Your not preaching a possibility of enlightenment with logic and freedom. Your trying to take away someone elses beliefs system and freedoms to do so. You are in the wrong in doing this, I am not going to forsake God or my county to make you feel better. This freedom you use to speak your mind and slander is tolerated and even possible by Gods grace. If you want to take God out of the schools, society, go found a new country and pray to the great "Darwin" to bless your country.
@Lavere2009 you realize why america is so great is because of the founding documents...The secular founding documents that separates church from state. That fact that you said "if you want to take god out of schools..." I mean you must know absolutely nothing about your history to say such a stupid thing. You don't know anything and should be really embarrassed if your an adult and are still that oblivious.
I love how he completely explains everything and gives examples, because a lot of time people don't understand the jargon. You have to speak to in lamen's terms to people, especially the one's that live in a world where they wouldn't know what to do if that giant diamond wasn't buried in their backyard!!
oh, could i watch this over and over... it's great, the funniest thing i've ever heard. Cause the best comedians will tell you the key to comedy: emphasizing the stupidities of the world. The funniest things are the things we've witnessed for ourselves. though all this sam says should be terrifying, it's kind of funny: we can't really do too much about it.
Its is okay to think god 'could' exist, most self-respecting non-believers. To be certain that it does, is a different story. Great claims require great evidence. No objective evidence so far, so sorry to let you all in on this, but we non-believers are level headed as opposed to others ;-)
Admitting there could be is half the fun in science. Since you can't prove there is not a god, there is the god of the gaps theory. But he states there is still no proof for the major claims in either texts and many better sources for moral guidence. Full stop...
Sam Harris is intellectually dishonest. He attempts to cast religion as an existential threat to modern civilization while he totally ignores the atheistic mass movements of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Sar, Kim that actually managed the slaughter of more than an order-of-magnitude more people than all religious movements in all history.
Neither Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Sar or Kim killed IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. They just happened to be atheists. They did not justify their cruelty using their atheistic convictions. Hitler by the way (by his own admission) was a confirmed Christian. You cannot provide a single example of conflict precipitated by atheism. Atheism does not motivate people to kill in the way that religioius convictions can and do. Religion IS dangerous to society.
It doesn't really matter much to the murdered what they happened to be "KILLED IN THE NAME OF"(?!) Interesting how many people credit that lame argument. Also interesting is atheists' refusal to accept Hitler as one of their own. Read the Bormann-Vermerke. E.g. "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both inventions of the Jew." -Hitler 7-12-41 p.37 (trans. Cameron & Stevens)
You incapacitatingly bawdry moron, I will set this up once and for all. Any student of history knows for a FACT that Hitler was a man of the Roman Catholic church. His essential demand of the Nazi Germany was to insist upon retention of "traditional values and aesthetics." He also insisted that Germany mus, "be prepared to sell her soul to the devil to conquer the world." What angers me is not your words, but your disabling stupidity. May your death be as meaningless as your life.
You're probably too ignorant for me to bother responding. You offer no proof or source of the quotes or assertions you make. Which are contextually meaningless anyway.
I will be nice only this once. Encyclopedia Britanica Online, read it for yourself, imbacil. w.britannica.c.o.m-eb-article-219389-fascism If you can still tout the "fact" that Hitler was an Athiest after reading this, then I certainly hope you will cop to your inability to believe anything other than the hollow drivel of your holy book.
The article you cite seems to have been authored by Benedetto Croce the well known atheist philosopher, himself an early supporter of Mussolini. He names "movements in Poland, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, & Brazil" specifically NOT Germany or for that matter Italy. Nothing of Hitler so don't lie again.
I agree to a point comrade. The point I think needs to be laid down is that humans are dangerous to society. We need to find a way for all these people who have socially accepted delusions to go about their business in a way that does not threaten others or diminish their output. Banning (which isn't what you said) doesn't and has never worked through out history.
Hitler was a Christian.He killed many people in the name of God.and I'm afraid it's very important to know whether or not people have been killed in the name of religious beliefs.What has damaged our world the most is obviously religious dogmas that are extremely inflexible and hateful.There is no way out for us to deny things instead of facing them with a good knowledge of human intellectualism.
"I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works."
Holy fucking shit. How can so many people overlook the darkness and obvious moral failures of the bible?
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
They are led in with joy and gladness; they enter the palace of the king.
Your sons will take the place of your fathers; you will make them princes throughout the land. I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.
Listen, O daughter, consider and give ear: Forget your people and your father's house.
