Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
There's something about scientific atheists and agnostics that have a tremendous amount of grounding, poise and confidence compared to the 'wild eyed' religious fanatics out there that hide behind a fake plastered smile. It's because guys like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and many others know that they are not living the lie that is religion, they are truly enlightened and intellectually emancipated human beings. Keep up the good work Sam.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Evil does not exist and hate only exists because people believe in evil. Please stop calling and thinking of things that are bad as "evil". It doesn't exist. I really wish that this thought comes through to as many people as possible. I don't want to see more unnecessary hate and suffering in the world.
Actually that religion wouldn't spread very well. Because the moment these kids study science they'd realize the 70 demon story is bullshit. They wouldn't spread it to THEIR kids, and the religion would be dead.
Fact is, rational thinking IS opposed to religion. Which is magic thinking.
If "moral intuitions" evolved then they are no more "right" than it is right for a person to have five fingers rather than four. This is the one area where atheists struggle. I've seen richard dawkins contradict himself by one second saying that physical truths are the only kind of truths, but a few seconds later saying there are also moral truths. That's the problem: without invoking something outside of pure reason and physical reality there is no way to defend any moral choice.
I think the strength of Sam Harris story is the fact that he critisises religion without (extensively) using natural sciences. For most people in the west (at least Europe) it is clear that religion fails on this terrain but doesn't explain why it can be bad. Harris tell's preciesely why religion can still be bad.
Historical sidenote: Slavery as talked about in the bible is not always the 'body ownership' as it appeard our history. (Slavery still isn't not a good thing however)
OMG where did they find this guy. I see his lips moving but i only hear diahrea. Jesus presented us with a dichotomy, the battle between good and evil. Yes that is devisive and i will stand by that belief and defend the good against the evil. According to you im a religious nut but let me ask you something mr harris, what is your definition of good and evil and do you have the courage of your convictions and where do you get these definitions. I for one got them from Jesus.
@iwannaseeu2be "...I for one got them from Jesus..." what? You mean when you saw him personally last week? If you believe in God, then dont watch these mate, these videos are for us to watch and enjoy. For us to come together and share ideas; you lot have churches and mosques, etc. Leave us be...
@iwannaseeu2be It absolutely WOULD sound like diarrhea to the uneducated or closeminded. I think religion is evil. I have reasons for that position. MY definition of evil involves acts or philosophies which cause SUFFERING. Where do acts and philosophies causing suffering come from? The bible, your silly religious certainty, blind convictions, refusal to embrace courageous skepticism... and the untold harm it causes. ya...thanks jesus. fail
Not all religions are good. You can not compare Christianity with Islam. Jesus was holy who spent his life doing good while Mohamed was a epileptic, sensual man having sex with many women and even with eight years girl.
@franciszek8D the character of jesus spent his life upholding the doctrines and power of a god who thought it acceptable that Lots daughters rape him and have children by him, who killed infants, women and children, who instructed others to do the same...thats not holy. When you call him holy you turn a blind eye to COUNTLESS passages of the bible...shame on you
Morality, a system, Evolution has, to flter GOOD traits, from BAD, in a group. Where's the mind cracking COSMIC QUESTION, in THAT ? Pretty self-explanitory, I would suggest.
Morality comes from social values. Understanding of what is good for the entire society is the key component for morality. Let me give an example. Cannibalism was popular during pre-historic era. At that time there were no Holy Books. But early humans realized that this is immoral, i.e. it is not good for the species. And bcoz of that moral conduct, our species survived.
If these religious people don't blow up our planet my causing Armageddon you'll see one day in the far future these Abrahamic religions would be a thing of the past just like Ancient Greek Religions and Persian Religions are today.
@Kan2209 "A good person will do good, a bad person will do bad. But for a good person to do evil, it takes religion"
A philosophy like religion will not be a harmless insanity. It has rules, mandates, scriptures, orders. You are obliged to follow those orders, even if you don't want to (in the past and sometimes today). So no, evil can come from your ideology.
@Darthmas2242 Religion does make good people do evil, but my point wsa, that religion will not make evil people do any significant good. If a person is good, he might find a religion which suits his good intent. WIth it comes the bad stuff obviously, that's why I quote that same phrase you quoted me a lot myself. Those good people might be pulled down and dragged in garbage ending in them doing evil whilst thinking they're being good.
Harris say's that without religion there would be no more suicide bombers. But then why have the secular Marxist Tamil Tigers carried out more suicide bombings than AL-Qaeda? And why were Japanese kamikazi's willing to fly planes into warships for the sake of their motherland?
@1blueshifted And of what relavence is that? A good deal of scientists...especially back in the earlier 1900's were religous people. But creating the technology for something and using them personally on other humans are two very different things. Regardless the technology for WMD's are great findings though they are used for the wrong reasons. But what is to say that the scientists who created such things weren't religous people? Maybe they were Christians...who knows.
he is right our morality come from social needs to us for us to survive as a speacies the proof of it the morals that was in the first century is not the same as today some disapear some appear or are modified as we continu to evolve as a society
Even tjhat would be twisted by some idiot like this, Christianity has been twisted since the beginning, see all the writings about false teachings. Isn't his talk of expanding moral boundaries an aspect of his religion. Slavery is not endorsed by the Bible, it is condone and called bad, and killing "sinners" went out with the resurrection. SO WHICH SIDE HERE IS BLOWING HATE SPEECH?
"From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!"
I was saying that Sam Harris is amazing in that regard, i.e. as an articulate and rational person in the public eye, but that Richard Dawkins is even more so.
Does that make sense? I know that the comment structure of YouTube doesn't really lend itself to a sustained narrative. :-P
I think Sam needs to dig deeper into WHY it is bad for people to exist with these delusions, because the argument of "but it makes people do good" leads to the fear of its absence. How can we overcome this without having good reasons that delusion is objectively bad? Neurological reasons, Psychological reasons, etc. need to be formulated to show people that living via placebo is dangerous.
This great APOSTASY is predicted in the Bible and must happen before the end of this wicked age will come. See: 2TH 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed.. 3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
Wow!! Did you guys hear?? Allah and the god of Abraham are going to get it on this Friday night in a steel cage match!! No rules fight!! Winner gets to be in charge of all of the suffering in the world! Both gods said they love to allow suffering and can't wait till Friday comes!!
yes they are at some point...that is why his laws are spread through many "religions" but there is only one truth..thank God there are many ways to get there
regardless of what i might view it as (atheism) i wasn't the one that passed a law saying its a religion. Oddly though....it comes from a system that looks at the facts (not being clouded by "the so called theistic-worship) & came to a conclusion that atheism is indeed a religion.
