Genesis is informative you fuck. It is not empircal. Its value is not in being empirical but in speaking to the passions, the soul, and the imagination. Just because you are an ignorant pig who doesn't see the value in these texts does not mean they have no value. Learn to read before you speak you shit for brains
@MrKGatl fairy tales are different than myth. Do you adequately appreciate mythology? do you adequately ponder the full breadth of the mind? Do you think that all things are material or do you consider some things to be immaterial (like gravity for instance). Do you think that all truths are discovered through the scientific method? If so, have you read Hayak and Popper and Hume?
@lajungesombre Yes I love mythology, which is where christianity and other current religions will be taught as, in hundreds of years. No not all truths are discovered through scientific method.
@lajungesombre Eh, who knows what people mean my truth? Facts are much better than truths anyway because they maintain their character over time indefinitely. Repeatable observation is the only access we have to facts regarding the cosmos. You can keep truth for yourself as I see it to be of little utility though I do enjoy them for their philosophical aspects.
@wkrepelin it's a bit glib to hide behind the "who knows what people mean by (insert word here)". the whole language argument is trite at this point. but, more interestingly, since repeatable observations are the only access to facts regarding the cosmos, and since experience is by nature idiosyncratic and unrepeatable, so it every experience is not a means of accessing facts regarding the cosmos. yet repeated observation happens within the context of individual experience....
@lajungesombre It's not glib it merely recognizes the subjective nature of truth. Also, while experience is necessarily subjective agreement between experience is markedly less so especially when repeatedly compounded by multiple sources. That is where science gains its power to get past personal bias, idiosyncrasies, mistakes, hallucination, frauds and more. It's not a perfect system but it is by far and using any conceivable metric the best pragmatic approach ever conceived by humanity.
@wkrepelin yet already you bias experience, compounding it with hallucinations and mistakes. as if human experience were so frail. to wipe away experience and non-scientific ways of accessing the truth as useless or relatively useless is to exaggerate the strength of science and the weakness of non-science. why such an extreme position? why not take things in stride? why not appreciate art, science, religion, politics, &c rather than hold one as supreme and all others as base?
@lajungesombre I do enjoy those things and do not hold them as base but they are not ways to accurately understand the natural world. They have no predictive value in any quantitative way and are often internally inconsistent. These are qualities that make them inferior to scientific investigation in regards to scientific questions. There are many other questions that are not scientific that art or religion may answer in a way science cannot if science has anything to say on the matter at all.
@lajungesombre By the way, I am an artist and musician as well as poet. My life does not revolve around science only. I still understand that for sending man to the moon or predicting the orbit of mercury art is totally useless. To contrast, science has a great deal of difficulty with things like philosophy or epistemology as we must make certain assumptions about reality to do science that totally circumnavigate very important existential questions in favor of pragmatism.
@wkrepelin Ok so then the appropriate attitude is one in which science, art, politics, religion, philosophy are taken up in their specific, natural ways. Rather than be like Harris, a dogmatic fool, or like the Pope, an equally dogmatic fool, we ought to be those who attempt to genuinely understand existence. So we are agreed. In that case, we have made peace with one another. :-)
Scientists explain all behaviour from a standpoint of evolution. Fuck you Harris. The great works of art you mention are beyond the ken of evolution. Get a fucking perspective you closed-minded twat. Evolution does not explain all of human nature. Myth, literature, art, music, drama, politics, ritual, all help to explain our nature; not just evolution. Go fuck yourself Harris, you killer of the arts and culture
Hey fuckhead Harris, I am a Muslim and I do not say that the Quran is so prescient that is must be divinely written. Your view on religion is ignorant and annoying. Get a fucking education in religious studies and then talk you fuck for brains. Stick to evolution asshole
Sam Harris is a complete opportunist and charlatan. He has come to prominence by joining in the scapegoating of Muslims, and supporting the phony "war on terror". He has tried to co-opt the banner of atheism, science and progress, for predatory wars waged by the most powerful military nation in the world, against impoverished and historically oppressed nations. He should explain how the invasion of Iraq, the seizure of its oil, and the murder of a million innocent civilians aid human progress.
It's doing so much more than impeding science and medicine, pat connell vid. if you take the god at his word you can be just like him ruthless and evil.
Having stated that, you would have to want to a. choose to believe in God or b. choose to believe in the absence of God. Considering one belief is diametrically opposed to the other, to consider one belief dogmatic and the other not is the stem of arrogance, a fallacy, and possibly a self-deception based on that fallacy.
@solemnfox apply that same reasoning to anything else that we have no real evidence for (fairies, cold fusion, the clangers, ghosts) and then get back to me
@solemnfox You're making the mistake many make in thinking that atheism is a belief of some nature. It's actually the LACK of belief, not as you so slyly and wrongly state, "belief in the absence of god". Therefore, since atheism is a LACK of belief it cannot, by definition, have a dogma. Atheism has no tenets, rules, dogma, proofs or claims. It is not a belief system anymore than not believing in fairies is a belief system.
Sam's not entirely wrong in his "logic" approach, but although I cannot speak for him I will say I think it's absurd that he believes mainstream atheism is not arrogant as they attack anyone who does not think like they do (dogmatic much?). Also, there's really no way possible to prove God doesn't exist. This is true because it is not possible to prove God does exist. Even a second rate student of science would be able to tell you that fact, which is the only self-evident fact at hand.
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
A true atheist is NOT simply a person who finds insufficient evidence for the existence of God. An atheist takes it further and makes a positive assertion that God does not exist (NOT merely that there is little or no evidence that God exists).
If Harris were discussing agnostics, on the other hand, he would be accurate.
@1kdtaylor "An atheist takes it further and makes a positive assertion that God does not exist"
In essence, you're right. However, the underlying principle, which you deny, is false. Atheism (either Strong or Weak) makes the same implicit argument. Strong: There is no god - Weak: I have no belief in god... The implicit statement that follows both propositions is something like, 'because I have no good reason to think otherwise'. So either way, the result is ultimately the same.
@vryc From what I can see, it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe (simply stating "I have no belief in God") is actually agnosticism, rather than outright atheism. Agnosticism, as you may know, was the position of Charles Darwin near the end of his life, at which time he basically said that he could see no basis for accepting the existence of God, but also no basis for making a positive denial of God's existence.
@1kdtaylor "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
The real problem here is that Agnosticism has NOTHING to do with belief. Huxley, Darwin's most excellent friend, was the man who developed the idea. It's a method, nothing more. It states: "follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations" and "do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable". It can be applied to ANYTHING concerning knowledge.
@vryc I actually see agnosticism as the BELIEF that there is no good evidence upon which to base any acceptance (or explicit denial) of the existence of God.
