There are many more overtly violent acts done in the name of Islam than any other religion. They just don't take place as often in America, or against non-Muslims.
You're right in saying that no matter what faith you are, if you really want to square some abhorrent act with your beliefs, you'll probably find a way. That's the nature of basing your world view on intangible nonsense. However, Islam is the only major religion that explicitly endorses this kind of behavior.
@AntitheistPOV That was Lawrence Krauss that asked the question; he's always asks purposely hard questions, as to play the devil's advocate. He was pretty much just provoking, but I guess Sam surprised everyone with his hesitant response to reincarnation.
@AntitheistPOV I was surprised by that, but it doesn't change the way I perceive his point. I'd like to see what he would say about that now, if asked. Either way, what he was saying is completely reasonable to me. Some beliefs are crazier and more dangerous than others, and they shouldn't be treated equally. Regardless, it's weird how he responded about reincarnation (it still doesn't change his point though).
Obviously some beliefs are more problematic than others. That goes without saying.
However, a "professional arguer" can't afford such an obvious bias. If you're equally critical of all supernatural claims, you can claim to be arguing purely from a perspective of reason and evidence. When you start making excuses for a particular belief system, it becomes much easier for people to dismiss otherwise valid arguments as "anti-Islamic" and such.
@brunodemoura I think Richard is the smartest man alive, Sam & Neil are equal ( strong second, one trumps the either at different times ) in my opinion. But, they are all the top in each of their different fields.
@sdacrowe I actually disagree...I think both (Sam & Neil) are smartest than Richard. I think Richard has more limited views... not good philosophy background. But of course, he is brilhant too.
@brunodemoura Well, I have a bias, Richard is my favorite ( I enjoy evolution biology, & he teaches it ) & the British, astrophysics & neuroscience are a little over my head. I think Richard, being a professor, has a way of speaking, that the common non scientific minds can understand...lol. But, yes we can agree that they are all brilliant.
The gent commenting at 30:50 makes a good point. I like Sam, but it surprised me when he was unwilling to be as dismissive of reincarnation as he is of the supernatural beliefs of other religions.
I think it's important for someone wanting to promote reason over faith to be consistent in their criticisms of supernatural claims. Otherwise, he's really promoting his own bias.
Why did you cut the clips whenever someone was responding to Sam? Seems like it might have been an interesting talk if we got to hear more than half of the conversation.
I think Sam's closing point was not only valid, but completely true. I see and hear of people at least every week or so, that have transitioned from creationist, or fundamentalist, into just eye opening reasoning and rationality, and I am sure that the number of these people are much more than what I witness. Just having the conversation is unbelievably important for everyone involved..
@ramatirthadasa ..that person in Lawrence Krauss. Look him up, he's far from being a dumbass. He is credited with the famous line: "Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could be here."
@bronzmash If you watch his part in this debate you can tell Lawrence Krauss was on the fence about this subject. He seems to be all the way on the side of reason now.
@ChristopherHitchslap I totally agree. And i think he has been educated.. however, he is no 'dumbass'. Just that.. of course, one can see his fence-sitting as idiocy, but he was skeptical still. He truly is on the reason bullpen now..!
Why? He makes a perfectly good point. If Sam believes he has valid reasons for criticizing one supernatural claim, he should apply the same reasoning to all supernatural claims.
His central argument is that we should value reason over faith. Consistently criticizing the supernatural beliefs of one religion (Islam), while dancing around a very simple question regarding the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, demonstrates a clear bias in his reasoning.
@AntitheistPOV i agree with you and Lawrence Krauss, Sam is showing his bias here and we wouldn't accept his answer from a religious person but from Sam it's supposed to be ok?
Sam Harris is the epitome of "if you don't explain it, I can't understand it; if you can't explain it, *you* don't understand it." He exemplifies the idea that there is no subject on which you cannot be articulate and open and rational. I admire his hyperarticulation and strive to be as capable of communicating intelligently and thought-provokingly on these subjects. LOL I think I'm close!
@truthslap -- your post contains several false claims. (a) the jews connection with the land is 3,000 years old. the palestinians is 100 years at best. they came mostly as migrants attracted by the jewish development of that formerly very poor land. (b) arabs are not 2nd class but full citizens. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in any Arab country! (c) rape by israelis? I guess you ran out of ideas. If there's someone lusting for mass murder in the middle-east it is not the Jews.
At ~ 7 min: the bloodletting in the middle east is not a two-sided derangement. the jews are in israel for historical reasons and the holocaust. the arabs have not accepted it and are warring an ethnicity that should be, in their view, anhilitated, or tolerated as a subservient minority. do not squander this reality sam.
@dreznik on its face your statement is transparently biased and unsubstantiated. the Palestinians have been there for generations, that is a "historical reason" that takes precedence over all others, you cannot kick people out of their homes and treat them like second-class citizens in the land their grandparents raised them in. the feelings of Arabs at large have nothing to do with it, this is about the indigenous people and their rights being raped by the Israelis.
@dreznik - Much of the Jewish claim on that land comes not from ancestral dwelling on it, but scriptural nonsense in which they were "promised" the land by a great real estate agent in the sky.
The land of Canaan and its surrounding territories were inhabited by numerous tribes and peoples of various religions and ethnicities of which Hebrew and Jews were nomadically part of. They all have claim to parts of those lands.
Jews just decided that they'd write their "land deed" into their religion.
