Ciertamente Harris es un titán pero siempre veo burdas interpretaciones en sus postulados, lo cual le quita el peso a la profundidad del discurso que se intenta manejar, como que alguien te hablé de la grandeza humana y que solo responda, no eres más grande que un volcán en erupción. Es sencillo ver el cierto grado de incredulidad con respecto a la espiritualidad que bien defiende en sus libros.
A bunch of semantic Jesus smuggling.. 🙄 I agree with Sam. We don’t need religion to be good people, but good people sometimes (or often) act bad because of a religion.. because some sort of a voice was telling them to do stuff which is illegal, irrational and against any common sense.
While we do not need religion to be good people, with need a system of values to be good people. That is, we need to consider two moral options and be able to identify which one is morally superior to the other. Religion serves this purpose-hence its utility-but I would agree it is not the only system to be used. Finally, while religion can indeed be used for evil, that is not a flaw of religion itself, that is actually a human flaw that can be detected anywhere else. Science has also been used to advance forced sterilization, forced abortion, and human experimentation. Not long ago, science was used to advance the argument that individual freedoms were not as important as collective wellbeing, which is the usual justification for genocide of the "unfit" or some other murderous conclusion. That is evidently not a flaw of science, but a flaw of human beings. Any tool is nefarious if used improperly. Regards.
@@devilmansanchez I don’t think science can be used in the ways you describe. Scientism can be. Science in itself doesn’t assign a moral value, it just states empirical data. How you use that data is what you’re talking about. Religion is the inverse, it is all about morality (of some sort - often flawed in one way or another because of historically agglomerated dogma in that tradition) and nothing about empirical data. Religion is like saying “I will spit in this direction and no matter what the wind does, the effects will be good”. Science is like saying “If you spit in this direction the wind may blow it back at you, but we will not conclude whether this is good or bad.” I agree with you that there is an issue about the moral compass (and how to navigate if we were to get rid of our status quo historically developed morality of today), but I don’t think religion (nor science) help. Science however does help in other ways but not to that problem, not to that point. Religion is just absolutely unnecessary, useless. It provides justification and no real (I.e. useful) explanation to anything. It is like a small kid asking “why?” and someone saying “because it is the way it is, and we don’t know why but it has been like this, we were told by our parents and they were told by theirs, and what we have been told cannot be used in any way because there is no real cause-and-effect, but we should still do it cuz everyone so far has been doing it.. so, why not - won’t hurt, right”.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 You are arguing semantics. Scientism or science, the fact of the matter is that science can be improperly used to produce immoral circumstances, the very same way religion may be improperly used to produce the same. That indicates that the tool is not the problem, the problem is humans improperly using the tool. On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion of the utility of religion. The fact that it provides justification without explanation does not mean that the justification is not useful. One may conclude that one shall not murder, steal, or rape, and merely justify it with "because God says so," and thus the product would be good in spite of lack of explanation. What's more, the knowledge accumulated in religion is nothing but generations of moral trials-that is, ancestors codifying what is good and what is evil and passing them down to their children-this helps to build a moral basis for society, so that society does not have to spend their time figuring out this moral base and instead focus on the advancement of science, entrepreneurship, and technology. If every generation had to start all over again building a framework of morals and ethics, human progress would have stagnated. The utility of a moral framework is evident, and religion provides that.
@@devilmansanchez Hi. We can continue like this forever, but I’d rather if we recorded it and became rich then. I don’t think you understood my point 1. There’s a key thing there you missed, please try again. Your second point is easily falsifiable. I can say the same about the opposite statement and it would make it bad. Your third point tries to justify religion, but misses the problem which is the dogma that any religion necessarily comes with (otherwise it is more like philosophy than religion, which I have no issues with). The dogma prevents iterations which is the key important difference with any other ‘type of thinking’, broadly speaking. Also, I disagree with the premise that religions have undergone engineering that was aimed at making them as useful to the end-user as you make it out to be. Religions have been created to control and embezzle the masses.. make them do what you want and not ask or expect any real / pragmatic answers from the perpetuators.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 Religion has never been shy on updates. For instance, Christianity incorporated many of the gods and narratives of other religions, the Mesopotamians created a pantheon of the different gods of the different tribes, and the Romans borrowed and interpreted the gods of the Greeks-this was a adoption of religion and an update with new teachings. This was not a product of engineering, and I never made that case. This was the organic development of human beings discovering morality and making peace with neighboring tribes. You are disagreeing with a phantom premise. And religion clearly has its downfall, but its usefulness and its flaws are not mutually exclusive. Like a knife may be used to butcher meat or kill innocent men, religion has a utility and a innate danger to society-but such is the case with powerful tools. Again, the problem is not the tool, the problem is the improper application of the tool.