In any case, what Sam Harris is describing here sounds much, much closer to agnosticism than atheism. Which is fine. Not everyone has had the same experiences.
When asked if he believed in God, Carl Jung famously replied, "I do not believe; I know."
@1kdtaylor "I actually see agnosticism as the BELIEF that there is no good evidence"
Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere. So, I've got one question. What do you base this BELIEF there is no evidence for God on? Would it perhaps not be more proper to say something like, 'suspect', 'calculate', maybe even 'conclude'? It seems to me that belief is NOT required to make the statement that follows: "there is no good evidence for God". What good does it do to qualify the position further?
I think it is instructive to ask: Would it be possible to say with absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?
I personally do not believe it is possible to do so. I think, at most, a person is within their epistemic rights to say that they BELIEVE there is no good evidence upon which to posit the existence of God or to support the various claims made in religious scriptures.
@1kdtaylor "... absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?"
An interesting approach. However, this is NOT what the statement, "because I have no good reason to think/believe otherwise" is actually saying. Now, if an Atheist were to assert the dogmatic position that there NEVER could be a good reason for a belief or NEVER could be evidence for God then you've got a case. But I think this extreme would be pretty rare amongst Atheists...
@1kdtaylor (con't) "absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?"
If this really was a directed statement by an Atheist or Atheists then I think that one of the underlying tenents of Atheism (critical and rational thought) would be greatly weakened. This is not to say that all Atheists reach their position via CT or rational thought; actually, this might make for an interesting study: How and why did you (the Atheist) reach such a position?
@vryc You may recall that my main point, from the beginning, was that Sam Harris's position (which he labels "atheism") is actually much, much closer, if not identical with, agnosticism. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines an "agnostic" as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
@1kdtaylor "The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines..."
In essence I agree with this. I'm of the mind that EVERYONE is an agnostic about God since if there was real knowledge about such a being belief would be unnecessary. However, Atheism is still the default position for a lack of belief in gods (theism = god belief... a-theism = LACK of god belief - - right from the greek) since all it is is a negation of the Theism. What other position concerning BELIEF is there?
@1kdtaylor "Carl Jung famously replied, "I do not believe; I know.""
Well, if knowledge effectively disappears in the absence of evidence how could Jung make such a claim without us scrutinizing him with a rather harsh degree of incredulity? Knowledge or knowing, as a state of mind, is completely different from belief or believing. I think a lot of consternation has arisen over the past few centuries because of the miss use of the term 'belief', often in relation to 'knowledge' or 'knowing'.
I myself am not entirely clear on Jung's rationale concerning God. I do know that he was once clinically dead, but later returned to life, and from then on was unswerving in his claim to have spiritually departed from his body during that brief period of death and seen a number of extraordinary things.
I do recall an interview Paul G. Durbin conducted with Carl Jung regarding his convictions on God. Perhaps it is viewable online.
@1kdtaylor " he was once clinically dead, but later returned to life..."
I've read about his NDE and I'm unconvinced. There seems to be very little rigor in his rational for his experience and he seems to almost leap into the 'afterlife' conclusion which is a tad disappointing for a man of his insight. This is not to say that he could not reach such a conclusion, it just seems to be a less honest and studied approach than just about every other conclusion that he reached about psychology.
I personally do not have any quarrel with those who claim to have experienced a spiritual departure from their physical bodies, as long as they do not insist upon others accepting their accounts. Happily, most people I know who say they have had such experiences do not try to brow-beat others into believing them.
In any case, I believe direct experience of something makes rational inquiry into it rather superfluous.
@1kdtaylor "In any case, I believe direct experience of something makes rational inquiry into it rather superfluous."
I completely agree. Such an idea should be held as private (as you said), not one to be foisted on others. This seems to be the sticky point: belief-based ideas seem to have a very dangerous power when it comes to the human mind; I'd say even more so than knowledge-based ideas since they seem to pierce through a reason centered mind .
@1kdtaylor (con't)... "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
Even IF an Atheist (Strong) makes a positive denial of God's existence, it's with the implicit notion that 'there is NO GOOD REASON to think or believe God actually exists. This is a HUGE psychological difference because it still requires proof positive. Some or most Atheists don't verbalize this implicit statement, but it's there nonetheless because of the very nature of Atheism.
@1kdtaylor (con't 1) "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
Now, just to illuminate a point. Everyone is essentially Agnostic about God since there is NO knowledge of God; if there were knowledge about God there would be need for belief. So, in essence, an Atheist is actually an Agnostic-Atheist... and so is a Theist (an Agnostic-Theist). I'd be surprised if any Theist could be this honest though as it necessarily dilutes their position as a Theist.
0:21 - 0:29 Disagreed. An athiest has read the books? They're that devoted? A lot of people who say they are Jewish/Christian/Muslim haven't even read their own books completely. An athiest is a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural and there may or not be a reason for it. An athiest who preaches athiesm is a person who is annoyed at bad things religion can do to people.
@kokofan50 Watch again, he absolutely dodged the claim. When you are commenting on dogmatism you need to address the prevalence of the dogmatic individual. The definition of atheist he provides is applicable to only a fraction of all who claim to be atheist. Atheism, like all ism's, is filled with unthinking reactionaries who 'know' they are right and that in a nutshell is Dogmatism. Atheism lends itself less to dogma than extreme theism but he did not address even that. (cont.)
(cont.) Or rather he took the worst case scenario for Jewish, Muslim and Christian reasoning and compared it with an enormously moderate Atheist as if that were the only kind. If you don't believe in dogmatic Atheism take a trip past Bionic Dance's channel. She and her followers are classic examples.
@ApostateltsopA how can you be dogmatic to something when all you have in common is you don't believe in something. there are atheistic religions like buddhism. the only thing i have in common with what a buddhist's is that i don't believe in a god or gods. dogma needs more than just one thing in commom. it needs a set of beliefs and atheism is not that its one thing so it can be by what it is.
@kokofan50 Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Not believing in something is only one flavor of atheism. There is also those who actively believe in the negative. However even if atheism could only be defined as not believing in anything certain persons would enshrine non belief and would reject other points of view. Once the rejection becomes a knee jerk unthinking response it's dogmatic. Hence dogma and dogmatic notions follow all human ideas.
@ApostateltsopA not believing is all atheists have to have in common. everything out side that is their groups thiinking. it doesn't change what being atheist means. If that group has a bliefe that being atheist is part of for what ever reasons its that group.
@kokofan50 Believing is all that Theists need to have in common. Everything outside that is their groups thinking... Do you see how that works? Either any idea can become dogmatic, or no idea can become dogmatic. I think you'd agree with me though that there are many dogmatic theists. Belief is not just an on off, 0 or 1 proposal it's a whole scale from one absolute certainty to the other. The closer you get to the absolute certainties the more likely you are to be dogmatic.
