Six minutes in and I feel sick. Why do the religious people of the world walk with no moral structure and why do we allow them to control the world we live in? Religion is a poison, a cancerous fear that will bleed this world dry.
Without a doubt Sam Harris is my favourite Atheistic speaker. Really thoughtful, engaging & even properly humurous at times. I've disagreed with Hitchens & Dawkins on several occasions yet, I've never had a gripe with Harris.
@TheGreyKnightXx Exactly. Any serious scientist can't claim that they know with 100% certainty that there is not a god, for this would be commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance). In order to remain a true scientist and skeptic, Dawkins remains open to any contradictory evidence. He also isn't sure if astrology is wrong either.....
Atheism does not mean you absolutely believe there isn't a God. Atheism is the rejection of an assertion of a God. Richard Dawkins is Atheist against Christianity, Catholicism, ect.. Agnostic is believing that you don't know if there is a God or not.
He is Atheist because he rejects all religions and thinks they are folly and he is agnostic because he can't be 100% sure there is or isn't a God at this time and admits he could be wrong. He prefers to be called an agnostic though.
@mexicandruglord Unless you believe in a god, you are an atheist with respect to that specific god. "Atheist" means without god, or without a belief in god. Not believing in a god is not the same as believing a god does not exist.
@mexicandruglord That is still technically an atheist. Hes an agnostic atheist. Atheism is lack of belief, and requires no faith. The Atheist stance does not deny all possibility of a god. Which I assume is what you think Agnosticism is.
Hi. Can you help me? I would really like to get the audiofile for this video, but I'm hopeless with computers and don't know if I'm asking a dumb question. Is it possible to somehow download the audio of this lecture? (I'm a holistically-minded English language teacher and a couple of my students would really benefit from repeated listening to Sam's beautifully clear English, but I also really want to smuggle the 'message' of this lecture into their world too!) Thanks.
@MasterpieceOfAlex You go do your research. Atheism/theism foes to whether you believe in one/more gods or not. Gnostiscism/agnostiscism goes to whether you KNOW it or not. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist since he does not believe in a god, but he doesn't KNOW there is no god. Get your facts straight, you get nothing for being obtuse.
This all boils down to whether happiness (well-being) is the ultimate goal of existence, or the unknowable goals/motives/plans of a supreme creator. But I say, if God doesn't want my happiness or well being, then f#$k Him! So lets just strive for maximum happiness of sentient beings in the realm we KNOW exists--ie, this terrestrial life.
If Sam Harris started a religion, I would join and give him all my money. I would maybe even offer my own virgin child as a human sacrifice--supposing he asked for it.
@SoftwareTheft Do you want to have Charles Manson treated the same way you would want yourself to be treated? That was Hitchens' example of cases when the golden rule can break down. But here's who doesn't have all the answers: Jesus. You only need 2 things to dispose with the entirety of all the world's religions. The golden rule, and Ockham's razor!
@SoftwareTheft Suppose someone doesn't want to be treated the way you want to be treated? Suppose someone well-meaning isn't a mind reader and doesn't realize that the other person doesn't like the way he's being treated?
A true believing Christian should throw himself in front of the train cart if there is a chance his/her sacrifice would save others, if not we are dealing with a false Christian.
@parkerthehicks hmmm Didn't that say that we evolved quickly in a time of need, rather than over a long period of time? That sounds more like mutation to me, not evolution.
@prskaloo1 Punctuated equilibrium states that species are static for most of their geological history, then undergo periods of geologically rapid change. "Geologically rapid" is still very slow by human standards.
@prskaloo1 the idea is that natural selection is constant, but change is more severe when a role is left empty or there is some new opening for emerging species. This is what you would call a punctuation. An example is after the dinosaurs were wiped out, they left a huge gap to be filled.This gave mammals the opportunity to rapidly diverge and succeed in more niches of their environment.
is it suppose to represent a 'jump' from one specie to another like for example dears evolving in to horses (in 'short' period of time due to circumstances)
'' Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years'' it's a quote from wikipedia, maybe i misunderstood something?
wikipedia:) ... ok i get it, can you give me a more genuine source where i could see a time table of the PE? i was searching but couldn't find one... tnx anyway
When you bodily make changes and/or hurt another (human?) being you are wrong! thus I think that the ethnoreligious group "jewish" are wrong when they operate on a young boy´s penis because of believe - It should only be done on a young man who has decided that this operation is what he want´s to have done on his own body. Same criteria should be based on all subjects...
@bubbagisla what if there was a out of control train? you are operating switches that can switch the train onto one of two tracks. One that will cause the train to kill eight workmen and one that will cause the train to kill one workman. Who do you kill? does this change if the one workman is a loved one?
@peoplearemessedup Let's say you saw someone switch the track to kill 8 people instead of his wife (1 person)? Would you judge that man as an evil man? What if he killed his wife instead of 8 people? Is that any better? Point being, this is sort of a ridiculous situation to judge morality. There are easier, saner, realer problems to solve every day. This question is why no one takes philosophers seriously.
in the bible, jesus states many times that all people are equal... slave, male or female.. barbarian or roman.. hmm
Take religion out of any equation and you get people sitting around talking about ever more complicated and infinitely exhausting matter to try and replace christianity.
I seem to be dissapointed by everything, the hype in this society is so unnatural, everything he said seemed so obvious and things one already knew, nothing "ahaaa" just like everything else in my everyday life, the hype, or are people in general not so intelligent, idk, but this bores me, my grandmother says an intelligent person is never bored. Either people aren't intelligent, or, well or nothing, since everything seems boring because it's easy or obvious, ah nvm T.T
Also with out them you wouldn't believe. You wouldn't know, you wouldn't know the answer(If you don't believe in Jesus sorry remove "the answer"comment. Jesus based)
P.S are you a troll? I checked out your channel nothing there?
@TheJMan11000111 They deleted my comment, so I don't remember what I said on this video. I do believe in Jesus.. though I do not belong to any particular religion. I tend to take the stipulation approach and mostly take heed of the things that all the religions do agree about. Like the nature of god being everything, which to me science has proven through quantum physics. I am not a troll, I hide my stuff because all these "peaceful atheists" follow and harass me otherwise. See below (theJman)
@TheJMan11000111 I'm not religious genius.. I just think atheists are ridiculous because they try to beat down every other religion with "science" when science changes every 50 years and atheism is a belief system based on faith (since you generally can't prove a negative) which makes it a religion, which science has proven, uses the same area of of the brain as every other religion. All I see are arrogant atheists spewing hatred based on the most extreme examples of religious people. so, yeah
@Adeptmind Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not smoking is a habit. Did you know the brain uses the same area for emotions and reasoning? Two seemingly contrasting ideas. We "spew" hatred because religion corrupts the mind of higher thinking. They also preach genocide, rape, slavery, homophobia etc. Do you know why we don't practice those things anymore? Because of secular and debated reasoning.
