Muslims were definitely outraged at the fact that Muhammad was drawn, it is a violation of shirk to draw Allah with human like features. Sam Harris got that exactly right.
Sam Harris is as usual wrong. It was not that Muhammad was depicted that made muslims all over the world erupt in violence; it was the shocking, insulting nature of these images. To attack Muhammad in such a vitriolic and hateful a manner is to attack all those people who love and venerate him. Now, of course, I do not condone violence; and in fact many muslim leaders condemn the violence; but to say that muslims were enraged because he had been depicted is an unreasonable misrepresentation.
@bayreuth79 come here to Saudi Arabia, draw a nice picture of Muhammad, and walk around showing it to people. I dare you.
It doesn't matter what the images were, the fact that certain imams were able to rile up so many Muslims over something so incredibly stupid, to the point where they were committing acts of violence, arson, etc, is absolutely pathetic. You should be embarrassed to actually be defending this sort of thing.
@garfrain This might be the case. However, the reaction that many muslims had to images mocking the Prophet Muhammad has a social and political background. We forget that the West has literally humiliated the Middle East for at least the last 100 years or so. These people are often angry and frustrated that they have been so viciously maltreated by Western powers; and when they see what they hold most dear (Islam) mocked and vilified by the West its understandable why they explode.
I expected that Sam Harris would as usual trivialise religious faith and commitment and I wasn't wrong. His stratergy seems to be to put forward the most ludicrous caricature of religious belief and then systematically knock it over. That is not good enough I'm afraid. Unfortunately, for the majority of culturally, historically and philosophically illiterate people out there Harris seems quite credible. He's not. If anything, he's a mirror-opposite fundamentalist.
@bayreuth79 Well, I just met 2 former born agains... in Canada, the religion they have caricatured for me is strikingly familiar to what Harris is describing, and they find the Rick Perrys of the US absurd by thier former standards..... you seem to be the worst type of apologist, the type that types WITH your dictionary open so as to appear educated.
@bayreuth79 Sam Harris is spot on correct whenever he talks about religion. Consider Poe's law: "...it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." Religion is so absurd that even attempting to mock or parody it, you will never be quite AS absurd as the real thing.
uh and um that uh and um uh an uhh umm I really um like that uhh an uh um but I don't like Sam uh ummm Harris uh and umm I need to fill uhh time umm to make me uhh sound uh good ummmmmmm ummmm..... and yeah and uhh ummmm.
@dewpoint88 You repeated, "uh's umm's and um's", was more relevant than Hedge's whole speech. Hedges thinks that using lovely language will persuade his listeners, but he makes himself look foolish. Harris's speech was so logical and straightforward that Hedges should have just given up and gone home.
Chris Hedges is the epitome of what's wrong with this country. No matter how true Sam Harris's words are, the religious have some cancer in their mind that rejects rational thought. Imagine if Spock were a real person... He would side with Harris.
Rubbish. I'm a former Muslim and the Quran says plainly "Don't begin hostilities". Hedges debunks the warmongering lies of Harris. The man is simply an apologist for Zionist neocons eager to bomb Arabs.
@MenOfLetters Hey, your right! The Quran DOES say "Don't begin hostilities":
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Oh, but then it also says this:
4:89 So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them...
You've debunked yourself. The Quran passage you've cited makes clear that war is justified if enemies "turn back to enmity". I've never seen a person debunk themselves so transparently. It's amusing.
@MenOfLetters "You've debunked yourself. The Quran passage you've cited makes clear that war is justified if enemies "turn back to enmity". I've never seen a person debunk themselves so transparently. It's amusing."
Uhm, that's kinda the idea...
The Koran is self contradictory BS, as evidenced by my citing of verses that support and forbid hostilities. At any rate, I found a verse that clearly wants you to begin hostilities, care to concede on that? No?
No. Harris doesn't support torture and is not a Neocon.
Hedges wrote some hit-pieces on Harris claiming that he supports war and torture by pulling passages out of context from his books. Both Harris and Hitchens have more class than to intentionally misrepresent an opponents views when they're not there to defend themself.
I've read The End of Faith by Harris and he explicitly backs torture and the War on Terror that has claimed untold numbers of innocent civilians. And he supports the wars of Israel and approvingly cites the work of Zionists like Alan Dershowitz to say nothing of his support for the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006 in his online essay The End of Liberalism . He's a proven neocon who attacks liberals as being too soft on the war on terror. The Nation magazine exposed him.
Sam Harris speaks with such elegance and grace that it's almost hypnotic. Every sentence is eruditely structured, every argument eloquently composed. The ability to express a thought so successfully says a lot about the reasoning prowess of an individual, and in this case, there is no doubt that Harris far surpasses Hedges in every aspect of the debate.
@arvind13 "think that their way of looking at the world and doing things is the best"
I agree. When prayer failed to launch the Apollo program, those pesky scientists had to get the job done. When god inflicted humanity with mortal illnesses, those pesky scientists doubled the human life span. When fairy tales dominate adult minds, those pesky scientists replace superstition with natural explanation. You're absolutely correct, a dogmatic worldview really moves civilization along.
Chris hedges is right about the individualism coming from Christianity. the protestant reformation especially contributed towards this. 9/11 was more based on geo-politics and power rather than religion. It has more with geo-politics and growing anger towards US actions and politics abroad. Sam Harris and the new atheists are secular theists in disguise. Just like religious people, they say human actions result from belief, which is a purely theological stance and based on no scientific evidence
@arvind13 - It's true. Christianity also liberated that slaves, emancipated women, exalted science, fights against overpopulation and the spread of disease, respected and tolerated opposing beliefs, etc. You also can't get more individualistic than committing yourself to a belief system without proof or critical examination. That's how you end up with ~38,000 denominations of the one true religion!
@arvind13 - I also agree that human actions are not the result of belief. It is obvious folly to think that an individual's beliefs would influence their actions in any way. And yes, there is no such thing as an atheist. It's stupid to think that there would be people who would lack theism. These tall short men women children adult fat skinny black white vapour corporeal things are all secular theists. Secular theist is a real term that no one should look up to see if it's real.
and what's up with bashing tribal societies. as if western society is sooo superior. many aborginals in North America and Australia live in tribal societies. they live in harmony with nature. there is a lot of diversity and multiple ways of being are accepted among them. Unlike the abrahamic faiths, which display intolerance towards anything different from themselves
Heges looses me when 31:30 he compares Pat Robertson and Franklin Gramm to Osam bin Laden. Complete garbage, to compare some smug self-righteous minister to a mas-murderer.
I don't even think most muslims are that ideologically opportunistic. I eat lunch at a Kurdish falafel bar and the owner thinks Texas and G W Bush are the greatest.
@charlesvan13 It is an extreme comparison, but I don't know that Hedges is comparing the two men categorically as the same. I think, and I'm putting words into his mouth, that Hedges is trying to argue that the inflammatory language used by Pat Robertson and Franklin Gramm is just as radical as the inflammatory language used by Islamic extremists.
Some of the rhetoric is similar from the american religious right and Islamic extremists.
But Hedges' assertion that both groups pose a similar threat is misleading and irresponsible. Hezbollah has it written in their manifesto that Israel will serve the purpose of gathering the Jews in one place so they can more efficiently be killed.
I agree that political/military issues played the largest hand in the 9/11 attacks, but I do want to point out that claiming that religion had nothing to do with it is stupid to the highest degree.
Hedges seems to be reading verbatim from his notes, hence the decision to use the podium. This is understandable for quotations and such, but is he not familiar enough with his beliefs to just orate without so many notes?
I like Sam, but for some reason it annoys me how often he uses the word "discourse". Every time I hear him speak he uses it several times. Sure it is petty and doesn't dispute his message, but mix it up dude!
Hedges says "its not a question whether God exists" .. what an odd.odd statement for a theist to make ! ! Isnt this supposed to be the most important premise for a theist to accept ?
If that is what you got from this debate, I implore you to listen to it again.
Chris Hedges denounces religious institutions, but unlike Sam Harris, he doesn't encourage hate against the religious. 'Religion' is not just the fairy tales ensconded in books, but - in Hedges's description - the practice of deriving morality from our judgement, which is just as intrinsically neutral as Richard Dawkins his 'spirituality'.
@Bazompora Assuming every story in the bible is untrue, we're left with what, then? An ancient psychology lesson? Allegorically illustrated codes of conduct demonstrating how to navigate life ethically if you should find yourself in a barbaric, arid & barren wasteland, ignorant of any scientific knowledge & bereft of its fruit. The Bible no longer has anything of value to offer. The savage & superstitious lessons from thousands of years ago are today divisive, deleterious & irrelevant.