It's their problem if they don't open a dictionnary before making such claim, again, claiming something doesn't make it more real, i.e. god... Their idiocy...
Name calling.....is that what you are about? But i guess you don't have to worry about ever being punished if you can keep being anonymous & spout your hate..?
huh? ...i think you are reading something into what i wrote....i'm not trying to bend anything. I'm not even "trying" to be right. its just whats happening.
he speaks much about people who try to hold themselves up...his message is a wolf in sheeps cloathing...id rather have a God fearing man for neighbour than a man that fears nothing
laws are never in place (regardless of spiritual beliefs...or complete lack thereof) for the sensible lot....they are there for those that WOULD go berserk.
i never said anything about radicals...thats why athiests offend me, they are in your face radical followers...but you are probably pro choice and pro gay marriage so there is not uch you believe in except non belief...in other words you hold yourself to nothing
I prefer to "hold myself to nothing", which is a ridiculous straw-man argument, than to hold myself to fables and fairy tales as if they were true.
And since you're clearly a right-wing shill, how do you feel about the fact that Jesus specifically condoned socialism in the bible? Do you have a rambling, incoherent response for that?
i would agree with universal health care if governments were not so corrupt...and private health care should be an option...here in canada i can bring my dog in for an mri and pay for the service and have it the next day...but if i want one were looking at a 3 month wait...and your government was more corrupt under bush and is doing the same if not worse with obama...
Eh, Jesus showed complete apathy for politics I think. He never took a stand against the Roman government or anything.
I'm sure he'd be in favor of us all pooling our resources together voluntarily to care for each other, but he wouldn't try to get a government to force it to happen.
If Jesus showed an apathy for politics, why do christian fundamentalists do the exact opposite? They're striving to merge religion with politics..are they going against the teachings of their savior?
Uh, yeah. Do you realize that Jesus condemned religious leaders more than anyone in the gospels? "What Would Jesus Do?" Well, according to the gospels, he'd probably find a church leader to bash.
Why do they go the political route? My guess is they want to be in control, to be on top, to win it all. But I think sometimes the Biblical God don't want people that worship him to win. He seems to want them to be broken down and lose first, and THEN to win when all is hopeless.
DonDahab, I am puzzled; you say athiests offend you as we are "in your face radical followers.." Radical? Followers of what? The only thing atheists have in common is not sharing the supernatural beliefs of your religion or any of the other religions.
And why do you assume someone who is pro gay marriage "believes in nothing"? They believe in treating people decently, not victimising some as 2nd class citizens just because you don't like their orientation!
I totally agree. This DonDahab is a perfect example of a logicless brain washed blind follower. Thank you for being an intelligent human being & not a mindless follower.
DonDahab, if you'd rather have a god fearing neighbour, have mine:- the most unreasonable, uncharitable person I've ever known. Or the Christian lady across the road who invents malicious gossip, laughs as she boasts of petty stealing & selling counterfeit DVDs, and of logging into her children's Bebo accounts pretending to be them to bully other people's children
My other neighbours are like me; atheists who would never stoop so low as these women who, like you, think themselves superior
thats the worst of it...and overall religious people are better neighbours...you got lucky...it's what you dont know that is dangerous...but go on believing in the perverted leftists you call felow non belevers
Oh & atheist dont believe in nothing, they just dont believe in god. everything else is still based on real justice. Ur so dumb u believe atheist just walk around all day saying "Do what ever u want, i dont care, kill my kids & take my cash. i dont believe in god so what ur doing is okay". Good & evil still exist in a godless universe. lunatic
Nothing. There is no meaning behind it. You are endlessly searching for meaning that isnt there.Cant something be good for the sake of being good anymore? Not for you. Answer this. Do you believe we should stone to death all non virgins who marrie? If you dont then you're not following your own book. You pick and choose what you do and dont want to listen to. You cant call yourself religious and only believe in some of the book. If you do you're a sick lunatic who believes in anything he reads.
wrong non believer...if there is good and you said there was, then there is the sum of all good and i ask you of no faith to tell me what that would be
if they folowed there religion none of it would happen, but thats why alot of atheists dont...they want to excuse thier behaviour...like homosexuality...you go gay guys
People who follow christianity are taught to kill non virgins if they marrie. They are taught that a slave master can beat his slave to near death & not be punished. If anything the serial killers i named are more christian then you. Psalm 137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your little children & smashes them against a rock. Look it up if u dont believe me. lunatic
Hmm..... religious people are better neighbors? Really? Hmmm well, as long as you don't live next to a priest and you have little boys, or as long as you don't live next to a fanatic Muslim, or as long as you don't live next to extremist anti abortion religious nut with a gun!!! yeah, ok
@99minerkc Religious people are more boring than your average Atheist. They're afraid to do anything but walk the straight and narrow. They're like steak and eggs without salt and pepper. They're like vanilla ice cream in a shop that sells 100 flavors. They can't swear or flirt or dance with strangers without the fear of eternal damnation. And the concept of Jesus dying for their sins is a simple evolution of sacrificing goats (scapegoat) to wash away their sins. An historical fact.
"The most insidious boundary in our world is religion"?
I am in complete disagreeance. More wars and boundaries have been fought over from Socio-economical standpoints....money and greed vastly dominate over dogma by a longshot.
And if you ever ever got rid of all religion....do you honestly think mankind would stop fighting? (and the viewpoint of "that would make a good start" is complete garbage) quit pointing the finger and try "Being the change you wish to see in the world."
So we should continue believing in invisible men with magical powers simply because it might not be "the most insidious boundary in our world"?
Religious faith is like a contest to see who can lie to themselves the hardest. It's a crutch for people who are too weak-minded to think for themselves. You can keep religion. People with fully functioning brains don't need it.
whats the usefullnessof a neverending machine? Don't get me wrong I adore science perks. But science is simply a neverending tool..it'll never stop but what have you really gained besides more humanitarian assets? You don't gain a further understanding of morality, no further sense of community, no further establishment of love, no more understanding of the spiritual realm (though there may be a doohickey invented to look into this)
"a much better world" ..in "your" vision Sam..the ego rolls on
Sure you could spread a religion Sam...but it would not be based on the Word of God.....and oddly, atheism is now considered a "religion" in some states since it is a stance in terms of "religious viewpoint".
There are only 13 demons. It wasn't that long ago when Mr Harris wanted us to go back in the closet. I am glad he changed his mind. I would like to see him be more specific when he attacks the Bible. When my neighbor questioned my atheism and I defended myself by stating that there is proof that the old testament is false. He said they found the arch and that is proof that the Bible is true. When I convinced him that they didn't find the arch he wanted to know more about atheism. Yes we can!
believing is sometimes dangerous, some ppl beliefe that:
- saying "no" is impolite...
