but I'm usually much more careful in my comment making.
He's saying that often 'being Atheist' involves discounting everything religious, and some things religious may be worth something, not because they're religious but because they may be genuine. We should understand what we are able to, and we often do not, because what we're able to understand doesn't agree with us. I think he makes a great point, and it is important to look at reality and not just our reality. Just because it is unknown doesn't make it unreal.
Personally, I don't wear the atheist label a lot. If someone were to ask me what I believe I would probably ask them what they are talking about. But, the groups have a lot of usefulness and the label is not a permanent one. It's not as if telling one person "I am an atheist" means all people will know it. That turns out to be convenient when having those extra modes of operation allow you to approach conversation from different angles. It becomes a tool to employ when it is useful to do so.
It seems at that time, Sam was coming to the realization of one of the rules of the internet.
Anything that can be labeled can be hated.
I think we cannot dispense with the awareness raising effort that the groups centered on atheism have spent. Let there be such groups, if it does not bother some to be so universally hated by the religious. There is a certain amount of rehearsing the basic arguments that probably must be done.
@jttalkshow1 How will you answer to the great and powerful flying spaghetti monster? What will you say when you are pierced by the all revealing gaze of it's great meatballs? There will be no avoiding the saucy fate that awaits you when you are cast out by it's great noodlely appendage
OMG Sam is the shit. I've had a mystical experience. Here are some of the good things that has come of it. (1) Experiencing 0 anxiety, knowing it exists and using the memory to get back there continually. (2) The awareness of and the power to qualify (for the 1st time) and transform my earliest childhood conditioning. (3) Intimate and thorough psychological independence from the herd w/o being against it. (4) Deep, perpetual and innate empathetic up wellings independent of "shoulds" & much more
The spiritual/mystical experience is far too valuable to be left monopolized by religion or these new-age pseudo-philosophical belief systems. It is an experience after all - any theory imposed on it is secondary to the phenomenon itself - which cannot be argued out of existence.
If rational analysis and scientific method were made the compulsory bedrock of the school curriculum at least subsequent debate on the big issues would, hopefully, get us off the merry-go-round of uni-directional mudslinging that currently obtains. Harris is a superb speaker whose scientific rigour and humility puts the vast majority of religious practitioners in their place.
"- the possibility of pervading happiness which is minimally dependent on outer conditions yet does not rely on irrational or supernatural thinking. "
@RipTheJackR Happiness which is as detached from outer sources as possible. The idea being that it can be advantageous for a person to be able to experience happiness without it by necessity being dependant on some external goal, like eating an ice cream, or hugging your child, or finally managing that feat you have tried to achieve for so long.
The "irrational or supernatural thinking" part is about attaching that experience to metaphysical claims like religious people do.
so, i think that thought and emotion are so entangled there is little difference between them until we unravel them and see how one affects the other, by challenging what we believe, fixing the inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance, and finding some common ground between ourselves and nature instead of "there is i, then there is nature." in fact, my most common mode of meditation is not thinking, but merely observing, existing through my senses.
meditation is the practice of clearing the mind and/or focusing it. i think it's prudent to admit that belief itself is what defines our emotional exeriences, and these, i think, are the "spiritual" experiences. i can have these from reading literature or watching a "spiritually lifting" movie, like rudy rudager's moment of triumph in the movie Rudy, "i've been waiting for this my whole life" sends chills down my spine, because of my beliefs and his interaction with them. religion is drama.
@18:02 onwards I think is the best part of this video. Dan Dennett & Sam Harris talking about meditation. That's it, I really idolize this Sam Harris guy.
Imagine having Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Darwin and Russell at your dinner party. What an evening it would be. For extra fun I would hire Mahr as the waiter.
To secure ourselves beyond the possibility of defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
The "i'm very disappointed in your speech" lady is hilarious. Typical old school, humorless atheist that is too dogmatic. I worry that these types of atheists make up a majority of our rank and explain our lack of decent art.
I'm intrigued by the answer beginning at 10:00 where he discusses how the work of "mystics" is interesting, but has almost always (unfortunately) been done in a religious context or support system. It would be interesting to found a contemplative tradition producing awakening experiences as rich and vivid as the those of rishis and monks and lamas, but a tradition that is explicitly non-religious, and which regards those experiences as psychological rather than metaphysical.
Im on the fence about the whole labeling argument, whether to give ourselves a label like atheist or not. I feel the need to identify myself as an atheist and others as example christian or jew etc. because it helps me to make sense of things and have an idea about the persons views are etc. On the other hand, it is damaging in a way, calling ourselves atheists because we get such a bad reaction to it and all these misconceptions.
" feel the need to identify myself as an atheist and others as example christian or jew etc. because it helps me to make sense of things and have an idea about the persons views are etc."
You might check into calling yourself as a secular humanist. While atheist simply states you lack a belief in a deity, the priciples of secular humanism is a much more informative description, and I think most atheists accept all the principles of secular humanism.
@brogin Maybe it is better just to say that we dont believe in god and not bring the label atheist into it at all. Half the time the people i tell im an atheist dont even know what it means.
I really don't like the analogy with racism. Whilst we don't label ourselves as anti-racists, we label the people we are opposed to *as* racists. Racism itself is a derogatory word in the consciousness of people, whereas theism isn't.
I'm not saying I disagree necessarily with what he was saying, I just think the analogy he obviously likes isn't a good one.
To be an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence & self reliance. Most people in the world are like sheep and need guidance. I don't forsee atheism ever getting a large majority. The sheep will destroy the world before that can ever happen. Islam is a force that will never go away and can only bring about the end of the world...esp. with Christians looking forward to the 'end times' and the return of Christ. Very bad indeed....
@LordSauceness I can see where you're coming from but I don't think we have to be all-pessimistic. There are developments (especially the rapid spread of the internet; and thereby information), which have the potential of being a strong counterweight to religious traditionalism. I believe that at some point the truth will prevail.
Sam has some good arguments for the labeling of Atheist to those who are reasonable and honest about the origin of life.
I have been a strong non-believer for 15 years and never considered myself an atheist until someone recently asked me if I was. It was a strange feeling.
muslims are atheists of the christian religion & vice versa. christians are atheists in terms of believing in Ra, Thor and Poseidon.
We are all atheists when we are born, even the pope.
I dont really believe in super duper gods. guess im just pragmatic and rational. I just hate all this 'atheist' shit. im not a-unicorn or a-loch ness monster. a-theist is the same. im from the uk and honestly, most younger people here cant believe so many americans believe in some dude from a book.
The questioner at 6:00 looks almost exactly like Justin Bieber from the side....Moments later Sam accidentally refers to himself as an "Atheist". Oops. Haha
12.00++ What's the problem? Just say you're not religious. If pressed say it's because you're rationalist and educated about the subject. If pressed further say you adopt an atheist stance to religions. Then when they get all uppity, hammer them down with the truth. Not very hard. You may need a label, but you don't need a banner.
Strategically he's absolutely right. Labels are exceedingly destructive to reputation, and so many issues exist simply because people identify with a name. This is the technique which mainstream media employs if they wish to isolate and attack individuals. Giving people labels bypasses the arguments they provide, because the verdict has already been set when the the label was interpreted.
Sam Harris is one of my favorites. So is Acharya S - I wish Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens etc would read her work because she has much to offer; even in the area of labels. Give these article & Mythicist Position video a serious going over.
