This guy is obviously extremely intelligent, yet explains things in an easy to understand way. Not hard to listen to him explain some complicated subjects.
+Bart Grady Yeah and the reason you can basically always find yourself respecting him is because he believe what the believes and will stand for them. But is still willing to debate them and have them challenged. Which is why a lot of people when they hear somebody so adamantly blunt and clear as Sam will simply view it as him trying his best to offend people. But you don't need to consider that if you can put your faith in him. Not in a blind sense, but in the very least, put the faith in him that he means what he say he means. If he doesn't do that and isn't willing to sit down with you and have a discussion about something and change his mind, I think you're incredibly stupid.
Rogan is relentless when he detects avoidance of a certain line of questioning. He lets his guests speak without interruption, but returns to the point when they beat around the bush... Kudos Joe, I can see your passion for truth..
Sam Harris: A teacher of critical thinking, a scientist who meditates on the edge of consciousness, a philosopher of mind and morality. This man is a hero.
Sam Harris is one of the most lucid people alive today. To say "he has an agenda" is probably the most obvious and stupid thing you could try to vilify about him. OF COURSE he has an agenda. It is a really awesome agenda that literally anyone in in the entire world could feel jealous of and people can look at his agenda and be inspired to do great things themselves and break out of their mental ruts. To criticize his agenda is to criticize critical thinking and perfect articulation of difficult issues.
I used to love listening to this man speak. I can agree with almost everything he says about religion, science, etc. But when it comes to 9/11 and his efforts to downplay the idea that it was an inside job and that it must have been religious fanatics who were behind it, i can't help but feel disgusted. How can a man of that intelligence, with such clean logic and a very lucid mind indeed, how can he not recognise the clear evidence that 9/11 had to have been an inside job? That in itself flies in the face of logic. Unless he's not being honest. Because if he has a hidden agenda then it makes perfect sense.
***** You don't know what you're talking about buddy. The evidence is there and it's clear, that's a fact, regardless whether insignificant uneducated twerps like you are aware of them or not. But a man like Harris should know better.
If Billy Clinton couldn't keep the evidence against him under wraps, how in the hell could the gov hide something as big as murdering thousands of American civilians?
Always people running around saying "there is evidence and it's clear" "look at the evidence!' "just look it up!" The funny part is that in cases like climate change, you look.. and there's the evidence. But 9/11? No, you can't even get these morons to present the evidence. It's sort of like when a collection agency calls you after the debt expires, demanding you pay up, and you demand they prove the debt.. they'll either cease contacting you, or send you their copy before scattering to the winds, because simply presenting their evidence nullifies their claim. And they know it.
@Free Bird "Look at WTC-7" isn't evidence. I'm not even from your country. I don't give two shits about 9/11, whether it was a false flag as a pretext for war, or a legitimate terrorist action. It's inconsequential. People died. But they were Americans. So the world loses nothing. Families were affected yes, but again, they were American families. So no one really gives a shit, y'know?
All critisism of harris falls into these three categories as far as ive seen so far 1. you misrepresent his claims as a straw man that you can condemn to feel like a better liberal fighting intolerance, even when your grievance is with a point of view you yourself are projecting on harris 2. you dont value evidence, common sense or the well being of your fellow humans as much as you do your religious faith, pacifism or attachment to philosophical masturbation 3 "hes clearly a zionist jew shill for big pharma who wants monsanto to continue to release chem trails to keep us all blind to the peacefulness of islam so haliburton can keep making money of the war that was started by george bushs false flag attack on the twin towers"
I would add, ad hominem, circular reasoning, homunculus fallacy, false attribution/equivalence/dilemma/authority, etymological fallacy, moral high ground, moralistic, Petitio principii, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Proof by assertion, Proof by verbosity, red herring, regression fallacy, Cherry picking(read: quote mining), Inductive fallacy, Appeal to equality, DAMN I'M JUST TOO TIRED TO LIST ANYMORE hehehe
Harris is pretty terrible actually but he's the leader of your tribe so of coarse he can do no wrong in your mind. If you spend some time listening to people like Noam Chomsky, for example, you realize how evasive and what a sell out he is. As Chomsky has said before, intellectuals support the status quo out of self interest...
That's because despite what the political right would like you to believe, many people on the political left know that a disdain of overly PC attitudes is not exclusive to the political right.
Sam Harris is amazingly articulate. His books can support a point 10,000 words where most people would require 100,000. He can cut right the crux of an issue and say it as it is without all of the unnecessary fluff that others use to fill their books and lectures.
He is the opposite of articulate. When Joe brings up false flags this guy cannot think of an analogy to get him out the corner he painted himself into. Decent mind clouded by ego...just my impression .
Seth Solo have you read any of his work? He is concise and articulate. He is a very skilled debater as well. He can conjure an adequate counter-example to any of his critic's claims at a moment's notice. People are definitely put-off by his confidence and vocabulary (which is sometimes characterized as elitist) but he is classy. If he says something that offends, he is quick to explain why the offense is necessary and how it contributes to a meaningful, open dialog. If you listen to the his "fireplace analogy", he clearly understands and empathizes with all of the people who are offended by what he says.
@@scottmath23I'm actually usually disappointed by Harris in debates; he'll make a few good points, but when challenged, he favors empty one-liners (which is fun for cheerleaders, bad for dialogue). The general problem I have with Harris's philosophy is it only works if you assume it a priori, though he pretends otherwise.
Pffth, weird when people talk shit about Sam. He's doing so much good for humanity trying to enlighten people. Talks about not lying, gives thoughtful and authentic replies. Even if he is wrong about some stuff, doesn't change the fact that he's pretty amazing.
Although I had never listened to his podcast until now, I used to think about the world and politics exactly like Rogan. Funnily enough, it was men like Harris that changed my perspective and lead to me to listen to this cast. Listening to this feels like a conversation between myself from two years ago and myself from today. (I could only dream of being as well spoken and researched as Sam, however.)
+Medard Stello Yeah, this is what we need in a conversation. Even though it might be shocking to you at first that Sam say things a certain way. His words shouldn't concern you at all if you are confident in yourself. I know what I believe and I could meet Sam and respectfully talk to him about things I disagree with him about and we could have that conversation until we basically come to a new conclusion or basically agree to disagree. It's just that when Sam speaks, he either talk to people who don't know what they're talking about or will downright refuse to listen. That eventually gets to you, but you gotta stay strong and think of ways out instead of pondering problems. The reason he may sound agitated when in debates is because he knows that he is wasting time dealing with issues that are fucking stupid. To his mind, debating whether or not God is real is literally as dumb as debating whether or not you should be concerned about volcanic eruptions in Oregon.
Sam Harris has an uncanny ability to point out nuance and debunk false equivalencies, and most of the people he talks to fail to see the same level of detail. He gets demonized a lot for this from lots of people, but I'm glad he has the perseverance to keep speaking out. We need more of this type of reasoning and intellect in public discourse.
If conspiracy theorists would use the same standard of skepticism for their conspiracy theories as they do for the main narrative, they would quickly see how weak their theory really is. Then they would have to create a conspiracy theory for their conspiracy theory.
+Dj13e36 Yeah. My problem with them is that they don't care about the issues really. They're just straight up spreading information that they don't know anything about. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you better be ready to stand ten toes deep when I roast your fucking soul, otherwise you have no business in politics.
I believe conspiracy theories are conspiracies constructed by the government to seem in grand control, so the fooled are the conspiracy theorists for blindly walk into the conspiracy trap. checkmate
+whatever Dude, don't bother with Joe. The reason he's adamant on these issues is because he wants to know and understand. Even though Joe might not be as knowledgable as Sam, you have to appreciate that he at the very least seem to hold respect for him and can even when Sam says something that he might not agree with, still move on. That is what we need in a debate. So when people do things like these without reacting powerfuly emotionally and start commiting ad hominem, at the very least you can take pleasure that he isn't deliberately trying to misslead you. Which is what you should never, ever respect. There are only two things that make opinions hurt or annoy you you: the fact that you are not sure on the issue the fact that you can't trust the person If you can sort of expect to take them at face value, even if they act like absolute idiots at the very least they try to understand. So don't bother when Joe is asking Sam what we need to hear, it's only good for you. Learn to view things this way, don't assume people are cynical and just listen to what they are trying to convey rather than they are saying. Because not everybody can be as absolutely deadcold as Sam is all the time. That requires you to start finding comfort in yourself. That way nothing that will ever happen can agitate you and everybody who write something you found ''offensive'' or ''ridicolous'' will be brushed off your shoulders with ease. Most people can't deal with this, but if you're somebody like Sam, you would lose your fucking shit dealing with all this toxic slime that people constantly hurl at him. So if you want to be like Sam, start trying to find your confidence.
I really enjoyed that section of the podcast. I was very interested to know what Sam Harris's opinions on 9/11 were. Personally I think Sam never fully answered Joe's question about previous false flag operations by the US government.
Dear Joe. You're awesome. But what the hell man? You've got Sam Harris on and you end up talking about Op Northwoods and 9/11 for two hours. Just drop the conspiracy bull shit
Its like when he has Neil Degrasse Tyson on and wastes like some insane amount of it (1/3 or 2/3 of the podcast) talking about if we went to the fucking moon. Even it was a conspiracy, theres so much better things to discuss with that man
I'm a Muslim and I listen to Joe Rogan ! 🤣💚🐈🐾🔆🌻🌄 Luv u, Joe ! 😋🌷🌱😊🌍🐒 ...There's 1 billion Muslims in the world. Saying all Muslims are bad people is like saying all rap music is derogatory to women. Yes there is a lot of rap music that is derogatory to women, but it's simply not true to say *all* rap music is. I'm a Muslim and I believe in gay rights, women's rights, religious diversity, tolerance... and love ! 😘🌱💚🐵🐒 • Warmest Wishes • 😘😊🤣😂
Michael Moore No, they're not legally binding, they are a useful resource. That was not your initial claim though now was it. The "NEVER" bit betrays you.
And because lie detectors don't actually work. Lie detectors pick up various physical "things" like sweat, heartbeat etc. but none of those things can actually prove that someone is lying.
I've been following Sam Harris for years and Ive read one of his books. After Hitchens passed away, the athiest movement(?) has really failed in replacing his wit and tounge in cheek humor. Harris seems to find humor in nihilism and shock value but Hitchens used humor to further his points effortlessly. He continues to be missed.
There goes Joe with the JFK assassination again. If Jack Ruby was hired to silence Oswald, how come Jack Ruby wasn't silenced as well? He lived out the rest of his life in prison. He could have talked any time he wanted. You could say the conspirators trusted him enough to allow him to live. But then why wouldn't they just get someone they could similarly trust to kill Kennedy?
+cool fish Yeah but if you have people like that who are willing to do what you say and spend the rest of their lives behind bars without talking, you'd just get them to do the assassination. No need to get another guy to kill him to keep him silent.