@ApostateltsopA believing isn't all you have to have in common. you could believe in more than one god and be a theist. You foregot deists who believe in a god but not in a religious god. you need more than one idea to have dogma. thats what i've told you be for. Yes it is as simple you do or you don't. you can change my mind if you could give me enough reason the same with 90% + of atheists. i think you'll never find something that stands up
@kokofan50 Koko, I am not calling you dogmatic, I don't know you well enough. I am not calling all atheists dogmatic, there are too many different folks with too many viewpoints. My objection has been and remains that this video claims to address the possibility of dogmatic atheism and then the speaker makes a complete dodge on the subject, much like you are doing. Many ideas are not needed to be dogmatic, just one idea that becomes unthinkingly accepted. Any idea will do.
continued, I don't forget Deists, I am one. You are consistently either missing or refusing to acknowledge my point. The comparisons you have made above for the flavors of theist apply equally to the range of beliefs that fall under atheist. You compound that by making claims you can't possibly support. i.e. 90% of anything... I don't mean to attack you but have you ever encountered someone who's atheistic beliefs are kneejerk and aggressive? BD is a good place to start and Sam dodged this topic
@ApostateltsopA sorry you are right i have no baseis for saying 90%. im not missing the point i disagree with it. how is something that you don't believe dogmatic. the point he was making is that basic possion is nonbelife. Nonbeliefe is not a dogma if you can show and thing that says you side right. What if i said there was a giant spacepokemon would you believe that that was real.
@kokofan50 Koko, you are badly limiting your definition of Atheism with that comment. It's not just about what you don't believe, it's also about what you actively believe in the negative. It's the difference between the phrases, "I don't know if there is a god or not." and "I am pretty sure there is no god at all." An admission of ignorance can't be dogmatic, however the stronger you state the negative view the more you risk dogma. That is the point that Sam dodged.
@ApostateltsopA you're right that there is a big diference in "I don't know if there is a god or not." and "I am pretty sure there is no god at all." thats why we 2 words agnostic and atheist. i could say "I'm not sure there isn't a god but i don't believe there is one." and be an atheist still. yes he did answer it by comparing the two sides. no he didn't out right say it but say he did answer is it dogmatic
@kokofan50 I would invite you to watch again closely. His comparison is a very best possible case atheist against some very not best case theists. It's a strawman. He also fails to acknowledge the basic point you just hit on, unsure is agnostic. Belief in the negative is atheist. The only leap you have left to make is to realize that any human belief becomes dogmatic as soon as the believer is so certain that they consider the matter settled.
@ApostateltsopA atheistism isn't a negative. its 0. nothing. anti-theism is negative. No its not a strawman. A strawman is when you make a fictional thing out of what you are attacking. bad cases are not fiction. how is it a "very best possible case atheist"?
"The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
his first sentence shows that he have a VERY bad misconception of religious people......every religious person i know believes that their holy book is man's interpretation of what God or whoever their prophet is, wanted, said, or showed......
He also argues against moderates in other lectures, mainly for giving cover to fundamentalism. I won't try to reproduce the entire argument here, but I will put in my own two cents.
"Religious moderation" is part of the problem because it is wrong on two accounts. First, it is wrong about reality insofar as it still associates with a religion. Second, it is also wrong about the religion with which it associates. Fundamentalists are actually right about the ridiculous beliefs which they hold.
Unfortunately, you can't base what religious people in general believe on what a few religious people you know happen to believe, nappy. Certainly many of the mainline Christian denominations do not teach that the Bible is man's "interpretation" of what God said. Look into the Doctrine of Inspiration and you will immediately see that you are wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
An atheist is simply a person who in the far distance believes that Hitler has escaped punishment for good & claims himself to be acting as a good person ..
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson
what about the saying there are no athiest in foxholes? It is a valid point do athiest change when they are about to die in a painful way? To give them hope or do they go yep im going to die and thats the end?
@InsaneRemo I realized their was no god while i was a gunner in iraq in some of the most beautiful places that anyone that turned on any major new network has seen. Men on both sides getting ripped apart, kids with one leg, ripped apart everything everywhere. I wished and wanted for their to be a reason for someone to protect me but just blind wishing was not enough for me to look at reality to look at the religious around me and truly know no caring anything was present.
@party489: Thank you so much for posting this, even so it really hurts to listen, as it hurts to see it in the news. If I hear that damned "No atheists in foxholes"- line once more I will copy your account, with your permission. Apart from wars, I have witnessed the deaths of atheist friends and family members, they are no different from the deaths of religious people, and none had any "last minute" changes of mind concerning "God".
" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln
if man is to go forward people like formless must be killed. not because he's not religious, but because he's not scientific. Truly and those like him stand in the way of truth, everytime they talk. peace is very easy, but people like formless do not want peace. they are evil.
So you think it is moral and right for a parent to kill a disrespectful child by stoning ? Or a neighbor who works on the Sabbath ? You think that rapists should be rewarded with virgins as the Benjaminites were at the end of Judges ? You think it is acceptable that a man be scapegoated so you can avoid the spiritual pollution of your own actions ? You even think that can work, not make it worse ? Your Bible is filled with horror and lies unfit for decent humans to follow.
oh yeah, he's purely dogmatic. his whole argument is dogmatic. in his brain it impedes science. he tells you it does. his brainless listeners assume it's correct. Would you guys like to cite examples... i don't think so.
It's easy to show how Science is right and the Bible is wrong. Take page 1 of the Bible where it mentions God creating "the firmament". In the original Hebrew and in Aramaic the word translates to "ceiling", and in the book of Enoch we have graphic descriptions of how it has holes in it to allow rain in and has angels working shutters to operate the winds. Anyone who has been in an aircraft will tell you this is wrong, and therefore the Bible is wrong and there can be no God.
it talks about the creation of the physical world from a spiritual world. The book of enoch is talking about how the world is dependent on spiritual dynamics. there's obviously a greater meaning to what was depicted and you completely missed that. let's not talk about what you think it means. it just shows your method of discernment. it's loose vague and inaccurate. 0 points for you.
the book of enoch talks of things like seven angels 7 mountains. north south eat west. it describes spiritual realms. this kid is so stupid as to say he's read the book. the kid is a moron. the decription is very complete where it talks about greeness. water. wind. as being good things. it talks about good and evil, and it talks about moisture and the wind. now explain what you saying? the only thing unscientific is you. the irony is sick.
No. This planet has no ceiling. The book is wrong. Physical interactions of gasses produce our atmospheric effects not angels opening shutters. It isn't talking about spiritual realms it is a false vision of a delusional ancient Jew's misunderstanding about the forces of nature. He couldn't help it, he was a savage raised on the lies of his day, not the light of science. You don't have that excuse.