@20BCeltics lol apparently you are unable to read.. because I'm not even defending religion. I'm attacking hate.. do you see the irony there? As you spew more ignorant hatred.. yeah didn't think so. I rest my case (see above)
@Adeptmind Yes, science changes often, but that is a generalization. We merely add on to our concrete evidence making it even more solid. So, are you saying that evidence of an old earth, the theory of gravity and tectonic plates change too? That does not change. But so what if science and ideas change? There was the slavery of people before, but that changed. The bible was OK with slavery. Are you that naive to say change is bad? Change just proves we think. You know, unlike others.
@20BCeltics I can't recall anywhere, where the bible was "okay" with slavery. In fact one of the main people in the bible was glorified for defending a slave from the harsh slave keepers beating him. So that would be like saying the comic book spiderman is ok with criminals.. just because they are in the comic. And "concrete" evidence.. lol go look at how we thought the earth worked when we though atoms were as small as it goes.. LOL seriously.. concrete and science is an oxymoron
@20BCeltics the whole point of science is that nothing is concrete.. I don't understand how anybody doesn't get that. It's the most basic fundamental part of science
@Adeptmind I'm justifying why we hate. Your not "defending religion" has nothing to do with my comments. Look slavery up in the books of Deuteronomy 20 something and Exodus 20. There are other atrocities in the bible too. I also meant "concrete" as in empirical, but I agree, not the best word I chose. If you really don't know why I am this much against religion, you should look at what they do to Muslims who commit apostasy.
@20BCeltics There are many types of muslims.. which ones are you speaking of? The violent muslims are a very small percentage from what I have read. But it's easy to take the most extreme examples from every religion that the media likes to blow out of proportion. But that's like me saying, all women are raging sluts because there have been some on Maury Povich. You are just proving atheism is another religion of hate. And no, calling atheism a religion, is a fact.. hilarious you think it's not
@20BCeltics exactly.. you are justifying MORE hate. How can you not see the irony in that. Your just as bad as the people you hate. And you have made a religion to defend beliefs against something you think doesn't even exist.. LOL. That's the funniest part. I mean, imagine if people made a group to defend their belief that the easter bunny is not real. Atheists equate religion to the easter bunny all the time.. so how ridiculous is atheism.. lol absurdity at it's finest
@Adeptmind And prehaps before you say that atheism is about hate, you should think too, and realize, that atheism only means that one does not belive in a deity. If you think that it is funny, that people gather to "defend their belief that the easter bunny is not real", you should also consider how ridicoulous is the fact that more than half of the human population DO belive, that the easter bunny is real. And there are a lot of "renowed scientist" who gather against this nonsese...
@Adeptmind Christians are also corrupted. My mother, who is a Christian, smirked once at the thought of me "eternally burning in hell for my blasphemy". Please, I am not hating on you at all. I am only justifying the case of atheists. Just an observation and I'm not judging you: you say we are "arrogant" yet you are the first to laugh at my comments.
@20BCeltics "you all" again man, you should read.. I'm not religious or defending religion. I'm attacking the hypocritical hatred you spew. Although I can see now that you clearly have mommy issues which is where this all stems. In fact 98% of atheists I have met have had some sort of bad experience with religion growing up. I grew up in religious schools myself. That is not an excuse to spread more hate. It should be the opposite. But your mommy issues drive it.. so I'll let you be
@Adeptmind lol smh. I really have no time and interest to read all of this. It's okay, though. You're entitled to your own opinion of religion. Just as long as religion doesn't interfere with my life... oh wait. It already has. (hehe you see what I did there? Very satirical of me, I know.)
@20BCeltics Like I said.. mommy issues you don't want to deal with. That's the ONLY reason it has interfered with your life. Personal shit.. enough said
@Adeptmind That's not the point of science. In fact, science claims that everything is concrete, except our knowledge of it. But knowledge is based on the brain, and the brain's capabilities are limited, and it takes time even to reach it's highest potential. Science means "the way in which the human mind accepts the reality". The world is not working by science, nor religion, it just is. Science and religion are just ways to explain things that are already there.
@VoidDestriant Religion actually made perfect sense back in those days when the world seemed to be 1 continent wide, surrounded by a dome, called sky. But as we learned more and more things, it became more and more ridiculous. And indeed, the only thing that keeps religion up today is tradition. If you bombard the mind of children, who are too young to form their own opinions, they will adapt to those teachings. But religion does not offer sufficient explanation anymore, that's why it has to go.
@VoidDestriant That is your opinion, many people much smarter than you (world renowned scientists, professors, physicists, astrophysicists, etc) do not believe that is true. So there are always two sides. So why do you care so much what other people think? I am here attacking hate not defending religion. I'm not even religious (again you should prob read before jumping in) And the whole point of atheism is to bash religion.. which if you believe is like having a group to argue about santa claus
@Adeptmind Always two sides? What does that even mean? I thought we agreed that the world is there in one way, so there is only one "side", and a whole lot of opinions. And I care about what other people think, because I live in a society, where those other people change things that will affect me. Just look at the USA presidential candidates. Look the still ongoing religious wars. It's nuts. And it comes from the mentality of religion. If you look carefully, it's reason, not hate.
@VoidDestriant I gotta say, you are quite the troll, you will change your argument just to argue. We agree there is one side of existence to observe.. but now you are suggesting that people do not have different points of views as we sit here debating different point of views.. you are either a grade A troll, or the most naive, foolish person I have had the pleasure of debating. Either way, your seemingly drunken logic has annoyed me to the point of blocking you. Feel free to debate yourself tho
@VoidDestriant Uh.. that was my exact point you dolt. But science is NOT concrete. Like you said.. science is a way to explain things that are already there. Science is man made.. therefore imperfect as you admit it is only our temporary understanding of what is already here and changes all the time. What we are trying to observe (life/existence) is perfectly designed to exist. And I'm not religious, so why the f*** are you arguing with me. Perhaps read the whole convo before jumping in dipSh*t
@20BCeltics lol What part of I'm not religious do you not understand? so thank you for proving MY point about how atheists will use/twist anything by anyone to try to prove religion wrong. Even if that means taking actions from people who aren't religious to prove your so called point (lol). Mighty arrogant, ignorant and downright ridiculous considering you can read that I'm not religious in the very post you responded to. How dumb do you have to be to do that. Oh a celtics fan.. LOL nevermind
@Adeptmind So what do we have here: genocide, rape, slavery, homophobia, being naive, stereotypical, ridding of higher thinking (reasoning), delusions, hypocrisy, prejudice, contemptuous, lacking common sense. I'm sure there are more words to describe religion and theists.
@20BCeltics Only in the most extreme examples. We could say the same thing about atheists.. because there have been atheists who have done all of those things as well. But yeah, blame religion for hate as you are a hypocrite spreading hate.. oh irony. Hipster much?
I must disagree here. Harris would make science a religion. He gave an example of cigarettes causing lung cancer, citing this as pointing to a social framework in which smoking might be morally unacceptable, but cigarettes are also beneficial as a stimulant and appetite suppressant (which incidentally is why a lot of hospital workers smoke), yet in his view this wouldn't make them morally acceptable? As science teaches us the universe is relative, as are the moral choices we make.