+MakerInMotion They could have motivated Ruby in ways other than telling him "hey this guy killed JFK for us, so we need you to kill him". Mind you, I don't believe it anyway.
CIA NSA had the information on 9/11 and couldn't stop it. Why would anyone think they could stop another threat. Just stop the spying and go back to the 0.0001% chance that you will die in a terror attack. Who cares.
+rubbiebubbie Terrorism isn't just about being killed. It is about massive economic and societal disruption of the western world. A US city getting nuked would not be good for me and I live in Canada.
+callum93guerrilla That is true but religious people always talk shit about their beliefs. I come from a religious Eastern Europe country and I would be terrified if people actually would practice what hey preach back there. Not to say this is not a concern but the number of people who actually want Sharia is much smaller.
+Andrei Sopon So what you seem to be saying is that you don't accept that conservative Muslims believe what they claim to believe and want what they claim to want because you know their minds better than they do? Just because an idea seems preposterous to you doesn't mean other people don't "actually" believe it. If the polling suggests a certain percentage of Muslims in an area want Sharia, unless the polling technique was flawed, that is an accurate reflection of reality.
Dj13e36 No ofc I can't claim to know what's on peoples heads. I'm just saying people are hypocrites. I think we all know Christians who praise the Bible as the word of god but don't follow half of it. I believe Dawkins was talking about a pole what had people saying they are Christian not because they believed it but because they thought it made them good people. I'm thinking it might be a similar case.
Islam is not a race. No one has ever been born Muslim. Racism is evil. Criticism of any totalitarian ideology is what keeps us free. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Therefore it must be criticised. Sam Harris I salute you.
+old welsh bloke thank you for saying it like it is. You shouldn't bother dealing with people who repeat clichés in media. Just try and find a way to deal with the things that bother you the most in life, like Sam did.
2:50:30 The "magic" bullet bs. It's actually been researched mathematically with computers. The bullet took a straight path through Kennedy's neck and Connally's torso and wrist.
Vasilis Roumeliotis There were three shots. You're talking about the kill shot that hit Kennedy in the head. There is no evidence it was from the front. It has been researched in ballistics laboratories that a head will move into the shot. I think it's because a rifle bullet is high velocity and small caliber. It doesn't lose any momentum to the head, But the exit wound propels the head the opposite direction.
It's wonderful how Sam stays so calm and collected amidst the hostile criticisms from people who fail to grasp the subtle nuances of his arguments. I've never witnessed a more polite and intellectually honest person receive as much negativity as he has. In the end, he's often just misunderstood, and it's a shame.
Joe's constant coughing during this interview illustrates clearly he has an illness. This illness manifests itself in a propensity to believe in any conspiracy theory possible.
Sam Harris is genuine and his lack of verbosity refreshing. Shitty ideas hide in verbiage. Any thought can't be made clear in a sentence is one that needs to mature.
Rogan tries way too hard here to be up to the task of debating Harris, he's using crazy stoner techniques that don't match the context of an intellectual discussion and you can see the strain in Harris' face as he slowly loses patience. *calmly explains position on x, offers the possibility about y *HURR THAT GOES AGAINST WHUT YOU SAID GULF OF TONKIN DURR!!
***** "crazy stoner technique" is when someone rattles of something like the moon landings man, or the gulf of tonkin man, or any of the other tin foil things that they don't actually really fully believe, but keep bringing up "because its possible". There's a difference between bouncing ideas off someone and trying to hammer one into them. Basically he comes across like he wants Harris to agree with something so he can say Harris thinks there are illuminati or that 9/11 was a false flag or something nonesense.
***** There is a difference between having a conversation with an intellectual like Sam Harris and trying to be combative. Joe is trying to win an argument, especially when his world-view - like the shadow government thing - is challenged by Sam. The logical flaws are pretty evident and often Joe isn't really engaging with what Sam has said. Its not really conducive to a good discussion.
sgtsnakeeyes11 Maybe compared to someone like Sam Harris. He's not dumb, and he's usually smarter and better informed than the average fighter or comedian he has on.
gentle note to Joe,... @1:44:09 GPS doesn't work that way. It's a one way information link from the GPS satellite to the GPS receiver. To track a GPS device as you fear, that device has to have another communications channel going outward (such as a cellphone or wifi link) and the internal software has to access the GPS results and upload them (either continuously or on demand). In that case you can, if you so desire, easily disable that outbound connection by disconnecting or disrupting the antenna.
1:58:40 Sam makes a terrible point about who makes profit from a war. He generalizes that since the U.S. as a whole didn't profit from the invasion of Afghanistan, that no one in the U.S. profited from the invasion. Which is utter bullshit. Of course there's very certain people that made a lot of money while the government coffers were emptied.
Damn he's saying even more fucked up stuff after that such as "as soon as you say you're a jihadist we should assassinate you and give no second thoughts about it". Jesus man.... that's messed up.
That's kind off like saying ''hey, we earned alot of money from burning down New York City because all the firemen got alot of work to do''. It's a broken window fallacy that's downright retarded. We've wasted trillions of trillions of dollars and earned not a single dime from Afghanistan, he's completely right in every sense of the word. Okay wow, so you think it is an illegitimate point to think that people like Osama Bin Ladin should be assassinated instead of starting long, expensive and violent wars? Seriously, a jihadist is a threat to everyone, regardless where they live and to assassinate them is a good idea.
The point about conspiracy theories that I think is missed by Rogan and even by the great Sam Harris is that "conspiracy theories" aren't theories about conspiracies, they're theories about _hidden_ conspiracies, and it's this _hidden_ part that makes "conspiracy theories" so wacky - we should really call them "_hidden_ conspiracy theories." Once we recognize this we can see why we don't consider it a conspiracy theory that 19 Islamists engineered 9/11, because we aren't being asked to believe that 19 Islamists pulled off the attack _and_ have managed to keep their involvement a secret _even_ _after_ _the_ _fact_.
ConnorJohn I can't go through the entire three hours to find the quote, but when they were talking about conspiracy theories Rogan said something like "do you believe that 19 Muslims conspired to pull off the 9/11 attack? Yes? Well, then, you believe in a conspiracy theory." I think the point about _hidden_ conspiracy theories is useful as a retort to such arguments. Will such a distinction have much impact on someone who actually believes that 9/11 was an inside job? Probably not, but I suspect it would have been a meaningful distinction for someone like Rogan.
I agree completely, which is what makes the logical reasoning so piss poor. These 'hidden' theories by definition exist where there is no evidence, and most stray into circular reasoning and are un-falsifiable. Thus, even if by some miracle X grand conspiracy turns out to be true, its wrong to believe in the theory until you have good reason, and at that point its no longer a conspiracy theory but just history.
Joe I really enjoy your podcasts. I'm currently studying Physiotherapy and pursuing my passion of BJJ. Your podcasts keep me switched on and educated about the outside world. I feel more productive just by listening to your podcasts. Cheers!
Sam Harris is my intellectual hero. Mad respect for the knowledge this man spreads, his (from my perspective) sincere honesty and his balls to stand up to the primitive and filthy religion which is islam.
Sam sounds bright until it comes to his rationalization of government and power-corruption. As if he hasn't read the basic arguments of the USA's founding fathers which describe the roads that lead to tyranny. Under his rationalization, I cannot detect tyranny in progress, and can only detect it when it's over and done. I think he's a little too confident of his own reasonings. And clearly he could use some more education on surveillance, as he reduced it to the surface-level argument of "I don't mind if they read my email".
nothing wrong with disagreeing with the guy, but Sam always sounds bright. And who's to say that he hasn't read the founding father's basic arguments and rejected them? They weren't perfect, they were wrong about many things. If the founding fathers were right about something, the argument will stand on it's own merit and we don't need to have a founding father invoked. US politicians often try to claim that the founders would have agreed with their personal position, as if that were some type of worthy argument.
When you read 9/11 articles look for: 1> If the article talks critically about "conspiracy theorists", that's not good science, that's bias..disregard that article B> If it goes into great detail about the twin towers but gives little or no information about building 7, that's not good science, that's omission..disregard that article Look up where the REAL scientific method was applied. The ONLY successful OBSERVABLE REPLICABLE experiments that DID NOT FAIL are "controlled demolition"
55 mins "teach people to fight and bullying will go away". Disagree, all the idiots in high-school did boxing or thai boxing. There was also a study, I think in Norway, showing traditional martial arts decreased violence, those styles without a large emphasis on discipline and respect, actually increased violence, a lot
I'm not sure who said that at 55 because I haven't checked, but Brazilian jujitsu is literally the martial art of submission and compromise, and that's what Harris thinks people should learn
yea, I'd agree with BJJ having a positive influence. Depends on the style, gym and teacher I guess. MMA has attracted some right idiots in the UK unfortunately
The one and only reason Obama became president was because he appeared to be the exact opposite of Bush...Obama is black, seems to be reasonably smart, down to earth, because he is black most white people will then conclude that he has no ties to riches, and black people can obviously relate to him. He is well spoken, and younger. I'm sure there are many other things that I can't think of that make him the opposite of Bush. Bush is an old, white, idiot, son of a rich man. If someone does a terrible job, and you face palm every time that you see them, then the obvious choice is to choose someone else that is the complete opposite, when it comes time to replace them.
Funny how they don't understand that liberating Iraq was not the intent. It was destroying the stability of the whole region and was in fact executed with the intelligence they were made to not see in the administration. To think those guys are as dumb as they act is ridiculous. Getting the people to believe Iraq was a disaster in their eyes was very carefully orchestrated and took a lot of foresight and intelligence. Iraq was not their failure it is a major success. The federal reserve note is at threat of no longer being world currency. This is the real threat that is the bases of these wars.
Islam calls for peace. Osama causes terror and says it's for Islam. People believe him and say Islam is terror. Democracy calls for equality and human rights. America bombs Pakistanis, Israelis bomb Palestinians (and vice versa) in the name of democracy. Do we listen to them and blame these deaths on democracy?
Even from an atheist's point of view, theism is an extremely philosophical concept. And with a perspective of philosophy there is no "false" and "truth". Scientifically speaking one can neither prove God's existence (theism) nor disprove it (atheism). Similarly we have evolution; it's a good concept but cannot technically be proven because we cannot test it out in laboratories or with other methods. So it remains a theory.