No, it talks about the creation of our world and is very specific about the matter. There is no such thing as "spiritual dynamics", spirit refers to the ancient's ignorant suppositions about human respiration. You are making excuses for a theory which failed centuries ago. Why do you insist on claiming the reality of these nonsensical imaginary friends of yours ? Don't you doubt your own sanity when you speak of this as if it is real ?
The controversy between naturalism and supernaturalism is not a contest between two rival modes of explanation; it is not a matter of which provides a better explanation. Rather, it is an issue of explanation versus no explanation whatsoever.
it is contradictory to claim that god or gods exist and are unknowable,if a
god is unknowable, it cannot be known to exist; but to assert that a god exists is to claim that this god is known to exist. This argument has problems.
they have *no critical thinking. here's some dogmatic statement. An atheist is someone who has read these holy books. that's not an atheist neither is it most. they're liars is who they are. The bible is profound.
No nVei06, the Bible is full of obvious errors and cannot be the work of an all-knowing God because an all-knowing God wouldn't make such elementary mistakes. The Bible is not profound it is self-contradictory and often promotes horrible stuff like rape and slavery.
We must laugh this whole horrible joke of religion out of existence.
the elementary mistakes are in your head. the whole point that God forged mankind to express his spirit and show form in the material, is missed by you. this makes you ridiculously stupid. you are completely retarded. yet do you think you are retarded?
Nonsense. God didn't make us, we made him in our own image. We made him because we fear death. We made him because though we become adults we are often still immature and need a parent to tell us what to do, even an imaginary one. We made him because humans can be emotionally weak, and because unscrupulous humans like to feed on that weakness through lies and fairy tales that fill their coffers. Put away childish things, there is no God.
these people are being motivated by ignorance, and they're not honest or logical. They're pawn being marched towards secular socialism as a mandate religion. The 'educated' are all indoctrinated people. They were intended to believe what they were told,. and they have critical thinking in them. Their dogam says, faith=no crtitical thinking. They don't understand the selctive faith the bible deals in. In fact they specifically use faith to apply to the most of absurd fabricant to push view.
..this guy is for real? HE PRETENDS TO KNOW THE IS NO GOD. Do you know what the bible says of God? you don't know. you have no idea what the bible says.
did you watch the video? No, he entertained the notion of the biblical god, and found it to be lacking. No evidence for truth, and evidence that it is a man made myth from the bronze age. This is not "pretending to know the is no god" [sic].
yeah i watched the video, and i have a much superior iq than this guy. i understand where he's coming from and i understand where's he's lacking. i am superior intellect. he's saying anyhting is equally valid or invalid, when he feels it's ok. he doesn't seem to realize that. scientists DON'T get punished very quickly for being presumptuous. they should but they don't. the nuances of the bible? he doesn't know what they are. It does impede science? a third lie in three statements. he pretend.
here's more dogma.. The bible and Pink unicorns is just as reasonable, logical and sensible. why? you will see this popular idea, 100% of the time. dogamatic. proof.
LEt's get this straight, this guy starts off with claiming atheists read the books. I have never seen one whom has not expressed the most false strawman image of religion. I have never met one who hasn't claimed to have read every religious book in world history in every language and with full complete understanding. That's just what atheists do,.. they lie dogmatically. He starts off right away with a a lie. i'm sure he's read the 100 contradictions of the bible, but not the truth.
I know people get really annoyed with stupid or irrational comments, but this thumbs down system is very frustrating. It is censorship, and also weakens some of the eloquent rebuttals that are posted to these comments. I would like to know what KrisKrafft is arguing against, and the way Youtube disappears the thumbs-down comments is just turning the whole comment forum into a popularity contest. Read them, if you dislike it, comment and explain why, don't thumb down.
good point, everyone deserves a shot at saying what they want to say, even if it is idiotic, thats true free speech in action. May the best viewpoint win.
Actually, he makes plenty of points against Judaism.
When will you religious bigots stop blaming everything on the Jews? Your profile says you're a critical thinker. It's time you start living up to that title.
...and what difference does this make? His mother was Jewish and his father was a Quaker. Having a Jewish relative doesn't make anyone any better or worse than anybody else.
I'll grant you he is crafty in making money, but that is attributed to his skill at making highly entertaining books and his brilliant oratory skills. Cunning, no. He is not being deceitful or evasive. This video alone showcases that he is not evasive in the slightest.
Still, what about all of the cunning Christian and Muslim writers who make far more money than Harris ever will? Why aren't you holding them accountable?
Carl Sagan was indeed the most wisest of people
a true inspiration for so many and a good reason
greenbrad182 4 months ago
Is non belief in santa-claus dogmatic?
baldurus1 4 months ago
Genesis is informative you fuck. It is not empircal. Its value is not in being empirical but in speaking to the passions, the soul, and the imagination. Just because you are an ignorant pig who doesn't see the value in these texts does not mean they have no value. Learn to read before you speak you shit for brains
lajungesombre 7 months ago
@lajungesombre I agree with you. I love fairy tales and Genesis like the entire bible are fairy tales
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl fairy tales are different than myth. Do you adequately appreciate mythology? do you adequately ponder the full breadth of the mind? Do you think that all things are material or do you consider some things to be immaterial (like gravity for instance). Do you think that all truths are discovered through the scientific method? If so, have you read Hayak and Popper and Hume?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre Yes I love mythology, which is where christianity and other current religions will be taught as, in hundreds of years. No not all truths are discovered through scientific method.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl so religion is a way to truth, as is science, art, &c.
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre Eh, who knows what people mean my truth? Facts are much better than truths anyway because they maintain their character over time indefinitely. Repeatable observation is the only access we have to facts regarding the cosmos. You can keep truth for yourself as I see it to be of little utility though I do enjoy them for their philosophical aspects.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@wkrepelin it's a bit glib to hide behind the "who knows what people mean by (insert word here)". the whole language argument is trite at this point. but, more interestingly, since repeatable observations are the only access to facts regarding the cosmos, and since experience is by nature idiosyncratic and unrepeatable, so it every experience is not a means of accessing facts regarding the cosmos. yet repeated observation happens within the context of individual experience....