- sceptics are conspircy theorists
- conspiracy is theory
- believing in jesus means saving their souls
- praying for help is better than helping others
- its gods will if you shit your pants...yeah
better they start to realize that if theres a god, he is just the game host, the map creator watching the current network session until noone joints any more... ;)) greez
If a person believes something is true in this sense of "faith," their belief has become separated from facts and reality. Just as evidence plays no role in producing the belief, evidence, reason, and logic can't disprove the belief. A belief that is not dependent on reality also can't be refuted by reality.. It's also arguably why it's so easy for faith to become a motivation for committing unspeakable crimes.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
This guys is a big nothing. Took drugs, dropped out of Standford, walked the earth in search of an answer, returned for a BA, now just a student again, Never done shit. What a bunch of bullshit.
Harris is the best. He wrote his book before the other three "horsemen", too. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the others plenty but Harris is the most articulate and gets right to the heart of the matter best. He's also the most sympathetic, calm and collected.
Just discovered Sam Harris by browsing youtube. From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!
Yeah I have to agree 100%, although I think RIchard Dawkins is equally as eloquent and brilliant.
Christopher Hitchens is also VERY brilliant, but he's quite arrogant...so based on that, I think Harris and Dawkins are better suited to represent the atheist community as a whole, as they have been doing, and doing very well.
I think there is a role for all of them. Its actually more of a spectrum of attack on theology. Sam Harris' arguements are actually rather benign when compared to those of Dawkins and Hitchens, but they are still equally as brilliant and equally as useful.
Actually one of the better ways to cause the spread of an idea through society is to make it contraversial, it almost forces people to talk about ti. I think that is Hitchens role in the discussion of religion.
To be honest, i think you need Hitchens arrogance to some extent. because i think that people like Harris and Dawkins are sometimes to polite to people who really need to be treated with contempt. eg, when Dawkins debated that Wendy Wright moron, I think Hitchens would have been far better at putting her in her place
I always hear hitchens and hitchens comment alot, im not familiar with his work, is it worth to watch him on the debates? im a harris and dawkins fan.
Always calm and let's people finish when he's in a debate (the other person (religious) always bulldozers over him). he's absolutely a great person to represent atheism. :)
@theaccousticaddict I was responding to davepest's comment, "From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!"
I was responding that Sam Harris is excellent as a rational person in the public eye, but that I think Richard Dawkins is the best--i.e. the most rational person in the public eye that I have seen, as well as the most convincing speaker. Is that more understandable?
Even though I LOVE Hitchens and Dawkins, Harris just has this air of intellectual honesty and gently opens up blind people's eyes. Hitchens does it with alcohol. (pun intended)
@Assaultpredator So, so true. I also love Hitch and Dawkins - entertaining as well as relevant. But Harris is so much younger and wiser than Hitch, Dawkins, or Dennet when it comes to these topics. The logic Harris speaks blows me away every time. Were I religious and at least semi intelligent I wouldn't be able to sleep at night after listening to Harris. I wish Sam many good years.
"An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '.
I don't even know what you're talking about! And I don't think you do either.
You're going in circles now and I have work in the morning, I'm tired of explaining he same thing over and over. anyways you've been thoroughly refuted and your weak and hole filled arguments were fun to destroy. If I must I will get back to it in the morning, gnight.
At the moment God created the universe, surely He knew all that would happen throughout it's entire history. If so, then He is directly responsible for all our actions - we have no more choice in what we do than a clockwork toy does. If not, then we are part of some huge experiment which God set in motion without the faintest idea of what would happen - he sits back and observes as people die in terrible wars and plagues, ticking off boxes on His clipboard and writing notes.
I am saying that given that we could've responded quickly enough with jets, the use of something made for killing would be justified in it's use, even with the loss of the innocent lives on board, you would be saving thousands of others.
If god knows the future then we don't really have free will. If god set all of the universe into motion, including all the events leading to my actions, then free will really does not exist.
Wether or not they cryed discrimination if you could have used missiles for instances to take out the planes before they hit the building, preventing the deaths of thousands, this is fully justified use of a weapon used for killing.
Islam is a religon, not muslim. Wow you are getting pretty bad! Anyways there was of course the crusades, inquistions and numerous other wars propelled by religion. Christianity displays constant intolerance for others. Especially other beliefs.
What makes the Christian god more possible then any other god out there from the hundreds of religions who have scriptures and "eyewitnesses" as well. It's ridiculous.
You already refuted yourself on this one. You got destroyed so now you are grasping at straws.
As I said the knowledge to create a sword isn't evil, it's how you use it. Certainly a bomb is used to kill people but if you could use one on the people who comitted the acts on 9/11 you certainly would because it would save thousands of lives.
"I didn't use that word, I quoted it. From historian R. Hickman who expressed the influence of Darwinism on Hitler. So, you lose that one. :)"
No actually you don't, and claiming victory like that just makes you look desperate and pathetic to have something in your weak arguments. What does Hitler accepting evolution have to do with anything? Most of the educated world accepts evolution, does that mean they are embracing insane ideologies? No.
You're right, the problem isn't god because god doesn't exist. Right now the middle east is divided because of religion. You have Muslims killing Christians and Jews, Jews killing muslims.
You have people who think they will be granted a specific reward for commiting horrible acts against innocents.
"What is the purpose of nuclear weapons? What are is it's function? Can a nuclear weapon not be used to kill? A sword can be used to block, and not be used to kill. But can a nuclear weapon do the same"
Man your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker. A sword can be USED to block but it was MADE to kill, you just keep refuting yourself this is hilarious! A wasn't made with sharp edges and point to block, it was made to pierce through a persons body or cut them apart...KILL them.
Evolutionary ideas? Haha, you are using the word out of context. An evolutionary idea is different from the scientific theory of evolution, this is biology not politics.
Indeed I do admire Darwin he was a smart man that brought great advances to the understanding of our world. Religion has not.
It's funny looking at statistics, countries that have a majority of population that accept evolution, also tend to have very good education and less crime. Like Japan and Sweden for example.
"The intentions of a blacksmith is to create a weapon to defend ones self with."
And other countries have nuclear weapons, having your own is a form of defense. Swords were not made with the intention of defense, they were made to kill a person wether in defense or offense. Simply put swords were made to kill people. You just prove my point further, it's not the knowledge of something used in it's creation that makes it evil, it's HOW you use it. Your argument very much falls apart.
Wrong, science is just a system for acquiring knowledge. Because people used to kill each other with swords does that make blacksmithing evil? No it's the decision to use the sword on an innocent that makes it evil, not the knowledge used in its creation. Your argument really just falls apart.