What is a Mythicist?
stellarhousepublishing. com /mythicist. html
For further explanation
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?t=2160
I think what he said is true about having compassion etc. . . but I think it's mostly innate . . . and you can only have a tiny effect by practicing. Just like any other talent . . .i.e., perfect pitch . . or playing the piano by ear . . It's mostly innate . . You need the inborn talent . . but then you can improve upon it . . but only a little.
Sorry but I disagree. Practice, passion, and environment is everything, there is no such thing as pure talent. E.g. how can we explain a 5 year old able to illustrate a proportional human figure? Most would suggest "talent" immediately. But that fails to consider that the 5 year old was perhaps brought up in an environment where visually observing humans was encouraged. Thus, "realistic" drawings was easier for this child as they've been brought up in the right environment. It's not talent.
You can disagree . . . however, science proves you wrong. Yes . . there is pure innate talent.
As a simple example. Can you play piano by ear? Can you sit down at a piano and play a piano concerto that you've heard only once perfectly. Well, some children can do it, without having ever taking a piano lessson, or grown up with a piano in their home. That's a talent!
"Talent" is not a scientific explanation. The word talent is used to replace a mysterious phenomenon which occurs in children that displays seemingly innate abilities to perform tasks that society deems useful. I will agree, that some individuals possess the propensity to be better at something than someone else. But ALL children require environmental pressures, stimulants, and guidance to hone their skills. There is NO child that is able to perform such skills immediately.
The word talent is, in fact, "used to replace a mysterious phenomenon". But just because we don't understand it . . doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't understand how Monarch Butterflies fly 3,000 miles to the extact same spot their ancestors inhabited, without ever having been there, and without getting lost. That doesn't mean they didn't do it.
We just don't understand it. Some (lucky?) people are born with a huge innate talent-No denying it. IT JUST IS!
Please look up, on YouTube, Jacques Fresco's explanation on talent, creativity, and/or instinct. He can explain this concept better than I do. I never said that it doesn't exist, but that it doesn't fully explain the phenomenon. For all we know, the phenomenon could be a composite of many events bound together. Therefore grouping the process under one name does not give justice to scientific investigation. Monarch butterflies "instinctively know" how to migrate is not good enough an explanation.
Monarch Butterflies are just 1 example (out of thousands).
Leonardo DaVinci is another example (out of thousands) of PURE INBORN TALENT. He was an Italian polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist and writer.
That is PURE... UNMITIGATED... INBORN TALENT. His environment didn't teach him these things . . . He taught his environment (that's us) and was YEARS & YEARS ahead of his time.
@AnnaMishel I know he was talented, but his abilities were nevertheless affected by the renaissance. You forget that Da Vinci was merely ONE of many famous people who emerged out of that period. He was in a painter's guild, he worked with other artists, including his disciples, to complete his works. He attracted some of the greatest minds during that period, and in interaction, became the incarnation of the renaissance. But after all that, he is still a man who was affected by his environment.
@AnnaMishel--- Da Vinci came from a line of mildly autistic men. He was the best of the bunch. Many of his ideas have been found in a large Chinese book brought to italy in his time.
Aa another example . . idiot savants frequently display amazing talents. They are usually not formally trained, but can do amazing sculpture, painting, music, and feats of memory etc. that no one can explain. (It's talent!)
It's naive to think that if you just practice enough, with enough passion, you'll get there . . but the reason some people do (get there), and others don't, is their innate talent.
I don't want the pill -.- i preffer the training. And is true , you can shift your mindset using meditation or strange tongues talking or any kind of ritual you want. Is a very natural thing to humans and it can be use in many positive ways.
Is like said "I'm the void , you can't attack me , define me or said anything to me because i'm nothing" ... Is a great strategy but sadly is ver dificult to be made right now.
I think Mr. Harris is saying that it's not wrong to respond to specific questions about your understanding of a god's existance by saying "I am atheistic". The issue is when we cling to that label as if it represents our belief system similar to the way Christians use their label. We need to be free of such restricting terms.
So saying you're a "rationalist" or "naturalist" or "non-theist" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if we use these phases like religions, we've lost our own game.
@monkeywithsticks Dennett meant something "REALLY" interesting. Perfectly legit question. He asked him to list 3 really interesting things that have resulted from this practice that has been going on for such a long time. I mean, feeling more compassion for people (which is one of Sam's main arguments regarding this practice) as a result of meditation, isn't something REALLY interesting. Compassion of varying degrees can be felt without having to meditate, its simply innate in a lot of humans.
@Scofield0085 It was a stupid question. Dennett is a pretentious old white guy in a developed country who values novelty and technology. He asked for three things as if meditation were a way of thinking like science, as though it has a multitude of visible end-products. Meditation fundamentally changes one's moment-to-moment experience of the external world. It parts one from the illusion of ownership of their experience. This is immensely important, if you sat down and thought about it.
@Scofield0085 HIs question was pretentious. He's old, he's white, and he's from USA. All of these things suggest something about the range of his experience, meaning, that it is probably very narrow, and he shouldn't be framing questions with such presumptuous skepticism. There are a number of studies using fMRI and other imaging modalities which look at the systems neuroscience of meditation; Sam Harris' PhD thesis (on his website) is one example. It's a question that need not be asked.
Sam Harris has had so much experience in public speaking and it is really paying off. He is so fluent and elegant and clear. Damn that mind this great has to waste his time fighting useless superstition. Damn that we cant just ditch religion and get on with living without that burden on our backs.
@bary1234 IT IS THE SWORD OF DESTINY. THE INFIDELS SHALL FALL BEFORE OUR RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, FOR WE WEAR THE ARMOUR OF TRUTH AND IT IS GIVEN UNTO US TO KNOW THIS BY SCIENCE'S ANOINTED ONES, THE HOLY SAM HARRIS AND THE ZEALOUS CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AND THE THIRD MEMBER OF THIS HOLY TRINITY THE WISE RICHARD DAWKINS. THESE THREE BROTHERS, THOUGH NOT BORN IN THE SAME YEAR, VOWED TO DIE TOGETHER ON THE VERY SAME DAY. HARRISHITCHENSDAWKINS AKABAR!!!!! YA HYA CHOUHADA!!!!!!!
How do we get people to advocate rationality? Simple, Darwin had it right. Enlighten the mind through education and understanding. Nothing nullifies a belief-system faster than an educated, critically thinking mind. All else falls into place. THIS is what we (as atheists/humanists) should concentrate on, not the proselytizing of atheism. Atheism (that simple default of all positions) is a natural symptom of an enlightened mind.
I'm with Dennett on his comments, but I'd go a bit further and assert that the organization of the brain makes meditation empirically impossible to conduct because of how brain neurons work when we look at them through microscopes. Try as you may, we can't control neurons or any of the other billions of brain processes going on within the brain, always competing AND in conflict with each other.
Sam's views are of course enticing, but neuroscience just flat out shows otherwise.
@Scofield0085 Also, a small point in Sam's favor, perhaps incoherent, but a point nonetheless...Maybe a consciousness independent of the brain is actually possible. I mean, this is really the only way I can make sense out of his claims on meditation. Otherwise, the brain is just too complex, and there isn't a "you" that can sort of take over and be authoritative in the sense that he is describing. No top down control, just side-ways signalling all the way through, empirically at any rate.
@Scofield0085 I know this doesn't make his views absolute but doesn't Sam Harris have a PhD in Neuroscience? (and your also absolutely right about neuron activity in a petri dish.)
@Horathgar42 He does have a PhD in Neuroscience, which is why I take his views on this topic very seriously, yet his views need A LOT more refinement. There is some FMRI evidence in favor of his views on meditation and neuroplasticity, but pretty scanty evidence at this point as you may know.