@morpheusxnyc the jewish presence in the land of israel is a historical fact! it is ironic that the part they occupied in biblicaol times is what the UN allocated in 1947 to the arabs
@dreznik - Didn't say they weren't ONE of the several peoples that lived on that land throughout antiquity.
But they were just ONE OF - not the ONLY inhabitants of that land. Most of those peoples were nomadic and moved around, skirmishing with each other settling and resettling on various parts in that region over time.
BTW, your use of the phrase "biblical times" is laughable, given that the bible is mythology and that THEY wrote it. One should never trust religious historical accuracy.
@morpheusxnyc While the bible is laden with myths, the fact that jews were there in "biblical times" which means 3,000 years ago is a fact of archeology. You are right there have been numerous people inhabiting that land, but my point has been that the jews' continuous presence, 2,000 years of yearning (while in murderous europe) and the culmination of this painful process with the holocaust were good enough grounds to the UN to decree the partition of 1947. The arabs rejected it! End of story!
@dreznik Well, the fact that they inhabited the land during the time period they wrote about in the books of the Torah is not in question. Their ACCOUNTS of that time period in their own mythological writings is what's highly dubious. But that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.
As for the Holocaust, Europeans (the Germans with the Catholic church's tacit approval) did that to them, not Arabs/Palestinians, etc. so one thing has nothing to do with the other as far as I can see.
@morpheusxnyc -- good, now we know you think the UN was wrong about the 1947 partition, and that you think Israel is illegitimate, and that you agree w/ Hellen Thomas who said the "jews should get the hell out of palestine and go back to where they came from, like Germany, Poland, etc". You and Helen, and Ahmadinejad are right at home in the same group, and for the reasons I have exhaustively outlined, are out of touch with historical fact and international jurisprudence.
@dreznik Huh? Nice strawman outfit you've tailored for me. Does it come in pinstripes? lol
You can hop off your soapbox. I'm not an antiSemite nor an ideologue. I look at history and go where the data takes me. I don't have a problem with the Jewish state of Israel's existence, etc. I've said that they have just as much right to be there as any of the other groups that once occupied that land and probably a bit moreso, but that their claim is based on time spent there, not biblical B.S. Got it?
@dreznik - Oh, and my point about the Holocaust and the U.N. partition plan was that the creation of Israel as a sovereign state within a mostly Arab dominated region because of their ancestral land dwelling claim was a valid factor to be considered for the partition, but the Holocaust - which has NOTHING to do with Arabs or the land in question is IRRELEVANT to the equation.
How much they suffered in Europe has nothing to do with their claim on land in the Middle East. There's no linkage...
@morpheusxnyc Of course there is a linkage. Zionism predates the holocaust by some 70yrs, the Balfour declaration by some 30 yrs, and the age-old desire of the jews to restore their homeland is 2,000 yrs old. Israel was not restored to the Jews accidentally. You should feel great that besides Ahmadinejad and Hellen Thomas you have also Chavez and Castro as intellectual questioners of the UN 181. Go read some history.
@morpheusxnyc -- yes, as in 6 million murdered. Under international law jews are allowed to settle anywhere between the sea and the Jordan, as unanimously agreed by the 51 member countries - the entire League of Nations - on July 24, 1922: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
@dreznik You didn't provide a link or show linkage between the actions of Hitler and the land in Middle East and how one was a related and relevant factor in mitigating the other.
You just threw the number of Holocaust victims in the mix as if that would nullify the question and then quoted the established law stemming from the UN 181.
You still haven't answered the question about WTF the German-inflicted Holocaust has to do with the land in the Middle East.
@morpheusxnyc you should also know that given the Balfour declaration, any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine and/or to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations in 1922 is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
@dreznik Again, all of this is referring to the already established law. My question is when you said, "the culmination of this painful process with the holocaust were good enough grounds to the UN to decree the partition of 1947".
WTF did the Holocaust in Germany and Poland have to do with establishing land rights in the Middle East?
That's like saying your parents were wrongfully killed by a cop in New Jersey, so now you're demanding that the government give you a house in Las Vegas. Huh?!!
@morpheusxnyc And then you oppress and abuse the shit out of any family members who refuse to leave the house and call anyone who fights back a terrorist.
@abuliberalee Sigh.. That whole deal is all fucked up.
But there has to be a compromise where nobody gets 100% of what they want and everyone goes away unhappy. .
Israel used to have that land a long time ago. Then they got kicked off and others moved in. Fast-forward 2000 years later and they're back in the region (there was always some Jewish presence there, just not in large numbers and not with a controlling interest in the land/government) and they want some of their land back. I get it.
@abuliberalee It's ugly for those that live there now and have to swap land with them or give up land altogether and many atrocities have been committed on both sides in the struggle.
Too much blood has already been shed and too many Western powers have had their hand in the pot.
Arabs need to recognize that Israel has an ancient claim to the land and put behind their blood feuds and work out some kind of compromise with them because this is a problem for everyone who lives there.
@morpheusxnyc I'm not saying anyone has to like it, I'm just saying that accommodations have to be made so that all have some land and safety within their borders.
It's like the Native Americans wanting some of their land back. Naturally, the U.S. government would NOT want to give it back, but rightfully, the land belongs to the Natives.
If the natives were powerful enough to wage war successfully, some accommodation would probably have to be made for them - and more than just reservations.
@morpheusxnyc Oh I'm not suggesting Israel shouldn't exist. Lots of states are founded on giant injustices. It would be nice if they'd stop colonizing the west bank in flagrant violation of the 4th Geneva Convention though (to which they are signatories). Every time you go to Palestine there's a new hilltop that's been deforested and taken over by Zionist fanatics.