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre It's not glib it merely recognizes the subjective nature of truth. Also, while experience is necessarily subjective agreement between experience is markedly less so especially when repeatedly compounded by multiple sources. That is where science gains its power to get past personal bias, idiosyncrasies, mistakes, hallucination, frauds and more. It's not a perfect system but it is by far and using any conceivable metric the best pragmatic approach ever conceived by humanity.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@wkrepelin yet already you bias experience, compounding it with hallucinations and mistakes. as if human experience were so frail. to wipe away experience and non-scientific ways of accessing the truth as useless or relatively useless is to exaggerate the strength of science and the weakness of non-science. why such an extreme position? why not take things in stride? why not appreciate art, science, religion, politics, &c rather than hold one as supreme and all others as base?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre I do enjoy those things and do not hold them as base but they are not ways to accurately understand the natural world. They have no predictive value in any quantitative way and are often internally inconsistent. These are qualities that make them inferior to scientific investigation in regards to scientific questions. There are many other questions that are not scientific that art or religion may answer in a way science cannot if science has anything to say on the matter at all.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@lajungesombre By the way, I am an artist and musician as well as poet. My life does not revolve around science only. I still understand that for sending man to the moon or predicting the orbit of mercury art is totally useless. To contrast, science has a great deal of difficulty with things like philosophy or epistemology as we must make certain assumptions about reality to do science that totally circumnavigate very important existential questions in favor of pragmatism.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
@wkrepelin Ok so then the appropriate attitude is one in which science, art, politics, religion, philosophy are taken up in their specific, natural ways. Rather than be like Harris, a dogmatic fool, or like the Pope, an equally dogmatic fool, we ought to be those who attempt to genuinely understand existence. So we are agreed. In that case, we have made peace with one another. :-)
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre I like peace, lets' go with that. Be well.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
Scientists explain all behaviour from a standpoint of evolution. Fuck you Harris. The great works of art you mention are beyond the ken of evolution. Get a fucking perspective you closed-minded twat. Evolution does not explain all of human nature. Myth, literature, art, music, drama, politics, ritual, all help to explain our nature; not just evolution. Go fuck yourself Harris, you killer of the arts and culture
lajungesombre 7 months ago
Hey fuckhead Harris, I am a Muslim and I do not say that the Quran is so prescient that is must be divinely written. Your view on religion is ignorant and annoying. Get a fucking education in religious studies and then talk you fuck for brains. Stick to evolution asshole
lajungesombre 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sam Harris is a complete opportunist and charlatan. He has come to prominence by joining in the scapegoating of Muslims, and supporting the phony "war on terror". He has tried to co-opt the banner of atheism, science and progress, for predatory wars waged by the most powerful military nation in the world, against impoverished and historically oppressed nations. He should explain how the invasion of Iraq, the seizure of its oil, and the murder of a million innocent civilians aid human progress.
mattandersonWSWS 9 months ago
The video compilation "UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy" ON
YOUTUBE is a disclosure of major lies and with held
information regarding life outside of Earth. The footage contains statements
from astronauts, American presidents, military personnel, politicians plus
credible news footage. The compilation contains revelations regarding
awareness of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ongoing presence
which is being hidden from the public + more.
Futurecop2012F 9 months ago
dogmatic atheism makes about as much sense as militant pacifism
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago 20
It's doing so much more than impeding science and medicine, pat connell vid. if you take the god at his word you can be just like him ruthless and evil.
Hadesofthe07 1 year ago
Having stated that, you would have to want to a. choose to believe in God or b. choose to believe in the absence of God. Considering one belief is diametrically opposed to the other, to consider one belief dogmatic and the other not is the stem of arrogance, a fallacy, and possibly a self-deception based on that fallacy.
solemnfox 1 year ago
@solemnfox apply that same reasoning to anything else that we have no real evidence for (fairies, cold fusion, the clangers, ghosts) and then get back to me
TheOmegajuice 1 year ago 2
@solemnfox You're making the mistake many make in thinking that atheism is a belief of some nature. It's actually the LACK of belief, not as you so slyly and wrongly state, "belief in the absence of god". Therefore, since atheism is a LACK of belief it cannot, by definition, have a dogma. Atheism has no tenets, rules, dogma, proofs or claims. It is not a belief system anymore than not believing in fairies is a belief system.
ciaochowbella 7 months ago
Sam's not entirely wrong in his "logic" approach, but although I cannot speak for him I will say I think it's absurd that he believes mainstream atheism is not arrogant as they attack anyone who does not think like they do (dogmatic much?). Also, there's really no way possible to prove God doesn't exist. This is true because it is not possible to prove God does exist. Even a second rate student of science would be able to tell you that fact, which is the only self-evident fact at hand.
solemnfox 1 year ago
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
A true atheist is NOT simply a person who finds insufficient evidence for the existence of God. An atheist takes it further and makes a positive assertion that God does not exist (NOT merely that there is little or no evidence that God exists).
If Harris were discussing agnostics, on the other hand, he would be accurate.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "An atheist takes it further and makes a positive assertion that God does not exist"
In essence, you're right. However, the underlying principle, which you deny, is false. Atheism (either Strong or Weak) makes the same implicit argument. Strong: There is no god - Weak: I have no belief in god... The implicit statement that follows both propositions is something like, 'because I have no good reason to think otherwise'. So either way, the result is ultimately the same.
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc From what I can see, it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe (simply stating "I have no belief in God") is actually agnosticism, rather than outright atheism. Agnosticism, as you may know, was the position of Charles Darwin near the end of his life, at which time he basically said that he could see no basis for accepting the existence of God, but also no basis for making a positive denial of God's existence.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
The real problem here is that Agnosticism has NOTHING to do with belief. Huxley, Darwin's most excellent friend, was the man who developed the idea. It's a method, nothing more. It states: "follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations" and "do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable". It can be applied to ANYTHING concerning knowledge.
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc I actually see agnosticism as the BELIEF that there is no good evidence upon which to base any acceptance (or explicit denial) of the existence of God.
In any case, what Sam Harris is describing here sounds much, much closer to agnosticism than atheism. Which is fine. Not everyone has had the same experiences.
When asked if he believed in God, Carl Jung famously replied, "I do not believe; I know."
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "I actually see agnosticism as the BELIEF that there is no good evidence"
Okay, I think we might be getting somewhere. So, I've got one question. What do you base this BELIEF there is no evidence for God on? Would it perhaps not be more proper to say something like, 'suspect', 'calculate', maybe even 'conclude'? It seems to me that belief is NOT required to make the statement that follows: "there is no good evidence for God". What good does it do to qualify the position further?
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc
I think it is instructive to ask: Would it be possible to say with absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?
I personally do not believe it is possible to do so. I think, at most, a person is within their epistemic rights to say that they BELIEVE there is no good evidence upon which to posit the existence of God or to support the various claims made in religious scriptures.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "... absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?"
An interesting approach. However, this is NOT what the statement, "because I have no good reason to think/believe otherwise" is actually saying. Now, if an Atheist were to assert the dogmatic position that there NEVER could be a good reason for a belief or NEVER could be evidence for God then you've got a case. But I think this extreme would be pretty rare amongst Atheists...
vryc 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor (con't) "absolute, unequivocal certitude that there truly is no good evidence for the existence of God?"