@Rock4life90: You said "God himself commands various forms of violence, prejudice, misogyny, etc." Only if you are accepting the Bible. However, religion is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the existence of God. These "new atheists" need to FORGET RELIGION, because it's a RED HERRING.
I think Atheist LOVE the Bible it provides them with so much straw for their straw men. What would they do without it... Oh I know ... yes they invent cosmic teapots spaghetti monsters and ZOMGitsChris dresses up her Barbie doll and calls it BatMan because that disproves all non biblical deities... apparently ^_^.
@PerdiePerduta377 Well for one thing, they wouldn't have to waste their time combating irrrational thought systems and could go on doing even more productive things to benefit humanity as a whole.
at the beginning he argues that there are only three ways to deafened god (either you believe specific religion is true, or you argue religion is useful, or atheism is bad). But they don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist (not picking one specific religion, and not claiming that religion/atheism is bad/god)
Religion is irrelevant to the argument that there is no real "morality" without a supreme external being, aka "God". It's just a red herring. There are atheists who do good things, and Christians who do bad things, but one must go further and ask where does "good" and "evil" come from? What one believes or not is also irrelevant to the argument. Harris thinks we "ought" to do some things, and not others, and that this ultimately is all down to evolution. His argument is very very weak.
Ppl shouldn't judge morality based on those gut reactions, ppl see it as "just wrong" for a 70 year old to date a 20 year old, yet if you analyse it morally, if the two people are happy and want this there is no moral issue.
Why is a 50 year old man chatting up a 12 year old girl seen as a horrendous, disturbing form of abuse when if in the case both enjoyed it (both individuals involved are happy) and yet people worry less for an incident of bullying in which an individual does feel negative.
I guess in truth there's no scientific reason to do what's right but then again there's no scientific reason to not do what is right nor is their any scientific reason to do what is wrong, science has no direct say on how we live life (as life is an ethical/social phenomena) therefore it's more logical to follow ethical thinking to know what to do in life.
If you ask why do what's right & care? because you can. that's how I overcome this problem :)
Science can only tell us why human beings have certain moral intuitions, it can't tell us the ought. I'm a non-believer myself but I completely disagree with Harris on this. On a secular basis morality is just a matter of preferences and not real binding concepts. Secularism may give us accurate moral semantics but it can't give us moral foundation--why we ought to do good. The Greco-Roman world was rife in defining justice as merely "might makes right." They had no concern for the least of them
He's critical of Frank Collins because Collins is actually a brilliant and accomplished scientist while Sam is just an ecstasy addict who has done nothing except sell books.
Even things like math can happen unconsciously. I was working on some formulas and found a few by others. I stared at them for some time without actively thinking about anything in particular and then suddenly, the formulas made sense to me. To me, this is evidence that your brain can do a whole lot more in the subconscious than we usually take for granted.
@BotsBeGone I don't remember Sam Harris saying "Let's just drop a nuke over the Middle East." He doesn't say that. You apparently have not read his arguments. If you think we should let Islam oppress people forever, maybe you should rethink who the ethical person is here.
Sam's political views of military involvement in the middle east are no secret. AFIK he did indeed never say to nuke them but he has been known to suggest bombing nuclear facilities.
It is very easy to find instances of distasteful activities, but incorrect to vilify a historically rich culture for the actions of individuals and radical extremist fringe groups.
@MsPerduta Extremists in Islam are not a fringe group. Islamic governments are intolerant, oppressive and totalitarian. Women have barely any rights at all. They are beaten all the time. They kill Muslims of other sects. They have claimed to desire to destroy Israel. It's madness. These countries have no business with nukes. We barely have any business having them. Why would we let people living in what is basically a mirror image of medieval times have access to them?
@MsPerduta Blowing up nuclear facilities is not the same as attacking cities with innocent civilians. Sam feels that more lives will be saved if religious extremists don't have nukes to kill people of other faiths. That's humanitarian in my book.
How would you feel about people who were preaching for blow american nuclear facilities?
Compare Harris to Ghandi... which one is a man of enlightened reason?
As to Sam's claim to objective science in this lecture it is tenuous to say the least and the 7181 likes to 157 dislikes for such blatant jingoistic propaganda is shocking.
Unethical people exploiting 3rd world nations today and raping the earths resources are a far greater threat to humanity than anything Sam mentions in this video. His lecture contains NO science at all and portraying it as such is without merit.
@MsPerduta Why do you think that is? Why is America doing such damage? Religion! Our Christians are ignoring the threat of global warming, the depletion of oil, and are destroying numerous ecosystems, because they think Armageddon is coming any day now. They don't care. They'll be dead way before the earth is completely wasted.
You'll have to forgive for continuously switching names. Atheist groups have bots running that flag all my posts for spam in an attempt to silence the voice of reasonable doubt. (In this they show their true duplicity).
While you could be right about Christian beliefs there is no evidence at all that the Christians are any more guilty of self serving greed than atheists.
Statistics show that Christians are amongst the most caring and generous when it comes to charity.
@PerdiePerduta4 The thing about charities is the majority of atheists just give to secular ones. There are a lot of secular charities, just as there are a lot of religious ones, which atheists choose. Statistics show that atheists and nonbelievers generally support more safety nets, social programs and welfare for lower income families more than religious conservatives do. Atheist charities and humanitarian groups are popping up everywhere. We feel the need to come out.
@blobvision Glad your honest about atheists and non-believers in general being more supportive of more safety nets, social programs, and welfare than non-believers. But just tell us how sustainable is it to pay for all that? One of the reasons Europe is going bankrupt is because while it created a larger welfare state than the US, it also advocated lower birthrates, the consequences of that being that fewer workers would replace the former workforce and less of tax base would be at hand.
How sustainable to you think exponential growth is?
When it comes to the crunch there will be suffering and this time might won't be right because all out war for the last remnants of earth's resources will be judgement day in anyone's book.
We should get rid of the warmongering jerk Harris and get some proper scientists to tell us what morals we need to intelligently manage our fragile biosphere and ensure a future of humanity.
@PerdiePerduta4 "Exponential growth?" Your talking about large population, right? I'll clear that up. If we want to solve that problem, the bulk of our concern should be third world countries. Third world countries overpopulate. To solve that problem, we need to promote economic development in the third world to stave that off. First world countries have the problem of less than replacement level population--meaning less of a work force for a tax base.
Ultimately... yes a cosmic civilization would be worthy aspiration for humanity
For immediate future avoiding destruction of life on Earth would be a noble and moral cause and I can see no reason why atheist scientists can't reach this same conclusion.
He wants us to believe there is no such thing as free will and that we are all just machines and that there is no purpose to anything other than serving ourselves and that we should bomb nuclear power stations in Arab countries and this lecture is comple crap and has nothing to do with what science has to say about morality.
So I conclude that the 7185 thumbs up voters are the complete and utter idiots and I don't care what you think :P
@PerdiePerduta4 There is no such thing as free will. fMRI scanners proved that. And if you think this video does not state what science as to say about morality, watch it again. Only this time listen.