The example he uses at the end of how we, as human beings, can't stop thinking for even a minute is almost preposterous in terms of neuroscience.
I still enjoy listening to him very much nonetheless.
@Scofield0085 Honestly I didn't know, but its good to hear there are people keeping a close eye on it, can't have a scientist out there making unsubstantiated claims. (sounds like something i'd be interested in reading about)
Yep, he's a very concise speaker and extremely organized in his philosophy (at least to the untrained ear like myself) entertaining to boot.
Try it. See how long you can go without mentally passing comment on that which you are aware of. Its very hard to understand what he's talking about without meditating, that's when you see how hard it is. Even experienced contemplatives don't claim to be able to completely remain in relatively pure awareness for long periods. If this isn't considered in neuroscience, then its just pointing out what he's saying, that there's little scientific interest in these ideas.
It would depend on the state of mind that these people were in. They've done some brain scans on Buddhist monks while they were meditating, and it showed considerable plasticity in neural activity.
Although I have a theistic view of reality I enjoyed a lot Sam's talk. I think intectual honesty is much needed in the world today, but as him self said, it should also be apllied to atheists. The REAL TRUTH in our current development of science is that WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW if there's a creator or not. The fact that there are some idiotic religious world views doesn't mean that there's not a "metaphysical" basis behind reality. To attain truth our mind should be always open to possibilities.
@SlayingMinion I always call myself a 'Logican'. Then proceed to say we have no political parties, membership or t-shirts. We just are and so are you.
@SlayingMinion Then people will stupidly associate connotations with reasonable until someday we'll be considering trading reasonable for some other term.
I did a 10 vipassana course where there is no speaking, reading, writing or any other form of communicaton. Meditation is minimum of 10 hours per day. I completely agree with Sam that the insights gained from this technique can be stripped from any spiritual or religious mumbo-jumbo for the betterment of the individual and the people around them. Quite possibily the mystical results come from endorphins or serotonin etc. but lessons can be learned and should not be scoffed at out of hand.
@luarionte Which i think is the source of militant Atheism, we've become hardened to ignorance thus we have to take on a little bit of "anti"-everything, and when you hear anything transcendental (or a peace state of the mind whatever.) they think the oh he's going to start talking about noah's ark (ala Neph.) here any minute . Thankfully Harris is a good bit more open minded than that.
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up behind him intellectually. Sam is the man!!
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up behind him intellectually. Sam is the man!!
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up intellectually. The world needs more Sam Harris'!
What would help Sam's case against the term of "atheist" is if he mentioned that it was a name given to us by the theists. The definition of Atheist over 100 years ago was "someone who denies the existence of God AND is an immoral person." Since then the definition itself has changed, but not the perception of the theists using the term against us. Theists still equate "atheist" with immorality.
Most likely though, atheism will remain the banner under which the uphill battle will continue.
It's so funny. Sam pointedly said, unequivocably, that people were somehow lead to believe in or 'read into' his 'ideas of spirituality' - he states that he is in no way advocating this position. Rather, that there are a range of human experiences that we cannot yet explain that warrants further study. And then that women gets up and says she's disappointed in his advocacy for spirituality and how it is hurting the movement of atheism and rationalism. Did she even listen to him?
Sam Harris's analysis is impeccable. He realizes the danger of absolutism and inarticulate thinking. This allows him to see the full spectrum of reality and existence. He acknowledges that which all religions have sought to provide for millenia but which even people of rational thought may have dismissed - the possibility of pervading happiness which is minimally dependent on outer conditions yet does not rely on irrational or supernatural thinking. He is a pioneer of future thought paradigms.
that first bitch who talks i seriously LOATH. She was on that nightline debate against the two biggest idiots on the planet and still failed. Her and her boyfriend are complete pseudo intellects.
@AndrewDewittBaker I agree that she is quite emotional. Even in her debates she shows a childish disrespect to opponents when she attempts to make logical arguments
Sam Harris makes the others look like rabid dogs or clumsy bulldozers trying to destroy religion no matter what. I think it speaks for itself that even Dan Dennett (a master of thinking in my book) seemed to miss the point about spirituality.
@Webfra14 I remember listening to Dr. Bernard Haisch who is a deist (like myself) read Sam Harris expecting that Harris would treat him like an idiot because he excepts the possibility that there is a God. During reading the two books, Dr Haisch said he was almost cheering because he realized that Sam Harris got it. Spiritual experiences are beneficial to us, but religion hijacks it and markets it with superstitious/tribalistic notions.
@Webfra14 Spiritual experience isn't necessarily supernatural (meaning the experience isn't meant to be taken as though you are experiencing the supernatural). Rather, it is like going from your emotions being in control over you to you be in control over your emotions. You can experience pleasant emotions like joy, peace, and love without some forum of material stimulant to induce those feelings. It makes you very empowered over your life and gives you a sense of well being.
@TheMrDeist Nobody said it is supernatural. I don't even understand what people mean when they use that word.
I only referred to god because religious people claim you need a connection to god to have spiritual experiences. But well, we know they claim alot anyway.
The results of studying the brains of advanced Buddhist practitioners have been interesting. Matthieu Ricard was off the scale they were using to measure human happiness. This is the fundamental question of our existence, happiness is our most basic wish. Sam does humanity a great service by proposing the divorce of the serious practice from those aspects of Buddhism that are unpalatable to modern people.
Panpsychism, at first glance, is a wacko set of concepts but it has an element of plausibility, it´s at least worth a read, i dunno that it´s true, but it does give an alternate view to a very awkward question.
What Harris is groping toward is EDUCATION. Most kids today are, thankfully, taught that racist ideas are bad. If we want a culture that is more compassionate and so on, we don't need meditation. We just need to educate our selves and the next generations to be more compassionate. The same goes for religion itself. Dan Denet says that all we need to do is teach kids about ALL the worlds religions (just the facts) and let them decide for themselves. That makes sense to me.
@hardinmichael1981 giving kids exams and report cards on every topic in life doesn't necessarily make one more compassionate. I have a very high IQ and I hated school, and treated it like a prison cell. I also enjoy solitude and avoiding people for long periods of time, and then going back to being social when I please. Bill Gates did this (goes to a retreat by himself) when he made big decisions for microsoft. A lot of intelligent people have figured out the benefits of solitude.
I'm 100% with Sam on this. Atheists have it right on the God issue, but the benefits of meditation shouldn't be ignored by science. Meditation in schools has been shown to be extremely conducive to learning, creativity and producing more harmony in the classroom. Science has shown that around 98% of our thoughts are compulsive, repetitive and utterly pointless. That can't be healthy can it? Where do you think stress, anxiety and depression stem from? Compulsive thinking about "my" problems.
@itsonelouder1 The heart pumps blood around the body, the lungs cause us to breath, the brain creates thoughts, autonomic activity, but that doesn't mean we always need to give it the focus of our attention. The magic begins when we learn not to be seduced by our most recent evolutionary milestone, cognition, this is my understanding of meditation. Even the Bible warns of this, Adam & Eve were warned not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
At the very end he spoke of that it might be a pill that could be taken to get you into the realm of compassion and love for one another, but the truth is that there already exists such a pill and the name of it is MDMA. Mr Harris already knows about this substance as he took it on one occasion and had all these feeling he described, but was to cowardly to spell it out for the people. I respect his choice though.
@OriginalMindTrick Look forward to the day when we exchange bullets for such a substance when we stupidly decide to create that exclusively human activity of "war"....