The king is enthralled by your beauty; honor him, for he is your lord.
The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift, [b] men of wealth will seek your favor.
All glorious is the princess within her chamber ; her gown is interwoven with gold. In embroidered garments she is led to the king; her virgin companions follow her and are brought to you.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; from palaces adorned with ivory the music of the strings makes you glad. Daughters of kings are among your honored women; at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.
For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil. A wedding song. [a] My heart is stirred by a noble theme as I recite my verses for the king; my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.You are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed with grace, since God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
Your right people believe a lot of things and they can't all be right. But what you refuse to see is that yours is just another belief system. The belief that there is no God is also a belief system (religion). You accuse others of being the problem. At least most other belief system have a set of good and bad values. Your arrogance is very telling but also illogical.
Whether God exists or not is a question that has not been answered. Obviously, you cannot say that God himself is all around us without begging the question of your own unfounded beliefs. (Popularity does not equal truth... flat earth, anyone?) However, the BELIEF in God is something an atheist does see every day. Is this reason enough to call atheism a religion? Astrology is all around us as well. Is Non-Astrology a religion?
Oh, and by the way... Stamps ARE all around us, and we WOULD have to go out of our way to avoid them. Perhaps you consider yourself a stamp-collector by default?
whether god exists or not is not a more valid question than "is there a green dragon with red spots flying around the universe"... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. by all science at the momment, god doesnt exist. but by the intrinsic characteristics of science, this can be prooven wrong with and only with enough hard evidence.
"If the stamps are all around you and you actually have to go out of your way to avoid them. It not only is a hobby it could be a full time job"
Tell me that as a kid you aspired to be an avoider of stamps, alongside being a lawyer, a fireman, or a pilot. If you wanna argue a point, at least be truthful. Don't pull the "Emperor's new clothes" stunt.
It's sad the people as religious as those don't have enough IQ to understand science facts thus thinking that those facts don't make any damn sense. It's good to see that countries like Spain are slowly transforming into atheist countries. More than 60% of the younger population (30 and under) don't believe in God/Gods thus demonstrating that young people in Spain have a sense of reality that older people lack.
Well... not all Muslims are bad just like not all Christians are bad but... yes, generally speaking, it _can_ be scary because of some of their customs and ideals :-/
This is not always true. My parents are probably the two most intelligent people Ive ever known, both with IQs well into the genius level. However, due to their upbringing and various social pressures, they believe strongly in Catholicism. It is kind of like they have one part of their brain that is wired wrong. Imposing religious superstition on children that do not have sufficient intellect to resist is tantamount to child abuse.
I just realized that there is something fundamentally dangerous about Sam Harris and Dawkins---they are atheists but their morality is Kantian and, thereby, semi-religious. There attack on religion, therefore, is contradictory. Why should humans, logically, be concerned with animals but not human embroys. Species behave to support their survival; not the survival of other species. Helping animals goes against nature.
The arrogance comment was silly. The religious people will call us arrogant for thinking that mankind can rely on reason. Our best argument is, "What is the evidence?"
Hehe...Yeah, that's sort of the whole point. Sam Harris is saying that faith is not a legitimate path to knowledge. If it were, we wouldn't have umpteen billion religions.
It's about time someone said what a lot of us have been thinking. If you are an atheist, please come out of the closet. It's the first step to halting these bizarre beliefs. We have to come out and point out the obvious: there is no good reason to believe in a god.
I would like to add that if you do choose to live an open atheist, please conduct yourself in a manner that brings honor to yourself and others with your belief. No one respects obnoxious, know-it-all, in-your-face Christians, and thus no one would respect atheists who behave the same way. I would suggest that you let the arguments and conduct of Sam Harris be a model for you, otherwise you do a disservice to yourself and the movement in general.
i agree with you 100%. you nailed sam harris' entire message in your first phrase, "any assertion [about truth] requires evidence". all convictions predicated on faith are equally invalid. if you're suggesting that real honest evidence exists for some religious claims about reality now, then i either haven't seen it yet, or i disagree about the definition of the word "honest" or "evidence".
... ummm ... uhhh ... .. . huh? what do you want me to say? no, i haven't, therefore i know absolutely nothing? on one hand we have a set of beliefs about the world that has been built by compiling and comparing evidence and is open to new information, on the other we have a million beliefs based on abracadabra, oovy-groovy, supernatural stuff (one of which is supposed to be obviously uniquely true). i'll take the first.