@abuliberalee - Sigh.. There are always extremists and atrocities and injustices on both sides whenever ancient grudges over land, etc. are being fought over.
It's just ugly and there needs to be an miserable land deal that pisses everyone off but clearly defines the borders for both parties so they can begin the process of healing over time. The next few generations won't be cool with it, but a few more out beyond those should find a way to coexist peacefully.
@dreznik Don't get me wrong, given the choice between Jews or Muslims, I'll go with Jews as the lesser of the two irrational and superstitious evils, but I'm a man of evidence, facts and reason, not emotion or appeal to pathos.
That patch of desert has a nomadic history. Israel has A BIT more claim to the land due to how long they've been there and their blood investment in the land; but based on those facts ALONE - not some supernatural real estate broker nonsense they fabulized themselves.
@morpheusxnyc You judge me too naive. You are confounding the myths present in the bible with the historical continuous presence of the jews in that land which is NOT a myth. beside the bible there are many written historical accounts, and lots of archeology. israel is the nation-state of the jews, the place the romans expelled them from, and their only destination after 2,000 yrs of murderous persecution in the hands of europeans. only come back AFTER you read the full text of UN res 181.
@dreznik The Jews have just as much claim to that land as anyone else whose ancestors lived on it at one point or another in antiquity.
The Canaanite tribes that came together to form Israel founded a city there and built more on it than the other nomadic tribes that came before them, but that just gives them more investment in the land, not more RIGHT or OWNERSHIP.
That's why they had to cook up that absurd supernatural land grant and title from the deity they made up.
I think I see the genesis of Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape" in this video as his response to the argument that a purely scientific, rational view cannot provide morals to live by.
@niinja2 - I didn't understand it as such. What he basically said is that what one can discover in meditation is discoverable no matter what religion, or nonreligion, one is in. And out of all the religions, Buddhism (which practices meditation the most) gets closest. Elsewhere, he disavows much of Buddhism's baggage - and says we can still have tremendous spiritual experiences and not have to believe improbable things.
@niinja2 - That's strange. Do you not see the difference between meditation and miracles? On one hand, there's a state of consciousness anyone can attain right now if they tried. On the other hand, we're talking about miracles like god having a sonren and then sacrificing the child to Himself to rid others of a curse that he put on them after a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree. Don't you see the difference?
"and intends only to divert attention to minor points instead."
Its intention is to answer some questions which are designed to show whether your theory is consistent. Which by the way you failed to do. Could i really expect otherwise. If you do not respond to the questions i asked , do not respond at all please.
@niinja2 - What I'm trying to tell you is that your questions: 1) why no Muslim suicide bombers 50 years ago? and 2) why ignore that the Koran states suicide is forbidden? are not addressing the issue. Question 1 focuses on "suicide bombing", but it doesn't address the issue. You might as well ask "why weren't there suicide bombers 500 years ago?" Does it matter? We're talking about violent acts made explicitly for religious reasons.
"We're talking about violent acts made explicitly for religious reasons."
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE
we can check if they were done for religious reasons by trying to see if same thing happened 50 or 100 years ago since KORAN DID NOT CHANGE OVER THAT TIME. And if the reasons were religious AND CAUSED BY THE KORAN they WOULD BE PERSISTENT THROUGH 50 AND 100 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
MAYBE INSTEAD OF COMMENTING THE QUESTION YOU COULD ANSWER IT ??!!?!?!!?!?!?!?
@niinja2 Question 2 is also naive. There might be one verse which you could point to, but you're ignoring everything else which lays the foundation for why it's okay to kill others (heaven, virgins, free pass for family members) and die for Islam. If anything, all you've done is point out contradictions of Muslim holy books. That's great! But you're using one contradicting verse, against suicide, to essentially apologize for all the other murderous verses in the Quran and the Hadith.
if koran is in contradiction then the people who make any of the 2 conclusions are doing it because THEY WANT IT TO BE TRUE, NOT BECAUSE KORAN TELLS THEM BECAUSE ITS CONTRADICTORY.
GET IT
"But you're using one contradicting verse, against suicide, to essentially apologize for all the other murderous verses in the Quran and the Hadith."
I DONT CARE FOR MURDEROUS VERSES IN KORAN
I CARE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY DO THEY FOLLOW SOME AND NOT OTHERS AND THERE ARE MORE THEN ONE!
"On the other hand, we're talking about miracles like god having a sonren and then sacrificing the child to Himself "
No
We are talking about miracles like Jesuit priests who allegedly survived 1 mile from he epicenter of Hiroshima bomb, or miracles at Louvre or Međugorje.
"Do you not see the difference between meditation and miracles?"
No we are talking about miracles and reincarnation. Do you see any difference there?
"islam is a remarkable piece of software for suicide terrorism"
Islam says if you kill one man its like you killed an entire population
Islam specifically forbids suicide
Sam is contrasted by a guy who is doing real science in terrorism for the last 20 years , he has actually talked with suicide bombers but people like sam harris will be more popular just because there are always sheeps to whom he will resonate emotionally.
@niinja2 - I think Sam has pretty much refuted your claim, which is essentially Muslim apologetics. He basically spanks Atran (and you) from 20:13 onward, but specifically from 25:04 to 27:00.
let me make this short so you actually focus on the matter at hand.