Afraz Anosh Simply not true. Philosophy does indeed account for truth and falsity. Nor is it true that atheism claims the ability to disprove the existence of god. Nor is it true that theism is a theory. Let's tackle these in reverse order. By definition, a theory must be predictive, explanatory and falsifiable. Theism is none of these. It is a poorly thought out hypothesis at best. Atheism, i.e. a-theism, is a lack of theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Therefore atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Notice how no claims are being made, merely the rejection of a claim. Atheism is *not* the the belief in a lack of a god or gods. Either gods exists or they don't. One of those claims is true, the other is false. That is a question that only philosophy can tackle. Ergo, "with a perspective of philosophy" (sic) there are indeed very clear-cut demarcations of truth and falsity. Philosophers may never be able to determine one or the other, but that is neither here nor there. As an analogy, the mere fact that we may never know if a person accused of murder is guilty or innocent doesn't mean that guilt or innocence don't exist. This argument is a complete non-sequitur. The person is either guilty or innocent. One is true, the other is false. Now the only way we can convict someone of a crime is if we are convinced not on the paucity of the evidence of their innocence, but on the abundance of claims of their guilt. I.e. we decide between 'guilty' and 'not guilty' not between 'guilty' and 'innocent'. This ties into my previous point, because the argument between theists and atheists is one of god's existence. Either god is 'guilty' of existing or not. No atheist has to claim god is 'innocent' of existence in order to not be convinced that god is 'guilty' of existence. Nor does not being convinced that god is 'guilty' of existing mean that atheists are convinced that god is 'innocent' of existence. 'Not guilty' is enough to not be a theist.
@34:00 Sam Harris gets it right about sociopaths, and their control over the agentic state of empaths. He refers to Stanley Milgram's work, which should be read by everyone. See his book: "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View"
Anan R gets a little problematic when that great thinker doesn't think so well & exhibits some of their sociopathic tendencies in relation to policy though. More so when that thinker is engaged in a running commentary to the public, in wartime, on moral superiority & ethics which they have a very poor grasp of. Even more so when that thinker has hordes of unthinking followers who blindly align themselves with whatever they say because they just can't think for themselves. & finally, for full exacerbation, the apex of problematic is reached when that great thinker cannot even recognize the hypocrisy of their own great thoughts- like when they speak out about the dangers of ideology & "rational actors" while being fully immersed, to the point of losing their objectivity & rationality, in their own.
Ono Jin What political relations are you refering to? I don't agree with you regarding Harris having a poor grasp on moral and ethics, far from it. He does have a unortodox and in some ways a agressive approach when he debates religious and geopolitical topics. Altough I disagree with a couple of his ideas and ways of approach, I see him as a important figure and spokesman for reason and common sense in the philosophical and religious world. We don't have to disregard a persons philosopical message as a whole just because we disagree with some of his standpoints or ways of expression.
Anan R sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly with his stance on ethics in geopolitical terms because he derives all of it from his personal ideology that the imperial regime of the US has the best intentions on the world stage, which is how he justifies its actions upon it. There is very little evidence to support that claim & mountains of evidence to dispute it, all of which he ignores to maintain his ideology & validate his views on ethics. Coming from someone who extols the importance of evidence based reason while denigrating the flaws of beliefs unsupported by evidence, this does seem to me to be an issue. I find common ground with him in many areas, but the nature of his pro-war, pro-torture, pro-killing stance, which he disseminates to the public on the basis of his flawed & intellectually dishonest ideology, forces me to label him as an academic imperialist who is extremely irresponsible & careless in how he tries to impel foreign policy matters in the general public. He often comes across to me, highlighted by his run-in with Chomsky, as an intellectual who is so self-assured in his ability & conclusions, believes in them so adamantly, that he simply cannot & will not accept any opposition to either & himself labels people who do not agree with him as intellectually inferior & incapable of arriving at the same conclusions he has due to their inferior ability. An intellectual supremacist. People like that tend to be very dangerous if they have any influence over global affairs. It is the mindset of totalitarianism. He is right because he believes few others are capable of being right, they lack his mental prowess, so others should simply accept his views as their own....kinda like how Catholic folk should accept papal views because the Vatican is closer to the mind of god. freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/11/24/glenn-greenwald-takes-apart-sam-harris/ The comments under the article are more substantive than the article itself & direct to other pertinent criticisms. I have heard him argue the case for preemptive nuclear strikes against Middle Eastern nations. Harris gets plenty of support & plenty of criticism, rightfully so in both areas. However he should stay the fuck out of policy matters & keep his contradictory "death cult" rhetoric to himself & stick to what he is actually knowledgable on- philosophy & neuroscience. He talks about bringing death to people frequently while branding others as members of death cults?! You don't need an IQ in the 200's to identify this kind of hypocrisy. He also talks about "rational actors", somebody who is completely unable to see the hypocrisy & contradiction in their own views is not rational & when those views revolve around death & destruction the ethics are lost on me.
JRE needs more guests like Sam. Using empirical evidence to support opinions. A simple but oh so important part of me giving a flying fuck about someones opinion.
All these butthurt Christians who hate Sam because he's intelligent enough to make an informed decision based on what should be "common sense" instead of primitive intuition need to seriously fuck off
I got of on the wrong foot with Sam Harris. I first listened to him because I'm a spiritual guy and hate the new atheist movement, but walked away with a true intellectual to follow. I don't even agree with a lot of what he says about war, but I make no mistake that he's brilliant.
For a man who made a name for himself by speaking out against closed-mindedness and one-dimensional thought patterns, Mr. Harris sure as hell makes it sound like he's got all the answers.
Because I couldn't find it in this version of the podcast. The RUclips edition is about 12 minutes shorter than the one available on iTunes. However, if you would be so inclined, you could go to 2:21:45 of the iTunes version and listen to Mr. Harris say he doesn't believe that it's even a possibility that banks and corporations could bribe a president into doing their bidding. While I certainly believe it's possible that the chaos our government creates is simply a result of incompetence, I'm of the opinion that one must not rule out the possibility of something a bit more nefarious. Mr. Harris here has made a name for himself based upon the idea of having an open mind.. and yet his opinions are apparently set in stone. Beyond that point in the podcast, I could not look at him as anything else but a hypocrite. *****
How about the fact that Obama "borrowed" $15M from Bank of America for his campaign? Seems like a lot of money to pay off when you only make $400,000/year. Oh wait - didn't Bank of America receive 1/10th of a trillion dollars in bailout money? Of which 1/3 was used for executive bonuses? We're taught at a young age that the entire legislative branch of government has been bought and paid for - the terms "lobbyist" and "special interest group" were just another part of the vocabulary used in history class. In this way, bribery has been made a fundamental part of our legal system. Why shouldn't we assume that it also affects government at the highest levels? Don't you believe that it's a possibility? I don't think there would necessarily need to be any "scaring" a president either. You simply make them a generous offer. I think there would be more smiles than screams in a situation like that. We live in a universe of possibility, my dude. To label anything as impossible would simply be foolish.
***** Well you need to realize that the people who own Bank of America also own part of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is the institution that bailed out Bank of America.. along with all the other major banks. It just so happens that the people who run all the other major banks also own part of the Federal Reserve. So really, all these "bailouts" we've seen in recent years are nothing other than a transfer of wealth from the institution that regulates our economy to the pockets of the people who own that institution. Most people I know are aware that the Federal Reserve exists.. but so very few of them know what it is, what it does and who owns it. Most people I know think that it's a government-run institution. That's how they got away with it. People thought it was the government who bailed out these banks and corporations.. and as it turns out, the amount of money printed and given out in bailouts almost equaled that of what was in circulation at the time. So why would we wonder why our economy's so shitty? You can't double the amount of money in circulation within a year and expect positive results.
***** I was just pointing out his own dismissal of the possibility of Obama doing the bidding of corporations. As I said, for a man who made a name for himself based upon the idea of having an open mind, his seems to be shut tightly. It is certainly plausible that Obama is NOT doing the bidding of these corporations.. but it's also possible that he is, right? I was interested in this podcast at first because he was known publicly as a man who promoted free-thinking.. and for that reason, I was shocked to hear him say that something shouldn't even be considered as a possibility. When you contradict yourself like that without even realizing it, you discredit everything else you have to say as well. That was all I was trying to get at. Cheers.
***** When he talks about the need for religious people to reanalyze their opinions, he is indeed (by definition) promoting open-mindedness. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is the logical mindset: being open to new ideas. Part of being rational is realizing you don't know everything - that's why saving room for possibility is so very important. Again, this is where the term "open-mindedness" comes in to play.. In all honesty, it doesn't sound like you're even trying to have a discussion at this point. It just sounds like you're trying to defend this guy at all costs. Perhaps you're a big fan of his? We're talking ourselves in circles here. There's no point in discussing this any further than we already have. Cheers.
Wow, is the Thumbs Up/Down voting on this video the result of a "hive mind" mentality..? For there to be so many thumbs down votes... I'm not really sure I understand where all of the dislike is coming from. Do you all really not like Sam Harris that much? I'm half way through the video and haven't felt any need to complain whatsoever.
wrote a comment about the dislikes a while back, I deleted it because I thought it was stupid, but I see now that the dislikes were not proportionate, and now they seem normal like 15% dislike as usual per video
Are you not aware of the actual conspiracies that really took place!? Such as Project Paperclip, Operation Northwoods, MK ULTRA, and more! What about Larry Silverstein's pre-knowledge of the terrorist attacks, whereby he insured the towers for attacks, and then he ended up with BILLIONS , also, you've got to see the video of the pentagon NOT GETTING HIT BY ANY PLANE. The FBI confiscated the hotel video, but it was released due to a lawsuit, CHECK IT OUT!!! PROOF THAT THE GOV. LIED!
here is the thing about atheists: I see over and over again that they know a lot, not only about evolution, the universe and science in general, but they know so much about so many things! we know about joes multi topic mind but sam harris as a martial artist?? :D what else have I been missing?!
I love mma and my disbelief is complimentary to mr. Harris. A philosopher? who w'd have thought! Not only intellectually, the guy could also choke u out on the mat :D :D
Karsteski and i'm really impressed by joes intellectual reach. seeing him going toe to toe with Sam freaking Harris on right wing plots and conspiracies is just admirable.
***** being atheist actually requires a lot of smarts doesnt it. which makes me wonder, can we elevate everybody to that level? can we expect everybody to have the capacity to be and stay atheist...? hard to tell
Harris seems to be a mouthpiece for the system. Given his intelligence, his arguments against corporate/government conspiracies are very underwhelming.
So because he's intelligent he must agree with your opinions on corporate/government conspiracies, because like him you too are intelligent, according to yourself? I think you'll find intelligent people on both sides of an argument, just look at Hitchens stance on the Iraq war.
No one has to agree with my opinions. My point is: when a smart guy makes a weak argument to avoid exploring an idea, it suggests he has a conflict of interest.
+Daniel Hope The definition of conspiracy: two or more people secretly plan to do something illegal or harmful. Do you really think it is impossible that government agencies make secret plans in which harm will be caused?
Sam Harris's continual refusal to blame any of the radicalization and terrorism we see today on the repressive wars of the west and blaming it solely on their religion, when there are billions of peaceful people following these religions, is becoming absurd. It's one sweeping statement, after one stereotype, after another generalization, after another.
Oh you are so progressive, please tell me more about your open-mindedness. If that is the case then how do you explain the Barbary pirates in the 1780s?
kevin olson If that's not his position then why is that EXACTLY what he said in this interview....your boy is an idiot, and you all are equally as stupid for defending his ignorance which seems to bleed into ALL the subjects discussed in this podcast.