Well, I am thankful that you and I both have that choice, but I would be careful characterizing the beliefs of the majority of the world as "abracadabra."
along those lines... let's make a pact to allow our children to make up their own minds. let's keep open minds and postpone the scary stories (i'm not being facetious - we agree hell is a scary concept) at least until they are old enough to make other important decisions. ok? i'm in. anyone else?
Hey, I agree that many religions use brain washing tactics and indoctrination, but I don't. My students don't have to believe what I tell them to. They are not forced and there is no "religiosity" involved. I believe that this is the distinguishing mark of true Christianity. Religion is man's attempt to get to God, while Christianity is God coming down as a man. You don't have to believe this, but I do and I believe God changes lives. We can't do anything to earn it.
Do you tell your students about Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc, or Ahteism, Agnosticism? If not the you're indoctrinating them by ommission. You are someone, I imagine, that your students look up to and they are likely to believe what you tell them. If they have no other information, what basis do they have to come up with counter arguments and opinions?
Yes we have defined atheism, agnosticism and I consider myself to be quite informed about Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, Scientology, etc. However, I don't endorse or give any more credence to these belief systems than you probably would to Christianity because the Law of Noncontradiction states that not all can be right. I present the claims of both, but as I said before, my students aren't "required" to believe it.
I don't like this 'not required to believe' mantra that seems to crop up regularly; although they may not be required to believe, the peer pressure and pressure from parents, pastors etc. means that they end up being indoctrinated anyway. My ideal would be to be taught about different religious and secular ideas by someone who is not allied to any and to make my own mind up. I suppose that's difficult to do in practice, but it's what I intend to do for my own children.
That's fabulous idealism. You will never find anyone anywhere who does not have an agenda. I would love for my students to experience what I have experienced. However, I cannot, and I emphasize "cannot", make them believe. That is the difference between Christianity and any other religion. You cannot force belief. See my original post you replied to. It was once said, "A man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still."
Isn't it amazing that the same intolerance, exclusion and extremism that these folks say is being practiced by "religions" is the root of this video's message (especially the introductory speakers comments).
it actually is not the video's (or his books') central message. he does argue that superstitious people be marginalized - like all people with unsubstantiated grandiose delusions that impose codes of conduct that conflict with common sense and reason.
I don't think that you can say that this video just attacks the marginalized or superstitious, but any religion that claims a knowledge of God. Additionally, I am not claiming that all religions speak of God rightly, but unless anyone has investigated every claim of any particular religion with honesty, then you cannot make a statement about "unsubstantiated gradiose delusions" or "codes of conduct that conflict with common sense and reason."
i think harris would argue that it is the person making the claims that needs to provide honest evidence (no one needs to disprove the existence of poseidon). "that which is asserted without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence." it's clear to see when unsubstantiated beliefs lead to oppressive codes of conduct - unless you are one of the believers and immunized against reason.
Any assertion demands evidence, even yours or Sam Harris'. I think the problem with Harris and many people who criticize "religion" in general without knowing specifics fail to realize that not every religion is based on blind faith, though there are some that are. The same standards by which all assertions are measured (historical consistency, factual accuracy, etc.) should be applied to any religious assertion as well.
can you elaborate? what religion doesnt rely on blind faith?yours?if you know empirticly that your religion is true then what does that do to the value of faith?every religios fanatic knows that their faith is true, you think the suicide bomber about to blow himself up doesnt know that he will soon be with 72 virgins? yes secular science, its all a conspiracy an agenda to undermine the bible right? 99 percent of biblical history is un substantiated
Christianity cannot simply be determined empirically, however, my faith is not blind. I have stood in the galleries of the British museum and seen historical artifacts that substantiate biblical history (such as, the Cylinder of Cyrus which records King Cyrus' edict that allowed the Jews to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem approx. 500 years before Christ), so you might want to research that claim a little bit more.
A blind faith is a faith that relies solely on the claims of a religious leader or text, despite conclusive physical evidence (such as a Muslim's belief in Mohammed as the sole prophet of God or a Mormon's belief in Joseph Smith). The Christian faith ultimately rests in the claims of the Jesus Christ and the Bible, but both are substantiated in a multiplicity of ways.
Do you see the difference? A blind faith is in opposition to the mind, while the basis for Christian faith is based, not just in the mind, but in the mind and heart in harmony. No, the Christian faith is not always understandable, but it is never irrational. In both the Old and the New Testaments, we are told to the love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength.
We don't need to provide evidence, the people with the claim do. We atheiss are just trying to point out how shit your beliefs are. WE need not provide evidence as to why (though we do), you have to prove he does exist.