@GD WARRIOR quiesiera ver en que contexto lo dice. por que un video previo a este el dijo haber terminado de leer su trabajo y que carecia de profundidad de otros filosofos en el tema de la religion y falta de oposicion a pensadores mas sofisiticados y señala que es un caso similar con Dawkin (que mientras es un cientifico ineligente y reconocido en el ramo de la fiolosofia le gusta enfrentarse a fundamentalista cuyo conceptos generalmente son aun menos sofisticados) . por mi parte le vi debatir con william Craig y no dire que ni siquiera Craig gano el debate, Harris lo perdio por la premisa a la que el habia dedicado un libro entero , no pudo defenderla por que parecia mas una divagacion sin contexto logico y paso a la tactica de decir la relligion es mala inquisicion y las cruzadas, desviandose del tema con lo que parecia un mantra antireligion y bastamente decepcionante
"quien es tu oponente más inteligente?" le preguntan a Jorda. A lo que responde Sam Harris.ruclips.net/video/TYb93T0xUgE/видео.html Es al final. Min 31:38 creo.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
puedes subir el video entero subtitulado? gracias
x2 :c
Esta en el canal oficial de Peterson y tiene subtitulos en español
Sebastian Riesco amigo ¿cual es el canal oficial de peterson?
El canal se llama Jordan B Peterson y por suerte tiene muchos videos con subtitulos en castellano :)
Ciertamente Harris es un titán pero siempre veo burdas interpretaciones en sus postulados, lo cual le quita el peso a la profundidad del discurso que se intenta manejar, como que alguien te hablé de la grandeza humana y que solo responda, no eres más grande que un volcán en erupción. Es sencillo ver el cierto grado de incredulidad con respecto a la espiritualidad que bien defiende en sus libros.
The void is infinite, eternal, and aware. It is being itself
You cut the video as sanity was about to prevail.
I linked the exact minute of the original video so that anyone can go and see it in its entirety. Is in the description.
A bunch of semantic Jesus smuggling.. 🙄 I agree with Sam. We don’t need religion to be good people, but good people sometimes (or often) act bad because of a religion.. because some sort of a voice was telling them to do stuff which is illegal, irrational and against any common sense.
While we do not need religion to be good people, with need a system of values to be good people. That is, we need to consider two moral options and be able to identify which one is morally superior to the other. Religion serves this purpose-hence its utility-but I would agree it is not the only system to be used.
Finally, while religion can indeed be used for evil, that is not a flaw of religion itself, that is actually a human flaw that can be detected anywhere else. Science has also been used to advance forced sterilization, forced abortion, and human experimentation. Not long ago, science was used to advance the argument that individual freedoms were not as important as collective wellbeing, which is the usual justification for genocide of the "unfit" or some other murderous conclusion. That is evidently not a flaw of science, but a flaw of human beings.
Any tool is nefarious if used improperly.
Regards.
@@devilmansanchez I don’t think science can be used in the ways you describe. Scientism can be.
Science in itself doesn’t assign a moral value, it just states empirical data. How you use that data is what you’re talking about.
Religion is the inverse, it is all about morality (of some sort - often flawed in one way or another because of historically agglomerated dogma in that tradition) and nothing about empirical data.
Religion is like saying “I will spit in this direction and no matter what the wind does, the effects will be good”.
Science is like saying “If you spit in this direction the wind may blow it back at you, but we will not conclude whether this is good or bad.”