Your conclusions don't follow. The Bible advocates stoning a woman if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day (Deuteronomy 17:2-5). The fact that many Christians don't follow this shows that morality is prior to religion. The possibility exists therefore that a religion can be poisonous yet the majority of people choose to ignore the worst parts and follow only those rare nuggets of wisdom. Tibetan monks have been repressed almost as long as some Muslims but they don't strap bombs to themselves. Also suicide bombers also act against other Muslims, not just against nations that repress them. If you ignore that religion plays an important aspect in creating death cults than you might as well reason from pure thought.
Sam Harris is the only cult I'd ever join -- my "cult of secularism and rational thought." Join his podcast and def. listen to what jihadists want and jonathan haidt. both great. One thing however... some of us have to agree that the ideas Saudi's are on to that women shouldn't drive isn't as dumb as it sounds. ;)
Your exclamation mark suggests that you're emotionally charged in your answer... but I'll say you're half right, at least. BUT, it's not your gender that causes it -- because some women are either high-testosterone, do poorly on the marshmallow test, there are beta males (low testosterone) and those matrices can be evaluated to be descriptive. Generally, its young men who have both new and relatively high androgens (testosterone) and low frontal cortices inhibition. But... this doesn't last forever. Some women are pretty impulsive; men can't have sex more times on a first date then women will let them. Some women are high androgen -- which makes them drive oriented. But generally, I'll say there's a slight statistical advantage to be (your word) reckless. But those androgens come with other features. DRIVE. Which is why men dominate 99% of all things they feel like doing competitively. I'd actually be interested in any things they do that women do better. For instance, if a woman COULD play basketball, football, baseball, race, build companies, are all the expression of the differentiation of men through the market place legal to do so.... as we know women are receptive to those cues. I'm not saying this is "good" -- it just is. Even look at the Israeli communes, the Kibbutzim. Give male the cue that society deems something a high status thing to attain and it triggers the male competitiveness in order to leverage status to attract a mate. So even where women can do so... they can't derive the reward that motivates men; using status to attract a mate. In women, being successful usually makes men intimidated (beta males) or maybe even just self aware males that she can do better... but regardless, it will serve to narrow your options.
I must say that I loved this podcast, despite its length. However, I'd have much preferred a three hour conversation that started around the two hour 30 mark here.
Here is a man who refers to the CIA'S history of corruption as "misadventures". Who claims "there's a whole esoteric literature out there that I'm not so familiar with" [regarding conspiracy theories] and then admits to spending countless hours emailing a family member debating 9/11 and attempting to 'debunk' it. In the last 30 mins Harris did not exactly come off as erudite regarding government or human nature in general...
+orth82 It is the same reason that you might come across crowds of people that thoroughly dislike the people that you like, and at the same time, they wonder how these people that they dislike are able to do what they do. In other words, not everyone has the same tastes in entertainment and personalities.
WTF is wrong with these comments? Can reply to maybe only a third of them! @Sam Harris not wanting protection - the man is a gun rights proponent and he's got a bunch of guns in his house. As for his statis paradigm ... I think some red pill people just want too much. It's not that easy to even find the red pill. If you're on payroll of some university, writing books, debating theists and meditating... the State violence will just not reach you in a meaningful way. So why would he ever investigate? Maybe after the 2nd depression that's about to hit it will become widespread - and than it will be justified to look down on blue pill people. Now they are the norm, unfortunately.
Hey let's tell the truth about what Islam and christianity says and practices (which also varies greatly since there are so many different versions as people just pick and choose from certain "holy books"), and then people try and label it as "phobia" and such to get people on their side. Goddamn people are dumb. If you're religious, you're already dumb enough to not get passed being brainwashed, and most of the comments here attempting to argue against Sam absolutely fail at critical thinking and knowledge.
2:21:05 just the way he said "it's staggering" was great. Yes I'm that easily amused. Lol. Loved the subject matter in this podcast. I am beyond excited that I still have a few more Joe Rogan with Sam Harris podcast to listen to.
Sam says that he is ok with the NSA spying on everyone so long as they don't use the information collected to target pot growers, but it has already come to light that the DEA has colluded with the NSA. The DEA concocts stories of how they became aware of cases brought to them by the NSA to cover up this collusion. The Washington Post ran a story on this in August.
usmh It's so obviously overly vague, delutional bullshit and written in such an infantile language that it was obviously meant as a dig to the "thumbdown-people" in the aforementioned category, not actually meant as a serious comment, is what I was saying. I'm not criticising you execution, just giving you a smile so you can reciprocate, and we can both laugh of your sarcastic dig at... you get the point?
well on wise man once said that competition is for horses not for scientists. and harris is talking about something he is professionaly connected to so its obvious that rogan knows less. if you judge a fish by it ability to climb a tree it look will dumb.
My point is that he comes off as arrogant and doesn't admit his own shortcomings. He has no humility. I don't get the sense when listening to him that he's trying to learn. It just seems like he loves to hear himself talk.
Of course he's narcissistic. But he's hilarious. Rogan also thinks man never landed on the moon. I mean, in his stream with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he wastes most of that time trying to convince Neil that man never landed on the moon. TRYING TO CONVINCE AN ASTROPHYSICIST THAT MAN NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON. However pseudo-intellectually Rogan seems, he at least provides hours of entertaining conversations.
1. Harris openly says they have lied to us. He even mentions the false reasons for going to Iraq as a lie. Did you not listen? 2. Sam entertains the possibility that Obama was a genuine liberal in the past; he doesn't say for certain that he is. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" Learn.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy is obviously extremely intelligent, yet explains things in an easy to understand way. Not hard to listen to him explain some complicated subjects.
+Otto Von Skidmark Devon Tracy calls Sam Harris the King of analogies :P
+Bart Grady Yeah and the reason you can basically always find yourself respecting him is because he believe what the believes and will stand for them. But is still willing to debate them and have them challenged. Which is why a lot of people when they hear somebody so adamantly blunt and clear as Sam will simply view it as him trying his best to offend people. But you don't need to consider that if you can put your faith in him. Not in a blind sense, but in the very least, put the faith in him that he means what he say he means. If he doesn't do that and isn't willing to sit down with you and have a discussion about something and change his mind, I think you're incredibly stupid.
+Bart Grady That's because he's a vulcan jedi. May the Schwarz be wiv' ya!
That's the sign of someone who is very intelligent if they can dumb it down for the masses.
You just have to know what Jon Stewart said: Sunnis grow down from the ceiling of the cave, and Shias grow up from the floor.
Man... Ben Stiller getting all serious on us.
You mean Seth Green
kiel graves is one
Rogan is relentless when he detects avoidance of a certain line of questioning.
He lets his guests speak without interruption, but returns to the point when they beat around the bush...
Kudos Joe, I can see your passion for truth..
Sam Harris: A teacher of critical thinking, a scientist who meditates on the edge of consciousness, a philosopher of mind and morality.
This man is a hero.
A redimeer of mind and matter
Very well put.
Sam Harris is one of the most lucid people alive today. To say "he has an agenda" is probably the most obvious and stupid thing you could try to vilify about him. OF COURSE he has an agenda. It is a really awesome agenda that literally anyone in in the entire world could feel jealous of and people can look at his agenda and be inspired to do great things themselves and break out of their mental ruts. To criticize his agenda is to criticize critical thinking and perfect articulation of difficult issues.
I used to love listening to this man speak. I can agree with almost everything he says about religion, science, etc. But when it comes to 9/11 and his efforts to downplay the idea that it was an inside job and that it must have been religious fanatics who were behind it, i can't help but feel disgusted.
How can a man of that intelligence, with such clean logic and a very lucid mind indeed, how can he not recognise the clear evidence that 9/11 had to have been an inside job? That in itself flies in the face of logic. Unless he's not being honest. Because if he has a hidden agenda then it makes perfect sense.
*****
You don't know what you're talking about buddy. The evidence is there and it's clear, that's a fact, regardless whether insignificant uneducated twerps like you are aware of them or not.
But a man like Harris should know better.
If Billy Clinton couldn't keep the evidence against him under wraps, how in the hell could the gov hide something as big as murdering thousands of American civilians?
Always people running around saying "there is evidence and it's clear" "look at the evidence!' "just look it up!"
The funny part is that in cases like climate change, you look.. and there's the evidence.
But 9/11? No, you can't even get these morons to present the evidence.
It's sort of like when a collection agency calls you after the debt expires, demanding you pay up, and you demand they prove the debt.. they'll either cease contacting you, or send you their copy before scattering to the winds, because simply presenting their evidence nullifies their claim. And they know it.
@Free Bird "Look at WTC-7" isn't evidence. I'm not even from your country. I don't give two shits about 9/11, whether it was a false flag as a pretext for war, or a legitimate terrorist action. It's inconsequential. People died. But they were Americans. So the world loses nothing. Families were affected yes, but again, they were American families. So no one really gives a shit, y'know?
All critisism of harris falls into these three categories as far as ive seen so far
1. you misrepresent his claims as a straw man that you can condemn to feel like a better liberal fighting intolerance, even when your grievance is with a point of view you yourself are projecting on harris
2. you dont value evidence, common sense or the well being of your fellow humans as much as you do your religious faith, pacifism or attachment to philosophical masturbation
3 "hes clearly a zionist jew shill for big pharma who wants monsanto to continue to release chem trails to keep us all blind to the peacefulness of islam so haliburton can keep making money of the war that was started by george bushs false flag attack on the twin towers"
Perfect :)
Sums it up perfectly. Critical thinking is required when listening to Harris... not an ability possessed by all.
I would add, ad hominem, circular reasoning, homunculus fallacy, false attribution/equivalence/dilemma/authority, etymological fallacy, moral high ground, moralistic, Petitio principii, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Proof by assertion, Proof by verbosity, red herring, regression fallacy, Cherry picking(read: quote mining), Inductive fallacy, Appeal to equality, DAMN I'M JUST TOO TIRED TO LIST ANYMORE hehehe
I come to RUclips expecting dumb comments. Not this astute stuff. Get outta heeeeeere.
Harris is pretty terrible actually but he's the leader of your tribe so of coarse he can do no wrong in your mind.
If you spend some time listening to people like Noam Chomsky, for example, you realize how evasive and what a sell out he is. As Chomsky has said before, intellectuals support the status quo out of self interest...
Refreshing to see a REAL liberal who doesn't tow the typical hipster 'progressive' line..
That's because despite what the political right would like you to believe, many people on the political left know that a disdain of overly PC attitudes is not exclusive to the political right.
The exchanges between Joe Rogan and Sam are always enjoyable. I like how they manage to cover so many different topics in the time they have.
At about 0:17:00 -- "ex-Mormons are awesome because there's no group of people more energetic in their atheism..." Thanks, Sam!
Sam Harris is amazingly articulate. His books can support a point 10,000 words where most people would require 100,000. He can cut right the crux of an issue and say it as it is without all of the unnecessary fluff that others use to fill their books and lectures.