You ever read the book "The Politics of Consciousness" by Steve Kubby. Gives quite an insight into why we are denied said substances by the powers that be.
I agree with Sam on the point that the term atheist is it's own religion. It almost forces everyone associated with not believing in God to join the camp that there is nothing special about humans or life itself. We all have to speak the same and think the same, and of course with that approach it will breed some people who are not accountable for their own actions. They can be cited for believing in atheism as the reason they commit a crime or plant a tree.
@bobbyb826: Well..atheists are people too, they can be as close-minded as everybody else :). That just proves the point that there is no such thing as an "atheist" philosophy. I really liked the manner he handled the criticisms.
As long as the teachings of religion persists to exist, within the system of society LEGALLY, in all of its diverse forms, there will never be freedom from such a mind altering cult. Instead of debate, change the system. This must be done for the future of mankind or our destruction will be most evident.
lifeschild1 5 days ago
I've yet to find a label that utterly describes myself. Technically, I'm a socialist, an atheist, a scientist (not professionally), a rationalist, an empiricist, a communist, a romantic, a metal head, a humanist, a secularist, a logician, a democrat, an anarchist (within reason), a martial artist, an athlete, a personal trainer, a comic book geek, and so on. Notice that many of these words overlap, but none of them completely contain another. People are complicated and have complicated opinions.
TheLockon00 6 days ago
Instead of the word Atheist how about "One less", as in I believe in one less gods than you do.
CommandLineCowboy 3 weeks ago
That first question chick was the hot chick from the ray comfort/kirkman nightline special vs. two atheists. (She being one of the two atheists)
dnlbraden 1 month ago
@dnlbraden Yep, and she has really big titties too, lol. I think I'd rate her physical attractiveness as a 7/10 when the titties are taken into account. Now, there's nothing wrong with being a 7/10. In fact, I tend to prefer women in that range because they're not so hot that you constantly worry about losing them, but they're still quite attractive. Also keep in mind the fact that I would rate her brain as a 10/10 and I think that's what really makes her so attractive.
mindsmirror 1 week ago
I'm a theist, but after watching this talk (and the Q&A session) I have a new respect for Harris. Too many atheists seem to act like they are mad at religion and want to bulldoze spirituality in the process. Harris by contrast takes a much more thoughtful approach.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz I agree. I'm an atheist, but I have experiences that are important to me like awe and self-transcending love, and it's refreshing for me to find a speaker like Harris who respects those and includes them when he articulates the atheist position.
supakyatto 1 month ago in playlist SAM HARRIS
I like Mr.Harris also reached "atheism" without ever having been introduced to it.
SonOfNye 3 months ago
Hot atheist girl....oh...oh...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
McLarenF1God 3 months ago
anyone who didn't like what he said needs to be shot for being so closed-minded just like religious people.
Clifton100 3 months ago
@Clifton100 You said: "Anyone who didn't like what he said needs to be shot for being so closed-minded just like religious people".
You're joking yeah? If not I would say that I think you're inhabiting a valley of Harris' moral landscape with comments like that. Ha! (Closed minded can run like a mirror sometimes). (including this comment).
But I hope us rational people can be trusted to be only saying these things to bring humour from the sarcasm we espouse. Please excuse me if you were joking.
Mo11yB1oom 1 month ago
@Mo11yB1oom Thanks for your helpful comment. I don't think religious people need to be shot (on the whole. lol) nor do I feel malicious toward people who disagree with Dr. Harris
The quote you are curious about was written tongue-in-cheek but you are absolutely right. I did not make it clear, and it appears to me now (a bit too late:-) to have been written in really bad taste. I don't know how long ago that quote of mine was but I'm usually much more careful in my comment making.
Clifton100 1 month ago
He's saying that often 'being Atheist' involves discounting everything religious, and some things religious may be worth something, not because they're religious but because they may be genuine. We should understand what we are able to, and we often do not, because what we're able to understand doesn't agree with us. I think he makes a great point, and it is important to look at reality and not just our reality. Just because it is unknown doesn't make it unreal.
shabido1 4 months ago
Possibilian.
n0ZzeL 5 months ago
I agree with the 'We don't call ourselves non-racist'. It's why I don't like the term 'feminist'.
What most people call 'feminist' I call 'a decent human being'. I don't feel I need a label to point out that I'm not an asshole.
Sines314 5 months ago 2
Religious person: "I am a christian, what do you believe?"
Me: "I believe in truth."
ludogogo 5 months ago 3
@ludogogo Religious person: "Jesus is the truth."
SlayingMinion 5 months ago
@SlayingMinion
Me: "Sure wish that claim could be substantiated."
ludogogo 5 months ago
Personally, I don't wear the atheist label a lot. If someone were to ask me what I believe I would probably ask them what they are talking about. But, the groups have a lot of usefulness and the label is not a permanent one. It's not as if telling one person "I am an atheist" means all people will know it. That turns out to be convenient when having those extra modes of operation allow you to approach conversation from different angles. It becomes a tool to employ when it is useful to do so.
AndreisEntaro 5 months ago
It seems at that time, Sam was coming to the realization of one of the rules of the internet.
Anything that can be labeled can be hated.
I think we cannot dispense with the awareness raising effort that the groups centered on atheism have spent. Let there be such groups, if it does not bother some to be so universally hated by the religious. There is a certain amount of rehearsing the basic arguments that probably must be done.
AndreisEntaro 5 months ago
All Four Horsemen were at this conference. I'd've pissed myself if I'd been in the room with them. :-)
cshubs 6 months ago
WHAT ARE U GUNNA SAY WHEN THERE IS A HEAVEN?
jttalkshow1 6 months ago
@jttalkshow1 WOW Are you thiest? And you watched the whole speech? I am impressed.
SCAREDBANANA 6 months ago
@SCAREDBANANA i believe in heaven, i just like to see what others have to say
jttalkshow1 6 months ago
@jttalkshow1 How will you answer to the great and powerful flying spaghetti monster? What will you say when you are pierced by the all revealing gaze of it's great meatballs? There will be no avoiding the saucy fate that awaits you when you are cast out by it's great noodlely appendage
AndreisEntaro 5 months ago
OMG Sam is the shit. I've had a mystical experience. Here are some of the good things that has come of it. (1) Experiencing 0 anxiety, knowing it exists and using the memory to get back there continually. (2) The awareness of and the power to qualify (for the 1st time) and transform my earliest childhood conditioning. (3) Intimate and thorough psychological independence from the herd w/o being against it. (4) Deep, perpetual and innate empathetic up wellings independent of "shoulds" & much more
pgod45 6 months ago
He's inspired me to change my religion on facebook from atheist to "none"
Nemesis000000 6 months ago
I have such an intellectual and carnal crush on this man
gdhdlvr 6 months ago 3
How about we just call ourselves "normal"?
taiwanjohn88 6 months ago 22
The spiritual/mystical experience is far too valuable to be left monopolized by religion or these new-age pseudo-philosophical belief systems. It is an experience after all - any theory imposed on it is secondary to the phenomenon itself - which cannot be argued out of existence.
invanorm 7 months ago
@invanorm Nothing can be secondary to actually knowing it happened & trying to find out how it happened.