How is your claim any different than mine. At least in the particular claim about belief in God I have thousands of years of history to provide as one facet of evidence. However, your claim that my beliefs are-well, I guess you would use that word to mean irrational and inconsistent-is a claim that needs support as well.
ryantheyouthpastor: Intolerance for intolerance is not intolerance, like the burka law in France and now even perhaps in the Netherlands. Harris, Dawkins and others are simply trying start an open dialogue about faith and religious beliefs and open up this taboo subject.
I am not being intolerant towards their viewpoint, they have a right to it. Intolerance would say that they are delusional or stupid for believing it...hold on, isn't that what they are saying about people who believe in God? Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are blatantly clear that their goal in doing this is not just "dialogue".
Well they explain WHY they think that too, they make a clear and solid argument for it. Intolerance would be just saying that religious people are delusional and stupid with no explanation, which is the opposite of what they do.
Okay, go look up intolernace in the dictionary and you will not find an "enlightened" intolerance to be any less intolerant. Decide for yourself who is being intolerant--the people who are claiming, like Harris, Dawkins, and others, that "superstitious" or religious people should be "marginalized" or people who uphold a right for free speech (like me) and their right to say something even if they are wrong. Which is true intolerance, whether motivated by religion or atheism?
OK, at least we agree that to marginalize people because of their opinions (I use that term rather than beliefs) is unacceptable. We must respect people's right to HAVE and EXPRESS their opinions but we have no obligation to respect the opinions THEMSELVES.
Okay, how would you define faith? As "opinion"? I would define it as "firm trust" or, as Christians would define it, "substantiated belief that is evidenced by action." Do you agree with this definition?
Calling nonsense nonsense is neither intolerance or prejudice. The unfounded and ridiculous claims of religions like yours are the driving wedge between many peoples of this world. They teach people to be satisfied with not knowing the true answers to the tough questions, and are thus a liability to humans on an individual basis, and to the advancement of the human race.
Your not preaching a possibility of enlightenment with logic and freedom. Your trying to take away someone elses beliefs system and freedoms to do so. You are in the wrong in doing this, I am not going to forsake God or my county to make you feel better. This freedom you use to speak your mind and slander is tolerated and even possible by Gods grace. If you want to take God out of the schools, society, go found a new country and pray to the great "Darwin" to bless your country.
Lavere2009 2 years ago
@Lavere2009 you realize why america is so great is because of the founding documents...The secular founding documents that separates church from state. That fact that you said "if you want to take god out of schools..." I mean you must know absolutely nothing about your history to say such a stupid thing. You don't know anything and should be really embarrassed if your an adult and are still that oblivious.
pawndominance1 9 months ago
I could not have said any of this better myself.
I love how he completely explains everything and gives examples, because a lot of time people don't understand the jargon. You have to speak to in lamen's terms to people, especially the one's that live in a world where they wouldn't know what to do if that giant diamond wasn't buried in their backyard!!
Artimis23 3 years ago
oh, could i watch this over and over... it's great, the funniest thing i've ever heard. Cause the best comedians will tell you the key to comedy: emphasizing the stupidities of the world. The funniest things are the things we've witnessed for ourselves. though all this sam says should be terrifying, it's kind of funny: we can't really do too much about it.
dang it, running out of characters.
Artimis23 3 years ago
I like to see this kind of thing, but in all honesty I became very bored.
holyhell5050 3 years ago
It's cool how well received he was.
Dshezno 3 years ago 2
Sam Harris admitted that God could exist when he was on the Colbert Report.
grazon 4 years ago
Its is okay to think god 'could' exist, most self-respecting non-believers. To be certain that it does, is a different story. Great claims require great evidence. No objective evidence so far, so sorry to let you all in on this, but we non-believers are level headed as opposed to others ;-)
LuckyLukarse1981 4 years ago 2
However for a person who has made a small fortune off of books "proving" God doesn't exist to admit God could exist is of note.
grazon 4 years ago
Admitting there could be is half the fun in science. Since you can't prove there is not a god, there is the god of the gaps theory. But he states there is still no proof for the major claims in either texts and many better sources for moral guidence. Full stop...
LuckyLukarse1981 4 years ago
None the less he's admitted that God could exist a mark change from his work which declared God does not exist.
grazon 3 years ago
The 'God' Sam is referring to when he says that 'it' does not exist is the Abrahamic Godhead figure, not God in in its entirety ;-)
LuckyLukarse1981 3 years ago
Who said anything about a Abrahamic Godhead figure?
grazon 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FIND OUT more at the PBS homepage of FRONTLINEWORLD, under: "Uganda: The Condom Controversy"!!! (Search under: "Watch Online" -> "Stories by...")