As for the "bombing": everybody who is interested in what Sam *actually* said, read this: w w w . samharris . org / site / full_text / response-to-controversy2
@TomFynn How did fmri scans prove we have no free will? This is a very singular interpretation of some highly dubious experiments. That is, there is no scientific consensus on what such experiments really show and even less on what it means for free will. There isn't even any kind of consensus on what free will is supposed to be - you know, they thing you think we don't have. What we do know, is that no set of laws fully determine human behaviour/action.
@"There is no such thing as free will. fMRI scanners proved that."
You really have to stop listening to Sam. He is an idiot.
The MRI scan showed that the idea is generated in subconscious and then presented for final arbitration by your rational mind. It did NOT show that you would be unable to consciously reject or revise that first impulse and anyone with a brain already knows that without an MRI scan.
Anyway I gotta delete this account and make a new one as the bots are on to it
@PerdiePerduta4 "The MRI scan showed that the idea is generated in subconscious and then presented for final arbitration by your rational mind." Making stuff up is not an argument.
@PerdiePerduta4 Do you REALLY believe Sam Harris is an idiot? or are you getting a little carried away in the argument? You're in danger of undermining what little credibility you have left here.
@mrswinkyuk I doubt he's an idiot in the sense of having a IQ <20, but his views are very unsophisticated philosophically. They are certainly not, for example, taken seriously in academia.
That guy that keeps fucking with his hair makes me want to sacrifice a baby seal
lq4fcrx7 5 hours ago
Atheism and agnosticism are two separate things. You are not one or the other. In fact, it is very plausible that you can be an agnostic atheist.
BaronWilson1 11 hours ago
ur great sir
MrPragalv 15 hours ago
A lot of these discussions seem to end up coming to the subject of freewill.
TheDethBringer666 15 hours ago
Six minutes in and I feel sick. Why do the religious people of the world walk with no moral structure and why do we allow them to control the world we live in? Religion is a poison, a cancerous fear that will bleed this world dry.
TheMadManDiaries 18 hours ago
Without a doubt Sam Harris is my favourite Atheistic speaker. Really thoughtful, engaging & even properly humurous at times. I've disagreed with Hitchens & Dawkins on several occasions yet, I've never had a gripe with Harris.
Thanks for the upload mate!
MrLittletomdj 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins is not an atheist any more.
mexicandruglord 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 20:1-20:17
Psalm 14:1
John 3:16
TheOnetruecatholic 2 days ago
164 people are Taliban fathers
mathematicsclass 2 days ago
@TheGreyKnightXx Exactly. Any serious scientist can't claim that they know with 100% certainty that there is not a god, for this would be commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance). In order to remain a true scientist and skeptic, Dawkins remains open to any contradictory evidence. He also isn't sure if astrology is wrong either.....
SureBarb 2 days ago
Atheism does not mean you absolutely believe there isn't a God. Atheism is the rejection of an assertion of a God. Richard Dawkins is Atheist against Christianity, Catholicism, ect.. Agnostic is believing that you don't know if there is a God or not.
He is Atheist because he rejects all religions and thinks they are folly and he is agnostic because he can't be 100% sure there is or isn't a God at this time and admits he could be wrong. He prefers to be called an agnostic though.
TheGreyKnightXx 2 days ago
Richard Dawkins is not an atheist any more.
mexicandruglord 2 days ago
@mexicandruglord Unless you believe in a god, you are an atheist with respect to that specific god. "Atheist" means without god, or without a belief in god. Not believing in a god is not the same as believing a god does not exist.
So yes, he is an atheist.
thisisnotanick 1 day ago
@mexicandruglord what?
maneatingtoilets 1 day ago
@maneatingtoilets He gave up his atheistic faith for agnosticism. :-)
mexicandruglord 1 day ago
@mexicandruglord You sir are horribly misinformed and/or obtuse.
babakkatt 1 day ago
@mexicandruglord That is still technically an atheist. Hes an agnostic atheist. Atheism is lack of belief, and requires no faith. The Atheist stance does not deny all possibility of a god. Which I assume is what you think Agnosticism is.
maneatingtoilets 1 day ago
Hi. Can you help me? I would really like to get the audiofile for this video, but I'm hopeless with computers and don't know if I'm asking a dumb question. Is it possible to somehow download the audio of this lecture? (I'm a holistically-minded English language teacher and a couple of my students would really benefit from repeated listening to Sam's beautifully clear English, but I also really want to smuggle the 'message' of this lecture into their world too!) Thanks.
USERNAMEfieldempty 2 days ago
Richard Dawkins is not an atheist any more.
mexicandruglord 2 days ago
Dawkins is not an atheist any more. :-)
mexicandruglord 2 days ago
@mexicandruglord Back under your bridge you misinformed troll!
bigj651 2 days ago
@bigj651 He's rather agnostic
MasterpieceOfAlex 2 days ago
@MasterpieceOfAlex He's an agnostic atheist, get your terminologies straight.
babakkatt 2 days ago
@babakkatt He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
MasterpieceOfAlex 2 days ago
@MasterpieceOfAlex He can call himself whatever he wants, unless he believes in a deity, he is an atheist.
babakkatt 1 day ago
@babakkatt Go do your research...
MasterpieceOfAlex 1 day ago
@MasterpieceOfAlex You go do your research. Atheism/theism foes to whether you believe in one/more gods or not. Gnostiscism/agnostiscism goes to whether you KNOW it or not. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist since he does not believe in a god, but he doesn't KNOW there is no god. Get your facts straight, you get nothing for being obtuse.
babakkatt 12 hours ago
@mexicandruglord he never was
TheSmashedPumpkin 2 days ago
This is the first time I've seen Sam Harris, and I am well and mightily impressed.
senshtatulo 2 days ago
how did Sam keep a straight face with that dude twirling his hair the whole damn time?
MichaelOnTheTube 2 days ago
Every time they showed the guy twirling his hair in the 2nd row I giggled.
evildead0 3 days ago
This all boils down to whether happiness (well-being) is the ultimate goal of existence, or the unknowable goals/motives/plans of a supreme creator. But I say, if God doesn't want my happiness or well being, then f#$k Him! So lets just strive for maximum happiness of sentient beings in the realm we KNOW exists--ie, this terrestrial life.
TheseusTex 3 days ago
If Sam Harris started a religion, I would join and give him all my money. I would maybe even offer my own virgin child as a human sacrifice--supposing he asked for it.
TheseusTex 3 days ago
So what does science have to say about what is moral?
SAsgarters 3 days ago
Comment removed
huwrj 4 days ago
The top comments are that Harris is good looking and/or looks like Ben Stiller. *slaps forehead*
huwrj 4 days ago
The only moral code humanity needs to live by is the golden rule. You can boil the entire ten commandments down to this one rule.