You're not listening: religion is a practice, not a mere collection of scriptures. Religion arose as the attempt of humans to explain the workings of the world and the social ritual in which societies try to determine what is right and wrong. Chris Hedges goes on to point out that the crystallisation of obsolete conclusions in scripture is what corrupted every denomination, just as "new atheists" are hijacking and skewing the atheist scene into a non-theist religious institution.
@Bazompora I think it's you who is not listening. Whatever.... you're not saying anything I haven't heard a million times. Why are we having this discussion. You can go about your business. Move along.
Okay... I'm more than convinced. Thankfully I live in a wonderful time and place where I can openly reject religious dogmatism. I'm convinced: I will, from now on, revile and ridicule religion every chance I get. It shall be met with scorn, derision and contempt. Religion is an utterly failed project. Let's get passed superstitious nonsense and face the real with clear, unconvoluted eyes.
Sam Harris starts with just about the dumbest argument that atheists can make - 9/11 merely as a product of "religious certainty." To cast aside the political realities leading to 9/11 (decades of aggressive foreign policy perpetrated by the US against middle eastern countries) and focus just on the faith element of 9/11 is inane and irresponsible. Religion wasn't the primary cause of 9/11.
(I'm not saying religion is great, just that people need to stop using 9/11 as an argument against it)
@infallibleineffable The whole world knows that 9/11 was CARRIED OUT in the name of Islam extremists. The evil deed was carried out in the NAME OF RELIGION. But here's a question for you .. of the 2000 religions in the world, can you think of any other religion that would this sort of thing ? - which one ?
@brindow1 "can you think of any other religion that would this sort of thing ?"
Please rephrase your question so it makes sense.
And again, by simply pointing your finger at religion and ignoring the decades of abusive foreign policy on the part of the US leading up to the attacks, you are ignoring the real issue behind 9/11, which is empire - not faith. Religion was an excuse and a catalyst for atrocity. But it wasn't the REASON.
@infallibleineffable yes they state that they carried out the attacks in part because of US presence in the Middle East, but the REASON that gets under their skin so much is because they detest the existence of infidels, especially within their own 'holy land'. Al qaeda is not anti-imperialistic, they are pro-imperialism, one of their stated aims is to restore the caliphate, the lost Islamic empire.
Did you reach that conclusion by reading the al Qeada handbook.
Empire through the restoration of the Califate is the goal of al Qeada.
We weren't occupying any Muslim lands, and had pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia, and that didn't discourage 911. Al Qeada considers the Saudi government to be an apostate occupying regime. Appeasing them would require us to cower so much that it's just not going to happen.
@infallibleineffable Can't we take the terrorists at their own word? Islamic terrorists are constantly saying that their reasons for killing others is because their religion instructs them to do so. Confronted with the terrorists themselves saying that they are motivated to do what they do by Islam, religious apologists then say it must be because of politics.
@infallibleineffable I agree that Islamic fundamentalism was not the foremost cause of 9/11 (definitely one of the reasons, but not the main), and I don't think Sam Harris was saying that it was either. He was simply stating what the catalyst for his involvement in the religious debate was. He didn't even spend 20 seconds talking about it and there was no argument being made. And I'm pretty sure he would agree that religion wasn't the only or even the main cause.
@infallibleineffable The terrorists actually say they do what they do for god and to destroy infidels. No amount of pacifism, on our part, would change their view.
@gaaaaaaaaaaah1 "The motivations identified for the attacks [9/11] include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U. S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the US enforcement of sanctions against Iraq."
That's not even deep research. That's just wikipedia. Facts. TRY THEM SOMETIME.
@infallibleineffable You missed the point. Sam did not say opposition to American foreign policy is rooted in religious certainty. He pointed out that the type of response Al Qaeda chose, murdering civilians, is inspired by a certainty that the rewards promised in the Koran for martyrdom will come.
Consider Tibetan monks who immolate ONLY themselves. Consider the suicide bomber who detonates ina crowded area.
The difference in tactic results from different certainties of outcome.
@infallibleineffable The fact that the 9/11 suicide attacks were carried out by muslim extremists in the name of Allah and Islam makes any other possible cause irrelevant. These people weren't just middle easterners angry at America, if they were it is unlikely they would have been willing to die to do what they did. Under Sharia law being a non-muslim is a crime punishable by death, and dieing in defense of Islam is rewarded in the after life. The inspiration for the atacks WAS religion.
I think you and those who agreed are a bit confused. please allow me to explain.
Religion isn't the sole reason for 9/11, but that it (Islam in particular) is breeding grounds for the kind of mentality which fosters extremist and misology.
Yes, 9/11 can happen without religion, though religion / faith makes it easier to justify the most horrible atrocities.
Also, 9/11 in particular was a religious actions based on a religious beliefs, this is not speculation, but express by those you committed the 9/11 attack.
The destruction of all who oppose or do not accept Allah is at the core of Islam.
@semitope ...except they aren't atheists. They are preeminent scientists who have come to terms with evolution despite a theological interest to do otherwise. These aren't just a few Christian crackpots we are talking about despite your inference. The overwhelming numbers of scientists, atheist and theist alike, agree on the empirical evidence. Btw, the anti-evolution atheist is quite a stab in the dark. You want there to be such a thing so you can marginalize scientists like Collins.
@ManiacallyYours they agree on what they are told and the principles that support the belief. are u trying to say it is impossible to be atheist and reject evolution based on the massive evidence against it and the lack of evidence for it? (microevolution is not evidence of macroevolution)
both speakers are giving into the false dichotomy of religion vs rationalism.
they forget the tradition of spirituality that has nothing to do with tribalism faith or cultural mythology. Chris cherry picks and localizes the truths hidden in the dung hill of religion. he really was a man of god he wouldn't call himself a christian. to defend the abrahamic religions is insane. they were created to disempower and enlave humanity. liberal religion is better but its is still cheapens God
Hedges goes a long way about saying nothing. God not this anthropomorphic being he concedes, and he accepts religion in its current superstitious state is also bad. Rather he sees god as hope and access to individualism and he sees god is the word that we give to our belief that life has meaning. He barely then even gives a notion of what god is except that its an innate feeling of stuff. THAT IS NOT GOD!! The bible is a complete metaphor for this guy!! He gives the 2nd kind of argument! AHHHH!!
@semitope There's a reason Francis Collins and almost every other Christian who's a real scientist (I.e. not in the Discovery Institute) has found a way to square their dogma with Evolution. They have every vested interest to argue against Evolution if the evidence gave them the slightest room to do so, yet they don't. Someone like you will never accept evidence from a non-Christian no matter how obvious, so listen to Christians who would know. All your arguments have been debunked, so I know y
@ManiacallyYours actually that is not so. They would defend evolution in the face of criticism just like any atheist. There are cases where christians fight their own from presenting objective evidence against evolution. I really can't accurately say what is going on there, but it does not suggest that they somehow show that evolution is true. There are also atheists that reject evolution
Harris says "faith-based" religion worries him and "keeps [him] awake at night". But this is naive. Completely atheistic societies like Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were extremely destructive. The core threat is not religion itself, which also motivated many great deeds (take Bach's compositions as one example). The threat is in the aggressive impulses stirring in us all, which can be harnessed by ANY collective tribal ethic, whether religious, national, ethnic, political, etc..
@KarlRKaiser The forces used by the Maoist and Stalinist where verbatim, by their own phisophical writings, copied impulses from religion to create a state religion. They were successful, missguided, and the result of state religion and the uncritical nature therein where sadly predictable. I'd argue that the distructive properties of and propensities of religion and communism where, by design, 'allotropic.'
@YesMaybe ...and notice how Maoism and Stalinism were atheistic. That shows you it is not religion that was corrupting, but a human impulse to be deceived through any collective identity, whether nationalistic, religious, ethnic.
A lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. But much of that directly defied the founding principals of the same religion. So that says NOTHING about religion or the potential for a higher reality, only about our propensity for self-delusion.
@KarlRKaiser Atheism and religion aren't incompatible though. There are atheistic religions, pacific islander forms of ancestor worship and sects of Jainism have no deity or deities, one can be both atheist and religious, so its not really that Sam (or I) are arguing for 'atheism' really, but the positive properties of critical thinking and inquiry as juxtaposed to those properties of faith etc. that religion promotes in its place. Religions do share these negative characteristics, I must say.