He is the opposite of articulate. When Joe brings up false flags this guy cannot think of an analogy to get him out the corner he painted himself into. Decent mind clouded by ego...just my impression .
Seth Solo have you read any of his work? He is concise and articulate. He is a very skilled debater as well. He can conjure an adequate counter-example to any of his critic's claims at a moment's notice.
People are definitely put-off by his confidence and vocabulary (which is sometimes characterized as elitist) but he is classy. If he says something that offends, he is quick to explain why the offense is necessary and how it contributes to a meaningful, open dialog.
If you listen to the his "fireplace analogy", he clearly understands and empathizes with all of the people who are offended by what he says.
@@scottmath23I'm actually usually disappointed by Harris in debates; he'll make a few good points, but when challenged, he favors empty one-liners (which is fun for cheerleaders, bad for dialogue). The general problem I have with Harris's philosophy is it only works if you assume it a priori, though he pretends otherwise.
The better a person is at something, for instance language, the fewer words one needs to explain something.
Pffth, weird when people talk shit about Sam. He's doing so much good for humanity trying to enlighten people. Talks about not lying, gives thoughtful and authentic replies. Even if he is wrong about some stuff, doesn't change the fact that he's pretty amazing.
he isn't wrong about some stuff
@@ItsameAlex Maybe you should have asked what Marius thinks Sam is wrong about. Then go from there; have a discussion.
@@Enmos nah
ok. What do you think he's wrong about Marius?
ItsameAlex I think he’s wrong to criticize the teaching and writings of Islam without also looking at the Talmud
Did Sam Harris just say "mad skills"? Awesome.
Mad respects!
Although I had never listened to his podcast until now, I used to think about the world and politics exactly like Rogan. Funnily enough, it was men like Harris that changed my perspective and lead to me to listen to this cast. Listening to this feels like a conversation between myself from two years ago and myself from today. (I could only dream of being as well spoken and researched as Sam, however.)
+Medard Stello Yeah, this is what we need in a conversation. Even though it might be shocking to you at first that Sam say things a certain way. His words shouldn't concern you at all if you are confident in yourself. I know what I believe and I could meet Sam and respectfully talk to him about things I disagree with him about and we could have that conversation until we basically come to a new conclusion or basically agree to disagree. It's just that when Sam speaks, he either talk to people who don't know what they're talking about or will downright refuse to listen. That eventually gets to you, but you gotta stay strong and think of ways out instead of pondering problems.
The reason he may sound agitated when in debates is because he knows that he is wasting time dealing with issues that are fucking stupid. To his mind, debating whether or not God is real is literally as dumb as debating whether or not you should be concerned about volcanic eruptions in Oregon.
This is kinda like time travel
@@sergiootero5904 especially now years later ;)
Sam Harris has an uncanny ability to point out nuance and debunk false equivalencies, and most of the people he talks to fail to see the same level of detail. He gets demonized a lot for this from lots of people, but I'm glad he has the perseverance to keep speaking out. We need more of this type of reasoning and intellect in public discourse.
If conspiracy theorists would use the same standard of skepticism for their conspiracy theories as they do for the main narrative, they would quickly see how weak their theory really is. Then they would have to create a conspiracy theory for their conspiracy theory.
Well said
+Dj13e36 Yeah. My problem with them is that they don't care about the issues really. They're just straight up spreading information that they don't know anything about. If you're a conspiracy theorist, you better be ready to stand ten toes deep when I roast your fucking soul, otherwise you have no business in politics.
I believe conspiracy theories are conspiracies constructed by the government to seem in grand control, so the fooled are the conspiracy theorists for blindly walk into the conspiracy trap. checkmate
Whenever I do something good or something good happens to me, my Christian family says it’s God. Whenever I do something bad, it’s me.
I just realized the internet has brought people together to communicate. These ARE real people on my screen!
Have you smoked mad weed that day?
Half this podcast is good, the other half is Joe Rogan grilling Sam Harris about conspiracy theories and accusing him of things he never said.
+ampdgmr He's playing devil's advocate.
+Dave Pope again
+whatever Dude, don't bother with Joe. The reason he's adamant on these issues is because he wants to know and understand. Even though Joe might not be as knowledgable as Sam, you have to appreciate that he at the very least seem to hold respect for him and can even when Sam says something that he might not agree with, still move on. That is what we need in a debate. So when people do things like these without reacting powerfuly emotionally and start commiting ad hominem, at the very least you can take pleasure that he isn't deliberately trying to misslead you. Which is what you should never, ever respect. There are only two things that make opinions hurt or annoy you you:
the fact that you are not sure on the issue
the fact that you can't trust the person
If you can sort of expect to take them at face value, even if they act like absolute idiots at the very least they try to understand. So don't bother when Joe is asking Sam what we need to hear, it's only good for you. Learn to view things this way, don't assume people are cynical and just listen to what they are trying to convey rather than they are saying. Because not everybody can be as absolutely deadcold as Sam is all the time. That requires you to start finding comfort in yourself. That way nothing that will ever happen can agitate you and everybody who write something you found ''offensive'' or ''ridicolous'' will be brushed off your shoulders with ease. Most people can't deal with this, but if you're somebody like Sam, you would lose your fucking shit dealing with all this toxic slime that people constantly hurl at him. So if you want to be like Sam, start trying to find your confidence.
+whatever This is exactly what he did to Neil Degrasse Tyson
I really enjoyed that section of the podcast. I was very interested to know what Sam Harris's opinions on 9/11 were. Personally I think Sam never fully answered Joe's question about previous false flag operations by the US government.
Dear Joe. You're awesome. But what the hell man? You've got Sam Harris on and you end up talking about Op Northwoods and 9/11 for two hours. Just drop the conspiracy bull shit
Its like when he has Neil Degrasse Tyson on and wastes like some insane amount of it (1/3 or 2/3 of the podcast) talking about if we went to the fucking moon.
Even it was a conspiracy, theres so much better things to discuss with that man
I'm a Muslim and I listen to Joe Rogan ! 🤣💚🐈🐾🔆🌻🌄 Luv u, Joe ! 😋🌷🌱😊🌍🐒 ...There's 1 billion Muslims in the world. Saying all Muslims are bad people is like saying all rap music is derogatory to women. Yes there is a lot of rap music that is derogatory to women, but it's simply not true to say *all* rap music is. I'm a Muslim and I believe in gay rights, women's rights, religious diversity, tolerance... and love ! 😘🌱💚🐵🐒 • Warmest Wishes • 😘😊🤣😂
We will NEVER have lie detection tests in use, BECAUSE the officials in GOVERNMENTS won't allow it! They're the BIGGEST LIARS OF ALL!
Wow, you even sound like Michael Moore.
Um. They have lie detection tests in use, and they get used in court cases.
torment3d But they aren't legally binding in any way.
Michael Moore No, they're not legally binding, they are a useful resource. That was not your initial claim though now was it. The "NEVER" bit betrays you.
And because lie detectors don't actually work. Lie detectors pick up various physical "things" like sweat, heartbeat etc. but none of those things can actually prove that someone is lying.
I've been following Sam Harris for years and Ive read one of his books. After Hitchens passed away, the athiest movement(?) has really failed in replacing his wit and tounge in cheek humor. Harris seems to find humor in nihilism and shock value but Hitchens used humor to further his points effortlessly. He continues to be missed.
This was fantastic, one of the best talks on the rogan podcast :)
Joe has really become a much better listener, he's not interrupting people anymore, and it's made the interviews a lot more entertaining.
There goes Joe with the JFK assassination again. If Jack Ruby was hired to silence Oswald, how come Jack Ruby wasn't silenced as well? He lived out the rest of his life in prison. He could have talked any time he wanted. You could say the conspirators trusted him enough to allow him to live. But then why wouldn't they just get someone they could similarly trust to kill Kennedy?
+MakerInMotion because maybe Jack Ruby respected (or feared) the people that hired him enough that he didn't want to rat them out
+cool fish Yeah but if you have people like that who are willing to do what you say and spend the rest of their lives behind bars without talking, you'd just get them to do the assassination. No need to get another guy to kill him to keep him silent.
+MakerInMotion they could threatened every aspect of his life?
***** Yeah, which they could have done with Oswald.
+MakerInMotion They could have motivated Ruby in ways other than telling him "hey this guy killed JFK for us, so we need you to kill him".
Mind you, I don't believe it anyway.
1:52:55-1:56:00
Powerful point in the conversation. Sam was a great guest; get him on again.
These are my favorite podcasts because I like it when some disagrees with Joe.
It would be great if Joe could have Richard Dawkings on the podcast as well
That would be hilarious.
CIA NSA had the information on 9/11 and couldn't stop it. Why would anyone think they could stop another threat. Just stop the spying and go back to the 0.0001% chance that you will die in a terror attack. Who cares.
+callum93guerrilla Which country is that?
+rubbiebubbie Terrorism isn't just about being killed. It is about massive economic and societal disruption of the western world. A US city getting nuked would not be good for me and I live in Canada.
+callum93guerrilla That is true but religious people always talk shit about their beliefs. I come from a religious Eastern Europe country and I would be terrified if people actually would practice what hey preach back there. Not to say this is not a concern but the number of people who actually want Sharia is much smaller.
+Andrei Sopon So what you seem to be saying is that you don't accept that conservative Muslims believe what they claim to believe and want what they claim to want because you know their minds better than they do? Just because an idea seems preposterous to you doesn't mean other people don't "actually" believe it. If the polling suggests a certain percentage of Muslims in an area want Sharia, unless the polling technique was flawed, that is an accurate reflection of reality.
Dj13e36 No ofc I can't claim to know what's on peoples heads. I'm just saying people are hypocrites. I think we all know Christians who praise the Bible as the word of god but don't follow half of it. I believe Dawkins was talking about a pole what had people saying they are Christian not because they believed it but because they thought it made them good people. I'm thinking it might be a similar case.
Islam is not a race. No one has ever been born Muslim. Racism is evil. Criticism of any totalitarian ideology is what keeps us free. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Therefore it must be criticised. Sam Harris I salute you.
+old welsh bloke thank you for saying it like it is. You shouldn't bother dealing with people who repeat clichés in media. Just try and find a way to deal with the things that bother you the most in life, like Sam did.
Cynical welsh bloke
Seemed like Sam Harris disagreed with most things Joe was saying in this one. A rarity for the JRE
Seems like joe was just playing devils advocate a lot - he even says it at some point I believe
harris says "insofar" a lot
Insofar as he says it
Notice that.
2:50:30 The "magic" bullet bs.
It's actually been researched mathematically with computers. The bullet took a straight path through Kennedy's neck and Connally's torso and wrist.
what about the one on the front side of his head that threw him back
Zapruder film buddy smh
Vasilis Roumeliotis
There were three shots.
You're talking about the kill shot that hit Kennedy in the head.
There is no evidence it was from the front.
It has been researched in ballistics laboratories that a head will move into the shot.