SoftwareTheft 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SoftwareTheft Do you want to have Charles Manson treated the same way you would want yourself to be treated? That was Hitchens' example of cases when the golden rule can break down. But here's who doesn't have all the answers: Jesus. You only need 2 things to dispose with the entirety of all the world's religions. The golden rule, and Ockham's razor!
huwrj 4 days ago
@SoftwareTheft Suppose someone doesn't want to be treated the way you want to be treated? Suppose someone well-meaning isn't a mind reader and doesn't realize that the other person doesn't like the way he's being treated?
The golden rule is worthless in practice.
SAsgarters 3 days ago
that guy on the second row playing with his long hair really bothers me...
tujjortoshkandiy 4 days ago
When I see a room full of open minded people, I no longer feel alone in this stupid world
tomastocornal 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomastocornal
@"When I see a room full of open minded people, I no longer feel alone in this stupid world"
Where did you see a room like that then?
PerdiePerduta256 4 days ago
A true believing Christian should throw himself in front of the train cart if there is a chance his/her sacrifice would save others, if not we are dealing with a false Christian.
alex3st 4 days ago
But what about throwing yourself in front of the train cart?
alex3st 4 days ago
I've always wanted to hear Ben Stiller have a discussion with Mr. Dawkins.
LudwigLobsters 5 days ago 34
@LudwigLobsters made my day
sandwichtaster 3 days ago
@LudwigLobsters Duuuuuuuuuuuuude xD i just died xD
lobenjamin 2 days ago
That kid in the front on the left (right when you are looking at the speaker) is freakin creepy. Would be so distracting trying to speak.
br4d24 5 days ago
Funny... I wrote everything Mr. Harris said in his presentation when I was 17. Boy does it make me feel good!
AvanLotharion 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AvanLotharion
@"Funny... I wrote everything Mr. Harris said in his presentation when I was 17. Boy does it make me feel good!"
lol - I totally agree, Harris's "science" is hardly leading edge.
I presume you've progressed with your theories since you were 17?
If so I think they should sack Harris and give you the job ;o)
PerdiePerduta256 4 days ago
The girl on the bike at the beginning is the best thing about this video.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 5 days ago
Comment removed
thull21 5 days ago
I hate to detract from a serious discussion but I'd just like to say that Sam is very attractive. There - I've said it.
ciaracustard 6 days ago 12
@ciaracustard
lol - I made the same mistake.
Then I watched some more of his lectures and I realized NEVER judge a book by it's cover applies equally to humans.
MsPerduta 6 days ago
@ciaracustard I like Dawkins too. He has an effeminate voice, and I always imagine him with puffy red cheeks.
MrCoolUS 4 days ago
hey has anybody here heard of punctuated equilibrium
prskaloo1 6 days ago
@prskaloo1 yep
parkerthehicks 6 days ago
@parkerthehicks
is that an accepted theory?
prskaloo1 6 days ago
@prskaloo1 yes sir taught in schools and everything
parkerthehicks 6 days ago
@parkerthehicks hmmm Didn't that say that we evolved quickly in a time of need, rather than over a long period of time? That sounds more like mutation to me, not evolution.
20BCeltics 5 days ago
@parkerthehicks
bare with me for awhile... if evolution is a slowly process, how does punctuated equilibrium fit in to the picture?
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 Punctuated equilibrium states that species are static for most of their geological history, then undergo periods of geologically rapid change. "Geologically rapid" is still very slow by human standards.
bluefish66106 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bluefish66106
>"Geologically rapid" is still very slow by human standards.
yes, i understand. it represents a 'jump' from one species to another.
so it's not anymore slowly, gradually?
prskaloo1 5 days ago
@prskaloo1 the idea is that natural selection is constant, but change is more severe when a role is left empty or there is some new opening for emerging species. This is what you would call a punctuation. An example is after the dinosaurs were wiped out, they left a huge gap to be filled.This gave mammals the opportunity to rapidly diverge and succeed in more niches of their environment.
parkerthehicks 5 days ago
@parkerthehicks
is it suppose to represent a 'jump' from one specie to another like for example dears evolving in to horses (in 'short' period of time due to circumstances)
prskaloo1 4 days ago
@prskaloo1 no it represents intensified gradual evolution, that i guess could be called jumps, but we're still talking periods like 50million years
parkerthehicks 4 days ago
@parkerthehicks
'' Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years'' it's a quote from wikipedia, maybe i misunderstood something?
prskaloo1 4 days ago
@prskaloo1 no the writer of that article did. They are gravely mistaken, but on the other hand it is wikipedia.
parkerthehicks 4 days ago
@parkerthehicks
wikipedia:) ... ok i get it, can you give me a more genuine source where i could see a time table of the PE? i was searching but couldn't find one... tnx anyway
prskaloo1 4 days ago
I don't get this.
How can you say science has nothing to say on morality? Ever heard of evolution?
Londron 1 week ago
When you bodily make changes and/or hurt another (human?) being you are wrong! thus I think that the ethnoreligious group "jewish" are wrong when they operate on a young boy´s penis because of believe - It should only be done on a young man who has decided that this operation is what he want´s to have done on his own body. Same criteria should be based on all subjects...
bubbagisla 1 week ago
@bubbagisla what if there was a out of control train? you are operating switches that can switch the train onto one of two tracks. One that will cause the train to kill eight workmen and one that will cause the train to kill one workman. Who do you kill? does this change if the one workman is a loved one?
peoplearemessedup 1 week ago
@peoplearemessedup Let's say you saw someone switch the track to kill 8 people instead of his wife (1 person)? Would you judge that man as an evil man? What if he killed his wife instead of 8 people? Is that any better? Point being, this is sort of a ridiculous situation to judge morality. There are easier, saner, realer problems to solve every day. This question is why no one takes philosophers seriously.
muzio78 5 days ago
in the bible, jesus states many times that all people are equal... slave, male or female.. barbarian or roman.. hmm
Take religion out of any equation and you get people sitting around talking about ever more complicated and infinitely exhausting matter to try and replace christianity.
dieneddie 1 week ago
not to say that everything stated is correct.
EndureFocusEngageDie 1 week ago
I seem to be dissapointed by everything, the hype in this society is so unnatural, everything he said seemed so obvious and things one already knew, nothing "ahaaa" just like everything else in my everyday life, the hype, or are people in general not so intelligent, idk, but this bores me, my grandmother says an intelligent person is never bored. Either people aren't intelligent, or, well or nothing, since everything seems boring because it's easy or obvious, ah nvm T.T
EndureFocusEngageDie 1 week ago
@Adeptmind
I totally agree with you. This is a sad thing.
But doesn't this show you something.?
Also with out them you wouldn't believe. You wouldn't know, you wouldn't know the answer(If you don't believe in Jesus sorry remove "the answer"comment. Jesus based)
P.S are you a troll? I checked out your channel nothing there?
Peace to all (no matter what you believe)
J
and Adeptmind your alright.
TheJMan11000111 1 week ago
@TheJMan11000111 They deleted my comment, so I don't remember what I said on this video. I do believe in Jesus.. though I do not belong to any particular religion. I tend to take the stipulation approach and mostly take heed of the things that all the religions do agree about. Like the nature of god being everything, which to me science has proven through quantum physics. I am not a troll, I hide my stuff because all these "peaceful atheists" follow and harass me otherwise. See below (theJman)
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind well if it's a joke?
it''s not F^%#en funny. You don't understand any science. It's obvious from point #4.