@YesMaybeNope The greater commonality among religions is not the idea of a king Diety, but the belief or intuition of a super-physical depth to reality, which is only possible due to a corresponding super-physical or "spiritual" depth to living creatures.
This depth is either sensed or not, and not provable thru "critical thinking and inquiry", just as you could not "prove" the existence of light to a congenitally blind person. You could only potentially enable them to see.
He speaks as if evolution is some unassailable fact. This is how people are fooled into thinking it is. They arent aware of the massive story telling that people need to support it and all the evidence against it. These guys need evolution to be true and because of that are very religious about it.
@semitope fossil record, DNA, vestigial organs, geographical distribution and flaws in biological design. these cannot be ignored and all point in one direction. not intelligent design, but evolution by natural selection.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy "flaws" thrown out right away, DNA - how does evolution even explain the presence and information in DNA? There are no vestigial organs and what does geographical distribution have to do with anything?
The evidence points to where you want it to. Take nature and interpret it how you want.
@semitope i can send you a link to a relatively new video that shows DNA may have been seeded on Earth by a meteorite. there are tons of animals with vestigial organs. read up on the Kiwi bird. very cute and really interesting bird that has no wings or tail. pretty much a ball with a beak and "fur-like" feathers.
geographical distribution has a lot to do with evolution. (cont.)
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy (cont.) why do you think we find every species of Lemur in Madagascar? is it because every single on of them traveled south after the flood and swam the gap between Africa and the island? also Penguins are only found in the southern hemisphere. there are many examples and they all point to evolution.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy "and that has nothing to do with the fact that evolution happened." do you know why you say that? Not because of science, not because of evidence, but because it must have happened if your worldview is to be true. The only thing that keeps the theory afloat is the necessity of it for a naturalistic world view, despite the absurd claims it makes.
@semitope i say that because the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.. we don't know how life started yet, but evolution IS how we are here today.
it's funny how people like yourself accept science when it comes to things like; using cell phones, flying to the other side of the world in a few hours, posting comments on YT, and going to the hospital when you're sick and dying. but as soon as it goes against the particular religion you believe in, it's trickery from the devil.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy man stfu about your accept science when it comes to cellphones. Don't be a frigging idiot. Science is not some uniform endeavour where everything is everything and there are no variations in quality or motives. I really hate seeing moronic comments like that. Evolution goes as far back as what, to you? Unless it starts when all kinds of animals are distinct, it deals with origin of different kinds of animals.
@semitope it deals with the origin of all species of plant and animals. NOT the origin of life. that is a completely separate matter. just like the Big Bang. we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but we do know how the universe unfolded after the Big Bang took place
@semitope yes still origins, but origins of a different kind. we know how humans originated, we know how horses originated. we don't know how life originated.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy so why did you bother going to tell me it isn't about origins when it is? you also don't "know" any of this. assumptions upon assumptions. No facts
@semitope lol you're not getting the point. evolution explains the origin of all species of plant and animal. not the origin of life itself. not the origin of the first self replicating molecule. everything after that is explained by evolution.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy and still origins. I was not talking about origins before the "first replicating molecule". As a matter of fact, since so many evolutionists don't even want to go as far back as the first cell, I am quite willing to allow you to wiggly around trying to find a comfortable spot on this. Go as recent as you want. Its still going to be retarded
@semitope which evolutionist doesn't go as far back as the first cell? if you know evolution, you know it started taking place immediately after the first self-replicating molecule formed.
one thing that i want to point out is if evolution were ever proven false it would still be a better theory than any creation myth out there. like i said before there is lots of evidence for evolution, whereas there is NONE for any creation myth. none.
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy had a debate with one who dropped that part because he could not defend it. I really don't care where you want to start.
Your second point explains it all without the bogus claim of evidence. Evolution is simply the only theory you are willing to accept, therefore, it must be true (to you). There is ample evidence for creation. lol. Man, you really give yourself away. "Myth"? No bias shown there. None at all
@semitope well it is myth. i'm sure you would agree that all Gods are myth, except of course Yahweh? a great quote by Dawkins, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy funny. I was just watching Dr. Lennox speak on that argument watch?v=37aM75LaEDk enjoy. What evidence for creation? Silly question. If there was no evidence, Dawkins would not have said that evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist or that he is waiting for a similar theory for the universe. watch?&v=FyxUwaq00Rc Berlinski. At a point he talks about what points to creation
@semitope Again with your ignorance. The truth value of evolution depends on abiogenesis like Heliocentricism depends on Lapace Solar Formation theory.
@semitope Genetics amounts to judicial level proof of it. So do ERVs. Let alone when you combine that, the tree cladistics provides makes it verifiable from the bottom up and genetics verifies it from the top down, and they both compliment each other over 98% of the time, there's no reason for this if everything was designed, even if their 'designs' were similar on purpose, or if scientist where 'just making up the fossil tree' only evolution explains this matching twin nested hierarchy.
@YesMaybeNope Your last claim doesn't quite follow to me. Genetics doesn't actually support the constructions. This will say what I think is important better than me bit . ly/tQelsM
@HandyClock immune system, eye, butterflies, woodpeckers, hummingbirds - irreducible complexity, high improbability of necessary mutations, cambrian explosion, organic material in T-rex "fossils", general lack of evidence for the wider claims of evolution (macroevolution)
@semitope you've mentioned a lot of things. ERVs show binding that is not completely random, they show binding to certain hotspots. There are 1000s of them yet only 7 or so bind to the same spot in humans and chimps. In other cases there are ERVs in chimps that aren't found in humans without any evidence that those ERVs were removed from humans after the supposed split.
@semitope Evolution is more well supported than gravity, we know more about evolution than we do gravity. They don't 'story tell' they use empirical evidence from genetics, paleontology, osteology, chemistry, biology, embryology, geology, etc. It's the opposite of story telling, and it doesn't become "story telling" simply because you know nothing about the subject. You're Freudian projecting, it's the opposite of religion or story telling, its based on methodological naturalism not mysticism.
@YesMaybeNope Evolution is not more well supported than gravity. Stop making that ridiculous and often repeated claim. Having a million fossils that show nothing and a bunch of suppositions is not "well supported" Gravity is also a presently acting force whilst we have yet to observe a cow turn into a whale or reptile into a bird. Microevolution, sure, but most definitely NOT macroevolution
@semitope Wrong. Evolution is a presently acting force, population genetics is the study of that very thing. A Cow couldn't turn into a whale nor could a reptile turn into a bird not over a single generation, evolution implies no such thing, and your idea of macro vs. micro evolution lets me know you are just a person speaking from propaganda and ignorance, that you don't even know what those are in biology.
@YesMaybeNope Evolution is not a present acting force. You assume it is a presently acting force because you assume it is true and assume it is true because you think it is a presently acting force. Microevolution does not equate to macroevolution and there is ample scientific evidence to show that there are limits to the change microevolution can cause. You thinking micro and macro suggests I am speaking from propaganda tells me you are speaking from propaganda. Funny, huh?
@YesMaybeNope The 2 terms are quite worth differentiating. You won't admit that your assumption that micro is macro is just an assumption and you have no actual science to back it up. "It can cause change so why not limitless change?" Because I can cross an ocean by just taking tiny steps on foot. Small changes do not always = large changes. Your denial of that suggests brainwashing
@semitope I've got to study for test before clinicals tomorrow, so forgive my lack of response/attention for now. I will get back to you in a couple of days with a pm (probably over the weekend, if that's alright), with the detail and proof that 500 words or less doesn't really leave room enough for.
The belief in evolution is the one impeding research. Till now some scientists still insist on the Junk DNA idea even when science is showing that the majority, if not all, of the supposed junkDNA is functional and very useful. For years they ignored the DNA because evolution told them it was non-functional and even now the way they think is preventing them moving forward. They need that DNA to be junk DNA because evolution could not produce what we see in nature. They need vestigial organs too
The most complex things we have ever seen and can't even begin to replicate are just seemingly designed and not really designed? Could that conclusion simply be your illogical view despite the facts knowing you in the head? It's really just sad watching these atheists. Now they won't even own up to being atheist. Now their position is somehow a neutral one and they need not provide any evidence, while they ignore all the evidence others provide, and make sentimental accusations instead
smfh. I really hate it when these idiots talk about evolution. THe way atheists have been fooled into thinking science in on their side is ridiculous. Its both funny and really sad. This fool even goes as far as mentioning DNA as evidence for evolution when it is the very thing that points in the opposite direction. Every advance in biology made so far screams design, yet these guys just herp derp around and ignore the facts. "It's just apparent design" they will say.