I think it's because a rifle bullet is high velocity and small caliber. It doesn't lose any momentum to the head, But the exit wound propels the head the opposite direction.
Back in the 480 resolution days. Now we got 4K res. DAMN ! Science Rules !
Internet*
It's wonderful how Sam stays so calm and collected amidst the hostile criticisms from people who fail to grasp the subtle nuances of his arguments. I've never witnessed a more polite and intellectually honest person receive as much negativity as he has. In the end, he's often just misunderstood, and it's a shame.
Joe's constant coughing during this interview illustrates clearly he has an illness. This illness manifests itself in a propensity to believe in any conspiracy theory possible.
Sam Harris is genuine and his lack of verbosity refreshing. Shitty ideas hide in verbiage. Any thought can't be made clear in a sentence is one that needs to mature.
Rogan tries way too hard here to be up to the task of debating Harris, he's using crazy stoner techniques that don't match the context of an intellectual discussion and you can see the strain in Harris' face as he slowly loses patience.
*calmly explains position on x, offers the possibility about y
*HURR THAT GOES AGAINST WHUT YOU SAID GULF OF TONKIN DURR!!
thats my exact sentiment lol
***** "crazy stoner technique" is when someone rattles of something like the moon landings man, or the gulf of tonkin man, or any of the other tin foil things that they don't actually really fully believe, but keep bringing up "because its possible".
There's a difference between bouncing ideas off someone and trying to hammer one into them. Basically he comes across like he wants Harris to agree with something so he can say Harris thinks there are illuminati or that 9/11 was a false flag or something nonesense.
***** There is a difference between having a conversation with an intellectual like Sam Harris and trying to be combative. Joe is trying to win an argument, especially when his world-view - like the shadow government thing - is challenged by Sam. The logical flaws are pretty evident and often Joe isn't really engaging with what Sam has said. Its not really conducive to a good discussion.
***** Joe Rogan doesn't seem very intelligent.
sgtsnakeeyes11 Maybe compared to someone like Sam Harris. He's not dumb, and he's usually smarter and better informed than the average fighter or comedian he has on.
gentle note to Joe,...
@1:44:09 GPS doesn't work that way. It's a one way information link from the GPS satellite to the GPS receiver.
To track a GPS device as you fear, that device has to have another communications channel going outward (such as a cellphone or wifi link) and the internal software has to access the GPS results and upload them (either continuously or on demand). In that case you can, if you so desire, easily disable that outbound connection by disconnecting or disrupting the antenna.
It’s nice to see how much Joe has progressed since this episode.
1:58:40 Sam makes a terrible point about who makes profit from a war. He generalizes that since the U.S. as a whole didn't profit from the invasion of Afghanistan, that no one in the U.S. profited from the invasion. Which is utter bullshit. Of course there's very certain people that made a lot of money while the government coffers were emptied.
Damn he's saying even more fucked up stuff after that such as "as soon as you say you're a jihadist we should assassinate you and give no second thoughts about it". Jesus man.... that's messed up.
That's kind off like saying ''hey, we earned alot of money from burning down New York City because all the firemen got alot of work to do''. It's a broken window fallacy that's downright retarded. We've wasted trillions of trillions of dollars and earned not a single dime from Afghanistan, he's completely right in every sense of the word.
Okay wow, so you think it is an illegitimate point to think that people like Osama Bin Ladin should be assassinated instead of starting long, expensive and violent wars? Seriously, a jihadist is a threat to everyone, regardless where they live and to assassinate them is a good idea.
Imagine ALEX JONES' energy with Sam's timing and wit. Thats the next generation.
The point about conspiracy theories that I think is missed by Rogan and even by the great Sam Harris is that "conspiracy theories" aren't theories about conspiracies, they're theories about _hidden_ conspiracies, and it's this _hidden_ part that makes "conspiracy theories" so wacky - we should really call them "_hidden_ conspiracy theories." Once we recognize this we can see why we don't consider it a conspiracy theory that 19 Islamists engineered 9/11, because we aren't being asked to believe that 19 Islamists pulled off the attack _and_ have managed to keep their involvement a secret _even_ _after_ _the_ _fact_.
Although I agree, is there any use in this kind of clarification?
Do you think it will change the way we think about [hidden] conspiracy theories?
ConnorJohn I can't go through the entire three hours to find the quote, but when they were talking about conspiracy theories Rogan said something like "do you believe that 19 Muslims conspired to pull off the 9/11 attack? Yes? Well, then, you believe in a conspiracy theory." I think the point about _hidden_ conspiracy theories is useful as a retort to such arguments. Will such a distinction have much impact on someone who actually believes that 9/11 was an inside job? Probably not, but I suspect it would have been a meaningful distinction for someone like Rogan.
I think you have a really good point there :)
Anders Heckmann I know! Right? :)
I agree completely, which is what makes the logical reasoning so piss poor. These 'hidden' theories by definition exist where there is no evidence, and most stray into circular reasoning and are un-falsifiable. Thus, even if by some miracle X grand conspiracy turns out to be true, its wrong to believe in the theory until you have good reason, and at that point its no longer a conspiracy theory but just history.
Great podcast. Sam and Joe are awesome.
Joe I really enjoy your podcasts. I'm currently studying Physiotherapy and pursuing my passion of BJJ. Your podcasts keep me switched on and educated about the outside world. I feel more productive just by listening to your podcasts.
Cheers!
xAristaicx how’s life
Sam Harris is a genius.
DrSterlingSimmons one of the greatest minds of our time!
@@clarkzy And he has a great movie carreer too. I love night in the museum
@@aldoushuxley5953 Starsky and Hutch tho
Sam Harris is my intellectual hero. Mad respect for the knowledge this man spreads, his (from my perspective) sincere honesty and his balls to stand up to the primitive and filthy religion which is islam.
Sam sounds bright until it comes to his rationalization of government and power-corruption. As if he hasn't read the basic arguments of the USA's founding fathers which describe the roads that lead to tyranny. Under his rationalization, I cannot detect tyranny in progress, and can only detect it when it's over and done. I think he's a little too confident of his own reasonings. And clearly he could use some more education on surveillance, as he reduced it to the surface-level argument of "I don't mind if they read my email".
nothing wrong with disagreeing with the guy, but Sam always sounds bright. And who's to say that he hasn't read the founding father's basic arguments and rejected them? They weren't perfect, they were wrong about many things. If the founding fathers were right about something, the argument will stand on it's own merit and we don't need to have a founding father invoked. US politicians often try to claim that the founders would have agreed with their personal position, as if that were some type of worthy argument.
"Tennis without the net" you just created a new colloquialism
When you read 9/11 articles look for:
1> If the article talks critically about "conspiracy theorists", that's not good science, that's bias..disregard that article
B> If it goes into great detail about the twin towers but gives little or no information about building 7, that's not good science, that's omission..disregard that article
Look up where the REAL scientific method was applied. The ONLY successful OBSERVABLE REPLICABLE experiments that DID NOT FAIL are "controlled demolition"
I admire Sam's humanitarian and pluralistic vista. He should write a book about Humanism.
Sam eventually did write 'The Moral Landscape', which largely addresses how to develop a moral framework in a humanistic manner.
55 mins "teach people to fight and bullying will go away".
Disagree, all the idiots in high-school did boxing or thai boxing.
There was also a study, I think in Norway, showing traditional martial arts decreased violence, those styles without a large emphasis on discipline and respect, actually increased violence, a lot
I'm not sure who said that at 55 because I haven't checked, but Brazilian jujitsu is literally the martial art of submission and compromise, and that's what Harris thinks people should learn
yea, I'd agree with BJJ having a positive influence. Depends on the style, gym and teacher I guess. MMA has attracted some right idiots in the UK unfortunately
drewjew1980 Wrong teacher and BJJ can be just as bad. We had some huge problems with it here in Brazil during the 90's and 2000's ..
If one is being attacked, sure. If you're looking for self-defence, may as well achieve the best.
Belief in theories that U.S. government agents committed 9/11, like religion, is like playing tennis without the net.
Tennis without the net...love that Sam Harris quote.
Look up Operation Northwoods.
He is so eloquent talking, it's a pleasure.
The one and only reason Obama became president was because he appeared to be the exact opposite of Bush...Obama is black, seems to be reasonably smart, down to earth, because he is black most white people will then conclude that he has no ties to riches, and black people can obviously relate to him. He is well spoken, and younger. I'm sure there are many other things that I can't think of that make him the opposite of Bush. Bush is an old, white, idiot, son of a rich man. If someone does a terrible job, and you face palm every time that you see them, then the obvious choice is to choose someone else that is the complete opposite, when it comes time to replace them.
How good would it be to have Richard Dawkins on!
6 years later...
1:05:00 "My friend, lookout for you arm!" - Jean Jacques Machado lol
Sam Harris, you are a ballsy intellectual warrior. I applaud you.
Good to see Sam back on the show. Interesting watch. Thanks !
Funny how they don't understand that liberating Iraq was not the intent. It was destroying the stability of the whole region and was in fact executed with the intelligence they were made to not see in the administration. To think those guys are as dumb as they act is ridiculous. Getting the people to believe Iraq was a disaster in their eyes was very carefully orchestrated and took a lot of foresight and intelligence. Iraq was not their failure it is a major success. The federal reserve note is at threat of no longer being world currency. This is the real threat that is the bases of these wars.
Islam calls for peace. Osama causes terror and says it's for Islam. People believe him and say Islam is terror.
Democracy calls for equality and human rights. America bombs Pakistanis, Israelis bomb Palestinians (and vice versa) in the name of democracy. Do we listen to them and blame these deaths on democracy?
Theism is false and false things should be discarded.
Even from an atheist's point of view, theism is an extremely philosophical concept. And with a perspective of philosophy there is no "false" and "truth".
Scientifically speaking one can neither prove God's existence (theism) nor disprove it (atheism).
Similarly we have evolution; it's a good concept but cannot technically be proven because we cannot test it out in laboratories or with other methods. So it remains a theory.
And regardless of your belief, I think my comment was aimed at something else, not a debate on theism vs atheism :)
We blame it on capitalism.
Afraz Anosh Simply not true. Philosophy does indeed account for truth and falsity. Nor is it true that atheism claims the ability to disprove the existence of god. Nor is it true that theism is a theory.
Let's tackle these in reverse order.
By definition, a theory must be predictive, explanatory and falsifiable. Theism is none of these. It is a poorly thought out hypothesis at best.
Atheism, i.e. a-theism, is a lack of theism. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. Therefore atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Notice how no claims are being made, merely the rejection of a claim. Atheism is *not* the the belief in a lack of a god or gods.
Either gods exists or they don't. One of those claims is true, the other is false. That is a question that only philosophy can tackle. Ergo, "with a perspective of philosophy" (sic) there are indeed very clear-cut demarcations of truth and falsity. Philosophers may never be able to determine one or the other, but that is neither here nor there.