So where did you actually understand science from Dr. Kent Hovind?
WE don't believe the same things. If you actually read your bible, you probably wouldn't believe either. Seriously read your bible.
Ignorant Much? LMFAO.
TheJMan11000111 1 week ago
@TheJMan11000111 I'm not religious genius.. I just think atheists are ridiculous because they try to beat down every other religion with "science" when science changes every 50 years and atheism is a belief system based on faith (since you generally can't prove a negative) which makes it a religion, which science has proven, uses the same area of of the brain as every other religion. All I see are arrogant atheists spewing hatred based on the most extreme examples of religious people. so, yeah
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not smoking is a habit. Did you know the brain uses the same area for emotions and reasoning? Two seemingly contrasting ideas. We "spew" hatred because religion corrupts the mind of higher thinking. They also preach genocide, rape, slavery, homophobia etc. Do you know why we don't practice those things anymore? Because of secular and debated reasoning.
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics lol apparently you are unable to read.. because I'm not even defending religion. I'm attacking hate.. do you see the irony there? As you spew more ignorant hatred.. yeah didn't think so. I rest my case (see above)
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind Yes, science changes often, but that is a generalization. We merely add on to our concrete evidence making it even more solid. So, are you saying that evidence of an old earth, the theory of gravity and tectonic plates change too? That does not change. But so what if science and ideas change? There was the slavery of people before, but that changed. The bible was OK with slavery. Are you that naive to say change is bad? Change just proves we think. You know, unlike others.
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics I can't recall anywhere, where the bible was "okay" with slavery. In fact one of the main people in the bible was glorified for defending a slave from the harsh slave keepers beating him. So that would be like saying the comic book spiderman is ok with criminals.. just because they are in the comic. And "concrete" evidence.. lol go look at how we thought the earth worked when we though atoms were as small as it goes.. LOL seriously.. concrete and science is an oxymoron
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@20BCeltics the whole point of science is that nothing is concrete.. I don't understand how anybody doesn't get that. It's the most basic fundamental part of science
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind I'm justifying why we hate. Your not "defending religion" has nothing to do with my comments. Look slavery up in the books of Deuteronomy 20 something and Exodus 20. There are other atrocities in the bible too. I also meant "concrete" as in empirical, but I agree, not the best word I chose. If you really don't know why I am this much against religion, you should look at what they do to Muslims who commit apostasy.
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics There are many types of muslims.. which ones are you speaking of? The violent muslims are a very small percentage from what I have read. But it's easy to take the most extreme examples from every religion that the media likes to blow out of proportion. But that's like me saying, all women are raging sluts because there have been some on Maury Povich. You are just proving atheism is another religion of hate. And no, calling atheism a religion, is a fact.. hilarious you think it's not
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@20BCeltics exactly.. you are justifying MORE hate. How can you not see the irony in that. Your just as bad as the people you hate. And you have made a religion to defend beliefs against something you think doesn't even exist.. LOL. That's the funniest part. I mean, imagine if people made a group to defend their belief that the easter bunny is not real. Atheists equate religion to the easter bunny all the time.. so how ridiculous is atheism.. lol absurdity at it's finest
Adeptmind 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adeptmind And prehaps before you say that atheism is about hate, you should think too, and realize, that atheism only means that one does not belive in a deity. If you think that it is funny, that people gather to "defend their belief that the easter bunny is not real", you should also consider how ridicoulous is the fact that more than half of the human population DO belive, that the easter bunny is real. And there are a lot of "renowed scientist" who gather against this nonsese...
VoidDestriant 1 week ago
@Adeptmind Christians are also corrupted. My mother, who is a Christian, smirked once at the thought of me "eternally burning in hell for my blasphemy". Please, I am not hating on you at all. I am only justifying the case of atheists. Just an observation and I'm not judging you: you say we are "arrogant" yet you are the first to laugh at my comments.
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics "you all" again man, you should read.. I'm not religious or defending religion. I'm attacking the hypocritical hatred you spew. Although I can see now that you clearly have mommy issues which is where this all stems. In fact 98% of atheists I have met have had some sort of bad experience with religion growing up. I grew up in religious schools myself. That is not an excuse to spread more hate. It should be the opposite. But your mommy issues drive it.. so I'll let you be
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind lol smh. I really have no time and interest to read all of this. It's okay, though. You're entitled to your own opinion of religion. Just as long as religion doesn't interfere with my life... oh wait. It already has. (hehe you see what I did there? Very satirical of me, I know.)
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics Like I said.. mommy issues you don't want to deal with. That's the ONLY reason it has interfered with your life. Personal shit.. enough said
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind My mom is dead... Thanks for reminding me.
20BCeltics 6 days ago
@20BCeltics You are very welcome
Adeptmind 6 days ago
@Adeptmind That's not the point of science. In fact, science claims that everything is concrete, except our knowledge of it. But knowledge is based on the brain, and the brain's capabilities are limited, and it takes time even to reach it's highest potential. Science means "the way in which the human mind accepts the reality". The world is not working by science, nor religion, it just is. Science and religion are just ways to explain things that are already there.
VoidDestriant 1 week ago
@VoidDestriant Religion actually made perfect sense back in those days when the world seemed to be 1 continent wide, surrounded by a dome, called sky. But as we learned more and more things, it became more and more ridiculous. And indeed, the only thing that keeps religion up today is tradition. If you bombard the mind of children, who are too young to form their own opinions, they will adapt to those teachings. But religion does not offer sufficient explanation anymore, that's why it has to go.
VoidDestriant 1 week ago
@VoidDestriant That is your opinion, many people much smarter than you (world renowned scientists, professors, physicists, astrophysicists, etc) do not believe that is true. So there are always two sides. So why do you care so much what other people think? I am here attacking hate not defending religion. I'm not even religious (again you should prob read before jumping in) And the whole point of atheism is to bash religion.. which if you believe is like having a group to argue about santa claus
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@Adeptmind Always two sides? What does that even mean? I thought we agreed that the world is there in one way, so there is only one "side", and a whole lot of opinions. And I care about what other people think, because I live in a society, where those other people change things that will affect me. Just look at the USA presidential candidates. Look the still ongoing religious wars. It's nuts. And it comes from the mentality of religion. If you look carefully, it's reason, not hate.
VoidDestriant 1 week ago
@VoidDestriant I gotta say, you are quite the troll, you will change your argument just to argue. We agree there is one side of existence to observe.. but now you are suggesting that people do not have different points of views as we sit here debating different point of views.. you are either a grade A troll, or the most naive, foolish person I have had the pleasure of debating. Either way, your seemingly drunken logic has annoyed me to the point of blocking you. Feel free to debate yourself tho
Adeptmind 6 days ago
@Adeptmind I can't belive this guy :DDD
VoidDestriant 6 days ago
@VoidDestriant Uh.. that was my exact point you dolt. But science is NOT concrete. Like you said.. science is a way to explain things that are already there. Science is man made.. therefore imperfect as you admit it is only our temporary understanding of what is already here and changes all the time. What we are trying to observe (life/existence) is perfectly designed to exist. And I'm not religious, so why the f*** are you arguing with me. Perhaps read the whole convo before jumping in dipSh*t
Adeptmind 1 week ago
@VoidDestriant two words: Quantum Physics.
prenticeanyonywright 5 days ago
@Adeptmind lol thanks for proving my premise that religious people are immoral.