Seelenfunke 4 years ago
Sam Harris is intellectually dishonest. He attempts to cast religion as an existential threat to modern civilization while he totally ignores the atheistic mass movements of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Sar, Kim that actually managed the slaughter of more than an order-of-magnitude more people than all religious movements in all history.
ARizzio 4 years ago
Neither Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Sar or Kim killed IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. They just happened to be atheists. They did not justify their cruelty using their atheistic convictions. Hitler by the way (by his own admission) was a confirmed Christian. You cannot provide a single example of conflict precipitated by atheism. Atheism does not motivate people to kill in the way that religioius convictions can and do. Religion IS dangerous to society.
ComradeIvanov 4 years ago
It doesn't really matter much to the murdered what they happened to be "KILLED IN THE NAME OF"(?!) Interesting how many people credit that lame argument. Also interesting is atheists' refusal to accept Hitler as one of their own. Read the Bormann-Vermerke. E.g. "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both inventions of the Jew." -Hitler 7-12-41 p.37 (trans. Cameron & Stevens)
ARizzio 4 years ago
You incapacitatingly bawdry moron, I will set this up once and for all. Any student of history knows for a FACT that Hitler was a man of the Roman Catholic church. His essential demand of the Nazi Germany was to insist upon retention of "traditional values and aesthetics." He also insisted that Germany mus, "be prepared to sell her soul to the devil to conquer the world." What angers me is not your words, but your disabling stupidity. May your death be as meaningless as your life.
Akumeitakai 4 years ago
You're probably too ignorant for me to bother responding. You offer no proof or source of the quotes or assertions you make. Which are contextually meaningless anyway.
ARizzio 4 years ago
I will be nice only this once. Encyclopedia Britanica Online, read it for yourself, imbacil. w.britannica.c.o.m-eb-article-219389-fascism If you can still tout the "fact" that Hitler was an Athiest after reading this, then I certainly hope you will cop to your inability to believe anything other than the hollow drivel of your holy book.
Akumeitakai 4 years ago
The article you cite seems to have been authored by Benedetto Croce the well known atheist philosopher, himself an early supporter of Mussolini. He names "movements in Poland, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, & Brazil" specifically NOT Germany or for that matter Italy. Nothing of Hitler so don't lie again.
ARizzio 4 years ago
Of course...of course. Do me this favor: go home and die. But before you do; actually read the article and tell God I said Hi! >:)
Akumeitakai 4 years ago
I agree to a point comrade. The point I think needs to be laid down is that humans are dangerous to society. We need to find a way for all these people who have socially accepted delusions to go about their business in a way that does not threaten others or diminish their output. Banning (which isn't what you said) doesn't and has never worked through out history.
LuckyLukarse1981 4 years ago
check this out
watch?v=5aG5aN-3898
Hitler was a Christian.He killed many people in the name of God.and I'm afraid it's very important to know whether or not people have been killed in the name of religious beliefs.What has damaged our world the most is obviously religious dogmas that are extremely inflexible and hateful.There is no way out for us to deny things instead of facing them with a good knowledge of human intellectualism.
obscuritycode2a 4 years ago
Jesus is okay with murdering nonbelievers and...children.
Luke 19:27
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."
Revelation 2:23
"I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works."
Holy fucking shit. How can so many people overlook the darkness and obvious moral failures of the bible?
drtae 4 years ago
Women shouldn't choose to be Christians.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
drtae 4 years ago
They are led in with joy and gladness; they enter the palace of the king.
Your sons will take the place of your fathers; you will make them princes throughout the land. I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.
howcanyouseethelight 4 years ago
Listen, O daughter, consider and give ear: Forget your people and your father's house.
The king is enthralled by your beauty; honor him, for he is your lord.
The Daughter of Tyre will come with a gift, [b] men of wealth will seek your favor.
All glorious is the princess within her chamber ; her gown is interwoven with gold. In embroidered garments she is led to the king; her virgin companions follow her and are brought to you.
howcanyouseethelight 4 years ago
You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; from palaces adorned with ivory the music of the strings makes you glad. Daughters of kings are among your honored women; at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophir.
howcanyouseethelight 4 years ago
In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness; let your right hand display awesome deeds.
Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies; let the nations fall beneath your feet.