As an analogy, the mere fact that we may never know if a person accused of murder is guilty or innocent doesn't mean that guilt or innocence don't exist. This argument is a complete non-sequitur. The person is either guilty or innocent. One is true, the other is false. Now the only way we can convict someone of a crime is if we are convinced not on the paucity of the evidence of their innocence, but on the abundance of claims of their guilt. I.e. we decide between 'guilty' and 'not guilty' not between 'guilty' and 'innocent'.
This ties into my previous point, because the argument between theists and atheists is one of god's existence. Either god is 'guilty' of existing or not. No atheist has to claim god is 'innocent' of existence in order to not be convinced that god is 'guilty' of existence. Nor does not being convinced that god is 'guilty' of existing mean that atheists are convinced that god is 'innocent' of existence. 'Not guilty' is enough to not be a theist.
@34:00 Sam Harris gets it right about sociopaths, and their control over the agentic state of empaths. He refers to Stanley Milgram's work, which should be read by everyone. See his book: "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View"
Jake Witmer maybe because he is one?
Ono Jin Sam Harris might have some sociopathic characteristics, but so do pretty much every big thinker that's ever existed.
Anan R gets a little problematic when that great thinker doesn't think so well & exhibits some of their sociopathic tendencies in relation to policy though. More so when that thinker is engaged in a running commentary to the public, in wartime, on moral superiority & ethics which they have a very poor grasp of. Even more so when that thinker has hordes of unthinking followers who blindly align themselves with whatever they say because they just can't think for themselves. & finally, for full exacerbation, the apex of problematic is reached when that great thinker cannot even recognize the hypocrisy of their own great thoughts- like when they speak out about the dangers of ideology & "rational actors" while being fully immersed, to the point of losing their objectivity & rationality, in their own.
Ono Jin What political relations are you refering to? I don't agree with you regarding Harris having a poor grasp on moral and ethics, far from it. He does have a unortodox and in some ways a agressive approach when he debates religious and geopolitical topics. Altough I disagree with a couple of his ideas and ways of approach, I see him as a important figure and spokesman for reason and common sense in the philosophical and religious world. We don't have to disregard a persons philosopical message as a whole just because we disagree with some of his standpoints or ways of expression.
Anan R sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly with his stance on ethics in geopolitical terms because he derives all of it from his personal ideology that the imperial regime of the US has the best intentions on the world stage, which is how he justifies its actions upon it. There is very little evidence to support that claim & mountains of evidence to dispute it, all of which he ignores to maintain his ideology & validate his views on ethics.
Coming from someone who extols the importance of evidence based reason while denigrating the flaws of beliefs unsupported by evidence, this does seem to me to be an issue.
I find common ground with him in many areas, but the nature of his pro-war, pro-torture, pro-killing stance, which he disseminates to the public on the basis of his flawed & intellectually dishonest ideology, forces me to label him as an academic imperialist who is extremely irresponsible & careless in how he tries to impel foreign policy matters in the general public.
He often comes across to me, highlighted by his run-in with Chomsky, as an intellectual who is so self-assured in his ability & conclusions, believes in them so adamantly, that he simply cannot & will not accept any opposition to either & himself labels people who do not agree with him as intellectually inferior & incapable of arriving at the same conclusions he has due to their inferior ability. An intellectual supremacist.
People like that tend to be very dangerous if they have any influence over global affairs. It is the mindset of totalitarianism. He is right because he believes few others are capable of being right, they lack his mental prowess, so others should simply accept his views as their own....kinda like how Catholic folk should accept papal views because the Vatican is closer to the mind of god.
freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/11/24/glenn-greenwald-takes-apart-sam-harris/
The comments under the article are more substantive than the article itself & direct to other pertinent criticisms. I have heard him argue the case for preemptive nuclear strikes against Middle Eastern nations.
Harris gets plenty of support & plenty of criticism, rightfully so in both areas. However he should stay the fuck out of policy matters & keep his contradictory "death cult" rhetoric to himself & stick to what he is actually knowledgable on- philosophy & neuroscience. He talks about bringing death to people frequently while branding others as members of death cults?! You don't need an IQ in the 200's to identify this kind of hypocrisy. He also talks about "rational actors", somebody who is completely unable to see the hypocrisy & contradiction in their own views is not rational & when those views revolve around death & destruction the ethics are lost on me.
JRE needs more guests like Sam. Using empirical evidence to support opinions. A simple but oh so important part of me giving a flying fuck about someones opinion.
I'm not an atheist but I respect Sam Harris and agree with alot of things he talks about
Hey Joe,
Is there a way to increase the volume in your recordings? My laptop is never loud enough to hear you or the guests. Thank you
All these butthurt Christians who hate Sam because he's intelligent enough to make an informed decision based on what should be "common sense" instead of primitive intuition need to seriously fuck off
You're killin' me, Joe!! 🤦🏻♂️
I really like Sam Harris.. I think we'd have some very provocative and stimulating conversations..
Shite n'onions, 3 hours with Big sam, I'm cracking open a bottle of winw. Many thanks.
I got of on the wrong foot with Sam Harris. I first listened to him because I'm a spiritual guy and hate the new atheist movement, but walked away with a true intellectual to follow. I don't even agree with a lot of what he says about war, but I make no mistake that he's brilliant.
For a man who made a name for himself by speaking out against closed-mindedness and one-dimensional thought patterns, Mr. Harris sure as hell makes it sound like he's got all the answers.
Because I couldn't find it in this version of the podcast. The RUclips edition is about 12 minutes shorter than the one available on iTunes.
However, if you would be so inclined, you could go to 2:21:45 of the iTunes version and listen to Mr. Harris say he doesn't believe that it's even a possibility that banks and corporations could bribe a president into doing their bidding.
While I certainly believe it's possible that the chaos our government creates is simply a result of incompetence, I'm of the opinion that one must not rule out the possibility of something a bit more nefarious.
Mr. Harris here has made a name for himself based upon the idea of having an open mind.. and yet his opinions are apparently set in stone. Beyond that point in the podcast, I could not look at him as anything else but a hypocrite.
*****
How about the fact that Obama "borrowed" $15M from Bank of America for his campaign? Seems like a lot of money to pay off when you only make $400,000/year. Oh wait - didn't Bank of America receive 1/10th of a trillion dollars in bailout money? Of which 1/3 was used for executive bonuses?
We're taught at a young age that the entire legislative branch of government has been bought and paid for - the terms "lobbyist" and "special interest group" were just another part of the vocabulary used in history class. In this way, bribery has been made a fundamental part of our legal system.
Why shouldn't we assume that it also affects government at the highest levels? Don't you believe that it's a possibility?
I don't think there would necessarily need to be any "scaring" a president either. You simply make them a generous offer. I think there would be more smiles than screams in a situation like that.
We live in a universe of possibility, my dude. To label anything as impossible would simply be foolish.
*****
Well you need to realize that the people who own Bank of America also own part of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is the institution that bailed out Bank of America.. along with all the other major banks. It just so happens that the people who run all the other major banks also own part of the Federal Reserve. So really, all these "bailouts" we've seen in recent years are nothing other than a transfer of wealth from the institution that regulates our economy to the pockets of the people who own that institution.
Most people I know are aware that the Federal Reserve exists.. but so very few of them know what it is, what it does and who owns it. Most people I know think that it's a government-run institution. That's how they got away with it. People thought it was the government who bailed out these banks and corporations.. and as it turns out, the amount of money printed and given out in bailouts almost equaled that of what was in circulation at the time. So why would we wonder why our economy's so shitty? You can't double the amount of money in circulation within a year and expect positive results.
***** I was just pointing out his own dismissal of the possibility of Obama doing the bidding of corporations. As I said, for a man who made a name for himself based upon the idea of having an open mind, his seems to be shut tightly. It is certainly plausible that Obama is NOT doing the bidding of these corporations.. but it's also possible that he is, right?
I was interested in this podcast at first because he was known publicly as a man who promoted free-thinking.. and for that reason, I was shocked to hear him say that something shouldn't even be considered as a possibility. When you contradict yourself like that without even realizing it, you discredit everything else you have to say as well. That was all I was trying to get at. Cheers.
***** When he talks about the need for religious people to reanalyze their opinions, he is indeed (by definition) promoting open-mindedness. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is the logical mindset: being open to new ideas. Part of being rational is realizing you don't know everything - that's why saving room for possibility is so very important. Again, this is where the term "open-mindedness" comes in to play..
In all honesty, it doesn't sound like you're even trying to have a discussion at this point. It just sounds like you're trying to defend this guy at all costs. Perhaps you're a big fan of his? We're talking ourselves in circles here. There's no point in discussing this any further than we already have. Cheers.
Wow, is the Thumbs Up/Down voting on this video the result of a "hive mind" mentality..?
For there to be so many thumbs down votes... I'm not really sure I understand where all of the dislike is coming from. Do you all really not like Sam Harris that much?
I'm half way through the video and haven't felt any need to complain whatsoever.
wrote a comment about the dislikes a while back, I deleted it because I thought it was stupid, but I see now that the dislikes were not proportionate, and now they seem normal like 15% dislike as usual per video
jschmitz101 NJ NJ NJ NB NB n BN NB NJ n NB NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ BNB NJ BN NJ NJ NJ NJ NB NJ NB BNB BN NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NJ NM NJ N NM NJ Nunk NJ NM NJ NM NM NJ NM NM NM NJ NM NJ NJ NJ NM NM NJ NM NM NJ NM NM NM ninja Mb NJ NJ NJ NM NM mi BHU Mb NJ NJ NJ NM NM bun BNB BN NM Ni NJ NM NJ NM NJM NM NJMM NJM NM NJ NJ NJM NJ NJ Mb NJ NJ NJ NM NM NM NJMM NM NJ NJ NM BNB BN NJMM NJMM NJMM NM NJMM NM NJ NM NJ N NM NJ NM NM NJMM NJMM NJMM NJ NJ NJ NM NJMM NJMM BNB NJMM NJMM BNB BN NJMM NJMM BNB NJMM NJ NM BNB BN NJMM NJ NM NM NM NM NM NJMM NM NM NM NM NJ NJMM NM NM NJ NM NM NM NM NJMM NJMM NJMM NJMM NJMM NJMM NJMM BNB NJ NJMM NJ NM NM NM NJ NJ NJMM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NJ NM NJMM NM NM NM NJ NM NJMM NM NJ NJ NM NJMM n NJMM NJ NM NM NM NM NJMM NM NJMM NJMM BNB NJMM NJ NJ NJMM NJMM NJ NJ NM NM NJ NJ NJ NJMM NM NJMM NJMM NJMM NM BNB NJMM n NJ NM NM NJ NM BNB BN NJMM NJMM NJMM NM NM NJMM NM NJ NJMM NM NM NJ NJMM NJ NM NJMM NJ NM NM NJMM NJ NJMM NJMM NJ NM NJ NM NM NM NM NM NJMM NM NJMM NJMM NJ NJ BNB NJ NJ NM BNB NJ NJMM NJMM NM NM NJ NJMM NJMM BNB NJ BNB NJ NJMM NJ N NJ NM NJ NM BNB NJ NJMM NM NM NJMM NJ NJMM NJMM NJMM NJMM NM NM NM NM NM NJMM NM BNB BN NM NM NJ NJ NJMMM NM NM NJ NM NJ NJ NM NM NJ NJ NM NM MKV NJ NJ NM NM NM NM Minu NJ NM Ni BNB NJ NJ NM NJ. NM
Joe schooling Sam Harris on the harsh reality of corruption. Respect....