'Love your neighbor' doesn't promote or teach individualism. Hedges confuses religion as community, his desire as God, and his hope as what is. You do not need a dictator who tells you what to believe to have community. Community is actually best without one.
the bible is not based on religion.the bible is a book of laws history and prophecy given to the israelites from the most high period.the reason why white people always do this is because they hope they dont have to pay for all of their crimes
@thedisenfranchised1 i'm a black, african, african american, or descendant of from the african continent and I believe that the god of the of and new testaments or false
"The Abrahamic God gives us the individuality, the encompassing self that allows us to stand out from crowds."
By creating a cult, religion, and institution that is exclusive? Haha, my priest tried the same tactic with claiming Catholicism was 'universal' in all senses of the word. Riiiiiggggght.
Hedges extols the virtues of individualism within religion. As if its a great redeeming factor, like the font of true morality guided by conscience and humanity. Well Hedges, how come the majority of catholics' conscience can bring themselves to demand corrective action for the child bµggery being shielded by the Pope? And how individualistic is it to believe in Zeus, Thor, Poseidon or whichever deity happens to be the default, brainwashed choice for which ever civilisation you were born into?
Comparing Muslims with the Nazis is a false analogy if I ever heard one. Also I agree with Sheer because religion is not necessary to commit atrocities. For example: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and all the civilians killed in Vietnam..
Just having listened only to Chris Hedges' opening speech, I have the feeling that he's at the wrong debate.
I don't think Harris, in any context, would suggest that life is meaningless, or that there is no spiritual component to our existence.
He seems to be saying that arguing over God's existence is pointless, but we should nevertheless pretend that he exists. I know he's not explicitly saying that, but that seems to be where this is going. I don't think he's going to make a single point.
I've read some of Hedges' stuff and have respect for his work, but anyone who has been to the Middle East and still believes that religion is a positive thing has got some serious mental shortcomings. I have spent time there as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass like most people on YouTube.
in a non-literal way, god -as a verb- always existed and continues to exist. for you to understand this you must overcome a fundamentalist view of materialism and understand the issues of idealism (in the philosophical sense) and sentience.
hedges understands the human condition which translates into a belief in some judge of what is right and wrong and the desire for men to be more than the sum of their biological parts. this doesn't necessitate a belief in the abrahamic god.
Hedges lived in a country for 15 years and it makes him an expert on that country's social climate, political structure, economic disorder, and mental well-being?
Yeah, right. If living somewhere made you an expert on said place, you'd think all of us Americans could agree on America's needs and get to work. Sadly, we cannot... because no one man sees all. Doesn't matter WHERE he lives or for how long.
Harris stays on track and articulates very well those things he's put a lot of thought into and is very passionate about.
Hedges goes into these rants, uses the "racist" card, takes a few shots at American politics (a guaranteed reaction every time), and blabs about the love mothers have for their children. Sure, it all makes for passionate, emotional stuff... but has NOTHING TO DO with what Harris is saying. It's a card trick, pure and simple.
you're playing the victim on behalf of sam harris... hedges said that to insinuate that palestinian mother's do not mourn the death of their sons (which he was a first hand witness to, unlike harris who believes that polls can reflect the inner chaos of a mother who lost her son) is bordering on the racist. i completely agree with hedges on that point.
@ufster81 It has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, and Harris himself said it goes for ALL skin colors, whites included. He made that very clear when he explained his position. The race card is a cheap rallying tactic designed to derail the opposition's argument and almost always works to some extent. I can't wait for the day when a man can speak his mind without the majority calling him racist, accusing him of not loving his country, or suspecting he's a communist. I can't wait.
if the race card is cheap, don't play it, bitch! if you bring palestinians into the issue and make sweeping generalizations about them, it becomes about race and you can't use this cheap appeal to emotion, playing the victim to get out of it. do you fucking get it you idiotic fuckwad?
if what's on your mind is racist, you don't get no fucking protection from criticism, that is the fucking beauty of freedom of speech, it doesn't guarantee freedom from criticism.
extraordinarily claims require extraordinarily evidence
kirkeichler 2 days ago
@kirkeichler why would my auto-correct make it extraordinarily? wouldnt extraordinary be easier?
kirkeichler 2 days ago
Muslims were definitely outraged at the fact that Muhammad was drawn, it is a violation of shirk to draw Allah with human like features. Sam Harris got that exactly right.
xXlilmissniah09Xx 2 weeks ago
80% of people believe in creationism ? no way.
librazone 3 weeks ago
Corporatocracy is far more dangerous than any religion.
librazone 3 weeks ago
Chris Hedges talks complete bullshit compared to Sam Harris, damn i can't believe people eat this shit up... Ron Paul + Sam Harris is what USA needs.
RefugeeT 1 month ago
SHARE THIS
RefugeeT 1 month ago
those statistics are enormous bullshit, sam
OriginellerUserName 1 month ago
Sam Harris is as usual wrong. It was not that Muhammad was depicted that made muslims all over the world erupt in violence; it was the shocking, insulting nature of these images. To attack Muhammad in such a vitriolic and hateful a manner is to attack all those people who love and venerate him. Now, of course, I do not condone violence; and in fact many muslim leaders condemn the violence; but to say that muslims were enraged because he had been depicted is an unreasonable misrepresentation.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 come here to Saudi Arabia, draw a nice picture of Muhammad, and walk around showing it to people. I dare you.
It doesn't matter what the images were, the fact that certain imams were able to rile up so many Muslims over something so incredibly stupid, to the point where they were committing acts of violence, arson, etc, is absolutely pathetic. You should be embarrassed to actually be defending this sort of thing.
kalbahamut 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 if any cartoon is deemed vitriolic enough to cause people to want to kill others then those people are mentally ill
garfrain 2 days ago
@garfrain This might be the case. However, the reaction that many muslims had to images mocking the Prophet Muhammad has a social and political background. We forget that the West has literally humiliated the Middle East for at least the last 100 years or so. These people are often angry and frustrated that they have been so viciously maltreated by Western powers; and when they see what they hold most dear (Islam) mocked and vilified by the West its understandable why they explode.
bayreuth79 2 days ago
@bayreuth79 one of the problems being the thing that they hold most dear (islam) is a hate filled fairy tale worthy of no educated persons respect
garfrain 21 hours ago
I expected that Sam Harris would as usual trivialise religious faith and commitment and I wasn't wrong. His stratergy seems to be to put forward the most ludicrous caricature of religious belief and then systematically knock it over. That is not good enough I'm afraid. Unfortunately, for the majority of culturally, historically and philosophically illiterate people out there Harris seems quite credible. He's not. If anything, he's a mirror-opposite fundamentalist.
bayreuth79 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 Well, I just met 2 former born agains... in Canada, the religion they have caricatured for me is strikingly familiar to what Harris is describing, and they find the Rick Perrys of the US absurd by thier former standards..... you seem to be the worst type of apologist, the type that types WITH your dictionary open so as to appear educated.
MrFreezeframe666 1 month ago
@bayreuth79 Sam Harris is spot on correct whenever he talks about religion. Consider Poe's law: "...it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." Religion is so absurd that even attempting to mock or parody it, you will never be quite AS absurd as the real thing.
kalbahamut 1 month ago
uh and um that uh and um uh an uhh umm I really um like that uhh an uh um but I don't like Sam uh ummm Harris uh and umm I need to fill uhh time umm to make me uhh sound uh good ummmmmmm ummmm..... and yeah and uhh ummmm.
dewpoint88 1 month ago
@dewpoint88 You repeated, "uh's umm's and um's", was more relevant than Hedge's whole speech. Hedges thinks that using lovely language will persuade his listeners, but he makes himself look foolish. Harris's speech was so logical and straightforward that Hedges should have just given up and gone home.
orangesom2523 1 month ago
Chris Hedges is the epitome of what's wrong with this country. No matter how true Sam Harris's words are, the religious have some cancer in their mind that rejects rational thought. Imagine if Spock were a real person... He would side with Harris.
jeremiahcustis 1 month ago
@orangesom2523 lulz for sure. When one doesn't quite know the precise word(s) to describe ones thoughs, silence is usually the best option.
dewpoint88 1 month ago
Harris owns this guy!
Heathensrule 2 months ago
@Heathensrule Yeah those pew polls are so damn convincing.
side1981 1 month ago
31:30
Most muslims wouldn't know who Pat Robertson or Franklin Gramm are.
