I think the reason why religion cannot be combined or compromised to mix with/ fit into another religion unlike something like.. political ideology- is because our views on the nature of reality are often mutually exclusive! To hold two opposing religious views would be very logical- either there is a heaven and hell or there isn't, either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't.
You can't expect one to sit on the fence on these kinds of things, or to mix their beliefs w/ others.
um...I commend you for your energy, but I have to share just a little note: beauty is probably up there for one of the many top most subjective topics. There may not be a realistic or intelligent method for quantifying ugly and beauty. What is beauty : )
Well, computer combined images of people - all people in a population - such as an English town, give an average face, which is symmetrical, and is generally considered beautiful. Also people who choose mates regardless of race, are choosing a better mate than if they restrict their choice by race, and so produce better offspring - there are many non-subjective ways to approach this issue, so I tend to agree with the video.
Harris thinks that religion needs to be eliminated.
Hedges goes for the more acceptive way and wishes that everybody would just respect each other.
Problem with Harris' point is ofc that religion is very deep rooted into our society and surely cant just be removed that simply. And with Hedges the dilemma is that there will always be literally insane fundamentalists, no matter how you'd preach for peace and love.
I agree with every part of what you say, except for your comment 'excellent debate', because, like you say, the two debaters are not opposed enough.
It just seemed like the three debaters (I viewed Robert Sheer over stepped his role as moderator, 'debating' Sam as much as Chris did) appeared to have their own agendas/arguments.
I'd like to point out that one can in fact be a Buddhist/Taoist [insert theistic religion here]. Such beliefs as Buddhism and Taoism only become religions when one tries to make them religions. They are more guidelines to living fullfilled lives than anything.
Starting at about 7:20 this video starts kicking so much ass. That's gotta be the most impassioned talk about the theory of evolution vs. the god hypothesis I've ever heard... great job.
Sorry, I left you so many comments. I don't have a webcam so I am unable to you with my opinions in a more convenient format. Perhaps one day though. This video is one step taken to promote dialogue and free inquiry. Thanks for posting it.
Hey that is ok! Sorry I toke so long to respond. You took the time to respond to my video so I thought the least I can do is to think about what you said and come up with an appropriate reply. But all I can say, is that you are right. Except maybe one thing:
Albeit value judgements can creep into discourse and thought sometimes, and this is to be frowned upon, but when they are inevitable, none of us need any extraneous sort of dogmatic ideas to cloud our judgements. The less cultural assumptions we have about things, the easier it becomes to make better decisions. Like recusal in court systems, people that flaunt their arbitrary opinions in the spectrum of public affairs should not be given credence.
Saying one comes to liberal and conservative conclusions about certain issues I believe is misleading. One is lead to conclusions that are coincident with common liberal and conservative viewpoints. It is reason that drives us all at right action and helps us to discover the best action, because reason is universally accessible.
Political opinions are grounded in time, so they will be prejudiced in a number of ways, but only in the sense you and I are opposed to if one uses a subjective framework to arrive at conclusions about issues that affect everyone, particularly those that don't hold the same opinions or experience and consequently have different ways of looking at the world.
Those come from people like Hedges, at least some if not most of the time. I for one must admit that this is where the MAJORITY of any knowledge or beliefs I have come from, just like it does for people in general. We can't be everywhere at once, so faith that others, whatever type source it may be, are relaying truth is just necessary most of the time.
And as for who has more experience being the judge of who is right, I can't agree on that basis alone. Hedges' experience could just be a euphemism for prejudice. Making generalizations on such personal things based on prejudiced inductions is not a good idea if one wants to assert any validity along with their comments. Harris takes articles and literature to make his claim.
It could simply be they are not united with them in this life and realize that much more waiting is to be done before they see one another again, assuming the religious perspective of course. On the other hand, joy, could be a manifestation of the feelings of meaning that perhaps these mothers feel their children have attained with death, according to a view that Hedges may have.
If the bombing is condoned, a display of grief or joy seems to be irrelevant in gauging anything about the situation, with the exception of whether the mothers of these suicide bombers feel any sadness or not. What needs to be answered is the question of the acceptance of suicide bombings. rief does not necessarily signify these mothers disapprove of their children's actions.