1) why were there no Muslim suicide bombers 50 years ago???
2)koran states that suicide is forbidden, it also states that if you kill one person its like you killed the entire population, explain why they ignore this!
3)understanding is not apologizing or justifying! try to get this though your head you fanboi
@niinja2 - You just facepalmed yourself. "Suicide bombing" isn't the issue. It's violent acts based on a dogma. Muslims believe they will go to Paradise and be able to take family members with them if they die in defense of a cause. That's why Iranians had no problem sending their young to "clear" Iraqi minefields. Your three points (which IS the core apologetics) ignores the big, overall point behind the argument, and intends only to divert attention to minor points instead.
Sam hits every curveball thrown at him. He can explain himself in much more detail and analogies, but people want one sentence answers to satisfy them. That's difficult to do, and yet he still pulls it off in a few sentences. The guy at the end felt like a big winner with his 4 person obnoxious applause, yet as he stormed off probably felt like a little kid again while Same answered.
Religion's cancerous cell has the nucleus of certainty in it's core. When one is absolutely certain about everything he does not see any reason for further discussion and/or conversation and therefore growth. He stops exploring and that's the moment that disaster begins. That is when ignorance is born and suicide bomber mentality is created.
When he talks about people blowing themselves up, he seems to focus only on religion, while it is pretty clear that US foreign policy is the main driver of terrorism, sort of what Neil was trying to imply I guess. (they would be using real weapons just like the West is doing)
The talk on reincarnation really showed Sam from a wierd angle, like a true aplogyst.
It was priceless when he said that there are no christian suicide bombers and the other guy proved him wrong with data
I love Sam, but I think it was valid to point out his romance with Buddhism. That he doesn't immediately disavow reincarnation as nonsense is silly. I also got upset that he didn't respond to the last person on there that says that he can't think of a thing that science has contributed to morality or ethics. What a bunch of nonsense. If you can't come up with examples of that in history you literally know nothing of history.
There's some very interesting reincarnation cases I found out recently. I used to think it was nonsense, but I've changed my position a bit. Of course there's no cold hard scientific evidence, but there's good anecdotal evidence that points in the way of reincarnation. And reincarnation in a holographic universe is not that strange of an idea.
Actually, understanding (the health benefits and downsides) of chocolate DOES make me want to eat it more or less (depending on which quantity is healthy).
I really hope more people like Sam start writing and doing lectures. This country has for far too long been living under a mass delusion. People ask me as an Atheist why I care what other people believe. Well, when I point them towards the people that are running for President in 2012 in the GOP I need say no more. I don't give two shits what anyone believes, but when they want to run the country I live in and make laws from the bible, then I do care
There's more Christian mass shootings than suicide bombers. There are also Christian bombers, they just don't include themself in this assault.
sdacrowe 3 days ago
@sdacrowe
There are many more overtly violent acts done in the name of Islam than any other religion. They just don't take place as often in America, or against non-Muslims.
You're right in saying that no matter what faith you are, if you really want to square some abhorrent act with your beliefs, you'll probably find a way. That's the nature of basing your world view on intangible nonsense. However, Islam is the only major religion that explicitly endorses this kind of behavior.
AntitheistPOV 5 hours ago
I'm so glad he touched on the nature of sociopathy.
sdacrowe 3 days ago
@BER2ERKER he, not he's*
BER2ERKER 4 days ago
@AntitheistPOV That was Lawrence Krauss that asked the question; he's always asks purposely hard questions, as to play the devil's advocate. He was pretty much just provoking, but I guess Sam surprised everyone with his hesitant response to reincarnation.
BER2ERKER 4 days ago
@AntitheistPOV I was surprised by that, but it doesn't change the way I perceive his point. I'd like to see what he would say about that now, if asked. Either way, what he was saying is completely reasonable to me. Some beliefs are crazier and more dangerous than others, and they shouldn't be treated equally. Regardless, it's weird how he responded about reincarnation (it still doesn't change his point though).
BER2ERKER 4 days ago
@BER2ERKER
Obviously some beliefs are more problematic than others. That goes without saying.
However, a "professional arguer" can't afford such an obvious bias. If you're equally critical of all supernatural claims, you can claim to be arguing purely from a perspective of reason and evidence. When you start making excuses for a particular belief system, it becomes much easier for people to dismiss otherwise valid arguments as "anti-Islamic" and such.
AntitheistPOV 5 hours ago
Sam Harris should be made President of the world.
MrLtPink 4 days ago 7
I think Sam Harris is the smartest man alive.
brunodemoura 5 days ago 3
@brunodemoura I think Richard is the smartest man alive, Sam & Neil are equal ( strong second, one trumps the either at different times ) in my opinion. But, they are all the top in each of their different fields.
sdacrowe 3 days ago
@sdacrowe I actually disagree...I think both (Sam & Neil) are smartest than Richard. I think Richard has more limited views... not good philosophy background. But of course, he is brilhant too.
brunodemoura 3 days ago
@brunodemoura Well, I have a bias, Richard is my favorite ( I enjoy evolution biology, & he teaches it ) & the British, astrophysics & neuroscience are a little over my head. I think Richard, being a professor, has a way of speaking, that the common non scientific minds can understand...lol. But, yes we can agree that they are all brilliant.
sdacrowe 3 days ago
@sdacrowe Oops, sorry for the typo, that & the british should have went in the parenthesis after biology...
sdacrowe 3 days ago
Richards face at 38:53 priceless...
hldemi 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The gent commenting at 30:50 makes a good point. I like Sam, but it surprised me when he was unwilling to be as dismissive of reincarnation as he is of the supernatural beliefs of other religions.