If this really was a directed statement by an Atheist or Atheists then I think that one of the underlying tenents of Atheism (critical and rational thought) would be greatly weakened. This is not to say that all Atheists reach their position via CT or rational thought; actually, this might make for an interesting study: How and why did you (the Atheist) reach such a position?
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc You may recall that my main point, from the beginning, was that Sam Harris's position (which he labels "atheism") is actually much, much closer, if not identical with, agnosticism. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines an "agnostic" as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines..."
In essence I agree with this. I'm of the mind that EVERYONE is an agnostic about God since if there was real knowledge about such a being belief would be unnecessary. However, Atheism is still the default position for a lack of belief in gods (theism = god belief... a-theism = LACK of god belief - - right from the greek) since all it is is a negation of the Theism. What other position concerning BELIEF is there?
vryc 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "Carl Jung famously replied, "I do not believe; I know.""
Well, if knowledge effectively disappears in the absence of evidence how could Jung make such a claim without us scrutinizing him with a rather harsh degree of incredulity? Knowledge or knowing, as a state of mind, is completely different from belief or believing. I think a lot of consternation has arisen over the past few centuries because of the miss use of the term 'belief', often in relation to 'knowledge' or 'knowing'.
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc
I myself am not entirely clear on Jung's rationale concerning God. I do know that he was once clinically dead, but later returned to life, and from then on was unswerving in his claim to have spiritually departed from his body during that brief period of death and seen a number of extraordinary things.
I do recall an interview Paul G. Durbin conducted with Carl Jung regarding his convictions on God. Perhaps it is viewable online.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor " he was once clinically dead, but later returned to life..."
I've read about his NDE and I'm unconvinced. There seems to be very little rigor in his rational for his experience and he seems to almost leap into the 'afterlife' conclusion which is a tad disappointing for a man of his insight. This is not to say that he could not reach such a conclusion, it just seems to be a less honest and studied approach than just about every other conclusion that he reached about psychology.
vryc 1 year ago
@vryc
I personally do not have any quarrel with those who claim to have experienced a spiritual departure from their physical bodies, as long as they do not insist upon others accepting their accounts. Happily, most people I know who say they have had such experiences do not try to brow-beat others into believing them.
In any case, I believe direct experience of something makes rational inquiry into it rather superfluous.
1kdtaylor 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor "In any case, I believe direct experience of something makes rational inquiry into it rather superfluous."
I completely agree. Such an idea should be held as private (as you said), not one to be foisted on others. This seems to be the sticky point: belief-based ideas seem to have a very dangerous power when it comes to the human mind; I'd say even more so than knowledge-based ideas since they seem to pierce through a reason centered mind .
vryc 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor (con't)... "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
Even IF an Atheist (Strong) makes a positive denial of God's existence, it's with the implicit notion that 'there is NO GOOD REASON to think or believe God actually exists. This is a HUGE psychological difference because it still requires proof positive. Some or most Atheists don't verbalize this implicit statement, but it's there nonetheless because of the very nature of Atheism.
vryc 1 year ago
@1kdtaylor (con't 1) "it seems that the latter viewpoint you describe... is actually agnosticism"
Now, just to illuminate a point. Everyone is essentially Agnostic about God since there is NO knowledge of God; if there were knowledge about God there would be need for belief. So, in essence, an Atheist is actually an Agnostic-Atheist... and so is a Theist (an Agnostic-Theist). I'd be surprised if any Theist could be this honest though as it necessarily dilutes their position as a Theist.
vryc 1 year ago
0:21 - 0:29 Disagreed. An athiest has read the books? They're that devoted? A lot of people who say they are Jewish/Christian/Muslim haven't even read their own books completely. An athiest is a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural and there may or not be a reason for it. An athiest who preaches athiesm is a person who is annoyed at bad things religion can do to people.
kentoakowen 1 year ago
That stuff about Stephen Hawkig is so funny!
DoomNoMore 1 year ago
funny guy
bean5626 1 year ago
I'm rating this as good for his later statements but he absolutely dodged the question of the dogmatic atheist.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA he didn't dodge it he anwsered it
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Watch again, he absolutely dodged the claim. When you are commenting on dogmatism you need to address the prevalence of the dogmatic individual. The definition of atheist he provides is applicable to only a fraction of all who claim to be atheist. Atheism, like all ism's, is filled with unthinking reactionaries who 'know' they are right and that in a nutshell is Dogmatism. Atheism lends itself less to dogma than extreme theism but he did not address even that. (cont.)
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
(cont.) Or rather he took the worst case scenario for Jewish, Muslim and Christian reasoning and compared it with an enormously moderate Atheist as if that were the only kind. If you don't believe in dogmatic Atheism take a trip past Bionic Dance's channel. She and her followers are classic examples.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA how can you be dogmatic to something when all you have in common is you don't believe in something. there are atheistic religions like buddhism. the only thing i have in common with what a buddhist's is that i don't believe in a god or gods. dogma needs more than just one thing in commom. it needs a set of beliefs and atheism is not that its one thing so it can be by what it is.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Not believing in something is only one flavor of atheism. There is also those who actively believe in the negative. However even if atheism could only be defined as not believing in anything certain persons would enshrine non belief and would reject other points of view. Once the rejection becomes a knee jerk unthinking response it's dogmatic. Hence dogma and dogmatic notions follow all human ideas.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA not believing is all atheists have to have in common. everything out side that is their groups thiinking. it doesn't change what being atheist means. If that group has a bliefe that being atheist is part of for what ever reasons its that group.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Believing is all that Theists need to have in common. Everything outside that is their groups thinking... Do you see how that works? Either any idea can become dogmatic, or no idea can become dogmatic. I think you'd agree with me though that there are many dogmatic theists. Belief is not just an on off, 0 or 1 proposal it's a whole scale from one absolute certainty to the other. The closer you get to the absolute certainties the more likely you are to be dogmatic.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA believing isn't all you have to have in common. you could believe in more than one god and be a theist. You foregot deists who believe in a god but not in a religious god. you need more than one idea to have dogma. thats what i've told you be for. Yes it is as simple you do or you don't. you can change my mind if you could give me enough reason the same with 90% + of atheists. i think you'll never find something that stands up
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Koko, I am not calling you dogmatic, I don't know you well enough. I am not calling all atheists dogmatic, there are too many different folks with too many viewpoints. My objection has been and remains that this video claims to address the possibility of dogmatic atheism and then the speaker makes a complete dodge on the subject, much like you are doing. Many ideas are not needed to be dogmatic, just one idea that becomes unthinkingly accepted. Any idea will do.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
continued, I don't forget Deists, I am one. You are consistently either missing or refusing to acknowledge my point. The comparisons you have made above for the flavors of theist apply equally to the range of beliefs that fall under atheist. You compound that by making claims you can't possibly support. i.e. 90% of anything... I don't mean to attack you but have you ever encountered someone who's atheistic beliefs are kneejerk and aggressive? BD is a good place to start and Sam dodged this topic
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA sorry you are right i have no baseis for saying 90%. im not missing the point i disagree with it. how is something that you don't believe dogmatic. the point he was making is that basic possion is nonbelife. Nonbeliefe is not a dogma if you can show and thing that says you side right. What if i said there was a giant spacepokemon would you believe that that was real.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 Koko, you are badly limiting your definition of Atheism with that comment. It's not just about what you don't believe, it's also about what you actively believe in the negative. It's the difference between the phrases, "I don't know if there is a god or not." and "I am pretty sure there is no god at all." An admission of ignorance can't be dogmatic, however the stronger you state the negative view the more you risk dogma. That is the point that Sam dodged.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
@ApostateltsopA you're right that there is a big diference in "I don't know if there is a god or not." and "I am pretty sure there is no god at all." thats why we 2 words agnostic and atheist. i could say "I'm not sure there isn't a god but i don't believe there is one." and be an atheist still. yes he did answer it by comparing the two sides. no he didn't out right say it but say he did answer is it dogmatic
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 I would invite you to watch again closely. His comparison is a very best possible case atheist against some very not best case theists. It's a strawman. He also fails to acknowledge the basic point you just hit on, unsure is agnostic. Belief in the negative is atheist. The only leap you have left to make is to realize that any human belief becomes dogmatic as soon as the believer is so certain that they consider the matter settled.