20BCeltics 1 day ago
@20BCeltics lol What part of I'm not religious do you not understand? so thank you for proving MY point about how atheists will use/twist anything by anyone to try to prove religion wrong. Even if that means taking actions from people who aren't religious to prove your so called point (lol). Mighty arrogant, ignorant and downright ridiculous considering you can read that I'm not religious in the very post you responded to. How dumb do you have to be to do that. Oh a celtics fan.. LOL nevermind
Adeptmind 14 hours ago
@Adeptmind Oops! Looks like a popped a bubble. lol I was just messing with you and then you write a paragraph on it trololol
20BCeltics 5 hours ago
@20BCeltics and you prove my point.. thankyou
Adeptmind 5 hours ago
@Adeptmind So what do we have here: genocide, rape, slavery, homophobia, being naive, stereotypical, ridding of higher thinking (reasoning), delusions, hypocrisy, prejudice, contemptuous, lacking common sense. I'm sure there are more words to describe religion and theists.
20BCeltics 1 week ago
@20BCeltics Only in the most extreme examples. We could say the same thing about atheists.. because there have been atheists who have done all of those things as well. But yeah, blame religion for hate as you are a hypocrite spreading hate.. oh irony. Hipster much?
Adeptmind 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adeptmind
@"All I see are arrogant atheists spewing hatred based on the most extreme examples of religious people. so, yeah"
Yes, that is my perception too.
Atheism is no more scientific than any other fundamentalist creed.
PerdiePerduta56 1 week ago
Bonus points to Sam Harris for mentioning Eddie Izzard.
dansemacabre17 1 week ago
I must disagree here. Harris would make science a religion. He gave an example of cigarettes causing lung cancer, citing this as pointing to a social framework in which smoking might be morally unacceptable, but cigarettes are also beneficial as a stimulant and appetite suppressant (which incidentally is why a lot of hospital workers smoke), yet in his view this wouldn't make them morally acceptable? As science teaches us the universe is relative, as are the moral choices we make.
EClein2 1 week ago
So this is the university of Sheldon Cooper....
ricardogrb21 1 week ago
@Rock4life90: You said "God himself commands various forms of violence, prejudice, misogyny, etc." Only if you are accepting the Bible. However, religion is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the existence of God. These "new atheists" need to FORGET RELIGION, because it's a RED HERRING.
franknhonest 1 week ago
@franknhonest
I think Atheist LOVE the Bible it provides them with so much straw for their straw men. What would they do without it... Oh I know ... yes they invent cosmic teapots spaghetti monsters and ZOMGitsChris dresses up her Barbie doll and calls it BatMan because that disproves all non biblical deities... apparently ^_^.
PerdiePerduta377 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta377 Well for one thing, they wouldn't have to waste their time combating irrrational thought systems and could go on doing even more productive things to benefit humanity as a whole.
dansemacabre17 1 week ago
at the beginning he argues that there are only three ways to deafened god (either you believe specific religion is true, or you argue religion is useful, or atheism is bad). But they don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist (not picking one specific religion, and not claiming that religion/atheism is bad/god)
prskaloo1 1 week ago
Comment removed
MsPerduta 1 week ago
Religion is irrelevant to the argument that there is no real "morality" without a supreme external being, aka "God". It's just a red herring. There are atheists who do good things, and Christians who do bad things, but one must go further and ask where does "good" and "evil" come from? What one believes or not is also irrelevant to the argument. Harris thinks we "ought" to do some things, and not others, and that this ultimately is all down to evolution. His argument is very very weak.
franknhonest 1 week ago
@franknhonest
@" His argument is very very weak."
I know, right... lots of people here posting the same assessment.
In light of that, what I find disturbing is the 7199 likes to 158 dislikes >:^(
PerdiePerduta101 1 week ago
Sam's ethical realism is really taking a shortcut to its conclusion on the existence of absolute moral laws. Poor logic there.
Knukleheada 1 week ago
Ppl shouldn't judge morality based on those gut reactions, ppl see it as "just wrong" for a 70 year old to date a 20 year old, yet if you analyse it morally, if the two people are happy and want this there is no moral issue.
Why is a 50 year old man chatting up a 12 year old girl seen as a horrendous, disturbing form of abuse when if in the case both enjoyed it (both individuals involved are happy) and yet people worry less for an incident of bullying in which an individual does feel negative.
deanmullen10 1 week ago
I guess in truth there's no scientific reason to do what's right but then again there's no scientific reason to not do what is right nor is their any scientific reason to do what is wrong, science has no direct say on how we live life (as life is an ethical/social phenomena) therefore it's more logical to follow ethical thinking to know what to do in life.
If you ask why do what's right & care? because you can. that's how I overcome this problem :)
deanmullen10 1 week ago
Comment removed
deanmullen10 1 week ago
Science can only tell us why human beings have certain moral intuitions, it can't tell us the ought. I'm a non-believer myself but I completely disagree with Harris on this. On a secular basis morality is just a matter of preferences and not real binding concepts. Secularism may give us accurate moral semantics but it can't give us moral foundation--why we ought to do good. The Greco-Roman world was rife in defining justice as merely "might makes right." They had no concern for the least of them
dtoiam 1 week ago
Sam Harris will be on the Joe Rogan Podcast, can't wait!
Pitfytr 1 week ago
@Che205chris your black what do you know, KKK all the way, white power
aaronw12399 1 week ago
Both of you are FUCKING idiots
aaronw12399 1 week ago
@aaronw12399 I agree, you both certainly are.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaronw12399
@"Both of you are FUCKING idiots"
Don't do that... you will get baby idiots!
MsPerduta 1 week ago
He's critical of Frank Collins because Collins is actually a brilliant and accomplished scientist while Sam is just an ecstasy addict who has done nothing except sell books.
dangerfan2005 1 week ago
Welp. I have 152 new videos to watch.
PowerfrogsBeotch 1 week ago
I'd be more impressed if he pronounced 'Wittgenstein' properly.
dangerfan2005 1 week ago
@dangerfan2005 Where does he get Wittgenstein wrong? I can't be bothered listening to it all but would welcome the laugh.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@kkkaldav @ 16:20 he says WittgenSTEEN rather than WittgenSTEIN. OK, so not earth shattering; he only has a BA in philosophy.
dangerfan2005 1 week ago
@dangerfan2005 How embarrassing, perhaps not as bad as saying Owlbeert Eensteen, but nonetheless...
kkkaldav 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even things like math can happen unconsciously. I was working on some formulas and found a few by others. I stared at them for some time without actively thinking about anything in particular and then suddenly, the formulas made sense to me. To me, this is evidence that your brain can do a whole lot more in the subconscious than we usually take for granted.