I think it's important for someone wanting to promote reason over faith to be consistent in their criticisms of supernatural claims. Otherwise, he's really promoting his own bias.
AntitheistPOV 6 days ago
7:30 dont you just hate those stairs where one leg is always going down, and the other is going forwards...
jimnebob 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why did you cut the clips whenever someone was responding to Sam? Seems like it might have been an interesting talk if we got to hear more than half of the conversation.
AntitheistPOV 6 days ago
Where is the golden rule in the bible? I can't find it. What page is it on again?
Callirgos1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Callirgos1
Matthew 19:16-19
AntitheistPOV 6 days ago
@Callirgos1
Matthew 7:12... it is in a few other places as well ithink. But the golden rule predated the bible, so we can put the bible in the bin! :)
jimnebob 6 days ago
35:04 what...?
suddenly he sounds like a theologian being asked if he literally believes in The Garden of Eden.
kantastisk 1 week ago
I think Sam's closing point was not only valid, but completely true. I see and hear of people at least every week or so, that have transitioned from creationist, or fundamentalist, into just eye opening reasoning and rationality, and I am sure that the number of these people are much more than what I witness. Just having the conversation is unbelievably important for everyone involved..
TheMadBeach 2 weeks ago
@ramatirthadasa ..that person in Lawrence Krauss. Look him up, he's far from being a dumbass. He is credited with the famous line: "Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could be here."
bronzmash 2 weeks ago
@bronzmash If you watch his part in this debate you can tell Lawrence Krauss was on the fence about this subject. He seems to be all the way on the side of reason now.
ChristopherHitchslap 2 weeks ago
@ChristopherHitchslap I totally agree. And i think he has been educated.. however, he is no 'dumbass'. Just that.. of course, one can see his fence-sitting as idiocy, but he was skeptical still. He truly is on the reason bullpen now..!
bronzmash 2 weeks ago
31:55 Dumbass of the day
ramatirthadasa 2 weeks ago
@ramatirthadasa That's Lawrence Krauss, look him up :).
andreasdrg 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ramatirthadasa
Why? He makes a perfectly good point. If Sam believes he has valid reasons for criticizing one supernatural claim, he should apply the same reasoning to all supernatural claims.
His central argument is that we should value reason over faith. Consistently criticizing the supernatural beliefs of one religion (Islam), while dancing around a very simple question regarding the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, demonstrates a clear bias in his reasoning.
AntitheistPOV 6 days ago
@AntitheistPOV i agree with you and Lawrence Krauss, Sam is showing his bias here and we wouldn't accept his answer from a religious person but from Sam it's supposed to be ok?
jadagod 13 hours ago
"reincarnation who knows"
Wow, lost all my respect there. He's no better than idiots saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist".
BigDog91527 3 weeks ago
Sam Harris is the epitome of "if you don't explain it, I can't understand it; if you can't explain it, *you* don't understand it." He exemplifies the idea that there is no subject on which you cannot be articulate and open and rational. I admire his hyperarticulation and strive to be as capable of communicating intelligently and thought-provokingly on these subjects. LOL I think I'm close!
johnclavis 3 weeks ago
Sams a pmip
jhis pimp ujiuice is strong
sylviabombs15 1 month ago
@truthslap -- your post contains several false claims. (a) the jews connection with the land is 3,000 years old. the palestinians is 100 years at best. they came mostly as migrants attracted by the jewish development of that formerly very poor land. (b) arabs are not 2nd class but full citizens. Arabs have more rights in Israel than in any Arab country! (c) rape by israelis? I guess you ran out of ideas. If there's someone lusting for mass murder in the middle-east it is not the Jews.
dreznik 1 month ago
At ~ 7 min: the bloodletting in the middle east is not a two-sided derangement. the jews are in israel for historical reasons and the holocaust. the arabs have not accepted it and are warring an ethnicity that should be, in their view, anhilitated, or tolerated as a subservient minority. do not squander this reality sam.
dreznik 1 month ago
@dreznik on its face your statement is transparently biased and unsubstantiated. the Palestinians have been there for generations, that is a "historical reason" that takes precedence over all others, you cannot kick people out of their homes and treat them like second-class citizens in the land their grandparents raised them in. the feelings of Arabs at large have nothing to do with it, this is about the indigenous people and their rights being raped by the Israelis.
truthslap 1 month ago
@dreznik - Much of the Jewish claim on that land comes not from ancestral dwelling on it, but scriptural nonsense in which they were "promised" the land by a great real estate agent in the sky.
The land of Canaan and its surrounding territories were inhabited by numerous tribes and peoples of various religions and ethnicities of which Hebrew and Jews were nomadically part of. They all have claim to parts of those lands.
Jews just decided that they'd write their "land deed" into their religion.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc the jewish presence in the land of israel is a historical fact! it is ironic that the part they occupied in biblicaol times is what the UN allocated in 1947 to the arabs
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik - Didn't say they weren't ONE of the several peoples that lived on that land throughout antiquity.
But they were just ONE OF - not the ONLY inhabitants of that land. Most of those peoples were nomadic and moved around, skirmishing with each other settling and resettling on various parts in that region over time.