ApostateltsopA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApostateltsopA atheistism isn't a negative. its 0. nothing. anti-theism is negative. No its not a strawman. A strawman is when you make a fictional thing out of what you are attacking. bad cases are not fiction. how is it a "very best possible case atheist"?
kokofan50 1 year ago
Sam is always well spoken
ccchapman20 1 year ago 3
and there is always someone laughing...
heard this a milion times , though thanx for thinking
think some more
Atheism is becoming as bad as religion.......
respect to all free minds, atheist or not
malik1988 1 year ago
Truth = what we "know" and can prove.
Belief = What we use in the absence of truth.
Dogma = The acceptance of belief as truth.
All religion is dogma. That's the truth!
Sleeko11 1 year ago
"The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
Arrogance is a side effect of ignorance
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
his first sentence shows that he have a VERY bad misconception of religious people......every religious person i know believes that their holy book is man's interpretation of what God or whoever their prophet is, wanted, said, or showed......
nappyhead828828 2 years ago
He's arguing against fundies.....
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago 3
He also argues against moderates in other lectures, mainly for giving cover to fundamentalism. I won't try to reproduce the entire argument here, but I will put in my own two cents.
"Religious moderation" is part of the problem because it is wrong on two accounts. First, it is wrong about reality insofar as it still associates with a religion. Second, it is also wrong about the religion with which it associates. Fundamentalists are actually right about the ridiculous beliefs which they hold.
ArcadianGenesis 2 years ago 2
Unfortunately, you can't base what religious people in general believe on what a few religious people you know happen to believe, nappy. Certainly many of the mainline Christian denominations do not teach that the Bible is man's "interpretation" of what God said. Look into the Doctrine of Inspiration and you will immediately see that you are wrong.
TheDeistPolemicist 2 years ago
what is Dogmatic?
SARUJAN5 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a respectful, less confrontational look at Atheism and Christianity, check out "The God Debate" on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ahahahaa!
"read the book & found the claim to be ridiculous" what a ridicule claim in itself !
As if he has already carefully examined the Quran!
A big lier
moshalhat 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
An atheist is simply a person who in the far distance believes that Hitler has escaped punishment for good & claims himself to be acting as a good person ..
moshalhat 2 years ago
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago 3
what about the saying there are no athiest in foxholes? It is a valid point do athiest change when they are about to die in a painful way? To give them hope or do they go yep im going to die and thats the end?
InsaneRemo 2 years ago
@InsaneRemo
Wanting and wishing for something nice doesn't make it real.
boyinthedrain 2 years ago
@InsaneRemo I realized their was no god while i was a gunner in iraq in some of the most beautiful places that anyone that turned on any major new network has seen. Men on both sides getting ripped apart, kids with one leg, ripped apart everything everywhere. I wished and wanted for their to be a reason for someone to protect me but just blind wishing was not enough for me to look at reality to look at the religious around me and truly know no caring anything was present.
party489 1 year ago
@party489: Thank you so much for posting this, even so it really hurts to listen, as it hurts to see it in the news. If I hear that damned "No atheists in foxholes"- line once more I will copy your account, with your permission. Apart from wars, I have witnessed the deaths of atheist friends and family members, they are no different from the deaths of religious people, and none had any "last minute" changes of mind concerning "God".
Nalae1978 1 year ago
" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago 2
if man is to go forward people like formless must be killed. not because he's not religious, but because he's not scientific. Truly and those like him stand in the way of truth, everytime they talk. peace is very easy, but people like formless do not want peace. they are evil.
nVei06 2 years ago
so hopefully soon, i use my God power to wipe you people off the planet. is it science?
nVei06 2 years ago
nVei06 you don't have such powers, you are delusional. There is no God and you don't have magic powers from him. Grow up and face reality.
formless777 2 years ago
your methods of discernment are based on ignorance. you're a terrible person. it is horrible that you exist. =)
well the government knows me. the whole neighborhood knows me. we're all sharing the the delusion.
nVei06 2 years ago
So you think it is moral and right for a parent to kill a disrespectful child by stoning ? Or a neighbor who works on the Sabbath ? You think that rapists should be rewarded with virgins as the Benjaminites were at the end of Judges ? You think it is acceptable that a man be scapegoated so you can avoid the spiritual pollution of your own actions ? You even think that can work, not make it worse ? Your Bible is filled with horror and lies unfit for decent humans to follow.
formless777 2 years ago
oh yeah, he's purely dogmatic. his whole argument is dogmatic. in his brain it impedes science. he tells you it does. his brainless listeners assume it's correct. Would you guys like to cite examples... i don't think so.
nVei06 2 years ago
It's easy to show how Science is right and the Bible is wrong. Take page 1 of the Bible where it mentions God creating "the firmament". In the original Hebrew and in Aramaic the word translates to "ceiling", and in the book of Enoch we have graphic descriptions of how it has holes in it to allow rain in and has angels working shutters to operate the winds. Anyone who has been in an aircraft will tell you this is wrong, and therefore the Bible is wrong and there can be no God.