I think the problem you referenced concerning Palestinian mothers and the more broad problem of facts in debate is not a problem of debate, but rather, the speakers' and/or audience's. It also seems to be a tertiary issue, coming in behind the actual motivation of the bombing and if it is condoned or not.
I agree with you, only every point made especially that religion is not the only problem. Sure it might perpetuate some issues, but there are other underlying factors that contribute to things like suicide bombers.
I used the word taboo, because Harris uses that word a lot in his public appearances. I was more or less quoting from Harris. I might not have phrased it just like that if I am going to use my own words.
Isn't denying employment based on religion called discrimination? I don't think I was advocating for that. And encouraging discussion about religion on a first date... well I suppose if you want to phrase it like that...
If I have to give an example, I'll use that of stamcell research, an example that Harris uses a lot as well. Stamcell research is not funded on a federal level in the US. The reason is because killing 2day old embryos is considered a sin. And the reason for that is because 'my religion told me so'.... end of conversation. It is this kind of 'end of conversation' that we should be trying to break.
Homosexuality will be another one. Why is that an abomination according to some christian denominations? The things that consenting adults to in the privacy of their own bedrooms is something that is none of anybody's business except for theirs.
Yes, denying employment based on religion is discrimination. However, the question needs to be asked for the sake of clarification when general and sweeping statements are made like "criticizing religion is a taboo that we need to break." Don't you agree?
Well, I sorta agree. ATM, I can't fully tell why you are taking so much issue on the way this is phrased. The fact that we criticize something, doesn't automatically mean that that something is debunked. Maybe during the process of criticism, we can learn exactly why the theist takes his perspective. The point is, we should no longer end any conversations by simply saying 'that is my religion'.
The reason why is that I think religion is frequently criticized. Ever seen the movie Dogma? Ever heard of House Rep. Peter King? How about Gavin Newsom?
That's Hollywood, Washington and San Francisco. I see plently of criticism so I need to know what what the complaint is.
Actually, Sam's best debates are with atheist scientists. He must always defend why he thinks religion is a special problem, given all the other problems. They bring up the same arguments time and again. One of his arguments is that moderates give cover to the extremists by calling dissent intolerant.
People put to much wieght on who argues the best. This has nothing to do with who is actually right. I've seen a creationist run rings around a scientist, but the creationist couldn't give any evidence for his point, but he knew how to argue with the scientist.
..i like that point about plugging each others' holes.
Valid.
:D
bronzmash 3 months ago
Hi, good video.
I think the reason why religion cannot be combined or compromised to mix with/ fit into another religion unlike something like.. political ideology- is because our views on the nature of reality are often mutually exclusive! To hold two opposing religious views would be very logical- either there is a heaven and hell or there isn't, either Jesus is the Son of God or he isn't.
You can't expect one to sit on the fence on these kinds of things, or to mix their beliefs w/ others.
iBegToDiffer 1 year ago
@iBegToDiffer * i meant very ILLOGICAL
iBegToDiffer 1 year ago
Awesome comments dude, I subbed you and hope to see more.
waterfat 2 years ago
the moderator blew major cock.
waterfat 2 years ago
You're a smart guy dude.
BrianDgreat123 2 years ago
I think it was 3 times where hedges talks on the side of harris
Nades129 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
uhhhhh.... wuts he saying?
lawlzer2themax 3 years ago
um...I commend you for your energy, but I have to share just a little note: beauty is probably up there for one of the many top most subjective topics. There may not be a realistic or intelligent method for quantifying ugly and beauty. What is beauty : )
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
Well, computer combined images of people - all people in a population - such as an English town, give an average face, which is symmetrical, and is generally considered beautiful. Also people who choose mates regardless of race, are choosing a better mate than if they restrict their choice by race, and so produce better offspring - there are many non-subjective ways to approach this issue, so I tend to agree with the video.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago
good video i agree
sephyXroth 3 years ago
Harris thinks that religion needs to be eliminated.
Hedges goes for the more acceptive way and wishes that everybody would just respect each other.