Darwin was an amazing scientists and it was his dedicated work that helped bring us to where we are now, if you knew anything about science you would respect him for what he did but you know nothing.
If you've read anything into history you might actually understand the decision to use the atomic bomb. You understand another country would have built one if we didn't? This all goes back to your false association of science with evil though.
If Darwinism is a communist ideology then that means evolution is a communist ideology, it's impossible to associate a scientific theory with a political ideology...your argument has so many holes in it. Especially it being a "racist one".
You keep making assertions but you haven't backed them up one bit, you just keep making them.
Yes it was very logical to use that bomb, the Japanese were beat and they knew it, but they weren't going to surrender.
False association. An assertion that you certainly can't back up, you're the one who's in denial here. Darwinism isn't a communist ideology, are you dense? Hiroshima actually prevented the deaths of thousands of American lives and a lot more Japanese lives, the Japanese would've fought for every bloody square inch. Do you even think about that ? No because your argument is dense and lacks any logic to it.
Yes of course, anyone can make up a word. Guess I'm a newtonist and gravitationalist to, oh well.
Is this the best that you can do, intent on proving what a child you are and how you lack intellecutal capacity to actually make any good points? How sad for you.
"By the way it was science that gave us the Nuclear bomb, not religion. Experiments done on humans for the sake of science. See, the contradiction? I do."
No I don't. Science also gave us medicine and longer lifespans, it gave us technology that makes communication, learning and brings more comfort to our lives. It's saved literally billions of childrens lives because of vaccines, treatments.
Because science can create a nuclear bomb doesn't make it evil, the person who uses it does.
No such thing as darwinism, don't make up words. Just like there isn't Einsteinism or Newtonism.
Mao, Stalin are bad arguments, lack of belief in a god isn't why they killed so many people it was communist ideology and totalitarianism. Communism is similar to religion itself.
On the other hand you can witness what religion has done in the middle east, people dying over it on a daily basis. You don't see atheists blowing themselve sup or shooting people.
Because people have opinions, and Sam Harris expresses his in an intelligent, respectful and thoughtful way. Sorry but religion is not exempt from criticism, especially when it affects those who have nothing to do with it.
Sams point is to take out the taboo with religion in being able to have open discussions about it and its negative affect on our civilization and society. He's trying to open conversation in a manner that's productive and expansive of the mind.
Thank you for posting this, FFreeThinker.
writersblock26 1 day ago
i enjoyed this vid
bribribri56 6 days ago
you have some great stuff here
distractionxx 1 week ago
Sam, you make a lot of sense. We all have brains and that should tell us whats right and wrong. Keep up the good work.
jasred 3 weeks ago
Sam we love you. You are so smart and so sexy.
veronicats100 2 months ago
2:03. Boom.
Verichai 3 months ago
Some surprisingly good points, considering he's an atheist. Also looks like Ben Stiller.
ProtestantsRUs 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
There's something about scientific atheists and agnostics that have a tremendous amount of grounding, poise and confidence compared to the 'wild eyed' religious fanatics out there that hide behind a fake plastered smile. It's because guys like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and many others know that they are not living the lie that is religion, they are truly enlightened and intellectually emancipated human beings. Keep up the good work Sam.
MrSmashman1981 3 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 3 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evil does not exist and hate only exists because people believe in evil. Please stop calling and thinking of things that are bad as "evil". It doesn't exist. I really wish that this thought comes through to as many people as possible. I don't want to see more unnecessary hate and suffering in the world.
mamikodis 6 months ago
Actually that religion wouldn't spread very well. Because the moment these kids study science they'd realize the 70 demon story is bullshit. They wouldn't spread it to THEIR kids, and the religion would be dead.
Fact is, rational thinking IS opposed to religion. Which is magic thinking.
TheSkunkCat 6 months ago 10
@TheSkunkCat 70 demons? Is that what you heard?
TheDrunkenAtheist 3 months ago
I love how he uses "ingroup". Makes me feel useful as a socioligist:D
AxeHomeless 7 months ago
this is way off-topic but...i wanna make out with sam harris
jumpyourbone 7 months ago 3
Religion that helps is true, religion that hinders is not.
TheColaGoodfellow 8 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
That's a convenient definition of religion. But it's a false definition of "true."
brajamtho757 8 months ago
If "moral intuitions" evolved then they are no more "right" than it is right for a person to have five fingers rather than four. This is the one area where atheists struggle. I've seen richard dawkins contradict himself by one second saying that physical truths are the only kind of truths, but a few seconds later saying there are also moral truths. That's the problem: without invoking something outside of pure reason and physical reality there is no way to defend any moral choice.
MagicDolphinGO 8 months ago
I think the strength of Sam Harris story is the fact that he critisises religion without (extensively) using natural sciences. For most people in the west (at least Europe) it is clear that religion fails on this terrain but doesn't explain why it can be bad. Harris tell's preciesely why religion can still be bad.
Historical sidenote: Slavery as talked about in the bible is not always the 'body ownership' as it appeard our history. (Slavery still isn't not a good thing however)
Math2Anton 9 months ago
i love how calm and rational he is...we need more of people like him and less polemical angry people
dandarth1 10 months ago 2
OMG where did they find this guy. I see his lips moving but i only hear diahrea. Jesus presented us with a dichotomy, the battle between good and evil. Yes that is devisive and i will stand by that belief and defend the good against the evil. According to you im a religious nut but let me ask you something mr harris, what is your definition of good and evil and do you have the courage of your convictions and where do you get these definitions. I for one got them from Jesus.
iwannaseeu2be 11 months ago
@iwannaseeu2be Dude, are you for real?
MisterXnisse 10 months ago
@iwannaseeu2be "...I for one got them from Jesus..." what? You mean when you saw him personally last week? If you believe in God, then dont watch these mate, these videos are for us to watch and enjoy. For us to come together and share ideas; you lot have churches and mosques, etc. Leave us be...