I agree with you that there is an issue about the moral compass (and how to navigate if we were to get rid of our status quo historically developed morality of today), but I don’t think religion (nor science) help. Science however does help in other ways but not to that problem, not to that point. Religion is just absolutely unnecessary, useless. It provides justification and no real (I.e. useful) explanation to anything. It is like a small kid asking “why?” and someone saying “because it is the way it is, and we don’t know why but it has been like this, we were told by our parents and they were told by theirs, and what we have been told cannot be used in any way because there is no real cause-and-effect, but we should still do it cuz everyone so far has been doing it.. so, why not - won’t hurt, right”.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579
You are arguing semantics. Scientism or science, the fact of the matter is that science can be improperly used to produce immoral circumstances, the very same way religion may be improperly used to produce the same. That indicates that the tool is not the problem, the problem is humans improperly using the tool.
On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion of the utility of religion. The fact that it provides justification without explanation does not mean that the justification is not useful. One may conclude that one shall not murder, steal, or rape, and merely justify it with "because God says so," and thus the product would be good in spite of lack of explanation.
What's more, the knowledge accumulated in religion is nothing but generations of moral trials-that is, ancestors codifying what is good and what is evil and passing them down to their children-this helps to build a moral basis for society, so that society does not have to spend their time figuring out this moral base and instead focus on the advancement of science, entrepreneurship, and technology. If every generation had to start all over again building a framework of morals and ethics, human progress would have stagnated. The utility of a moral framework is evident, and religion provides that.
@@devilmansanchez Hi. We can continue like this forever, but I’d rather if we recorded it and became rich then.
I don’t think you understood my point 1. There’s a key thing there you missed, please try again.
Your second point is easily falsifiable. I can say the same about the opposite statement and it would make it bad.
Your third point tries to justify religion, but misses the problem which is the dogma that any religion necessarily comes with (otherwise it is more like philosophy than religion, which I have no issues with). The dogma prevents iterations which is the key important difference with any other ‘type of thinking’, broadly speaking. Also, I disagree with the premise that religions have undergone engineering that was aimed at making them as useful to the end-user as you make it out to be. Religions have been created to control and embezzle the masses.. make them do what you want and not ask or expect any real / pragmatic answers from the perpetuators.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 Religion has never been shy on updates. For instance, Christianity incorporated many of the gods and narratives of other religions, the Mesopotamians created a pantheon of the different gods of the different tribes, and the Romans borrowed and interpreted the gods of the Greeks-this was a adoption of religion and an update with new teachings. This was not a product of engineering, and I never made that case. This was the organic development of human beings discovering morality and making peace with neighboring tribes. You are disagreeing with a phantom premise.
And religion clearly has its downfall, but its usefulness and its flaws are not mutually exclusive. Like a knife may be used to butcher meat or kill innocent men, religion has a utility and a innate danger to society-but such is the case with powerful tools. Again, the problem is not the tool, the problem is the improper application of the tool.
Ponga la respuesta care barro
harris es el peor de lo debatiente ateos, y no creo que su pensamiento llegue a filosofia es muy escueto
@GD WARRIOR quiesiera ver en que contexto lo dice. por que un video previo a este el dijo haber terminado de leer su trabajo y que carecia de profundidad de otros filosofos en el tema de la religion y falta de oposicion a pensadores mas sofisiticados y señala que es un caso similar con Dawkin (que mientras es un cientifico ineligente y reconocido en el ramo de la fiolosofia le gusta enfrentarse a fundamentalista cuyo conceptos generalmente son aun menos sofisticados) . por mi parte le vi debatir con william Craig y no dire que ni siquiera Craig gano el debate, Harris lo perdio por la premisa a la que el habia dedicado un libro entero , no pudo defenderla por que parecia mas una divagacion sin contexto logico y paso a la tactica de decir la relligion es mala inquisicion y las cruzadas, desviandose del tema con lo que parecia un mantra antireligion y bastamente decepcionante
"quien es tu oponente más inteligente?" le preguntan a Jorda. A lo que responde Sam Harris.ruclips.net/video/TYb93T0xUgE/видео.html
Es al final. Min 31:38 creo.
Yo diría que Dawkins es aún peor
GD WARRIOR yo sí, deléitate ruclips.net/video/tRSDtrC34bQ/видео.html
@@sirjocas Quitaron el video, podrías quizás compartirlo desde otro link?
me dio la impresión que esperaba sus aplausos al final y se esuchcaron solo un par jaja ...
La gente aplaudió, pero no incluí los aplausos en el video. Los aplausos son irrelevantes.
patrañas