And if they did, they wouldn't be so frivolous to look at them with the horror that one has for a mass murderer like bin Laden.
charlesvan13 2 months ago
30:40 "The Koran unequivocally condems attacks on civilians."
That's got to be BS; I'm refering to the term "unequivocally".
charlesvan13 2 months ago
@charlesvan13
Rubbish. I'm a former Muslim and the Quran says plainly "Don't begin hostilities". Hedges debunks the warmongering lies of Harris. The man is simply an apologist for Zionist neocons eager to bomb Arabs.
MenOfLetters 2 months ago
@MenOfLetters Hey, your right! The Quran DOES say "Don't begin hostilities":
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Oh, but then it also says this:
4:89 So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them...
Kill non-Muslims, plain n' simple.
EthanNin0 2 months ago
@EthanNin0
You've debunked yourself. The Quran passage you've cited makes clear that war is justified if enemies "turn back to enmity". I've never seen a person debunk themselves so transparently. It's amusing.
MenOfLetters 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MenOfLetters "You've debunked yourself. The Quran passage you've cited makes clear that war is justified if enemies "turn back to enmity". I've never seen a person debunk themselves so transparently. It's amusing."
Uhm, that's kinda the idea...
The Koran is self contradictory BS, as evidenced by my citing of verses that support and forbid hostilities. At any rate, I found a verse that clearly wants you to begin hostilities, care to concede on that? No?
Not that hard, pal.
EthanNin0 2 months ago
Hedges displays a much superior command of middle east politics than Harris who is a neocon apologist for torture and the war on terror.
MenOfLetters 2 months ago
@MenOfLetters
What you meant to say is, "I agree with Hedges and so he's right".
AntitheistPOV 2 months ago
@MenOfLetters
No. Harris doesn't support torture and is not a Neocon.
Hedges wrote some hit-pieces on Harris claiming that he supports war and torture by pulling passages out of context from his books. Both Harris and Hitchens have more class than to intentionally misrepresent an opponents views when they're not there to defend themself.
charlesvan13 2 months ago
@charlesvan13
I've read The End of Faith by Harris and he explicitly backs torture and the War on Terror that has claimed untold numbers of innocent civilians. And he supports the wars of Israel and approvingly cites the work of Zionists like Alan Dershowitz to say nothing of his support for the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006 in his online essay The End of Liberalism . He's a proven neocon who attacks liberals as being too soft on the war on terror. The Nation magazine exposed him.
MenOfLetters 2 months ago
Sam Harris speaks with such elegance and grace that it's almost hypnotic. Every sentence is eruditely structured, every argument eloquently composed. The ability to express a thought so successfully says a lot about the reasoning prowess of an individual, and in this case, there is no doubt that Harris far surpasses Hedges in every aspect of the debate.
shkafster 2 months ago
They are also as intolerant as religious people, and think that their way of looking at the world and doing things is the best and only way
arvind13 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arvind13 "think that their way of looking at the world and doing things is the best"
I agree. When prayer failed to launch the Apollo program, those pesky scientists had to get the job done. When god inflicted humanity with mortal illnesses, those pesky scientists doubled the human life span. When fairy tales dominate adult minds, those pesky scientists replace superstition with natural explanation. You're absolutely correct, a dogmatic worldview really moves civilization along.
fdasherv 2 months ago
Chris hedges is right about the individualism coming from Christianity. the protestant reformation especially contributed towards this. 9/11 was more based on geo-politics and power rather than religion. It has more with geo-politics and growing anger towards US actions and politics abroad. Sam Harris and the new atheists are secular theists in disguise. Just like religious people, they say human actions result from belief, which is a purely theological stance and based on no scientific evidence
arvind13 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arvind13 "9/11 was more based on geo-politics and power rather than religion."
So the hijackers willingly died for a geo-political quarrel? Really? No religious fanaticism involved? I see where 'defending faith' has led you.
fdasherv 2 months ago
@arvind13 - It's true. Christianity also liberated that slaves, emancipated women, exalted science, fights against overpopulation and the spread of disease, respected and tolerated opposing beliefs, etc. You also can't get more individualistic than committing yourself to a belief system without proof or critical examination. That's how you end up with ~38,000 denominations of the one true religion!
mojohound 2 months ago
@arvind13 - I also agree that human actions are not the result of belief. It is obvious folly to think that an individual's beliefs would influence their actions in any way. And yes, there is no such thing as an atheist. It's stupid to think that there would be people who would lack theism. These tall short men women children adult fat skinny black white vapour corporeal things are all secular theists. Secular theist is a real term that no one should look up to see if it's real.
mojohound 2 months ago
Comment removed
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
and what's up with bashing tribal societies. as if western society is sooo superior. many aborginals in North America and Australia live in tribal societies. they live in harmony with nature. there is a lot of diversity and multiple ways of being are accepted among them. Unlike the abrahamic faiths, which display intolerance towards anything different from themselves
arvind13 2 months ago
see The end of christianity the Questions of jesus to western world kit combat
lalalilfassad 3 months ago
Ugg, the moderator is awful. 44:30 "Iraq was a secular country."
Saddam was writing a Koran in his, supposedly, own blood;
he was building mosque everywhere; his wmd programs were called Jihad programs on state tv.
All of that would be considered appalling violations of church state separation in the US.
charlesvan13 3 months ago
The religious right is about as likely to take over US politics as Moveon.org, if even that.
charlesvan13 3 months ago
Heges looses me when 31:30 he compares Pat Robertson and Franklin Gramm to Osam bin Laden. Complete garbage, to compare some smug self-righteous minister to a mas-murderer.
I don't even think most muslims are that ideologically opportunistic. I eat lunch at a Kurdish falafel bar and the owner thinks Texas and G W Bush are the greatest.
charlesvan13 3 months ago
@charlesvan13 It is an extreme comparison, but I don't know that Hedges is comparing the two men categorically as the same. I think, and I'm putting words into his mouth, that Hedges is trying to argue that the inflammatory language used by Pat Robertson and Franklin Gramm is just as radical as the inflammatory language used by Islamic extremists.
schmuck924 3 months ago in playlist Great Debates
@schmuck924
Some of the rhetoric is similar from the american religious right and Islamic extremists.
But Hedges' assertion that both groups pose a similar threat is misleading and irresponsible. Hezbollah has it written in their manifesto that Israel will serve the purpose of gathering the Jews in one place so they can more efficiently be killed.
charlesvan13 2 months ago
15% of the US, according to polls, is atheist or agnostic. So Sam's estimate of the people who believe in a biblical god is to high.
charlesvan13 3 months ago
sam s the man but hedges has a good bent on the shape of the world
phildirt3 3 months ago
What an opening! Sam Harris is a gargantuan force for reason and honesty. This man is vital.
mouthyweasel 3 months ago
28:35 "...our delusions about our own grander..."
Aeschylus 3 months ago
I agree that political/military issues played the largest hand in the 9/11 attacks, but I do want to point out that claiming that religion had nothing to do with it is stupid to the highest degree.
theviolator23 3 months ago
Why is the "moderating" actively supporting one side of hte debates?
manonthemount 3 months ago
Hedges seems to be reading verbatim from his notes, hence the decision to use the podium. This is understandable for quotations and such, but is he not familiar enough with his beliefs to just orate without so many notes?
DH17MTB 3 months ago
I like Sam, but for some reason it annoys me how often he uses the word "discourse". Every time I hear him speak he uses it several times. Sure it is petty and doesn't dispute his message, but mix it up dude!
Reip187 3 months ago
Hedges says "its not a question whether God exists" .. what an odd.odd statement for a theist to make ! ! Isnt this supposed to be the most important premise for a theist to accept ?
brindow1 3 months ago
@brindow1 he said that he considers himself religious in a vague sense. He's got a more sophisticated view on religion.
anus1233 1 month ago
Mr. Hedges, I know public speaking is difficult, but if you're going to say, "Uh" 10,000 fuckin times... just pick a different trade.
mouthyweasel 4 months ago
@mouthyweasel
Judge content, not form - lest you persist in representing this prejudiced and superficial mockery of reason.
Bazompora 4 months ago
@Bazompora He defends religion, and I mock reason? pfft.
mouthyweasel 4 months ago
@mouthyweasel
Humoring your diversion, I'll respond to:
"He defends religion"
If that is what you got from this debate, I implore you to listen to it again.
Chris Hedges denounces religious institutions, but unlike Sam Harris, he doesn't encourage hate against the religious. 'Religion' is not just the fairy tales ensconded in books, but - in Hedges's description - the practice of deriving morality from our judgement, which is just as intrinsically neutral as Richard Dawkins his 'spirituality'.