formless777 2 years ago
it talks about the creation of the physical world from a spiritual world. The book of enoch is talking about how the world is dependent on spiritual dynamics. there's obviously a greater meaning to what was depicted and you completely missed that. let's not talk about what you think it means. it just shows your method of discernment. it's loose vague and inaccurate. 0 points for you.
nVei06 2 years ago
the book of enoch talks of things like seven angels 7 mountains. north south eat west. it describes spiritual realms. this kid is so stupid as to say he's read the book. the kid is a moron. the decription is very complete where it talks about greeness. water. wind. as being good things. it talks about good and evil, and it talks about moisture and the wind. now explain what you saying? the only thing unscientific is you. the irony is sick.
nVei06 2 years ago
No. This planet has no ceiling. The book is wrong. Physical interactions of gasses produce our atmospheric effects not angels opening shutters. It isn't talking about spiritual realms it is a false vision of a delusional ancient Jew's misunderstanding about the forces of nature. He couldn't help it, he was a savage raised on the lies of his day, not the light of science. You don't have that excuse.
formless777 2 years ago
No, it talks about the creation of our world and is very specific about the matter. There is no such thing as "spiritual dynamics", spirit refers to the ancient's ignorant suppositions about human respiration. You are making excuses for a theory which failed centuries ago. Why do you insist on claiming the reality of these nonsensical imaginary friends of yours ? Don't you doubt your own sanity when you speak of this as if it is real ?
formless777 2 years ago
the guy is full of shit.
nVei06 2 years ago
he's great!!!
kkboxer20 2 years ago
The controversy between naturalism and supernaturalism is not a contest between two rival modes of explanation; it is not a matter of which provides a better explanation. Rather, it is an issue of explanation versus no explanation whatsoever.
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it is contradictory to claim that god or gods exist and are unknowable,if a
god is unknowable, it cannot be known to exist; but to assert that a god exists is to claim that this god is known to exist. This argument has problems.
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
they have *no critical thinking. here's some dogmatic statement. An atheist is someone who has read these holy books. that's not an atheist neither is it most. they're liars is who they are. The bible is profound.
nVei06 2 years ago
No nVei06, the Bible is full of obvious errors and cannot be the work of an all-knowing God because an all-knowing God wouldn't make such elementary mistakes. The Bible is not profound it is self-contradictory and often promotes horrible stuff like rape and slavery.
We must laugh this whole horrible joke of religion out of existence.
formless777 2 years ago
the elementary mistakes are in your head. the whole point that God forged mankind to express his spirit and show form in the material, is missed by you. this makes you ridiculously stupid. you are completely retarded. yet do you think you are retarded?
nVei06 2 years ago
Nonsense. God didn't make us, we made him in our own image. We made him because we fear death. We made him because though we become adults we are often still immature and need a parent to tell us what to do, even an imaginary one. We made him because humans can be emotionally weak, and because unscrupulous humans like to feed on that weakness through lies and fairy tales that fill their coffers. Put away childish things, there is no God.
formless777 2 years ago
these people are being motivated by ignorance, and they're not honest or logical. They're pawn being marched towards secular socialism as a mandate religion. The 'educated' are all indoctrinated people. They were intended to believe what they were told,. and they have critical thinking in them. Their dogam says, faith=no crtitical thinking. They don't understand the selctive faith the bible deals in. In fact they specifically use faith to apply to the most of absurd fabricant to push view.
nVei06 2 years ago
..this guy is for real? HE PRETENDS TO KNOW THE IS NO GOD. Do you know what the bible says of God? you don't know. you have no idea what the bible says.
nVei06 2 years ago
did you watch the video? No, he entertained the notion of the biblical god, and found it to be lacking. No evidence for truth, and evidence that it is a man made myth from the bronze age. This is not "pretending to know the is no god" [sic].
cdog4100 2 years ago
yeah i watched the video, and i have a much superior iq than this guy. i understand where he's coming from and i understand where's he's lacking. i am superior intellect. he's saying anyhting is equally valid or invalid, when he feels it's ok. he doesn't seem to realize that. scientists DON'T get punished very quickly for being presumptuous. they should but they don't. the nuances of the bible? he doesn't know what they are. It does impede science? a third lie in three statements. he pretend.
nVei06 2 years ago
here's more dogma.. The bible and Pink unicorns is just as reasonable, logical and sensible. why? you will see this popular idea, 100% of the time. dogamatic. proof.
nVei06 2 years ago
LEt's get this straight, this guy starts off with claiming atheists read the books. I have never seen one whom has not expressed the most false strawman image of religion. I have never met one who hasn't claimed to have read every religious book in world history in every language and with full complete understanding. That's just what atheists do,.. they lie dogmatically. He starts off right away with a a lie. i'm sure he's read the 100 contradictions of the bible, but not the truth.
nVei06 2 years ago
I know people get really annoyed with stupid or irrational comments, but this thumbs down system is very frustrating. It is censorship, and also weakens some of the eloquent rebuttals that are posted to these comments. I would like to know what KrisKrafft is arguing against, and the way Youtube disappears the thumbs-down comments is just turning the whole comment forum into a popularity contest. Read them, if you dislike it, comment and explain why, don't thumb down.
zeldagoblin 2 years ago 2
good point, everyone deserves a shot at saying what they want to say, even if it is idiotic, thats true free speech in action. May the best viewpoint win.
BrianDgreat123 2 years ago 3
That's circular reasoning
khylate 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the irony of an atheist telling you its not dogma.. cuz it is. get it?
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam Harris is a jew, cloaked in the garb of atheism. Sam clearly has jewish aggressions about him.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
Actually, he makes plenty of points against Judaism.
When will you religious bigots stop blaming everything on the Jews? Your profile says you're a critical thinker. It's time you start living up to that title.
KrisKrafft 3 years ago 5
Sam is Jewish by blood, not religion.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
...and what difference does this make? His mother was Jewish and his father was a Quaker. Having a Jewish relative doesn't make anyone any better or worse than anybody else.
KrisKrafft 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sam is crafty & cunning in the ways of making money, regardless how ethical (or lack thereof) it may be. His quiet and placid demenor is very clever.
TAXtheAtheist 3 years ago
I'll grant you he is crafty in making money, but that is attributed to his skill at making highly entertaining books and his brilliant oratory skills. Cunning, no. He is not being deceitful or evasive. This video alone showcases that he is not evasive in the slightest.
Still, what about all of the cunning Christian and Muslim writers who make far more money than Harris ever will? Why aren't you holding them accountable?
KrisKrafft 3 years ago 27
lol.
Svankmajer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is for niggers.
(Check my profile) XIAN ETHERNET
riddybaby 3 years ago
then call me a nigger
000snow000 3 years ago 9