BTW, your use of the phrase "biblical times" is laughable, given that the bible is mythology and that THEY wrote it. One should never trust religious historical accuracy.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc While the bible is laden with myths, the fact that jews were there in "biblical times" which means 3,000 years ago is a fact of archeology. You are right there have been numerous people inhabiting that land, but my point has been that the jews' continuous presence, 2,000 years of yearning (while in murderous europe) and the culmination of this painful process with the holocaust were good enough grounds to the UN to decree the partition of 1947. The arabs rejected it! End of story!
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik Well, the fact that they inhabited the land during the time period they wrote about in the books of the Torah is not in question. Their ACCOUNTS of that time period in their own mythological writings is what's highly dubious. But that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.
As for the Holocaust, Europeans (the Germans with the Catholic church's tacit approval) did that to them, not Arabs/Palestinians, etc. so one thing has nothing to do with the other as far as I can see.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc -- good, now we know you think the UN was wrong about the 1947 partition, and that you think Israel is illegitimate, and that you agree w/ Hellen Thomas who said the "jews should get the hell out of palestine and go back to where they came from, like Germany, Poland, etc". You and Helen, and Ahmadinejad are right at home in the same group, and for the reasons I have exhaustively outlined, are out of touch with historical fact and international jurisprudence.
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik Huh? Nice strawman outfit you've tailored for me. Does it come in pinstripes? lol
You can hop off your soapbox. I'm not an antiSemite nor an ideologue. I look at history and go where the data takes me. I don't have a problem with the Jewish state of Israel's existence, etc. I've said that they have just as much right to be there as any of the other groups that once occupied that land and probably a bit moreso, but that their claim is based on time spent there, not biblical B.S. Got it?
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@dreznik - Oh, and my point about the Holocaust and the U.N. partition plan was that the creation of Israel as a sovereign state within a mostly Arab dominated region because of their ancestral land dwelling claim was a valid factor to be considered for the partition, but the Holocaust - which has NOTHING to do with Arabs or the land in question is IRRELEVANT to the equation.
How much they suffered in Europe has nothing to do with their claim on land in the Middle East. There's no linkage...
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc Of course there is a linkage. Zionism predates the holocaust by some 70yrs, the Balfour declaration by some 30 yrs, and the age-old desire of the jews to restore their homeland is 2,000 yrs old. Israel was not restored to the Jews accidentally. You should feel great that besides Ahmadinejad and Hellen Thomas you have also Chavez and Castro as intellectual questioners of the UN 181. Go read some history.
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik You're saying there's linkage between Germany/Hitler/the HOLOCAUST, etc and the patch of desert land in the Middle East?
Please send me a link to read about that.
Just omit the h-t-t-p or the w-w-w in the URL and then put a pair of brackets ( ) around the dot in the dotcom so I can see the link.
Like this: youtube(.)com
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc -- yes, as in 6 million murdered. Under international law jews are allowed to settle anywhere between the sea and the Jordan, as unanimously agreed by the 51 member countries - the entire League of Nations - on July 24, 1922: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik You didn't provide a link or show linkage between the actions of Hitler and the land in Middle East and how one was a related and relevant factor in mitigating the other.
You just threw the number of Holocaust victims in the mix as if that would nullify the question and then quoted the established law stemming from the UN 181.
You still haven't answered the question about WTF the German-inflicted Holocaust has to do with the land in the Middle East.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc you should also know that given the Balfour declaration, any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine and/or to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations in 1922 is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik Again, all of this is referring to the already established law. My question is when you said, "the culmination of this painful process with the holocaust were good enough grounds to the UN to decree the partition of 1947".
WTF did the Holocaust in Germany and Poland have to do with establishing land rights in the Middle East?
That's like saying your parents were wrongfully killed by a cop in New Jersey, so now you're demanding that the government give you a house in Las Vegas. Huh?!!
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc The better analogy is if you demanded a random citizen in Las Vegas who was in no way culpable for the crime give you a his house.
abuliberalee 3 weeks ago
@abuliberalee Sounds about right to me.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc And then you oppress and abuse the shit out of any family members who refuse to leave the house and call anyone who fights back a terrorist.
abuliberalee 3 weeks ago
@abuliberalee Sigh.. That whole deal is all fucked up.
But there has to be a compromise where nobody gets 100% of what they want and everyone goes away unhappy. .
Israel used to have that land a long time ago. Then they got kicked off and others moved in. Fast-forward 2000 years later and they're back in the region (there was always some Jewish presence there, just not in large numbers and not with a controlling interest in the land/government) and they want some of their land back. I get it.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@abuliberalee It's ugly for those that live there now and have to swap land with them or give up land altogether and many atrocities have been committed on both sides in the struggle.
Too much blood has already been shed and too many Western powers have had their hand in the pot.
Arabs need to recognize that Israel has an ancient claim to the land and put behind their blood feuds and work out some kind of compromise with them because this is a problem for everyone who lives there.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc I'm not saying anyone has to like it, I'm just saying that accommodations have to be made so that all have some land and safety within their borders.
It's like the Native Americans wanting some of their land back. Naturally, the U.S. government would NOT want to give it back, but rightfully, the land belongs to the Natives.
If the natives were powerful enough to wage war successfully, some accommodation would probably have to be made for them - and more than just reservations.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc Oh I'm not suggesting Israel shouldn't exist. Lots of states are founded on giant injustices. It would be nice if they'd stop colonizing the west bank in flagrant violation of the 4th Geneva Convention though (to which they are signatories). Every time you go to Palestine there's a new hilltop that's been deforested and taken over by Zionist fanatics.
abuliberalee 3 weeks ago
@abuliberalee - Sigh.. There are always extremists and atrocities and injustices on both sides whenever ancient grudges over land, etc. are being fought over.