Bazompora 4 months ago
@Bazompora Assuming every story in the bible is untrue, we're left with what, then? An ancient psychology lesson? Allegorically illustrated codes of conduct demonstrating how to navigate life ethically if you should find yourself in a barbaric, arid & barren wasteland, ignorant of any scientific knowledge & bereft of its fruit. The Bible no longer has anything of value to offer. The savage & superstitious lessons from thousands of years ago are today divisive, deleterious & irrelevant.
mouthyweasel 4 months ago
@mouthyweasel
You're not listening: religion is a practice, not a mere collection of scriptures. Religion arose as the attempt of humans to explain the workings of the world and the social ritual in which societies try to determine what is right and wrong. Chris Hedges goes on to point out that the crystallisation of obsolete conclusions in scripture is what corrupted every denomination, just as "new atheists" are hijacking and skewing the atheist scene into a non-theist religious institution.
Bazompora 4 months ago
@Bazompora I think it's you who is not listening. Whatever.... you're not saying anything I haven't heard a million times. Why are we having this discussion. You can go about your business. Move along.
mouthyweasel 3 months ago
Okay... I'm more than convinced. Thankfully I live in a wonderful time and place where I can openly reject religious dogmatism. I'm convinced: I will, from now on, revile and ridicule religion every chance I get. It shall be met with scorn, derision and contempt. Religion is an utterly failed project. Let's get passed superstitious nonsense and face the real with clear, unconvoluted eyes.
mouthyweasel 4 months ago
Sam Harris starts with just about the dumbest argument that atheists can make - 9/11 merely as a product of "religious certainty." To cast aside the political realities leading to 9/11 (decades of aggressive foreign policy perpetrated by the US against middle eastern countries) and focus just on the faith element of 9/11 is inane and irresponsible. Religion wasn't the primary cause of 9/11.
(I'm not saying religion is great, just that people need to stop using 9/11 as an argument against it)
infallibleineffable 4 months ago
@infallibleineffable The whole world knows that 9/11 was CARRIED OUT in the name of Islam extremists. The evil deed was carried out in the NAME OF RELIGION. But here's a question for you .. of the 2000 religions in the world, can you think of any other religion that would this sort of thing ? - which one ?
brindow1 3 months ago
@brindow1 "can you think of any other religion that would this sort of thing ?"
Please rephrase your question so it makes sense.
And again, by simply pointing your finger at religion and ignoring the decades of abusive foreign policy on the part of the US leading up to the attacks, you are ignoring the real issue behind 9/11, which is empire - not faith. Religion was an excuse and a catalyst for atrocity. But it wasn't the REASON.
infallibleineffable 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable yes they state that they carried out the attacks in part because of US presence in the Middle East, but the REASON that gets under their skin so much is because they detest the existence of infidels, especially within their own 'holy land'. Al qaeda is not anti-imperialistic, they are pro-imperialism, one of their stated aims is to restore the caliphate, the lost Islamic empire.
floatinginspace100 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable
"But it wasn't the REASON."
Did you reach that conclusion by reading the al Qeada handbook.
Empire through the restoration of the Califate is the goal of al Qeada.
We weren't occupying any Muslim lands, and had pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia, and that didn't discourage 911. Al Qeada considers the Saudi government to be an apostate occupying regime. Appeasing them would require us to cower so much that it's just not going to happen.
charlesvan13 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable Can't we take the terrorists at their own word? Islamic terrorists are constantly saying that their reasons for killing others is because their religion instructs them to do so. Confronted with the terrorists themselves saying that they are motivated to do what they do by Islam, religious apologists then say it must be because of politics.
TheronSax 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable I agree that Islamic fundamentalism was not the foremost cause of 9/11 (definitely one of the reasons, but not the main), and I don't think Sam Harris was saying that it was either. He was simply stating what the catalyst for his involvement in the religious debate was. He didn't even spend 20 seconds talking about it and there was no argument being made. And I'm pretty sure he would agree that religion wasn't the only or even the main cause.
trtnec 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable The terrorists actually say they do what they do for god and to destroy infidels. No amount of pacifism, on our part, would change their view.
gaaaaaaaaaaah1 3 months ago
@gaaaaaaaaaaah1 "The motivations identified for the attacks [9/11] include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U. S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the US enforcement of sanctions against Iraq."
That's not even deep research. That's just wikipedia. Facts. TRY THEM SOMETIME.
infallibleineffable 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable You are one of Earth's few Al Qaeda apologists.
manonthemount 3 months ago
@manonthemount Oh fuck off. Giving an accurate account of motive does not an apologist make.
infallibleineffable 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable You missed the point. Sam did not say opposition to American foreign policy is rooted in religious certainty. He pointed out that the type of response Al Qaeda chose, murdering civilians, is inspired by a certainty that the rewards promised in the Koran for martyrdom will come.
Consider Tibetan monks who immolate ONLY themselves. Consider the suicide bomber who detonates ina crowded area.
The difference in tactic results from different certainties of outcome.
manonthemount 3 months ago
@infallibleineffable The fact that the 9/11 suicide attacks were carried out by muslim extremists in the name of Allah and Islam makes any other possible cause irrelevant. These people weren't just middle easterners angry at America, if they were it is unlikely they would have been willing to die to do what they did. Under Sharia law being a non-muslim is a crime punishable by death, and dieing in defense of Islam is rewarded in the after life. The inspiration for the atacks WAS religion.
madvillain1502 3 months ago 2
@infallibleineffable
I think you and those who agreed are a bit confused. please allow me to explain.
Religion isn't the sole reason for 9/11, but that it (Islam in particular) is breeding grounds for the kind of mentality which fosters extremist and misology.
Yes, 9/11 can happen without religion, though religion / faith makes it easier to justify the most horrible atrocities.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
Also, 9/11 in particular was a religious actions based on a religious beliefs, this is not speculation, but express by those you committed the 9/11 attack.
The destruction of all who oppose or do not accept Allah is at the core of Islam.
DeconversionCentral 2 months ago
@semitope ...except they aren't atheists. They are preeminent scientists who have come to terms with evolution despite a theological interest to do otherwise. These aren't just a few Christian crackpots we are talking about despite your inference. The overwhelming numbers of scientists, atheist and theist alike, agree on the empirical evidence. Btw, the anti-evolution atheist is quite a stab in the dark. You want there to be such a thing so you can marginalize scientists like Collins.
ManiacallyYours 4 months ago
@ManiacallyYours they agree on what they are told and the principles that support the belief. are u trying to say it is impossible to be atheist and reject evolution based on the massive evidence against it and the lack of evidence for it? (microevolution is not evidence of macroevolution)
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope ...except they aren't atheists. They are
ManiacallyYours 4 months ago
both speakers are giving into the false dichotomy of religion vs rationalism.
they forget the tradition of spirituality that has nothing to do with tribalism faith or cultural mythology. Chris cherry picks and localizes the truths hidden in the dung hill of religion. he really was a man of god he wouldn't call himself a christian. to defend the abrahamic religions is insane. they were created to disempower and enlave humanity. liberal religion is better but its is still cheapens God
robaquarian 4 months ago
Hedges goes a long way about saying nothing. God not this anthropomorphic being he concedes, and he accepts religion in its current superstitious state is also bad. Rather he sees god as hope and access to individualism and he sees god is the word that we give to our belief that life has meaning. He barely then even gives a notion of what god is except that its an innate feeling of stuff. THAT IS NOT GOD!! The bible is a complete metaphor for this guy!! He gives the 2nd kind of argument! AHHHH!!
jasmac04 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hitler was so disillusioned he wanted to be god, and to be worshiped as one, like kim jong ill
PilateTS 4 months ago
@semitope There's a reason Francis Collins and almost every other Christian who's a real scientist (I.e. not in the Discovery Institute) has found a way to square their dogma with Evolution. They have every vested interest to argue against Evolution if the evidence gave them the slightest room to do so, yet they don't. Someone like you will never accept evidence from a non-Christian no matter how obvious, so listen to Christians who would know. All your arguments have been debunked, so I know y
ManiacallyYours 4 months ago
@ManiacallyYours actually that is not so. They would defend evolution in the face of criticism just like any atheist. There are cases where christians fight their own from presenting objective evidence against evolution. I really can't accurately say what is going on there, but it does not suggest that they somehow show that evolution is true. There are also atheists that reject evolution
semitope 4 months ago
science doesn't always give proof and evidence to everything that's why they called science is mostly theory.