Strangerinasland 7 months ago
@invanorm Right on! :)
pgod45 6 months ago
If rational analysis and scientific method were made the compulsory bedrock of the school curriculum at least subsequent debate on the big issues would, hopefully, get us off the merry-go-round of uni-directional mudslinging that currently obtains. Harris is a superb speaker whose scientific rigour and humility puts the vast majority of religious practitioners in their place.
patrickcon1 7 months ago
Nice job Josh.
johneamer 8 months ago
"- the possibility of pervading happiness which is minimally dependent on outer conditions yet does not rely on irrational or supernatural thinking. "
What? Minimally dependant on outer conditions?
RipTheJackR 8 months ago
@RipTheJackR Happiness which is as detached from outer sources as possible. The idea being that it can be advantageous for a person to be able to experience happiness without it by necessity being dependant on some external goal, like eating an ice cream, or hugging your child, or finally managing that feat you have tried to achieve for so long.
The "irrational or supernatural thinking" part is about attaching that experience to metaphysical claims like religious people do.
Superslemmet 8 months ago
so, i think that thought and emotion are so entangled there is little difference between them until we unravel them and see how one affects the other, by challenging what we believe, fixing the inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance, and finding some common ground between ourselves and nature instead of "there is i, then there is nature." in fact, my most common mode of meditation is not thinking, but merely observing, existing through my senses.
jeromyrutter 8 months ago
meditation is the practice of clearing the mind and/or focusing it. i think it's prudent to admit that belief itself is what defines our emotional exeriences, and these, i think, are the "spiritual" experiences. i can have these from reading literature or watching a "spiritually lifting" movie, like rudy rudager's moment of triumph in the movie Rudy, "i've been waiting for this my whole life" sends chills down my spine, because of my beliefs and his interaction with them. religion is drama.
jeromyrutter 8 months ago
I was a bit disappointed by Dennet's rather long bumbling question. It came across as the 'Dennet show'
logicallunatic1 9 months ago
@18:02 onwards I think is the best part of this video. Dan Dennett & Sam Harris talking about meditation. That's it, I really idolize this Sam Harris guy.
gatch45 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ 5:40 i was like... holy shit justin bieber.
paurav66 9 months ago
Imagine having Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Darwin and Russell at your dinner party. What an evening it would be. For extra fun I would hire Mahr as the waiter.
johneamer 9 months ago 13
@johneamer I would probably ask everyone but Sam to leave to get a better chance to pick his brain.
ryanp123456 8 months ago
@johneamer I would just have Mahr's "hooker/stripper/bimbo" girlfriends bring drinks and give back rubs.
mrstarstuff 4 months ago
@johneamer And Penn could be the bartender.
shabido1 4 months ago
The Art of War
To secure ourselves beyond the possibility of defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
2Draco39 9 months ago
The "i'm very disappointed in your speech" lady is hilarious. Typical old school, humorless atheist that is too dogmatic. I worry that these types of atheists make up a majority of our rank and explain our lack of decent art.
memoryburn7 9 months ago
I'm intrigued by the answer beginning at 10:00 where he discusses how the work of "mystics" is interesting, but has almost always (unfortunately) been done in a religious context or support system. It would be interesting to found a contemplative tradition producing awakening experiences as rich and vivid as the those of rishis and monks and lamas, but a tradition that is explicitly non-religious, and which regards those experiences as psychological rather than metaphysical.
wware 9 months ago
Im on the fence about the whole labeling argument, whether to give ourselves a label like atheist or not. I feel the need to identify myself as an atheist and others as example christian or jew etc. because it helps me to make sense of things and have an idea about the persons views are etc. On the other hand, it is damaging in a way, calling ourselves atheists because we get such a bad reaction to it and all these misconceptions.
LauraKathleen05 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LauraKathleen05
" feel the need to identify myself as an atheist and others as example christian or jew etc. because it helps me to make sense of things and have an idea about the persons views are etc."
You might check into calling yourself as a secular humanist. While atheist simply states you lack a belief in a deity, the priciples of secular humanism is a much more informative description, and I think most atheists accept all the principles of secular humanism.
KemaTheAtheist 9 months ago
@LauraKathleen05 The problem is that such a label implies that atheism is some sort of belief system or dogma, when it is in fact the opposite.
brogin 9 months ago
@brogin Maybe it is better just to say that we dont believe in god and not bring the label atheist into it at all. Half the time the people i tell im an atheist dont even know what it means.
LauraKathleen05 9 months ago
I really don't like the analogy with racism. Whilst we don't label ourselves as anti-racists, we label the people we are opposed to *as* racists. Racism itself is a derogatory word in the consciousness of people, whereas theism isn't.
I'm not saying I disagree necessarily with what he was saying, I just think the analogy he obviously likes isn't a good one.
Afterthoughtbtw 9 months ago
To be an atheist requires a certain level of intelligence & self reliance. Most people in the world are like sheep and need guidance. I don't forsee atheism ever getting a large majority. The sheep will destroy the world before that can ever happen. Islam is a force that will never go away and can only bring about the end of the world...esp. with Christians looking forward to the 'end times' and the return of Christ. Very bad indeed....
LordSauceness 11 months ago
@LordSauceness I can see where you're coming from but I don't think we have to be all-pessimistic. There are developments (especially the rapid spread of the internet; and thereby information), which have the potential of being a strong counterweight to religious traditionalism. I believe that at some point the truth will prevail.
Zendrig 10 months ago
Sam has some good arguments for the labeling of Atheist to those who are reasonable and honest about the origin of life.
I have been a strong non-believer for 15 years and never considered myself an atheist until someone recently asked me if I was. It was a strange feeling.
northoforacle 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
muslims are atheists of the christian religion & vice versa. christians are atheists in terms of believing in Ra, Thor and Poseidon.
We are all atheists when we are born, even the pope.
I dont really believe in super duper gods. guess im just pragmatic and rational. I just hate all this 'atheist' shit. im not a-unicorn or a-loch ness monster. a-theist is the same. im from the uk and honestly, most younger people here cant believe so many americans believe in some dude from a book.
Hughdapu 11 months ago
The questioner at 6:00 looks almost exactly like Justin Bieber from the side....Moments later Sam accidentally refers to himself as an "Atheist". Oops. Haha
panther451 11 months ago
12.00++ What's the problem? Just say you're not religious. If pressed say it's because you're rationalist and educated about the subject. If pressed further say you adopt an atheist stance to religions. Then when they get all uppity, hammer them down with the truth. Not very hard. You may need a label, but you don't need a banner.
lefredvoncarstein 1 year ago
Strategically he's absolutely right. Labels are exceedingly destructive to reputation, and so many issues exist simply because people identify with a name. This is the technique which mainstream media employs if they wish to isolate and attack individuals. Giving people labels bypasses the arguments they provide, because the verdict has already been set when the the label was interpreted.
lugia3 1 year ago
Sam Harris is one of my favorites. So is Acharya S - I wish Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens etc would read her work because she has much to offer; even in the area of labels. Give these article & Mythicist Position video a serious going over.
What is a Mythicist?
stellarhousepublishing. com /mythicist. html
For further explanation
freethoughtnation. com /forums/viewtopic. php?t=2160
Astrotheology of the Ancients
stellarhousepublishing. com /astrotheology. html
Hercules2345 1 year ago
I think what he said is true about having compassion etc. . . but I think it's mostly innate . . . and you can only have a tiny effect by practicing. Just like any other talent . . .i.e., perfect pitch . . or playing the piano by ear . . It's mostly innate . . You need the inborn talent . . but then you can improve upon it . . but only a little.