NebojsaAlexandrovsk 10 months ago
@iwannaseeu2be It absolutely WOULD sound like diarrhea to the uneducated or closeminded. I think religion is evil. I have reasons for that position. MY definition of evil involves acts or philosophies which cause SUFFERING. Where do acts and philosophies causing suffering come from? The bible, your silly religious certainty, blind convictions, refusal to embrace courageous skepticism... and the untold harm it causes. ya...thanks jesus. fail
jns124able 10 months ago
Not all religions are good. You can not compare Christianity with Islam. Jesus was holy who spent his life doing good while Mohamed was a epileptic, sensual man having sex with many women and even with eight years girl.
franciszek8D 11 months ago
@franciszek8D the character of jesus spent his life upholding the doctrines and power of a god who thought it acceptable that Lots daughters rape him and have children by him, who killed infants, women and children, who instructed others to do the same...thats not holy. When you call him holy you turn a blind eye to COUNTLESS passages of the bible...shame on you
jns124able 10 months ago
Morality, a system, Evolution has, to flter GOOD traits, from BAD, in a group. Where's the mind cracking COSMIC QUESTION, in THAT ? Pretty self-explanitory, I would suggest.
evidenceonly 1 year ago
Morality comes from social values. Understanding of what is good for the entire society is the key component for morality. Let me give an example. Cannibalism was popular during pre-historic era. At that time there were no Holy Books. But early humans realized that this is immoral, i.e. it is not good for the species. And bcoz of that moral conduct, our species survived.
MrHolmboe 1 year ago
If these religious people don't blow up our planet my causing Armageddon you'll see one day in the far future these Abrahamic religions would be a thing of the past just like Ancient Greek Religions and Persian Religions are today.
muzammilali007 1 year ago
A person is good. he wants to do good. He finds a philosophy for his good, and thus he does good, and the philosophy doesn't do anything.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 "A good person will do good, a bad person will do bad. But for a good person to do evil, it takes religion"
A philosophy like religion will not be a harmless insanity. It has rules, mandates, scriptures, orders. You are obliged to follow those orders, even if you don't want to (in the past and sometimes today). So no, evil can come from your ideology.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
@Darthmas2242 Religion does make good people do evil, but my point wsa, that religion will not make evil people do any significant good. If a person is good, he might find a religion which suits his good intent. WIth it comes the bad stuff obviously, that's why I quote that same phrase you quoted me a lot myself. Those good people might be pulled down and dragged in garbage ending in them doing evil whilst thinking they're being good.
Good people are good without religion.
Kan2209 1 year ago
@Kan2209 Ahhhh, I misunderstood your comment. Well, at least people can understand it now.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
Scripture is clear, it supports slavery!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let that fact detonate in your brain for a second.
TheDrunkenAtheist 1 year ago
Harris say's that without religion there would be no more suicide bombers. But then why have the secular Marxist Tamil Tigers carried out more suicide bombings than AL-Qaeda? And why were Japanese kamikazi's willing to fly planes into warships for the sake of their motherland?
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
scientsts and mathematicians created weopons of mass destruction!
1blueshifted 1 year ago
@1blueshifted And of what relavence is that? A good deal of scientists...especially back in the earlier 1900's were religous people. But creating the technology for something and using them personally on other humans are two very different things. Regardless the technology for WMD's are great findings though they are used for the wrong reasons. But what is to say that the scientists who created such things weren't religous people? Maybe they were Christians...who knows.
asdfbobbyasdf 1 year ago
@1blueshifted ...and the religious are the ones who created the need for them!!!
yourjunk420 1 year ago
he is right our morality come from social needs to us for us to survive as a speacies the proof of it the morals that was in the first century is not the same as today some disapear some appear or are modified as we continu to evolve as a society
mystisme 1 year ago
holy books bursting with cruelty.
subbtopp 1 year ago
17 demons? blasphemy!. there are only 16 demons. believe and repent, or pieowle will eat your testicles for all eternity.
oeppevnvpeb 1 year ago 17
@oeppevnvpeb Atheist! Believing in one less demon!
ReX342 5 months ago
@oeppevnvpeb surely not ALL of them?!?!?!
ratchet600 5 months ago
@oeppevnvpeb What about the people who like people to eat their testies? I've heard it's the bee's knees.
Atchuu2004 3 months ago
Even tjhat would be twisted by some idiot like this, Christianity has been twisted since the beginning, see all the writings about false teachings. Isn't his talk of expanding moral boundaries an aspect of his religion. Slavery is not endorsed by the Bible, it is condone and called bad, and killing "sinners" went out with the resurrection. SO WHICH SIDE HERE IS BLOWING HATE SPEECH?
daddyg321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theaccousticaddict: davepest said,
"From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!"
I was saying that Sam Harris is amazing in that regard, i.e. as an articulate and rational person in the public eye, but that Richard Dawkins is even more so.
Does that make sense? I know that the comment structure of YouTube doesn't really lend itself to a sustained narrative. :-P
KaraRvn 1 year ago
I think Sam needs to dig deeper into WHY it is bad for people to exist with these delusions, because the argument of "but it makes people do good" leads to the fear of its absence. How can we overcome this without having good reasons that delusion is objectively bad? Neurological reasons, Psychological reasons, etc. need to be formulated to show people that living via placebo is dangerous.
merrickwt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This great APOSTASY is predicted in the Bible and must happen before the end of this wicked age will come. See: 2TH 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed.. 3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
filchedworld 2 years ago
Wow!! Did you guys hear?? Allah and the god of Abraham are going to get it on this Friday night in a steel cage match!! No rules fight!! Winner gets to be in charge of all of the suffering in the world! Both gods said they love to allow suffering and can't wait till Friday comes!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
You want something useful? I CLAIM G-rated shock value to be useful, but since I'm a fundamentalist, I refuse to make it a religion.
theboombody 2 years ago
"by 17 demons" ahaha awesome.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
"Thou shalt not kill" is such a pathetic commandment because "God" breaks his own rule. LOL! Pathetic.
ur2bzl81 2 years ago
this man wants to be the leader of a religious cult called atheism
DonDahab 2 years ago
All religions are cults.
epanek 2 years ago 2
yes they are at some point...that is why his laws are spread through many "religions" but there is only one truth..thank God there are many ways to get there
DonDahab 2 years ago
You can't call atheism cult nor religion... It's like once said, saying bald is a hair color...
Acrimonator 2 years ago 2
is that why in some states its been classified as a religion?
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
That doesn't make it more true that the lack of religion can't be called religion...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
regardless of what i might view it as (atheism) i wasn't the one that passed a law saying its a religion. Oddly though....it comes from a system that looks at the facts (not being clouded by "the so called theistic-worship) & came to a conclusion that atheism is indeed a religion.
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
It's their problem if they don't open a dictionnary before making such claim, again, claiming something doesn't make it more real, i.e. god... Their idiocy...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
Making gravity unconstitutionnal won't make you fly...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
Name calling.....is that what you are about? But i guess you don't have to worry about ever being punished if you can keep being anonymous & spout your hate..?
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
LOL... Reality shifting alert ! ! !
Acrimonator 2 years ago
you know the system i was referring to was the courts of law.......yeah. Who did you think i was speaking about?
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
In some state you say, I guess it's in Texas and other fundies majority states... So, yes, reality shifts in those, like in the creation museum...