Jhena1984 4 months ago
Harris says "faith-based" religion worries him and "keeps [him] awake at night". But this is naive. Completely atheistic societies like Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were extremely destructive. The core threat is not religion itself, which also motivated many great deeds (take Bach's compositions as one example). The threat is in the aggressive impulses stirring in us all, which can be harnessed by ANY collective tribal ethic, whether religious, national, ethnic, political, etc..
KarlRKaiser 4 months ago
@KarlRKaiser The forces used by the Maoist and Stalinist where verbatim, by their own phisophical writings, copied impulses from religion to create a state religion. They were successful, missguided, and the result of state religion and the uncritical nature therein where sadly predictable. I'd argue that the distructive properties of and propensities of religion and communism where, by design, 'allotropic.'
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybe ...and notice how Maoism and Stalinism were atheistic. That shows you it is not religion that was corrupting, but a human impulse to be deceived through any collective identity, whether nationalistic, religious, ethnic.
A lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. But much of that directly defied the founding principals of the same religion. So that says NOTHING about religion or the potential for a higher reality, only about our propensity for self-delusion.
KarlRKaiser 4 months ago
@KarlRKaiser Atheism and religion aren't incompatible though. There are atheistic religions, pacific islander forms of ancestor worship and sects of Jainism have no deity or deities, one can be both atheist and religious, so its not really that Sam (or I) are arguing for 'atheism' really, but the positive properties of critical thinking and inquiry as juxtaposed to those properties of faith etc. that religion promotes in its place. Religions do share these negative characteristics, I must say.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope The greater commonality among religions is not the idea of a king Diety, but the belief or intuition of a super-physical depth to reality, which is only possible due to a corresponding super-physical or "spiritual" depth to living creatures.
This depth is either sensed or not, and not provable thru "critical thinking and inquiry", just as you could not "prove" the existence of light to a congenitally blind person. You could only potentially enable them to see.
KarlRKaiser 4 months ago
He speaks as if evolution is some unassailable fact. This is how people are fooled into thinking it is. They arent aware of the massive story telling that people need to support it and all the evidence against it. These guys need evolution to be true and because of that are very religious about it.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope there is tons of evidence for evolution. whereas there is no evidence for Zeus.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy provide one piece of evidence. i dare u
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope fossil record, DNA, vestigial organs, geographical distribution and flaws in biological design. these cannot be ignored and all point in one direction. not intelligent design, but evolution by natural selection.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy "flaws" thrown out right away, DNA - how does evolution even explain the presence and information in DNA? There are no vestigial organs and what does geographical distribution have to do with anything?
The evidence points to where you want it to. Take nature and interpret it how you want.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope i can send you a link to a relatively new video that shows DNA may have been seeded on Earth by a meteorite. there are tons of animals with vestigial organs. read up on the Kiwi bird. very cute and really interesting bird that has no wings or tail. pretty much a ball with a beak and "fur-like" feathers.
geographical distribution has a lot to do with evolution. (cont.)
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy (cont.) why do you think we find every species of Lemur in Madagascar? is it because every single on of them traveled south after the flood and swam the gap between Africa and the island? also Penguins are only found in the southern hemisphere. there are many examples and they all point to evolution.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy "may have been seeded by a meteorite". Key word "may". After the seeding, then what?
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope yes i agree, the key word is "may." we still don't know how life originated on this planet. but that doesn't mean we will never find out.
and that has nothing to do with the fact that evolution happened.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy "and that has nothing to do with the fact that evolution happened." do you know why you say that? Not because of science, not because of evidence, but because it must have happened if your worldview is to be true. The only thing that keeps the theory afloat is the necessity of it for a naturalistic world view, despite the absurd claims it makes.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope i say that because the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.. we don't know how life started yet, but evolution IS how we are here today.
it's funny how people like yourself accept science when it comes to things like; using cell phones, flying to the other side of the world in a few hours, posting comments on YT, and going to the hospital when you're sick and dying. but as soon as it goes against the particular religion you believe in, it's trickery from the devil.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy man stfu about your accept science when it comes to cellphones. Don't be a frigging idiot. Science is not some uniform endeavour where everything is everything and there are no variations in quality or motives. I really hate seeing moronic comments like that. Evolution goes as far back as what, to you? Unless it starts when all kinds of animals are distinct, it deals with origin of different kinds of animals.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope it deals with the origin of all species of plant and animals. NOT the origin of life. that is a completely separate matter. just like the Big Bang. we don't know what caused the Big Bang, but we do know how the universe unfolded after the Big Bang took place
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy still origins bro
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope yes still origins, but origins of a different kind. we know how humans originated, we know how horses originated. we don't know how life originated.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy so why did you bother going to tell me it isn't about origins when it is? you also don't "know" any of this. assumptions upon assumptions. No facts
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope lol you're not getting the point. evolution explains the origin of all species of plant and animal. not the origin of life itself. not the origin of the first self replicating molecule. everything after that is explained by evolution.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy and still origins. I was not talking about origins before the "first replicating molecule". As a matter of fact, since so many evolutionists don't even want to go as far back as the first cell, I am quite willing to allow you to wiggly around trying to find a comfortable spot on this. Go as recent as you want. Its still going to be retarded
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope which evolutionist doesn't go as far back as the first cell? if you know evolution, you know it started taking place immediately after the first self-replicating molecule formed.
one thing that i want to point out is if evolution were ever proven false it would still be a better theory than any creation myth out there. like i said before there is lots of evidence for evolution, whereas there is NONE for any creation myth. none.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy had a debate with one who dropped that part because he could not defend it. I really don't care where you want to start.
Your second point explains it all without the bogus claim of evidence. Evolution is simply the only theory you are willing to accept, therefore, it must be true (to you). There is ample evidence for creation. lol. Man, you really give yourself away. "Myth"? No bias shown there. None at all
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope well it is myth. i'm sure you would agree that all Gods are myth, except of course Yahweh? a great quote by Dawkins, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
what evidence do you have for creation?
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy funny. I was just watching Dr. Lennox speak on that argument watch?v=37aM75LaEDk enjoy. What evidence for creation? Silly question. If there was no evidence, Dawkins would not have said that evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist or that he is waiting for a similar theory for the universe. watch?&v=FyxUwaq00Rc Berlinski. At a point he talks about what points to creation
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope thank you for the links. i will watch both of them when i have time, and then come back to continue our conversation.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 4 months ago
@semitope Again with your ignorance. The truth value of evolution depends on abiogenesis like Heliocentricism depends on Lapace Solar Formation theory.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@semitope Genetics amounts to judicial level proof of it. So do ERVs. Let alone when you combine that, the tree cladistics provides makes it verifiable from the bottom up and genetics verifies it from the top down, and they both compliment each other over 98% of the time, there's no reason for this if everything was designed, even if their 'designs' were similar on purpose, or if scientist where 'just making up the fossil tree' only evolution explains this matching twin nested hierarchy.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope Your last claim doesn't quite follow to me. Genetics doesn't actually support the constructions. This will say what I think is important better than me bit . ly/tQelsM
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope Can you show me some evidence against evolution please?
HandyClock 4 months ago
@HandyClock immune system, eye, butterflies, woodpeckers, hummingbirds - irreducible complexity, high improbability of necessary mutations, cambrian explosion, organic material in T-rex "fossils", general lack of evidence for the wider claims of evolution (macroevolution)
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope you've mentioned a lot of things. ERVs show binding that is not completely random, they show binding to certain hotspots. There are 1000s of them yet only 7 or so bind to the same spot in humans and chimps. In other cases there are ERVs in chimps that aren't found in humans without any evidence that those ERVs were removed from humans after the supposed split.
semitope 4 months ago
@HandyClock DNA cannot be accounted for by evolution either
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope Evolution is more well supported than gravity, we know more about evolution than we do gravity. They don't 'story tell' they use empirical evidence from genetics, paleontology, osteology, chemistry, biology, embryology, geology, etc. It's the opposite of story telling, and it doesn't become "story telling" simply because you know nothing about the subject. You're Freudian projecting, it's the opposite of religion or story telling, its based on methodological naturalism not mysticism.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope Evolution is not more well supported than gravity. Stop making that ridiculous and often repeated claim. Having a million fossils that show nothing and a bunch of suppositions is not "well supported" Gravity is also a presently acting force whilst we have yet to observe a cow turn into a whale or reptile into a bird. Microevolution, sure, but most definitely NOT macroevolution
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope Wrong. Evolution is a presently acting force, population genetics is the study of that very thing. A Cow couldn't turn into a whale nor could a reptile turn into a bird not over a single generation, evolution implies no such thing, and your idea of macro vs. micro evolution lets me know you are just a person speaking from propaganda and ignorance, that you don't even know what those are in biology.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope Evolution is not a present acting force. You assume it is a presently acting force because you assume it is true and assume it is true because you think it is a presently acting force. Microevolution does not equate to macroevolution and there is ample scientific evidence to show that there are limits to the change microevolution can cause. You thinking micro and macro suggests I am speaking from propaganda tells me you are speaking from propaganda. Funny, huh?
semitope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope The 2 terms are quite worth differentiating. You won't admit that your assumption that micro is macro is just an assumption and you have no actual science to back it up. "It can cause change so why not limitless change?" Because I can cross an ocean by just taking tiny steps on foot. Small changes do not always = large changes. Your denial of that suggests brainwashing
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope I've got to study for test before clinicals tomorrow, so forgive my lack of response/attention for now. I will get back to you in a couple of days with a pm (probably over the weekend, if that's alright), with the detail and proof that 500 words or less doesn't really leave room enough for.