Problem with Harris' point is ofc that religion is very deep rooted into our society and surely cant just be removed that simply. And with Hedges the dilemma is that there will always be literally insane fundamentalists, no matter how you'd preach for peace and love.
I think that's a decent summarization.
Cheepn1s 3 years ago
Wei Sein, thank you for posting your 'rant'. :P
I agree with every part of what you say, except for your comment 'excellent debate', because, like you say, the two debaters are not opposed enough.
It just seemed like the three debaters (I viewed Robert Sheer over stepped his role as moderator, 'debating' Sam as much as Chris did) appeared to have their own agendas/arguments.
I have seen far better 'debates' on YouTube.
DudeOfSnow 3 years ago
im a believer and i exactly agree
niinja2 3 years ago
Eh, no offence but i cant understand your accent easily, =\ i would if you talked a bit slower but it just seems a bit rushed.
harvmiester1 4 years ago
hey,i like your approach and i must say that u have a good grasp of the ongoing debate.however,let me add this:
-most religions do have a critical tradition (at least on their fringes) - of course this is not true for fundamental circles, though.
- i will add more in a minute but i have to leave now =)
honktonksponk 4 years ago
Very well said.
thenatrix 4 years ago
Thanks :)
WeiSein 4 years ago
I agree with what you say. The conclusion of your rant, pretty much matches exactly what Sam Harris has been saying all along.
andyesq 4 years ago
I'd like to point out that one can in fact be a Buddhist/Taoist [insert theistic religion here]. Such beliefs as Buddhism and Taoism only become religions when one tries to make them religions. They are more guidelines to living fullfilled lives than anything.
nonreligionist 4 years ago
True. Perhaps I should have said that it's impossible to combine the monotheistic religions with the other ones.
WeiSein 4 years ago
I forgive you. LOL! ; P
nonreligionist 4 years ago
Starting at about 7:20 this video starts kicking so much ass. That's gotta be the most impassioned talk about the theory of evolution vs. the god hypothesis I've ever heard... great job.
jussts 4 years ago
Thanks a lot for the compliment :)
WeiSein 4 years ago
too long ...u got 2 min
cupcakechagrin 4 years ago
Sorry, I left you so many comments. I don't have a webcam so I am unable to you with my opinions in a more convenient format. Perhaps one day though. This video is one step taken to promote dialogue and free inquiry. Thanks for posting it.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
Hey that is ok! Sorry I toke so long to respond. You took the time to respond to my video so I thought the least I can do is to think about what you said and come up with an appropriate reply. But all I can say, is that you are right. Except maybe one thing:
WeiSein 4 years ago
Albeit value judgements can creep into discourse and thought sometimes, and this is to be frowned upon, but when they are inevitable, none of us need any extraneous sort of dogmatic ideas to cloud our judgements. The less cultural assumptions we have about things, the easier it becomes to make better decisions. Like recusal in court systems, people that flaunt their arbitrary opinions in the spectrum of public affairs should not be given credence.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
Saying one comes to liberal and conservative conclusions about certain issues I believe is misleading. One is lead to conclusions that are coincident with common liberal and conservative viewpoints. It is reason that drives us all at right action and helps us to discover the best action, because reason is universally accessible.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
Political opinions are grounded in time, so they will be prejudiced in a number of ways, but only in the sense you and I are opposed to if one uses a subjective framework to arrive at conclusions about issues that affect everyone, particularly those that don't hold the same opinions or experience and consequently have different ways of looking at the world.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
Those come from people like Hedges, at least some if not most of the time. I for one must admit that this is where the MAJORITY of any knowledge or beliefs I have come from, just like it does for people in general. We can't be everywhere at once, so faith that others, whatever type source it may be, are relaying truth is just necessary most of the time.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
And as for who has more experience being the judge of who is right, I can't agree on that basis alone. Hedges' experience could just be a euphemism for prejudice. Making generalizations on such personal things based on prejudiced inductions is not a good idea if one wants to assert any validity along with their comments. Harris takes articles and literature to make his claim.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
It could simply be they are not united with them in this life and realize that much more waiting is to be done before they see one another again, assuming the religious perspective of course. On the other hand, joy, could be a manifestation of the feelings of meaning that perhaps these mothers feel their children have attained with death, according to a view that Hedges may have.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
If the bombing is condoned, a display of grief or joy seems to be irrelevant in gauging anything about the situation, with the exception of whether the mothers of these suicide bombers feel any sadness or not. What needs to be answered is the question of the acceptance of suicide bombings. rief does not necessarily signify these mothers disapprove of their children's actions.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
I think the problem you referenced concerning Palestinian mothers and the more broad problem of facts in debate is not a problem of debate, but rather, the speakers' and/or audience's. It also seems to be a tertiary issue, coming in behind the actual motivation of the bombing and if it is condoned or not.