BTW, it's not a federal decision...
Trying to bend reality to your convenience won't make you right...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
huh? ...i think you are reading something into what i wrote....i'm not trying to bend anything. I'm not even "trying" to be right. its just whats happening.
Whats with the finger pointing anyway?
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
he speaks much about people who try to hold themselves up...his message is a wolf in sheeps cloathing...id rather have a God fearing man for neighbour than a man that fears nothing
DonDahab 2 years ago
Surely because you can't imagine people acting decently without fear of punishment...
You just show that without that fear of punishment you'd go berserk, what most atheists don't do...
Acrimonator 2 years ago 2
laws are never in place (regardless of spiritual beliefs...or complete lack thereof) for the sensible lot....they are there for those that WOULD go berserk.
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
"id rather have a god fearing man for a neighbour than a man that fears nothing"
Yes, I'm sure you'd be more comfortable living next to some jihadi muslims. Don't troll videos that you're too mentally deficient to understand.
VesusSheist 2 years ago 3
i never said anything about radicals...thats why athiests offend me, they are in your face radical followers...but you are probably pro choice and pro gay marriage so there is not uch you believe in except non belief...in other words you hold yourself to nothing
DonDahab 2 years ago
I prefer to "hold myself to nothing", which is a ridiculous straw-man argument, than to hold myself to fables and fairy tales as if they were true.
And since you're clearly a right-wing shill, how do you feel about the fact that Jesus specifically condoned socialism in the bible? Do you have a rambling, incoherent response for that?
VesusSheist 2 years ago 3
i guess jesus would not be happy with obama then?
whomever jesus was i think we can agree he only wanted people to live decent lives and be good to one another
DonDahab 2 years ago
Yes I agree that Jesus would want us to live decent lives and respect each other. I do my best to live that way and I'm an atheist.
That's why Jesus would likely be in favor of things like universal health care.
VesusSheist 2 years ago
i would agree with universal health care if governments were not so corrupt...and private health care should be an option...here in canada i can bring my dog in for an mri and pay for the service and have it the next day...but if i want one were looking at a 3 month wait...and your government was more corrupt under bush and is doing the same if not worse with obama...
DonDahab 2 years ago
@VesusSheist
Eh, Jesus showed complete apathy for politics I think. He never took a stand against the Roman government or anything.
I'm sure he'd be in favor of us all pooling our resources together voluntarily to care for each other, but he wouldn't try to get a government to force it to happen.
theboombody 2 years ago
If Jesus showed an apathy for politics, why do christian fundamentalists do the exact opposite? They're striving to merge religion with politics..are they going against the teachings of their savior?
VesusSheist 2 years ago
@VesusSheist
Uh, yeah. Do you realize that Jesus condemned religious leaders more than anyone in the gospels? "What Would Jesus Do?" Well, according to the gospels, he'd probably find a church leader to bash.
Why do they go the political route? My guess is they want to be in control, to be on top, to win it all. But I think sometimes the Biblical God don't want people that worship him to win. He seems to want them to be broken down and lose first, and THEN to win when all is hopeless.
theboombody 2 years ago
DonDahab, I am puzzled; you say athiests offend you as we are "in your face radical followers.." Radical? Followers of what? The only thing atheists have in common is not sharing the supernatural beliefs of your religion or any of the other religions.
And why do you assume someone who is pro gay marriage "believes in nothing"? They believe in treating people decently, not victimising some as 2nd class citizens just because you don't like their orientation!
First stone, anyone?
queenastilon 2 years ago
I totally agree. This DonDahab is a perfect example of a logicless brain washed blind follower. Thank you for being an intelligent human being & not a mindless follower.
mgs6ps3 2 years ago 2
DonDahab, if you'd rather have a god fearing neighbour, have mine:- the most unreasonable, uncharitable person I've ever known. Or the Christian lady across the road who invents malicious gossip, laughs as she boasts of petty stealing & selling counterfeit DVDs, and of logging into her children's Bebo accounts pretending to be them to bully other people's children
My other neighbours are like me; atheists who would never stoop so low as these women who, like you, think themselves superior
queenastilon 2 years ago
thats the worst of it...and overall religious people are better neighbours...you got lucky...it's what you dont know that is dangerous...but go on believing in the perverted leftists you call felow non belevers
DonDahab 2 years ago
Jeffery Dahmer BTK and John Wayne Gacy were religious. You want them living next to you? Go right ahead
mgs6ps3 2 years ago
just imagine how bad it would be if we were all believers in nothing...pinheads
DonDahab 2 years ago
Oh & atheist dont believe in nothing, they just dont believe in god. everything else is still based on real justice. Ur so dumb u believe atheist just walk around all day saying "Do what ever u want, i dont care, kill my kids & take my cash. i dont believe in god so what ur doing is okay". Good & evil still exist in a godless universe. lunatic
mgs6ps3 2 years ago 3
what is the sum of all good genius
DonDahab 2 years ago
Nothing. There is no meaning behind it. You are endlessly searching for meaning that isnt there.Cant something be good for the sake of being good anymore? Not for you. Answer this. Do you believe we should stone to death all non virgins who marrie? If you dont then you're not following your own book. You pick and choose what you do and dont want to listen to. You cant call yourself religious and only believe in some of the book. If you do you're a sick lunatic who believes in anything he reads.
mgs6ps3 2 years ago
wrong non believer...if there is good and you said there was, then there is the sum of all good and i ask you of no faith to tell me what that would be
DonDahab 2 years ago
@DonDahab - "what is the sum of all good genius."
Video response => watch?v=agTHok-W_PI
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
@DonDahab
Good by default has no sum. It always adds up, and there is no limit to it. If there was, we would stop evolving.
Example: That computer is "good enough".
Just saving one chold in that fire is "good enough" for a fireman.
Trying to add it up is to add a limit to the good someone can do, which is a typically theist view (since only God is infinitely good)
Xgya2000 1 year ago
if they folowed there religion none of it would happen, but thats why alot of atheists dont...they want to excuse thier behaviour...like homosexuality...you go gay guys
DonDahab 2 years ago
People who follow christianity are taught to kill non virgins if they marrie. They are taught that a slave master can beat his slave to near death & not be punished. If anything the serial killers i named are more christian then you. Psalm 137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your little children & smashes them against a rock. Look it up if u dont believe me. lunatic
mgs6ps3 2 years ago
Hmm..... religious people are better neighbors? Really? Hmmm well, as long as you don't live next to a priest and you have little boys, or as long as you don't live next to a fanatic Muslim, or as long as you don't live next to extremist anti abortion religious nut with a gun!!! yeah, ok
99minerkc 2 years ago 60
@99minerkc Well the truth is that religious people are lovely neighbors... as long as you're religious. Specifically, of their religion.