YesMaybeNope 4 months ago
@YesMaybeNope lolol. Clinicals. I hated med school and left. Have fun with that. My sister is there now and has exams tomorrow ENT/Dermatology.
semitope 4 months ago
The belief in evolution is the one impeding research. Till now some scientists still insist on the Junk DNA idea even when science is showing that the majority, if not all, of the supposed junkDNA is functional and very useful. For years they ignored the DNA because evolution told them it was non-functional and even now the way they think is preventing them moving forward. They need that DNA to be junk DNA because evolution could not produce what we see in nature. They need vestigial organs too
semitope 4 months ago
The most complex things we have ever seen and can't even begin to replicate are just seemingly designed and not really designed? Could that conclusion simply be your illogical view despite the facts knowing you in the head? It's really just sad watching these atheists. Now they won't even own up to being atheist. Now their position is somehow a neutral one and they need not provide any evidence, while they ignore all the evidence others provide, and make sentimental accusations instead
semitope 4 months ago
smfh. I really hate it when these idiots talk about evolution. THe way atheists have been fooled into thinking science in on their side is ridiculous. Its both funny and really sad. This fool even goes as far as mentioning DNA as evidence for evolution when it is the very thing that points in the opposite direction. Every advance in biology made so far screams design, yet these guys just herp derp around and ignore the facts. "It's just apparent design" they will say.
semitope 4 months ago
'Love your neighbor' doesn't promote or teach individualism. Hedges confuses religion as community, his desire as God, and his hope as what is. You do not need a dictator who tells you what to believe to have community. Community is actually best without one.
shabido1 4 months ago
Sam Harris still believes and is thus still breast feeding off the 911 commission report. This says it all.
charlesfrith 4 months ago
the bible is not based on religion.the bible is a book of laws history and prophecy given to the israelites from the most high period.the reason why white people always do this is because they hope they dont have to pay for all of their crimes
thedisenfranchised1 5 months ago
@thedisenfranchised1 What is it that "white people always do"?
sablemase 5 months ago
@thedisenfranchised1 i'm a black, african, african american, or descendant of from the african continent and I believe that the god of the of and new testaments or false
veganboxer 4 months ago
neither one of these assholes know what the hell their talking about.
thedisenfranchised1 5 months ago
"The Abrahamic God gives us the individuality, the encompassing self that allows us to stand out from crowds."
By creating a cult, religion, and institution that is exclusive? Haha, my priest tried the same tactic with claiming Catholicism was 'universal' in all senses of the word. Riiiiiggggght.
proprodigySD 5 months ago
Harris vs hedges? I smell bloood
iowntwocats 5 months ago
Hedges & the moderator have some brain problems.
tobynsaunders 5 months ago
Chris Hedges is a fool..his silly religous sentimentalism is one of the most naive and meaningless screeds i've ever heard
funcpl2741054 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
re: below; sorry, that's catholics' conscience CANNOT bring themselves to demand corrective action for the child bµggery being shielded by the Pope?
0933062 5 months ago
re: below; sorry, that's catholics' conscience can bring themselves to demand corrective action for the child bµggery being shielded by the Pope?
0933062 5 months ago
Hedges extols the virtues of individualism within religion. As if its a great redeeming factor, like the font of true morality guided by conscience and humanity. Well Hedges, how come the majority of catholics' conscience can bring themselves to demand corrective action for the child bµggery being shielded by the Pope? And how individualistic is it to believe in Zeus, Thor, Poseidon or whichever deity happens to be the default, brainwashed choice for which ever civilisation you were born into?
0933062 5 months ago
Comparing Muslims with the Nazis is a false analogy if I ever heard one. Also I agree with Sheer because religion is not necessary to commit atrocities. For example: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and all the civilians killed in Vietnam..
migs791 5 months ago
@migs791 How is the muslim/nazi analogy false? It sounded pretty damn spot on.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
Harris gets ganged up on in these two videos and absolutely DESTROYS both of them. It's almost like a man among boys.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
Just having listened only to Chris Hedges' opening speech, I have the feeling that he's at the wrong debate.
I don't think Harris, in any context, would suggest that life is meaningless, or that there is no spiritual component to our existence.
He seems to be saying that arguing over God's existence is pointless, but we should nevertheless pretend that he exists. I know he's not explicitly saying that, but that seems to be where this is going. I don't think he's going to make a single point.
instereovideos 6 months ago
What is Hedges talking about? God is a verb? ROFL WTF
Gravija1980 6 months ago
I've read some of Hedges' stuff and have respect for his work, but anyone who has been to the Middle East and still believes that religion is a positive thing has got some serious mental shortcomings. I have spent time there as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass like most people on YouTube.
kalbahamut 6 months ago
Could someone pls spell the name of the indish yogi? xD
Verrsus 6 months ago
Religion helps form the individual ----guess this guy choose route two.
theviolator23 6 months ago
@swedish89
in a non-literal way, god -as a verb- always existed and continues to exist. for you to understand this you must overcome a fundamentalist view of materialism and understand the issues of idealism (in the philosophical sense) and sentience.
hedges understands the human condition which translates into a belief in some judge of what is right and wrong and the desire for men to be more than the sum of their biological parts. this doesn't necessitate a belief in the abrahamic god.
ufster81 6 months ago
Game, set, match...Sam Harris
dblacky1977 6 months ago
Hedges lived in a country for 15 years and it makes him an expert on that country's social climate, political structure, economic disorder, and mental well-being?
Yeah, right. If living somewhere made you an expert on said place, you'd think all of us Americans could agree on America's needs and get to work. Sadly, we cannot... because no one man sees all. Doesn't matter WHERE he lives or for how long.
4REELZvids 6 months ago
@4REELZvids
as opposed to not living there at all and being confined to an academic environment... yeah, that's much better. fucking idiot.
ufster81 6 months ago
Harris stays on track and articulates very well those things he's put a lot of thought into and is very passionate about.
Hedges goes into these rants, uses the "racist" card, takes a few shots at American politics (a guaranteed reaction every time), and blabs about the love mothers have for their children. Sure, it all makes for passionate, emotional stuff... but has NOTHING TO DO with what Harris is saying. It's a card trick, pure and simple.
4REELZvids 6 months ago
@4REELZvids
racist card ?
you're playing the victim on behalf of sam harris... hedges said that to insinuate that palestinian mother's do not mourn the death of their sons (which he was a first hand witness to, unlike harris who believes that polls can reflect the inner chaos of a mother who lost her son) is bordering on the racist. i completely agree with hedges on that point.
ufster81 6 months ago 2
@ufster81 It has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, and Harris himself said it goes for ALL skin colors, whites included. He made that very clear when he explained his position. The race card is a cheap rallying tactic designed to derail the opposition's argument and almost always works to some extent. I can't wait for the day when a man can speak his mind without the majority calling him racist, accusing him of not loving his country, or suspecting he's a communist. I can't wait.
4REELZvids 5 months ago
@4REELZvids
if the race card is cheap, don't play it, bitch! if you bring palestinians into the issue and make sweeping generalizations about them, it becomes about race and you can't use this cheap appeal to emotion, playing the victim to get out of it. do you fucking get it you idiotic fuckwad?
if what's on your mind is racist, you don't get no fucking protection from criticism, that is the fucking beauty of freedom of speech, it doesn't guarantee freedom from criticism.
ufster81 5 months ago