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
howcanyouseethelight 4 years ago
For the director of music. To the tune of "Lilies." Of the Sons of Korah. A maskil. A wedding song. [a] My heart is stirred by a noble theme as I recite my verses for the king; my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.You are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed with grace, since God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one; clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
howcanyouseethelight 4 years ago
Your right people believe a lot of things and they can't all be right. But what you refuse to see is that yours is just another belief system. The belief that there is no God is also a belief system (religion). You accuse others of being the problem. At least most other belief system have a set of good and bad values. Your arrogance is very telling but also illogical.
richkenawell 4 years ago
richkenawell, do you consider "not-collecting-stamps" a real hobby?
TheoreticalBullshit 4 years ago
If the stamps are all around you and you actually have to go out of your way to avoid them. It not only is a hobby it could be a full time job.
richkenawell 4 years ago
Whether God exists or not is a question that has not been answered. Obviously, you cannot say that God himself is all around us without begging the question of your own unfounded beliefs. (Popularity does not equal truth... flat earth, anyone?) However, the BELIEF in God is something an atheist does see every day. Is this reason enough to call atheism a religion? Astrology is all around us as well. Is Non-Astrology a religion?
............I think you are confused.
TheoreticalBullshit 4 years ago
Oh, and by the way... Stamps ARE all around us, and we WOULD have to go out of our way to avoid them. Perhaps you consider yourself a stamp-collector by default?
TheoreticalBullshit 4 years ago
whether god exists or not is not a more valid question than "is there a green dragon with red spots flying around the universe"... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. by all science at the momment, god doesnt exist. but by the intrinsic characteristics of science, this can be prooven wrong with and only with enough hard evidence.
hamsterpoop 4 years ago
"If the stamps are all around you and you actually have to go out of your way to avoid them. It not only is a hobby it could be a full time job"
Tell me that as a kid you aspired to be an avoider of stamps, alongside being a lawyer, a fireman, or a pilot. If you wanna argue a point, at least be truthful. Don't pull the "Emperor's new clothes" stunt.
crosshairsof99 4 years ago
I love that: "this is bull sh*t"- what a great conclusion.
shmoo597 4 years ago
Sam, I am going to buy your book today based on what you said here.
askegg 5 years ago
where can I download athis video?
ray46and2 5 years ago
its so sad that only the atheist are making any damn sense...or maybe its not sad.
noXizTenZ 5 years ago
It's sad the people as religious as those don't have enough IQ to understand science facts thus thinking that those facts don't make any damn sense. It's good to see that countries like Spain are slowly transforming into atheist countries. More than 60% of the younger population (30 and under) don't believe in God/Gods thus demonstrating that young people in Spain have a sense of reality that older people lack.
heffeque 5 years ago
Unfortunately, there is a big Muslim influx into Europe. This kind of scares me.
LadyhawkLH 5 years ago
Well... not all Muslims are bad just like not all Christians are bad but... yes, generally speaking, it _can_ be scary because of some of their customs and ideals :-/
heffeque 5 years ago
This is not always true. My parents are probably the two most intelligent people Ive ever known, both with IQs well into the genius level. However, due to their upbringing and various social pressures, they believe strongly in Catholicism. It is kind of like they have one part of their brain that is wired wrong. Imposing religious superstition on children that do not have sufficient intellect to resist is tantamount to child abuse.
ShadeeFan 5 years ago
Faith is the devils masterpiece
markod2002 5 years ago
I just realized that there is something fundamentally dangerous about Sam Harris and Dawkins---they are atheists but their morality is Kantian and, thereby, semi-religious. There attack on religion, therefore, is contradictory. Why should humans, logically, be concerned with animals but not human embroys. Species behave to support their survival; not the survival of other species. Helping animals goes against nature.
MetaMorphy 5 years ago
The arrogance comment was silly. The religious people will call us arrogant for thinking that mankind can rely on reason. Our best argument is, "What is the evidence?"
MetaMorphy 5 years ago
i believe in bill hicks
georgebushisawesome 5 years ago
Minute 1:07 -> "It's time to address the role that religion plays on perpetuating human conflict"
He means that religion is the cause of most wars, right? LOL. True... so true...
heffeque 5 years ago
Not only wars. He also refers to arguments throwed, you know, just verbally speaking
Cheepn1s 3 years ago
Hehe...Yeah, that's sort of the whole point. Sam Harris is saying that faith is not a legitimate path to knowledge. If it were, we wouldn't have umpteen billion religions.