Are you not aware of the actual conspiracies that really took place!?
Such as Project Paperclip, Operation Northwoods, MK ULTRA, and more!
What about Larry Silverstein's pre-knowledge of the terrorist attacks, whereby he insured the towers for attacks, and then he ended up with BILLIONS , also, you've got to see the video of the pentagon NOT GETTING HIT BY ANY PLANE. The FBI confiscated the hotel video, but it was released due to a lawsuit, CHECK IT OUT!!! PROOF THAT THE GOV. LIED!
1:03:20 talks about the OG Grappler my Coach Chris Haueter 🙌 itd be great to get him on the pod Joe!
here is the thing about atheists: I see over and over again that they know a lot, not only about evolution, the universe and science in general, but they know so much about so many things!
we know about joes multi topic mind but sam harris as a martial artist?? :D
what else have I been missing?!
Sam Harris is a long time practitioner of Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu. I don't believe he has his black belt, but he's be rolling for a long time.
I love mma and my disbelief is complimentary to mr. Harris. A philosopher? who w'd have thought!
Not only intellectually, the guy could also choke u out on the mat :D :D
When you're open to knowledge and opinions, you tend to have a broad spectrum of information at hand :)
Karsteski
and i'm really impressed by joes intellectual reach.
seeing him going toe to toe with Sam freaking Harris on right wing plots and conspiracies is just admirable.
*****
being atheist actually requires a lot of smarts doesnt it.
which makes me wonder, can we elevate everybody to that level? can we expect everybody to have the capacity to be and stay atheist...? hard to tell
Harris seems to be a mouthpiece for the system. Given his intelligence, his arguments against corporate/government conspiracies are very underwhelming.
So because he's intelligent he must agree with your opinions on corporate/government conspiracies, because like him you too are intelligent, according to yourself? I think you'll find intelligent people on both sides of an argument, just look at Hitchens stance on the Iraq war.
No one has to agree with my opinions.
My point is: when a smart guy makes a weak argument to avoid exploring an idea, it suggests he has a conflict of interest.
This is idiotic. Conspiracy theories are that dumb, that they are their own counterargument
+Daniel Hope The definition of conspiracy: two or more people secretly plan to do something illegal or harmful.
Do you really think it is impossible that government agencies make secret plans in which harm will be caused?
+Ron Dayvoo the burden is on you to prove it
Is this the episode where Sam talks about staring people down on the bus?
Neo I know it’s been 4 years but #543 they talk about eye contact
Excellent guest Joe. If it pissed this many people off, there is no downside.
The Government LIES! To keep you weak, to keep you in line.
Great contribution 🙏🙏 super smart stuff
Sam Harris's continual refusal to blame any of the radicalization and terrorism we see today on the repressive wars of the west and blaming it solely on their religion, when there are billions of peaceful people following these religions, is becoming absurd. It's one sweeping statement, after one stereotype, after another generalization, after another.
Oh you are so progressive, please tell me more about your open-mindedness. If that is the case then how do you explain the Barbary pirates in the 1780s?
SuperTregs Was your comment aimed at me?
Cassius Allen
No... My comment was aimed at the top commenter EternalExposition or whatever....
kevin olson If that's not his position then why is that EXACTLY what he said in this interview....your boy is an idiot, and you all are equally as stupid for defending his ignorance which seems to bleed into ALL the subjects discussed in this podcast.
Your conclusions don't follow. The Bible advocates stoning a woman if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day (Deuteronomy 17:2-5). The fact that many Christians don't follow this shows that morality is prior to religion. The possibility exists therefore that a religion can be poisonous yet the majority of people choose to ignore the worst parts and follow only those rare nuggets of wisdom.
Tibetan monks have been repressed almost as long as some Muslims but they don't strap bombs to themselves. Also suicide bombers also act against other Muslims, not just against nations that repress them. If you ignore that religion plays an important aspect in creating death cults than you might as well reason from pure thought.
Wow, the Harris fanboys have really shown up in force in this thread.
Yeah and Joe Rogan fan boys won't leave his octagon.
Sam Harris is the only cult I'd ever join -- my "cult of secularism and rational thought."
Join his podcast and def. listen to what jihadists want and jonathan haidt. both great.
One thing however... some of us have to agree that the ideas Saudi's are on to that women shouldn't drive isn't as dumb as it sounds. ;)
also the douglas murray one, that was great.
Douglas and who? Rogan?
on the maintenance of civilization, sam harris with douglas murray
Women might not have the spatial awareness that men tend to have, yet they're not as reckless either!
Your exclamation mark suggests that you're emotionally charged in your answer...
but I'll say you're half right, at least.
BUT, it's not your gender that causes it -- because some women are either high-testosterone, do poorly on the marshmallow test, there are beta males (low testosterone) and those matrices can be evaluated to be descriptive. Generally, its young men who have both new and relatively high androgens (testosterone) and low frontal cortices inhibition. But... this doesn't last forever.
Some women are pretty impulsive; men can't have sex more times on a first date then women will let them. Some women are high androgen -- which makes them drive oriented.
But generally, I'll say there's a slight statistical advantage to be (your word) reckless.
But those androgens come with other features. DRIVE. Which is why men dominate 99% of all things they feel like doing competitively. I'd actually be interested in any things they do that women do better. For instance, if a woman COULD play basketball, football, baseball, race, build companies, are all the expression of the differentiation of men through the market place legal to do so.... as we know women are receptive to those cues.
I'm not saying this is "good" -- it just is.
Even look at the Israeli communes, the Kibbutzim.
Give male the cue that society deems something a high status thing to attain and it triggers the male competitiveness in order to leverage status to attract a mate.
So even where women can do so... they can't derive the reward that motivates men; using status to attract a mate.
In women, being successful usually makes men intimidated (beta males) or maybe even just self aware males that she can do better... but regardless, it will serve to narrow your options.
I must say that I loved this podcast, despite its length. However, I'd have much preferred a three hour conversation that started around the two hour 30 mark here.
Here is a man who refers to the CIA'S history of corruption as "misadventures". Who claims "there's a whole esoteric literature out there that I'm not so familiar with" [regarding conspiracy theories] and then admits to spending countless hours emailing a family member debating 9/11 and attempting to 'debunk' it. In the last 30 mins Harris did not exactly come off as erudite regarding government or human nature in general...
Sam is the best
Is Sam Harris afraid to smile?
1:00:18 seems pretty clear to me
its obvious joe hasnt looked into islam
I completely agree. The question is where to draw the line, not eliminate it completely.
Yes govt is involved in drugs. I m a personal witness to king county task force "managing" distribution in federal way washington
Sam is fascinating to listen to, as usual. But Joe Rogan is so thoroughly unlikable. How does he even have his own show?? :/
+orth82 It is the same reason that you might come across crowds of people that thoroughly dislike the people that you like, and at the same time, they wonder how these people that they dislike are able to do what they do. In other words, not everyone has the same tastes in entertainment and personalities.
THEN WHY ARE YOU LISTENING???????????????
Interesting. Because I find him likable. Comes across as very honest, sometimes gets too worked up about certain topics.
WTF is wrong with these comments? Can reply to maybe only a third of them!
@Sam Harris not wanting protection - the man is a gun rights proponent and he's got a bunch of guns in his house. As for his statis paradigm ... I think some red pill people just want too much. It's not that easy to even find the red pill. If you're on payroll of some university, writing books, debating theists and meditating... the State violence will just not reach you in a meaningful way. So why would he ever investigate? Maybe after the 2nd depression that's about to hit it will become widespread - and than it will be justified to look down on blue pill people. Now they are the norm, unfortunately.
Hey let's tell the truth about what Islam and christianity says and practices (which also varies greatly since there are so many different versions as people just pick and choose from certain "holy books"), and then people try and label it as "phobia" and such to get people on their side. Goddamn people are dumb. If you're religious, you're already dumb enough to not get passed being brainwashed, and most of the comments here attempting to argue against Sam absolutely fail at critical thinking and knowledge.
2:21:05 just the way he said "it's staggering" was great.
Yes I'm that easily amused. Lol. Loved the subject matter in this podcast. I am beyond excited that I still have a few more Joe Rogan with Sam Harris podcast to listen to.
Sam says that he is ok with the NSA spying on everyone so long as they don't use the information collected to target pot growers, but it has already come to light that the DEA has colluded with the NSA. The DEA concocts stories of how they became aware of cases brought to them by the NSA to cover up this collusion. The Washington Post ran a story on this in August.
Can anyone explain why there are so many thumbs down?
religious idiots and conspiracy theorists who hate Harris for pointing out the flaws in their belief.
inso ninenine
Mkay.
and your post is obviously sarcasm, obviously...
inso ninenine
?
usmh
It's so obviously overly vague, delutional bullshit and written in such an infantile language that it was obviously meant as a dig to the "thumbdown-people" in the aforementioned category, not actually meant as a serious comment, is what I was saying. I'm not criticising you execution, just giving you a smile so you can reciprocate, and we can both laugh of your sarcastic dig at... you get the point?
*"one sweeping statement, after one stereotype, after another generalization, after another."*
very well said EtherealExposition.
Joe Rogan is a pseudo-intellectual at best. He's definitely passionate and knowledgeable about certain things, but he can't compete with Harris.
well on wise man once said that competition is for horses not for scientists. and harris is talking about something he is professionaly connected to so its obvious that rogan knows less. if you judge a fish by it ability to climb a tree it look will dumb.
this was an interview / conversation. not everything has to be a debate or competition jack...
My point is that he comes off as arrogant and doesn't admit his own shortcomings. He has no humility. I don't get the sense when listening to him that he's trying to learn. It just seems like he loves to hear himself talk.
Of course he's narcissistic. But he's hilarious.
Rogan also thinks man never landed on the moon. I mean, in his stream with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he wastes most of that time trying to convince Neil that man never landed on the moon. TRYING TO CONVINCE AN ASTROPHYSICIST THAT MAN NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON.
However pseudo-intellectually Rogan seems, he at least provides hours of entertaining conversations.
I always give my posts a +1.
I love my posts.
And what do you mean by 'my' case?
1. Harris openly says they have lied to us. He even mentions the false reasons for going to Iraq as a lie. Did you not listen?
2. Sam entertains the possibility that Obama was a genuine liberal in the past; he doesn't say for certain that he is.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"
Learn.
Immensely thankful for the JRE podcast!