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
Sorry but I disagree. Practice, passion, and environment is everything, there is no such thing as pure talent. E.g. how can we explain a 5 year old able to illustrate a proportional human figure? Most would suggest "talent" immediately. But that fails to consider that the 5 year old was perhaps brought up in an environment where visually observing humans was encouraged. Thus, "realistic" drawings was easier for this child as they've been brought up in the right environment. It's not talent.
lugia3 1 year ago
@lugia3
You can disagree . . . however, science proves you wrong. Yes . . there is pure innate talent.
As a simple example. Can you play piano by ear? Can you sit down at a piano and play a piano concerto that you've heard only once perfectly. Well, some children can do it, without having ever taking a piano lessson, or grown up with a piano in their home. That's a talent!
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
"Talent" is not a scientific explanation. The word talent is used to replace a mysterious phenomenon which occurs in children that displays seemingly innate abilities to perform tasks that society deems useful. I will agree, that some individuals possess the propensity to be better at something than someone else. But ALL children require environmental pressures, stimulants, and guidance to hone their skills. There is NO child that is able to perform such skills immediately.
lugia3 1 year ago
@lugia3
The word talent is, in fact, "used to replace a mysterious phenomenon". But just because we don't understand it . . doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't understand how Monarch Butterflies fly 3,000 miles to the extact same spot their ancestors inhabited, without ever having been there, and without getting lost. That doesn't mean they didn't do it.
We just don't understand it. Some (lucky?) people are born with a huge innate talent-No denying it. IT JUST IS!
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
Please look up, on YouTube, Jacques Fresco's explanation on talent, creativity, and/or instinct. He can explain this concept better than I do. I never said that it doesn't exist, but that it doesn't fully explain the phenomenon. For all we know, the phenomenon could be a composite of many events bound together. Therefore grouping the process under one name does not give justice to scientific investigation. Monarch butterflies "instinctively know" how to migrate is not good enough an explanation.
lugia3 1 year ago
@lugia3
Monarch Butterflies are just 1 example (out of thousands).
Leonardo DaVinci is another example (out of thousands) of PURE INBORN TALENT. He was an Italian polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist and writer.
That is PURE... UNMITIGATED... INBORN TALENT. His environment didn't teach him these things . . . He taught his environment (that's us) and was YEARS & YEARS ahead of his time.
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
@AnnaMishel I know he was talented, but his abilities were nevertheless affected by the renaissance. You forget that Da Vinci was merely ONE of many famous people who emerged out of that period. He was in a painter's guild, he worked with other artists, including his disciples, to complete his works. He attracted some of the greatest minds during that period, and in interaction, became the incarnation of the renaissance. But after all that, he is still a man who was affected by his environment.
lugia3 1 year ago
@lugia3
He EFFECTED his environment. But this discussion stupid. I'm going to agree to disagree.
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
@AnnaMishel--- Da Vinci came from a line of mildly autistic men. He was the best of the bunch. Many of his ideas have been found in a large Chinese book brought to italy in his time.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99
You bought into that myth????? Show me the (non-existent) book!
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
@lugia3
Aa another example . . idiot savants frequently display amazing talents. They are usually not formally trained, but can do amazing sculpture, painting, music, and feats of memory etc. that no one can explain. (It's talent!)
It's naive to think that if you just practice enough, with enough passion, you'll get there . . but the reason some people do (get there), and others don't, is their innate talent.
AnnaMishel 1 year ago
I don't want the pill -.- i preffer the training. And is true , you can shift your mindset using meditation or strange tongues talking or any kind of ritual you want. Is a very natural thing to humans and it can be use in many positive ways.
DraskyVanderhoff 1 year ago
Is like said "I'm the void , you can't attack me , define me or said anything to me because i'm nothing" ... Is a great strategy but sadly is ver dificult to be made right now.
DraskyVanderhoff 1 year ago
I think Mr. Harris is saying that it's not wrong to respond to specific questions about your understanding of a god's existance by saying "I am atheistic". The issue is when we cling to that label as if it represents our belief system similar to the way Christians use their label. We need to be free of such restricting terms.
So saying you're a "rationalist" or "naturalist" or "non-theist" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if we use these phases like religions, we've lost our own game.
AnotherMasterMind 1 year ago
That red head was beautiful. I'm surprised to see such an attractive woman be so articulate and ask a question with substance.
mmeasy123 1 year ago
@mmeasy123 Why?
jamesrands 1 year ago
@jamesrands Why what?
mmeasy123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mmeasy123 "That red head was beautiful. I'm surprised to see such an attractive woman be so articulate and ask a question with substance." Why?
jamesrands 1 year ago
@mmeasy123 You can see more of that red head all over the net, she's (no lie) a porn star named Kasey Grant
toefour 1 year ago
@toefour LMFAO! WHAT. THE. FUCK.
mmeasy123 1 year ago
It took a lot of guts to make that speech
DrInfidel 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty with people near you benaughtyman.info
mandakiniization 1 year ago
What does Dennett mean about not interesting?
monkeywithsticks 1 year ago
@monkeywithsticks Dennett meant something "REALLY" interesting. Perfectly legit question. He asked him to list 3 really interesting things that have resulted from this practice that has been going on for such a long time. I mean, feeling more compassion for people (which is one of Sam's main arguments regarding this practice) as a result of meditation, isn't something REALLY interesting. Compassion of varying degrees can be felt without having to meditate, its simply innate in a lot of humans.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
@Scofield0085 It was a stupid question. Dennett is a pretentious old white guy in a developed country who values novelty and technology. He asked for three things as if meditation were a way of thinking like science, as though it has a multitude of visible end-products. Meditation fundamentally changes one's moment-to-moment experience of the external world. It parts one from the illusion of ownership of their experience. This is immensely important, if you sat down and thought about it.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
@firstnamenavarre "Dennett is a PRETENTIOUS OLD WHITE guy..."
Nice! Very persuasive. Clearly, meditation has had some commendable effects on you..
Scofield0085 1 year ago 3
@Scofield0085 HIs question was pretentious. He's old, he's white, and he's from USA. All of these things suggest something about the range of his experience, meaning, that it is probably very narrow, and he shouldn't be framing questions with such presumptuous skepticism. There are a number of studies using fMRI and other imaging modalities which look at the systems neuroscience of meditation; Sam Harris' PhD thesis (on his website) is one example. It's a question that need not be asked.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
absolutely love how the applause was louder after that lady's question than before.
monkeywithsticks 1 year ago
Sam Harris has had so much experience in public speaking and it is really paying off. He is so fluent and elegant and clear. Damn that mind this great has to waste his time fighting useless superstition. Damn that we cant just ditch religion and get on with living without that burden on our backs.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 hasn't it occurred to you, that perhaps Sam Harris was born precisely for this fight? comes the hour comes the man, and all that :p
lefredvoncarstein 1 year ago
@lefredvoncarstein : I dont belive in faith or destiny :)
But in am grateful for mr. Harris- And off course Hitchens, Dennet, Myers, Dawkins, Tyson and all the other big guns of reason on this war.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 IT IS THE SWORD OF DESTINY. THE INFIDELS SHALL FALL BEFORE OUR RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, FOR WE WEAR THE ARMOUR OF TRUTH AND IT IS GIVEN UNTO US TO KNOW THIS BY SCIENCE'S ANOINTED ONES, THE HOLY SAM HARRIS AND THE ZEALOUS CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, AND THE THIRD MEMBER OF THIS HOLY TRINITY THE WISE RICHARD DAWKINS. THESE THREE BROTHERS, THOUGH NOT BORN IN THE SAME YEAR, VOWED TO DIE TOGETHER ON THE VERY SAME DAY. HARRISHITCHENSDAWKINS AKABAR!!!!! YA HYA CHOUHADA!!!!!!!
lefredvoncarstein 1 year ago
@lefredvoncarstein : Whow :) Your humour is bit too close to the true behaviour of religious people.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 you get cookies if you can enumerate all the allusions i made
lefredvoncarstein 1 year ago
@lefredvoncarstein : I counted 15 religious references but some of them are probably links to many stories at once.
bary1234 1 year ago
How do we get people to advocate rationality? Simple, Darwin had it right. Enlighten the mind through education and understanding. Nothing nullifies a belief-system faster than an educated, critically thinking mind. All else falls into place. THIS is what we (as atheists/humanists) should concentrate on, not the proselytizing of atheism. Atheism (that simple default of all positions) is a natural symptom of an enlightened mind.
vryc 1 year ago
I'm with Dennett on his comments, but I'd go a bit further and assert that the organization of the brain makes meditation empirically impossible to conduct because of how brain neurons work when we look at them through microscopes. Try as you may, we can't control neurons or any of the other billions of brain processes going on within the brain, always competing AND in conflict with each other.