FHomeBrew 1 week ago
Francis Collins is nothing but hot air; an embarrassment to the scientific community.
blobvision 1 week ago
@blobvision
Sam Harris is nothing but a duplicitous war monger who wants to persuade us to nuke the shit of Islam.
BotsBeGone 1 week ago
@BotsBeGone I don't remember Sam Harris saying "Let's just drop a nuke over the Middle East." He doesn't say that. You apparently have not read his arguments. If you think we should let Islam oppress people forever, maybe you should rethink who the ethical person is here.
blobvision 1 week ago
@blobvision
Sam's political views of military involvement in the middle east are no secret. AFIK he did indeed never say to nuke them but he has been known to suggest bombing nuclear facilities.
It is very easy to find instances of distasteful activities, but incorrect to vilify a historically rich culture for the actions of individuals and radical extremist fringe groups.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Extremists in Islam are not a fringe group. Islamic governments are intolerant, oppressive and totalitarian. Women have barely any rights at all. They are beaten all the time. They kill Muslims of other sects. They have claimed to desire to destroy Israel. It's madness. These countries have no business with nukes. We barely have any business having them. Why would we let people living in what is basically a mirror image of medieval times have access to them?
blobvision 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Blowing up nuclear facilities is not the same as attacking cities with innocent civilians. Sam feels that more lives will be saved if religious extremists don't have nukes to kill people of other faiths. That's humanitarian in my book.
blobvision 1 week ago
@blobvision
I don't care what Sam believes.
How would you feel about people who were preaching for blow american nuclear facilities?
Compare Harris to Ghandi... which one is a man of enlightened reason?
As to Sam's claim to objective science in this lecture it is tenuous to say the least and the 7181 likes to 157 dislikes for such blatant jingoistic propaganda is shocking.
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@blobvision
Unethical people exploiting 3rd world nations today and raping the earths resources are a far greater threat to humanity than anything Sam mentions in this video. His lecture contains NO science at all and portraying it as such is without merit.
MsPerduta 1 week ago
@MsPerduta Why do you think that is? Why is America doing such damage? Religion! Our Christians are ignoring the threat of global warming, the depletion of oil, and are destroying numerous ecosystems, because they think Armageddon is coming any day now. They don't care. They'll be dead way before the earth is completely wasted.
blobvision 1 week ago
@blobvision
You'll have to forgive for continuously switching names. Atheist groups have bots running that flag all my posts for spam in an attempt to silence the voice of reasonable doubt. (In this they show their true duplicity).
While you could be right about Christian beliefs there is no evidence at all that the Christians are any more guilty of self serving greed than atheists.
Statistics show that Christians are amongst the most caring and generous when it comes to charity.
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 The thing about charities is the majority of atheists just give to secular ones. There are a lot of secular charities, just as there are a lot of religious ones, which atheists choose. Statistics show that atheists and nonbelievers generally support more safety nets, social programs and welfare for lower income families more than religious conservatives do. Atheist charities and humanitarian groups are popping up everywhere. We feel the need to come out.
blobvision 1 week ago
@blobvision Glad your honest about atheists and non-believers in general being more supportive of more safety nets, social programs, and welfare than non-believers. But just tell us how sustainable is it to pay for all that? One of the reasons Europe is going bankrupt is because while it created a larger welfare state than the US, it also advocated lower birthrates, the consequences of that being that fewer workers would replace the former workforce and less of tax base would be at hand.
dtoiam 1 week ago
@dtoiam
How sustainable to you think exponential growth is?
When it comes to the crunch there will be suffering and this time might won't be right because all out war for the last remnants of earth's resources will be judgement day in anyone's book.
We should get rid of the warmongering jerk Harris and get some proper scientists to tell us what morals we need to intelligently manage our fragile biosphere and ensure a future of humanity.
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 "Exponential growth?" Your talking about large population, right? I'll clear that up. If we want to solve that problem, the bulk of our concern should be third world countries. Third world countries overpopulate. To solve that problem, we need to promote economic development in the third world to stave that off. First world countries have the problem of less than replacement level population--meaning less of a work force for a tax base.
dtoiam 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 Research and development of space exploration technology should also be a priority in order to access resources out in space.
dtoiam 1 week ago
@dtoiam
Ultimately... yes a cosmic civilization would be worthy aspiration for humanity
For immediate future avoiding destruction of life on Earth would be a noble and moral cause and I can see no reason why atheist scientists can't reach this same conclusion.
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 "warmongering jerk Harris" If you think Sam Harris is warmongering, I can only conclude that you are a complete and utter idiot.
TomFynn 1 week ago
@TomFynn
I watched enough of his videos.
He wants us to believe there is no such thing as free will and that we are all just machines and that there is no purpose to anything other than serving ourselves and that we should bomb nuclear power stations in Arab countries and this lecture is comple crap and has nothing to do with what science has to say about morality.
So I conclude that the 7185 thumbs up voters are the complete and utter idiots and I don't care what you think :P
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 There is no such thing as free will. fMRI scanners proved that. And if you think this video does not state what science as to say about morality, watch it again. Only this time listen.
As for the "bombing": everybody who is interested in what Sam *actually* said, read this: w w w . samharris . org / site / full_text / response-to-controversy2
TomFynn 1 week ago
@TomFynn How did fmri scans prove we have no free will? This is a very singular interpretation of some highly dubious experiments. That is, there is no scientific consensus on what such experiments really show and even less on what it means for free will. There isn't even any kind of consensus on what free will is supposed to be - you know, they thing you think we don't have. What we do know, is that no set of laws fully determine human behaviour/action.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@TomFynn
@"There is no such thing as free will. fMRI scanners proved that."
You really have to stop listening to Sam. He is an idiot.
The MRI scan showed that the idea is generated in subconscious and then presented for final arbitration by your rational mind. It did NOT show that you would be unable to consciously reject or revise that first impulse and anyone with a brain already knows that without an MRI scan.
Anyway I gotta delete this account and make a new one as the bots are on to it
PerdiePerduta4 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 "The MRI scan showed that the idea is generated in subconscious and then presented for final arbitration by your rational mind." Making stuff up is not an argument.
TomFynn 1 week ago
@TomFynn Then why do it? You're just making up much stronger interpretations of problematic experiments to suit your crackpot religious views.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@kkkaldav "crackpot religious views." I LOLd.
TomFynn 1 week ago
@TomFynn I lol'd at them as well.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@PerdiePerduta4 Do you REALLY believe Sam Harris is an idiot? or are you getting a little carried away in the argument? You're in danger of undermining what little credibility you have left here.
mrswinkyuk 1 week ago
@mrswinkyuk I doubt he's an idiot in the sense of having a IQ <20, but his views are very unsophisticated philosophically. They are certainly not, for example, taken seriously in academia.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@kkkaldav So Dawkins doesn't count as an academic?
mrswinkyuk 1 week ago