It's just ugly and there needs to be an miserable land deal that pisses everyone off but clearly defines the borders for both parties so they can begin the process of healing over time. The next few generations won't be cool with it, but a few more out beyond those should find a way to coexist peacefully.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@dreznik Don't get me wrong, given the choice between Jews or Muslims, I'll go with Jews as the lesser of the two irrational and superstitious evils, but I'm a man of evidence, facts and reason, not emotion or appeal to pathos.
That patch of desert has a nomadic history. Israel has A BIT more claim to the land due to how long they've been there and their blood investment in the land; but based on those facts ALONE - not some supernatural real estate broker nonsense they fabulized themselves.
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
@morpheusxnyc You judge me too naive. You are confounding the myths present in the bible with the historical continuous presence of the jews in that land which is NOT a myth. beside the bible there are many written historical accounts, and lots of archeology. israel is the nation-state of the jews, the place the romans expelled them from, and their only destination after 2,000 yrs of murderous persecution in the hands of europeans. only come back AFTER you read the full text of UN res 181.
dreznik 3 weeks ago
@dreznik The Jews have just as much claim to that land as anyone else whose ancestors lived on it at one point or another in antiquity.
The Canaanite tribes that came together to form Israel founded a city there and built more on it than the other nomadic tribes that came before them, but that just gives them more investment in the land, not more RIGHT or OWNERSHIP.
That's why they had to cook up that absurd supernatural land grant and title from the deity they made up.
How convenient...
morpheusxnyc 3 weeks ago
I think I see the genesis of Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape" in this video as his response to the argument that a purely scientific, rational view cannot provide morals to live by.
audience2 1 month ago
I was so disappointed to see Sam reveal a sympathy for the belief in reincarnation.
He refuted every question and critic so eloquently yet maintained a power and stridency which reminds me a little of the late Hitchens.
Then he shows up with what can only be described as a double standard. No heaven but maybe I'll be born a bird in the next life.
I still respect him tremendously though.
zerr0ww 1 month ago
what about near death expiriences sam?
what about proofs of miracles?
that all bullshit right?
but budism, oh your still awaiting the evidence, while you discarded any mention of miracles uncritically.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 - I didn't understand it as such. What he basically said is that what one can discover in meditation is discoverable no matter what religion, or nonreligion, one is in. And out of all the religions, Buddhism (which practices meditation the most) gets closest. Elsewhere, he disavows much of Buddhism's baggage - and says we can still have tremendous spiritual experiences and not have to believe improbable things.
redchango 1 month ago
@redchango
"What he basically said is that what one can discover in meditation is discoverable no matter what religion"
the point is he dismisses every account of miracle or stuff like that from other religions, that's double standard.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 - That's strange. Do you not see the difference between meditation and miracles? On one hand, there's a state of consciousness anyone can attain right now if they tried. On the other hand, we're talking about miracles like god having a sonren and then sacrificing the child to Himself to rid others of a curse that he put on them after a woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating fruit from a magical tree. Don't you see the difference?
redchango 1 month ago
@redchango
"and intends only to divert attention to minor points instead."
Its intention is to answer some questions which are designed to show whether your theory is consistent. Which by the way you failed to do. Could i really expect otherwise. If you do not respond to the questions i asked , do not respond at all please.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 - What I'm trying to tell you is that your questions: 1) why no Muslim suicide bombers 50 years ago? and 2) why ignore that the Koran states suicide is forbidden? are not addressing the issue. Question 1 focuses on "suicide bombing", but it doesn't address the issue. You might as well ask "why weren't there suicide bombers 500 years ago?" Does it matter? We're talking about violent acts made explicitly for religious reasons.
redchango 1 month ago
@redchango
FUCK
"We're talking about violent acts made explicitly for religious reasons."
YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE
we can check if they were done for religious reasons by trying to see if same thing happened 50 or 100 years ago since KORAN DID NOT CHANGE OVER THAT TIME. And if the reasons were religious AND CAUSED BY THE KORAN they WOULD BE PERSISTENT THROUGH 50 AND 100 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
MAYBE INSTEAD OF COMMENTING THE QUESTION YOU COULD ANSWER IT ??!!?!?!!?!?!?!?
FUCK
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 Question 2 is also naive. There might be one verse which you could point to, but you're ignoring everything else which lays the foundation for why it's okay to kill others (heaven, virgins, free pass for family members) and die for Islam. If anything, all you've done is point out contradictions of Muslim holy books. That's great! But you're using one contradicting verse, against suicide, to essentially apologize for all the other murderous verses in the Quran and the Hadith.
redchango 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
@redchango
"Question 2 is also naive."
lol you can waste time commenting my questions but you cant answer them?
"all you've done is point out contradictions of Muslim holy books. That's great!"
yes it is? you really like when someone pokes at koran dont you?
you dont realize that this undermines what your arguing for dont you?
niinja2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redchango
if koran is in contradiction then the people who make any of the 2 conclusions are doing it because THEY WANT IT TO BE TRUE, NOT BECAUSE KORAN TELLS THEM BECAUSE ITS CONTRADICTORY.
GET IT
"But you're using one contradicting verse, against suicide, to essentially apologize for all the other murderous verses in the Quran and the Hadith."