Otherwise, you're a monster.
Seraph821 7 months ago 2
@99minerkc Religious people are more boring than your average Atheist. They're afraid to do anything but walk the straight and narrow. They're like steak and eggs without salt and pepper. They're like vanilla ice cream in a shop that sells 100 flavors. They can't swear or flirt or dance with strangers without the fear of eternal damnation. And the concept of Jesus dying for their sins is a simple evolution of sacrificing goats (scapegoat) to wash away their sins. An historical fact.
warren52nz 7 months ago
"The most insidious boundary in our world is religion"?
I am in complete disagreeance. More wars and boundaries have been fought over from Socio-economical standpoints....money and greed vastly dominate over dogma by a longshot.
And if you ever ever got rid of all religion....do you honestly think mankind would stop fighting? (and the viewpoint of "that would make a good start" is complete garbage) quit pointing the finger and try "Being the change you wish to see in the world."
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
So we should continue believing in invisible men with magical powers simply because it might not be "the most insidious boundary in our world"?
Religious faith is like a contest to see who can lie to themselves the hardest. It's a crutch for people who are too weak-minded to think for themselves. You can keep religion. People with fully functioning brains don't need it.
VesusSheist 2 years ago 2
Assumption: invisible men.
Ridicule: magical powers.
Accusation: religious faith, a lie to oneself
Ridicule: a crutch
Falsehood: for weak-minded people
Debasing: people with fully-functioning brains don't need it.
Is that your truths?
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
@hexusziggurat
I think you'll find my, "Do Atheists Have Magical Powers?" video interesting. False, but interesting.
theboombody 2 years ago
whats the usefullnessof a neverending machine? Don't get me wrong I adore science perks. But science is simply a neverending tool..it'll never stop but what have you really gained besides more humanitarian assets? You don't gain a further understanding of morality, no further sense of community, no further establishment of love, no more understanding of the spiritual realm (though there may be a doohickey invented to look into this)
"a much better world" ..in "your" vision Sam..the ego rolls on
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
Sure you could spread a religion Sam...but it would not be based on the Word of God.....and oddly, atheism is now considered a "religion" in some states since it is a stance in terms of "religious viewpoint".
hexusziggurat 2 years ago
There are only 13 demons. It wasn't that long ago when Mr Harris wanted us to go back in the closet. I am glad he changed his mind. I would like to see him be more specific when he attacks the Bible. When my neighbor questioned my atheism and I defended myself by stating that there is proof that the old testament is false. He said they found the arch and that is proof that the Bible is true. When I convinced him that they didn't find the arch he wanted to know more about atheism. Yes we can!
Eugensdiet 2 years ago
nice
CntrBrdr 2 years ago
believing is sometimes dangerous, some ppl beliefe that:
- saying "no" is impolite...
- sceptics are conspircy theorists
- conspiracy is theory
- believing in jesus means saving their souls
- praying for help is better than helping others
- its gods will if you shit your pants...yeah
better they start to realize that if theres a god, he is just the game host, the map creator watching the current network session until noone joints any more... ;)) greez
konradu1980 2 years ago 2
If a person believes something is true in this sense of "faith," their belief has become separated from facts and reality. Just as evidence plays no role in producing the belief, evidence, reason, and logic can't disprove the belief. A belief that is not dependent on reality also can't be refuted by reality.. It's also arguably why it's so easy for faith to become a motivation for committing unspeakable crimes.
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guys is a big nothing. Took drugs, dropped out of Standford, walked the earth in search of an answer, returned for a BA, now just a student again, Never done shit. What a bunch of bullshit.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
Harris is the best. He wrote his book before the other three "horsemen", too. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the others plenty but Harris is the most articulate and gets right to the heart of the matter best. He's also the most sympathetic, calm and collected.
imbalancingact 2 years ago 6
I agree!
A bit of Hitchens now and then makes for a nice "balancing act" though. :)
Couldn't resist the pun.
no flame intended.
TalladegaTom 2 years ago
Sam's new religon might be closer to the truth than you think.
dannukesem 2 years ago
Just discovered Sam Harris by browsing youtube. From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!
davepest 2 years ago 72
Yeah I have to agree 100%, although I think RIchard Dawkins is equally as eloquent and brilliant.
Christopher Hitchens is also VERY brilliant, but he's quite arrogant...so based on that, I think Harris and Dawkins are better suited to represent the atheist community as a whole, as they have been doing, and doing very well.
siciliano29 2 years ago
I think there is a role for all of them. Its actually more of a spectrum of attack on theology. Sam Harris' arguements are actually rather benign when compared to those of Dawkins and Hitchens, but they are still equally as brilliant and equally as useful.
Actually one of the better ways to cause the spread of an idea through society is to make it contraversial, it almost forces people to talk about ti. I think that is Hitchens role in the discussion of religion.
biomanwin 2 years ago 3
To be honest, i think you need Hitchens arrogance to some extent. because i think that people like Harris and Dawkins are sometimes to polite to people who really need to be treated with contempt. eg, when Dawkins debated that Wendy Wright moron, I think Hitchens would have been far better at putting her in her place
opensourcethong 2 years ago
I always hear hitchens and hitchens comment alot, im not familiar with his work, is it worth to watch him on the debates? im a harris and dawkins fan.
Ryosuke1208 2 years ago
Always calm and let's people finish when he's in a debate (the other person (religious) always bulldozers over him). he's absolutely a great person to represent atheism. :)
RhapsodyOfHammerfall 2 years ago 2
@davepest He is excellent in terms of rational thinking, but I would have to say that Richard Dawkins is the best I've seen.
KaraRvn 1 year ago
@KaraRvn Best in what way????
theaccousticaddict 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theaccousticaddict I was responding to davepest's comment, "From what I have seen Sam Harris is by far the best person in the public eye who can articulate rational thinking. absolutely brilliant!"
I was responding that Sam Harris is excellent as a rational person in the public eye, but that I think Richard Dawkins is the best--i.e. the most rational person in the public eye that I have seen, as well as the most convincing speaker. Is that more understandable?
KaraRvn 1 year ago
@davepest
He is the ambassador of logic.
Even though I LOVE Hitchens and Dawkins, Harris just has this air of intellectual honesty and gently opens up blind people's eyes. Hitchens does it with alcohol. (pun intended)
Assaultpredator 1 year ago
@Assaultpredator So, so true. I also love Hitch and Dawkins - entertaining as well as relevant. But Harris is so much younger and wiser than Hitch, Dawkins, or Dennet when it comes to these topics. The logic Harris speaks blows me away every time. Were I religious and at least semi intelligent I wouldn't be able to sleep at night after listening to Harris. I wish Sam many good years.