Sam's views are of course enticing, but neuroscience just flat out shows otherwise.
Comments?
Scofield0085 1 year ago
@Scofield0085 Also, a small point in Sam's favor, perhaps incoherent, but a point nonetheless...Maybe a consciousness independent of the brain is actually possible. I mean, this is really the only way I can make sense out of his claims on meditation. Otherwise, the brain is just too complex, and there isn't a "you" that can sort of take over and be authoritative in the sense that he is describing. No top down control, just side-ways signalling all the way through, empirically at any rate.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
@Scofield0085 I know this doesn't make his views absolute but doesn't Sam Harris have a PhD in Neuroscience? (and your also absolutely right about neuron activity in a petri dish.)
Horathgar42 1 year ago
@Horathgar42 He does have a PhD in Neuroscience, which is why I take his views on this topic very seriously, yet his views need A LOT more refinement. There is some FMRI evidence in favor of his views on meditation and neuroplasticity, but pretty scanty evidence at this point as you may know.
The example he uses at the end of how we, as human beings, can't stop thinking for even a minute is almost preposterous in terms of neuroscience.
I still enjoy listening to him very much nonetheless.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
@Scofield0085 Honestly I didn't know, but its good to hear there are people keeping a close eye on it, can't have a scientist out there making unsubstantiated claims. (sounds like something i'd be interested in reading about)
Yep, he's a very concise speaker and extremely organized in his philosophy (at least to the untrained ear like myself) entertaining to boot.
Horathgar42 1 year ago
@Scofield0085
Try it. See how long you can go without mentally passing comment on that which you are aware of. Its very hard to understand what he's talking about without meditating, that's when you see how hard it is. Even experienced contemplatives don't claim to be able to completely remain in relatively pure awareness for long periods. If this isn't considered in neuroscience, then its just pointing out what he's saying, that there's little scientific interest in these ideas.
monkeywithsticks 1 year ago
@monkeywithsticks I couldn't agree with you more.
Scofield0085 1 year ago
@Scofield0085
It would depend on the state of mind that these people were in. They've done some brain scans on Buddhist monks while they were meditating, and it showed considerable plasticity in neural activity.
monkeywithsticks 1 year ago
does Sam Harris ever laugh?
wookieproductions 1 year ago
14:40 haven't i seen this woman from "Get to know your lobbyist" on the Colbert Report?
unibombarded 1 year ago
Although I have a theistic view of reality I enjoyed a lot Sam's talk. I think intectual honesty is much needed in the world today, but as him self said, it should also be apllied to atheists. The REAL TRUTH in our current development of science is that WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW if there's a creator or not. The fact that there are some idiotic religious world views doesn't mean that there's not a "metaphysical" basis behind reality. To attain truth our mind should be always open to possibilities.
sophiavbfleury 1 year ago
hey atheists, let's just call ourselves "reasonable" when people ask what we are. We gotta stop labeling ourselves!!!
SlayingMinion 1 year ago 17
@SlayingMinion I always call myself a 'Logican'. Then proceed to say we have no political parties, membership or t-shirts. We just are and so are you.
Draeka 7 months ago
@Draeka Do you mean logician?
Strangerinasland 7 months ago
@SlayingMinion Then people will stupidly associate connotations with reasonable until someday we'll be considering trading reasonable for some other term.
Strangerinasland 7 months ago
I did a 10 vipassana course where there is no speaking, reading, writing or any other form of communicaton. Meditation is minimum of 10 hours per day. I completely agree with Sam that the insights gained from this technique can be stripped from any spiritual or religious mumbo-jumbo for the betterment of the individual and the people around them. Quite possibily the mystical results come from endorphins or serotonin etc. but lessons can be learned and should not be scoffed at out of hand.
mycal64 1 year ago
People still don't get Sam's point on transcendent experiences.
They still think that that's as nonsense as religious mythology!
And that is EXACTLY why he criticized Atheism as a concept
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
Horathgar42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luarionte Which i think is the source of militant Atheism, we've become hardened to ignorance thus we have to take on a little bit of "anti"-everything, and when you hear anything transcendental (or a peace state of the mind whatever.) they think the oh he's going to start talking about noah's ark (ala Neph.) here any minute . Thankfully Harris is a good bit more open minded than that.
Horathgar42 1 year ago
Good 'god', that woman loves the sound of her own voice!
comanchio1976 1 year ago
Dennet took a kind blow.
5ringswarrior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up behind him intellectually. Sam is the man!!
daboidon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up behind him intellectually. Sam is the man!!
daboidon 1 year ago
There's Sam Harris. Now get out your binoculars, turn around, and if you look closely you just might see everyone else coming up intellectually. The world needs more Sam Harris'!
daboidon 1 year ago 21
Comment removed
daboidon 1 year ago
Again, FUCK. Sam Harris is awesome.
TonyBtheEG 1 year ago
What would help Sam's case against the term of "atheist" is if he mentioned that it was a name given to us by the theists. The definition of Atheist over 100 years ago was "someone who denies the existence of God AND is an immoral person." Since then the definition itself has changed, but not the perception of the theists using the term against us. Theists still equate "atheist" with immorality.
Most likely though, atheism will remain the banner under which the uphill battle will continue.
robman419 1 year ago
It's so funny. Sam pointedly said, unequivocably, that people were somehow lead to believe in or 'read into' his 'ideas of spirituality' - he states that he is in no way advocating this position. Rather, that there are a range of human experiences that we cannot yet explain that warrants further study. And then that women gets up and says she's disappointed in his advocacy for spirituality and how it is hurting the movement of atheism and rationalism. Did she even listen to him?
vryc 1 year ago 3
Genuis. Sam is a light to the world. And every word he speaks is honest and valuable.
mayaclay 1 year ago 4
Sam Harris's analysis is impeccable. He realizes the danger of absolutism and inarticulate thinking. This allows him to see the full spectrum of reality and existence. He acknowledges that which all religions have sought to provide for millenia but which even people of rational thought may have dismissed - the possibility of pervading happiness which is minimally dependent on outer conditions yet does not rely on irrational or supernatural thinking. He is a pioneer of future thought paradigms.
Haliotro 1 year ago 102
Maybe Sam should do DMT and i would love to hear his articulation on the experience.
Whyisthat101 1 year ago 4
An intelligent man, seems scared about his label.
longplainfirstnation 1 year ago
that first bitch who talks i seriously LOATH. She was on that nightline debate against the two biggest idiots on the planet and still failed. Her and her boyfriend are complete pseudo intellects.