I DONT CARE FOR MURDEROUS VERSES IN KORAN
I CARE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY DO THEY FOLLOW SOME AND NOT OTHERS AND THERE ARE MORE THEN ONE!
niinja2 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redchango
you know what
if your not going to answer the question but will rather APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR VIEW and sidestep with crap not related to the questions at hand
THEN DONT RESPOND AT ALL
FUCK
do not comment the questions
do not talk about my spelling and bullshit like that
do not sidestep the questions
JUST ANSWER THEM
OR GO AWAY
niinja2 1 month ago
@redchango
"On the other hand, we're talking about miracles like god having a sonren and then sacrificing the child to Himself "
No
We are talking about miracles like Jesuit priests who allegedly survived 1 mile from he epicenter of Hiroshima bomb, or miracles at Louvre or Međugorje.
"Do you not see the difference between meditation and miracles?"
No we are talking about miracles and reincarnation. Do you see any difference there?
niinja2 1 month ago
"islam is a remarkable piece of software for suicide terrorism"
Islam says if you kill one man its like you killed an entire population
Islam specifically forbids suicide
Sam is contrasted by a guy who is doing real science in terrorism for the last 20 years , he has actually talked with suicide bombers but people like sam harris will be more popular just because there are always sheeps to whom he will resonate emotionally.
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 - I think Sam has pretty much refuted your claim, which is essentially Muslim apologetics. He basically spanks Atran (and you) from 20:13 onward, but specifically from 25:04 to 27:00.
redchango 1 month ago
@redchango
the red haired lady refuted scott?
/facepalm
-sigh
let me make this short so you actually focus on the matter at hand.
1) why were there no Muslim suicide bombers 50 years ago???
2)koran states that suicide is forbidden, it also states that if you kill one person its like you killed the entire population, explain why they ignore this!
3)understanding is not apologizing or justifying! try to get this though your head you fanboi
niinja2 1 month ago
@niinja2 - You just facepalmed yourself. "Suicide bombing" isn't the issue. It's violent acts based on a dogma. Muslims believe they will go to Paradise and be able to take family members with them if they die in defense of a cause. That's why Iranians had no problem sending their young to "clear" Iraqi minefields. Your three points (which IS the core apologetics) ignores the big, overall point behind the argument, and intends only to divert attention to minor points instead.
redchango 1 month ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redchango
"Muslims believe they will go to Paradise and be able to take family members with them if they die in defense of a cause. "
this is brainwashing we are subjected to
"That's why Iranians had no problem sending their young to "clear" Iraqi minefields"
Proof of this is?
And this is because of Koran that says suicide is forbidden. That makes sense.
"which IS the core apologetics"
So asking questions and explanations for your theories is apologetics?
niinja2 1 month ago
Sam hits every curveball thrown at him. He can explain himself in much more detail and analogies, but people want one sentence answers to satisfy them. That's difficult to do, and yet he still pulls it off in a few sentences. The guy at the end felt like a big winner with his 4 person obnoxious applause, yet as he stormed off probably felt like a little kid again while Same answered.
TonyBtheEG 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sam Harris giving islam the anal punishment.lmao
DevornCauser 1 month ago
Religion's cancerous cell has the nucleus of certainty in it's core. When one is absolutely certain about everything he does not see any reason for further discussion and/or conversation and therefore growth. He stops exploring and that's the moment that disaster begins. That is when ignorance is born and suicide bomber mentality is created.
simabah 1 month ago
When he talks about people blowing themselves up, he seems to focus only on religion, while it is pretty clear that US foreign policy is the main driver of terrorism, sort of what Neil was trying to imply I guess. (they would be using real weapons just like the West is doing)
The talk on reincarnation really showed Sam from a wierd angle, like a true aplogyst.
It was priceless when he said that there are no christian suicide bombers and the other guy proved him wrong with data
MunaEndel 1 month ago
Wow thanks for posting this, just excellent.
PrometheusRumiHuxley 1 month ago
Ever since Atran ended up on the losing track...
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
Sam's great. But I really love Neil.
JacksInn 1 month ago
beautiful stuff here
PsudoPoodle1324 1 month ago
I love Sam, but I think it was valid to point out his romance with Buddhism. That he doesn't immediately disavow reincarnation as nonsense is silly. I also got upset that he didn't respond to the last person on there that says that he can't think of a thing that science has contributed to morality or ethics. What a bunch of nonsense. If you can't come up with examples of that in history you literally know nothing of history.
dan46and2 1 month ago
@dan46and2
There's some very interesting reincarnation cases I found out recently. I used to think it was nonsense, but I've changed my position a bit. Of course there's no cold hard scientific evidence, but there's good anecdotal evidence that points in the way of reincarnation. And reincarnation in a holographic universe is not that strange of an idea.
NLPCPNL 1 month ago
Actually, understanding (the health benefits and downsides) of chocolate DOES make me want to eat it more or less (depending on which quantity is healthy).
ReX342 1 month ago
@ReX342 But it doesn't change the experience you have when it hits your tongue. I think that was Sam's point.
doctorphantasm 1 month ago
I really hope more people like Sam start writing and doing lectures. This country has for far too long been living under a mass delusion. People ask me as an Atheist why I care what other people believe. Well, when I point them towards the people that are running for President in 2012 in the GOP I need say no more. I don't give two shits what anyone believes, but when they want to run the country I live in and make laws from the bible, then I do care
justjulie37 1 month ago 45
Sam's like a scientific guru.
BigBagsForRent2 1 month ago 25