Ozmiumic 1 year ago
You're talking about "God". What's that??
What are you talking about??
"An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '.
I don't even know what you're talking about! And I don't think you do either.
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
You're going in circles now and I have work in the morning, I'm tired of explaining he same thing over and over. anyways you've been thoroughly refuted and your weak and hole filled arguments were fun to destroy. If I must I will get back to it in the morning, gnight.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
At the moment God created the universe, surely He knew all that would happen throughout it's entire history. If so, then He is directly responsible for all our actions - we have no more choice in what we do than a clockwork toy does. If not, then we are part of some huge experiment which God set in motion without the faintest idea of what would happen - he sits back and observes as people die in terrible wars and plagues, ticking off boxes on His clipboard and writing notes.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
I am saying that given that we could've responded quickly enough with jets, the use of something made for killing would be justified in it's use, even with the loss of the innocent lives on board, you would be saving thousands of others.
If god knows the future then we don't really have free will. If god set all of the universe into motion, including all the events leading to my actions, then free will really does not exist.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"the world would cry DISCRIMINATION."
Wether or not they cryed discrimination if you could have used missiles for instances to take out the planes before they hit the building, preventing the deaths of thousands, this is fully justified use of a weapon used for killing.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Islam is a religon, not muslim. Wow you are getting pretty bad! Anyways there was of course the crusades, inquistions and numerous other wars propelled by religion. Christianity displays constant intolerance for others. Especially other beliefs.
What makes the Christian god more possible then any other god out there from the hundreds of religions who have scriptures and "eyewitnesses" as well. It's ridiculous.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
You already refuted yourself on this one. You got destroyed so now you are grasping at straws.
As I said the knowledge to create a sword isn't evil, it's how you use it. Certainly a bomb is used to kill people but if you could use one on the people who comitted the acts on 9/11 you certainly would because it would save thousands of lives.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"I didn't use that word, I quoted it. From historian R. Hickman who expressed the influence of Darwinism on Hitler. So, you lose that one. :)"
No actually you don't, and claiming victory like that just makes you look desperate and pathetic to have something in your weak arguments. What does Hitler accepting evolution have to do with anything? Most of the educated world accepts evolution, does that mean they are embracing insane ideologies? No.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
You're right, the problem isn't god because god doesn't exist. Right now the middle east is divided because of religion. You have Muslims killing Christians and Jews, Jews killing muslims.
You have people who think they will be granted a specific reward for commiting horrible acts against innocents.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"What is the purpose of nuclear weapons? What are is it's function? Can a nuclear weapon not be used to kill? A sword can be used to block, and not be used to kill. But can a nuclear weapon do the same"
Man your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker. A sword can be USED to block but it was MADE to kill, you just keep refuting yourself this is hilarious! A wasn't made with sharp edges and point to block, it was made to pierce through a persons body or cut them apart...KILL them.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Evolutionary ideas? Haha, you are using the word out of context. An evolutionary idea is different from the scientific theory of evolution, this is biology not politics.
Indeed I do admire Darwin he was a smart man that brought great advances to the understanding of our world. Religion has not.
It's funny looking at statistics, countries that have a majority of population that accept evolution, also tend to have very good education and less crime. Like Japan and Sweden for example.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"The intentions of a blacksmith is to create a weapon to defend ones self with."
And other countries have nuclear weapons, having your own is a form of defense. Swords were not made with the intention of defense, they were made to kill a person wether in defense or offense. Simply put swords were made to kill people. You just prove my point further, it's not the knowledge of something used in it's creation that makes it evil, it's HOW you use it. Your argument very much falls apart.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Wrong, science is just a system for acquiring knowledge. Because people used to kill each other with swords does that make blacksmithing evil? No it's the decision to use the sword on an innocent that makes it evil, not the knowledge used in its creation. Your argument really just falls apart.
Darwin was an amazing scientists and it was his dedicated work that helped bring us to where we are now, if you knew anything about science you would respect him for what he did but you know nothing.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
If you've read anything into history you might actually understand the decision to use the atomic bomb. You understand another country would have built one if we didn't? This all goes back to your false association of science with evil though.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
If Darwinism is a communist ideology then that means evolution is a communist ideology, it's impossible to associate a scientific theory with a political ideology...your argument has so many holes in it. Especially it being a "racist one".
You keep making assertions but you haven't backed them up one bit, you just keep making them.
Yes it was very logical to use that bomb, the Japanese were beat and they knew it, but they weren't going to surrender.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Ok so I am a darwinist. My guess is you don't accept evolution, which isn't surprising for someone as ignorant as you.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"Now, you're just throwing out personal attacks out your butt. You're making a sad and desperate attempt. Very desperate. "
So far all you've done is prove yourself ignorant, please continue to do so it's amusing.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
False association. An assertion that you certainly can't back up, you're the one who's in denial here. Darwinism isn't a communist ideology, are you dense? Hiroshima actually prevented the deaths of thousands of American lives and a lot more Japanese lives, the Japanese would've fought for every bloody square inch. Do you even think about that ? No because your argument is dense and lacks any logic to it.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Yes of course, anyone can make up a word. Guess I'm a newtonist and gravitationalist to, oh well.
Is this the best that you can do, intent on proving what a child you are and how you lack intellecutal capacity to actually make any good points? How sad for you.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
"By the way it was science that gave us the Nuclear bomb, not religion. Experiments done on humans for the sake of science. See, the contradiction? I do."
No I don't. Science also gave us medicine and longer lifespans, it gave us technology that makes communication, learning and brings more comfort to our lives. It's saved literally billions of childrens lives because of vaccines, treatments.
Because science can create a nuclear bomb doesn't make it evil, the person who uses it does.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
No such thing as darwinism, don't make up words. Just like there isn't Einsteinism or Newtonism.
Mao, Stalin are bad arguments, lack of belief in a god isn't why they killed so many people it was communist ideology and totalitarianism. Communism is similar to religion itself.
On the other hand you can witness what religion has done in the middle east, people dying over it on a daily basis. You don't see atheists blowing themselve sup or shooting people.
refuckulate420 2 years ago
Because people have opinions, and Sam Harris expresses his in an intelligent, respectful and thoughtful way. Sorry but religion is not exempt from criticism, especially when it affects those who have nothing to do with it.
Sams point is to take out the taboo with religion in being able to have open discussions about it and its negative affect on our civilization and society. He's trying to open conversation in a manner that's productive and expansive of the mind.
refuckulate420 2 years ago