LadyhawkLH 5 years ago
excellent talk, I'm going to buy his book
narco73 5 years ago
It's about time someone said what a lot of us have been thinking. If you are an atheist, please come out of the closet. It's the first step to halting these bizarre beliefs. We have to come out and point out the obvious: there is no good reason to believe in a god.
LadyhawkLH 5 years ago
I would like to add that if you do choose to live an open atheist, please conduct yourself in a manner that brings honor to yourself and others with your belief. No one respects obnoxious, know-it-all, in-your-face Christians, and thus no one would respect atheists who behave the same way. I would suggest that you let the arguments and conduct of Sam Harris be a model for you, otherwise you do a disservice to yourself and the movement in general.
ShadeeFan 5 years ago 2
His liberty and freedom of voice in no way offended me.
popred1 5 years ago
i agree with you 100%. you nailed sam harris' entire message in your first phrase, "any assertion [about truth] requires evidence". all convictions predicated on faith are equally invalid. if you're suggesting that real honest evidence exists for some religious claims about reality now, then i either haven't seen it yet, or i disagree about the definition of the word "honest" or "evidence".
smellul8r 5 years ago
Have you investigated every claim, every article, book or objection to any religion...or scientific fact for that matter?
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
... ummm ... uhhh ... .. . huh? what do you want me to say? no, i haven't, therefore i know absolutely nothing? on one hand we have a set of beliefs about the world that has been built by compiling and comparing evidence and is open to new information, on the other we have a million beliefs based on abracadabra, oovy-groovy, supernatural stuff (one of which is supposed to be obviously uniquely true). i'll take the first.
smellul8r 5 years ago
Well, I am thankful that you and I both have that choice, but I would be careful characterizing the beliefs of the majority of the world as "abracadabra."
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
along those lines... let's make a pact to allow our children to make up their own minds. let's keep open minds and postpone the scary stories (i'm not being facetious - we agree hell is a scary concept) at least until they are old enough to make other important decisions. ok? i'm in. anyone else?
smellul8r 5 years ago
Hey, I agree that many religions use brain washing tactics and indoctrination, but I don't. My students don't have to believe what I tell them to. They are not forced and there is no "religiosity" involved. I believe that this is the distinguishing mark of true Christianity. Religion is man's attempt to get to God, while Christianity is God coming down as a man. You don't have to believe this, but I do and I believe God changes lives. We can't do anything to earn it.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Do you tell your students about Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc, or Ahteism, Agnosticism? If not the you're indoctrinating them by ommission. You are someone, I imagine, that your students look up to and they are likely to believe what you tell them. If they have no other information, what basis do they have to come up with counter arguments and opinions?
sharkytrfc 5 years ago
Yes we have defined atheism, agnosticism and I consider myself to be quite informed about Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, Scientology, etc. However, I don't endorse or give any more credence to these belief systems than you probably would to Christianity because the Law of Noncontradiction states that not all can be right. I present the claims of both, but as I said before, my students aren't "required" to believe it.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
I don't like this 'not required to believe' mantra that seems to crop up regularly; although they may not be required to believe, the peer pressure and pressure from parents, pastors etc. means that they end up being indoctrinated anyway. My ideal would be to be taught about different religious and secular ideas by someone who is not allied to any and to make my own mind up. I suppose that's difficult to do in practice, but it's what I intend to do for my own children.
sharkytrfc 5 years ago
That's fabulous idealism. You will never find anyone anywhere who does not have an agenda. I would love for my students to experience what I have experienced. However, I cannot, and I emphasize "cannot", make them believe. That is the difference between Christianity and any other religion. You cannot force belief. See my original post you replied to. It was once said, "A man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still."
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Isn't it amazing that the same intolerance, exclusion and extremism that these folks say is being practiced by "religions" is the root of this video's message (especially the introductory speakers comments).
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
it actually is not the video's (or his books') central message. he does argue that superstitious people be marginalized - like all people with unsubstantiated grandiose delusions that impose codes of conduct that conflict with common sense and reason.
smellul8r 5 years ago 2
I don't think that you can say that this video just attacks the marginalized or superstitious, but any religion that claims a knowledge of God. Additionally, I am not claiming that all religions speak of God rightly, but unless anyone has investigated every claim of any particular religion with honesty, then you cannot make a statement about "unsubstantiated gradiose delusions" or "codes of conduct that conflict with common sense and reason."