AndrewDewittBaker 1 year ago 2
@AndrewDewittBaker I agree that she is quite emotional. Even in her debates she shows a childish disrespect to opponents when she attempts to make logical arguments
Haliotro 1 year ago
youtube vid:
Google Personal Growth Series: Mindsight: The New Science of
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
excellent
asimov231 1 year ago
why Sam argues against the term "atheism" watch youtube vid:
Believers are Agnostics (1&2)
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
That chick in the beginning is porn star Kasey Grant.
redchango 1 year ago
damn, I think I posted that before. alzheimers disease? jk
redchango 1 year ago
Would be great to listen to a conversation between Sam & Eckhart Tolle.
veganath 1 year ago 3
@veganath agreed
mickholmesmusic 1 year ago
@veganath
check out youtube video:
TEDxBlue - Daniel J. Siegel, M.D. - 10/18/09
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
@qaplatlhinganmaH Thanks was very insightful
veganath 1 year ago
how about calling atheist "non religious" ?
good2freelance 1 year ago
@good2freelance There are atheistic religions (ie. certain sects of buddhism) so I'm afraid that wouldn't work.
byteresistor 1 year ago
Sam Harris makes the others look like rabid dogs or clumsy bulldozers trying to destroy religion no matter what. I think it speaks for itself that even Dan Dennett (a master of thinking in my book) seemed to miss the point about spirituality.
Webfra14 1 year ago 7
@Webfra14 I remember listening to Dr. Bernard Haisch who is a deist (like myself) read Sam Harris expecting that Harris would treat him like an idiot because he excepts the possibility that there is a God. During reading the two books, Dr Haisch said he was almost cheering because he realized that Sam Harris got it. Spiritual experiences are beneficial to us, but religion hijacks it and markets it with superstitious/tribalistic notions.
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
@TheMrDeist I can't imagine Harris treating someone "like an idiot". He is always so polite (at least in the YouTube videos.)
I can't say anything about spiritual experiences because I never had one. Even as a child when I still believed in god.
Therefore I doubt that there are many people who really have such experiences unless they really try to (e.g. by meditation.)
Webfra14 1 year ago
@Webfra14 Spiritual experience isn't necessarily supernatural (meaning the experience isn't meant to be taken as though you are experiencing the supernatural). Rather, it is like going from your emotions being in control over you to you be in control over your emotions. You can experience pleasant emotions like joy, peace, and love without some forum of material stimulant to induce those feelings. It makes you very empowered over your life and gives you a sense of well being.
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
@TheMrDeist Nobody said it is supernatural. I don't even understand what people mean when they use that word.
I only referred to god because religious people claim you need a connection to god to have spiritual experiences. But well, we know they claim alot anyway.
Webfra14 1 year ago
"I am very disappointed by your speech. Blah blah blah supernatural."
- Shut up, Meg.
canonA1film 1 year ago 42
@canonA1film She wasn't listening &/or didn't understand. Oh well, better luck next time!
theshortestpath 10 months ago
that lady was an idiot
gujjucheap 1 year ago 3
Sam is an honest man..
mateenmajid 1 year ago 3
i understand what he means. i don't like the term "atheist", myself. but at this time i do accept it as a definition.
86crud 1 year ago
The results of studying the brains of advanced Buddhist practitioners have been interesting. Matthieu Ricard was off the scale they were using to measure human happiness. This is the fundamental question of our existence, happiness is our most basic wish. Sam does humanity a great service by proposing the divorce of the serious practice from those aspects of Buddhism that are unpalatable to modern people.
gingerburney 1 year ago 4
Panpsychism, at first glance, is a wacko set of concepts but it has an element of plausibility, it´s at least worth a read, i dunno that it´s true, but it does give an alternate view to a very awkward question.
yatter1 1 year ago
What Harris is groping toward is EDUCATION. Most kids today are, thankfully, taught that racist ideas are bad. If we want a culture that is more compassionate and so on, we don't need meditation. We just need to educate our selves and the next generations to be more compassionate. The same goes for religion itself. Dan Denet says that all we need to do is teach kids about ALL the worlds religions (just the facts) and let them decide for themselves. That makes sense to me.
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
@hardinmichael1981 giving kids exams and report cards on every topic in life doesn't necessarily make one more compassionate. I have a very high IQ and I hated school, and treated it like a prison cell. I also enjoy solitude and avoiding people for long periods of time, and then going back to being social when I please. Bill Gates did this (goes to a retreat by himself) when he made big decisions for microsoft. A lot of intelligent people have figured out the benefits of solitude.
HugNow 1 year ago 2
@HugNow real education is about a lot more than just "exams and report cards".
hardinmichael1981 1 year ago
I'm 100% with Sam on this. Atheists have it right on the God issue, but the benefits of meditation shouldn't be ignored by science. Meditation in schools has been shown to be extremely conducive to learning, creativity and producing more harmony in the classroom. Science has shown that around 98% of our thoughts are compulsive, repetitive and utterly pointless. That can't be healthy can it? Where do you think stress, anxiety and depression stem from? Compulsive thinking about "my" problems.
itsonelouder1 1 year ago 3
@itsonelouder1 The heart pumps blood around the body, the lungs cause us to breath, the brain creates thoughts, autonomic activity, but that doesn't mean we always need to give it the focus of our attention. The magic begins when we learn not to be seduced by our most recent evolutionary milestone, cognition, this is my understanding of meditation. Even the Bible warns of this, Adam & Eve were warned not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
veganath 1 year ago 2
At the very end he spoke of that it might be a pill that could be taken to get you into the realm of compassion and love for one another, but the truth is that there already exists such a pill and the name of it is MDMA. Mr Harris already knows about this substance as he took it on one occasion and had all these feeling he described, but was to cowardly to spell it out for the people. I respect his choice though.
OriginalMindTrick 1 year ago
@OriginalMindTrick Look forward to the day when we exchange bullets for such a substance when we stupidly decide to create that exclusively human activity of "war"....
You ever read the book "The Politics of Consciousness" by Steve Kubby. Gives quite an insight into why we are denied said substances by the powers that be.
veganath 1 year ago
I agree with Sam on the point that the term atheist is it's own religion. It almost forces everyone associated with not believing in God to join the camp that there is nothing special about humans or life itself. We all have to speak the same and think the same, and of course with that approach it will breed some people who are not accountable for their own actions. They can be cited for believing in atheism as the reason they commit a crime or plant a tree.
Venue0309 1 year ago
Sams brain just reached out and gently cupped my scrotum.
Fantastic lecture and q&a!
Schopie 1 year ago 8
i cant believe people dont know what hes talking about. he just means insights or personal understandings or experiences that have no dogma or
" truth" to them and are unique to you. they never had a personal revelation into anything?
bobbyb826 1 year ago 3
@bobbyb826: Well..atheists are people too, they can be as close-minded as everybody else :). That just proves the point that there is no such thing as an "atheist" philosophy. I really liked the manner he handled the criticisms.
Nalae1978 1 year ago 4
Absolutely fantastic in the superlative sense.
gavbag1234 1 year ago
harris doesnt understand religion or the need for it.
darkfur35 1 year ago
@darkfur35
Everything he said in this talk suggests quite the opposite.
Perhaps you don't understand his speech.
nemirn 1 year ago
Thanks very much! I hadn't seen the Q and A for this excellent talk.
FlickerEdge 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing this.
TonyBtheEG 1 year ago