zahirzahir 4 years ago
I agree with you, only every point made especially that religion is not the only problem. Sure it might perpetuate some issues, but there are other underlying factors that contribute to things like suicide bombers.
fapplemstar 4 years ago
What do you mean by breaking the taboo about criticizing religion?
Should we should be allowed to deny employment based on religion. Should we encourage discussion about religion on a first date.
Where and when are you suggesting that the taboos against criticizing religion be broken.
StormTrek 4 years ago
I used the word taboo, because Harris uses that word a lot in his public appearances. I was more or less quoting from Harris. I might not have phrased it just like that if I am going to use my own words.
WeiSein 4 years ago
Isn't denying employment based on religion called discrimination? I don't think I was advocating for that. And encouraging discussion about religion on a first date... well I suppose if you want to phrase it like that...
WeiSein 4 years ago
If I have to give an example, I'll use that of stamcell research, an example that Harris uses a lot as well. Stamcell research is not funded on a federal level in the US. The reason is because killing 2day old embryos is considered a sin. And the reason for that is because 'my religion told me so'.... end of conversation. It is this kind of 'end of conversation' that we should be trying to break.
WeiSein 4 years ago
Can you also give me an example in addition to the stem cell debate of where you think these taboos are being enforced. Thank you.
StormTrek 4 years ago
Homosexuality will be another one. Why is that an abomination according to some christian denominations? The things that consenting adults to in the privacy of their own bedrooms is something that is none of anybody's business except for theirs.
WeiSein 4 years ago
Again, Gavin Newsom. Not to mention Boston Mass.
Sam Harris says we need to break taboos, but in what sense does he think they need to be broken.
StormTrek 4 years ago
Yes, denying employment based on religion is discrimination. However, the question needs to be asked for the sake of clarification when general and sweeping statements are made like "criticizing religion is a taboo that we need to break." Don't you agree?
StormTrek 4 years ago
Well, I sorta agree. ATM, I can't fully tell why you are taking so much issue on the way this is phrased. The fact that we criticize something, doesn't automatically mean that that something is debunked. Maybe during the process of criticism, we can learn exactly why the theist takes his perspective. The point is, we should no longer end any conversations by simply saying 'that is my religion'.
WeiSein 4 years ago
The reason why is that I think religion is frequently criticized. Ever seen the movie Dogma? Ever heard of House Rep. Peter King? How about Gavin Newsom?
That's Hollywood, Washington and San Francisco. I see plently of criticism so I need to know what what the complaint is.
StormTrek 4 years ago
Actually, Sam's best debates are with atheist scientists. He must always defend why he thinks religion is a special problem, given all the other problems. They bring up the same arguments time and again. One of his arguments is that moderates give cover to the extremists by calling dissent intolerant.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
I've never seen a debate of Harris with atheist scientists though. But I like that argument indeed. He didn't use that on this debate though.
WeiSein 4 years ago
Google Beyond Belief. Very good stuff there. In one of the videos, Sam argues with some social scientists? concerning religion.
loveisallneed 4 years ago
Debates are fun to watch, but they are flawed.
People put to much wieght on who argues the best. This has nothing to do with who is actually right. I've seen a creationist run rings around a scientist, but the creationist couldn't give any evidence for his point, but he knew how to argue with the scientist.
Nice summary, will watch the debate now.
DaveJonesBSNews 4 years ago
Indeed. That is one of the creationist's greatest advantage. You don't have to understand the science but yet be an expert in debating against it.
WeiSein 4 years ago