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
i think harris would argue that it is the person making the claims that needs to provide honest evidence (no one needs to disprove the existence of poseidon). "that which is asserted without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence." it's clear to see when unsubstantiated beliefs lead to oppressive codes of conduct - unless you are one of the believers and immunized against reason.
smellul8r 5 years ago
Any assertion demands evidence, even yours or Sam Harris'. I think the problem with Harris and many people who criticize "religion" in general without knowing specifics fail to realize that not every religion is based on blind faith, though there are some that are. The same standards by which all assertions are measured (historical consistency, factual accuracy, etc.) should be applied to any religious assertion as well.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
can you elaborate? what religion doesnt rely on blind faith?yours?if you know empirticly that your religion is true then what does that do to the value of faith?every religios fanatic knows that their faith is true, you think the suicide bomber about to blow himself up doesnt know that he will soon be with 72 virgins? yes secular science, its all a conspiracy an agenda to undermine the bible right? 99 percent of biblical history is un substantiated
not blind faith?
robaquarian 5 years ago
Christianity cannot simply be determined empirically, however, my faith is not blind. I have stood in the galleries of the British museum and seen historical artifacts that substantiate biblical history (such as, the Cylinder of Cyrus which records King Cyrus' edict that allowed the Jews to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem approx. 500 years before Christ), so you might want to research that claim a little bit more.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
A blind faith is a faith that relies solely on the claims of a religious leader or text, despite conclusive physical evidence (such as a Muslim's belief in Mohammed as the sole prophet of God or a Mormon's belief in Joseph Smith). The Christian faith ultimately rests in the claims of the Jesus Christ and the Bible, but both are substantiated in a multiplicity of ways.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Do you see the difference? A blind faith is in opposition to the mind, while the basis for Christian faith is based, not just in the mind, but in the mind and heart in harmony. No, the Christian faith is not always understandable, but it is never irrational. In both the Old and the New Testaments, we are told to the love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
We don't need to provide evidence, the people with the claim do. We atheiss are just trying to point out how shit your beliefs are. WE need not provide evidence as to why (though we do), you have to prove he does exist.
Rincewindsar 5 years ago
How is your claim any different than mine. At least in the particular claim about belief in God I have thousands of years of history to provide as one facet of evidence. However, your claim that my beliefs are-well, I guess you would use that word to mean irrational and inconsistent-is a claim that needs support as well.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
ryantheyouthpastor: Intolerance for intolerance is not intolerance, like the burka law in France and now even perhaps in the Netherlands. Harris, Dawkins and others are simply trying start an open dialogue about faith and religious beliefs and open up this taboo subject.
arngrei 5 years ago
I am not being intolerant towards their viewpoint, they have a right to it. Intolerance would say that they are delusional or stupid for believing it...hold on, isn't that what they are saying about people who believe in God? Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are blatantly clear that their goal in doing this is not just "dialogue".
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Well they explain WHY they think that too, they make a clear and solid argument for it. Intolerance would be just saying that religious people are delusional and stupid with no explanation, which is the opposite of what they do.
arngrei 5 years ago
Okay, go look up intolernace in the dictionary and you will not find an "enlightened" intolerance to be any less intolerant. Decide for yourself who is being intolerant--the people who are claiming, like Harris, Dawkins, and others, that "superstitious" or religious people should be "marginalized" or people who uphold a right for free speech (like me) and their right to say something even if they are wrong. Which is true intolerance, whether motivated by religion or atheism?
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
OK, at least we agree that to marginalize people because of their opinions (I use that term rather than beliefs) is unacceptable. We must respect people's right to HAVE and EXPRESS their opinions but we have no obligation to respect the opinions THEMSELVES.
arngrei 5 years ago
Finally you have arrived at a right definition of tolerance, but now I would encourage you to go look up belief.
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Let's use the term "faith" instead.
arngrei 5 years ago
Okay, how would you define faith? As "opinion"? I would define it as "firm trust" or, as Christians would define it, "substantiated belief that is evidenced by action." Do you agree with this definition?
ryantheyouthpastor 5 years ago
Calling nonsense nonsense is neither intolerance or prejudice. The unfounded and ridiculous claims of religions like yours are the driving wedge between many peoples of this world. They teach people to be satisfied with not knowing the true answers to the tough questions, and are thus a liability to humans on an individual basis, and to the advancement of the human race.
ShadeeFan 5 years ago
eloquent & reasoned... I'll be reading The End of Faith as soon as I've finished Dawkin's The God Delusion
AlwaysReadTheLabel 5 years ago 2
GREAT...KEEP IT COMMING...
newdog2 5 years ago